On paper, the code’s intent is clear: enable more housing, protect amenity and give greater certainty to councils, communities and industry.
But if we treat it purely as regulation, it feels like more red tape, said Liz. Instead, we need to read it as a design brief for a 4-6 storey city for it to become truly useful.
The code’s most practical effects are in the fundamentals of form:
-Height, massing and transition: The code’s controls determine the first sketch. Height, bulk and interfaces frame the deal before architects draw a single unit.
-Site planning and the ground plane: Site coverage, deep soil and setbacks are your volume knobs – they stretch or squeeze the test fit fast.
-Amenity and apartment standards: Daylight, cross‑ventilation and private open space move you from “technically compliant” to “genuinely liveable”. The real trade is yield versus quality – some fundamentals are now non‑negotiable if you want a product people choose, not tolerate.
-Parking, access and movement: Cars, bikes, cores, lobbies and ramps quickly consume mid-rise envelopes.
-Sustainability and performance: Energy, thermal comfort and water targets are hard‑wiring better buildings into the brief.
Liz identified three practical levers that could help translate the code’s intent:
-Landscape-led homes: By prioritising garden settings and tree canopy, the code treats landscape as social and environmental infrastructure, not decoration.
-Mid-rise typology toolkit: Clearer expectations for 4-6 storey envelopes create an opportunity to develop robust, repeatable mid‑rise typologies tuned to the code. This could support a residential kit-of-parts, with universal grids and smarter stacking across units and parking.
-Liveability and sustainability: The code pushes for better product, not just more housing. Daylight, cross ventilation, outlook and communal open space drive more dual‑aspect units, stronger corners and genuinely usable shared areas – a win for long‑term value and owner‑occupier appeal. The same moves that support feasibility and approval also support lower upfront carbon and more resilient assets.
If we want the code to deliver on these three levers, we have to frontload design intelligence, she said. As projects start to come through under the new code, three consistent ‘gotchas’ are becoming hard to ignore.
Sites that look great on paper but fall over in detail
Corners, wedges and irregular lots can promise frontage, exposure and catchments, but access, turning, ramps, deep soil and overshadowing can quickly dominate the ground plane and reduce yield. Early test fits and smart consolidation make clear the trade-offs between parking, trees, activation and amenity.
Compliant doesn’t always mean liveable or saleable
A scheme can tick every box and still deliver single-aspect south units, long corridors or bedrooms onto light wells – compliant, but hard to sell or lease. If pushed late, these moves can fight structure, parking and cost, and undermine feasibility. The ceiling still comes from buyers, renters and valuers – and reaching it relies on early design intelligence and coordination, not just code literacy.
Numbers can switch off judgement
In some cases, amenity, overlooking and overshadowing tests fall away once numerical setbacks are met. Even the “south boundary” trigger is numeric, not contextual. The risk is compliant schemes that feel unfair, eroding trust in “density done well” and fuelling backlash.
None of this is a reason to avoid mid-rise, Liz adds.
If we use the Mid-Rise Code well, we’re not just meeting rules, we’re creating a fairer housing ladder.
It will have more steps between the single dwelling and the one-bedroom apartment, and more chances for people to stay in the places that hold their lives.
This information originally appeared in a news article on the PCA’s website.
