Development Planning

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
The approval by the NSW Government of a new tower over the future Martin Place metro station is a good balanced solution.
It is important that the NSW Government works with the private sector in rolling out new metro rail lines and stations and the proposal for the Martin Place station is an excellent example of this.
The final setback above a podium of 8 metres maintains the character of Martin Place while allowing a commercial tower to be built over the podium but set back by 8 metres.
The City of Sydney have raised concerns that a set-back of 25 metres would have been preferable but their comments do not take into account that the adjacent MLC Centre tower is set back far more than this.
The proposed tower is well away from the Cenotaph down the far end of Martin Place and is more contextually related to the Reserve Bank building at the top of Martin Place.
As Sydney evolves into a global city with a population of 8 million people there will need to be a balance between maintaining the built form of the past and shaping the city of the future.
It is good that robust discussion occurs as new proposals are made but ultimately the city must change and evolve.
The government’s decision on the unsolicited proposal for Martin Place Station and related new buildings represents a good balance between the past and the future.
The use of the NSW Government Architect Peter Poulet, who strongly supported the 8 metre setback, in achieving this balance is also a good process to ensure quality change occurs in the city.
CHRIS JOHNSON is chief executive officer of property development industry group Urban Taskforce and can be contacted <a href="https://www.urbantaskforce.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=97&amp;Itemid=126#.Vdaart55dFI" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

cjohnson-8xfqfuuCSq

Martin Place tower a good balanced solution for Sydney: Urban Taskforce

<html><body>
Satterley Property group’s fight to develop North Stoneville is ongoing as he appeals the Western Australian Planning Commission's decision to reject the hills development.
The decision came as community concerns claimed the area would put 4000 people in the middle of an extreme bushfire zone. 
The Anglican Church, who own the land, engaged property developer Nigel Satterley to create a new townsite to accommodate 4000 residents, which was to include two schools and a local centre. 
Satterley said the decision, which concluded 10 months of rigorous assessment including extensive environmental and land use planning investigation, was “surprising and disappointing.”
"It is unfortunate the opportunity to begin construction of the first masterplanned community in the Perth Hills that will generate more than $550 million in economic activity and hundreds of jobs has been halted," Satterley said.
Satterley, however, has chosen to appeal the decision to the State Administrative Tribunal.
It is uncertain whether or not Planning Minister Rita Saffioti will ‘call-in’ Satterley’s appeal.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Satterley seeks to appeal decision to reject North Stoneville plans

