1

DAP120-14

Development Assessment and Planning

Minute Number: 785 Council Meeting Date: 13/05/2014

05/05/2014DAP120-14 SSDCP2014 Policy Approach - Dual OccupancyFile Number: LP/06/193846Director: Planning & Environment (PMA:MC)

Executive Summary

Purpose The purpose of this report is to inform council of the draft policy approach for dual occupancy recommended to be part of the new DCP. The recommended policy approach is informed by the new provisions for dual occupancies established in the Draft Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2013 (DSSLEP2013).

Summary DSSLEP2013 takes a new policy approach to dual occupancy which will see increased opportunities for development. The removal of lot sizes in certain zones, the permissibility of dual occupancy on internal lots, increased opportunity for subdivision, the increased floor space ratio, decreased landscaped area requirements and a more flexible approach to design will see significantly more development. Consequently, a review of dual occupancy provisions within SSDCP2006 is required to ensure alignment between the new LEP and new DCP. The DCP also gives council an opportunity to set design standards so that the quality of new development is high. This is critical if dual occupancy is to be well received by the community.

The policy approach promoted for council’s consideration as part of this report presents a change to the existing framework for the development of dual occupancy. The recommended provisions are aimed at improving the design of dual occupancy and the degree of residential amenity they provide future residents, while seeking to mitigate potential impacts on neighbours in terms of visual intrusion and loss of privacy.

The proposed DCP provisions are proposed to operate in tandem with a pattern book. The pattern book is being prepared to help direct applicants to good design solutions which compliment the objectives and controls in the LEP and DCP. The Pattern Book will deal with the location, size and scale, appearance and amenity of the dwellings that form dual occupancy. The Pattern Book will illustrate how flexibility in the design of dual occupancy can deliver good quality housing and amenity, particularly addressing the needs of an ageing community. While the pattern book will not have weight in the assessment of applications, it will be a customer service tool for assessment officers helping them better assist applicants towards better development outcomes.

This report seeks council's endorsement of the direction of the policy approach being pursued for inclusion in the new DCP and the use of a Pattern Book.

Report Details

2

DAP120-14

Purpose and BackgroundThe dual occupancy provisions in draft SSLEP2013 are substantially changed from those embodied in SSLEP2006. The underlying policy position embodied in the new plan can be summarised as follows:

The permissible floor space ratio is higher and the required landscaped area is lower

than under SSLEP2006.Diversity in dual occupancy design is to be encouraged, particularly where it promotes

a high standard of residential amenity by responding to site opportunities and constraints;There should be no obstacles to the development and subdivision of dual occupancies

throughout the residential zones (R2 to R4);Dual occupancy is not to be permissible in the most sensitive foreshore areas which

are zoned E3 Environmental Management, except where a lawfully constructed waterfront cottage exists it may be retained as a second dwelling even though dual occupancy may not be otherwise permissible in the zone. However, in such cases subdivision is only permissible where minimum lot sizes are achieved for each lot;Opportunities for dual occupancy in the E4 Environmental Living zone should be more

constrained than the residential zones due to the environmental sensitivity of these areas. In the E4 zone Strata Title subdivision is encouraged over Torrens Title subdivision.Dual occupancy should not occur in areas subject to bushfire risk as this would

exacerbate the exposure of people and assets to risk of loss;Floor space ratio and landscaped area should be proportionately divided between the

occupancies so that no one dwelling exceeds the development standards;In order to facilitate single storey dwellings, which are an unsatisfied demand of the

ageing community, and to minimise the visual intrusion and privacy impacts of dual occupancies in rear gardens, dual occupancies are confined to single storey construction if located in the rear of a lot, or on an internal lot.

These policy provisions are built into the new LEP. DCP provisions cannot be in conflict with a LEP. The DCP provisions require careful consideration to ensure that they work with the policy position of the LEP.

Please note that smaller dual occupancies (less than 60 m2

) are defined as ‘secondary dwellings’. These are a separate land use under the LEP and will be reported separately.

