Advertisement

Urban infill, the rules change again.

By 3 June 2011 9

Simon Corbell has announced the launch of draft variation 306 (DV 306).

For those playing at home this replaces DVs 301 and 303. It’s going to shape the future of development in the Inner Suburbs so best to pay attention.

Some of the major elements in DV 306 include:

– requirements for solar orientation for blocks in new estates and adequate private and communal open space in new developments.

– the current minimum block size for dual occupancy in RZ1 zones has been maintained at 800m2.

– a draft Multi Unit Housing Development Code that includes new provisions for multi unit residential redevelopment in RZ2 including:
— no building will contain more than four dwellings
— buildings containing two or more dwellings on the same block must be separated by at least four metres
— the minimum block size for residential redevelopment comprising two dwellings is reduced to 700m2 and to 1050m2 for three or more dwellings
— for residential redevelopment comprising three or more dwellings, the minimum site area for each dwelling is 350m2 for up to five dwellings and 250m2 for the sixth and each subsequent dwelling
— consolidation of blocks is only permitted where they have adjoining street frontages.

– the maximum floor area for secondary residences (or granny flats) has been increased to 75m2.

DV 306 is online, as are a number of fact sheets.

The changes are open for comment until 2 August 2011.

Please login to post your comments
9 Responses to Urban infill, the rules change again.
#1
aronde4:50 pm, 03 Jun 11

A quick read of the RZ2 changes appears promising as they are now proposing real limits on how many dwellings can be built on a block. We recently had a situation where a developer proposed putting nine townhouses (complete with underground parking) on a block just over 1400m2. If the block was under 1400 they would only have been allowed to have two! I thought it was ridiculous a 1399m block could only have 2 dwellings but once you hit 1400 you could have as many as you could get away with! Under these proposed rules they would only be allowed 4 dwellings – which coincidentally is what this developer ended up when his original proposal was rejected!

#2
s-s-a9:56 pm, 03 Jun 11

Ditto to #1. Last year there was a proposal for 14 townhouses with underground parking on two blocks (approx 2250 sqm total) at the end of a cul-de-sac which only has ten dwellings. It was rejected and the developer then submitted a proposal for 13 townhouses… All townhouses were in one building (two storey terrace-style).

New rules would mean the developer would be limited to seven units requiring two separate buildings separated by 4m. Which would be much more in keeping with the site and street.

#3
Deref11:06 am, 04 Jun 11

Looks like a step in the right direction.

#4
aussielyn12:06 am, 05 Jun 11

Easy to read Facts Sheets are specious. There are many improvements for existing residents but the planning rules are getting more and more complex and incomprehensible to the layman. Read & comprehend the whole consultation notice, if you want to know the whole changes.
The Property Council will scream about the reduction in unit yield in RZ2 but the devil is in the detail. Neighborhood plans are dumped because they are not code, stealth full & specious introduction of compact blocks, plot ratios more confusing, multi-units in RZ1.
Gungahlin type houses will be replicated in established older suburbs

#5
Gungahlin Al8:36 am, 05 Jun 11

aronde said :

A quick read of the RZ2 changes appears promising as they are now proposing real limits on how many dwellings can be built on a block. We recently had a situation where a developer proposed putting nine townhouses (complete with underground parking) on a block just over 1400m2. If the block was under 1400 they would only have been allowed to have two! I thought it was ridiculous a 1399m block could only have 2 dwellings but once you hit 1400 you could have as many as you could get away with! Under these proposed rules they would only be allowed 4 dwellings – which coincidentally is what this developer ended up when his original proposal was rejected!

We (the minister’s Reference Panel) spent a lot of time on the RZ2 concerns so I’m pleased to see positive feedback on the outcome. And the panel included community and conservation reps, and industry people including AIA, MBA, PCA, PIA, Landscape Architects, HIA.

I have to spend some time in the final result to see how much of our recommendations made it into the final draft. I’m particularly concerned about how much was preserved out of the solar access provisions from 301 & 303, which were truly enlightened.

#6
Canberroid5:17 pm, 31 Dec 13

Can anyone explain what this is supposed to mean for RZ1?

“Unit titling and subdivision: not permitted for single dwelling blocks except where dwelling pre-existed V200″.

#7
Aeek8:51 pm, 31 Dec 13

Canberroid said :

Can anyone explain what this is supposed to mean for RZ1?

“Unit titling and subdivision: not permitted for single dwelling blocks except where dwelling pre-existed V200″.

What it says. If its already happened it’s ok.

#8
Deref10:45 am, 01 Jan 14

aussielyn said :

Gungahlin type houses will be replicated in established older suburbs

There’s nothing more certain. Decent, leafy suburbs with attractive houses and yards big enough for a garden and for the kids to run around will always, and only, be available for the rich, though they were once the norm.

#9
milkman1:04 pm, 01 Jan 14

Deref said :

There’s nothing more certain. Decent, leafy suburbs with attractive houses and yards big enough for a garden and for the kids to run around will always, and only, be available for the rich, though they were once the norm.

+1. If you own a nice home on a reasonable size block, don’t sell it. One day it will make you rich.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement
The-RiotACT.com Newsletter Sign Up

Images of Canberra

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.