To an architecture student at the School of Environmental Studies in London, the town planning part of the course seemed irrelevant to the real world. I was deluged with predictive planning and learned primarily that by the Year 2000, everyone would have so much leisure time that the problem would be to provide sufficient leisure facilities for them. The remarks of my first year tutor, a history student, were much more formative. He suggested that, despite our intention to become architects, we would be far more useful to the built environment as legislators and administrators. Of course at that time, such an objective appeared far less attractive than becoming a Master of the Universe as I imagined architects to be. All the same, I took note of the importance of the levers of environmental control; and that they are not in the hands of designers.
When I reached Australia, I encountered Planning that was complex and real. It dealt with issues of landform and open space, lot shape and circulation. I found legislation that directly addressed the quality of the resulting places and was in constant change, being questioned and revised. I became the sole architect in a planning company, recruited initially to review plans submitted under an early version of the Investment Protection Covenants that are now everywhere.
The opportunity to look in on the street design process and ask questions as a suburb was being formulated was fascinating. Since I asked the awkward “how do you build on it?” questions, I feel that my input was also formative. I graduated to establishing an overseas office, explaining the virtues of planning Aussie style to the development industries of other countries. I learned of Feng Shui and some of the means by which the planner could address Fortune. And I encountered other town planning regulations. Though they were based on the same British Town-and-Country principles these appeared to squeeze the life out of the land, spreading rigid grids of minimal housing across rolling landscapes and permitting chunks of irrelevant development in vague isolation.
I returned to spend some time working in my local planning department; an educational experience that I recommend to all architects. I learned to be glad of the planning system that we have here in WA. It listens, it responds and if enough people raise their voices for long enough, it changes shape. Like a glacier that only appears inert and frozen, it is in flux. This is especially true for residential design. For an architect I know that it is vital to be aware of the flow, of the nature of the limits to design and the opportunities that they open up. These exist both in the regulations themselves and in the mechanisms that administer them. They are legal processes, established to regulate and control not just the impact of development but its nature and therefore its value. But they are adjusted to locality, being at base the responsibility of each community through its local Council.
Despite the recent ‘left-and-right-column’ revisions to the Residential Design Codes, there is still substantial room for interpretation. There is still no definition of the wonderful term ‘amenity’, left loose so that it can mean what Council wants it to mean. Fascinatingly, the location of car parking spaces is now cited as a major factor, and views are now an acknowledged component of amenity. But these items are in the notes; they guide but do not define, and that for an architect is vital. It is clear that, by introducing additional issues, the present format of the Codes offers less certainty to designers, but more flexibility if you know how to play the system.
The other part of Development Control that needs to be understood by any submitting architect is the administrative process; the Local Government component. We must understand how the issues that we may want to waive are assessed and how they must be examined and explained. We can do a lot to explain and grease the wheels of approval ourselves, so long as the assessment process is clear.
As an example of this last point, here is the seaward side elevation of a house I designed and negotiated approval. Due to the slope of the land, the walls of the tower on the right of the elevation make it “over height”. Council wanted it to go to advertising, which would have allowed the public to object to any element of the design. We compromised by submitting the second elevation. The tower is higher overall but, because the curved section is a roof, it has a lower wall height. This was approved. The intention was to make the “over height” application once construction was under way and the layman could see the part at the rear for which approval was required. I have no doubt that this would have been successful, whilst advertising the first design would have dragged out approval for several months.
The last point I want to make is that, despite the regulations, the only real influence that a dissident Council can bring to bear is delay. If the proposal is well designed it is probable that it will be approved eventually. But this may require negotiation and appeals, perhaps lasting years, and in our time-hungry industry this is often not possible. Talk to your Council, preferably before committing yourself to your client; negotiate wisely and gently and you will smooth the road to timely approvals.
