<html><body>
Earlier this year issues regarding the impact that flights paths around Melbourne's airports and development of tall buildings in central <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/melbourne-vic">Melbourne</a> were raised following the then approval of Australia 108 tower which at 388 metres high would have been the tallest building in Melbourne and the Southern Hemisphere. Since this issue was initially raised there has been a lot of confusion and misunderstanding in relation to how airspace restrictions work and how they impact upon development in Melbourne. With developers proposing increasingly taller buildings in the Melbourne's CBD and <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/southbank-vic">Southbank</a>, this issue will become even more prominent in the future.

Airspace around airports in managed so that aircraft can take off, land and maneuver around airports without risk of colliding with buildings or other structures. To do this the areas surrounding airports are protected by two invisible surfaces which define at what height planes can fly safely without encountering unexpected obstacles. These surfaces are known as the:

<ul>
<li>Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS); and</li>
	<li>Procedures for Air Navigational Services—Aircraft Operations Surface (PANS-OPS)</li>
</ul>
OLS is generally the lowest surface and is designed to provide protection for aircraft flying into or out of the airport when the pilot is flying by sight. PANS-OPS is generally above the OLS and is designed to safeguard an aircraft from collision with obstacles when the aircraft’s flight may be guided solely by instruments, such as in poor visibility conditions. Buildings and other structures cannot penetrate these surfaces without the approval of the relevant Airport or the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

Permits can be granted for permanent or temporary buildings or structures to penetrate the OLS and approval would usually involve a requirement that the building have prominent navigation beacons at the highest point of the building. An example of this is Eureka Tower which was required to have four navigation beacons on the roof as it penetrated the OLS.

<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/ESSEDON%20OLS.gif" rel="gallery-all" title="Essendon Airport OLS"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="580" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/ESSEDON%20OLS.gif?itok=JXLgOnC4" title="Essendon Airport OLS" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Essendon Airport OLS</figcaption></figure>A permit can also be granted for temporary structures to penetrate the PANS-OPS surface, an example of this were the construction cranes for Eureka Tower that were issued a permit to penetrate the Essendon Airport PANS-OPS on a temporary basis during the construction of the building. However a permit cannot be issued to allow for structures to penetrate the PANS-OPS surface on a permanent basis. In order to construct a building that would permanently penetrate the existing PANS-OPS surface, the PANS-OPS surface has to be amended so that it shifts above the height of the proposed building.

An example of which was the PANS-OPS surface over the Gold Coast which was amended in 2005 to allow for the development of Q1 Tower. The PANS-OPS surface surrounding the site of Q1 tower was 304m above sea level and the spire on Q1 was originally approved at this height. The developers of Q1 successfully applied to have the PANS-OPS surface increased to 335.3 to allow for the spire to be extended to a height of 328m above sea level.

The location and orientation of Melbourne Airport means that the controls to protect Melbourne Airport have very little impact upon development in the Melbourne CBD (including Docklands and Southbank). However the controls for Essendon Airport have a much more significant impact upon the Melbourne CBD, as the Essendon airport OLS map above shows. OLS over the Melbourne CBD (including Southbank and Docklands) is 228.5, while the Essendon Airport PANS-OPS map shown below indicates heights of between 265m and 315m over Melbourne CBD (including Southbank and Docklands).

<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/ESSEDON%20PANSOPS.gif" rel="gallery-all" title="Essendon Airport PANS-OPS"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="580" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/ESSEDON%20PANSOPS.gif?itok=g1jErhAs" title="Essendon Airport PANS-OPS" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Essendon Airport PANS-OPS</figcaption></figure>As a result of the above requirements buildings in the Melbourne CBD cannot exceed a height of between 265m and 315m depending on their exact location. For example, the PANS-OPS over the site of Australia 108 is 312m and the design of the building is currently being amended so that it is below this height.

One issue that was raised during the processing of the application for Australia 108 was that it was clear that the developer, the City of Melbourne and even the planning department were not aware of these requirements or presumed that a permit could be granted to penetrate the PANS-OPS. Currently there is nothing in the City of Melbourne Planning Scheme that notifies developers where these restrictions apply or that buildings above a certain height may be prohibited or need additional permissions. This had led to situation where buildings have been approved that penetrate the PANS-OPS such as Australia 108 and the tallest proposed building on the Carlton Brewery Site. The tallest of the four proposed towers at 250 Spencer Street would also penetrate the PANS-OPS.

