SLIMMING COURSE FOR OBESE DCPs

There is one reason and only one reason for the 700 page size of many metropolitan council’s DCPs – the local government response to Planning Minister Sartor’s requirement that there be only one DCP for any site was to amalgamate the up to 40 DCPs in some LGAs into a single 700 page document. I’m sure that this was not the response the then Minister wanted. However, a 700 page DCP is the product of smaller, bloated chapters or individual DCPs. Some 15 or so years ago, the average residential flat building code was a document of not more than 20 or so pages, small enough to be less than 4mm thick. Not so today.

How did they get to their size? Firstly, the range of building and site characteristics controlled has increased greatly. No longer do we just regulate site coverage (building footprint). Instead we have controls for soft and hard landscaped areas, deep and less deep landscaped areas, paved and other surface treatments, minimum open space areas per dwelling. We have sought to refine each measure by adopting a range of supplementary controls, definitions and objectives.

Secondly, we have added to the formerly simple suite of controls, objectives, strategies, deemed-to-comply controls and general descriptions more suited to an urban planning course at one of our universities - material not generally sought by those who consult the controls to see what is permitted.

Lastly, we have found ways to change simple and direct language to convoluted phraseology, to replace a diagram or numerical controls with a paragraph of verbiage and to confuse or render text ambiguous.

What outcomes are wanted?

Our big, fat DCPs are usually not so well endowed in their visions for the future of their communities. So often the future is seen only in terms of the maintenance of current character, even when the zoning and the DCP allow / encourage / mandate wholesale change. The vision, expressed in objectives for the zones, is usually stated in LEPs. Of some 35 metropolitan LGAs surveyed, only five councils had, as their planning objectives, the management of housing provision in residential zones without reference to maintaining existing character. Many had mixed objectives, either within or between zones, calling for maintaining existing character and also for provision for a variety of housing types. 11 councils had objectives only for maintaining existing character. Some of these latter councils may well claim to have substantial conservation areas but most do not.

The confusion of LEP objectives, usually mirrored in the respective DCPs, could be alleviated by the adoption of simple desired characteristics for various areas. These could include uniformity of heights, setbacks, and massing at the scale of the development which will predominate under the zoning or to which it will change. Common front and side setbacks could also be adopted as appropriate characteristics for new development. After all, the principal concern is for an ordered built environment in which some characteristics are common to most development.

Other shared characteristics could include similar materials (think of the use of uniform stone throughout Jerusalem) or colour (think Seaside, the new urbanist town in Florida) or roof shapes (Paddington).

However, the characteristics sought for new development should not be confused with a vision for the public domain such as the creation of tree-lined streets or a general leafy character for an area.

What a vision ought not specify

Too often a vision is expressed in negative terms that do not speak of development sought as much as problems to be avoided. Frequent references to minimising, reducing or eliminating impact are made. Few objectives are couched in terms of the management of the impacts of new development. By setting goals that are at odds with any new development which has greater density or floor area, DCPs establish a battleground of conflicting requirements leaving hapless council planners to try arbitrate competing developer / neighbour claims.

Trimming DCP fat

For the purposes of this paper, two residential sections of much larger DCPs were analysed – one from Waverley and another from Leichhardt. Each of these DCP sections started life as a stand-alone DCP, the Leichhardt the older. The Leichhardt DCP 2000 is now 419 pages and the Waverley DCP 2006 is about 650 pages. (it appears that over the last six years, the need for DCP pages has increased about 50% if the two may be compared.)

Our assessment is that the Leichhardt DCP section could be reduced from 77 pages to 45 tomorrow without a single change to the controls. This is not to say the controls should be preserved in their entirety but rather to measure the “gross fat” in the system. This 42% reduction would result largely from the excision of energy and sustainability requirements which have already been superseded by SEPP BASIX, a mandatory code applying throughout NSW and which has dominance over all other controls. Also to be excised are the “rationale” sections of the code. Surely this lesson in Urban Planning 101 could appear as a standard document, on the proposed NSW Planning web portal, without restatement in most DCPs? In fact, elements of this material may already be available on the Federal Government’s new website www.yourdevelopment.org.au.

The newer Waverley DCP residential section of 80 pages could be reduced to 57 pages, in that case predominantly by trimming suburb descriptions, uninformative material about architectural style (which invites the comment that modernism is not a preferred outcome!) and unnecessary and duplicated “performance criteria” Amongst the performance criteria under this DCP is “The older style two storey detached villa type of housing is favoured over the more recent three cascading storeys, flat roof and building (sic).” Is this the long way round saying we want the area treated as conservation area with limited styles of new building?

Applying only the most simple excisions of redundant or irrelevant material, large reductions could be made.

Minimum controls

What are the most essential controls? At the zoning level, this question is answered by the Government’s introduction of the Standard Instrument with its requirement that LEPs include height and FSR maps and controls. Is this sufficient? Probably not.

Also to be considered are site coverage, setbacks and wall heights, particularly to the sides. The multiplicity of other controls may not be necessary. The new complying codes from the Department of Planning, being developed by Chris Johnson’s team, may well point the way to increased reliance on fewer controls.

Auditing redundancy and over-complexity

Two simple means are available to audit the complex issues of redundancy and over-complexity. The first is the relatively simple assessment of the compliance tables in council development assessment reports. If the control table is more than half of a page in length, then thought should be given to reducing the number of controls. We do not need detail controls on window proportions or types and balcony balustrades, except perhaps in areas of very high conservation value.

The second audit method, this one for redundancy of provisions, is derived from an inspection of council Statements of Fact and Contentions for LEC appeals. If, under the issue of height, one finds more than one reference, then there is redundancy which should be excised.

What may be moved to a state-wide internet site?

Many standardised sections of DCPs are common to large numbers of DCPs and could thus be moved to a common website. These items are:

• Explanatory materials – photos / notes / diagrams / case studies
• Process information – how to lodge, how to object
• Definitions – especially those in the Standard Instrument
• Best practice notes

Simplify the DCP text

The first Chief Judge of the LEC, Justice Jim “Diamond” McClelland, once said in a judgement that ”appeals would be fewer if councils said what they meant and meant what they said.” The language of much of the material in DCPs is tortured, unclear, ambiguous and even incomprehensible.

Success in your DCP diet

Having reduced or eliminated the explanatory material, having removed redundant provisions and/or duplications, having simplified not only text but the range of controls, your DCP is ready for the professional test. This is not a job for the authors or planning department staff. Invite developers and local architects to test any new DCP. It is like inviting safe-crackers to test safes – they find the weak points so that the final product can be made proof against theft. So too for draft DCPs, those who seek every advantage for themselves are the best people to test new controls.

Good luck…