When Landscape Compliance Requirements Compete: Lessons From a Five‑Townhouse Development
- Kairos Jones - PARC Concepts
- Aug 26
- 5 min read
Most people think landscape design is about selecting plants, creating outdoor spaces and improving the visual appearance of a development.
On many multi-dwelling developments, however, the landscape challenge begins much earlier.
While often viewed as a planting exercise, multi-dwelling landscape design frequently becomes a process of balancing competing planning, engineering and compliance requirements within a limited development footprint.
Before planting can even be considered, landscape documentation often requires coordination of deep soil provision, urban tree canopy targets, private open space requirements, stormwater management, waste collection infrastructure and long-term site functionality.
A recent five-townhouse development in Eastern side of Lake Macquarie demonstrated how multiple landscape requirements can begin competing with one another, requiring careful coordination to deliver a compliant and functional outcome.
When One Requirement Affects Another
Landscape requirements rarely exist in isolation.
A tree planting requirement may influence deep soil allocation.
Stormwater infrastructure may affect where canopy trees can be planted.
Waste collection requirements may reduce available planting opportunities.
Private open space requirements may compete with landscape areas.
The challenge is often not meeting a single requirement, but finding a practical balance between all of them.
The Edward project contained several examples of these competing pressures. The development involved five two-storey townhouses on a constrained site with reactive clay soils, limited solar access, stormwater requirements, waste management requirements and restricted opportunities for meaningful landscape planting.
Deep Soil Zones Are Not Just A Number
Deep Soil Zones are commonly assessed using area calculations.
However, numerical compliance does not always reflect how a landscape area will function in practice.
During the Edward project, additional review of the proposed On-Site Detention (OSD) infrastructure raised concerns regarding the practical usability of sections of the nominated Deep Soil Zone. While geometric calculations could satisfy the required areas, portions of the landscape became fragmented by underground infrastructure and service corridors, reducing their long-term suitability for meaningful canopy tree establishment.
This highlights an important reality of landscape planning:
Meeting a numerical requirement does not necessarily mean meeting the intent of that requirement.
Effective Deep Soil Zones should not only satisfy area calculations, but also provide realistic opportunities for tree growth, root development and long-term canopy outcomes.
Urban Tree Canopy Targets Require More Than Tree Numbers
Many councils now place increasing emphasis on urban tree canopy outcomes.
However, urban canopy provision is often influenced by factors beyond simply adding more trees to a landscape plan.
In higher-density developments, canopy opportunities are frequently constrained by:
Building footprints
Driveways
Stormwater infrastructure
Utility services
Private open space requirements
Solar access considerations
In these situations, the quality and functionality of planting spaces often becomes more important than the number of trees proposed.
Creating larger, consolidated planting areas can achieve stronger long-term canopy outcomes than dispersing small planting pockets throughout a site.
Front Setback Tree Requirements Can Create Additional Pressure
Front setbacks often become one of the most valuable opportunities for canopy tree establishment.
At the same time, they can also become one of the most constrained parts of a development.
Front setbacks frequently contain:
Service connections
Sightline requirements
Stormwater infrastructure
Driveways
Pedestrian access routes
The challenge is identifying locations where meaningful tree establishment can occur without creating future conflicts with infrastructure or site functionality.
This often requires careful coordination between architectural, civil and landscape disciplines long before construction begins.
Reactive Clay Soils Influence More Than Plant Selection
Plant selection is not simply a visual decision.
The Edward project site contained highly reactive clay soils, meaning planting recommendations needed to consider long-term performance as well as compatibility with surrounding built elements.
Species selection therefore became part of the broader risk management strategy for the site, helping to balance landscape objectives with long-term development performance.
This demonstrates how landscape documentation often extends well beyond aesthetics.
Stormwater, Permeability And Landscape Function
One of the opportunities identified during the project involved portions of the site's long driveway corridor.
Rather than viewing the driveway solely as a circulation element, sections were reviewed as potential opportunities for increased permeability and improved drainage performance.
Permeable paving can sometimes help contribute to broader landscape outcomes by:
Improving infiltration
Reducing runoff
Supporting water management objectives
Increasing environmental performance
The value of these opportunities often depends on how early they are considered during the design process.
When Planning Objectives Conflict
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the project was that not all constraints came from physical site conditions.
At one point, differing views emerged regarding the allocation of Private Open Space for one of the proposed dwellings. Rather than forcing a single solution, alternative landscape approaches were prepared so the broader consultant team could assess different planning outcomes.
This reflects another important aspect of landscape documentation:
Landscape design is often a process of resolving competing objectives rather than implementing a single ideal solution.
Landscape Design As A Coordination Exercise
Projects like this demonstrate why landscape documentation is rarely just about planting plans.
Landscape practitioners are increasingly required to coordinate:
Deep Soil Zones
Urban tree canopy provision
Front setback tree requirements
Stormwater management
Waste management
Private open space
Access arrangements
Site servicing
Long-term maintenance considerations
Each requirement may appear manageable in isolation.
The complexity emerges where several requirements begin competing for the same limited area of land.
Project Insight
The Edward project demonstrates that many development challenges are not caused by a single planning requirement.
Instead, complexity often emerges when multiple requirements interact within a constrained development footprint.
By considering Deep Soil Zones, urban canopy opportunities, stormwater infrastructure, reactive clay soils, waste management and private open space as part of a coordinated landscape response, the final documentation helped balance compliance requirements with practical long-term landscape outcomes.
Related Project: Edward Project- Multi‑Dwelling DA Landscape Design
Related Service: Townhouse & Multi‑Dwelling Landscape Documentation NSW
Related Location: Landscape Design Lake Macquarie
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is landscape design important for multi-dwelling developments?
Landscape design helps coordinate planting, deep soil provision, private open space, stormwater management, waste storage and urban tree canopy requirements within a single site. On constrained developments, these requirements often need to be resolved together rather than individually.
Can a development meet Deep Soil Zone requirements but still have limited planting opportunities?
Yes. Numerical Deep Soil Zone calculations may satisfy planning controls, but factors such as stormwater infrastructure, underground services and site fragmentation can reduce the practical functionality of those areas for long-term tree establishment.
How do Urban Tree Canopy requirements affect landscape design?
Urban Tree Canopy objectives often influence where canopy trees can be located and how planting areas are configured. Building footprints, driveways, services and private open space requirements can all affect canopy opportunities.
Why do front setback trees become important in townhouse developments?
Front setbacks are often one of the few locations capable of supporting meaningful canopy trees. They can contribute to streetscape character, shade, urban canopy targets and landscape compliance, while also competing with access, services and stormwater infrastructure.
How do reactive clay soils influence landscape planning?
Reactive clay soils can influence both plant selection and the long-term interaction between vegetation and built infrastructure. Species selection is often guided by site conditions, available space and maintenance considerations rather than appearance alone.
What happens when landscape requirements conflict with one another?
This is common on constrained developments. Landscape practitioners often need to balance competing requirements such as deep soil provision, stormwater infrastructure, waste management, tree planting, solar access and private open space to achieve a coordinated outcome.
Comments