I attended an update session put on by DPTI last week. I was a little reassured about the process and the way in which they are working with Councils. I was particularly pleased when they were discussing the width of driveways and trees in the new code. As it happen,s townhouse style developments that face the street can be designed to have a double garage and door facing the street for each dwelling. Unley has largely negated this with a development standard that doesn't allow the garage to take up more that half the frontage (although you will find plenty of examples where this is not the case). These developments then leave no room for on street parking or landscaping. The new code will reduce the width of driveways so that a single crossover can service two car parks; it will also expect that there is room to plant a tree. It will still need Council to check that these have been planted and maintained. I read in yesterday's paper that the Property Council are unhappy with this as it will increases the cost of development as footings will need to be strengthened. The Code talks about planting a tree not a tree with the potential to become significant! The tree could be a crepe myrtle or even a fruit tree. They were also quoted as saying that trees should be placed on Council land. All well and good but when Council owns less than 20% of the land (streets, footpaths and parks) getting the 30+% tree canopy that government expects of us is simply mathematically impossible.
To my reckoning its not the cost of adding a tree but the price we'll all pay if they don't.
Post a Comment