Tag Archives: GFA

  • -
screen-shot-2016-11-19-at-10-33-38-am

Commercially motivated ‘Boarding House’ DA application Loophole must be fixed

Tags : 

17-11-2016

NSW Affordable Rental Housing Legislation

Commercially motivated ‘Boarding House’ DA application Loophole must be fixed

City of Sydney outlines development guidelines for Boarding Houses (including Student Accommodation) in the brochure ‘Guidelines_BoardingHouses_DCP2012’.This document describes the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 as a State Government initiative that assists in the provision of affordable housing near employment areas as a way to provide a means to retain and provide low cost rental accommodation and social housing.

This letter outlines how for-profit commercial accommodation providers/developers are taking advantage of a loophole in the current Affordable Rental Housing legislation that allows for the creation of Student Accommodation stock under the guise of “boarding houses”. Completely in contrast to the social foundations of Affordable Housing legislation these operators are free to charge whatever they want to lodgers and regularly market these developments to international students.

A number of these new Student Accommodation assets are promoting ‘designer’ accommodation and come to market with a ‘designer’ price tag that is disadvantaging poorer students who will undoubtedly have to work more to afford such housing which in turn puts their studies in jeopardy.

The Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 (AHSEPP) offers developers of new rental affordable housing developments incentives and bonuses in the form of:

  • Increased Allowable Floor Space. Most enticingly, they can be built 20 per cent bigger than planning limits specify for other housing types in a local area.
  • Reduced allowable apartment sizes compared to what is normally allowed for Commercial apartment blocks. AHSEPP 16sqm VS SEPP65 32sqm for Studio Apartment.
  • Reduced Open Space requirements.
  • Reduced Private Open Space requirements.
  • Reduced Car Parking requirements.
  • Reduced Solar Access provisions.
  • AND amongst others a provision that states the consenting local council must not refuse consent to an application that adheres to all the Controls set out in Part 2 Division 3 of the AHSEPP.

Whilst these provisions are valuable in making it easier for non-profit/community housing providers to create rental housing stock for those actually in need of Affordable Housing it is disgraceful that commercial developers can exploit these laxed planning controls and then not be subject to any restriction on rent charges compared to their community housing provider counterparts who must (acting under Part 2 Division 1 of the AHSEPP) set rents at around 75% of current Market Value.

One such student ‘boarding house’ development in Wilson Street, Darlington (currently in DA application with submissions closing Friday 18 November 2016) is a 231 room 5 Storey student accommodation residence proposed by a UK based student housing developer company. The company, who to date has targeted the luxury student accommodation market recently moved into the Australian market acquiring land in Melbourne and Brisbane totaling over 100 million dollars. The company’s Australian capital partner describes the growing asset class (student accommodation) as having “high foot traffic, very good returns and very positive yields.” They is now adding two more properties to thier portfolio in Darlington, Sydney.

It is clear that companies like this are using this loophole for their own benefit with no care for a socially responsible outcome that would provide rental stock to assist in NSW’s affordable housing crisis.

screen-shot-2016-11-19-at-10-33-38-am

Amendments are required in the current legislation to put a stop to this blatant abuse of social policy.

Without claiming to be articulate in legislative phrasing I suggest the following amendments to the AHSEPP:

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

Part 2 New Affordable Rental Housing

Division 3 Boarding Houses

  • 29. Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

(6) If for Student Accommodation, a consent authority must not refuse consent to a development to which this division applies if the applicant can provide sufficient resources outlining subsidised lodging fees of:

(a)No more than 30% of the student’s gross weekly earnings, OR

(b)Lodging Fees set at at least 30% off the median rental prices in the area for a similar space AND

(c)Outlining inclusive lodging charges of Electricity, Internet Data and Water.

  • 30B. Standards of Social Affordability

(1) Applicant must show proof of consultation with

(a) a social housing provider OR

(b) a local housing agency

OR to avoid confusion between the distinction of Boarding Houses and Student Accommodation the creation a new Division within the AHSEPP specifically for Student Accommodation which would outline the aforementioned measures when used in relation to Section 4.4 of Sydney DCP 2012 and the Boarding House Guidelines DCP 2012.

 

References

Affordable Rental Housing SEPP

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/EPI/2009/364/part2/div4

Sydney DCP 2012

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/255316/5_WEB_Section4_DCP2012_060516.pdf

Boarding House Guidelines DCP 2012

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/142040/Guidelines_BoardingHouses_DCP2012.pdf

SUPRA – Submission for the Parliament of Australia Inquiry into Affordable Housing, March 2014

http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=6ed09f82-89c3-49f0-99ae-f125fb8fe419&subId=251701.

The growth of student accommodation as an asset class in Australia

http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/414982/wealth+management/The+growth+of+student+accommodation+as+an+asset+class+in+Australia

Students-refuse-give-accommodation-award-rent-high- Nov 2016

http://londonstudent.coop/news/2016/10/25/students-refuse-give-accommodation-award-rent-high/


  • -
thisisourwilsonstreet

Support Material for DA D/2016/1388 35-47 Wilson Lane Student Accommodation

Tags : 

 

DA Submission Update – Supporting information.

