This article is from the Australian Property Journal archive
DESIGNS for current and future developments in New South Wales could be overhauled following a Land and Environment Court ruling that apartment sizes are too small.
In the case, Botany Bay City Council v Botany Development Pty Ltd, Justice Sheehan upheld the council`s appeal against a decision by Commissioner Brown, who had granted approval for the demolition of 72-86 Bay St Botany, to make way for a three to six-storey apartment building comprising 158 units in April last year.
The council argued that Commissioner Brown erred in granting consent for the development in which the unit sizes did not meet the minimum prescribed by the City of Botany Bay`s Development Control Plan 2013.
Under the DCP, apartment dwellings must meet the following internal minimum areas and they are:
– studio: 60 sqm
– One bedroom: 75 sqm
– Two bedrooms: 100 sqm
– Three bedrooms: 130 sqm
– Four bedrooms: 160 sqm
The council held the view that the apartments did not meet the minimum requirements because the one bedroom unit areas were between 50.7 sqm and 67.5 sqm, two bedroom between 78.1 sqm and 93.8 sqm, and three bedroom between 98.1 sqm and 98.9 sqm.
As a result, the council argued that Commissioner Brown should not have approved the development and Justice Sheehan agrees.
The decision has major implications for the apartment market in NSW and it also contradicts the state government`s State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP 65), which sets a minimum size for a studio of 37 sqm and 50 sqm for one bedroom apartments.
Urbis said Justice Sheehan`s ruling has implications for current and future development applications in terms of affordability and apartment size.
“The key issue considered in the appeal was what is the minimum applicable apartment size for the assessment and determination of development applications for residential flat buildings.
“Justice Sheehan considered the construction of clause 30A of SEPP 65 – which establishes standards that cannot be used as grounds to refuse development consent for residential flat buildings – and found that the standards referred to in that clause were those set out in the table of the Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC) and not the Rules of Thumb or a development control plan,”
“This will mean that the minimum apartment size under SEPP 65 for a one-bedroom, cross-through apartment is 58 sqm (50 sqm internal and 8 sqm external), and for a one-bedroom maisonette/loft apartment is 71.4sqm (62sqm internal and 9.4sqm external),”
“These measurements are in stark contrast to the standard minimum 50sqm for a one-bedroom apartment, as nominated in the Rules of Thumb and generally adopted by industry and consent authorities in the design and approval of residential apartment development,” Urbis said in a note.
Justice Sheehan`s ruling means if the minimum internal and external areas are not met, the consenting authority such as the local council can refuse the development application on the grounds of apartment size.
“If a development control plan adopted minimum apartment sizes greater than the standard set out in the table to the RFDC and the development proposed satisfied the RFDC minimums but not the DCP minimums the consent authority could not refuse the development application on the basis of apartment size,”
Urbis said if the minimum apartment sizes (internal and external) are enforced by consent authorities this will have implications for unit mix and apartment types; project feasibility; general layout and design of apartment development, and general housing affordability.
“If the minimum standards for apartment size in the RFDC are enforced this will have implications for current and future development applications for residential flat development in New South Wales.
“For example the minimum apartment sizes for a three bedroom apartment will be 35% larger than the minimum presented in the Rules of Thumb and 30% larger than for a one-bedroom maisonette,” Urbis said.
Australian Property Journal