<html><body>
New Planning Panels headed by District Commissioners will streamline regionally significant planning across Sydney, according to the Greater Sydney Commission. 
The independent panels will start operating on 21 November 2016 and will replace the existing Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel and the Sydney West Joint Regional Planning Panel. 
Greater Sydney Commission CEO Sarah Hill said the District Commissioners are already listening to stakeholders and residents to shape the future vision for their districts. 
“District Commissioners, who understand the strategic vision for their respective districts, will chair the new panels,” she said. 
“We have been talking to stakeholders from day one and are about to launch an unprecedented level of community engagement.” 
“This means when the District Commissioners start chairing the panels in November they will know their area, the people and the over-arching vision for that district.” 
She said the panels aimed to improve decision making time frames for assessing regionally significant planning applications. 
“We are also aiming to reduce pre-gateway or rezoning review timeframes to less than 90 days for 85 percent of requests,” she said. 
The Sydney Planning Panels will take on responsibility for a number of key planning approval activities including determining regionally significant development applications (generally development with a capital investment value of more than $20M) and considering pre-gateway (rezoning) reviews, allowing requests for reviews of council decisions or lack of decisions within 90 days. 
Six Sydney Planning Panels will be established, with one panel for each District 
Each will be led by a District Commissioner and have four expert members with strategic and statutory planning expertise. Two representatives will be appointed by the Council and two will be Government appointments.
Frequently Asked Questions
This FAQ answers questions regarding the commencement of the Greater Sydney Commission’s Sydney Planning Panels and the process of transition from the existing Joint Regional Planning Panels by 21 November 2016.
What are the Sydney Planning Panels, what is their geographic remit and function?
The Greater Sydney Commission Act 2015 (the GSC Act) commenced on 27 January 2016. The GSC Act enables the Minister for Planning to create Sydney Planning Panels. A Sydney Planning Panel is taken to be a Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (the EP&amp;A Act).
Sydney Planning Panels will be established to replace the existing Sydney East JRPP and the Sydney West JRPP.
The Sydney Planning Panels will determine regionally significant development applications (generally development with a capital investment value of more than $20M) within the Greater Sydney Region (as defined in the GSC Act); and consider pre-Gateway (rezoning) reviews, through which proponents can request a review if a council decides not to support a rezoning request or doesn’t make a determination within 90 days.
These are the same functions as the current Joint Regional Planning Panels.
The City of Sydney will continue to be excluded from the operation of the Sydney Planning Panels for the consideration of development matters. The Central Sydney Planning Committee will continue to operate as normal. Pre-gateway (rezoning) reviews for the City of Sydney will continue to be undertaken by the Planning and Assessment Commission.
When will the Sydney Planning Panels commence?
The Sydney Planning Panels will commence on Monday 21 November 2016. Until then the existing Sydney East JRPP and the Sydney West JRPP will continue to operate.
Starting the Sydney Planning Panels in November 2016 will allow the Commission and specifically the Commissioners, to focus initially on the important strategic work of developing the draft District Plans for exhibition. It allows time for a smooth transition with minimal disruption to operations and decisions.
Who will be the members of the Sydney Planning Panels?
The Sydney Planning Panels will comprise of five members:
A Greater Sydney Commission District Commissioner – the Chair
Two state appointed representatives
Two council appointed representatives
How many Sydney Planning Panels will there be?
Six Sydney Planning Panels will be established, one for each district in Greater Sydney.
The boundaries for the Sydney Planning Panels will reflect the district boundaries declared under the EP&amp;A Act.
The relevant District Commissioner will chair the Sydney Planning Panel for their district. As with the JRPPs the council appointed representatives for the relevant local government area will sit on the relevant Sydney Planning Panel when considering matters in their local government area.
The new members of the Sydney Planning Panels will be announced by the end of June 2016.
Why have more than two Sydney Planning Panels?
A key outcome of establishment of Sydney Planning Panels is to improve the timeframes for the determination of development applications and pre-gateway (rezoning) reviews. Creating six panels evens the workload across Sydney allowing for faster decisions.
District Commissioners will continue to build relationships with the councils within their District and build strong ties that will help councils to assess development matters in a more effective and efficient manner.
What role will the draft District Plans play in consideration of local plans by the Sydney Planning Panels?
The draft District Plans are currently being developed and will be exhibited by no later than January 2017.
The draft District Plans will be a matter the Sydney Planning Panels must take into consideration when reviewing local environmental plans and considering pre- Gateway (rezoning) review requests, as part of the strategic basis for future land use outcomes.
What happens if I have a matter with the Joint Regional Planning Panel and it has not been finalised?
Any development application or pre-Gateway (rezoning) review that was lodged but has not been determined by 21 November 2016 will be determined by the relevant Sydney Planning Panel.
If a JRPP has been appointed as the relevant planning authority for a rezoning prior to 21 November 2016 that function will transition to the relevant Sydney Planning Panel.
What is the role of the Department of Planning and Environment (Department) with the Sydney Planning Panels and planning proposals?
The Department will continue to provide the same level of secretariat support for the new Sydney Planning Panels.
The Department will continue to review planning proposals, issue Gateway determinations and make LEPs as a delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission until advised otherwise.
The existing plan making delegations to local government remain in place.
How will the Sydney Planning Panels improve procedures and outcomes?
The new approach of six Sydney Planning Panels will aim to improve determination time frames by at least 10% within 12 months of establishing the Sydney Planning Panels, and reduce pre-gateway (rezoning) review timeframes to less than 90 days for 85% of requests.
The Greater Sydney Commission will monitor the functions of the Department of Planning and Environment as their delegate and will review the efficiency of process and effectiveness of outcomes regularly.
The Government is committed to the smooth transition from the JRPPs to the Sydney Planning Panels and the new Panels will be supported throughout their establishment and during the transition to minimise any disruption to important development and rezoning decisions.
When will the review of the pre-Gateway (rezoning) review process be finalised?
The Department of Planning and Environment has recently undertaken a review of the pre-Gateway (rezoning) review process to ensure it is achieving its objectives and operating in the most transparent and efficient manner. The outcomes of this review are proposed to be finalised and implemented by June 2016.
Where do I get further information?
If you require further information about the operation of Sydney Planning Panels please contact the Joint Regional Planning Secretariat on 02 9228 2060 or at <a href="mailto:jrppenquiry@jrpp.nsw.gov.au">jrppenquiry@jrpp.nsw.gov.au</a>
If you require further information about the role and functions of the Sydney Planning Panels, please contact the Greater Sydney Commission on 02 8289 6200 or at <a href="mailto:info@gsc.nsw.gov.au">info@gsc.nsw.gov.au</a> 
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