Dual Occupancy Outcomes - Diversity in DesignThe existing policy approach under SSLEP2006 has forced dual occupancy development to largely be confined to side by side, semi detached buildings. While this layout can work well if a block has a north facing rear, most often it produces dwellings that have a very poor standard of solar access and creates a street frontage dominated by garages and driveways. It can be reasonably anticipated that the new policy position under SSLEP2013 will result in a significant increase in the number of dual occupancy developments in residential zones. The new LEP establishes controls which will permit a wider variety of dual occupancy forms as identified below:

One-up-one downWhile not common in Sutherland Shire, this type of dual occupancy is currently permissible under the Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2006. This dual occupancy form has one dwelling located on the ground floor with the second dwelling located above. Both dwellings essentially share the same building footprint. The benefits of this type of dwelling include:

Stronger retention of single dwelling character at the street frontage;

3

DAP120-14

Potential building envelopes are similar to that of a single dwelling;

For sites where the land may rise or fall from the street, this type of dual occupancy

provides greater opportunity for development and can deliver good outcomes; andBoth dwellings are able to achieve good solar access and are therefore it is a form that

is acceptable for a range lot orientations

This form of dual occupancy however, does pose a number of challenges. These include:

Limited opportunity to provide access to private open space for the upper level

dwelling;Designing identical internal floor plans for each dwelling (i.e. locating bedrooms and

living areas in the same location); andPotential overlooking and amenity impacts from the upper level dwelling.

These challenges should not prohibit development. Potential impacts can be dealt with during the design process and at assessment stage.

Figure 1 - Aerial View, One up, One down (Draft Good Design for Medium Density Living, NSW Government)

Figure 2- Street View, One up, One down(Draft Good Design for Medium Density Living, NSW Government)

One behind the other (i.e. Internal lots)Dual occupancies that take the form of one dwelling being located behind the other are currently discouraged under SSLEP2006. The current provisions also limit where dual

4

DAP120-14

occupancy development can be subdivided. Existing provisions prohibit the subdivision of dual occupancy development where an internal lot is created (i.e. one dwelling would be located behind the other in the rear yard). The prohibition of this type of dual occupancy has effectively seen the proliferation of side-by-side dual occupancies, often on lots where one behind the other would provide for better dwelling design and achieve better amenity for future residents. This design suits an east-west facing lot, where the positioning of each dwelling can ensure opportunities for solar access. One behind the other design can provide better presentation to the street and have less impact on the overall streetscape, as garages are generally located internally on the lot and therefore do not dominate the street frontage. The disadvantage of this design is the loss of landscape elements in rear yards. Where existing significant vegetation exists, this design may not be optimal.

Allowing the creation of an internal lot is a considerable change to council’s existing policy . Dual occupancies, when subdivided to create an internal lot, are a popular form of housing because it allows an existing dwelling to remain and only one (1) new dwelling to be constructed. With the financial savings, it is an attractive option and a significant increase in development can be expected. It also allows older people to build a new dwelling behind their existing dwelling, without having to demolish the family home.

Figure 3 - Aerial View, Internal Lot

Figure 4 - Street View, Internal Lot (Google Streetview)

Side by Side

5

DAP120-14

The current provisions prohibiting internal lots have resulted in side-by-side dual occupancies becoming the most common forms of dual occupancy of recent years. Land owners are drawn to this form of dual occupancy as they can be easily subdivided under current rules.

This design suits north-south lots where the living space can be sited to take advantage of the northern rear garden. It can also successfully maintain rear yards for landscaping and minimise overlooking of neighbouring properties. However, this design solution results in poor amenity for south, east and west facing dwellings. A side-by-side design can create streetscape issues as the whole of the frontage tends to become used for parking (see Figures 6 and 7). This dual occupancy design often results with garaging being the dominant feature of the street elevation with doorways and housing entrances set back and often obscured (see Figures 7 and 8). Design options are limited and dwellings tend to be ‘cookie-cutter’ plans regardless of site constraints. The result is poor long term amenity for residents of the new dwellings and poor outcomes for streetscapes.

