|
Item 10.6 - Attachment 3 |
AHSEPP Review Council
staff comments |
Affordable Rental Housing SEPP Review – Issues and Responses
|
3. GENERAL
ISSUES |
DEPARTMENT
OF PLANNING AHSEPP REVIEW RESPONSES |
|
|
Understanding
affordable rental housing and social housing |
Suggested
response 3.1: Develop a
communication program to raise public awareness of the nature of affordable
rental housing encouraged by the AHSEPP and the groups of people it is likely
to accommodate. |
3(a) There
needs to be a consistent definition of ‘affordable housing’ and the explanation
needs to clearly distinguish the differences between ‘affordable housing’ and
‘housing affordability’. The definition should refer primarily to tenant
income status and outline the criteria used to determine tenant eligibility.
The definition should also refer to the role of community housing providers
and Housing NSW. (b) The definition of ‘affordable housing’ (once defined)
should be embedded consistently across all legislation, Ministerial Directions
and planning documents. (c) There is serious concern that developers are not required to
demonstrate the demand for affordable housing in areas they may be
considering for affordable housing development. This concern is due to the
potential for developers to take advantage of the AHSEPP for the purpose of
financial reward, rather than a legitimate desire to contribute to increasing
affordable housing stock in the short and longer terms. The result of this
could be: i. Increased density in areas with inadequate infrastructure to
support ‘vulnerable’ tenants; ii. Inappropriate development in low density areas negatively impacting
on the streetscape and predominant built form; iii. New stock developed under the AHSEPP being rented at market rentals
due to inadequate regulation of rental processes not administered by
Community Housing Providers. This would result in stock built under the
AHSEPP being inaccessible to the target group tenants it is intended to
support; iv. The possibility that developers advise Council that no community
housing is needed in the area after the stock is built. This could lead to
the need to sell or rent the stock to the private market. |
|
Ensuring
objective decision making |
Suggested
response 3.2: a) Retain
existing threshold of a CIV of more than $5 million for the determination of
AHSEPP proposals by JRPPs and the threshold only apply to the “affordable
rental” component, but provide clarification on how the CIV of the component
is calculated; and/or b) Give
councils the ability to refer any affordable rental projects they consider appropriate
to the JRPP; and c) Provide
guidance to councils on merit assessment of AHSEPP proposals taking into consideration
local community issues, as well as affordable housing needs. |
3(d) Retaining the existing threshold of a CIV of more
than $5 million for the determination of AHSEPP proposals by JRPPs is
relevant to Crown developments only. (e) Applications submitted under the AHSEPP are difficult to refuse if
the application complies with guidelines. There are limited controls specifically
related to affordable housing. It is therefore recommended that developers
justify the need for the development of affordable housing stock in the
application process. A mechanism that provides easy access to relevant
statistics will need to be developed to assist this criterion. Further
criteria need to be established to ensure developments provide an appropriate
built form to the location in which they are proposed. |
|
Should
there be local variations to the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP? |
Suggested
response 3.3: Examine the
financial feasibility of additional incentive schemes to those offered by the
AHSEPP and SEPP 70 to allow for different approaches in different areas to
assist in the delivery of appropriate affordable rental housing. Suggested
response 3.4: Examine
opportunities to establish affordable rental housing benchmarks in major
developments. |
3(f) As an alternative supply mechanism for affordable
housing, it is recommended that: i. SEPP70 could be applied across the state so that
affordable housing contributions are collected in areas where affordable
housing is needed; or ii. A new levy (monetary contribution) could be created
for affordable housing and administered by Housing NSW iii. Tax incentives could be offered to encourage an increase
in affordable housing stock |
|
General
comment |
|
(g)
Applications for affordable housing developments currently tend to be in
areas where land is less expensive to ensure developments are more affordable
to build. However, the need for affordable housing is not always located in
these areas. Further consideration needs to be given to determining where
affordable housing should be located, and developments should be limited to
the areas identified. |
|
4.
