However, I encourage readers to investigate the detail in this policy further, especially as it relates to narrower sites. These sites are increasingly common as the city matures and densities increase.
The policy unfairly imposes restrictions more suited to lower densities upon medium density land (R20, R30, R40).
On smaller sites, some of the proposals are unworkable and unrealistic in terms of imposed council restrictions well in excess of R-code requirements.
These have a significant effect on the design potential of private property.
Policies such as this often ‘go under the radar’ of most potentially affected homeowners. It is not until they come to build on their sites that it is realised they cannot achieve what would (in most other councils) be viewed as a residence with relatively normal accommodation and the value of their property has been significantly affected.
The time for affected/interested property owners to let the council know their opinion is now. If very few people comment, these policies go through unchallenged and are very hard to modify when in place.
I encourage affected readers to look at the council’s ‘Guide to Streetscape policy’ and at the accumulative effects of the policy details.
In this day and age it is unrealistic not to acknowledge the reality that most households (especially families) are two-car households and tandem parking (cars parked behind each other ” which is what aspects of this policy will end up enforcing) is impractical and not desired by most people building a house.
I encourage this policy to be re-worded to work with, not against, future homebuilders and allow far better flexibility to achieve realistic solutions.
I hope that then the goals of providing an attractive streetscape can be achieved within the parameters of a practical policy that recognises smaller block residents’ modern lifestyles and needs.