|
THE DEAD HAND OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
|
THE DEAD HAND OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTOverdoing urban design controls in NSW The design of buildings has been a subject of great concern for local government in metropolitan Sydney for many years. Council planning departments have frequently accused architects and building designers of failure to assess context or consider urban design, resulting in poor quality proposals. The bureaucratic solution to this situation has been to specify, or commonly over specify, the design of buildings in an attempt to provide development assessment officers with guides to what might constitute good architecture. Mostly this approach reduces design assessment to a box-ticking exercise. The high level of detail specified by some planning codes is exemplified by the following extract from the Waverley Development Control Plan (DCP) 2004:
Similar examples abound in other NSW DCPs. Is this approach helpful or just another impediment in the all too often difficult process of development approvals? Multi-unit housing controlsUrban design controls in NSW may be divided into three main categories:
Multi-unit housing is subject to the 2002 State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 65 – “Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings”, which in turn refers to the “Residential Flat Design Code” (RFDC). SEPP 65 is implemented through four chief mechanisms:
Downloadable from the NSW Department of Planning website, the RFDC appears to have had a positive impact on the quality of multi-unit housing. Following the trend of Metro Sydney Development Control Plans (DCPs), the RFDC suggests objectives for all aspects of building design and then specifies an extremely wide range of controls in mathematical terms (eg maximum percentage of units facing south, minimum percentage of units with kitchens on an external wall, etc). These numerically expressed requirements are similar to the “deemed to satisfy” provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA). The controls are accompanied by detailed explanatory notes which read like a university textbook. Like local DCPs, the RFDC does not rely only on general principles. The RFDC runs to 125 pages while local DCPs of up to 700 pages are becoming increasingly common. Improvements in the design of multi-unit housing have resulted in the seven years since SEPP 65 was implemented. Some of these improvements have occurred in spite of the process, but most are because of it. It is, of course, impossible to disaggregate the four process strands of SEPP 65. Criticisms have been levelled at the peer review panels because they are prone to offering advice outside their covenant. The RFDC is criticised for failing to differentiate between low and high rise buildings with respect to environmental requirements for building amenity. Council assessments often highlight even minor numerical deficiencies without regard for overall design quality. The numerical “rules-of-thumb” in the RFDC are treated like immutable laws. It is worth noting that the Victorian equivalent of the RFDC, Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development, relies on objectives and principles instead of resorting to mathematical expressions of measurable characteristics of buildings. Despite their reliance on subjective as opposed to numerically determined controls, Victorian apartment buildings do not lack quality. Can SEPP 65 and its RFDC be regarded as successful? If appropriation is the measure, very successful. Instead of simply referring to the RFDC provisions, many councils feel the need to duplicate the RFDC requirements in their DCPs, causing unnecessary confusion and sometimes contradiction. Inserting large tracts of descriptive or explanatory urban design and planning material has led to reasonable complaints that DCPs have become “Planning 101” or “Urban Design 101”, submerging essential controls or objectives under a welter of words. But not all duplication of RFDC material is in the exact terms of the RFDC. For example p50 of the North Sydney DCP 2002 states:
Several of these requirements are at odds with the RFDC and even the BCA, yet neither justification nor explanation is provided. The North Sydney provisions are not justified by specialised local circumstances; instead, they represent the divergent views of multiple authors, usually of planners or urban designers and seldom architects or building designers. Detached housing controlsEarlier this year, the Department of Planning began implementing a project aiming to halve the number of DAs processed in NSW. The goal was to remove most simple detached house and dwelling “alts and adds” DAs from the standard, overloaded and inefficient development application (DA) system. The prelude to the revisions was a process of detailed data gathering. This was followed by a first draft of the State Housing Code (SHC) and its testing by councils under the direction of the Department of Planning. A second and much shorter, simpler code emerged to be gazetted early this year. To those from states other than NSW, this procedure may seem pretty obvious and normal. But in NSW this represents a major shift from the long term trend to very complex DCPs, such as the RFDC and its local variants capturing an ever increasing range of development. The public was initially very sceptical and remains so. Essentially, the code permits the automatic approval as complying development of house applications meeting key parameters for setbacks, site coverage, height and landscaped area. This legislation represents the first substantial attempt by NSW to wind back overly-complex development/urban design controls. Commercial / industrial controlsNo policy framework like the RFDC exists for other types of building in NSW such as commercial, industrial, and institutional. These projects are subject to widely varying local rules and merit assessment. Typically, controls for these building types include: setbacks, landscaped areas, how to treat landscaping, access and parking, noise, privacy, advertising signs and accessibility. For these types of development overly detailed controls, such as those quoted above from the Waverley DCP, are becoming all too common. An example from the Willoughby DCP relating to mixed use development (p D78) states:
These overly complex rules do not guarantee the architectural success of projects even if they fully comply. Nor does following the rules guarantee approval. Compliance does not even guarantee expedited application processing. Rather, the rules provide a basis for someone other than a trained urban designer or architect to tick boxes as a proxy for a proper professional merit assessment of the aesthetics of a project. In my experience, local government planners are extremely loathe to call an ugly project an ugly project. Instead they substitute elaborate DCP rules that may prop up a refusal or a redesign. However, there is no guarantee that those proposals which meet all rules will be either quality architecture or quality urban design. It is noteworthy that the Council of the City of Sydney does not rely on complex controls to achieve success with high quality architectural design. For larger projects the City of Sydney requires a limited architectural competition judged by a panel on which developer representation is a minority. The Council of the City of Sydney has considered extending the competitive design DCP, but appears to accept that