Figure 5 - Aerial View - Side by Side

6

DAP120-14

Figure 6 - Street View, Side by Side

Figure 7 - Street View, Side by Side

7

DAP120-14

Figure 8 - Street View, Side by Side

Corner LotCorner dual occupancies are often the preferred dual occupancy under the current LEP as they are the easiest to achieve reasonable design outcomes because they have two street frontages. Such developments are characterised by a two storey dwellings at the front of the site with a single storey dwelling at the rear boundary. The dwellings are usually separated by car parking or open space. Current setback requirements have resulted in some separation from adjacent rear yards. However, the fragmented location of open space results in little opportunity for canopy tree planting. An additional advantage of this form of dual occupancy is that designs are often able to provide for better building separation with garages facing either street. This has benefits because there is more consistency in building form with the surrounding streetscape.

Figure 9 - Aerial View - Corner Lot

Figure 10 - Street View, Corner Lot(Google Streetview)

Policy Approach to Dual Occupancy DevelopmentThe current DCP provisions include many controls that were imposed over time to address specific weaknesses of dual occupancy development. Many of the controls focus on minimising potential impacts of a dual occupancy on neighbouring properties. However, the combination of controls has resulted in developments that underperform in terms of the standard of residential amenity they provide for occupants. In addition, the desire to

8

DAP120-14

subdivide dual occupancy developments is driving the design of dwellings. Under the existing policy framework residential amenity and the quality of building design is often sacrificed in order to make developments fit the controls. This generally results in side by side dual occupancy, often with poor streetscape outcomes and compromised amenity for future residents.

The DCP provisions for dual occupancy need to be focused on achieving quality outcomes for both future residents and neighbouring properties. For development to be well received by the community, the design and form of new dual occupancy also needs to have regard to the character of the locality and constraints associated with the individual site. As no two sites are identical, the provisions should encourage flexibility in the design process to achieve responsive and appropriate design solutions, rather than forcing all sites to a similar solution.

Key Design Considerations informing the DCP ProvisionsStreetscapeStreetscape plays an important factor in determining how well dual occupancy developments are integrated into the existing fabric of the surrounding built form. It is the streetscape presentation that people generally see and in many cases the design quality is judged by how a building fits in the street.

The current approach to dual occupancy, as guided by the permissibility under SSLEP2006, has seen a tendency towards side by side dual occupancy development. Side by side design often creates streetscape issues as the whole of the street frontage can be dominated by built form. In many cases, garaged areas/doors tend to preside as the main element when viewed from the street. As an outcome, building entrances are often hidden to the side of the dwelling and obscured by parked vehicles.

It is expected that the wider permissibility of dual occupancy under the draft LEP will result in dual occupancy development that is more responsive to existing streetscapes. Less side by side dual occupancy is likely to occur. However, to improve the streetscape the following controls are proposed:

1. The front entrance to the dwelling is to become a dominant element in the dwelling frontage, rather than the garage doors;

2. Where garaged entrances face the street, that should be recessed into the front building setback;

3. Continue the limitation of two (2) visible garaged spaces from the street;

4. Hard surface areas within the street frontage to be limited to a maximum of 50%, while the 50% must be left available for deep soil landscaping (see Landscaping below).

Front setbacksFront setbacks for dual occupancies are currently set at 7.5m. This setback control is also applicable to dwelling houses and multi-unit housing (i.e. townhouses and villa houses). The front setback establishes the front building line and assists in creating the proportions of the street. This setback has historically been used to contribute to the public domain. The street setbacks typically create a landscaped context for the building to enhance its setting and establish a leafy streetscape.

