PlanningAlerts

1 Comment

Have your say by adding your own comment.

1. This proposed development is interesting from an architectural and social housing perspective by enabling cohousing where a number of groups can live on the same site independently and also share some facilities. It is questionable whether this is very different from many of the larger houses in the area that are used as shared accommodation. There are houses close by that are used as shared student housing, houses where two families share, multiple generations or a number of singles or couples share.

   The differentiating factor is the need for a planning variation includes the allowance for three dwellings rather than the RZ1 allowance of two dwellings and the reduction in car spaces from one per dwelling reduced to two. Based on the notion that the cars will be shared. Again there are plenty of nearby single dwelling examples where cars are shared.

   The planning guidelines need to have a longer view that extends beyond a proposal based on current tenants. When these current residents move on how is their unit passed on, transferred or sold? How would the parking work if there were three couples and six cars? Is there a risk that in the future they become three seperate units and the shared facilities becomes a fourth unit.

   It is possible that the development would have greater future flexibility if it were built in a residential zone that enabled seperate titling of the three dwellings. The planning requirements of RZ1 would not need to be compromised. The demonstration projects are all interesting from an architectural and social housing perspective but some also compromise existing and important planning controls where they need not. Developers may see an advantage if density controls are reduced.