Property 101: New planning panels for Sydney

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The package of reforms passed by the NSW Parliament are a step forward for the planning system in NSW but the detail resolution of the reforms could lead to some elements slowing planning applications down.
The big picture reforms that have gone through the NSW Parliament sound like progressive moves to lift strategic planning and get communities on board with planning decisions, but the detail could create more red tape rather that a more efficient system.
A focus on strategic planning is good but to require yet another planning document in the form of a 'local strategic planning statement’ could add significant time and could lead to different interpretations with Local Environmental Plans. By adding another layer we are concerned that this may make planning slower and more complicated.
The requirement that ‘Community Participation Plans’ are produced by each council sounds reasonable but the Urban Taskforce is concerned that these plans could lead to further delays for individual projects or they could encourage greater negativity to development.
We are concerned that there seems to be little guidance to councils on just what a ‘Community Participation Plan’ should include. There must be an acceptance of State Government housing targets, State Government infrastructure investment, Federal Government Immigration policies and the impact of these areas on the need to accommodate growth. There must also be a requirement that participation involves all of the community not just individual action groups and that participation is handled in a timely manner.
The regulations that support the new legislation must control all of these issues.
The inclusion of design quality as an objective in the act is a good move particularly as greater densities are likely and communities will be more supportive of well-designed environments. The roll of the NSW Government Architect in giving guidance on design quality is a good use of this position that has been an input to the built environment in NSW over 200 years.
The rationalisation of Development Control Plans (DCPs) into a standard format is a positive move that should be replicated with Community Participation Plans and Local Strategic Planning Statements. To allow each council to develop very different formats and requirements will only lead to a slower and more complicated planning system. The Urban Taskforce is seeing a lack of discipline in policy terms with housing affordability with multiple government agencies and multiple councils all having very different policies that are leading to a well-meaning but ultimately unsustainable planning system.
The reforms in the area of building certification will give greater community confidence in this process but we are concerned that certifiers are under so much scrutiny and must certify every step in the planning and building process that the practitioners in this area are finding the future of certifiers is limited.
The NSW Government must support this industry rather than continually add so many conditions that the industry is marginalised.
Another recent reform to the planning system in NSW has been the proposal to amend the definition of ‘bulky goods premises’ to make this definition less restrictive. This is a simple amendment which reflects the changing nature of retail in Australia. This kind of adaptiveness and flexibility should be adopted to other areas of the planning system
The Urban Taskforce supports reforms of the NSW planning system that simplify the process as this will reduce the cost of housing. Our concern is that a number of the recent reforms, while being popular with communities worried about future growth, will add more layers and red tape to the planning system which will end up lifting the cost of housing in NSW. We are keen to work with the NSW Government in ensuring that the detail of the planning reforms included in regulations do not turn well-meaning policies into excessive red tape. 
Chris Johnson is the Urban Taskforce CEO.
</body></html>