Summary

The overt number of infractions in the planning controls, listed below, should warrant the ‘for-profit’ commercial accommodation applicant, Scape, to go back to the drawing board and re-present a design more amenable with the local conservation areas character. 

The justifications presented in the applicants “Statement of Environmental Effects” are loose in their attempt to partially ‘tick’ the boxes but at no point take a real consideration of the local color and character of the surrounding area. 

Infractions Summary:

  • Scape (a for-profit UK developer)  is not listed on the boarding house provider register
  • Building Height is over allowed Height
  • Storey Height is over allowed Height
  • Development is not in keeping with surrounding building setbacks
  • No On-Site Car Parking
  • Not enough Private Open Space provided
  • Not in Keeping with Minimum room size 
  • No Vehicular Access for Drop Off / Services / Deliveries
  • Removal off all 40 trees including 2 on the protected/vulnerable list
  • Not enough internal communal space provided
  • The Mansard style roof is NOT in keeping with surrounding terraces in our heritage conservation precinct.
  • Solar Access designs are incorrect for mid winter for communal open space, shadows on neighboring properties and proposed apartments on the other side of wilson street.
  • No onsite boarding house manager
  • No Motorcycle parking

Boarding House Register

The developer/applicant is not listed on the NSW Gov Fair Trading Website Boarding House Register.

However they are already building the Scape student housing “Boarding House” in Abercrombie Street. How is this possible?

http://parkspr.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/BoardingHouse.aspx

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

In Response to  Division 3 Boarding Houses Notes in RED

Division 3 Boarding houses

Part 3 of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 only applies to boarding houses that were operating with lawful consent before 28 January 2000 (formerly subject to determination under SEPP 10). 

To my Knowledge this site was not registered “boarding house” prior to current day

Ref http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/142040/Guidelines_BoardingHouses_DCP2012.pdf   Jan2013

25   Definition

In this Division:

communal living room means a room within a boarding house or on site that is available to all lodgers for recreational purposes, such as a lounge room, dining room, recreation room or games room.

26   Land to which Division applies

This Division applies to land within any of the following land use zones or within a land use zone that is equivalent to any of those zones:(a)  Zone R1 General Residential,  (b)  Zone R2 Low Density Residential,(c)  Zone R3 Medium Density Residential,(d)  Zone R4 High Density Residential,(e)  Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre,(f)  Zone B2 Local Centre,(g)  Zone B4 Mixed Use.

27   Development to which Division applies

(1)  This Division applies to development, on land to which this Division applies, for the purposes of boarding houses.(2)  Despite subclause (1), this Division does not apply to development on land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential or within a land use zone that is equivalent to that zone in the Sydney region unless the land is within an accessible area.(3)  Despite subclause (1), this Division does not apply to development on land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential or within a land use zone that is equivalent to that zone that is not in the Sydney region unless all or part of the development is within 400 metres walking distance of land within Zone B2 Local Centre or Zone B4 Mixed Use or within a land use zone that is equivalent to any of those zones.

29   Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

(1)  A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on the grounds of density or scale if the density and scale of the buildings when expressed as a floor space ratio are not more than:

(a)  the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land, or

(b)  if the development is on land within a zone in which no residential accommodation is permitted—the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of development permitted on the land, or

(c)  if the development is on land within a zone in which residential flat buildings are permitted and the land does not contain a heritage item that is identified in an environmental planning instrument or an interim heritage order or on the State Heritage Register—the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land, plus:(i)  0.5:1, if the existing maximum floor space ratio is 2.5:1 or less, or(ii)  20% of the existing maximum floor space ratio, if the existing maximum floor space ratio is greater than 2.5:1.

FYI – Existing FSR for this site is 1.5:1 . All Surrounding residential terraces are 1.25.1

(2)  A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on any of the following grounds:

(a)  building height
if the building height of all proposed buildings is not more than the maximum building height permitted under another environmental planning instrument for any building on the land,
Proposed Height is up to 1.3 meters above Maximum Height Allowed.
(b)  landscaped area
if the landscape treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located,
Image on application shows planting along the footpath but a setback of Nil would not allow this.
Front Set Back of “NIL” is not in keeping with Surrounding Streetscape 
(c)  solar access
where the development provides for one or more communal living rooms, if at least one of those rooms receives a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter,
Winter Solstice Solar Diagrams are Incorrect.
Additionally as seen in the below diagram the proposed development will cast a 22 meter shadow across wilson street onto the proposed 2 storey Wilson street facing “North Eveleigh” residential apartments. We also doubt the winter Solar shadowing on the terrace to the left of the proposed development.

http://www.suncalc.org/#/-33.8937,151.19,18/2016.06.21/13:03/13.3

(d)  private open space
if at least the following private open space areas are provided (other than the front setback area):

(i)  one area of at least 20 square metres with a minimum dimension of 3 metres is provided for the use of the lodgers,
Only 15 percent of Studios have a private balcony averaging in 2.5m2 in size

(ii)  if accommodation is provided on site for a boarding house manager—one area of at least 8 square metres with a minimum dimension of 2.5 metres is provided adjacent to that accommodation,
No on Site manager is provided for.

