<html><body>
Since the introduction of the new residential zones in 2014, ratio: have been actively involved advocating about issues surrounding their implementation. Collaborating with other consultants, ratio: has been actively involved in the past 4 years seeking to influence the appropriate application of the zones.  Our view has always been that the Zones should allow for the increased density and diversity of housing consistent with the location of public transport and other infrastructure.  Instead the outcome was that for some municipalities, the over use of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone locked land away from reasonable development opportunities.

The State Government has completed its pre-election promises of a review of the Residential Zones and the way in which they were implemented.   The key changes are:

<ul>
<li>Removing the restriction on the number of dwellings that can be built on a property in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ). The new version of the zone will not limit the number of dwellings on a lot, which for most municipalities, is currently two. </li>
	<li>Increasing the mandatory building height in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone from 8m to 9m, and including a two-storey maximum.</li>
	<li>Changing the discretionary 9m building height in the General Residential Zone (GRZ) to a mandatory height of 11m, and a three-storey maximum.</li>
	<li>Introducing a mandatory garden area requirement for lots over 400m2 in both the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and the General Residential Zone. This will require 25 – 35% of the land area be set aside as landscaping with driveways not included in this calculation.</li>
</ul>
Councils will have the ability to amend a schedule to the zone to include an alternative maximum height, however the height in the schedule cannot be less than the maximum height specified within the parent clause (i.e. 9m in the NRZ, 11m in the GRZ and 13.5m in the RGZ).   

The new garden area requirement applies to development in the NRZ and GRZ of lots over 400m2. The requirement is mandatory and requires a percentage of the land to be set aside for landscaping, in line with the following table.  Significantly, driveways will not be included in this area, which will have an impact on development yield for certain building typologies.

<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width:100%;">
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col">Lot size</th>
			<th scope="col">Minimum percentage</th>
		</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>400-500 square metres</td>
			<td>25%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>501-650 square metres</td>
			<td>30%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>650 square metres and above</td>
			<td>35%</td>
		</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h2>Transitional Provisions</h2>

The General Residential Zone and Neighbourhood Residential Zone will include transitional provisions in relation to the mandatory building heights (including number of storeys) and garden area requirements. It is not clear at this stage how the changes will address situations where there are contradictions with existing schedules, for example where a schedule to the General Residential Zone specifies a mandatory height of less than 11m.  Stay tuned for more information on this.

We are still yet to understand when the provisions will take place, but we would expect this to be reasonably soon, given the State Government’s other suite of changes which focus on the implementation of the revised Plan Melbourne, also announced today.

<h2>What are our thoughts?</h2>

The changes to the Residential Zones, particularly the NRZ are definitely taking a step in the right direction with the removal of the maximum density of two dwellings per lot.  We have long held the view that an increased density doesn’t necessarily result in a negative impact on neighbourhood character.  For example, demolishing the existing house and building one large house (which may not require a planning permit) can be just as disruptive to a streetscape as building three smaller houses and doesn’t achieve an increase in density generally sought by planning policy throughout metropolitan Melbourne.

Whilst the objectives of the Residential Zones will be amended, it is our understanding that limiting opportunities for increased residential development will remain a key consideration for any decision maker, particularly in areas of identified sensitivity.  Realistically, opportunities for more than two dwellings on a lot will need to be carefully considered in the context of existing and preferred neighbourhood character and the prevalence of medium density housing in the area.  At the least it will allow a more performance based approached to dwelling density that the current zone provision.

The increased building heights are also an improvement which will allow a more considered architectural response and increased floor to ceiling heights where appropriate.

We do have concerns regarding the mandatory garden area requirement, especially with its application with the NRZ and the GRZ.  Our preference will always be for a performance-based approach to such a requirement.  There will no doubt be circumstances where neighbourhood character will allow for a more urban response, or alternatively, a larger lot can provide for a more dense design solution. We would reasonably expect to see less reverse living or lower maintenance housing options.

This article was originally posted on <a href="http://www.ratio.com.au/residential-zone-reforms-announced-by-state-government">Ratio Consultants website</a>.
</body></html>

colleenp

Residential zone reforms announced by Spring Street

<html><body>
As we approach mid-February and the Christmas break begins to feel like a distant memory, it’s time to start thinking about what 2017 has in store for the planning world. There’s plenty in the pipeline to get our heads around so to help you keep up to date here’s a summary of just a few of the things to look out for.

<h2>BETTER APARTMENT DESIGN STANDARDS (BADS)</h2>

The highly anticipated BADS were released in their entirety in December 2017 (read our summary <a href="http://www.ratio.com.au/better-apartment-design-standards-released">here</a>), along with an introduction date of March 2017. The Department has also released a <a href="http://www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/15344/Better-Apartments-Consultation-Report.pdf">Public Consultation Report</a>, detailing how the BADS were amended in response to feedback on the draft. This report includes some interesting commentary on some of the changes that were made between the draft and final version of the BADS, such as the removal of numerical building setback requirements and the removal of the light courts standard.

How the guidelines will be interpreted by Councils or VCAT will be the challenge for the industry moving forward and there will no doubt be some interesting VCAT decisions arising in 2017 that will give some guidance on the interpretation of the different objectives and standards and when a variation is considered appropriate.

The Better Apartment Design Standards can be found <a href="http://cdn2.blocksassets.com/assets/ratio/master/KoBIJ43nOhpRADo/Better-Apartments-Design-Standards.pdf">here</a>.

Robbie McKenzie (Senior Associate) and Colleen Peterson (Managing Director) will be hosting a series of workshops in the coming weeks to help educate our clients and their architects on the implication of the BADS.  Those of you interested in attending, please contact Timea Toth on timeat@ratio.com.au to register your interest.

<h2>SMART PLANNING PROGRAM / PLANNING SCHEME REVIEW</h2>

The Smart Planning Program has been introduced in response to the growing complexity and inefficiency of Victoria’s Planning System, with the objective to make the system more efficient.