Essendon Airport have recently prepared a new draft <a href="http://www.essendonairport.com.au/23/community-info/master-plan/default.aspx">master plan for the airport</a> which is on public exhibition until the November 29th. The master planning process can include changes to prescribed airspace although the draft master plan does not include any proposed changes to the prescribed airspace around the airport. It is understood that the PANS-OPS restrictions over the CBD are not required to protect a direct flight path for aircraft taking off or landing at Essendon Airport but to provide a safety buffer for planes in emergency situations where they encounter difficulty after take off or have to perform a go-around where a pilot discontinues a landing approach when they are not completely satisfied that the requirements are in place for a safe landing.

Victorian Planning Minister, Matthew Guy, has informed Urban.com.au that he is currently lobbying the Federal Government to amend the PANS-OPS restrictions so that they do not apply to the Melbourne CBD. It is considered that the current PANS-OPS requirements for what is only a secondary airport place unreasonable restrictions on the development of the second largest city in Australia. It is also believed that the PANS-OPS restrictions could be removed from the Melbourne CBD while maintaining aviation safety standards, which if realised would likely propel a number of Melbourne's proposed towers into a whole new stratosphere.
</body></html>

nwharr

Flight paths and tall buildings in Melbourne explained

<html><body>
Spring Street has recently released its long awaited draft vision plan for the Fishermans Bend precinct and the government and media reports have made much of the tree lined boulevards, parks, jobs and investment that will flow from the implementation of the plan.

However media reports have failed to pick up the true scale of residential development that is being proposed in the plan.

Here are the widely reported headline figures:

<ul>
<li>250 hectares</li>
	<li>80,000 residents</li>
	<li>40,000 jobs</li>
</ul>
Currently the area with the highest residential density in Australia is Pyrmont – Ultimo in Sydney which contains 13,900 people per square kilometre. In Melbourne the densest area is the Melbourne CBD with density with 10,900 people per km2.

Docklands will have a residential density of around 13,000 people per km2 when completed and the Green Square urban renewal project in Sydney (which is similar to Fisherman’s Bend) is planned to have a residential density of 14,400 people per km2. Fisherman’s Bend will have a residential density of 32,000 people per km2!

To put that into perspective Fishermans Bend will be as dense as Manhattan in New York which has a residential density of 32,000 people per km2. While this overall level of density is appropriate considering the context of the site and the lack of constraints over much of the area, it does mean that a level of infrastructure required to service the area will be above and beyond what has been required for any other similar development in Australia, especially considering the lack of existing residential infrastructure in what is currently an isolated industrial area.

The draft vision plan recognises this by proposing two underground rail stations to service the area as heavy rail is the only way to adequately cater for the scale of residential density proposed. A number of tram lines have also been proposed but these will only be adequate as an interim solution until densities increase. The section of the plan titled ‘how to make it happen’ clearly identifies that ‘the early delivery of infrastructure is critical to the transformation of Fishermans Bend from an industrial area to a mixed use area and to attract private investment.’ Unfortunately Spring Street has not yet committed to building the proposed underground train stations at any time in the future let alone in a timeframe that could be considered as ‘early delivery’.

Many are comparing Fishermans Bend to Docklands, however a better comparison would be with the Urban Renewal of Southbank that has occurred over the past 20 years. State and Local government are still playing catch up in Southbank to provide for the basic residential infrastructure required to support a new residential community of the size that had developed there over the last 20 years. When the plans for the residential redevelopment of the Southbank area were prepared in the early 1990’s, apartments only made up a tiny percentage of number of dwellings in the city and Melbourne was seen as a ‘rust belt’ city with bleak prospects for future growth.

At that time any suggestion that Southbank would be a forest of apartment towers between 30 and 90 storeys high within 20 years would have been seen as ridiculous. There were many at the time who believed that Melburnians were not interested in apartment living and the first large developments at Southbank were Townhouses and walk up flats.

