Why single out dual occupancies in new standards?

It is encouraging to see that Council has at last seen the absurdity of setting minimum lot sizes for residential development (Peninsula News edition 460) and will rely on setback, density, height and amenity requirements to ensure that developments meet appropriate standards.

It is, therefore, puzzling in the extreme that, despite this completely sensible change, Council has fixed detailed, draconian lot-size requirements solely for dual-occupancy projects in its draft document.

What possible explanation can there be for singling out this particular kind of development for such restrictions, when the plan specifically points out that lot-size restrictions are not needed for any other kind of residential building?

Not satisfied with setting a standard minimum size, the plan even goes into minute detail, such as the size of battle-axe lots with particular slopes, without any explanation of why the general standards that will work for a multi-unit building are inadequate for a dual-occupancy dwelling.

If a dual-occupancy dwelling can meet all the requirements for residential amenity, what does the size of the lot matter?

It can even be pointed out that a battle-axe lot that fronts onto an open space or that has special views might well have more amenity than a regular residential lot that is hemmed in by nothing but backyards, yet the plan makes no distinction for the character of a property.

These restrictions have not been carried over from previous standards but are new-minted, so it would seem that a justification for their introduction is called for.

Given that the number of dual occupancies on battle-axe lots must be pretty close to negligible, the special attention to this class of building is inexplicable.

Email, 20 Dec 2018

Bruce Hyland, Woy Woy