With the last major review held over 20 years ago, the Smart Planning Program aims to utilise technology to create a more accessible and simplified system. Interestingly, the Program also aims to improve state-wide consistency in the application of zones and overlays to reduce repetition, limit permit triggers and increase investment certainty. This opens up the potential for significant changes to the structure of planning schemes and the application of planning policy.

More information on the program can be found <a href="http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/planning/about-planning/improving-the-system/smart-planning-program">here</a>.

Ratio will keep our clients up to date on the review in upcoming newsletters as information comes to hand.

<h2>MELBOURNE METRO RAIL PROJECT</h2>

Amendment GC45 to the Maribyrnong, Melbourne, Port Phillip and Stonnington planning schemes was gazetted on 5 January 2017 facilitating the construction of the 9km rail tunnel between South Kensington and South Yarra - shown in the attached map.

While the consultation process is over, there are new Design and Development Overlays in place that may impact development in affected areas.  Get in touch with us if you have a proposal that you think could be impacted.  

The Minister for Planning has also released his assessment of the project which can be read in full <a href="http://www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/9814/Melbourne-Metro-Ministers-Assessment-Final-MP-signature-copied-in.pdf">here</a>. 

<h2>TRANSPORT FOR VICTORIA</h2>

Transport for Victoria (TfV) is a new transport agency that will bring together the planning, managing and coordinating of Victoria's transport system and its agencies, including combining VicRoads and Public Transport Victoria (PTV). Our understanding is that this change will provide for one point of contact when applications are referred to these authorities, which we anticipate will provide for a more streamlined approach to the referral system.

<h2>BESS</h2>

Version 1.5 of the Built Environment Sustainability Scorecard (BESS), which is a common tool used to assess ESD through the planning process, will go live on 20 February 2017. While many of the changes to the BESS software relate its useability, there will be changes that provide different score criteria for different types of buildings (e.g. dwellings, retail).

We expect to learn how these changes affect the assessment of applications in the coming weeks and whether it results in improved assessment of applications.  Stay tuned for more feedback.

 

 

This article was originally published on <a href="http://www.ratio.com.au/home">Ratio Consultants</a>' website. Read the original article <a href="http://www.ratio.com.au/things-to-look-out-for-in-2017">here</a>.

Lead image: Zero2Sixty
</body></html>

Things to look out for in 2017

<html><body>
The State Government released the final version of its Better Apartment Design Standards (BADS) on Saturday, providing the industry with the much-awaited policy guidelines that will influence the design of apartment development throughout Melbourne for years to come.

The final document is noticeably different to the draft Guidelines exhibited earlier this year. Many of the prescriptive requirements are gone, which will be a relief to some sectors of the market. There is a strong emphasis on performance-based outcomes consistent with the traditional approach to contemporary planning in Victoria.

Given the significant response by industry to the Guidelines, with over 250 detailed submissions, the final document reflects an understanding of the issues facing the development of land for taller residential buildings and the importance of performance based controls in achieving the best planning outcomes.

To read the full version of BADS please click <a href="http://delwp.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/364748/Better-Apartments-Design-Standards.pdf" target="_blank" title="Better Apartments Design Standards">here</a>.

<h2>When will it take effect?</h2>

The Victorian Planning Provisions (VPPs) will be amended in March 2017 to introduce BADS into every planning scheme across Victoria, applying to all apartment developments.

Transitional arrangements will be included in the new provisions to ensure that applications lodged prior to BADS being approved will be assessed based on the planning controls at the time of lodgement.

<h2>How will it work?</h2>

Unsurprisingly, BADS adopts the same performance-based approach used in ResCode with Objectives, Standards and Design Guidelines and we would expect it will be used and assessed in a similar manner. Meeting the Objective will be mandatory with the Decision Guidelines setting out matters to be considered before deciding if an application meets the Objectives. The Standards set out one way to meet the objective and often are prescriptive in nature, similar to ResCode.

All apartment proposals in Victoria will be assessed against BADS with those developments 4 storeys and lower also assessed against ResCode.

Overlays will continue to be relevant considerations specific to the issue to which they pertain, such as heritage, height and neighbourhood character.

<h2>What does BADS actually say?</h2>

BADS contains 16 objectives, including Building Setbacks, Room Depth to Waste and Recycling. The objective pertaining to light wells as proposed in the draft Guidelines has been removed and Functional Layout has been included. All other Objective topics remain the same although in some areas there has been considerable movement in the context.

A synopsis of issues of prime interest to readers and clients is as follows:

Building Setback – the prescriptive building separation distances proposed with the draft Guidelines have been completely removed. Instead the Objective focuses on a performance based approach that centres on setbacks responding to urban context, daylight to new dwellings and private open space, limiting overlooking, and providing reasonable outlook. The language uses phrases such as reasonable distance to side and rear boundaries, adequate daylight, avoiding directions views and avoiding a reliance on screening.

Functional Layout – Whilst no minimum apartment sizes are proposed, the Standard provides minimum dimensions for bedrooms and living areas. A main bedroom should be a minimum of 3 x 3.4m and other bedrooms 3 x 3m. For studio and 1 bedroom apartments, living areas should be a minimum of 3.3 metres in width and have a minimum area of 10sqm. In larger apartments living areas should be a minimum of 3.6 metres in width and be a minimum of 12sqm in size.

Accessibility – There is greater emphasis on apartments meeting the needs of people with limited mobility. 50% of apartments should meet a range of requirements, such as a clear opening width of 850mm at the entrance of the dwelling and the main bedroom, adaptable bathrooms and a clear path of 1.2 metres that connects the dwelling entrance to the main bedroom, adaptable bathroom and living area.

Storage – BADS focuses on total storage for apartments, including kitchen, bathroom and bedroom storage with a sliding scale of minimum internal and total storage space depending on the size of the dwelling. The difference between the two should be provided as external storage. For example, a one bedroom dwelling should have a total of 10 cubic metres of storage, of which 6 cubic metres should be located internally, meaning 4 cubic metres should be provided externally.

