Ben Pomroy
Ben James
Australia's housing supply faces an urgent need for expansion, a challenge being addressed in NSW through the introduction of new planning pathways, including the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA), Transport Oriented Developments (TODs), and Low and Mid-Rise (LMR) planning reforms.
While aiming to boost housing supply and streamline the development process, the changes also introduce a new layer of complexity, necessitating faster and more efficient assessments to unlock potential. To unlock these numerous viable sites, rapid assessment is essential, as the demand for experienced architects and engineers currently exceeds their availability.
This article explores how a collaborative approach combining architectural and engineering expertise, supported by technology, can navigate this evolving landscape.
We'll explore insights from Ben Pomroy, Principal at Rothelowman, and Ben James, a Director at Neuron. As Ben James puts it, "maximising development outcomes means ensuring sound financial investment within planning pathways, while simultaneously improving feasibility through efficient and cost-effective building design.”
Navigating complexity in the new planning terrain
The recent reforms have unveiled several key planning mechanisms driving development momentum:
-
Housing Delivery Authority (HDA): Focused on accelerating major housing projects.
-
Transport Oriented Developments (TODs): Targeting increased density around transport hubs.
-
Low and Mid-Rise (LMR) Planning Reform: Aimed at expanding housing options in suburban areas.
These pathways often utilise the State Significant DA (SSDA) process, shifting approvals from local councils to the state government. Historically reserved for extensive, critical infrastructure, housing is now recognised as such, paving the way for numerous housing projects via this state-led path.
This shift has significantly increased the volume of potential development sites. However, before any detailed work begins, a critical initial assessment is required. Ben Pomroy highlights three fundamental questions for any site:
Can you get an approval? Pertaining to planning feasibility
Can you feed it? Addressing crucial infrastructure, like water, power, and sewer
How many can you fit? Relating to site capacity and massing
The power of early collaboration between architects and engineers
Effective site viability hinges on the early involvement of both architects and engineers, ideally from the acquisition phase. This upfront partnership is paramount for de-risking projects and informing strategic decisions.
Ben Pomroy emphasises that early infrastructure assessments are crucial to prevent costly project derailments. Issues such as insufficient water, power, sewer, or drainage (even in seemingly developed areas like Sydney) can fundamentally alter a site's layout and viability.
While some sites may have complex planning challenges, an early engineering assessment can prove critical, revealing findings such as the absence of major infrastructure problems, which is a key finding. Conversely, some TOD sites presented significant drainage infrastructure challenges that needed to be addressed at the earliest feasibility stage.
Furthermore, early architectural input, or strategic design as Ben Pomroy puts it, is essential for exploring different massing options and development strategies. Architects work closely with clients to define the project brief, aligning it with local market knowledge, demand (such as build-to-rent versus build-to-sell), and the client's unique "brand" or development approach. This collaborative, iterative process ensures that the initial design concepts are not only aesthetically sound but also commercially viable and technically feasible.
Tech: The great enabler in rapid assessment
Ben Pomroy points out that the sheer volume of new LMR sites presents a significant challenge: how do you assess so many parcels of land with limited resources, especially when experienced architects and engineers are already stretched thin on larger projects? This is where tech-assisted processes and software-based analysis for rapid optioneering come into play.
Having experimented with various rapid assessment tools, Ben Pomroy notes their emerging importance. These tools can handle the initial, often repetitive, analysis, allowing experts to focus on the higher-value, bespoke aspects of a project. This aligns perfectly with Ben James’ "80/20 rule," where technology performs 80% of the laborious work, freeing up human expertise and capacity (human brain power) for the 20% boutique site-specific outcome.
This differentiation in approach is key:
Major masterplanned sites (HDA/TOD) still require significant design-focused thought leadership from highly experienced architects and engineers, given their complexity and scale. The engineers at Neuron with the underlying tech can support projects in a more streamlined way, that allow us to do more with less without jeopardising quality.
Low and mid-rise (LMR) sites offer a substantial opportunity for tech-assisted work flows. This enables quicker assessments of a larger number of sites, making development more accessible to a broader range of clients, including "mum and dad developers" who may have less infrastructural knowledge and development experience.
Ben Pomroy notes that technology can propel a new project "80% of the way" in terms of hours during its initial days. This rapid advancement frees up crucial human input for the remaining 20%, allowing teams to dedicate more thorough attention to complex issues. This "kit of parts" concept, where technology and software provide an accessible toolkit, is set to revolutionise the architectural and engineering sectors. It directly addresses the significant demand-supply imbalance for these services, ultimately enabling a broader range of developers to contribute to increasing housing supply.
De-risking through due diligence: Balancing speed and thoroughness
Rapid assessment plays a crucial role in the due diligence (DD) phase, where time is often extremely limited. The objective during DD is dual: maximise the outcome while rigorously investigating potential downsides and risks.
A typical four-week due diligence period often sees an initial scheme developed within the first week and a half. The remaining two and a half weeks are then dedicated to aggressively running down potential challenges. This includes a detailed analysis of planning risks, environmental factors such as trees and overland flow, as well as comprehensive infrastructure assessments.
Ben James indicates that a significant percentage of the sites unlocked by new planning pathways may prove too difficult to develop. However, "you don't know unless you go down the road." This makes rapid, early assessment even more critical, ensuring resources aren't wasted on unviable projects. By quickly identifying risks, architects and engineers can provide critical objectivity to the design, preventing costly "rabbit holes" or "cul-de-sacs" that rigid early designs can lead to.
The role of rapid assessment in meeting urgent housing supply
The government faces many challenges in rapidly unlocking land with limited resources. Planning departments, like many other sectors, operate under constraints yet are striving to free up substantial land in a short timeframe to address the urgent housing crisis. This presents a clear mandate to do more with less.
This is precisely where rapid assessment protocols offer a powerful solution. By quickly filtering potential development sites, these protocols enable government agencies and developers to focus their limited resources on projects with the highest likelihood of success.
The key to leveraging technology to support this lies in finding the right people with the right tools, used in the right way. As Ben Pomroy suggests, there is real potential for collaborative efforts between tech-focused consultancies, such as Neuron, and government architects' offices.
By testing planning controls to ensure real-world efficacy, this collaborative approach can significantly accelerate the entire development pipeline from initial assessment to project delivery and would directly contribute to the state's housing supply goals.
Conclusion: Embracing the future of planning
Unlocking the full potential of new planning pathways demands a forward-thinking strategy that blends the invaluable expertise of architects and engineers with the efficiency of rapid assessment technologies. Fundamentally, it’s about putting the right people with the right tools to work effectively. Rather than technology replacing human insight and qualified, nuanced expertise, technology amplifies it through the 80/20 rule, handling the initial heaving lifting so human experts can focus on the crucial details.
We see technology as evolutionary rather than revolutionary, concentrating on incremental productivity improvements rather than overhauling our entire approach to work. This integrated, tech-enabled approach offers clear benefits, including the faster identification of viable sites, significantly reduced risk, optimised design outcomes that consider both aesthetics and feasibility, and the efficient allocation of highly experienced resources.
By embracing this collaborative and technologically-informed future, the property development industry can more effectively navigate the complexities of a changing landscape and make a substantial contribution to addressing Australia's urgent housing supply needs. Ultimately, the housing crisis is driven by an underlying feasibility crisis, and technology can help us improve feasibility and unlock sites.