(e)  parking
if:(i)  in the case of development in an accessible area—at least 0.2 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and
No Onsite Car Parking Spaces are provided for.
Loading, Servicing and Cleaning are assumed to occur from the Wilson Street frontage. CoS does not provide onstreet can parking permits for owners/ workers/residents of this style of development. 

Using Wilson Street general curbside parking as a service /drop-off area could be dangerous to the cyclist population and depending on the frequency of use will disrupt traffic during peak hours and during saturday farmers markets where traffic and parking is already under stress.

 (ii)  in the case of development not in an accessible area—at least 0.4 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and(iii)  in the case of any development—not more than 1 parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on site,
No Parking Spaces are provided for employees.
(f)  accommodation size
if each boarding room has a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of at least:

(i)  12 square metres in the case of a boarding room intended to be used by a single lodger, or
Around 11.8 sqm excluding Kitchen and Bathroom Facilities. See Below Sydney LEP Notes.

(ii)  16 square metres in any other case.

(3)  A boarding house may have private kitchen or bathroom facilities in each boarding room but is not required to have those facilities in any boarding room.

(4)  A consent authority may consent to development to which this Division applies whether or not the development complies with the standards set out in subclause (1) or (2).

30   Standards for boarding houses

(1)  A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it is satisfied of each of the following:

(a)  if a boarding house has 5 or more boarding rooms, at least one communal living room will be provided,

(b)  no boarding room will have a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of more than 25 square metres,

(c)  no boarding room will be occupied by more than 2 adult lodgers,

(d)  adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities will be available within the boarding house for the use of each lodger,

(e)  if the boarding house has capacity to accommodate 20 or more lodgers, a boarding room or on site dwelling will be provided for a boarding house manager,
No Onsite Manager is planned

(f)    (Repealed)

(g)  if the boarding house is on land zoned primarily for commercial purposes, no part of the ground floor of the boarding house that fronts a street will be used for residential purposes unless another environmental planning instrument permits such a use,(h)  at least one parking space will be provided for a bicycle, and one will be provided for a motorcycle, for every 5 boarding rooms.
No Motorcycle Parking provided

(2)  Subclause (1) does not apply to development for the purposes of minor alterations or additions to an existing boarding house.

30A   Character of local area

A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

Although the Application attempts to show it the building is in keeping with the surrounding Heritage Conservation area the pictures below tell a resoundingly Different Story. 
thisisourwilsonstreet

rendering
The above image is quite deceptive in showing the proposed buildings relative height. See elevation image below.


elevation

Winter Solstice Diagrams show Full afternoon shadowing on the ground floor of the Wilson Street facing North Eveleigh  proposed apartments.
http://www.suncalc.org/#/-33.8937,151.19,20/2016.06.21/14:18/13.3
screen-shot-2016-11-13-at-3-27-00-pm
The Surrounding Building Height Limits along Wilson Street are 9 meters. Allowing an increase on the already allowed 12 meter limit is incompatible with the surrounding streetscape.
elevation2
The curved ‘Mansard’ roof does not fit into the surrounding conservation area which all use a 45 degree angled flat roof.  The application suggests that the mansard roof acts like the surrounding terraced roofs that house attics. Its implementation is being solely used to hide the illegal 4th floor and create more apartment space for the loft studios. 
The application also suggests that this style reflects the roof of the carriageworks building. There is no resemblance.

Sydney Local Environment Plan 2012

In Response to  Sydney LEP 2012 Notes in RED

Height 4.1.1

Provisions

(1) Development is not to exceed the maximum number of storeys as shown on the Building height in storeys map. The maximum may only be achieved where it can be demonstrated that the proposed development:

(a) reinforces the existing and desired neighbourhood character;

Wilson street has an amazing heritage character. The proposed building in no way reinforces the character of the neighborhood. See above Image of Wilson St Character.

(b) is consistent with the character, scale and form of surrounding buildings in heritage conservation areas;

Unfortunately the DCP has an ill defined height and storey limit already over all other houses on this section of wilson street. It should not mean the development can take advantage of this.

The Proposed development is in a heritage conservation area and the proposed height does not relate to the existing neighbourhood character in terms of height in storeys and street frontage height in storeys.

(2) The street frontage height of a building must not exceed the maximum height shown for the street frontage on the Building street frontage height in storeys map.

It Does

Setbacks 4.1.2

Provisions

(1) Front setbacks are to be consistent with the Building setbacks map. Where no front setback is shown on the map, the front setback is to be consistent with the predominant setting in the street.

The predominant setback on Wilson Street is between 1 and 2.5 meters. The proposal has a Nil setback. See Above image of Wilson Street Character.

Proposal claims set back is in common with North Eveleigh Precinct Wilson Street facing apartments. The Below image (NorthEveleightSetback) shows this is not the case.

north_eveleigh_setback

(2) Within heritage conservation areas, new development is to relate to the established development pattern including the subdivision pattern, front, side and rear setbacks.

The predominant setback on Wilson Street is between 1 and 2.5 meters. The proposal has a Nil setback.

