Better Apartments

<html><body>
Minister for Planning Richard Wynne has released the <a href="https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0030/80994/Apartment-Design-Guidelines-for-Victoria_August-2017.pdf">Apartment Design Guidelines for Victoria</a>, an <a href="https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0033/80997/Buyers-and-Renters-Guide.pdf">Apartment Buyers and Renters Guide</a> as well as a new non-statutory <a href="https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0035/80999/Design-Advisory-Service-Description.pdf">Design Advisory Service</a> for the property community.

<blockquote>
The Labor Government has already introduced new standards that ensure new apartments are built with light, storage, ventilation and enough room to fit beds and furniture.

These new guidelines will help developers meet their obligations and help local councils get their approvals right.

The Labor Government has listened to the industry and the community, running a series of workshops earlier this year to inform the Guidelines. Councils, planners, developers and consumers have all had their say.

The bar has been raised and the industry is responding. There has already been a vast reduction of apartments with saddleback bedrooms, increases to floor area, and a greater mix of dwellings all over Melbourne.

The Labor Government is planning a Design Advisory Service to offer specialist advice to developers.

The voluntary process will be aimed at larger-scale apartment developments and will include advice from experienced apartment design specialists such as architects, building designers, urban designers and planners.
<cite>Minister for Planning <a href="http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/creating-better-apartments-and-public-space-in-victoria/">Media Release</a></cite>
</blockquote>

The Apartment Buyers and Renters guide provides guidance to future buyers or renters of apartments and is broken down in two parts.  Part 1 includes all relevant links to resources at Consumer Affairs Victoria and Part 2 deals with practicalities in apartments, and what buyers and renters alike should look out for when looking to buy or rent an apartment.  

Part 2 of the Apartment Buyers and Renters guide asks a series of questions to prompt future buyers or renters might want to answer across a range of topics, from windows and natural light, thermal comfort and natural ventilation, functional layout to storage, local amenity, and energy efficiency.

All guides and related information on the Design Advisory Service can be accessed on <a href="https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning-reform/better-apartments">planning.vic.gov.au</a>
</body></html>

Alastair Taylor

Spring Street releases Apartment Design, Urban Design Guidelines and Apartment Buyers guides

<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>

colleenp

Better Apartment Design Standards released

<html><body>
Last week Collie staff members attended a VPELA seminar that focused on the Better Apartments Draft Design Standards that were released recently by the Minister for Planning. Four guest speakers with different areas of expertise and from a range of companies including David Lock Associates, Ark Resources, MAA Architects and Grocon shared their thoughts on the draft design standards.

In relation to side and rear setbacks, a standard requires staggered setbacks for apartment buildings above four storeys in height with these setbacks increasing for taller buildings. Mark Sheppard from David Lock Associates pointed out that under this standard, a developer would require a lot width of at least 39 metres to construct a building above eight storeys in height.

If implemented, this standard would limit the height of buildings on narrower lots and is likely to encourage the amalgamation of sites to achieve higher built form. As the building setbacks only apply to balconies and habitable room windows, Mark mentioned that this could result in high ‘blank’ walls being constructed on the boundary, which would not be a great urban design outcome.

Jan Talacko from Ark Resources focused on the standards that relate to daylight. Jan was of the view that the maximum room depth requirement will generally ensure that adequate daylight is provided to a habitable room however, the standard is unclear on whether deeper rooms can be provided where there is more than one aspect.

Similarly, unlike other environmental assessment tools where living rooms require a higher level of daylight, this standard does not differentiate between living rooms and bedrooms. Another standard queried by Jan is that requiring a minimum size for light wells, which take up a considerable area, but surprisingly may not result in the lower levels receiving adequate daylight.

This raises the question should a room at a lower level be allowed to rely on a light well as a source of daylight?

Comment was made by a number of the guest speakers on the standard requiring a habitable room to have a window in an external wall that is visible from any point in the room, with this standard effectively prohibiting a ‘saddleback’ arrangement. In many cases a saddleback arrangement provides a poor level of amenity however, examples were given that illustrate that in some cases a saddleback room when designed properly, can provide more than adequate daylight.

