Behind the controversial transport oriented developments are the “same old” – no one thinks about waste until it’s too late, writes Frank Klostermann.
The New South Wales government has an idea to help ease the housing crisis. It’s called transport oriented development, or TOD. The idea is to allow denser developments around the existing railway stations within Sydney.
Spinifex is an opinion column. If you would like to contribute, contact us to ask for a detailed brief.
Desired effect: higher buildings and denser developments while using public transport.
TODs basically overrule council development plans, heritage listings and so on. If you have a property in the TOD area, you have won the lottery. Developers buy several blocks, combine them and build new high rises.
Understandably, TODs have been quite controversial. Councils don’t like to see their powers reduced. Some locals don’t like change; others embrace it. The state government wants to fit more people into Sydney and allow for more housing or, more specifically, apartments, and councils are concerned about keeping nature, the character, attraction and liveability of their localities intact.
In principle, the TOD idea is not a bad idea, I think. The problem is, as always, that the devil is in the details. Two quotes come to my mind in this instance:
“If I had 60 minutes to save the world, I would spend 55 minutes planning and 5 minutes doing” (Albert Einstein)
“He who fails planning is planning to fail” (Winson Churchill)
The NSW government was in a rush. It asked government architects to come up with designs for various types of blocks – lot sizes, small, medium and large – and let them use the so called “pattern books” that a developer can buy and provided the developer stays within the design, approval is secured and easy. Everything speeds up; time, cost and uncertainty are removed from the equation. It should result in more apartments and lower cost of housing in a reasonable timeframe.
That was the idea.
Councils were not consulted before the pattern books were published.
Then councils read the pattern books and said, “hold on a minute”. They stipulated some concerns. The government said: “too late”.
Okay, not much a council can do. The state is the boss when it comes to planning.
Now the detail. You guessed right. It’s about waste. No one thinks about waste until it’s too late. Same old, same old.
Take a mid-rise small lot apartment building, type 01, 3 – 4 storeys, with 7 – 13 dwellings, assuming 11 units (mixed sizes, from one bedroom to three bedrooms). The waste generated according to the NSW Environmental Protection Authority’s Better Practice Guide in Residential Developments would be weekly:1020 litres of general waste (your red lid bin), 1020 lt recycling (your yellow lid bin) and 325 lt organic waste (your green lid bin). All waste goes into 240 lt bins. That can make up to 2365 lt of waste (or 2365/240 = 10 bins).
The Pattern Book provides for a bin room of 24 square metres in the basement, and a maximum of 5 bins is allowed for presentation at the kerb to be picked up weekly. I know, too many numbers, but huh? Run that one by you again? Waste for 10 bins, but only 5 are allowed at the kerb.
Then small lot apartment building type 02, 3-4 storeys, 6-14 dwellings, same assumed units, same waste generation, with a bin room on the ground floor, allows for 9 bins to be presented at the kerb. Okay? Got it?
Next: small lot apartments type 03, 4-6 storeys, 9-24 dwellings, assumed 17 units, waste generation 1680 lt general, 1680 lt recycling and 575 lt organic waste (= 3935 lt/240 lt bins = 17 bins), yet the maximum number of bins at the kerb is 7. Has the penny dropped? The bin room is the same size (24 sq m) as in type 01, yet more apartments, more waste, and the number of bins at the kerb is too low.
I am not sure how this is supposed to work, but someone will have to figure it out.
Okay, let’s assume there will be enough bins in the bin room to cater for all waste being generated, because you can buy bins. Easy. Now all bins go to the kerb. Actually, who will do that? There has to be some building management, which is an additional cost. Let’s take small lot type 03; minimum lot width is 16 – 19.8 metres. You put out 17 bins. That can work, but no one can park at that kerb on the day of the collection or else the bins won’t be emptied. What now?
One council officer I spoke to said: parking restrictions will have to be put on the street for the time and days of the collections. Okay. We have just built new apartment blocks in an already crowded area near a train station, and there are now parking restrictions in place. Ripple effect? Angry residents. What does the state say? “Not my problem”.
It could also be that the council only collects the maximum number of bins allowed, meaning half of the bins won’t be picked up or only against a higher fee. Not unrealistic. Ripple effect? Higher costs for the apartment block. Oops.
Alternatively, the council can put out different, larger bins which require different trucks and manual handling to be collected. Ripple effect? Higher costs for the apartment building. Lower cost of housing? Maybe not.
Or the council can say, which I have heard from one council officer, that if it gets too hard, the council will not offer kerbside collection; the apartments will have to use a private service. Okay, that would work. Ripple effect? The apartments pay twice: once the council waste management charge (yes, no discounts, sorry) and once for the private contractor. Lower cost of housing? Maybe not.
Sounds like a version of Monty Python, or Yes, minister?
Solution?
Better planning, more consultation!