Windows – The previously proposed prohibition on saddleback bedrooms has been relaxed, presumably in response to submissions from architects and others within the Industry. Saddlebacks will be permitted providing the window is clear to the sky, a minimum of 1.2 metres wide with the ‘snorkel’ having a maximum depth of 1.5 times the width. As an example, a saddleback bedroom can have a 1.2 metre wide window with a maximum ‘snorkel’ depth of 1.8 metres with no balcony overhanging the window.

Room Depth – a single aspect habitable room should not exceed a room depth of 2.5 times the ceiling height with ceiling heights not being prescribed as previously proposed. A living/dining kitchen area can be increased to 9 metres providing the kitchen is located furthest away from the window and the ceiling height is at least 2.7 metres in height.

Natural Ventilation – A minimum of 40% of dwellings should achieve effective cross ventilation which includes minimum breeze paths of 5 metres and maximum breeze paths of 18 metres.

Communal Open Space – Communal open space should be provided for larger apartment developments (more than 40 dwellings) with a minimum area of 2.5sqm per dwelling or 250 sqm, whichever is the lesser. The space should be located on the northern side of a building if appropriate, promote passive surveillance, and at least 50% or 125 sqm, whichever is the lesser, should receive a minimum of 2 hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

Private Open Space – As expected, the size requirements for balconies and courtyards have increased and are related to dwelling size. Ground level courtyards should be a minimum of 25sqm with a minimum depth of 3m, podium courtyards should be a minimum of 15sqm with a minimum depth of 3m. Balconies should range in size from 8sqm for studios and single bedrooms to 12sqm and a minimum depth of 2.4 metres for 3 bedroom dwellings and larger.

<h2>Other matters – Other details of interest include:</h2>

<ul>
<li>The provision of once source of natural light and natural ventilation to common areas and corridors</li>
	<li>Provide for the retention of planting of trees where these are part of the character of the neighbourhood and the local context</li>
	<li>Living areas and private open space should be located on the north size of the building where practicable</li>
	<li>Dwellings should not exceed the maximum NatHERS annual cooling load which varies depending on location</li>
	<li>Buildings should be designed to collect rainwater for non-drinking purposes, such as flushing toilets and garden use</li>
	<li>Specific aspects of ResCode will be integrated into the assessment of apartment buildings, such as dwelling diversity, parking location, walls on boundaries, internal views and common property.</li>
</ul>
<h2>What does it mean?</h2>

Our review of BADS reveals a document that, overall, has got the balance about right. Ratio strongly advocated in its submission and presentations to the Minister and his Senior Staff the importance of maintaining a performance-based approach and it is pleasing to see this remain the underlying philosophy of the Guidelines.

The absence of clarification around daylight is likely to be an ongoing source of tension moving forward. For example, whilst building separation is in part determined by the provision of adequate daylight for occupiers, there is no guidance at to what adequate daylight is and how it should be measured.

Given the wording of the Building Setback Objectives, Standard and Decision Guidelines, it is reasonable that a 9-metre separation between balconies/habitable room windows would be a default minimum, remembering that in the central city, recent controls under Amendment C270 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme will also provide direction on building separation. How all this relates to daylighting and outlook remains to be seen.

We would also reasonably expect apartment sizes to increase, particularly at the smaller end of the market. Consistent with previous feedback from the Minister there is no prescriptive minimum sizes for apartments. However, the requirements of Functional Layout, Storage and Accessibility will result in more space to improve the storage, accessibility and liveability requirements for occupiers. Modelling from architects will no doubt reveal in the coming months the implications of these requirements together with ESD needs.

Whether BADS provides the certainty some sectors of the development industry were after remains to be seen. Will there be an increase in the cost of housing as a consequence? Probably, but the extent of this increase will be influenced by the development industry’s response, innovation in design and technology.

Will the amenity, liveability and suitability of high rise dwellings increase? Most certainly, and that has to be a better outcome!

This article originally appeared on <a href="http://www.ratio.com.au/better-apartment-design-standards-released">Ratio's website</a> and has been republished with permission.
</body></html>

Better Apartment Design Standards released

<html><body>
By Colleen Peterson, Managing Director of <a href="http://www.ratio.com.au/">Ratio Consultants</a>, with Alice Maloney, Associate, Ratio Consultants.

The Minister for Planning approved Amendment C270 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme yesterday, introducing the much discussed and controversial built form controls in the Hoddle grid (CBD) and Southbank.

In approving the amendment, the Minister has had the benefit of the Independent Panel Report following a strongly contested panel hearing which ran for 29 days. Readers will be aware that significant issues of debate included the concept of the Floor Area Uplift (FAU) and building separation.

So what did the Minster approve? The Amendment is extensive in its context dealing with a wide range of built form issues. For those interested in reviewing the full amendment documentation - select <a href="http://planning-schemes.delwp.vic.gov.au/updates-and-amendments/amendment?id=C0AD47B803CAE594CA257FA1007F6CEA" target="_blank" title="Amendment Documentation">here</a>

However, the key matters as relevant to many of our clients are as follows:

<h2>Floor area ratio</h2>

<ul>
<li>18:1 mandatory floor area ratio (FAR) introduced into the Capital City Zone on land affected by DDO10 (shown to the right).</li>
	<li>Opportunity for the FAR to be exceeded through a FAU scheme if there is a public benefit.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Built Form</h2>

The built form controls comprise a combination of discretionary and mandatory requirements to enable flexible design outcomes, such as building to one boundary or to a street corner. The key requirements are as follows:

Street wall height

<ul>
<li>Preferred: up to 20m</li>
	<li>Mandatory: no greater than 40m, or 80m where it defines a street corner</li>
</ul>
Building setbacks above street wall

<ul>
<li>Preferred: 10m</li>
	<li>Mandatory: minimum 5m</li>
</ul>
Building setbacks from side or rear boundaries (or from the centre line of an adjoining laneway)