Karen Alcock from MAA Architects used this example and stressed it is important that the standards should not be used to discourage innovative design solutions.

All speakers were supportive of the introduction of apartment standards aimed at improving the quality of apartments. While the introduction will increase the cost of apartments, the general view was that many apartments that have been built could be deemed to be unliveable.

This article appeared on <a href="http://www.colliepl.com/2016/09/vpela-seminar-better-apartment-better-cant-afford/">Collie's website</a> on September 9, 2016. Michael Collie is Director at Collie Pty Ltd, a multi-disciplinary Southbank-based firm with interests in strategic planning, development planning, urban design and landscape architecture.
</body></html>

Michael Collie

VPELA seminar – is a better apartment better if you can’t afford it?

<html><body>
The <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/spring-street-releases-long-awaited-draft-apartment-design-standards">proposed apartment standards</a> will add $62,500 to the construction cost of each apartment. The attached document below illustrates our calculations for each of the standards.

The cost of each standard is calculated by multiplying the construction rate with the increased area of each item. None of the standards are for free. They all come at a cost. The yield of each site will also decrease by 20% to 40% as a result, with the impact on potential development sites, profound.

Supply will reduce and if potential developments are to be unlocked, then the land component of each apartment will increase by $20,000 to $40,000. There are two indisputable requirements for property development: one, the land component of the development must be worth more than the existing building; and two, the development must make a profit otherwise the banks won't fund it.

<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/image58_3.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Industry impact of the design standards"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="373" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image58_3.jpg?itok=0gRUyws-" title="Industry impact of the design standards" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Industry impact of the design standards</figcaption></figure>If a site is vacant, the land value will simply be reduced – bad for the land owners, yes, but for developers, this will have no impact. However, in <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/melbourne-vic">Melbourne </a>where the majority of developable sites require the demolition of a pre-existing building, (think every high street within a 5km radius of the CBD), then it is a completely different and far less positive story for the developer.

The proposed apartment standards call for enormous building separation, the extent of which makes many sites un-developable. This means that whatever type of building currently exists on the site, it will remain – no matter how under-utilised it is. 
The overall result? Less supply.

Think of it this way, if every site yields on average, a third less apartments, then there will obviously be a third less apartments on the market and therefore a far lesser supply in established areas. The by-product of this? The population will be pushed further and further out until it reaches the urban growth boundary where prices will increase due to the extra demand.

<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/image62_1.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Supply and demand fluctuations"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="598" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image62_1.jpg?itok=SeeVGpx7" title="Supply and demand fluctuations" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Supply and demand fluctuations</figcaption></figure>Of course, developers won't develop only to lose money. They will instead hold their land until such a time as demand becomes so high that the public is forced to pay the additional apartment price, at which point making the development profitable again. We saw this happen in <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/sydney-nsw">Sydney</a>, where many developers put their projects on hold for some years until the prices reached $15,000 a square metre and then were developed in a frenzy.

This means that as the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments">apartment</a> industry supply slows, prices will rise. Only once the public are willing to pay that extra $100,000 per apartment, will development take off again. It’s a scary truth, but a truth nonetheless.

The government is fully aware that their apartment standards come at a significant cost, but whether they decide to communicate this to the public is an entirely different matter – what do you think they will do?

<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/price_increase_based_on_apartments_draft_standards.pdf">Click here to see our calculations.</a>

Above are images taken from Craig Yelland's/Plus Architecture's response to the Better Apartments Draft Standards as of 15th August, 2016.

This piece was written by Craig Yelland, Director of Plus Architecture – a firm with vast experience in the multi-residential sector, Craig Yelland is an advocate of apartment living and innovative design.

Lead image: Andrew Curtis Photography
</body></html>

cyelland

Calculating the cost of the new Better Apartments Draft Design guidelines

<html><body>
Victoria’s draft new <a href="http://haveyoursay.delwp.vic.gov.au/better-apartments">apartment design standards</a> are out for consultation.

The first thing to say is that they have adopted a ResCode-style format—the intention is that they will form part of the Particular Provisions, and have objectives that must be met and discretionary standards. In other words, if you meet the standard, you pass. But if you want to put forward an alternative design response, you can.