4.4.1 Boarding Houses and Student Accomodation

4.4.1.2 Bedrooms

(1) The gross floor area of a bedroom is to be at least:

(a) 12sqm (including 1.5sqm required for wardrobe space);

plus (b) 4sqm when a second adult occupant is intended, which must be clearly shown on plans;

plus (c) 2.1sqm for any en suite, which must comprise a hand basin and toilet;

plus (d) 0.8sqm for any shower in the en suite;

plus (e) 1.1sqm for any laundry, which must comprise a wash tub and washing machine;

plus (f) 2sqm for any kitchenette, which must comprise a small fridge, cupboards and shelves and a microwave.

The Majority of “Typical Studio” and “Garden Studio” rooms are less than the required 16.9m2.

x 164 rooms Typical Studio with a GFA of 15.8m2  

x 16 rooms Typical Garden Studio with a GFA –  16.7m2 

4.4.1.4 Communal living areas and open space 

(1) Provide indoor communal living areas with a minimum area of 12.5sqm or 1.25sqm per resident and a width of 3 metres. The communal living area can include any dining area, but cannot include bedrooms, bathrooms, laundries, reception area, storage, kitchens, car parking, loading docks, driveways, clothes drying areas, corridors and the like.

Communal indoor living space with 231 residents would equate to a requirement of 289sqm. Only @ 215spm are available in the lower ground communal indoor area.

(2) Indoor communal living areas are to be located: (a) near commonly used spaces, such as kitchen, laundry, lobby entry area, or manager’s office, with transparent internal doors, to enable natural surveillance from resident circulation; (b) adjacent to the communal open space; (c) to receive a minimum 2 hours solar access to at least 50% of the windows during 9am and 3pm on 21 June;

(d) on each level of a multi-storey boarding house, where appropriate;

Communal indoor living space is only located on one floor of the 5 Floor development.

and (e) where they will have minimal impact on bedrooms and adjoining properties.

(3) Communal open space is to be provided with a minimum area of 20sqm and a minimum dimension of 3m.

(4) Communal outdoor open space is to located and designed to: (a) generally be north-facing to receive a minimum 2 hours solar access to at least 50% of the area during 9am and 3pm on 21 June; (b) be provided at ground level in a courtyard or terrace area, where possible; (c) provide partial cover from weather; (d) incorporate soft or porous surfaces for 50% of the area; (e) be connected to communal indoor spaces, such as kitchens or living areas; (f) contain communal facilities such as barbecues, seating and pergolas where appropriate; and (g) be screened from adjoining properties and the public domain with plantings, such as a trellis with climbing vines.

(5) 30% of all bedrooms are to have access to private open space with a minimum area of 4sqm in the form of a balcony or terrace area.

NOTE only 15% of rooms have private balconies. Of the 29 apartments with a balcony 24 of those provide only 2.6m2 of private open space within the balcony area. Attempted justification of greater communal space does not justify the requirement for Private Open Space. 

(2) Each bedroom must have access to natural light, from a window or door with a minimum aggregate area of 10% of the floor area of the room. Skylights are not to be the sole source of light.

City of Sydney Boarding House Control Plan 2004

In Response to  CoS Boarding House Control Plan – Notes in RED

2.8 Car Parking

(c) Parking Exemptions

In certain circumstances, and dependent upon the size of the proposed Boarding House Council may consider parking provision less than that specified above based on the following:

(a)  traffic and on-street parking within the street is such that parking is not required and can be adequately catered for on- street;

No Additional Parking avaliable on Wilson Street. All “free”car spots are taken 24 hrs a day and the increase in Carriage Works program means it will only get busier. CoS currently advising on whether to implement 2hr parking along the carriagewroks side of Wilson Street.

(b)  on-site parking would unnecessarily impact on residential amenity;

Current building has 12 on site car spots that does not impact surrounding residents. 

(c)  all aspects of pedestrian safety have been satisfactorily addressed in terms of access to and from the premises.

 


  • -
FloorSpaceRatio Map

North Eveleigh update – 10 Sept 2016

Tags : 

North Eveleigh – application for proposed amendments to current planning policy for increase in Building Heights and increase in allowable Floor Space Ratio.

UGNSW are currently completing a number of the technical studies, including traffic modelling, to finalise the North Eveleigh proposal. UGNSW are also continuing their work to finalise the Urban Transformation Strategy to guide development of government owned land in the Central to Eveleigh area.

UGNSW hope to lodge a State Significant Development Application and proposed amendment to the relevant State Environmental Planning Policy with the Department of Planning and Environment later this year. It is assumed the changes will be to raise Building Height limits and allowed Floor Space Ratio. (FSR limits relate to how much Floor area can be built on a given land area)

Current Legislation allows for a maximum of 10 storeys and a Floor Space Ratio of 2:1. The UGNSW North Eveleigh Plans are aiming for 20 Storeys with a FSR of around 6:1.

More info here

The Department will coordinate the statutory exhibition and confirm its timing. As a minimum the proposal will be exhibited for 30 days.


  • -
30mm Lens

City Of Sydney – Council discussing Central to Eveleigh – May 16 2016

Tags : 

CoS Council meeting Discuss Central to Eveleigh 

There were a few mentions relating to Urban Growths plans for Central to Evening in this months council meeting.

They are outlined in the smh article here:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/clover-moore-alarmed-by-waterloo-apartment-plans-that-dwarf-singapore-20160516-gowfr0.html

Below are the council extracts.