NSW planning reforms could slow applications: Chris Johnson

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Private enterprise has shaped the skylines of Australia’s cities, and the names of their highest towers reflect this. The towers of Sydney shout finance: Deutsche Bank, MLC, Ernst &amp; Young, ANZ, Suncorp. The tall buildings of Perth read like a mining index: BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, Woodside. In Melbourne, residential skyscrapers for investors make up the mass of new development, with names like Aurora, Verve, Empire and Vision – names that are timeless (and placeless).
The recent transformation of Australian city centres makes them appear unruly and wild, with their gilded towers, curtain walls compiled from a cladding company catalogue, and hybrid building types. Two-storey Victorian-era fronts abutt six-storey apartment buildings, or are completely engulfed by towers. This bricolage, paired with aspirational branding, creates the impression that property developers and financiers are the main drivers and shapers of this “anything goes” approach to urban development.
This is partly true. Market-driven development has always played a leading role in the urban settlement of Australia. But markets operate within a framework of rules that mitigate the negatives of urban development for the public good.
Governments have a key role in setting policies, rules and regulations that steer those driving urban development through the morass of planning policies, design guidelines and codes for buildings. Within these planning mechanisms, government actions should reflect the standards and expectations of the communities they represent.
So why is there such a gulf between what the centres of Australian cities look like, including their public spaces, and community expectations? Part of the problem is the lack of guidance about quality design during the planning and design phase and the consistent decision-making necessary to achieve it.
Take Melbourne, for example
Nowhere is this more obvious than some of Melbourne’s recently built tall towers.
Over the two decades up to 2015 there was a lack of strong regulation of planning schemes around taller buildings. In 1999 – when the economy was sluggish – the state government removed density controls from the city centre to allow maximum flexibility in property development.
These controls had established a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 12:1. This means that if a site has an area of 1,000 square metres, the construction of 12,000 square metres of floor space is allowed. It might be a building built across the whole site to 12 storeys, or a building on half the site to 24 storeys.
It is only by chance that Melbourne’s height limit was set between 265 metres and 315 metres, so that buildings did not intrude into aircraft flight paths.
The soaring heights of Melbourne’s buildings are not necessarily a major problem. The new residential towers take their share of the 100,000-plus new residents who move to Greater Melbourne each year, and these people are <a href="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/hdp.au.prod.app.com-participate.files/2615/2963/7455/Transport_Strategy_Refresh_-_Background_paper_-_Car_Parking.pdf" target="_blank">more likely to walk than drive</a>. And restricting building heights does not necessarily lead to better buildings and neighbourhoods.
However, setting height limits through density controls – regulating floor areas, and apartments, in a building, block or precinct – is an important lever for achieving better design. It’s a form of regulatory “bargaining power”, permitting a few extra floors in return for better public amenity. Without it, there can be many bad outcomes, particularly at street level, as is obvious in some recently built towers.
The City of Melbourne’s 2018 report, <a href="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/hdp.au.prod.app.com-participate.files/8915/4882/4706/Post_Exhibition_Synthesis_Report_Amendment_C308.PDF" target="_blank">Promoting High Quality Urban Design Outcomes in the Central City and Southbank</a>, notes a “lack of design investment in the lower 20 metres of building facades and in particular in shopfront design” in the past. The problems include allowing parking above ground in podiums, tinted glass that renders active uses (such as common areas or commercial tenancies) invisible, and poor materials and architectural details that undermine the quality of the streetscape. This can contribute to poor visual connections between building occupiers and pedestrians, which reduces surveillance from above that would help make streets safer.
Some developments just look incredibly cheap and bland. There are flat finishes and facades, tinted glass, floor-to-ceiling glazing with repetitious frames and mullions, building services taking up much of the street frontage – despite the luxury apartment taglines used to market these towers.
Tighter controls for better design
Planning controls in the central city and Southbank area of Melbourne have become tighter since <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/new-cbd-rules-clamp-down-on-excessive-skyscraper-heights-and-densities-20150903-gjersp" target="_blank">interim controls were put in place in 2015</a>. These became permanent in 2016. Most of the podium and infill towers recently springing up in Melbourne received planning permission before then.
The new controls stipulate stronger requirements for minimum street setbacks, overshadowing, wind effects, FAR limits and tower separation. New height limits are based on density controls. However, high-rise apartment towers are still permitted to produce <a href="https://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/future/trends/urban-growth-and-density" target="_blank">densities higher than those found in areas of Tokyo or Hong Kong</a>.
These new planning controls have already led to a reduction in above-ground car park podiums, as developers aim to increase their yield in the face of restrictions on floor area ratios.
Despite these new planning provisions promoting quality design, there is still ambiguity around what good design means for Melbourne’s taller building proposals. This becomes an issue when tall buildings are subject to discretionary height limits.
The report <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">Measurable Criteria to Assess Development Applications Exceeding Preferred Heights: Analysis and Recommendations</a> by MGS Architects observed through several case studies across Melbourne – including in South Yarra and Collingwood – that extra height can be negotiated for projects that demonstrate a “high standard of architectural design”. But good design here may not relate to setbacks, overshadowing, provision of public space, or quality architectural details. It could be because a building is marketed as a “landmark”, “gateway” or “icon”.
But does a building’s height make it a landmark? If so, how high should it be? And should poor public amenity (such as generating traffic or overshadowing) be traded away because a building is “slender” and “sculptural”?
In the case of projects that went to the planning tribunal VCAT, the City of Melbourne report observed: "Where the tribunal was required to make a decision between an acceptable urban design outcome or project viability (such as the ability to achieve a viable tower envelope), viability and consolidation objectives prevailed on balance."
What more needs to be done?
Certainty and consistency are lacking. MGS Architects <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">writes</a> that this “undermines the public perception of a fair and orderly process for development approvals”.
All property developers, architects and planners desire consistency and clarity in urban planning, design and policy in order to deliver their projects – as do local communities. And despite moves in the right direction in Melbourne, there still is room to improve regulation. This includes introducing clearer density controls in relation to quality architectural design, a design review process in which designers lead decision-making and design-led envelope controls (where quantitative rules about where development is permitted are matched by qualitative rules that focus on how the building interfaces with the public realm).
However, to encourage innovation the regulations should still allow for flexibility.
The growth in Melbourne’s residential towers reinforces to the inhabitants of Australian cities the need to regulate for quality design outcomes. It acts as a warning for strategic town centres in Melbourne, and across Australia, that lack adequate quality control of their taller buildings.
Height restrictions were eased in part of Adelaide’s city centre this decade with the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">Capital City Development Plan Amendment</a>. This led to a slew of new commercial, <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-27/is-it-time-to-implement-postcode-5000-in-adelaide/10039102" target="_blank">residential and hotel buildings over 100 metres</a> proposed or under construction. Let’s hope that, with strong design guidelines, Adelaide avoids the mistakes of some of Melbourne’s recent additions.
Timothy Moore, PhD Candidate, Melbourne School of Design, Monash University
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/taming-wild-cities-the-tall-buildings-of-australia-show-why-we-need-strong-design-guidelines-116735" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