<ul>
<li>Preferred: minimum 5m, or 6% of the total building height, whichever is the greater</li>
	<li>Mandatory:</li>
	<li>&gt;80m in height: minimum 5m to side or rear boundaries / street boundary</li>
</ul>
 Tower separation within a site

<ul>
<li>Preferred: above the street wall or 40m, whichever the lesser, towers should be separated by 6% of the combined total height of the adjacent towers</li>
	<li>Modified: minimum 10m</li>
</ul>
<h2>What did the Panel Report say?</h2>

The Minister also released to the public for the first time the Panel Report that considered the amendment. Given the length of the panel hearing, the spirited and vigorous debate and the relationship with the Better Apartments guidelines, the findings of the Panel are fascinating reading. For a full transcript of the panel report (select <a href="http://dsewebapps.dse.vic.gov.au/Shared/ats.nsf/(attachmentopen)/36A933C564ECA207CA2580730078A165/%24File/Melbourne+C270+Panel+Report.pdf" target="_blank" title="Apartrment Guidelines">here</a>)

The Panel was certainly complimentary regarding the ‘unparalleled amount of work undertaken in the preparation of this Amendment’ and concluded that the majority of the proposed built form controls will contribute to an enhanced public realm. Whilst the Panel disagreed that the amendment would result in a ‘one-size fits all’ approach to building design, the hyper-dense applications and approvals within the central city and Southbank highlighted a need to address height through FAR controls.

The Panel, whilst supportive of the initiative to capture public benefits through the FAU scheme, ultimately recommended that the Scheme be abandoned with a workable uplift mechanism to be further investigated (with the potential for broader categories of public benefits) and the potential to lower the trigger from 18:1 as this set a very high trigger.

Ultimately the Minister determined to approve the FAU scheme yesterday as part of the overall gazettal of C270. The decision of the Minister to disregard this aspect of the Panel’s recommendations was hinted at earlier this week with the approval of 383 LaTrobe Street which exceeded the 18:1 FAR (29:1) on the basis that it provided a public benefit in the form of a new arcade with art installations.

Interestingly, the Panel made much of the disparity between the proposed building setbacks in C270 and the draft Better Apartments guidelines, suggesting that consistency between the two sections of the planning scheme as being important. The outcome of C270 could give some indication of the Minister’s ultimate decisions on the Better Apartments guidelines.

<h2>Transitional arrangements</h2>

As expected, C270 provides for transitional arrangements for applications in both the DDO10 and the Capital City Zones lodged prior to the gazettal of Amendments C262 and C270. The transitional arrangements effectively ensure that a permit cannot be granted for buildings and works which do not meet the mandatory Modified Requirements. It appears that this arrangement also provides flexibility for amending a permit granted prior to the built form controls, on the proviso that the extent of non-compliance is not increased.

<h2>What does this all mean?</h2>

With the gazettal of the amendment there is now a clear direction regarding issues of equitable development in the central city and Southbank. With a level playing field for all players in the market, we will no doubt see some adjustment as the market responds to the need for greater building separation and the requirements for public benefit over the 18:1 plot ratio. This may mean that some sites will no longer see seen as developable and most likely result in the need for consolidation of sites to achieve the heights and separation necessary.

This article was originally published on <a href="http://www.ratio.com.au/">Ratio Consultants</a>. Read the <a href="http://www.ratio.com.au/central-city-built-form-controls-approved">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Minister approves central city built form controls

<html><body>
The <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/colleen-peterson-on-amendment-c262">overnight implementation</a> of amendment C262 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme last month, which reintroduced plot ratio restrictions into the CBD, took us all by surprise. For those of us who have been around long enough, the concept of plot ratios was a key feature of development in the Melbourne CBD in the 1990s. Their reintroduction is perhaps a spot of nostalgia for some of us.

The introduction of the control was fast, swift and wide reaching, catching everyone ‘off guard’. Some have complained loudly about the effect of the changes, the lack of consultation, the impact on investment in the CBD and the stifling of innovation.

However, I haven’t heard, either publically or privately, widespread concerns from the planning or architecture professions. I honestly believe this is a consequence of many of us realising the need for an interventionist approach to curtail the density of development and the importance of policy in achieving better built form and amenity outcomes.

This analysis of the block between Swanston, Little Lonsdale Street, Elizabeth Street and A’Beckett Street, <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/a-city-of-melbourne-amendment-c262-case-study">previously undertaken by Urban.com.au</a>, is a good example of the sort of intensity of development currently approved in the central city.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/proposed_block_study-01_0.png" rel="gallery-all" title="A case study on City of Melbourne's amendment C262. Image Laurence Dragomir"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="509" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/proposed_block_study-01_0.png?itok=MqHALfgy" title="A case study on City of Melbourne's amendment C262. Image Laurence Dragomir" width="580"></a>

<figcaption><a href="/planning/2015/09/17/city-melbourne-amendment-c262-case-study">A case study on City of Melbourne's amendment C262</a>. Image Laurence Dragomir</figcaption></figure>I see the issues regarding heightened development pressure in the central city in recent years as being exacerbated by other factors. Particularly:

<ul>
<li>The widespread implementation of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, particularly in the Cities of Moreland, Yarra, Boroondara and Bayside, which has effectively placed greater pressure on activity centres and the central city in meeting housing demand for Melbourne.</li>
	<li>The lack of direction and certainty regarding the design of apartments, with continued delays and inaction on the issue of ‘Apartment Design Guidelines’ over a number of years.</li>
</ul>
We all accept and embrace the important role that the central city plays in providing new housing opportunities. I would also argue that these opportunities and issues of density and building separation should also be considered in the context of development pressures in more suburban locations, from South Yarra to Box Hill.

Lessons learned in the CBD should be transferred to these other emerging high rise precincts.

