Perth Planning News Thread

R-Codes Forum Closure

The DoPLH's R-Codes forum is closing and will be taken offline on Thursday 20 December 2018. It will be replaced by a range of new education, information and training tools that relate to anticipated changes to the R-Codes.

With the release of Design WA Stage 1 in 2019, putting good design at the heart of all future development, the existing SPP3.1 Residential Design Codes will become State Planning Policy 7.3 'R-Codes Volume 1' retaining all content with the exception of Part 6.

The new State Planning Policy 7.3: R-Codes Volume 2 (Apartments) will replace Part 6 and focus on improved design outcomes for apartments (multiple dwellings).

These changes will be phased in and supported by the new range of education, information and training tools, to enable stakeholders to become familiar with the new State Planning Policies' requirements.

More information will be available following the release of this package of policies.

 

FYI for those who used the forum, Andrew Gizariotis (an RCodes forum user and planning consultant) has set up an alternative forum off the back of his company website. In Andrew's words:

I've setup a temporary forum, which will hopefully assist. I'm by no means an expert in forums, so I'll run it for now and if it goes well, so be it, but if it is abused in anyway, then I will close it down.

The forum allows attachments, search functionality and many other features which will assist in some of our discussion.

The site is: www.the-rpc.com.au/forum

Feel free to register and continue to post discussions there.

Any suggestions for forums, improvements etc. are most welcome.

If anyone from the Commission is reading this, is it at all possible to update the link on the website to redirect to this link?

I'm also trying to grab all the old data and post it on the forum so we don't lose the old information.

Thank you all,

Andrew Gizariotis

Also potential to set up an R-Codes specific thread on PC...

 

Aiming for greater housing choice in Fremantle

Changes to the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme to enable greater housing choice were gazetted yesterday. The approval of Amendment 63, subject to modifications, will allow for increased medium density housing within special control areas in Beaconsfield, Fremantle, Hilton North, O’Connor, and White Gum Valley.

Lots between 600 and 750 square metres will now be allowed a maximum of three dwellings, including existing dwellings, while lots over 750 square metres will be allowed an additional dwelling for every 150 square metres in excess of 750 square metres.

Any proposed development must have a minimum of 70 per cent open space, 25 per cent of which must be deep planting zone to protect and enhance the City of Fremantle’s tree canopy. Car parking requirements will also apply.

The amendment is aimed at promoting housing diversity and innovative housing types to meet the needs of changing demographics.

More information can be found at https://mysay.fremantle.wa.gov.au/Freo_Alternative

 

Just adding to @theperthurbanist's post above on amendment 63, great news for City of Freo!

'The provisions apply in specific sections of White Gum Valley, Hilton, O'Connor, Beaconsfield and Fremantle. In general, the provisions include:

• Only applies to lots larger than 600 square metres and located within Special Control Area 5.7.
• New dwelling(s) shall have a maximum floor area of 120 square metres.
• Maximum of three dwellings on lots of 750 square metres or less.
• Minimum of 30 square metres of outdoor living area per dwelling.
• Developments to have higher than standard energy efficiency ratings.
• Minimum 70 per cent of the entire development site to be open space, with some variation allowed to 60 per cent open space.
• At least one mature tree to be retained or planted on site.
• A maximum of one parking bay per dwelling.
• All developments to be referred to the City’s Design Advisory Committee to consider design quality.'

 

I hear thay Design WA was released today. Any thoughts @Westminster, @Aaron Sice or @theperthurbanist?

What is Design WA anyway?

 

It's replacing the Rcodes. The first part released will replace Part 6 of the Design Codes (ie the apartments section)

My thoughts is that it's well intentioned but likely to over complicate everything and create chaos. I plan to stick my head in the sand and not do any more apartments until they have ironed out the kinks - I have 3 apartment projects to construct under old laws so I will deal with the new laws at my leisure.

 

Probably a good strategy to wait and see. I haven't had anything to do with Part 6 but I have read it a few times. It didn't seem terribly straightforward and some ugly and unfunctional apartments were approved under Part 6. I'm not sure if Design WA will clarify anything. I heard it's all performance based?

 

If you've been doing apartments in Vincent or a Stirling central LDP any time over the last 5 years then you've been pretty much working with DesignWA.

Few issues I see is that the old 0.75 parking table is back, the internal setbacks are pretty onerous and the heights have remained the same. This is a big one because to implement the increased setbacks and landscaping, lower codes were meant to get an extra floor but now they don't, which signals less apartments.

 

Also not performance based but he guiding statements are much broader, allowing a better initiative for difficult sites.

 

Indeed.

Just to be clear: 'Design WA' is the suite of State Planning Policy documents that will form SPP7.XX. What was launched on Friday was the first three of these:

• SPP7.0 Design of the Built Environment (establishes the ten principles of good design etc);
• SPP7.3 Vol 2 - Apartment Codes (what everyone is talking about; replaces pt6 of the RCodes); and
• Design Review Guide (establishes recommendations for the Design Review Panels which will become increasingly relied on for determining applications under the Apartment Codes).

