NSW Low Medium Density Code. Landscaped Area.

Discussion in 'Development' started by Charch, 17th Jul, 2020.

Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community
  1. Charch

    Charch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    6th Sep, 2015
    Posts:
    50
    Location:
    NSW
    Hi All,

    Has anyone looked into the new code and its landscaping requirements?

    Subdivision 3 Landscape development standards
    3B.15 Minimum landscaped area
    (1) The minimum landscaped area that must be provided for each dwelling on a lot is 50% of the parent lot area minus 100m2

    If I read this correctly a 600m2 block being used as a Dual Occ...

    600/2=300-100=200m2 per side

    So 200m2 landscaped area per 300m2 block/dwelling.

    66% Landscaped Area!!!! Most Councils is 30%

    Can any smart people here confirm if I this is correct?

    Thanks!
     
    Last edited: 17th Jul, 2020
  2. Mark F

    Mark F Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    29th Jan, 2020
    Posts:
    1,029
    Location:
    Canberra
    It may not be as horrible as you expect. Check what is included in the landscaped area - driveways, car ports, decks etc.
     
  3. Charch

    Charch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    6th Sep, 2015
    Posts:
    50
    Location:
    NSW
    landscaped area means a part of a site used for growing plants, grasses and trees, but does not include any building, structure or hard paved area.

    [​IMG]
     
  4. MK101

    MK101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    17th May, 2017
    Posts:
    71
    Location:
    Sydney
    Following along
     
  5. Charch

    Charch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    6th Sep, 2015
    Posts:
    50
    Location:
    NSW
    No matter how big your land size is, it seems you can only ever get a maximum GFA of 100m2 per lot which has got to be a major error of the new code.

    Eg:
    600m2/2=300m2-100m2=200m2 per side landscaping
    300m2-200m2 landscaping=100m2 GFA

    800m2/2=400m2-100m2=300m2 per side landscaping
    400m2-300m2 landscaping=100m2 GFA
     
  6. gach2

    gach2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    29th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,895
    Location:
    sydney
    Just for example this is not a subdivision with exclusive use areas so maybe each dwelling can have access to same landscaped area
    eg
    600m2/2 - 100m2 = 200m2 provided to both units (if its a duplex you will not be fencing at this stage (this will be done after)

    There are actually many flaws with the code and NSW planning has no intention to fix them are provide any guidance
     
  7. gach2

    gach2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    29th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,895
    Location:
    sydney
    You can also = see in that diagram that the landscaped area of the example is not 66.6%
     
  8. MK101

    MK101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    17th May, 2017
    Posts:
    71
    Location:
    Sydney
    Question: does it lend itself to multiple dwellings/ higher density rather than duplexes? Ie duplex isn't dense enough to qualify

    600m2 / 3 - 100 = 100 (50%)
    700m2 / 4 - 100 = 75 (43%)
     
  9. Charch

    Charch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    6th Sep, 2015
    Posts:
    50
    Location:
    NSW
    Higher Density dwellings such as Manor homes and Terraces have their own landscaping requirements.
     
  10. sammy26

    sammy26 Member

    Joined:
    28th Jul, 2020
    Posts:
    5
    Location:
    Sydney

    This is an error in the codes. The DPIE is aware (based on hearsay and phone calls) so watch out for the next version of the Codes to fix this issue and probably cause 20 more.

    This is typical of the Department of Planning - the SEPP's and even the EP&A Act/Regs are full of errors ranging from typos to exploitative grey areas to clear
    inconsistencies. Expect many errors, I have found around 5 in the new Part 3B alone so far and I've barely read it such as Cl. 3B.8 (2)(b) & 3B.15 (94).
     
    Gavin Ng, Archaon and Anthony416 like this.
  11. Charch

    Charch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    6th Sep, 2015
    Posts:
    50
    Location:
    NSW
    Thanks for your insight Sammy!

    Did DPIE give any indication if when the next version may be released?

    Are you able to disclose the other 5 you have also identified?
     
  12. sammy26

    sammy26 Member

    Joined:
    28th Jul, 2020
    Posts:
    5
    Location:
    Sydney
    No I've just spoken to people on the phone and had colleagues tell me they've heard through the grapevine they plan on fixing it but never trust the government for accurate information.

    3 issues identified include the one you brought up and the two I listed; 3B.8 (2)(b) the positioning of the word 'only' in my interpretation accidentally excludes all 12-15m wide lots from the code because every lot will have access to a primary road - they should remove the word 'only'.

    The other one I mentioned 3B.15 (4) is the only case in codes now (I won't get into other examples of inconsistencies from other legislation) where it says Xm wide but does not mention Xm long so you could argue that a 50mx0.5m area complies as private open space even though I'd bet my left nut this is an error. Look at literally the preceding clause for a comparison, I think they just forgot.

    Other issues I don't have recorded but it's just things in passing like forgetting to change clauses to match other changes they made (i.e. relating to lot widths and garages/garage doors) so the information is completely unnecessary or inconsistent with other clauses.


