Sydney YIMBY

Day 2 of our asks for bipartisan planning reform, today focused on DCPs: - Abolish council DCPs, have one state-wide equivalent - Abolish upper level setbacks below 10 stories - Abolish parking minimums - Define and publish a permitted envelope for each site, with nonrefusal standards for designs in this envelope Development Control Plans (DCPs) micromanage the design of buildings, covering things like setbacks, parking and shade. Over time, these have become far too complex and restrictive, preventing architects from doing their job and limiting what can be built, often with no real evidence that the controls bring any public benefit. If you don't like the way that modern buildings look, your local council’s DCP is substantially to blame. The Marrickville DCP- covering just a third of Inner West Council- runs to over 1,300 pages. It's clear that many councils can't be trusted to apply a DCPs fairly and efficiently. We want to see DPHI take over and write a DCP for the whole state, which only manages genuine, evidence-based externalities. These should be far more flexible, clear-cut and permissive than the current mess. In particular, we want to see upper level setbacks for mid-rise development and parking minimums abolished statewide. Architects are best placed to make these decisions, not unaccountable council planners. Meanwhile council planners should redirect their attention to providing a quality public realm.

Interesting that this Riverwood development attracted so many objections despite being modest, well designed, close to public transport and fulfilling a clear community need.

This week we’ll be outlining our wishlist for the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act review. Today, zones and controls: 1. Remove height limits/FSR entirely in CBD, North Sydney, Parramatta and Bondi Junction. 2. Sites can only have one of a height or FSR limit. 3. Simplify zones to define broad uses rather than desired character. No more R2/R3/R4, just ‘Residential’, ‘Industrial’, ‘Town Centre’, etc. 4. Default height based on proximity to train stations: 15 storeys in close proximity, declining to 6 storeys 800m out. These changes would both simplify our controls and create loads of extra capacity in desirable and well serviced locations. It’s clear that existing zoning isn’t working to colocate homes with infrastructure (see emptying schools in Bondi coupled w anaemic targets for Waverley). Stay tuned for more requests through the end of this week!

Heritage planning controls in NSW?? They are completely out of control! Yes we should and must preserve unique, individual buildings… but heritage conservation areas (HCAs) that lock up entire streets and neighbourhoods??? Particularly in well located urban areas? Now that is regressive and it’s bad for the economy and society. Not too mention for the mums and dads who simply want to extend their existing home for a growing family - I’ve seen DAs for this knocked back entirely, or reduced to outdated living sizes, or unreasonably expensive restrictions imposed, all because their house is within a HCA. Town planning is about making decisions that balance social, environmental and economic factors and needs - yet in the planning process the past is given wildly more weight then anything else - even at the expense of the needs of today's population and a well-functioning city. Why should people be forced to pay more, only to live in substandard housing conditions? Let's be progressive in design and architecture rather than designing in a way that no longer serves modern lifestyles or today’s population (and I won't go into faux heritage design 🤢!) Has anyone asked why our streets need to look like the past? Does that truly hold more value than allowing our streets to look like the present and our future? Keep the unique iconic heritage items that represent and hold our history. But let the future story of Sydney unfold in the buildings on our streets and neighbourhoods!!! Sydney YIMBY #townplanning #progress #globalcity #liveablecity #futurecities #heritage #planningcontrols Story in the daily tele https://lnkd.in/gGsxUtP7

Good piece in the Illawarra Mercury today from Phill Balding showing why if we want to get housing *now* we need to zone for it in our most expensive suburbs.

ADVOCACY WIN: Inner West Council have had their TOD extension request rejected by the state govt. TODs come into force for Marrickville, Dulwich Hill & Ashfield from mid-Jan until they come up with an alternate plan. Meanwhile Canterbury-Bankstown have actually done their homework and will have their masterplan for Lakemba and Belmore come into force from mid-Jan. 👏 A real contrast between the council who’s been an engine of the city’s housing growth vs one which sits on its hands. Both councils were handed responsibility for the precincts along the Bankstown line in 2018, so nobody should have been blindsided here. Unlike Canterbury-Bankstown, Inner West didn’t do any pre-work, so they missed the December deadline to do their “place-based strategic planning” for the areas. Here’s to some 6 storey DAs in the New Year 🥂

Advocacy win: this 22 storey Crows Nest development has been approved with 11 submissions in favour and only 8 against. Thanks to everyone who wrote in favour, your submissions genuinely could have tipped the balance here!

Strange case in Elizabeth Bay this week (article in comments). 1. Developer files a DA to build some units. 2. City of Sydney says they’re too tall, ‘uncharacteristic’, conflict with existing streetscape. 3. Developer reduces number of units, reaches agreement with City of Sydney. 4. Land and Environment Court rejects application because it doesn’t have enough units, thereby exacerbating the housing crisis.

We should interrogate this assumption. We are building in western Sydney away from the best jobs, the best beaches, the best street trees, the best walkability, the best public transport, the best cycling infra, the schools that are running out of kids and the hospitals that are struggling for staff because planned capacity for housing is lower in eastern Sydney. That’s an explicit policy choice and a knob that needs to be turned more strongly.

18 months ago people said we were lying about not being able to put solar panels on homes in Inner West heritage conservation areas. Latest Grand Designs features an attempt to make an off-grid sustainable home and guess which Council tells them they can’t put solar panels on? Council planners do not live in the real world. https://lnkd.in/gikusEqJ