Plan Melbourne

<html><body>
The notion of Melbourne becoming a 20-minute City has been explored heavily in recent times.

Seeking to provide Melburnians with the ability to 'live locally', the 20-minute City, in essence, strives to provide people with the ability to meet most of their everyday needs within a 20-minute walk, cycle or local public transport trip of their home.

Plan Melbourne's <a href="http://www.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/377117/Plan_Melbourne_2017_Outcome_5_PDF.pdf">push toward the 20-minute City</a> would also have immense repercussions for the environment, potentially reducing travel by nine million passenger kilometres and cutting Melbourne’s daily greenhouse gas emissions by more than 370,000 tonnes.

The Heart Foundation and the Victorian Government's <a href="https://www.heartfoundation.org.au/news/designing-an-active-healthier-victoria">Healthy and Active by Design Victoria</a> has the 20-minute City at its core. The push to heighten awareness around the issue of connecting people efficiently with daily necessities has not gone unlost on certain developers.

As awareness of the health issues increases, enterprising developers are beginning to talk up the health benefits of living close to places of employment; this is particularly pertinent in Melbourne's middle suburban apartment market as it begins to mature.

Developer Cedar Woods has of late been talking up the health and wellbeing benefits of living in close proximity to places of employment. Given their Jackson Green development is in close proximity to the Monash Employment Cluster, they are well placed to do so.

According to the <a href="https://www.medibank.com.au/livebetter/tag/better-health-index/">Medibank Better Health Index</a>, there are significant health benefits in living closer to places of work, thus reducing time spent commuting during the week. According to the Index, "those travelling one to five kilometres to work having a better overall health score versus those commuting more than 50 kilometres."

Furthermore, "Those with a journey of 30 kilometres or more suffered from various negative health outcomes such as increased stress and weight gain. By living close to work, time usually spent commuting can be put into other important lifestyle activities such as health and exercise, quality family time and personal relaxation."

Cedar Woods have been quick to point this out, using Jackson Green's latest release, Gardenia, as an example of buyers choosing to purchase based on proximity to their workplace.

In a recent media release, Cedar Woods state manager Patrick Archer extolled the virtues of living close to one's place of employment:

<blockquote>
People are aware of the negative effects long commute times add to their health and wellbeing, as well as the time they lose each day spent in the car or on public transport getting to work. To help combat this they are placing greater importance on where they live and ensuring it is close to their workplace. 

We have noticed a number of buyers at Jackson Green moving to the area because they want to be closer to work. They are being more strategic with their time to create more opportunities to relax, re-energise and reduce the amount of time spent commuting.
<cite>Patrick Archer, State Manager, Cedar Woods</cite>
</blockquote>

The Monash Employment Cluster is the prime example in that it maintains Melbourne’s largest concentration of jobs outside the CBD and includes employment hubs such as the Monash Medical Centre and Monash University.

The advent of further <a href="https://vpa.vic.gov.au/urban-renewal/national-employment-clusters/">National Employment and Innovation Cluster</a>s such as Dandenong, La Trobe, Sunshine and the massive Werribee East project will also serve to draw in greater populations seeking to reside closer to major employment hubs. As Melbourne's population continues to balloon, it seems that so to will congestion across all modes of transport.

People will invariably be drawn to living closer to their places of employment; perhaps now developers spruiking their respective apartment projects in Melbourne's middle suburbs will include another inducement in their marketing campaigns - that of health and wellbeing, and proximity to all that matters.
</body></html>

silvermb

The 20-minute city, associated health benefits and expanding middle Melbourne

<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>
We are nearing the first anniversary of the Andrews Government, they certainly have hit the ground running and set a lot of inter-related policy areas in a different direction. It is just a pity that the public debate around planning has boiled down to high-rise or skyscraper canyons versus monotonous "European" style development sham.

The two sides of that debate are analogous to the typical trench warfare of "left" versus "right" politics. It does not matter how loony or tory the left or right are, whoever gains the middle ground will win at the end of the day.

It is all a bit quaint and passé, really. And glosses over our real problem: our insidious car culture.

The first two explanations for insidious on <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insidious?s=t">dictionary.com</a> state it is "intended to entrap or beguile; [to be] stealthily treacherous or deceitful". However it is the third meaning "operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect" which describes our car society ever so succinctly.