The tall buildings of Australia show why we need strong design guidelines

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
The announcement by the NSW Planning Minister, Rob Stokes, that a number of Priority Precincts will go back to councils is likely to slow down planning. The most significant precinct to go back to a council is the Waterloo Estate (above and below), where the NSW Government owns the land and is responsible for the social housing tenants - yet the project has been given back to the City of Sydney council.
 The NSW Government previously developed a preferred masterplan with 6,800 dwellings, including sufficient market homes, to subsidise the affordable and social housing tenants. 
The City of Sydney Council proposed an alternative approach with only 5,300 dwellings including more affordable housing. 
Clearly there will be a big funding short fall in the council approach, so it seems very strange that the Planning Minister has supported the council scheme which could require over a billion dollars of extra funding, presumably from the NSW Government. While the NSW Government will lead planning in 12 of the 48 precincts, there will be 25 precincts where collaborative or strategic planning will be shared between councils and the state, and a further 11 where councils will take over planning. At the very least, the NSW government must set target dwelling supply numbers in the precincts where they have partially or totally handed planning back to councils. 
We have seen before the confusion when the state starts planning and then hands it back to councils at Parramatta Road where planning outcomes are still very unclear. Another example is the precincts along the Sydenham to Bankstown line, where under pressure from local councils, planning was handed back to the local bodies but to the development industry it is very unclear what the planning rules are. While the Planning Minister’s media release talked about ‘supercharging the delivery of Sydney’s priority precincts’, the Urban Taskforce believes the extent of full or partial delegation to councils is likely to slow down rather than speed up housing supply. New South Wales, and Sydney in particular, needs a real boost to its housing supply following the September 2019 low housing approval numbers announced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. 
Dwelling approvals have dropped by 46 percent since their high point of July 2016 and now sit at 2013 levels. The CommSec State of the States report recently put NSW below Victoria and Tasmania in economic performance based significantly on falling dwelling commencements. Furthermore, the NSW Government’s own Productivity Commission stated in a recent Discussion Paper that development approvals in NSW were taking twice as long as other states in Australia. There is no doubt that housing supply needs to be supercharged in New South Wales, but having only 12 of the 48 priority precincts being state-led, with the rest partially or totally under council control, is likely to slow down rather than speed up planning. It is interesting to see that the Planning Minister does not seem to have much confidence in his Department of Planning, Industry and Environment when he states that the changes are needed because ‘of planning proposals stuck in the system’, so he proposes to empower councils to have a stronger role. The Urban Taskforce would like to understand more about how this radical shift of responsibilities between state and council planning bodies is going to work at the very time the NSW Government, through its Productivity Commission, is calling for a more productive planning system that takes half the time of the current processes. There will need to be very strict controls on councils in relation to turn around times and clear outcomes in terms of size of development set for precincts.
CHRIS JOHNSON is the CEO of Urban Taskforce
 
</body></html>

Development Planning

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Development Planning

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News