Item 4.  Central to Eveleigh Update

From the Chief Executive Officer

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/255882/160516_COUNCIL_ITEM43.pdf

 

Item 12.  Notices of Motion

From Councilor Scott:

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/255890/160516_COUNCIL_ITEM12.pdf

It is resolved that Council:

  1. (A)  note:
    1. (i)  the significant increase in resident and visitor populations predicted for the Central to Eveleigh precinct; and
    2. (ii)  the continuing uncertainty surrounding UrbanGrowth’s development plans for the area; and
  2. (B)  request the Chief Executive Officer to:
    1. (i)  investigate the possibility of installing City wayfinding information and better lighting between Redfern Station and Carriageworks;
    2. (ii)  seek to work with Carriageworks and the State Government to investigate integrated ticketing for cultural and other events at the Central to Eveleigh precinct and a shared approach to arts and cultural services between the City, Carriageworks and UrbanGrowth; and
    3. (iii)  write to the CEO of UrbanGrowth and Transport for NSW expressing Council’s strong support for:

(a) better pedestrian links through the Central to Eveleigh site, in particular, a pedestrian link from Redfern Station to Carriageworks and a bridge from ATP to Carriageworks; and

(b) working collaboratively on a plan for affordable housing dwellings in the North Eveleigh precinct.


  • 1
3D_NE

In Response to Urban Growth Artists Impressions of the 20 storey buildings (April 2016)

Tags : 

The Old Trick of using Wide-Angle lenses to distort space, distance and size. 

The new images on the Urban Growth website (April 2016) show some very nice pictures outlining how unobtrusive the new 20 storey buildings could be.

Unfortunately they don’t represent reality as the stills are taken with very Wide Angle Lenses (estimated 18mm) .  Human vision rests somewhere between 35mm and 70mm, depending on the size of the sensor/film aperture.

Wide angle lenses, commonly used in real estate brochures to make rooms look more spacious than they are, distort imagery in the following ways:

  • They make objects further away appear a lot smaller
  • They have a wider horizontal field of view
  • This wider view can approximate our total peripheral vision but in doing so makes objects appear a lot smaller than in reality.
  • Open your phone camera and point it in front of you. If its a newish phone it will have a lens around 26mm. Even this lens is quite wide and whilst built to take panoramic happy snaps you can easily see the difference between it and your own human vision.

3D Scale Model of North Eveleigh

So below we take the same pictures, in very similar places, instead with lenses which more approximate the human vision field of view. With Google Maps, containing site elevations, as our Floor Plan we made a 3D model of the proposed North Eveleigh development and positioned the camera in similar places.

3D_NE

3D buildings recreated over Google Maps.

Comparison of Lenses

A good way of telling if an image has been taken with a wide angle lens is looking at how distorted the edges are. We start with the golden grove example.

Golden Grove

Looking at the Original website example for Golden Grove you can see how distorted the edges are. Replicating this in our 3D program with a few trees and similar 2 storey buildings and terraces we get the same ‘pinched’ effect with our 19mm lens.

Now a 3D render from the same spot, just in front of the Abercrombie/GoldenGrove roundabout, with a 50 mm Lens. Not so unobtrusive….

50mm lens

Golden Grove 50mm lens

CarriageWorks Way Entrance

This one is a little trickier as the artist has had to realign the 3d buildings so they appear straight with a process called UnLensDistort.

Now a 3D render from the same spot with a 26 mm Lens. Not so unobtrusive….

 

Enterance_3d_26mm

CarriageWorks Way 26mm lens

 

Wilson Street

This one was used as an example to show how the existing trees in the area hide the bad sightlines. More on that in another post.

I have moved our camera opposite the last terrace on Wilson adjacent to the public housing site just sold.

In the below render I have included the proposed 4 storey building along Wilson Street. (We really have to see plans for these apartments and whether they will be 2 storeys at Wilson Street and how they will react with the surrounding street scape. I have made them 3 storeys at wilson St which is good for the sight line but they are supposed to be two, Pity they added an extra level to the platform apartments)

22mm 3D wilson Street

22mm 3D wilson Street

 Clothing Store

This one is great, another unrealistic camera.

 

And the following render taken from the Iverys lane end of the park with a 44mm lens.

 

ClothingStore_44mm

Clothing Store 3D 44mm Lens

Urban Growth Artist Impressions (April 2016)

North_Eveleigh_West__-_Golden_Grove_Street_Rev_C

Urban Growth Artist Impression Golden Grove

North_Eveleigh_West__-_Leamington_Ave_-_Rev_C

Urban Growth Artist Impression Leamington Ave

North_Eveleigh_West__-_Podiums_Rev_C

Urban Growth Artist Impression View1

North_Eveleigh_West__-_Wilson_Street_Rev_C

Urban Growth Artist Impression Wilson Street

 


  • -
comparisons

North Eveleigh – March 2016 Plan – High Density Living and Open Space Provision – A Vibrant Community Heart?

Tags : 

High Density and Open Space Provision in North Eveleigh 2016 ?

Within the proposed high density North Eveleigh West precinct we have an expected number of around 1600 residents in the new 3.02 ha development area. (700 new apartments plus the existing 88 Platform Apartments = 788 * 2.2 residents per dwelling, in a plan that exceeds local controls for Building Height and Floor Space Ratio)

Referencing the below site comparisons it is VERY evident that the proposed 2016 North Eveleigh plan has the highest population density on the smallest parcel of land. How much Public Open Space is provided for this vibrant new neighbourhood?