INFILL AFFORDABLE HOUSING |
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AHSEPP
REVIEW RESPONSES |
|
|
Density
of low-rise infill development - floor space incentive |
Suggested
response 4.1: a) The
floorspace ratio for low rise infill development to change to 0.5:1 on 30
June 2011 as scheduled; b) Continue
to monitor the effectiveness of this control in delivering new dwellings. |
4(a) The 0.5:1 floorspace ratio is consistent with the
draft Parramatta LEP for the R2 Low Density Residential zone. |
|
Design
of low rise infill development |
Suggested
response 4.2: Finalise the
low-rise housing guidelines at Appendix 3 with the inclusion of setback and
private open space standards (see Table 2), taking into consideration issues
raised in submissions. |
4(b) Agree that guidelines should be finalised with the inclusion of
setback and private open space standards, taking into consideration issues
raised in submissions. |
|
Proximity
to transport criteria |
Suggested
response 4.3: a) Examine
the implications of extending the public transport services frequency
requirements for sites to include the weekend and evenings to concentrate
development closer to accessible locations and services; and b) Allow
variations in the distance from public transport criteria of up to 10% to be
considered on their merits under SEPP No.1 - Development Standards. |
4(c) The catchment eligibility criteria related to where
developments can occur should be reduced to within 400 metres of a train
station and bus exchange only. |
|
Allow
infill affordable housing in other zones |
Suggested
response 4.4: Expand
Division 1 of the AHSEPP to the B4 Mixed Use Zone and Special Purpose SP1 zones and
their equivalents, making it clear that the assessment of proposals should
take into account the provisions of relevant environmental planning instruments
and policies which regulate the mix of residential and non-residential uses
in the zone. |
4(d) Division 1 should not be expanded into Special
Purpose 1 zones as these zones are identified for specific purposes not
appropriate for housing. |
|
Community
housing providers |
Suggested
response 4.5: a) Examine
the merits of different legal means of ensuring affordable rental housing is
used for that purpose for the 10 year period required; b) Issue
guidance material to ensure that the role of community housing providers is
clearly explained and that development applications are accompanied by an
appropriate level of documentation regarding future management of the
affordable dwellings; and c) Examine
alternatives for managing affordable housing in order to offer developers a
choice of management arrangements. |
4(e) As there is
currently no regulation of developers renting stock to legitimate affordable
housing needs clients, it is recommended that i. a
regulation is developed; or ii. developers
must partner with a community housing provider to manage stock at the DA
stage; or iii. the
stock developed under the AHSEPP could be managed solely by Housing NSW. |
|
Budget
studio accommodation |
Suggested
response 4.6: Reduce the
minimum floor area for a studio apartment developed as infill affordable
rental housing from 35 square metres to 25 square metres. |
4(f) The minimum floor area for a studio apartment
developed as infill affordable rental housing should not be reduced as the
amenity of both affordable housing residents and potential future buyers
needs to be reasonable, and protected. |
|
General comments |
|
4(g) There is confusion around whether Council can levy S94A development
contributions on infill development made under Division 1 of the AHSEPP. The
concern is that S94A contributions are based on a fixed percentage of the
cost of the development. However a S94E Ministerial Direction (dated 10
November 2006) and Clause 25J of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Regulation state that: It is unclear whether
this Direction (and the subsequent Clause 25J(l) of the EP&A Regulation)
applies to ‘affordable housing’ developments sought pursuant to the AHSEPP. It is noted that the AHSEPP
commenced in September 2009, and is not likely to have been envisaged at the
time the Direction was written in November 2006. Furthermore, it is
considered that development sought pursuant to the AHSEPP is not for the ‘sole
purpose of affordable housing’ as in most cases more than half of the housing
is for general use/ sale and that the ‘affordable housing’ component is for a
limited time period. It is recommended that i. Where developments are
undertaken under Division 1 of the AHSEPP, S94A contributions should apply to
the entire development ii. Ministerial
Directions are amended to delete reference to excluding ‘affordable housing’
from attracting an S94A development contribution levy. |
|
5.