This continues Victoria’s preference for performance-based planning provisions, which provide not only the certainty of ‘deemed-to-satisfy’ provisions, but also the flexibility of allowing innovative or contextual responses where appropriate. The objectives haven’t been expressly spelt out in the draft, although we can assume it will be a rewording of the purposes at the beginning of each standard.

The difficulty here is that there are no clear performance targets for alternative designs to be assessed against. If you put forward a non-compliant configuration of windows and room dimensions, what level of daylight needs to be achieved to be acceptable? Hopefully the Decision Guidelines, yet to be published, will provide clear guidance.

New guidelines will be prepared to replace the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development.

The second key point is that the standards do not impose minimum apartment sizes. This is consistent with the utterances of Minister Wynne, who has understood that good design is more important than size. Minimum sizes could have had the biggest single impact on the cost of construction, with a potentially severe impact on affordability. So the focus on design rather than size continues to allow cleverly-designed smaller apartments to offer an affordable first step on the home-owning ladder.

And the third critical takeaway is that there will be a period of at least three months between the finalising of the standards and their introduction into the planning schemes, and transitional provisions will apply for applications lodged prior to the introduction of the new standards.

The big focus of the new standards is on daylight, which features in the purpose of a third of all 15 standards, including the first four and that relating to entries and circulation. This responds to the particular focus of apartment amenity concerns on daylight to bedrooms.

The standards include minimum requirements for side and rear setbacks to habitable room windows and balconies, light well sizes, habitable room depth as a proportion of ceiling height, balcony sizes, storage, acoustic protection, the area of and solar access to communal open space, the number of apartments with cross ventilation and deep soil areas.

The side and rear setbacks are particularly significant—6m up to a height of 13.5m, 9m up to a height of 25m and 12m above that. The minimum light well sizes will have a hefty impact too—9sqm up to a height of 13.5m, 29sqm up to a height of 25m and 51sqm up to a height of 36m, with no light wells allowed for the primary orientation of apartments or for taller buildings. This is well above what has been typically accepted in recent years. It will force apartment developments to orientate more dwellings towards the street and the rear of the site, which should lessen their impact on the future development of neighbouring properties, but will make efficient development of deep, narrow properties challenging.

The apparent banning of snorkel bedrooms (presumably the definition of them as rooms with access to daylight from an adjacent room will be corrected to match the conventional understanding) and maximum room depth will result in wider, shallower apartments. This will reduce the depth of buildings, resulting in fewer apartments on each site and a significant increase in apartment prices—at least until there is a commensurate reduction in land values.

A combination of the requirement for 60% of apartments below 12 storeys to be cross-ventilated and at least one source of natural daylight and ventilation in corridors will encourage apartment ventilation via common areas.

The standards require larger balconies and more storage the larger the apartment, which seems logical. However, the minimum solar access to communal open spaces (2 hours at the winter solstice to 50% of the space) will force them to windy rooftop locations. Is this better than sheltered podium-top spaces with less sunlight?

Submissions on the draft standards are due by 19th September.

This article <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/better-apartments-step-forward-mark-sheppard?trk=prof-post">originally appeared on LinkedIn</a> and has been republished with permission by the author. Mark Sheppard is a Principal (Urban Design) and Director at <a href="http://www.dlaaust.com/">David Lock Associates</a>.
</body></html>

Mark Sheppard

Better Apartments - a step forward?

<html><body>
Planning Minister Richard Wynne has released the long-awaited <a href="http://haveyoursay.delwp.vic.gov.au/better-apartments">Better Apartments draft design standards</a> and with its release, the final round of public consultation has kicked off ahead of a scheduled December 2016 introduction timeframe.

The draft design standards set out "to address the specific apartment design and amenity issues raised through public consultation". They are broken down as follows:

<ul>
<li>Building setback</li>
	<li>Light wells</li>
	<li>Room depth</li>
	<li>Windows</li>
	<li>Storage</li>
	<li>Noise impacts</li>
	<li>Energy efficiency</li>
	<li>Solar access to communal open space</li>
	<li>Natural ventilation</li>
	<li>Private open space</li>
	<li>Communal open space</li>
	<li>Landscaping</li>
	<li>Accessibility</li>
	<li>Dwelling entry and internal circulation</li>
	<li>Waste</li>
	<li>Water management</li>
</ul>
At a media conference held in a 1 bedroom, 48 square metre apartment in Lendlease's 888 Collins Street, the Minister was keen to emphasise the draft design standards are intended to focus on enabling good design.

