Council Stormwater Engineer's Ruling Based on Aesthetics

Underlying some engineering decisions that seem far removed from aesthetics there are actually rules based on conventional 'normative' aesthetic preferences. The following reports an instance where, by accident, it was discovered that the aesthetic preference of the Council civil engineer had produced a DCP 'rule' that could prevent innovative solutions.

I had a client who wished to develop flood prone land. We gained advice over the counter at Council that a dual occupancy would be possible. Usually a lot of 600m2 is sufficient. The client wanted to check this advice, as his reading of the DCP had led him to believe that his 1200m2 lot was under the 1400m2 required for a dual occupancy in flood-prone land.

I spoke to a senior town planner they confirmed that the advice over the counter had been incorrect. The minimum lot size for a dual occupancy in that street was 1400m2.

They stated that the critical reason for this control was based on recommendations from their environmental planning division, regarding flooding. They said that I should speak to environmental planning as they would be the ones who would make the report as to whether Council should approve the plans or not.

The environmental planning engineer came straight out and said that they would not accept development for dual occupancy on land that was less than 1400m2 on the site. Or anywhere the street. If there was two together they would regard that as compounding the error and it would be “crazy” (quote). They wanted over 700m2 per house.

However, and this was to be noted, at the client's site there was less risk of flooding that at the other end of the street which had the same rule. The engineer told me the flood level was about 700mm above ground level.

After some conversation the real concern emerged. According to the engineer, when you build up for a house the water must go somewhere and it worsens flooding elsewhere. This seemed very reasonable. It's like putting an extra brick in a bucket full of water.

Immediately I knew the critical issue in this area would be reducing the footprint of buildings. There are two ways to do this. One would be to limit the area of slab on ground, the second would be to encourage designs 'that touched the earth lightly' and perhaps had suspended slabs or did not have any concrete slabs at all.

When I suggested that a smaller house would be desirable by the client here, or one on stilts, I was interrupted rudely and told that it would have to be a single house to “fit in” and that the neighbours would complain. Though how he could know the neighbours better than the client, who had actually spoken to them I could not discover!

I realised the engineer was making aesthetic judgements and had in his mind a model of the type of house that should be built on that street.

The Council civil engineer went on to say that if you had a smaller house or an architectural beach house type on stilts it would not be a saleable item if you wanted to sell it. I tried to reason on this point and was rudely interrupted. They wanted development in keeping with the newer type of house. Now, I had been down that street and the newer type of house there was huge and distinctly urban, and not in keeping with the older beachcomber style houses, built up off the ground on stilts. They all had a raised slab on ground floor. And, yes, it was filled in underneath. Great big 'bricks' in the 'bucket' of the waterway.

The client could have built a large house but not two houses with the same floor area. And they would have problems with building a house on stilts. I asked directly. They would not recommend that solution, not from an engineering viewpoint, but from a real estate viewpoint!

There was no sense of a performance based flexibility. And the town planner said in effect (and I know from bitter experience this was the case) that the engineer will have a say. To the planners, the environmental division provided expert advice they incorporate directly. One negative report from one council in-house expert means refusal.