SECONDARY DWELLINGS |
DEPARTMENT
OF PLANNING AHSEPP REVIEW RESPONSES |
|
|
Secondary
dwellings in rural and environmental zones |
Suggested
response 5.1: Make
secondary dwellings permissible in rural zones and environmental living zones
where dwelling houses are permissible (Zones RU1, RU2, RU4, RU5, RU6 and E4
and their equivalents). |
N/A
PCC does not have rural zones or environmental living zones |
|
Secondary
dwellings in multi-unit developments |
Suggested
response 5.2: a) Facilitate
‘dual key apartments’ in the form of secondary dwellings within residential
flat buildings and multi-dwelling housing; and b) A minimum
dwelling size need not be specified for either of the individual dwellings
making up the dual key apartment, providing that the whole dual key apartment
meets the corresponding non-refusable minimum floor area specified in
Division 1 for an affordable dwelling with that number of bedrooms (or the
minimum area for a one bedroom dwelling in the case of a dual key apartment
comprising two studio dwellings). |
5(a) It is recommended that a review of the definition of
‘secondary dwellings’ is undertaken. A secondary dwelling cannot be built in
multi unit housing or residential flat building – an extra unit, would simply
be an extra dwelling in the development. |
|
Minimum
lot size and complying development |
Suggested
response 5.3: a) Clarified
that the AHSEPP does not prevent secondary dwelling being developed on lots smaller
than 450 square metres, in zones where the use is permitted. b) Following
the expansion of the complying development provisions applying to housing in
the Exempt and Complying Code SEPP, the complying development provisions in
clause 23 of the AHSEPP be expanded for secondary dwellings on any sized lots
in residential or rural zones. |
5(b) A minimum lot size or criterion should be provided
to ensure development of a secondary dwelling is appropriate and does not negatively
impact on the amenity of the primary dwelling, neighbouring residents,
private open space, car parking, overshadowing etc. |
|
Car
parking |
Suggested
response 5.4: Require
replacement car parking in cases where the secondary dwelling displaces
existing car parking that had been provided in accordance with a previous
development consent. |
Agree |
|
Minimum
floor area |
Suggested
response 5.5: Do not
prescribe a minimum floor area for secondary dwellings in the AHSEPP. |
5(c) It is recommended that a minimum size is identified for
resident amenity and the current maximum size is maintained to reduce the
potential impacts of secondary dwellings on the built form or character of an
area. |
|
Section
94 development contributions and other charges |
Suggested
response 5.6: (a) Provide
councils the option of not charging section 94 contribution charges at all or
establishing a standard contribution rate across the State based on the cost
of works consistent with the current methodology applied under Section 94(A)
as follows: - $0 - $100,000
- no contribution; - $100,000 -
$200,000 - 0.5% contribution; - over $200,000
- 1% contribution. (b) Review
the practices of councils in charging for new services under other
legislation in relation to the scale of the secondary dwelling proposal. |
5(d) As Parramatta Council has a section 94A Development Contribution, the
criteria of 'Nil for $0-$100,000, 0.5% for >$100,000 to $200,000, and
1% for >$200,000' already applies to Parramatta Council. 5(e) Secondary dwellings have the ability to increase population density
and consequently an increase in demand for services is possible. It is recommended that i. Councils are able to
levy to cover this increased demand if they wish to. |
|
General
comments |
|
5(f) In preparation of the new Local Environmental Plans
in accordance with the Standard Instrument Template, the Department of
Planning have advised Councils not to include in the land use table, any use
that is otherwise permitted by a State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP). An example of this is that the term ‘secondary
dwelling’ is not able to be listed as a permitted use within the R2 Low
Density Residential Zone as it is otherwise permitted in that zone by the
AHSEPP. This may be misleading or confusing to the general public who may
only look to Council’s planning instrument for permissibility and may not be
aware of overriding SEPPs. |
|
6.