<blockquote>
The key areas that the community told us that need to be changed were to ensure that you actually get natural light into the building, that you get decent ventialiation into the building that you have sound attenuation in the building and that you have storage in the building as well.

And if you look at say, the apartment we're in now, a Lendlease apartment, you'll see that it doesn't have a minimum size like Sydney - which has 50 sqm for a 1 bedroom mandated - this is actually a 48 square metre apartment which I think achieves and in fact improves upon the standards that we are putting in place.
<cite>Planning Minister Richard Wynne</cite>
</blockquote>

For the record, here's a floorplan of the apartment the media conference was held in.

<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/888_floorplan1.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="888 Collins Street, 1 bedroom: 48sqm internal, 6sqm external. Source: REA Group"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="295" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/888_floorplan1.jpg?itok=8nIElet3" title="888 Collins Street, 1 bedroom: 48sqm internal, 6sqm external. Source: REA Group" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>888 Collins Street, 1 bedroom: 48sqm internal, 6sqm external. Source: <a href="http://www.realestate.com.au/property-apartment-vic-docklands-123290410">REA Group</a></figcaption></figure>When pressed about minimum apartment size standards, the Minister ruled them out.

<blockquote>
We will not be mandating minumum sizes because we want to ensure that good design is a part of the solution to ensure that we get quality developments. This is about offering flexibility, and the opportunity for developers to respond to the guidelines that we are putting in place.
<cite>Planning Minister Richard Wynne</cite>
</blockquote>

Another question from the media pack: "What's going to stop developers from going even smaller?"

<blockquote>
The opportunity for is obviously there, but the market will drive these outcomes. When we came to government and I came to this ministry, many of the applications that were coming before me were in fact for 1 bedroom apartments, but the market has entirely shifted.

We've now got 1, 2, 3 and indeed 4 bedroom apartments and this of course is reflected in the fact now that the government is going to have to look [to build] a school in Docklands, because families are now taking up the opportunity of apartment-style living.
<cite>Planning Minister Richard Wynne</cite>
</blockquote>

See the Better Apartments overview and Better Apartments Draft Design Standards on <a href="http://haveyoursay.delwp.vic.gov.au/better-apartments">DELWP's website</a>. The deadline for submissions is 5pm, September 19, 2016.

As always, Urban.com.au is also interested in community and industry comment. Use the comment section below or email the editors: editor@urban.melbourne
</body></html>

Spring Street releases long-awaited draft apartment design standards

<html><body>
For many months, there’s been an active debate between Melbourne’s apartment owners, tenants and builders about the need to regulate a minimum size for our apartments. One-bed apartments in Sydney must be at least 50m2, however more than three-quarters of new one-bed apartments being built in Victoria are equal or smaller than this.

So do we need new legislation to protect our state from a legacy of un-liveable dog boxes, or could we actually be better off with no minimum size regulation at all?

Planning Minister Richard Wynne released a <a href="http://www.buildingpermits.com.au/images/pdf/better-apartments.pdf">discussion paper</a> on inner city Apartments in May and has just finished a four month period of consultation. This means Victorian apartments could soon have new regulations on access to daylight, ventilation, accessibility, noise, and most notably, floor size.

While it’s too early to predict what will change, I think it would be a mistake to follow Sydney and set a new minimum size to increase the floor area of all apartments. Here’s why.

Housing in Melbourne is becoming increasingly unaffordable, particularly for the many new migrants and students who live in the CBD. With every additional square metre, the cost to build increases, and the property becomes out of reach for an extra group of people.

The average construction cost per square metre is about $3,100 for apartments in Melbourne. At the higher end of the scale, The Property Council of Australia has estimated that adding just 5sqm to the average one-bed apartment would increase costs by up to $45,000.