In light of increased floor space ratios and reduced landscape area requirements under DSSLEP2013, there will be increasing pressure on maintaining front setbacks at 7.5m. Compliance with the 7.5m setback may impose limits on the ability to achieve maximum development potential. If a 7.5 metre front setback is strictly adhered to, it is likely that the

9

DAP120-14

remainder of the site will simply be more cramped with less potential for landscaping to offset building bulk and scale. The experience of new development at Greenhills at a comparable FSR shows that rear landscaping is the first element lost when density is increased. Analysis of potential dual occupancy designs under the new development standards has demonstrated that dwellings must incorporate a third storey element to achieve the full FSR potential under the draft plan. It is questionable whether developers will build three (3) storey dwellings and whether there is community demand for such a dwelling. Based on the large number of dual occupancy designs that are available to the public through a variety of building companies, three (3) storey dwellings are not given significant consideration. This is despite other Local Government Areas also having 9.0m height limits.

The front setback area rarely functions as private open space. Many residents do not use this space in the same way and at the same intensity as they use their private open space at the rear. Instead the front setback, in many cases, is used as a ‘green buffer’ to the street, often encompassing lawn; driveway; gardens and storage areas for cars, trailer, caravans etc. While these functions are valid, a slightly reduced setback may not undermine the landscape quality of existing streetscapes yet improve amenity of residents within the new dwellings.

Having consideration for the above, it is proposed to maintain the existing street setback of 7.5m, but introduce an articulation zone of 1.5m for up to 30% of the total building width. This would reduce the front setback in part to 6.0m and allow people greater opportunity to use more of this front setback for useable floorspace, balconies, entries etc. This articulation zone would not apply to garages. It is envisaged that by reducing the front setback (in part), this will create more opportunities for residents to achieve proposed FSR at ground level as opposed to a third storey. It will also allow greater choice for the positioning of built form and landscaped areas across the site. Given the the draft LEP increases FSR potential and reduces landscaped area requirements, maintaining a 7.5m front setback is likely to result in virtually the entire landscape requirement being met in the front setback. Better landscape outcomes will result if at least some deep soil landscaped area is also provided at the rear of the lot to assist in maintaining a reasonable standard of privacy between properties.

By requiring garages to be setback at 7.5m, the garage will no longer become the predominant feature of the front building facade. In turn, this will allow other elements, such as building entries and habitable rooms, to be brought forward. Furthermore, it is considered that the inclusion of an articulation zone of 1.5m will allow new development to sit comfortably with existing dwellings set at 7.5m, ensuring sufficient landscaped area at the street interface suitable for planting of canopy trees.

Side setbacksBuilding separation relates to urban form as it affects the degree of openness in the street . Spaces between buildings provide opportunities for landscaping as well as access and help reduce amenity impacts between adjacent dwellings. Buildings that are too close together can result in poor visual and acoustic privacy. Loss of daylight access to dwellings and to private open space can also result if buildings are too close together. Larger setbacks are needed for taller buildings to reduce the extent of impact while creating space for landscaping to further offset building bulk. The articulation of side elevations reduces the visual bulk of buildings on adjoining properties. The DCP currently requires side wall articulation as well an increased setback as the height and length of the elevation increases .

Generally, it is recommended that existing side setback controls should be carried over into the new DCP. However, given the increased potential for dual occupancy design and three storey buildings, the following amendments are proposed:

1. Side setbacks at upper levels

10

DAP120-14

Council currently requires a 1.5m side setback at the second storey for dual occupancies and dwelling houses in all zones. In zones 4, 5 and 6 where minimum ground floor side setbacks are 0.9m this control results in a ‘wedding cake’ built form typology where buildings are forced to step away from the boundary with each storey. This inhibits variation in architectural form and does not always produce good outcomes.

A better solution is to set the minimum side setback requirement for second storeys to match the ground floor . The intended outcome of this is to allow more diversity of building form. This means that in zones R2, R3, R4 and B1 second storey side setbacks may be reduced to 0.9m. In zones E3 and E4, this 1.5m setback requirement will be retained as the corresponding ground floor setback is also 1.5m.

The increase in building height to 9m and the removal of restrictions on the number of storeys effectively allows three storey dual occupancy to be constructed. The current LEP limits the wall height of a dwelling to 7.2m with the roof height limited to 8.5m. The control effectively protects neighbouring properties from the impacts of high walls at the boundary. It is considered that the DCP should require increased side boundary setbacks for third storey elements of dual occupancies. It is recommended that the increased setback reflect that used for complying development under the SEPP. The SEPP requires increased building separation based on wall height. Using this approach suggests a side setback of 3.3m in the E3 and E4 zones and 2.7m in the R2, R3 and R4 for any third storey.