I consider that the concerns raised regarding the liveability of the CBD, not only apartments but public spaces, is largely a consequence of the lack of leadership on this issue and the failure of planning policy to keep up with the change in market conditions. The success of city living has been on the rise since the success of postcode 3000 some 30 years ago with the rise in ‘super towers’ on the agenda for the past 10 years.

Policy makers have failed to respond to this change in building typology, despite the emergence of high rise residential towers in the central city under Planning Minister Justin Madden 10 year ago. It has only been in recent times that there been sufficient pressure to start the process of introducing clear direction on the development of high rise residential buildings and in particular the issues of building separation and internal amenity.

Clearly the Higher Density Residential Guidelines missed the mark in providing the direction needed. Imagine if we as planners had been more visionary and such documents were being prepared 10 year ago…

Whilst I will be the first to admit the tools utilised in C262 are not perfect, I do agree that something needed to be done to give decisions makers’ time to put this planning framework into place. This seems to be a commonly held opinion with just about every planner and architect I discuss the matter with.

I can understand why the Minister undertook such a change under the cloak of secrecy, preventing what would have inevitably been a rush of poor conceived applications to beat the deadline. Such a rush was exactly what happened as the deadline for the introduction of the Residential Zones approached in mid 2014 and such applications were, in many instances, inappropriately resolved and a drain on public resources and time.

At least the change in the rules has the effect of introducing a level playing field, where all developers must now look to develop sites under the same set of rules and, for the time being at least, consideration will be given to the issues of building separation and liveability of our central city in a more formal sense.

Also for the first time we have a set of planning controls that make it clear that there must be demonstrable broader public amenity benefits if the plot ratio controls are to be exceeded. Perhaps this may be the beginning of the idea of inclusionary zoning that has worked elsewhere in the developed world?

12 months isn’t a long time for such a document to be prepared, with the need for the industry and other stakeholders to be appropriately consulted. The outcome must be a fair and equitable planning framework that takes into account the strategic objectives of intensification of the central city, the need to create liveable, sustainable neighbourhoods and the potential for the inclusion of affordable housing.

I look forward to the draft.

Colleen Peterson is the Managing Director of Ratio Consultants. <a href="https://twitter.com/colleenpeterson">Follow Colleen on Twitter</a>.
</body></html>

Colleen Peterson on amendment C262

<html><body>
The planning industry has been waiting for some time for the release of guidelines on the development of high rise apartments in Victoria. This is largely a result of the uncertainty, at both local government and VCAT, regarding acceptable levels of internal amenity and also the hot issue of ‘equitable development potential’.

Some decision makers will not accept south facing apartments but others will, some will accept studio style dwellings for less than 20% of the overall mix yet others form the view if it is good enough for one then it is good enough for all. Some decision makers will allow saddle back apartments and others won’t. Increasingly nine metres is deemed an acceptable separation to achieve ‘equitable development’ but in some instances this may or may not be appropriate for primary outlooks compared with secondary outlooks. In some areas such as Fishermans Bend the preferred setback between buildings is 20 metres.

The increased emphasis on providing new housing in the form of high rise apartment buildings in recent years and now further emphasised through the new Residential Zone regime, has placed considerable pressure on all parties. Clear guidance on what constitutes reasonable outcomes is necessary and I think developers, architects and planners alike would embrace such a document providing that it allows for innovation, flexibility and performance based outcomes.

I couldn’t agree more with <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/better-apartments-should-be-retitled-more-expensive-apartments">Craig Yelland and his concern</a> that the implementation of guidelines based on SEPP 65 in New South Wales will result in a rise in property prices and a furthering of the gap in affordable housing in Victoria. Given the challenge Melburnians face entering the property market, maintaining a supply of affordable housing must be a high priority.

There is a clear opportunity for guidelines to be introduced that will address a range of important issues without having a significant impact on affordability, including:

<ul>
<li>Providing for performance based criteria (can I say the word ‘decision guidelines’?) on apartment sizes, noting the impact that storage, layout and width of rooms has on amenity and liveability. I have seen small apartments done well with integrated cabinetry, clever furniture design and innovation with layout and adaptability. Such small apartments done well should not be negatively perceived.</li>
	<li>Recognising the role of sunlight in providing quality housing but recognising that there can be other trade-offs, such as views, daylight access and access to entertainment precincts and the like.</li>
	<li>Recognising that daylight is important for the liveability of dwellings but that the level of daylight required for a bedroom is reasonably less than that required for a living area. Apartments need to reflect that different people will live in different ways and, for example, creating apartments with small kitchens can be seen as an appropriate reflection of societal changes in eating out not in poor housing provision.</li>
	<li>Providing certainty regarding building separation as this is a key factor in creating a reasonable outlook in high rise precincts and reducing the need for screening between buildings. It would seem sensible the taller the building the greater the separation required and, as an example, setting a 12 metres separation between buildings would provide light, aspect, outlook and negate the need for overlooking measures.</li>
</ul>
The key is that these guidelines must be performance based. They must establish decision guidelines that steer thinking on various issues to ensure that the best outcomes are found. Using a format, such as that found in ResCode could provide for such certainty, with flexibility for different design outcomes. An approach, consistent with the Tribunal’s interpretation of ResCode, where meeting the Standard automatically is deemed as meeting the objective, would also provide certainty. Importantly, the structure would provide for flexibility to make a case for variations, taking into consideration the decision guidelines.

While I am not a believer in the setting of mandatory minimum sizes for dwellings, to start a rational debate, I would suggest the following as an example of how the Guidelines could be written in a manner that provides greater certainty but allow for innovation in design and taking into consideration affordability.

<h2>Dwelling Size Objective</h2>

To ensure that the size of dwellings meet the likely needs of future occupants.