<h2>Nightingale: when car culture stifles innovation</h2>

On October 14, <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/green-building-with-no-car-parking-thrown-out-by-vcat-for-having-no-car-parking-20151022-gkfia5">an order at VCAT</a> was made to set aside the City of Moreland's granting of a permit for the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/buildings/nightingale-apartments-6-florence-street-brunswick">Nightingale</a> development (6 Florence Street, Brunswick). Among the many paragraphs in the senior member's explanation of the order (and I encourage everyone to read them), the section which stuck out the most came under the heading "The convenience of private car ownership".

Paragraphs 112 through 118 make for particularly sobering reading, as the senior VCAT member used private car ownership as a convenience as part of his justification.

The private car is a very convenient transport mode in certain circumstances, but it is highly specific to where you live and where you need to travel. Brunswick is a vastly different beast to a middle-ring suburb like Glen Waverley or outer growth suburb like Tarneit.

Some suburbs are highly dependent on provisions for car parking as other transport and societal infrastructure is slow to catch up to the pace of development on the fringes (or simply non-existent). However, this should not be used as a justification for curtailing development innovation and entrepreneurialism in the way that it has impacted in Nightingale's case.

Buyers in the 20 unit Nightingale development will have signed on the dotted line knowing full well their purchase is not going to include a car park, and the location of the development in the Anstey precinct with all the services and public transport services at its doorstep would have also been monumental in attracting them.

The group of architects who are the proponents of this planning application are turning the early stages of the standard development model on its head: a waiting list is devised and then each is surveyed through one-on-one meetings and online questionnaires. This is not marketing trickery, it is a different way of doing business.

After one-on-one meetings with the design architects where potential buyers are taken through the architectural drawings, the potential buyer elects to be added to a ballot. The ballot is drawn and only then are buyers invited to sign up for an apartment.

This is what development innovation is: buyers are taken through a process so they are fully aware of what they are signing on for, effectively vetted to see if their values fit the development's goals. Sources have told Urban.com.au that the 20 buyers who did sign up are a diverse bunch: singles, couples, downsizing retirees, young families with pets, generation Y, generation X; most of whom work in socially and environmentally enlightened professions.

They are classic <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations#Adopter_categories">early adopters</a> and by looking at Urban.com.au's analytics numbers, there are many more out there.

Consider this: since we published the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/buildings/nightingale-apartments-6-florence-street-brunswick">Nightingale listing</a> in our project database in October 2014 (through standard editorial process), this page has become the 30th most viewed on the site, with 3,934 unique views.

When filtering out non-project pages: only the super-tall Australia 108 (4,097), the skyscrapers Empire Melbourne (4,619) and EQ Tower (4,311), Whitehorse Towers in Box Hill (4,552), Capitol Grand in South Yarra (5,682) and the lower/mid-rise projects of Smith &amp; Co in Collingwood (4,674) and Ikebana in West Melbourne (4,040) have had more views in the same timeframe.

<h2>Plan Melbourne should encourage development innovation, not hinder it</h2>

To quote <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.planetizen.com/node/58942">Brent Toderian</a>, former chief planner of Vancouver (bold, my emphasis), "We've understood in Vancouver for years that mobility flows from smart land use choices. The best transportation plan is a great land-use plan. That means mixing uses, in compact and complete communities, with strong, consistent urban design."

The recently <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/spring-street-launches-plan-melbourne-reboot-discussion-paper">re-booted Plan Melbourne</a> under the "A more connected Melbourne" section has seen an update of the major transport projects the current Government is pursuing. Likewise it has two options for discussion relating to involvement with Infrastructure Victoria and including the principal public transport network in the entire Plan Melbourne 2016 document.

If Plan Melbourne is to focus Melbourne's future development in a more node-like fashion spread throughout the entire metropolitan area then we need - scratch that, require - Infrastructure Victoria to advise Government on how to reduce car dependency and increase all other sustainable and public forms of transport in these areas.

Pardon a pun however if our insidious car culture can be so brutally used as a road block for new development in inner-urban areas, where buyers are more than willing to join a new community of car-free dwellings, then what hope is there in areas where car dependency is greater? "Balanced" transport investment will do nothing but maintain the status quo, it is time to enact slow progressive change right throughout the metropolitan area.