Table 1 below provides details as to the proposed side setbacks.

Zone Minimum sidesetback

Minimum sidesetback forsecond storey

Minimum Side setback for Third storey

E3 Environmental Management

1.5m 1.5m

3.3m

E4 Environmental Living

1.5m 1.5m

3.3m

11

DAP120-14

R2 Low Density residential

0.9m 0.9m

2.7m

R3 Medium Density Residential

0.9m 0.9m

2.7m

R4 High Density Residential

0.9m 0.9m

2.7m

B1 Neighbourhood Centre

0.9m 0.9m

0.9m

Table 1 - Proposed Side Setbacks

Dual occupancy is also permissible in the B1 zone. B1 zones are generally located in low density residential density areas and residential development in the B1 zone should compliment neighbouring residential allotments. Similar side setbacks have been applied to the B1 Neighbourhood Centre Zone as the residential zones.This will ensure a reasonable level of amenity is achieved for any residential development in both B1 and adjacent residential zones.

2. Side setbacks for internal lots

For dwellings forming dual occupancies on an internal lot, a minimum side setback of 1.5m should be required. This increased side setback is proposed to ensure good building separation from adjoining lots, minimise potential for overlooking and overshadowing. Importantly though, the 1.5m side setback will ensure that newly constructed dwellings on internal lots have sufficient distance to side boundaries, ensuring opportunities for enhanced solar access and better outlooks from rooms. This increased side setback will apply to zones E3, E4, R2, R3, R4 and B1.

Rear setbacksThe numerical controls for rear setbacks work well and it is recommended that they be generally transferred across to SSDCP2014 with only the following minor changes:

Zone Minimum rear setback

E3 Environmental Management 6.0m 3.0m on internal lot

E4 Environmental Living 6.0m 3.0m on internal lot

R2 Low Density residential 6.0m 3.0m on internal lot

R3 Medium Density Residential 6.0m 3.0m on internal

12

DAP120-14

lot

R4 High Density Residential 4.0m 3.0m on internal lot

B1 Neighbourhood centre 4.0m 3.0m on internal lot

Table 2 - Proposed Rear Setbacks

1. Rear setbacks for second and third storey elements

At present SSDCP2006 only permits the front dwelling (or 50% of the site depth) to be two (2) storeys. This control protects the rear yard of neighbours’ properties from excessive overlooking and ensures overshadowing into adjoining properties is minimised. In minimising overshadowing, the control allows new two (2) storey elements at the street frontage, which is generally consistent with the form new single dwellings.

This control only applies to dual occupancies. However, investigations have revealed that over time neighbouring new dwelling houses typically have two storey elements that protrude further to the rear than adjoining dual occupancies. It is unreasonable to have controls on dual occupancy development that result in more restrictive outcomes than occur for single dwellings.

This control also links the potential form that new dual occupancy can take and inevitably results in the side by side solution which is not always the best outcome for the streetscape or future occupants. The current controls also limits the potential for the construction of one up, one down dual occupancies where design takes the form of a single dwelling in terms of its building footprint, bulk and scale.

To provide greater flexibility in dual occupancy design and promote building form that is better aligned to controls for other setback requirements, it is proposed to increase the control to 60%. This will allow the second storey element of a dual occupancy development to be permitted to 60% of the site depth. This change also responds to the increased FSR available under the new LEP.

13

DAP120-14

Figure 11 - Rear setbacks for second or third storeys

2. Rear setback for internal lots

Residents’ backyards have historically created corridors of open space, trees and vegetation and have given residents privacy. Given the privacy that typical gardens achieve it is recommended that where a second occupancy is created on an internal lot, a minimum 3.0m rear setback be applied. The motive for such a control is to ensure the green corridors across neighbourhoods are maintained. Existing vegetation is most likely to occur at the rear fence and this control will facilitate retention of existing landscaping helping to minimise visual intrusion and over looking.

