The council controls about 35 square kilometres of land, the bulk of which is within five to 10 kilometres of Sydney’s CBD.
Units make up about 40 per cent of the housing stock, with semi-detached homes making up 30 per cent, and standalone homes 25 per cent.
Significantly, the number of semi-detached, row or terrace homes have grown quickly in the area, rising by 33 per cent in the decade to 2020, while the number of flats and apartments grew by 23 per cent.
The council area is targeting 5000 new homes in the next five years in a planning framework which is rare for not specifying minimum lot sizes for homes which are being subdivided.
But the opportunity to boost density is being held back by council’s insistence on projects sticking with the existing “cadastral pattern” – or the subdivision lines drawn up when the area was first carved up for homes in the 1890s and 1920s and ’30s.
In practice, planners are knocking back or raising objections to proposals to convert single-fronted homes on generous blocks into semi-attached or duplexes on the basis that the new plans diverge from the area’s ancient subdivision lines.
“They’re forcing [home owners] to stick with 19th century lot sizes on blocks that were drawn up 100 years ago,” Mr Lonergan said.
“The homes are 100 years old, most were badly renovated in the 1960s, and in general haven’t been well looked after … they’ve got immense backyards and they’re on wide streets with plenty of parking … there’s no reason they shouldn’t be turned into something else.”
Mr Lonergan has been stymied by the council on plans to subdivide a four-bedroom home on 450 sq m on Leicester Street in Marrickville on the basis it diverges from the original cadastral pattern.
What makes the situation more infuriating for the architect is that the home backs onto a street of homes which are identical in style and lot size, and have been converted into semi-attached homes.
A local development control plan for Marrickville – which is drafted by the council and forms a secondary documentary to the state government-gazetted Local Environment Plan – emphasises the concept of retaining the original planning lines.
“Despite amalgamation being required in some instances, the existing cadastral pattern, which is mainly fine-grained in pattern, forms part of the
historic character of the area and is usually appropriate to be retained,” the local development plan reads.
“The proposed subdivision or amalgamation must have characteristics similar to the prevailing cadastral pattern of the lots fronting the same street, in terms of area, dimensions, shape and orientation.”
Despite the LEP stating that sites can be subdivided, the Development Control Plan is taking away the statutory force of the LEP, Mr Lonergan said. And the concept of the cadastral pattern is outdated and putting the brakes on getting new homes into an area well serviced by public transport, schools, parks and culture, he said.
“It’s working like a de facto heritage control … but the difference is that it refers to nothing more than some imperceptible pattern made by a previous generation of developers.”