BOARDING HOUSES |
DEPARTMENT
OF PLANNING AHSEPP REVIEW RESPONSES |
|
|
The
new generation boarding house concept |
Suggested
response 6.1: That the
Department works with the boarding house industry, NSW Housing, and other stakeholders,
on ways to improve the community’s perception of the new boarding house model
encouraged by the AHSEPP. |
6(a) Given the nature of boarding houses as predominantly short term or
transitional accommodation, the appropriate management of a diverse range of
clients may help to improve the community’s perception of this form of
accommodation. 6(b) The location of the boarding house may determine the likely tenant,
eg. boarding houses close to universities may house students 6(c) A communications plan that addresses the concerns of different
audiences should be developed. |
|
Building
Code of |
Suggested response
6.2: Provide
guidance on the BCA requirements for different types of boarding house
accommodation. |
Agree |
|
Affordability |
Suggested
response 6.3: No action
proposed under the EP&A Act. |
Agree |
|
Car
parking standards |
Suggested
response 6.4: No change to
AHSEPP provisions proposed, subject to consideration of submissions on this
issue. |
6(d) It is recommended that increased parking spaces are provided in
locations more than 400m from a train station or bus interchange |
|
Complying
development |
Suggested
response 6.5: Develop new
boarding houses or the extension and conversion of existing buildings to boarding
houses under complying development provisions paralleling those for group
homes. The provisions could also be developed to provide for the alteration
or addition to existing boarding houses. |
6(e) It
is recommended that i. Making boarding houses complying developments should not apply to low
density residential areas as it could substantially increase the number of
residents in a single property; or ii. Only class 1(b) boarding houses should be
permitted in low density residential zones; and iii. Criteria that protects amenity of future
residents and neighbours need to be is established A copy of Council’s draft Boarding House DCP controls can be referred to
the Department of Planning. |
|
Design
guidelines |
Suggested
response 6.6: Develop a Low
Rise Affordable Rental Housing Design Guidelines based on the draft in
Appendix 3 of this Paper which could also be applied to boarding houses. |
Agree |
|
Compliance
issues |
Suggested
response 6.7: Encourage
councils to continue to monitor existing boarding houses in their area and to
investigate potentially illegal boarding house developments. |
6(f) Given the nature of boarding houses, the AHSEPP needs to provide
guidelines for the appropriate management of boarding houses. A management
plan should be submitted at development application stage to ensure amenity
for future residents, and to ensure boarding houses integrate better
with surrounding community. (g)
Parramatta Council’s DCP requires boarding housings to be registered with
Council prior to the issue of an occupation certificate and annually
thereafter. The DCP also requires boarding houses providing accommodation for
2 or more people with a disability must be registered in accordance with the
Youth and Community Services Act 1973 and licensed by the NSW Department of
Ageing, Disability and Home Care. (h) A mechanism or register should be developed and administered by a
regulatory body (eg Housing NSW) to ensure the management of boarding houses
complies with guidelines. Guidelines should include regular, intermittent
reports |
|
8.
RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDINGS – SOCIAL HOUSING PROVIDERS |
DEPARTMENT
OF PLANNING AHSEPP REVIEW RESPONSES |
|
|
8.1 Site
compatibility considerations |
Suggested
response 8.1: a) Develop
guidance for Site Compatibility Certificate applications under the AHSEPP to
deal with the issue of
competing need for jobs and affordable rental housing; b) Apply the
transport locational criteria applicable to infill housing development to
Division 5; c) Expand the
land zoned B4 Mixed Use to all land zoned B4 across NSW. |
8(a) It is recommended that site compatibility certificates should be
applied to all developments where that use would not otherwise be in a
permitted zone. |
|
9.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT – LAND AND HOUSING CORPORATION |
DEPARTMENT
OF PLANNING AHSEPP REVIEW RESPONSES |
|
|
Consideration
of stakeholder views in assessment |
Suggested response
9.1: Housing NSW
projects be notified in accordance with the council’s notification
requirements for comparable private sector developments, subject to Housing
NSW paying to council the standard notification fee prescribed in the
Regulation (currently $830). This could be achieved though a MOU with the
LGSA or an amendment to the EP&A Regulation. |
Agree |
|
Expanding
the self-assessment provisions |
Suggested
response 9.2: Change the
threshold for residential development that can be approved by Housing NSW