Instead of locking low-income people out of the market all together, our new standards should encourage innovative design to make smaller spaces more liveable. This means clever storage, larger windows, multi-purpose rooms and convertible fittings, such as fold-out beds for example.

Of course, ‘liveable’ is a completely subjective term too. A 40sqm CBD apartment might be totally unlivable for a couple who want to entertain guests or work from home.

However, a single student may find the same space perfectly adequate, particularly if they do most of their work, socialising and eating out of home as many CBD dwellers do.

It’s also important to remember the power of the market in protecting a minimum standard of living.

Apartments that are too small or too poorly designed for any lifestyle will struggle to sell or lease. Banks have also set their own lending limits for micro-apartments in recent years out of fear that the owner won’t be able to resell.

Whatever legislative changes are made, we have to recognise that Melburnians don’t all live the same lifestyle. The way that many of us live has changed dramatically in recent decades, and our lifestyles will become more diverse as demographics change and costs increase.

You could think of this as the loss of a gold standard, or a force that drives us to develop better ways of living. For example, I predict we’ll see more low-income people living in boarding home style accommodation in the coming years.

This co-habitation could reverse the worrying trend of social isolation, particularly in our major cities. By prioritising design and innovation over an arbitrary standard, our future homes can enable us to lead happier, more financially independent lives, but only if we have the right perspective.

Jim Tsaganas is a Melbourne based Building Surveyor with more than 20 years of surveying experience. He is currently the Managing Director of building permits provider <a href="http://www.buildingpermits.com.au/">Nicholson Wright</a>, which he founded in 1996.
</body></html>

jimtsaganas

Why we shouldn’t have a minimum size for Melbourne apartments

<html><body>
By 2051 the number of households in greater Melbourne is projected to almost double from 1.59 million in 2011 to 3.11 million. We face a huge challenge to ensure there is sufficient housing to meet the needs of future households. Apartments are an important part of the housing mix.

Since 2009, Melbourne has experienced successive years of record apartment approvals and development. For the first time there are more apartments being built than houses in Melbourne’s growth areas.

With the explosion of apartments in recent years there is concern across the community with the quality of apartments being built in Victoria.

To ensure apartments are being designed to meet needs now and into the future, the Victorian Government released 'Better Apartments - A discussion paper' in May 2015 and asked for feedback on the issues raised in the discussion paper from a wide range of community, industry and other stakeholders.

Below is David Lock Associates response to the issues raised in the discussion paper:

We understand that there is concern about the quality of apartments being developed in Melbourne. However, we also understand that there is a link between amenity and cost — better amenity often (though not always) costs more to construct. This has an adverse effect on affordability and, therefore, the ability for first home-buyers to get into the market. (We note that in Sydney, where the Residential Flat Design Code stipulates minimum standards, units are currently 80 per cent more expensive than those in Melbourne.)

We believe that many people make a deliberate choice to accept a lower standard of one or more aspects of amenity when buying or renting an apartment, either because this is the only way they can afford to enter the market, or as a trade-off for a higher standard of another aspect of amenity, such as location. An obvious example of this is people who choose to live in an apartment in a converted warehouse or office building, without a balcony or car parking space, because it enables them to live in the CBD where they don’t have the financial and time costs of travel to work and entertainment. Another example is studio apartments without a separate bedroom, which provide an affordable first home option. A further example is people who choose a south-facing apartment for its view, despite the lack of solar access.

Among other things, the ability for people to choose from a wide range of housing options enables them to select housing that matches their lifestyle and financial position at different stages of their life. While a studio apartment close to the CBD may not meet someone’s needs for their whole life, it may suit their lifestyle for a period of time and may be the only way they can afford to purchase their first home.

Stipulating minimum standards for internal amenity (beyond those already contained within the National Construction Code) is likely to remove housing options at the affordable end of the market, reducing choice and lessening the proportion of people who can afford to own their own home. We consider that the NCC already precludes unacceptably sub-standard apartments, and do not believe that it is necessary for government to further restrict people’s housing choice by increasing minimum amenity standards.