The plans for Southbank made in the early 1990’s did not foresee the scale and speed of development that has occurred since 1995 and there were no development contributions required in Southbank as the government of the day was doing everything it could to encourage any form of development. With Fishermans Bend the government has no such excuses.

<blockquote>
The flood of planning applications for apartment towers submitted before the draft vision plan was released is a good indication of the potential that developers see in the area.
</blockquote>

Spring Street has made a good start by providing the framework for a development contributions plan and also recognising the critical role that the early provision infrastructure will play in the success of the precinct. However the devil is in the detail and the State Government needs to follow up the final vision plan with a detailed framework for the timely provision of infrastructure and services and how these will be paid for.

The State Government should also make sure that the provision of infrastructure in insulated from the political vagaries of the budget and election cycles to give developers, residents and business certainty when making their own plans for developing, living and working in Fishermans bend. The Draft Visions plan expects Fishermans Bend to be developed over a period of 50 years, or an average of 1600 new residents per year. There are plans already in place to accommodate over 30,000 new residents each year on Melbourne’s urban fringe over the next 30 years.

Since Fisherman’s Bend is one of the government’s key policies to reduce urban sprawl the government should be more aggressively pursuing development timelines for Fishermans Bend to have any real impact on the proportion of new dwellings constructed on the urban fringe.

Providing developers with certainty regarding the timely provision of infrastructure will boost the speed of development.
</body></html>

Fishermans Bend to become Australia's most densely populated area

<html><body>
A few games of Street Fighter II, killing your mates in Phaser Strike and throwing up on the Gravitron (with "Ice Ice Baby" blaring in the background) was a dream day out when growing up in Melbourne in the 1980's and 1990's. And the only place you could have all this was the Fun Factory on the Corner of Chapel Street and Toorak Road in South Yarra.

But the fun was not to last as Chapel Street became the place to be seen in Melbourne in the 1980's, developers started hatching plans to redevelop the massive Fun Factory Site. In 1989 a permit was issued for the demolition of the building and the development of a 15 storey apartment tower. However the Recession through the early 1990's meant that this plan was never built and the Fun Factory lived on. By 1999 economic conditions had improved and the owners of the site proposed a massive mixed use redevelopment of the site including a 42 storey tower. City of Stonnington officials were not ready for this scale of development and the application was promptly refused by Council.

<figure><a 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/Image10_3.jpg" title="Early concepts for the Fun Factory. Images courtesy AppleInsider and Webber Design" class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" rel="gallery-all"><img src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Image10_3.jpg?itok=Be1dhJAn" width="580" height="312" alt="" title="Early concepts for the Fun Factory. Images courtesy AppleInsider and Webber Design" class="image-article-full-width-580px"></a>
<figcaption>Early concepts for the Fun Factory. Images courtesy AppleInsider and Webber Design</figcaption></figure>Subsequently Fender Katsalidis Architects were employed to deliver a new design, they being at that time the go-to architects for getting difficult proposals through the planning system. A new plan was hatched that incorporated a retail podium with a 27 level, 91 metre high apartment tower rising above. The application was approved by the City of Stonington in 2001. A local residents group appealed the decision, but VCAT upheld Council's decision.

This development was also never built and by 2008 the owners of the site commissioned yet another proposal for the site. This time they employed Bates Smart Architects to design a redeveloped Fun Factory consisting a retail podium with a 9 storey office building and a 39 storey apartment tower rising above. At 134 metres high, the main tower would have easily become the tallest building outside of the central city area. This proposal was refused by the City of Stonnington despite the recommendation of Council officers who supported the application. That decision was overturned by VCAT on appeal in late 2009.

By late 2010 the project was known as The Capitol and apartments in the main tower were on sale to the public. Marketed as a high end luxury development with large, it contained well-appointed apartments with even larger penthouse apartments on the upper floors. Joint developers including APN Property Group were optimistic about the prospects of the development and around the same time applied to VCAT to increase the height of the tower to 151m by adding an additional 5 penthouse levels. This application was refused by Council and the refusal was upheld by VCAT who saw the increase in height as going one step too far. The developer’s optimism proved to be unfounded and by the end of 2011 sales in the development were struggling to break to 50% mark and by the end of the year the development had been shelved.