The planned public open space park in the South West of the development is 0.35 ha.  Including unusable verges in the entryway  0.43 ha public open space offered ! 

2016Park

It should be noted the Urban Growth NSW continually over inflate the size of the Park. (as well as other misguiding numerics) Currently stated at 0.46 ha (including the entrance above the park which is technically open but in reality its just a pathway – the 2008 plan only included the physical .33 ha park in calculations) the Park size is also mentioned in Central to Eveleigh Documentation as 5,000 sq meters.  This is VERY concerning as the over inflated Open Space claims will obviously look more favourable to Authorities in their determinations. 

 

C2EPark - March Update

North Eveleigh Local Park stated as 5000m2 at C2E Update Meeting – March 31 2016

What is Open Space

NSW Dept of Planning states:

“Open space is the publicly owned land that is set aside primarily for recreation, nature conservation, passive outdoor enjoyment and public gatherings. This includes public parks, gardens, reserves, waterways, publicly owned forecourts and squares.”

Open Space is defined into 3 areas:

Regional Open Space (above 5 hectares) – are valued and visited by a broader catchment of people as well as the local community. e.g. Sydney Park

District Open Space (between 2 – 5 hectares) – are valued and visited primarily by people with the corridor providing facilities that include organised and unstructured sport and recreation activities. e.g. Victoria Park

Local Open Space (between 0.5 – 2 hectares) – provides a diversity of character and facilities that appeal to the local community at a neighbourhood level. A 400 metre walkable distance is used for Local Open Space. (8)  e.g. Hollis Park 

According to the Recreation and Open Space Planning Guidelines for Local Government (Department of Planning, 2010), the locally appropriate provision standard for recreational open space in Inner Urban areas within Metropolitan Sydney should be around 15 percent of an LGA’s (Local Government Area) share of non-industrial land (9% for Local/District Open Space and 6% for Regional Open Space) to ensure that there is a 1.5-hectare park within 1 kilometre of most dwellings and a 1000-square metre ‘pocket park’ within 400 metres of most dwellings to provide for neighbourhood needs.

This is great as it works for the current existing community but we are injecting 1600+ new residents into the area (more when North Eveleigh North (other side of carriage works) comes online. These percentage based Open Space measurements don’t take into account population DENSITY.

Urban Growth NSW have two new Pages on their Website about Density. They don’t really say anything specific but its nice that they are there…

What is Density Well Done

Density Design Principles

 

Site Comparisons 

Site Gross Area Hectares per 1000 People Population Density Open Space % Open Space Population OS m² per person
Central Park Broadway  5.8 ha  .28 ha per 1,000 population  431 people per hectare  0.8 ha  12%  2500  3.2m²
Victoria Park Zetland  24.4 ha  1.22 ha per 1,000 population  125 people per hectare  3.7 ha  15% 3060 12.0m²
Harold Park 10.6 ha ?  1.9 ha per 1,000 population ? 235 people per hectare ? 3.8 ha? 33 % ? 2500? 20 m² ?
Green Square  13.7 ha  0.20 ha per 1,000 population  490 people per hectare  1.4 ha  10% 6750 2.0m²
Rhodes West  46 ha  1.28 ha per 1,000 population  123 people per hectare  7.3 ha  16% 5680 12.8m²
North Eveleigh West  3.09 ha  .20 ha per 1,000 population  506 people per hectare  0.35 ha  11% 1600 2.1m²

The above shows an alarming trend in High Density – Low Area Developments that are Packing people into smaller areas and offering less Open Space. As an example South Australia legislates 12.5% of land is to be used for open space which relates to around 4ha per 1000 people in a lower Density development area of 35 ha. It does not make sense that this “percentage ratio” can be used in Higher Density developments. Some studies suggest that an increase in open space is required to compensate the increase in density with people having less private open space. (4)

 (Harold Park DCP specified a minimum of 25% to be used for public open space – excluding Private open space)

(Green Square DCP also specified a minimum of 25% of land to be used for public open space – excluding Private open space, although the above seems to contradict that)

(North Eveleigh 2008 Guidelines response to the Director Generals Report that recommended  25%-30% of land to be used for public open space(page 5).  

With the new 2016 Proposals we appear to have gone from 10m² per person to 2m² per person. Private Open Space within the 2 Superlots total 0.14 ha (thats 1400m²)

Some Background to Open Space Measurements

The relatively old metric used by NSW residential urban planners is to allow for 2.83 hectares of Open Space per 1000 residents within a development (1). The Density based benchmark benchmark takes into consideration that people in higher density dwellings need greater access and quality open space and public realm – their backyard is the public domain.

The standard of 2.83 hectares (7 acres) hectares of open space per 1000 population, which has been widely used in New South Wales and elsewhere in Australia, dates back at least to the 1940s. 1975 and 1985 survey reports noted the widespread practice in NSW of dividing the 2.83 ha into 1.21 ha for ‘active’ open space and 1.6 ha into ‘passive’ open space. Even current NSW Open Space Audits reference this metric (7).