from 20 units to 30 units while retaining the current 8.5 metres height
limit. |
9(a) This response would not be supported by Council |
|
Car
parking in affordable housing projects |
Suggested
response 9.3: (a) No change
in the AHSEPP standards of 1 car space per 5 dwellings for social housing is
proposed (b) The
Department of Planning and Housing NSW will develop a parking standard
guideline which sets out the parameters for determining parking standards for
affordable housing taking into consideration bedroom numbers, site location
and other factors. Submissions are invited to the development of the parking
standards in social housing projects. |
9(b) It is recommended that additional car parking is provided in
affordable housing developments. However, this would need to be in the form
of a basement. |
|
Section
94 and social housing |
Suggested
response 9.4: Housing NSW
to pay contributions determined in accordance with the relevant council’s Contributions
Plan unless a Ministerial exemption is in force. |
(c)
As Council has a Section 94A Plan, the Ministerial Direction referred to in
point 1 would restrict Council from seeking development contributions for
affordable housing developments undertaken by Housing NSW or other social
housing providers. (d) As the future tenants of these providers are likely to have the greatest
need/demand for services, Council should be able to collect S94A development
contributions. It is recommended that i. The Ministerial Direction
(and the section 25J (3)(l) of the Regulation) should therefore be amended to
remove the exemption on affordable housing. |
|
Demolition
and minor works by Housing NSW |
Suggested
response 9.5: Expand exempt
development provisions for social housing demolition and minor works, subject
to compliance with appropriate environmental standards. |
No comment |
|
10.
GROUP HOMES |
DEPARTMENT
OF PLANNING AHSEPP REVIEW RESPONSES |
|
|
Complying
development provisions – number of buildings |
Suggested
response 10.1: Amend the complying development provisions to clarify that
they should permit
the development of two or more buildings on a single lot of land as a group
home. |
10(a) It is recommended that complying development criteria should be
dependent upon the zone. In low density zones only one building should be
permitted. |
|
Complying
development provisions – conversion of existing buildings |
Suggested
response 10.2: Allow the conversion of existing dwelling houses to group
homes as exempt
development when this does not involve any structural building works and as
complying development
when structural building works are involved. |
10(b) Exempt development does not require neighbour notification. It is therefore
recommended that i. When the change of use from a dwelling to a group
home occurs, neighbours should be notified and given the opportunity to
comment. ii. The change of use should require a DA. |
|
Complying
development provisions – minor amendments |
Suggested
response 10.3: Make minor amendments to the complying development
provisions to improve its
clarity and effectiveness. |
10(c) The suggested minor amendments to the complying development
provisions to improve clarity and effectiveness have not been included in the
review document. The nature of these amendments is therefore unknown. |
|
11.
RETENTION OF LOW COST RENTAL ACCOMMODATION |
DEPARTMENT
OF PLANNING AHSEPP REVIEW RESPONSES |
|
|
Interpretation
of ‘low rental’ |
Suggested
response 11.1: Amend the
AHSEPP to provide that this part of the AHSEPP does not apply to a building constructed
after 28 January 2000. |
11(a) It could be argued that this provision needs to be applied to all low
rental housing regardless of when it was built as the intention of the SEPP
is to keep it available as rental stock. |
|
Area of
application |
Suggested
response 11.2: Invite
submissions on this matter, particularly from councils and other regional
stakeholders in areas where Part 3 (which includes disincentives for
disposing of boarding houses) currently does not apply. |
11(b)
Agree. As there are serious shortages of low rental accommodation in some
localities, stakeholders should have the opportunity to submit comments. |
|
Calculation
of contributions |
Suggested
response 11.3: Submissions
are invited on aspects of Part 3 and Guidelines which may be considered to be
unclear so that these may be addressed in a review of the Guidelines. |
11(c) The assumptions used in the formula may need to be revised. |
|
Application
of contributions |
Suggested
response 11.4: Submissions
are invited from councils interested in using contributions in their local
housing program so that options to ensure that funds are used most
effectively can be considered |
11(d) Use of Boarding House Financial Assistance Program is limited and may
not capture all the affordable housing needs of a particular LGA.
Contributions could be better spent on providing additional housing and this
may be best managed by one authority than individual Councils. |