<figure><a 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/capitol%20comparison_0.jpg" title="Image comparing the initial Bates Smart scheme to that currently seeking approval. Image © Bates Smart" class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" rel="gallery-all"><img src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/capitol%20comparison_0.jpg?itok=rT0_MJkT" width="580" height="400" alt="" title="Image comparing the initial Bates Smart scheme to that currently seeking approval. Image © Bates Smart" class="image-article-full-width-580px"></a>
<figcaption>Image comparing the initial Bates Smart scheme to that currently seeking approval. Image © Bates Smart</figcaption></figure>With the developers considering all options including the sale of the site, they have instead submitted yet another application to amend the approved development. Amendments involve a significant increase in the number of smaller one and two bedroom apartments and a reduction in floor to ceiling heights. These intended changes will also simplify the buildings floor plans, remove the office component and split the development into two stages.

The developers are hoping that these measures will increase the broader market appeal and in turn the financial viability of the project, making apartments far easier to sell at a lower price range. Council voted on 20th May not to support the proposed amendments as they viewed the new scheme as watereing down the design intent of the original Bates Smart scheme, signalling that the architectural expression of the amended development will no longer produce an iconic podium tower development or a sculptural and slender building.

VCAT will now have a very difficult decision between insisting that any development on the site must have an exceptional standard of architectural design, even if that means the site may remain underutilised for another 24 years, or accepting that it was not realistic to expect such a high standard of design would be economically viable and that in order to achieve the objective of providing more dwellings in existing activity centres that the amended design will be good enough. Time will tell...
</body></html>

Sixth time lucky at the Fun Factory?

<html><body>
The reaction from some Melburnians with regards to the marketing campaign by Hong Kong-based developer Far East Consortium, comparing its apartment development on the corner of Spencer and Lonsdale Streets to New York is genuinely one of amusement.
There is hardly the need for any in depth research to convince most Melburnians the comparison is rather silly. However the comment piece <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/comment/developers-tall-tales-are-all-pie-in-the-sky-20130603-2nm20" target="_blank">‘Developers' tall tales are all pie in the sky’</a> ​by ABC Producer Daniel Ziffer and published in The Age yesterday seeks to attach a greater importance to the comparison beyond that of just a property marketer's strategy.
The main thrust of the article is the form of high density development currently underway in Melbourne will have “unknown consequences for the area” and result in “dense and grim neighbourhoods where skyscrapers block light and life from the streets” like Hong Kong compared to that amazing place called New York where “more than half the housing stock … is in small to medium developments, often ''walk-ups'' without lifts.”  And the “avenues are wider than Melbourne's street grid, and apartment buildings are set back from the street to allow sunlight to hit the ground.”
As the author was a one time resident and frequent visitor it would be assumed he might have seen one of the more than 70 apartment towers in New York taller than the tallest building in the Upper West Side development on Spencer Street. But maybe the views of these giants were blocked by the 4869 apartment towers over 10 storeys in height in New York City. I guess it would also be easier to miss the avenues in New York are generally 100 feet wide, exactly the same width as streets in Melbourne’s Hoddle Grid like Lonsdale Street.
Any recent visit to New York would also reveal the developing trend towards larger and taller apartment buildings in Manhattan. The latest example of this is the tower currently under construction at <a href="http://432parkavenue.com/?state=home" target="_blank">432 Park Avenue</a> which at 426 metres high will be taller than the former World Trade Centre twin towers.
The author has an issue with a developer utilising a New York inspired marketing strategy to sell some apartments but he has no qualms in comparing the same development on Spencer Street to Caroline Springs which is an even more ridiculous comparison.
This comment piece is just another in the ongoing campaign against the development of tall buildings in Melbourne by The Age newspaper. It is disappointing the same newspaper which has campaigned vigorously in the past against the environmental and social impact of urban sprawl, embodied in places such as Caroline Springs, now breaks with its previous consistency and publishes 3rd party commentary deriding the redevelopment of disused industrial sites in the CBD as an alterative to urban sprawl.
Nicholas Harrison is an urban planner with over 10 years experience.
</body></html>

Nicholas Harrison

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News