14

DAP120-14

Figure 12 - Rear setbacks for internal lots

In the circumstance where the rear boundary of the internal lot does not face north, it is recommended that a control be introduced that would guide development to relocate the 3.0m rear setback to the northern side boundary. Where this occurs, it will be permissible to allow the the original rear setback to be reduced to 1.5m (see Figure 13).The motive for this control is to ensure the highest possible amenity for the rear occupancy forming part of an internal lot dual occupancy. It will ensure that these occupancies locate the bulk of their open space in areas where solar access can be maximised. This would ensure green space is retained and positioned in the most appropriate location given if the amenity of the new residents are to be prioritised.

15

DAP120-14

Figure 13 - northern side boundary setbacks for internal lots

Distribution of Floor Space on Third StoreyThe introduction of the 9m height control and increased FSR provides the potential for a third storey element and a potentially larger, and bulkier buildings than are currently permissible under SSLEP 2006 may result. It is appropriate for the DCP to help manage the third storey element so that acceptable outcomes result.

At Greenhills Beach, which already has equivalent height and FSR controls to those proposed under SSLEP 2013, the Greenhills Beach Development Control Code, prepared by Council in consultation with Australand (the developers of this estate), includes the following provision:

Any third storey component of a building is to be no greater than 50% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor of a building or 80m² in area, whichever is the least amount. Any third storey shall be setback a minimum of 1m from the storey below.

The application of this control has been effective in enabling some third storey development, while managing amenity impacts on neighbours (privacy, solar access and visual intrusion) and limiting the perceived bulk and scale of dwellings when viewed from the street. Essentially the control makes the third storey a lighter "top" to the building rather than it being expressed as a full third storey. Given that this control was put forward by the market and has worked well, it is therefore considered that a similar control should be applied across the Shire.

Parking

16

DAP120-14

SSDCP2006 currently requires the provision of at least one car space for each dwelling, either in a garage or behind the building line. On a standard lot, the resulting development often presents as a single garage and car space for each dwelling, located in a central shared driveway area. High levels of car ownership in the Shire mean that there are frequently additional cars parked in the driveway.

It is not proposed to change the number of car parking spaces required, or the requirement for these to be garaged or behind the building line. What is proposed is to strengthen the requirement for the dwelling front entrances to be dominant in the frontage. The best outcome is for the garage entrances to be recessed into the building setback and for only one double or two single garage entries to be visible from the street frontage. This may encourage the use of tandem garages where there is a preference for both parking spaces for the dwelling to be garaged. On corner lots, where the driveways are approached from separate streets, a double garage could be provided for each dwelling.

Residential AmenityThe construction of a new dual occupancy on an existing lot instantly creates increased density in a neighbourhood. Because of the increased proximity of dwellings it is important that careful consideration be given to amenity of both the future residents of the new dwellings and the residents of the adjoining dwellings. The existing statutory controls that regulate dual occupancy housing have resulted in a number of design constraints being imposed. Upon review, many of the current controls are considered to result in developments that under perform in terms of residential amenity, specifically in the following areas:

1. Solar access

A lack of diversity in dual occupancy design regularly results in new dwellings that do not achieve basic levels of solar access. This is particularly the case for side-by-side dual occupancies on an east west facing lot. In these circumstances, one dwelling is positioned on the south side with the dwelling on the north side blocking all access to daylight for internal areas.

Greater flexibility in dual occupancy design will allow applicants to design a dual occupancy that responds to the opportunities of their individual site. The new DCP should take the approach of encouraging dual occupancy design that resonds to the constraints and opportunities of the site. For example, on an east west facing lot, instead of a side-by-side design, it may be more appropriate to build an internal lot that can achieve a high standard of solar access to both dwellings.