<h2>Standard</h2>

<ol>
<li>Studio style apartments should not be less than 37sqm.</li>
	<li>Single bedroom apartments should not be less than 45sqm.</li>
	<li>Two bedroom apartments should not be less than 60sqm.</li>
	<li>Three bedroom apartments should not be less than 85sqm.</li>
</ol>
<h2>Decision Guidelines</h2>

Before deciding whether a dwelling is suitably sized, the responsible authority must consider the following:

<ul>
<li>The likely future occupants of the dwelling and their needs.</li>
	<li>The provision of internal storage, such a wardrobes, linen press, utility cupboard and cupboards in the kitchen.</li>
	<li>The size of the bedroom/s and the capacity to place bed/s within the rooms appropriate to the likely future occupants.</li>
	<li>The dimension of the living area and the capacity to place furniture, such as a couch, table and chairs, to meet the needs of likely future occupants.</li>
	<li>The integration of cabinetry and other devices to increase the effectiveness of the space.</li>
	<li>The capacity to integrate balcony areas into the liveable space, such as the use of wintergardens.</li>
	<li>Access to daylight for living areas, kitchens and bedrooms (in that order).</li>
	<li>The overall amenity of the dwelling.</li>
</ul>
The preparation of the guidelines must be done as a priority and provide for flexibility and innovation in design while not having the effect of increasing the already high price of housing in Victoria. The input from a wide range of architects and other associated professionals, including lighting engineers can significantly inform the debate and I encourage them to be heard and make a submission.

Colleen Peterson is the managing director at Ratio Consultants. <a href="https://twitter.com/colleenpeterson">Follow Colleen on Twitter</a>.
</body></html>

Better Apartments: Yes, but not at the expense of innovation

<html><body>
In June the Minister for Planning approved approximately 82 per cent of Bayside’s residential land for inclusion within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (the most restrictive zone).

In doing so the Minister requested that Council apply the Residential Growth Zone, which allows development up to 4 storeys to 3 per cent of its residential land.

Reluctantly Council proposed draft Amendment C125 allocating 3 per cent of residential land around Cheltenham, Highett and Hampton East for the Residential Growth Zone.

As part of C125, the Minister appointed an independent Standing Advisory Committee to hear submissions from interested parties in relation to application of the Growth Zone. The report of the committee is due on the 27th November 2014

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/img_2493.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="A fairly common site in bayside suburbs "><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="814" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/img_2493.jpg?itok=DPgIuUFv" title="A fairly common site in bayside suburbs " width="580"></a>

<figcaption>A fairly common site in bayside suburbs at the moment</figcaption></figure>Under pressure from residents within the proposed Growth Zone areas, the Minister visited the area on the 10th November.

Subsequent to the inspection, the local member for Sandringham released a press statement outlining that the Government would no longer require the Council to allocate a minimum area of land to the Residential Growth Zone and would support any Council proposed changes to the Growth Zone amendment.

As a result of these political statements, Bayside City Council was set to consider a motion to abandon the application of the Residential Growth Zone in Bayside and write to all relevant local candidates seeking their support on the 17th of November.

The recommendation also again seeks approval from the Minister for further restrictions within the schedule to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, despite these variations being earlier rejected by the Minister for Planning and being inconsistent with the expert findings of Residential Standing Zones Advisory Committee.

This article originally appeared on <a href="http://www.ratio.com.au/state-government-reneges-on-new-residential-zone-in-bayside">Ratio Consultants website</a>.
</body></html>

State Government reneges on new Residential Zone in Bayside

<html><body>
Consistent with the Planning Minister’s approach for making a splash, he announced on Friday (13/6) that 39 Victorian municipalities will have their current residential zones converted into the new suite of residential zones as of today. Whilst the amendments also make some other changes, like including business zoned land into the reformed Commercial Zones, the main theme of the Special Government Gazette was the implementation of the new Residential Zones across more than half of Victoria.

For the large part, these changes result in the translation of Residential 1 Zoned land being converted into the General Residential Zone (GRZ), which is the most neutral outcome possible under the circumstances. We would say that this is a smart move on behalf of the Minister, in that it resolves the zones for these 39 local government areas, taking the less controversial translations off his desk and providing certainty for all parties in those municipalities. It is also to the credit of these municipalities in taking a responsible approach in the translation of the zones, a number of which will likely seek further changes down the track, when their strategic housing strategies are developed and go through due process.

The main surprise is the inclusion of the City of Melbourne, which will have all its Residential 1 and Residential 2 Zoned land translated into the GRZ. Whilst this is consistent with the way in which Melbourne City Council originally exhibited the implementation of the zones, it is not the final position of the Council as a consequence of political lobbying by various interest groups. Given the Melbourne CC will be part of Stage 2 of the Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee, we would expect that the allocation of the General Residential Zone may be a temporary outcome, pending the results of the Committee Review.

In summary, the Councils and the changes are as follows, noting that you should make specific enquiries as to how it will affect your own land:

Council:     Central Goldfields, Gannawarra, Macedon Ranges, Mildura, Mount Alexander, Alpine, Benalla, Indigo, Mansfield, Moira, Murrindindi, Strathbogie, Towong, Bass Coast, Baw Baw, East Gippsland, South Gippsland, Moyne and Wellington 
Change:    Replaces the Residential 1 Zone with the General Residential Zone

Council:      Hobsons Bay, Hume, Melbourne, Mitchell, Wyndham, Golden Plains, Hepburn, Hindmarsh, Horsham, Northern Grampians, Pyrenees, Yarriambiack, Wodonga 
Change:   Residential 2 Zone to the General Residential Zone

Council:     Colac Otway 
Change:   Rezoning land in Residential 1 Zone to the General Residential Zone Schedule 1 and land in Apollo Bay and Marengo covered by Design and Development Overlay Schedule 7 and Development Plan Overlay Schedule 4 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1

Council:     Monash 
Change:   Replaces land in the Residential 1 Zone into the General Residential Zone and land with a Heritage Overlay in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone

Council:      Surf Coast 
Change:   Rezones all Residential 1 Zone land to General Residential Zone Schedule 1; rezones all Residential 2 Zone land to General Residential Zone Schedule 2

Council:      Warrnambool 
Change:    All land currently in the Residential 1 Zone to the General Residential Zone Schedule 1, removes Schedule 4 to the Design and Development Overlay from all residential land

Council:      Yarra Ranges 
Change:    Introduces the Residential Growth Zone, General Residential Zone and Neighbourhood Residential Zone

This article was originally published on <a href="http://www.ratio.com.au/minister-for-planning-approves-new-residential-zones" target="_blank">Ratio Consultants website</a>. Ratio Consultants is an Urban.com.au Industry Hub member.
</body></html>

Planning Minister approves new residential zones in 39 Victorian LGAs

<html><body>
The following is an edited version of an article originally published on <a href="http://www.ratio.com.au/new-residential-zones-advisory-committee" target="_blank">Ratio Consultant's website</a>.