    Alternative interpretation of the landscaping clause
    Coming back to your original question about the clause you raised, I want to share another interpretation of this clause that may make it viable - but after consultation it still seems like an error in the clause so take this with a pinch of salt:

    The provision specifies that in order to approve a certain dual occupancy under the Low Rise Housing Diversity Code, each dwelling of the two dual occupancy dwellings must be provided with a minimum landscaped area equal to 50% of the parent lot area minus 100m2.


    Given that the dual occupancies are seeking approval by a sole property occupier and are contained on the lot - qua the parent lot - there appears to be nothing preventing both dwellings from having direct access to a shared landscaped area.


    With this assumption, a 450m2 lot that otherwise complies with the Code must provide landscaped area of:

    (50% of the parent lot) – (100m2) = 225m2 – 100m2 = 125m2 minimum total landscaped area located on the 450m2 allotment (parent lot). This is in accordance with Clause 3B.15 (1) as each of the two dwellings on the lot are provided with direct access to the shared 125m2 landscaped area.


    Similarly, a 900m2 lot would require 350m2 of landscaped area to be provided for a dual occupancy.
     
    Charch likes this.
  13. Charch

    Charch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    6th Sep, 2015
    Posts:
    50
    Location:
    NSW
    When the DPIE called me back regarding this 2 weeks ago they confirmed it was an "intended" change due to councils requesting more landscaping area. I also requested building modeling examples based on this and have yet to hear back form them. So yes agree, they are sketchy at best!

    The interpretation above does seem more realistic in terms of and landscaped area and more arguable given a sole property occupier will be applying, but the challenge will be finding a Certifier who be happy to put their name on it given it's still a grey area.

    Let's see where they move the goal posts to next...
     
  14. Excalibur1

    Excalibur1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    335
    Location:
    Sydney
    I'm looking at this for my site. When speaking with town planner he was saying the same thing. apparently they were told that it will get amended by end of September.... although i think this is still a stretch for them!
    @Charch & @sammy26 would love to hear more from you guys on this if you have any updates on this!
     
  15. Archaon

    Archaon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    20th Mar, 2017
    Posts:
    1,896
    Location:
    Newcastle
    On a 1000m2 lot, there would need to be 400m2 landscaped, equivalent to 1:0.6 FSR
     
  16. sammy26

    sammy26 Member

    Joined:
    28th Jul, 2020
    Posts:
    5
    Location:
    Sydney
    Yup they've been telling everyone (me included) the same thing.

    It's a complete joke, this should've taken a week to fix and gazette I am sure there is some funny political business going on behind the scenes
     
  17. sammy26

    sammy26 Member

    Joined:
    28th Jul, 2020
    Posts:
    5
    Location:
    Sydney
    You are, incorrect.

    You're making the same mistake alot of people make, landscaped area is not floor space ratio. Landscaped area is deep soil for growing fauna.

    This clause ruins development because what about your driveways? your patios? Pathways and paving? Bin areas?

    This entire issue has NOTHING to do with FSR.

    You'll also find that the some CDC dual occs have been approved (confirmed by the DPIE) based on reducing 'FSR' or other means. These certifiers approving these developments are clearly ignoring the landscaped area, they won't be around for very long...
     
  18. Archaon

    Archaon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    20th Mar, 2017
    Posts:
    1,896
    Location:
    Newcastle
    I see

    So what would normally be 15% of a torrens lot, is now greater than 25%?
     
  19. sammy26

    sammy26 Member

    Joined:
    28th Jul, 2020
    Posts:
    5
    Location:
    Sydney
    Well technically the 'correct' interpretation would force a minimum landscaped area of 60% for smaller lots going up to 80-90% for bigger lots.

    But let's assume that's not right and our government is just incompetent (hopefully) and take the previous version of the Codes (pre-July 1st).

    Yessir, the example you're using from our heavenly government relates to Part 3 - Housing Code of the SEPP. Other complying development such as a dual occ has absolutely no relevance to Part 3, we are now using Part 3B so Part 3 Housing Code has absolutely no bearing on development controls.

    Different Codes have different requirements, some being more onerous and others being more lenient. Part 3B has different requirements and it requires a minimum landscaped area starting at approx. 28% and scaling upwards.

    But you'll notice that Part 3 Housing Code also scales up quite quickly for developments such as in the example you provided.

    For instance, a 1000sqm lot under Part 3 would need 40% (400sqm) landscaped area while under Part 3B for dual occs you would need an identical 400sqm (1000x0.5 - 100).

    So initially they're quite different but scale up similarly.
     
  20. Gavin Ng

    Gavin Ng Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    198
    As @sammy26 has mentioned, this is an error in the code. Our planning team has confirmed this with the DPIE grapevine and have been advised it's going to be at least September before this gets amended. Also spoke to our PCAs who are are currently unable to issue a couple of other people's CDCs until this gets resolved.
     

Build Passive Income WITHOUT Dropping $15K On Buyers Agents Each Time! Helping People Achieve PASSIVE INCOME Using Our Unique Data-Driven System, So You Can Confidently Buy Top 5% Growth & Cashflow Property, Anywhere In Australia