Poor amenity will result where dwellings have poor levels of solar access. Resulting in dual occupancies which are dark and contain difficult to heat spaces. It is proposed that dwellings be required to achieve a minimum of 3 hours direct solar access to living areas at mid-winter. This is the same standard applied to residential flats and represents a basic level of amenity. Also in line with the requirements for residential flats, the principle area of private open space should also be provided with a northern eastern to north western aspect allowing it to receive 3 hours direct solar access at mid winter.

2. Privacy

The opportunity for overlooking from second storeys will continue to be an issue. With an anticipation of such potential amenity impacts on adjoining dwellings, DCP controls should encourage dwelling design that reduces the opportunity for such impacts occurring. This may result in locating balcony space and living areas of second storey dwellings to street frontages; using high-light windows instead of full-length windows

17

DAP120-14

where overlooking could occur into neighbouring properties and / or stepping buildings to remove opportunities for overlooking.

3. Private open space

For all dwellings forming a dual occupancy private open space 6.0m x 6.0m should be required. This requirement is currently captured by SSDCP2006. However, the control should be revised in the new DCP to reflect greater opportunities for dual occupancy design and increased opportunity for the location of the private open space where it will best serve the future residents and receive optimal solar access (typically the northern side of any lot).

For the second storey dwelling forming a one up one down dual occupancy design, an additional control will be written into the DCP to ensure that, like the 6.0m x 6.0m private open space at ground level, any private open space at the second storey is also positioned with a northerly aspect. This would be provided by a terrace or balcony and should have minimum dimensions of 6m x 4m. All private open space, particularly at a second storey level, needs to be designed to minimise overlooking and privacy impacts to adjoin residents. However, if this is provided, open space at ground level should not be mandatory.

Neighbour Amenity1. Poor relationship between dwellings (side setbacks)

Requiring a 3.0m rear and 1.5m side setback for dwellings on an internal lot will ensure sufficient building separation from adjoining dwellings and their open space.

The removal of controls that seek to achieve an increased side setback at the second storey will also ensure a greater variety or building design as both dual occupancies and dwellings can move away from the current ‘wedding cake’ design.

Controls ensuring building articulation and increased side setbacks where a second storey wall adjacent to a side boundary exceeds 15m in length, will be maintained. To improve relationships between dwellings the DCP will seek to increase building setbacks where a proposal would results in significant overshadowing and/or visual intrusion.

2. Solar access

Flexibility in the design of dual occupancy is expected to improve opportunities for solar access. The presumption of new DCP controls will be that dual occupancies respond to individual site opportunities and constraints. In line with this, private open space will be encouraged with a northern aspect regardless where this falls on the site .

3. Privacy – overlooking from additional dwelling in the rear portion of neighbouring sites

As discussed above, SSDCP2006 only permits the front dwelling (or 50% of the site depth) to be two (2) storey. This control, while proposed to be increased to 60%, will maintain the protection of the rear yard of neighbours’ properties from excessive overlooking and overshadowing. It allows new two (2) storey elements at the street frontage, which is generally consistent with the form of new single dwellings.

Current provisions relating to corner sites are expected to be maintained as an attractive option for dual occupancy development. Such developments are characterised by a two storey dwelling at the front of the site with a single storey dwelling at the rear boundary. The dwellings are usually separated by car parking or

18

DAP120-14

open space. A requirement for a 6m rear boundary setback has resulted in some separation from adjacent rear yards.

LandscapingBackyards have traditionally created corridors of open space, trees and vegetation which have assisted in maintaining residents’ privacy and function as wildlife corridors. Dual occupancy development places pressure on this landscaped character. In the case of side by side developments, ancillary development and hard surfaces can encroach into the landscaped area, while dwellings on internal lots are located in what were backyards. The uptake of increased FSR and reduced landscape area requirements in the LEP will exacerbate the loss of landscape character resulting from dual occupancy development.

Side and rear setbacks provide some scope for landscaping; however, landscaping cannot be achieved in side setbacks of 0.9m. Similarly the fragmentation of landscaped space results in little opportunity for canopy tree planting in the rear yard. Consequently, limiting hard surfaces in the front setback becomes important. Combined with the nature strip, the front setback provides some opportunity for the planting of canopy trees, shrubs and vegetation to maintain the landscaped feel of the Shire. Planting trees also assists in providing scale and reducing the perceived bulk of the new buildings.