Many of you will be familiar with the issues surrounding the implementation of the new Residential Zones in Victoria. The new zones, and in particular the proposed widespread use of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone by many Councils, significantly limits the development potential of many sites and has wider ranging planning implications in relation to housing supply, diversity and affordability for the State.

Many Victorian Councils, such as Boroondara, Bayside, Yarra and Port Phillip are proposing in the order of 70-90% of residential land be effectively locked away from medium density residential development. A substantial number of Councils are now well advanced in their proposed implementation of the zones, the majority of whom are seeking exemption from the Minister for Planning from public exhibition.

In order to assess the magnitude of amendment requests, the Minister for Planning has announced several weeks ago the establishment of a Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee to provide advice on the suitability of the proposed implementation of the new residential zones. At the time of writing, 17 councils Victoria-wide have sought to have their proposed residential zone implementation reviewed in this manner.

Metropolitan Councils forming part of this process include Boroondara, Darebin, Kingston, Moonee Valley, Moreland, Mornington Peninsula, Nillumbik and Whittlesea. Discussions with senior DTPLI staff confirm that several Councils are likely to pull out of this process so I will endeavour to keep readers abreast of this.

The Advisory Committee process has been established to facilitate the introduction of the zones before the 1 July 2014 time frame. This is timely given that only two Councils, Glen Eira and Greater Dandenong, have had their zones approved so far.

The Committee is chaired by Con Tsotsoros with 6 deputy chairs. There are 19 experienced professionals, many of whom are planners on the Committee, including the well respected Gaye McKenzie and Alison Glynn.

Each Council will be required to carry out public notification of their proposed zoning controls for a period of 20 business days. This will be contrary to the intent of many Councils, who were originally seeking to have the zones approved without any additional public input.

This public notification process must commence no later than 20 March 2014. The notification must include a notice in The Age and Herald Sun, notices in local newspapers and notices in the Council offices and Libraries. I would expect to see a flurry of advertisements in the next 2-3 weeks.

A party that prepares a submission will be given the opportunity to be heard at a public hearing and individual submitter’s will be given 30 minutes to present to the Committee. The Committee will also consider any expert evidence, although there will be no cross examination. The hearings will commence in the week of 28 April.

The hearings will last a total period of 3 weeks, with three waves of hearings commencing on the Monday of each week. The timing for each hearing will be dependent on the number of submissions received. Some may only go for two days and others an entire week. There is no doubt that the hearings will be run in an expeditious manner, given the volume of work required to be undertaken in a very short period of time.

The hearings may be convened individually or will consider several Councils concurrently. Stayed tuned for more information on this. I have also been advised that the State Government is currently undertaking housing/population studies for each LGA in Victoria, to ensure that each municipality shares the ‘burden’ of providing housing for a growing Melbourne/Victoria.

Details on the outcomes of these studies will be known approximately one week before the commencement of the Panel Hearings.

Within 20 days of the completion of the hearing(s) the Advisory Committee is required to submit a written report to the Minister for Planning that summaries the appropriateness of the new residential zones within each municipality.

The Advisory Committee process provides an opportunity for the community to have input on the proposed application of the new residential zones. Property owners will have a chance to make submission regarding the impact of the zones on their land as well as the implications for the proper and orderly planning of the city.

I encourage people who are interested in the outcomes of built form to stay involved in the fight against <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/badplanning" target="_blank">#badplanning</a> and lodge submissions as they are publically exhibited. Public submissions can be made online at the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure website at www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/residential-zones-advisory-committee. A word of warning, the terms of reference for the Committee make it clear that petitions and pro-forma letters will be treated as a single submission only.

Colleen Peterson is a director at Ratio Consultants.

Lead image credit: silince on <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/silince/11646597775/sizes/l/" target="_blank">Flickr</a>, CC BY-SA 2.0
</body></html>