The codes will be gazetted May 24 (3 months) to give government and practitioner time to get up to speed on them. They are not technically operational before then, however given that many LGs have already been trying to make applicants meet the draft version, they will no doubt be doubling down on this now that the final version has been released. Given that it is arguably a 'seriously entertained' policy they may well be within their legal rights to do so, though that is yet to be clarified.

What also isn't clear is what is going to happen to the hundreds of LG Local Planning Policies (LPPs) that are currently at odds with the new A-Codes. Under the new SPP LGs will have the ability to vary some, but not all of the A-Code provisions (via an LPP, LDP, etc) so they are obliged to rescind or revised any LPPs (and possibly approved LDPs?) that don't comply, within the three month period. TBH I cant see most LGs meeting that timeframe, and I have no idea what will happen with LDPs that don't comply and the proponent refuses to update them.

Uncertainties aside though, as an 'urbanist' () I think it is a positive step for Perth; as a developer I am less sure, though I'm willing to be cautiously optimistic.

 

I would consider them largely 'performance based'.

The 'deemed to comply' route no longer exists. All applications will need to be argued on their merits. 'Acceptable Outcomes' are listed in the policy however these are neither 'deemed to comply' criteria and nor are they the only outcomes that will be accepted.

 

I think the greater focus on site-specific design solutions is a good outcome. This focus on non-standardised design outcomes (and their justification) however requires a greater level of experience and design awareness than the previous 'tick-a-box' compliance assessment. Whilst in time this may be a good thing, what concerns me is the current level of expertise within local government and their ability to assess these applications against subjective design rationales in a consistent and timely manner. Yes the Design Review Panels (DRPs) will assist in this, but how many of the smaller projects will actually go to DRPs? This is even more of a concern given that whilst the large headline apartment projects will have (theoretically) good designers, good design, comprehensive justification and multiple DRP reviews; the smaller projects which have historically resulted in the worst outcomes and elicited the greatest community backlash (Stirling, Joondalup, etc) are the ones which will typically have the least convincing design, require more concessions to be viable (corner cutting?), are accompanied by the weakest justification (less experienced designers/planners), and yet are likely to not go to a Design Review Panel under the current system. How the hell will LG planners cope with assessing these quickly and effectively? Seems like a drawn-out nightmare for all parties concerned (applicant, LG, community). Or maybe i'm just being a bit pessimistic.

As I said, on the whole I think they are a great outcome for Perth!

 

I can only speak to City of Vincent in this regard as I have used their DRP/DAC panels and every single multiple dwelling goes through their Design Review process to help achieve better design outcomes. Hopefully the other LGAs will do the same.

 

MELTHAM PLANNING WORKSHOPS
Saturday 23 March 2-4PM - Drill Hall, Murray Street Bayswater

The City of Bayswater is holding a community workshop to discuss planning around the Meltham Train Station Precinct.

To register go to https://engage.bayswater.wa.gov.au/meltham-surrounds/survey_tools/register-meltham-surrounds

Or take 2 mins to do their survey https://engage.bayswater.wa.gov.au/meltham-surrounds/survey_tools/meltham-surrounds-survey

For full details on the project go to https://engage.bayswater.wa.gov.au/meltham-surrounds

 

Is anyone following the proposed LPS for city of Canning?

Draft Local Planning Scheme No. 42 | Your Say Canning

It looks to be in final stages and its got some big zoning increases near Albany hwy.

Any idea on timeline?

 

South Perth Activity Centre Plan and accompanying amendment is now out for advertising.

The City of South Perth has prepared the draft South Perth Activity Centre Plan (ACP) and associated Town Planning Scheme Amendment No. 61 (Amendment No. 61), which together set out the long term strategic vision and the statutory planning requirements for development in the area over the next 10 years. The activity centre stretches from the tip of South Perth Peninsula to Richardson Park and Perth Zoo.

The comment period opened on Tuesday 14 May 2019 and there are lots of ways you can get involved and have your say: Complete the online feedback forms at yoursay.southperth.wa.gov.au

 

I should probably be following this one as I have investments in the City of Canning, though they aren't directly effected by the proposed changes so I haven't kept abreast of the timeline. It look though like advertising has closed, so the City will draft up a schedule of responses and any proposed modifications that result; the Council will then decide whether to approve/approve subject to modifications/not approve the LPS; if its one of the former two it will then go to the Minster for Planning for approval before being updated based on the modifications and gazetted (at which point it the new Scheme takes full effect).

What actual date that is can depend on a few factors (extent of the modifications, whether readvertising is required) however as a rough rule you could assume around a year from the close of advertising to the final approval/gazettal. So at a guess I'd say it wouldnt be likely before the end of this year/start of the next?

 

R-Codes update (Volume 2 - apartments):

State Planning Policy 7.0: Design of the Built Environment and State Planning Policy: 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 - Apartments became operational Friday 24 May 2019.

More details here:
https://stateheritage.us4.list-mana...3775ead5c27de6fe83&id=f348a0db75&e=658e061e70

 

Victoria Park council may block removal of trees on private property
https://thewest.com.au/politics/loc...l-of-trees-on-private-property-ng-b881218775z

Interesting. This would block a lot of development-potential lots if they enforced it strictly. Yet to be seen if it gets legs as a local law though.