PlanBE was engaged to prepare and manage the Development Application for a single dwelling house and swimming pool on a 483 m² lot in Wagga Wagga, within a R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

The owners already held development consent for a dual occupancy on the site. As their family grew, they made the decision to build a single home for themselves instead, with enough usable outdoor space for their children to enjoy. That change required going back to Council and arguing the case for a lower density outcome on a site where the planning framework actively encourages higher density.

The Challenge

The R3 zone in Wagga Wagga is geared toward dual occupancy and multi dwelling residential development, and the Development Control Plan applies a maximum site area per dwelling to reinforce that intent. A single dwelling on a 483 m² lot sits well outside that standard.

The application required variations to two separate development controls:

• Site area per dwelling, where the DCP prescribes a maximum of 300 m² for a single dwelling in the R3 zone

• Front elevation articulation, where the garage projects forward of the adjoining habitable room wall

The site also adjoins a medical services facility to the southern boundary, and a mature Plane Tree on the street verge required an arboricultural assessment to confirm the driveway and footpath works could proceed without unreasonable impact on the tree.

Planning Approach

PlanBE prepared a detailed Statement of Environmental Effects setting out a merit-based case for the single dwelling, assessed against the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Wagga Wagga Local Environmental Plan 2010 and the Wagga Wagga Development Control Plan 2010.

Rather than treating the variations as a shortfall to be excused, the submission argued that the single dwelling delivered a better planning outcome than the approved dual occupancy on four grounds:

• Lot size and density. At 483 m², the site is not large enough to support a dual occupancy that meets contemporary standards for amenity, private open space and landscaping. Higher density development is better directed to larger lots with the capacity to absorb it.

  
  

• Private open space. The approved dual occupancy would have delivered only 17 m² of private open space per unit, an area barely sufficient for a table and chairs. The single dwelling provides a generous north facing backyard capable of accommodating a pool, shade trees, garden beds and safe play areas. Families with children are a legitimate part of the community the R3 zone serves, and their needs deserve weight in the assessment.

  
  

• Energy efficiency. The single dwelling allows living, dining and family areas to be oriented north and north east to capture winter sun, with cross flow ventilation achieved through window and door placement on opposing elevations. The compartmentalised dual occupancy form could not achieve either outcome, and would have forced one unit to face south with no northern solar access.

  
  

• Streetscape and safety. The eastern side of this section of the street is characterised predominantly by single dwellings on lots of around 500 m². A single dwelling with one driveway crossover replaces two, reducing vehicle movements and improving sightlines and pedestrian safety for patients, staff and visitors accessing the adjoining medical facility.

  
  

Design Response

The design consolidates built form along the southern interface, with a single storey garage built to the boundary under a zero lot line condition and no openings on the southern elevation.

This leaves the remainder of the site free for landscaping and open space, keeps the driveway clear of the medical centre's existing vehicle access, and provides an acoustic and visual buffer between the two uses.

On the front elevation, the two storey entry portico establishes the building line and sits forward of the garage. Combined with contrasting face brick and fibre cement cladding and a varied roof form, this delivers genuine three dimensional articulation to the street, with the entire building envelope set back in excess of six metres from the front boundary.

Outcome

Development consent was granted for the single dwelling and swimming pool, including both requested variations to the Development Control Plan. The project demonstrates that numerical controls are a guide, not a ceiling on good planning outcomes.

Where a proposal can be shown to better serve the objectives behind a control than strict compliance would, a well argued merit-based submission can deliver the result a family actually needs.