the cost of preparing multiple designs is not justified for small projects. However the City can confidently expect nearly all of the DAs lodged to be the work of professional teams including architects and urban designers. This scenario contrasts with developments in Sydney’s western suburbs where architect designed projects stand out because of their rarity. In the United Kingdom, development and land use is typically guided by an overarching local government planning policy document (usually referred to as a Local Plan, Unitary Development Plan, or Local Development Framework). In Oxford, for example, a typical significantly sized development will be assessed under 20-30 relevant policies. The Oxford Local Plan contains a total of 255 policies applicable to every form of development. These policies, supported by explanatory text, define the characteristics which developments should demonstrate in order for approval to be given. The Local Plan does not set out a zoning regime, nor does it contain complex prescriptive numerical controls. This allows for a more flexibility and creativity under a merit based assessment of development by in house teams of urban design professionals. An example of a policy within the Oxford Local Plan is:
The Oxford Local Plan is considerably shorter than any of the Sydney DCPs. Reducing the complexity of controlsAll forms of non-residential development in NSW require the consent of the local council or other statutory body unless they are “exempt” or “complying” development. Examples of exempt or complying development are flagpoles, air conditioning units, some changes of use within specified categories such as retail, light industrial, etc. For these types of project, development application and approval is not required. Minor external alterations that are exempt or complying are so limited in scope as to be beyond the consideration of this paper or the work of most attendees. Certainly, one cannot add a building or section of building to an existing development under the exempt or complying development provisions in NSW, even under the recently gazetted NSW Commercial and Industrial Code. However, change may be on the way from an unlikely source. The Federal Government’s stimulus package for school buildings requires a very fast project timetable - one that would be impossible to achieve in normal times. In order to take advantage of the funds on offer, state governments have had to remove school projects from the normal, local development application process. Within the limited timeframe required for the expenditure, there was no time for the normal process of application preparation, notification to neighbours, planning assessment and committee-based decision making. As long as proposed school buildings are 5m from boundaries, not more than 12m high and do not involve major changes to school operations, consent in NSW is automatic. And why should this not be the case, economic stimulus package or not? Controversy has dogged some projects proposed under the BER (Building the Education Revolution) which have been designed under the new rules without the need for planning approval.
In addition to a number of apparently spurious planning issues, including the casting of shadows to the north of the building, the residents were outraged by the building’s appearance. But why did it matter? After all, the residents and the similarly outraged council probably did not vet every house proposal in the same way. The question that arises for urban designers, planners and architects, is “Have we created a system that is too controlling (and hence inefficient) for regulating development approvals and which is not justified in terms of built outcomes?” The concessions made by state governments concerned to implement the BER stimulus package will wind back the requirements for some classes of buildings – school and small public housing projects. Will we get unacceptable outcomes from these programs, or should we extend the concessions to other types of buildings, including, say, hospitals, commercial and industrial projects, and rural development? Our current policy frameworkThe prime reason for the proliferation or urban design controls in all forms of planning controls is the inherent suspicion that the public domain needs to be protected from the depravities of architects and other building designers. I know of no evidence to suggest that the imposition of ever more detailed controls has resulted in improved building outcomes – the SEPP 65 process for multi-unit housing is reliant on other, equally important, methods such as peer review. The predominant type of development control applied in NSW at present is the Development Control Plan with its very detailed and often location-specific or unique controls. Examples of the overly- complex level of detail that is specified in some planning codes is well illustrated in the quoted extracts from the Waverley and Willoughby DCPs above. It is hard to believe that this level of detail is necessary to regulate the work of architects and planners charged with designing projects in the Bondi Junction or Willoughby commercial centres. As to the notion of referencing a long obscured subdivision pattern which has little to do with the modern form of the centre, where is the justification for the imposition of such a design control? Who put it there? Possibly only those who are most to be regulated, the architects and building designers, did not have a hand in these overly detailed DCPs. What would be the effect of the removal of all urban design controls from small commercial, industrial or institutional projects, say those 5m in from boundaries and not more than 12m in height and which do not change the nature of the use or its intensity? We could move in the direction suggested by the adoption of the State Housing and Commercial/Industrial codes with their exempt and complying development. Peer review panels could extend their reach to all forms of development, not only multi-unit housing, above defined project values. The most common controls applied to development by planning codes are setbacks/alignment, height and floor space limits. Often, these controls and their proxies such as site density and open space requirements provide overlapping controls, each layer further restricting permissible development. What if these were abandoned completely, replaced by generalised objectives that did not impose detailed numerical limits? Could we live by fewer rules, thus increasing the flexibility available to architects and urban designers? Or are we hooked on the opiate of micromanagement of the built environment? Under the “Building the Education Revolution” program of the Federal Government, we are about to learn whether local government and many of its advisors can be weaned from dependence on rigid controls that have their genesis in the work of urban planners and designers, possibly including many of the people at this conference. Lest anyone think that this may be a hypocritical criticism from someone who has spent much of his professional life framing and interpreting urban design controls, I plead guilty to working on controls which sought to micromanage the work of architects in particular. This is a terrible admission for an architect! However, I am prepared to “get on the wagon”, to desist from framing ever more complex controls. I invite you to join me. Perhaps then we will be able to abandon controls such as:
and
or And finally, this:
I wish us all good luck. |