However, we do believe that there needs to be a consistent standard for apartment building separation, to ensure development does not unreasonably prejudice the potential of neighbouring properties. Our view is that this standard needs to relate to the height of a building (i.e. the taller the building, the greater the separation), and have the discretion to distinguish between the primary orientation of an apartment and the aspect from ‘secondary’ habitable rooms such as bedrooms and non-habitable rooms such as bathrooms. It should also have the discretion to consider the relative widths of neighbouring properties (and, therefore, their relative capacity to contribute to a shared separation), and the likelihood of a neighbouring property being redeveloped (e.g. to recognise the constraints that heritage or strata titling place on development potential).

There is also a legitimate concern that people do not fully understand the amenity standards of the apartments they are considering buying or renting, particularly with off-the-plan apartment sales. In response to this, we suggest that a rating system be developed for apartment amenity and that each apartment for sale or rent be required to have its rating explained to potential purchasers or renters. A standard set of apartment amenity criteria could be developed, so that apartments can be easily compared. For example, the size and access to natural daylight and ventilation of each room (including ceiling height), living room solar access, balcony size and solar access, energy efficiency, noise, outlook, storage, adaptability, universal accessibility, corridor daylight and ventilation, car parking and provision of communal facilities could all be rated “good”, “standard” or “poor”, based on a standard set of objective 2 criteria. At the same time, the location of the apartment in terms of its accessibility to amenities such as public transport and parks could be rated.

A rating system would ensure that potential purchasers and renters can make informed choices about apartments, without restricting the options available to them. It would also ensure that the price of apartments is closely related to their amenity, so that relatively poor apartments provide an affordable housing option.

Mark Sheppard is a Principal at <a href="http://www.dlaaust.com/">David Lock Associates</a>. This article recently appeared on the David Lock Associates website.
</body></html>

Better apartments for the future

<html><body>
Guidelines and standards for apartment design are being debated rigorously in the planning industry with the release in May by the State Government of the Better Apartments discussion paper. A panel of four industry experts engaged in a lively debate at a UDIA forum on July 9th.

Christine Wyatt, Deputy Secretary of DELWP, introduced the topic and gave a brief overview of the process thus far. She encouraged everyone to get involved in the discussion as the Minister for Planning with the support of the Department of Environment, Water and Planning (DELWP) is in the consultative phase of the process and is seeking feedback from the development industry and the general public.

The panel comprised four industry experts: Craig Yelland (Plus Architecture), Nicola Foxworthy (Common Equity Housing), David Waldren (Grocon) and Marcus Spiller (SGS Economics). Questions from the chairperson and the audience sparked a strong debate, with a range of differing viewpoints expressed throughout the discussion.

<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/betterapartments.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Launched during May and still subject to robust discussion"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="387" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/betterapartments.jpg?itok=7XqbVD0w" title="Launched during May and still subject to robust discussion" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Launched during May and still subject to robust discussion</figcaption></figure>Craig Yelland sees no reason to change the existing planning controls applicable to apartment developments. He believes that the current system rewards good design by permitting development above discretionary controls where an exemplary design is proposed. According to Craig, the NSW SEPP 65 regulations have made finding a suitable site in Sydney and developing a feasible scheme incredibly difficult, subsequently driving up the cost of apartments.

In complete contrast to Craig, David Waldren was in favour of guidelines and minimum standards, and mentioned that Grocon uses SEPP 65 as a benchmark for its Melbourne developments, believing that it facilitates a high standard of housing. He said that minimum apartment standards would provide a level playing field for all developers, clearly setting out expectations.

While Nicola did not agree that mandatory standards were necessary or beneficial in all instances, she was supportive of some guidance for apartment proposals to ensure that all housing, including affordable housing, provides reasonable amenity to occupants.

Marcus Spiller believes that the internal specifications of apartments should be left to the market to determine with only the aspects of apartment development that affect public amenity being regulated.

<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/the-commons.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The Commons Brunswick, considered an exemplar project"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="387" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/the-commons.jpg?itok=Zoc8X_s6" title="The Commons Brunswick, considered an exemplar project" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The Commons Brunswick, considered an exemplar apartment project</figcaption></figure>While we share some of the concerns raised by the panel regarding the implications for housing affordability if minimum standards are mandated, we believe that some guidance is necessary to ensure that a reasonable level of amenity is provided to all apartment dwellers. A performance based system that rewards innovative design can still be achieved while setting out clear expectations for apartment developments under a new set of guidelines.

