Council has now agreed to update its Local Environmental Plan (LEP). This major document controls all development across Canada Bay. Council will update it because the previous version from 2013 is now out of date. The key agenda concern for all councillors was to minimise the impact of the NSW state government’s dodgy low rise medium density policy, which allows much looser control over low-rise medium density buildings like dual occupancy buildings, “manor houses” and terraces, within housing zones that already allow multiple occupancy dwellings like apartment buildings.
As of mid July, 50 councils across NSW (including Canada Bay) have been able to defer the application of the low rise medium density policy. The update of the LEP – from the council’s point of view – aims to minimise this new policy of the state government, and similar policies which may arise. The state government, for its own reasons, also wants LEPs updated, and has offered funding to councils for this to occur. The state government must approve each LEP before it takes effect. The update will take about two years, because it requires consultancy to produce a number of substantial documents, and because of the complexity of the LEP document. The process also includes community consultation. Council will produce four background study papers as part of the LEP update:
- Housing and Employment Study
- Social Infrastructure Strategy
- Local Movement Strategy
- Sustainable Development Strategy
Beyond dealing with low rise medium density, there are potential advantages in revising the LEP. In particular, it could allow some useful changes with environmental benefits. Similarly, more community-oriented provisions in the LEP or DCP can give better community outcomes.
In regard to the Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code
The Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code if applicable in Canada Bay would not allow developers to put manor houses or terraces into places with zoning that does not allow apartment buildings. (I understand that’s due to our Local Environment Plan (LEP) or Development Control Plan (DCP).
However where it applied it would bring other substantial problems, especially with much looser controls on dual occupancies, but other things as well. It also substantially widens the role of private certifiers on those medium density developments.
The period of the extension on introducing the Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code may only be one year. Obviously this gives some breathing room, but does not solve the long-term threat. Obviously a two-year period to revise the LEP is longer than a one year postponement on the Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code, so that leaves a huge gap, during which a lot of buildings would get approved creating precedents which would undermine any action a year later. Probably our best response would be to try to create pressure for longer-term changes through pressure in the next state election, due in March next year. It appears the State Govt wants to reduce that pressure with their one-year postponement.