Developers criticise costly artistic requirements in aerotropolis

Developers are calling for excessive red tape around the design of simple warehouses, roundabouts and sheds in the Western Sydney airport region to be cut, saying the laborious design review process is slowing new builds and adding on “highly questionable” artistic demands.

Western Sydney Airport in 2024, looking at runway, terminals, airtunnel and locals who are helping make the airport happen. Picture: Rohan Kelly

Developers are calling for excessive red tape around the design of simple warehouses, roundabouts and sheds in the Western Sydney airport region to be cut, saying the laborious design review process is slowing new builds and adding on “highly questionable” artistic demands.

In one example of design overreach this year, the panel of architects ordered a new warehouse near Bradfield to place welcome to country messages on the roof for passengers coming into the new western Sydney airport. The panel suggested that artistic murals also be painted onto the sides of the warehouse.

The warehouse, which is being built to be a new ALDI distribution centre, will be powered by a 70-megawatt rooftop solar system which feeds back into the grid.

Developers argued that the requirements to place messages on the roof would prevent the placement of enough solar panels to power the building.

A majority of projects in the Western Sydney Aerotropolis are required to be assessed by a design excellence panel.

In a design panel ruling on the project, seen by The Daily Telegraph it says: “The roof will be of significant size, highly visible from the air and create a unique opportunity when people arrive and depart from the airport.

“The panel encourages exploration of public art on rooftops and consideration as the fifth facade of these developments.”

In the end, Liverpool council agreed that many of the requests made by the NSW design review panel for that project were not reasonable.

Currently a majority of new developments in the Western Sydney aerotropolis are required to be assessed by a NSW Design Review Panel, overseen by a group of government-approved architects, costing developers thousands extra in fees.

Under current government regulations any building that has a site area of more than 5000 square metres or has a capital investment value of more than $20 million must be subject to a design review panel. This means that simple sheds, warehouses and even concrete slabs that exceed this are required to go through the process and prove that the development “exhibits design excellence”.

CEO of the NSW Urban Taskforce Tom Forrest. Picture: David Swift

The requirement is unique to developments in the aerotropolis, with the panel only used to assess large state-significant projects and infrastructure in other parts of the city.

Developers say a single Microsoft Teams meeting with a three-person design review panel can cost more than $3900.

In another incident, a simple roundabout in the aerotropolis on Badgerys Creek Road was referred to the design excellence panel, adding extra costs and slowing the building process.

Urban Development Taskforce chief executive Tom Forrest called the process “a make-work scheme for architects”.

“They rarely add value to those paying the bills and their contributions to local amenities are often highly questionable,” he said.

“The expansion of architects being involved in planning assessment has drastically added to the cost and time for getting proposals assessed and approved in Sydney. Every precinct is treated like it is in the middle of the CBD.”

Minister for Planning and Public Spaces Paul Scully. Photo: NewsWire/ Gaye Gerard

Planning Minister Paul Scully said in October last year, the government removed even more invasive regulations that required industrial developers in the aerotropolis to undergo design competitions, whereby more than three different teams of architects bid for a project - even for small scale projects like warehouses.

“The Minns Government will continue to reform the planning system so that it supports the speedier delivery of more homes and jobs,” Mr Scully said.

Opposition planning spokesman Scott Farlow said some architects on the design panels had gotten “too big for their boots”.

“It’s bizarre they would make absolutely invasive decisions on private development - that is something that should not be in the remit,” he said.

“Some of these design panels have got too big for their boots - I’ve seen examples where design panels have come in and created more problems than they’re solving and have made some projects unfeasible with their extra demands.”

Originally published as Developers criticise costly artistic requirements in aerotropolis