We will be keen to see the process unfold over the coming months and look forward to seeing the first draft of the guidelines in 2016.

This article appeared on Collie's website on July 24th. Michael Collie is Director at <a href="http://www.colliepl.com/">Collie Pty Ltd</a>, a multi-disciplinary Southbank-based firm with interests in strategic planning, development planning, urban design and landscape architecture.
</body></html>

UDIA Forum - Apartment Design and Affordable Housing

<html><body>
Victoria is currently undergoing a substantial consultation process targeted at improving the design quality of apartments being built across the state. <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/victorias-push-for-better-apartments-part-1">Part 1</a> of this post discussed the main aspects of the <a href="http://delwp.vic.gov.au/planning/policy-and-strategy/better-apartments">Better Apartments</a> discussion paper released by the state government. Part 2 of this discussion will focus on why the state government should step in to guide the future development of apartments.

Many commentators on this subject are fiercely against anything other than the status quo which is largely determined by the free market. Their view is that if someone is willing to depart with the cash, it should be up to them as to what they buy. If that means the apartment has poor amenity then that is the individual’s choice and government has no place intervening. However the government does intervene in many other goods and service for the benefit of the community.

<h2>So why should the government step in to provide minimum apartment standards?</h2>

The free market does not easily take into account the mass consequences of individual choices. For example, if apartments within a building can be sold cheaper by the development excluding suitable landscaping, then the market will reward that approach. If this approach is allowed to continue over time, our built environment as a whole suffers the combined effects of poor design, such as making cities more susceptible to the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/urban-heat-island-effect-whats-that">Urban Heat Island Effect</a>.

Another failure of the free market approach is to ignore the long term consequences in favour of achieving short term priorities. In a fast paced consumer driven society, permanence is something of a novelty. Our cars and white goods seem to last up to 10 years whilst our smart phones typically last about 2-3 years before they ‘need’ upgrading. Apartments however on the whole still have very substantial lifespan even when they are no longer useful.

This is a significant danger for our newly constructed apartment buildings which could easily become semi-abandoned slums if they cannot adapt to future requirements or be easily maintained. The developer and the initial buyer have nothing to lose if the building is great for the first ten years, mediocre for the next ten and uninhabitable from then on. As long as they don’t own the building when it becomes uninhabitable it will not be their problem. It will be someone’s problem though and our society will collectively pay the price if buildings become dilapidated and unusable.

<h2>Should the government mandate minimum apartment sizes?</h2>

A substantial aspect to this debate is the question of mandated minimum sizes. A common complaint against apartments are that they are ‘dog boxes’ which are too small. This complaint however is much more of a symptom than a disease. A poorly designed 50 square metre apartment can be very impractical for living, just as a well designed 24 square metre apartment can be a great place to live. It is far more about design quality, than size.

Some commentators believe that mandatory apartment sizes are a foregone conclusion for Victoria. This would seem quite premature given the following commentary by the Planning Minister in Urban.com.au

<blockquote>
While apartment sizes are a hot talking point, we must keep in mind that good design is the key. There are some fantastic small apartments offering good amenity, natural light and are affordable, just as there are plenty of poorly-designed large apartments.
<cite>Planning Minister Richard Wynne</cite>
</blockquote>

If we agree that the problem is poor design at the bottom end of the spectrum, the solution then is to weed out the bad designs prior to approval. To do this the most obvious solution would be to require proposed apartment developments to be subject to a design review by the Office of the Victorian Government Architect. This would enable the quality of design to be assessed independently and the success of an apartment proposal would be tied to design quality rather than apartment size.

For unwilling developers concerned by the perception of a less certain outcome, a secondary option would be compulsory adherence to a full set of proscribed design standards including minimum apartment sizes.

<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/rate-my-building.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Rate My Building sample responses"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="580" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/rate-my-building.jpg?itok=W7KuSUQT" title="Rate My Building sample responses" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Rate My Building sample responses</figcaption></figure><h2>Bedroom sizes are being squeezed</h2>

A major bugbear for many apartment dwellers in newer homes is the limited size of the bedrooms. Whilst some might argue that a queen or king sized bed is a luxury item, for those taller than 188cm, a queen or king sized bed is a requirement for a good night’s sleep. By restricting bedroom sizes to only fit a double bed, the effect is to restrict who can live in the apartment.