This benchmark, a globally adopted maxim originally conceived in the UK, has in recent years been described as outdated and unrealistic in the planning of our new high density city centres. In practice, provision has varied considerably from the traditional formula of 2.83 hectares per 1000 people – from a Inner Sydney median of 1.6 ha to 6.32 ha for some outer council areas (dominated by sports grounds). The use of such a numerical standard to determine adequate levels of open space is said by some to be no longer generally accepted as a satisfactory method of Planning for open space (developers), yet it remains a well used reference guide and Yardstick for the adequate provision of open space (5)(6).  As the alternative ‘needs based’ measures and metrics are somewhat ‘holistic’ and at best sketchy in terms of actual metrics we still see current references to the original method as they are quantifiable (2)(3).

The Sydney Section 94 Developer Contributions plan makes estimates 5.5m² being available per resident by 2020 (p83).

http://sydneyyoursay.com.au/city-of-sydney-development-contributions-plan-updates/documents

Proposed updates to the Plan in early 2016 (Currently under review) are looking to reduce this figure to 2.1m² for each resident. Until updates to the DCP are ratified the plans must reflect the current documents.

 

Addressing Population Growth and Density

In the report on population growth projections UGNSW have used their own statistical calculations to measure population growth which are overall much higher than the Department of Planning & Environment (DPE) 2011 report.  We can see from table 15 that compared to the “2036 DPE estimation” of around 1100 residents for the North Eveleigh West precinct Urban Growth NSW has been using the “2036 UGNSW High Scenario” of 1600 residents. The reasoning used was UG thought the 2011 census data was incorrect and instead of using a population of 51 700 in the study area they have increased the starting population to 59000.(page 22). NOTE – This conflicts with table 4 on page 33 which suggests 56700 population. Why is this? Its not really clear but one reason is that they probably have to find a way to pay for Central to Eveleigh and the more properties they can build the more economically Viable the development appears. 

table15

Table 13 below shows the overall potential population growth for the Study Area from 2011 to 2036 based on the predicted growth by the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE), and based on the low, medium and high development scenarios for the Central to Eveleigh project. (page 68)

 

table13NOTE 1 – “The City of Sydney is updating the Open Space & Recreation Needs Strategy 2006 and reviewing its Section 94 Contributions Plan 2006. The Council recently resolved that the Open Space, Sports and Recreation Needs Study will be prepared by the end of 2015” (page 81)

NOTE 2 – As of April 12 2016 the UGNSW website still states “potential new residents” as bw 29,000 and 56,000. So although Urban Growth are telling us they are not furthering discussions on building heights the below seems to suggest there is flexibility in density depending on the outcome of the overall proposition.

NOTE 3 – This article on News.com.au predicts by 2030 54,000 people will call Green Square home.

WebsiteSnapshot

The DPE report also claims that the rise in single-person and couple-only households, as well as an ageing population, is driving the need for smaller dwellings. It also showed how the government would create housing diversity, which included studio or “granny flats”, smaller block sizes in suburbia, an increased number of townhouses and terraces and manor homes (four separately titled units within the same building). This is not the case with the Urban Growth Central to Eveleigh plan. “Let’s not just build tower blocks at extortionate prices, let’s build dwellings that Australians are happy to come home to.”

How do we get an acceptable result of Density and Open Space built to maintain a Vibrant Community?

The aim is to build communities where people want to live, not just build lots of 1 and 2 bedroom High Density rental stock. UG appears to be providing a market with specific customers in mind – ones without children.

The most sensible result would be to reduce the population density to a figure that is more appropriate to what the space can provide. The original plan of 8-12 Storeys which would manage a proposed population of around 800 residents was better. The 2016 plan increased the density by 20% to provide 600- 700 apartments (equating to an additional 1400 residents on top of the 200 in the Platform Apartments). The 20% increase was based on “population growth and site specific design opportunities“. (page42 UGNSW – North Eveleigh – Plan for a new neighbourhood 2015).

Reversing that would leave us with 1120 residents immediately making more open space.

Additionally the NSW Government could follow through with changes to legislation making it harder for property owners to to leave the 10,000 CBD premises vacant.

It is quite obvious that UGNSW is reluctant to change the Density and building heights in North Eveleigh as it creates a precedent for the forthcoming developments in the Central to Eveleigh tract. In followup Posts we will put the facts together to present to the minister for planning  (and the shadow minister) as Urban Growth have made it quite clear they are not moving on this.

The Report from Charles Sturt University offers some fantastic references to many recent case studies on open space consideration in High Density residential areas (4). The benefits of Open Space is obviously necessary to urban planning and is backed up by the 100’s of Australian and International Reports on the subject.  The benefits are generally outlined in Social, Economic and Environmental impacts.

