Source: https://planning.discussions.nsw.gov.au/
In an earlier post I mentioned that the Department of Planning is reviewing the Sydney Metro Strategy and they are consulting the community for feedback. View the earlier post by clicking here. The community consultation period closes on 28 May 2010 and I have made a submission on behalf of The Planning Boardroom.
Do you have any comments regarding my submission?
Make a submission or read other submissions at the Sydney Metro Strategy Review website here
——————–
Sydney Metro Strategy Review Submission
According to an investigation commissioned by CommSec in 2009, the average home in Australia spans 214 square metres of floor space, which is apparently three times the average home in Britain. Children are staying at home for longer as house prices continue to rise and the baby-boomers are pressured to support their children.
The Great Australian Dream of affording your own home in Sydney is becoming more difficult for young families. The NSW planning system needs to support increasing density in the Sydney metropolitan area.
Changes are suggested to the SEPP Exempt & Complying, to encourage smaller blocks (e.g. under 450 square metres) to allow dual occupancies and allow more development types under Complying Development.
Suburban areas with larger blocks are attractive for families looking for open space and amenities. Therefore under-utilised areas on larger blocks, such as tennis courts and pools could be converted into another dwelling to create a dual occupancy.
Old apartment buildings in established areas are unlikely to be redeveloped using the current planning system. This is primarily due to the inability of the owners to agree and the development potential is unlikely to achieve a worthwhile profit. Therefore incentives could be provided to developers to encourage redevelopment of these types of apartment buildings to permit an increase in density.
Amendments are suggested to the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing to encourage incentives such as an increase to the bonus FSR and reduced contributions for affordable housing. Keeping the old apartment buildings in their current form is inconsistent with the State Government’s vision for accommodating a growing population.