Apartments which cannot facilitate a queen sized bed amounts to housing discrimination. Imagine the outcry if a public transport or government service was not available to people over 188cm in height. Housing is a basic and fundamental human need, regardless of height. Any guidelines or standards on apartment design that come out of this process need to engage with this aspect of apartment design.

<h2>Will minimum design standards significantly increase apartment costs?</h2>

Some of the most outspoken critics of the Better Apartments discussion paper and of apartment regulation cite the issue of housing affordability as the major reason why the government should not interfere with the apartment market. Perhaps the most alarming prediction was from <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/better-apartments-should-be-retitled-more-expensive-apartments">Craig Yelland</a> who proclaimed that “The cost per apartment will immediately increase by upwards of $150,000”.

The prediction is drawn from a comparison between Melbourne and Sydney apartment prices. Whilst it is absolutely clear that inner Sydney apartment prices are significantly more expensive than inner Melbourne apartments it is far less clear that this can be blamed upon their apartment design regulations, SEPP 65.

There are many factors that impact on the cost of an apartment in Sydney. Sydney has higher average wages and higher prices on goods and services. It also has different city geography, zoning controls, levels of international investment and different transport infrastructure all of which affect apartment prices. Median house prices in greater Sydney have also increased more quickly than in greater Melbourne, a fact which is also due to a complex system of factors.

<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1">
<caption>Median house prices</caption>
	<thead><tr>
<th>Year</th>
			<th>Melbourne</th>
			<th>Sydney</th>
		</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2010</td>
			<td>$560K</td>
			<td>$629.9K</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>2014</td>
			<td>$658K</td>
			<td>$811.8K</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>percentage increase</td>
			<td>18%</td>
			<td>29%</td>
		</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
It is important to note however that SEPP 65 is not limited to Sydney, it is has jurisdiction across all of New South Wales. It is in fact in the regional centres where the State of Origin comparison between NSW and Victoria reveals an interesting story. If it were the case that SEPP 65 was responsible for apartment prices immediately increasing by upwards of $150,000, due to the mandated larger sized apartment sizes, bedroom windows or higher ceiling heights then we should expect it everywhere that those requirements are enforced.

A quick comparison between Newcastle (NSW), Wollongong (NSW) and Geelong (Vic) shows that it is possible to buy in all three locations a typical 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom 1 car-space apartments for somewhere between $530K and $580K

​

<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/image29_0.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Image source: The Red and Black Architect"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="149" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image29_0.jpg?itok=Ofp8YctQ" title="Image source: The Red and Black Architect" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Image source: The Red and Black Architect</figcaption></figure>The view that the New South Wales apartment regulation SEPP 65 Laws have not substantially impacted apartment affordability is also shared by The Property Council of Australia. A 2009 survey of the Property Council of Australia’s members found that 82 percent of respondents agreed that it had led to improved design, and with relatively minor impact on affordability. At the time of the survey, the regulations had been in place for seven years.

Despite being skeptical of the idea that minimum apartment sizes will cause substantial price increases, If apartment affordability should still be monitored closely to determine the likely impacts of the regulation. If prices do begin to rise substantially there is no reason why other planning mechanisms could be looked at to increase the supply side of the equation.

<h2>Where to from here?</h2>

In a democracy it is up to the citizens to determine how much we want our government to regulate. Do we allow a basic human right such as housing to be dominated by the developer spreadsheet or is there a further role for government to step in to make sure we build the city we need now and in the future. Now is the time to have your say. Public submissions on the Better Apartments Discussion Paper open until the end of July there is still much debate to be had about the way forward.

This article originally appeared on the <a href="https://theredandblackarchitect.wordpress.com/2015/07/01/victorias-push-for-better-apartments-part-2/">Red and Black Architect's blog</a>.

Lead image courtesy LITTLE Real Estate.
</body></html>

Better Apartments

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Better Apartments

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News