When reviewing residential plans for siting compliance, the final answer is obviously important.
Does the design comply with the relevant requirement or not?
But for designers and building surveyors, the answer on its own is rarely enough.
You also need to understand how that conclusion was reached.
What measurement was used?
Where did that measurement come from?
Which regulation applies?
Was there enough information on the drawings to make the assessment?
And if something doesn’t comply, what exactly needs to be looked at again?
A useful Part 5 siting assessment should make those answers easy to find.
COMPLIANCE SHOULD BE TRACEABLE
Part 5 of the Victorian Building Regulations 2018 covers a wide range of siting matters, from setbacks and building height through to overlooking, overshadowing, private open space and fences.
Many of those provisions rely on measurements taken from architectural plans and information about the site or neighbouring properties.
That means there are several steps between looking at a drawing and reaching a compliance outcome.
If a report simply says that a provision complies, it can be difficult for the person reviewing it to understand what information supported that conclusion.
For example, if a side setback complies, the useful information isn’t only the word “complies”.
It is also the setback that was measured, the relevant wall height or site condition where applicable, and the regulation against which that information was assessed.
That traceability becomes particularly important when a result is questioned later.
THE MEASUREMENTS MATTER AS MUCH AS THE RESULT
Architectural plans contain a significant amount of information, but the way that information is presented can vary considerably between projects.
Some dimensions are clearly annotated.
Others may be shown on another sheet.
Some values need to be calculated from several pieces of information.
Neighbouring conditions may need to be established separately.
A reliable siting assessment therefore needs to be clear about the values being used.
This is one of the reasons DesignSure includes a confirmation stage before completing its assessment.
Once the plans have been uploaded, DesignSure reads the relevant measurements and presents the values back to the user.
The user can then review what has been identified and correct anything that doesn’t reflect the drawings before the compliance assessment is run.
That extra step is important.
Automating part of the assessment does not mean practitioners should lose visibility over the information being assessed.
GOOD AUTOMATION SHOULD NOT BE A BLACK BOX
There is understandably some caution around using automated tools for building compliance.
If software produces an answer without showing the basis for it, that answer is difficult for a practitioner to interrogate.
Building professionals still need to understand the information they are relying on.
DesignSure was developed around that principle.
The assessment report identifies the relevant Part 5 provision, the values used in the assessment and the outcome against that provision.
Rather than asking the user to simply accept an automated result, the intention is to make the assessment easier to follow.
For us, that is an important distinction between automating a repetitive process and trying to automate professional judgement.
NOT EVERY PROJECT PROVIDES PERFECT INFORMATION
In practice, drawings are not always prepared specifically with an automated siting review in mind.
A dimension may be missing.
An annotation may be difficult to read.
Information about a neighbouring property may not be included in the drawing set.
A shadow diagram may be required for a particular assessment but hasn’t been provided.
A useful assessment process needs to recognise those limitations rather than pretending the information exists.
Where DesignSure does not have enough information to assess a particular provision, the result can be identified as unable to be assessed rather than producing a conclusion without sufficient supporting data.
This also gives the practitioner a clearer indication of what information may still be needed.
PLAN QUALITY STILL MAKES A DIFFERENCE
Technology does not remove the need for good building permit documentation.
In fact, clearer plans generally lead to clearer assessments.
For a Part 5 siting assessment, useful drawings should clearly communicate information such as property boundaries, relevant setbacks, dimensions and orientation.
Depending on the provisions being assessed, neighbouring conditions and other supporting drawings may also be required.
DesignSure works with the 2D drawings practitioners already produce rather than requiring a new BIM model or separate 3D workflow.
However, the quality of the information in those drawings still matters.
If the plans clearly show what is being proposed, there is less ambiguity for anyone reviewing them, whether that review is being carried out manually or with the assistance of technology.
A REGULATION REFERENCE MAKES THE RESULT MORE USEFUL
Part 5 assessments are ultimately connected to the Victorian Building Regulations.
For that reason, a compliance result should be able to lead the practitioner back to the requirement being assessed.
This becomes particularly useful when a design requires further consideration.
If a result identifies an issue with a setback, overlooking condition or wall on a boundary, the practitioner can see which provision triggered the result and investigate it further.
It also helps when explaining the issue to another member of the project team.
There is a significant difference between saying:
“The setback needs to change.”
and being able to explain the measurement that has been identified, the relevant requirement and why the design needs another look.
The second conversation is usually much easier to have.
A DOCUMENTED REPORT HAS VALUE BEYOND THE INITIAL CHECK
Part 5 siting assessments are often treated as a task that needs to be completed so the project can move forward.
But there is also value in keeping a clear record of what was reviewed.
DesignSure reports are dated, branded and referenced to the relevant regulations, providing a record that can be retained with the project file.
For designers, that can help document the compliance checking undertaken during the design process.
For building surveying practices, it can provide a consistent preliminary record before the Relevant Building Surveyor completes their own assessment.
That does not turn a preliminary report into a statutory determination.
The Relevant Building Surveyor must still independently assess the building work and make the relevant decisions for the building permit.
What it does provide is a clearer record of the work that has already been undertaken.
CONSISTENCY BECOMES MORE IMPORTANT AS TEAMS GROW
In a small practice, the same person may complete most siting assessments.
In a larger team, different projects may be reviewed by different practitioners, assistants or cadet building surveyors.
That creates another challenge.
How do you make sure the same provisions are being approached consistently across the practice?
A structured assessment process can help.
The same siting requirements are checked.
The same types of values are recorded.
The regulatory references are available.
And the person reviewing the assessment has a clear starting point.
This is one area where technology can support professional practice without attempting to replace the professional.
The repetitive part of the task becomes more consistent, while the practitioner remains responsible for reviewing the project and applying their judgement.
QUICK CHECK OR FULL CHECK?
Not every residential project requires the same level of preliminary review.
DesignSure therefore allows practitioners to choose between a Quick Check and a Full Check.
A Quick Check is designed for projects where the neighbour-impact provisions are not required, making it useful for projects such as extensions, outbuildings and smaller alterations.
A Full Check covers all Part 5 siting provisions, including matters involving neighbouring properties such as overlooking, daylight and solar access.
The important point isn’t simply that there are two report types.
It is that the assessment can be matched to the type of project and the information that genuinely needs to be reviewed.
THE REPORT SHOULD HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THE PROJECT
The purpose of a siting assessment should not simply be to produce another document for the project file.
It should help the people involved understand the design.
Which requirements have been satisfied?
Which measurements were used?
What needs further attention?
Is additional information required?
Which regulation is relevant?
A report that answers those questions becomes much more useful than a simple pass or fail result.
That is the approach behind DesignSure.
It provides a preliminary Part 5 siting assessment using the architectural plans practitioners already prepare, while keeping the measurements, results and regulatory references visible to the user.
It does not replace the Relevant Building Surveyor’s statutory assessment or professional judgement.
It gives practitioners a clearer and more traceable starting point for it.
Want to see what a regulation-referenced Part 5 siting assessment looks like?
Explore DesignSure or review the available resources and report guidance to see how the assessment process works.