New Residential Zones advisory committee announced

<html><body>
The State Government released new Residential Zones for implementation in July 2013. These zones effectively sought to replace the Residential 1, 2 and 3 Zones with the General Residential (GRZ), Residential Growth (RGZ) and Neighbourhood Residential (NRZ) Zones. A major departure from the existing zone controls is the mandatory nature of many of the requirements, including:
<ul>
<li>
		In the NRZ restricting development to two dwellings per lot, setting a maximum building height of 8.0 metres and enabling councils to set minimum lots sizes.</li>
	<li>
		In the GRZ (which is arguably the old Res 1 Zone), setting maximum heights that allow a maximum of 2-3 storey development.</li>
	<li>
		In the RGZ, setting mandatory heights that allow a maximum of 4 storey development, noting that ResCode now applies to 4 storey buildings.</li>
</ul>
Councils across the state were given until 30 June 2014 to implement the zones, replacing the old suite of zones with the new.
On the surface this didn't raise significant concerns within the development or planning industry, as the Advisory Note that accompanied the zones gave reasonable comfort that the zones would be applied in a sensible and logical manner. In particular, the NRZ, the most restrictive of all the zones, is to be applied in relatively limited circumstances, where there is recognised neighbourhood character, environmental or landscape significance.
However, it is evident that a number of councils are seeking to broadly apply the Neighbourhood Residential Zone as the default zone, covering anywhere from 70% to 90% of the residential land in their municipalities. Councils such as Bayside, Boroondara, Port Phillip, Stonnington and Yarra are proposing that between 70-90% of their residential land will be in the NRZ. It is incredible to believe that in the vast majority of these areas, a 3 unit development will be prohibited, regardless of the context of the site, such as the location of the 1960s block of flats next door.
In the City of Glen Eira, one of only two municipalities to have its zones approved, nearly 80% of residential land is located within the NRZ. Glen Eira, like many established municipalities, has considerable infill development from earlier periods, such as the 60s and 70s, that make medium density housing in these pockets a sensible and logical outcome. However, the days of building townhouses in between 1960s six packs are long gone and these sites are now only suitable for dual occupancies.
The City of Boroondara has adopted (without public consultation) the extensive use of the NRZ, where in most instances, the adoption of a 500 sqm minimum lot size for about 70% of the municipality, will render even two unit developments prohibited as 1000sqm is required to obtain separate titles. The icing on the cake for this council is that whilst locking away the majority of the municipality from any urban growth, Boroondara then seeks to only use the Residential Growth Zone along a small section of Power Street and Riversdale Road from the Yarra River to Camberwell Junction. No other nodes along tram lines or railway stations qualify in this council's mind to accommodate anything more than a two storey building in most instances. Where Boroondara has sought to apply the General Residential Zone, it of course seeks to use the mandatory height controls, but then largely applies this zone in areas of the municipality covered by single covenants.
This approach by councils was reinforced by the State Government late last year when the draft Plan Melbourne was released, proposing that more than 50% of residential Melbourne would be placed in the NRZ.
However, there are significant implications in effectively locking away the majority of suburban Melbourne from residential development. New housing choices will be limited to high rise development or the outer fringe, with little choice in between. This will impact housing choice, sustainability as well as affordability.
Melbourne was recently found by the "Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey" to be the 6th least affordable city in the world, where restrictive land use policies were cited as one of the significant factors in unaffordability. The restriction on the reasonable development of land in suburban Melbourne can only increase housing prices, particularly in the established housing market. There will be no real alternative to established homes in the inner and middle suburbs, with townhouses and small scale apartment buildings effectively restricted to only small pockets. With a limited supply of new housing choices in established areas, existing homes can only rise in value, becoming even more unaffordable.
Coupled with the significant issue of affordable housing is the underestimation by the State Government in its population forecast for Plan Melbourne. Figures released by the ABS in Nov 2013 show an additional 2.1 million people are predicted for Melbourne by 2050. This is in additional to the 2.05 million to 2.85 million people assumed by Plan Melbourne.
The creation of development "go go" areas, such as Fisherman's Bend and other urban renewal sites will be an important part of the solution in providing an affordable supply of housing. Obviously the implementation of infrastructure, in particular public transport for Fisherman's Bend, will be key to the success of these precincts. But locking away 70-90% of Melbourne's residential land from anything more than 2 unit developments can only be seen as madness.
The urban consolidation of residential areas, particularly those with reasonable access to public transport and other infrastructure, has been the cornerstone of State Government Policy during my working lifetime. It is mind boggling the political energy the State Government is expending, trying to lock away Melbourne's suburbs from residential development.
The politics of kowtowing to a noisy minority who seek to preserve their streets will undermine the broader government strategy to substantially increase the size of our capital city. Quite simply, the Government can't have its cake and eat it too. It is ludicrous to nearly double the population of Melbourne over the next 35 years, whilst at the same time propose to prevent residential development in most of suburban Melbourne (in Glen Eira's case that's around 80%) and commit to holding the urban growth boundary. Something has to give!
It is important that concerns regarding the zones be voiced to the State Government and submissions lodged with respective councils as they place their zones on public exhibition. Given that entire zone review was a result of a noisy minority, such as Save our Suburbs, creating waves regarding "inappropriate development", the development and planning industry must makes its opinion heard and soon.
If you want to voice your opinion, I would suggest writing to:
 
<dl>
<dt>
		The Premier</dt>
	<dd>
		The Honorable Dr Denis Napthine - Department of Premier and Cabinet</dd>
	<dd>
		e: <a href="mailto:denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au">denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au</a>
</dd>
	<dt>
		The Treasurer</dt>
	<dd>
		The Honorable Michael O'Brien - Department of Treasury and Finance</dd>
	<dd>
		e: <a href="mailto:michael.obrien@parliament.vic.gov.au">michael.obrien@parliament.vic.gov.au</a>
</dd>
	<dt>
		The Planning Minister</dt>
	<dd>
		The Honorable Matthew Guy - Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure</dd>
	<dd>
		e: <a href="mailto:matthew.guy@parliament.vic.gov.au">matthew.guy@parliament.vic.gov.au</a>
</dd>
</dl>
It is essential that correspondence be addressed to all three ministers as it is important that an understanding of what is happening is spread across all arms of government and not just the planning minister's office.
Here are some points which you might consider raising in any correspondence to the Victorian Government.
The widespread use of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone will:
<ul>
<li>
		Make entry into the housing market more difficult due to cost of housing.</li>
	<li>
		Redirect affordable housing to the urban fringes and high density inner-city locations.</li>
	<li>
		Limit housing diversity and the ability for people to downsize and stay within the local community.</li>
	<li>
		Limit the opportunities for people using their property for super</li>
	<li>
		Push affordable housing growth to areas with limited access to jobs, public transport and community facilities.</li>
</ul>
<a href="http://www.ratio.com.au/team" target="_blank">Colleen Peterson</a> is a Director at <a href="http://www.ratio.com.au" target="_blank">Ratio Consultants</a> with over 20 years of experience leading statutory and strategic planning projects for both private and public clients.  Colleen tweets regularly on Victorian planning zone reform - you can follow Colleen at <a href="https://twitter.com/colleenpeterson" target="_blank">@colleenpeterson</a>, and similarly you can use the hash tag #reszones to focus debate on this topic.
</body></html>

Colleen Peterson

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News