As such, it is recommended that hard surface areas within the street frontage to be limited to a maximum of 50%, while the remaining 50% must be left available for deep soil landscaping. Providing limitation on the proportion of hard surface within the street frontage will ensure that sufficient landscaping can be captured within the front setback. Ensuring appropriate landscaping also creates opportunities for planting, which can assist in providing scale and removing bulk to the new built form.

Feedback from internal staff involved in the assessment and compliance of dual occupancy applications have noted difficulties achieving adequate landscaping, including allocation of open space and areas sufficient for deep soil planting. Often landscaped areas noted in an application are 'token areas' that provide nothing more than shallow garden beds or areas insufficient to accommodate planting of significant vegetation. Experience has shown that it is not the money spent on the landscaping that matter most. The key is to provide some trees that can offset the scale of the new building and help mitigate building bulk. If each dwelling was simply provided with a small native tree at the front and back dual occupancy would sit far more comfortably in its streetscape and neighbourhood setting.

Having regard to this, there is believed to be considerable merit in the application of a simple landscaping control as follows:

Two (2) trees are to be provided within the street setback and two (2) within the rear

setback of all dual occupancies. These trees are to be located in an area of deep soil with a minimum dimension of 3.0m x 3.0m, and be no closer than 3.0m from the edge of a building.These landscaping/planting requirements are to be shown on a plan demonstrating

compliance with the landscaped area control with details of the species which is to be chosen from Council's native plant selector.Where boundary planting is required to offset the visual intrusion of development, it is

to be be planted in a garden bed no less than 750mm in depth, measured from the boundary line. The applicant must demonstrate that species height is commensurate to the building height of adjoining dwellings.

Pattern BookA pattern book specific to dual occupancy is being developed in line with council’s resolution contained in SDC009-12 . This will be similar to the Residential Flat Design Code developed in association with the SEPP 65 (Design Quality of Residential Flat

19

DAP120-14

Development) and will assist applicants in exploring design options through providing ideas and precedents.

The Pattern Book addresses the location, size and scale, appearance and amenity of the dwellings that form dual occupancy. It illustrates increased opportunities for development and flexibility in the design process to provide good quality housing and amenity. This will be a valuable tool for Councillors, Council staff, applicants and other interested persons.

ConclusionThe proposed policy approach to dual occupancies as detailed in this report makes a considerable shift in the current approach taken by council. This policy approach is in line with the adopted DSSLEP2013 which increases options for dual occupancy development by a relaxation in lot size, lot width and subdivision requirements. With a review of existing DCP provisions relating to dual occupancy development and the development of a pattern book, there will be considerable increase in performance criteria that all new developments will be required to adhere to. DSSLEP2013 will see an increase in the number of dual occupancy applications. However, it is expected that with this policy change, new proposals will present better building design and performance in terms of providing residential amenity to residents and neighbours as well as responding better to streetscape and lot constraints.

Report Recommendation

1. That the report "SSDCP2014 Policy Approach - Dual Occupancy" be received and noted.

2. That the policy position relating to dual occupancy development, with particular reference to setbacks, parking and landscaping be supported by council and that these policy positions be included as part of a continued review of dual occupancy controls.

3. That further work be undertaken on a Pattern Book in accordance with the recommended policy approach detailed in this report.

Committee Recommendation

1. That the report "SSDCP2014 Policy Approach - Dual Occupancy" be received and noted.

2. That the policy position relating to dual occupancy development, with particular reference to setbacks, parking and landscaping be supported by council and that these policy positions be included as part of a continued review of dual occupancy controls.

3. That further work be undertaken on a Pattern Book in accordance with the recommended policy approach detailed in this report.

(Councillor Provan / Councillor Croucher)

Resolution

20

DAP120-14

That “SSDCP2014 Policy Approach - Dual Occupancy” be deferred for discussion and referred to the DCP Working Party.

(Councillor Johns / Councillor Awada)