 


 

REFERENCES

(1) Density Health Workshop Report NSW

(2) https://thebayssydney.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/BaysPrecinctStrategicFrameworkReportVol1.pdf?2274ba&2274ba

(3) Sydney Open Space Report 2016

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/en/Plans-for-Your-Area/Sydney/Sydney-Districts/~/media/7621E08C4AE24C9FBC4970D3438A4C9A.ashx

(4) Best Practice Open Space in Higher Density Developments (2011)

https://www.charlessturt.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Best%20Practice%20Open%20Space%20in%20Higher%20Denisty%20Developments%20-%20Report%201%20Research%20Findings%20-%2022%20June%202012%20-%20FINAL.pdf

(5) PP01_WP11_Open Space Standards_2009_E3.pdf

(6) http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/~/media/Files/DPE/Plans-and-policies/appendix-j-open-space-and-community-facilities-assessment-kellyville-station-precinct-2015-12.ashx

“The current default in many parts of NSW is a rate of 2.8ha per 1,000 new residents. This rate features in a number of planning frameworks, including the NSW Government’s Growth Centres Code and local government open space strategies and development contributions plans3. As an alternative, the Guidelines suggest a default rate of 15% of non-industrial land be allocated for open space purposes.”

(7) http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/~/media/Files/DPE/Reports/central-district-open-space-definitions-sydney-open-spaces-draft-audit-summary-2016-02-29.ashx

(8) http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/~/media/Files/DPE/Strategy-documents/draft-sydenham-to-bankstown-corridor-strategy-open-space-and-recreation-strategy-2015-05-25.ashx

(9) http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/~/media/Files/DPE/Strategy-documents/draft-sydenham-to-bankstown-corridor-strategy-open-space-and-recreation-strategy-2015-05-25.ashx

 

(10) https://www.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/17530/Best_Practice_Open_Space_in_Higher_Density_Developments_Project_Summary_Report_June_2012.pdf

(11)http://www.ugdc.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/file_root/PDFs/Precincts/Redfern_Waterloo/North_eveleigh_concept_plan/Electronic_copy_DOP/Appendix%206%20Residential%20Flat%20Code.pdf


 

 


  • 1
FloorSpaceRatio Map

Urban Growth NSW’s 2016 North Eveleigh Plan exceeding allowable Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

Tags : 

2016 North Eveleigh development proposal is exceeding allowable FSR (Floor Space Ratio) 

State Environmental Planning Authority 2005 Redfern Waterloo Map states a maximum FSR (Floor Space Ratio) of 2:1 is allowable in the Site.

Not only is Urban Growth NSW’s current 2016 plan exceeding the permissible building heights for the area (which is 10 Storeys) they are also exceeding the allowable Floor Space Ratio for the buildings.

Allowable Floor Space Ratio = 2:1

Superlot 1 FSR = 6.2:1

Superlot 2 FSR = 5.4:1

Superlot 3 FSR = 2.7:1

calculations below

FloorSpaceRatio Map

Building Height Map

 

Floor Space Ratio defines the permissible physical size of development allowed on a piece of land.

A guide for calculations can be viewed in this PDF here supplied by planning.nsw.gov.au.  Height and Floor Space Ratio PDF  

The FSR Calculation is defined as  Gross Floor Area / Site Area

  • Site Area” is the size or area of the Lots upon which the buildings will be built. (does not include areas such as parks, walkways and public streets/roads)
  • Gross Floor Area” (GFA) is the area of internal walls within each floor of a building. (does not include such areas as stairwells and Lift shafts, Ventilation Ducts)

North Eveleigh West Superlots Site Area.

Allowable FSR = 2:1

Proposed GFA 57000 m²

SuperLot A    4000 m²

  • Storeys 20 – 4 – 16
  • GFA = 24800 m²
  • FSR  = 6.2:1

SuperLot B    4700 m²

  • Storeys 20 – 4 – 14
  • GFA = 25500 m²
  • FSR  = 5.4:1

SuperLot C   2500 m²

  • Storeys 3 – 4
  • GFA  = 6800 m²
  • FSR  = 2.7:1

 

As noted below there is a subclause in the Legislation (State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Precincts) 2005) that says the Building Height and FSR restrictions only apply where the minister for planning has not approved a Concept Plan. Until it is approved it is ILLEGAL. In other words he/ she can overrule the legislated restrictions.

It looks like it is up to us as a community to prove to the minister that good planning is NOT:

  1. HIGH POPULATION DENSITY   (506 people per hectare / 1600 residents within a 3.1 hectare precinct)

  2. ILLEGAL BUILDING HEIGHTS   (20 Storey Building Heights where 10 is legislated as the Max)

  3. ILLEGAL FSR   (up to 6.2:1 in an area legislated as 2:1)

  4. POOR ONISTE TRAFFIC (one point of entry and roads crossing public thoroughfares)

  5. INSUFFICIENT OPEN SPACE ( 0.32 ha Public Park for 1600 new residents)


  • -
horizontal 1_small

North Eveleigh – Potential Build Timetable

Tags : 

Based on the April 2016 “UGNSW Information Sessions” we have the following Proposed Build Timetable:

March 2017          -> Concept Plans Approval with Detailed Construction Drawings

July 2017               -> Start Infrastructure Works, Roads, Parks and Clothing Store Overhaul   (Period 1 year)

July 2018               -> Sell SuperLots to Developers and Assess Designs

Dec 2018                -> Construction of SuperLots (High Rise) Begins. Potential for Staggered Construction of the 3 SuperLots each taking 12 to 18 months to complete.

December 2020  ->  Estimated Completion of North Eveleigh Precinct

 

 


Forum Login

UserOnline

Users: 10 Guests