Transport should not be another bolt-on chapter in a document. It should be present throughout and Plan Melbourne must focus on reducing car dependency and creating a new transport culture throughout Melbourne, so we never again find ourselves in the situation where car culture is a significant barrier to development innovation.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OIC_brunswick_sydney_road_with_traffic.jpg">Wikipedia</a>
</body></html>

Alastair Taylor

Comment: Plan Melbourne must enshrine steps to purge our insidious car culture

<html><body>
The Planning Minister Richard Wynne has launched the rebooted Plan Melbourne as well as a discussion paper for consultation.

A media release distributed on Thursday morning states "The Andrews Labor Government has revised Plan Melbourne to address issues that affect the community, such as housing affordability and climate change - which were both left out by the previous Liberal Government.

"The Liberal's draft plan attracted 450 submissions and input from more than 10,000 Victorians during consultation, but the final radically departed from the draft and failed to provide long-term vision."

The following is the Minister's foreword from the Plan Melbourne Refresh <a href="https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ehq-production-australia/ac5567735c214dd99e2858ad2e637581fc8e3a4d/documents/attachments/000/028/229/original/Plan_Melbourne_refresh_at_a_glance_WEB_FA_R2.pdf">at a glance document</a>.

<blockquote>
Melbourne is at an exciting time in its history with unparalleled opportunity for growth, development and prosperity.

We need to prepare for that growth now, and with sensible and sustainable planning we can provide the foundation for Victoria’s economic vitality and liveability throughout the 21st century.

The Plan Melbourne refresh is about making sure our strategy for the city’s growth and development gives our present and future citizens an even better quality of life, a higher standard of living and access to greater opportunities.

I want to see us build a city that sets an example to the world for environmental sustainability, social equity, enhanced liveability and economic strength.

Melbourne is facing some big challenges. Our projected population growth, changing economic conditions and the pressures of climate change mean we need to think and act thoughtfully about how to grow and develop our city.

Much of Plan Melbourne 2014 has bipartisan support and this refresh does not propose a comprehensive revision. Rather, it allows us to revisit the plan in light of new information and incorporate some ideas that planning experts and ordinary citizens alike have raised during the consultations and lively public debates over the last few years that had been omitted.

And having refreshed Plan Melbourne, we will be in a better position to answer the big questions that can no longer be ignored: How do we make sure there is a steady supply of housing that is affordable for the next generation of Victorians? How do we manage investment in transport infrastructure to keep this city moving? How do we avoid the sorts of geographical inequalities that plague many of the world’s fastest growing cities? How do we prepare for climate change?

The discussion paper presents options for consideration during the public consultation process. These options have been informed by  the work of the Ministerial Advisory Committee (MAC) which I re-formed in 2015 to provide me with independent expert advice on how to refresh Plan Melbourne. It has also benefited enormously from submissions and information collected during an earlier extensive community and stakeholder engagement program.

I encourage you to read it, discuss it, circulate it via social media, and be part of a lively public debate. Melbourne is our city, so together let’s set its course for a positive future.
<cite>Minister for Planning, Richard Wynne</cite>
</blockquote>

To view the full suite of documents published by the State Government today, see the new <a href="http://refresh.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/plan-melbourne-refresh-discussion-paper">Refresh Plan Melbourne website</a>.

Happy reading.
</body></html>

Spring Street launches Plan Melbourne reboot, discussion paper

<html><body>
Walking around some of Melbourne’s best-designed apartments recently, I was struck by how much design could make a small space feel like a home.

I was on the Robin Boyd Foundation’s exemplary apartment tour, showing off the best in Melbourne apartments.

In Victoria, there are some exceptional examples of how clever spaces, light and ventilation can add to liveability, and how apartments built some decades ago still hold their own today.

Victoria’s property industry is brimming with experts in clever design, the very people I’m appealing to contribute to the draft apartment guidelines our government is working on.

In May, I launched a discussion paper, <a href="http://delwp.vic.gov.au/planning/policy-and-strategy/better-apartments">Better Apartments</a>, at the Planning Institute of Australia’s national conference.

The discussion paper was chosen as the best way to kick-start consultation. Rather than beginning with draft guidelines, I want the people who deliver apartments and the people who live in them to have their say from the start.

Developers are lured to Melbourne for its liveability and investment potential.

Record-low interest rates and a thriving property market have encouraged property investors and owner-occupiers to buy. These are some of the factors pushing up apartment approvals in the past few years.

While that is great news for the state’s economy and for our property industry, we need to make sure planning policy keeps pace with the surge in apartment living.

The rise in apartments has thrown up a red flag from local government, architectural and industry bodies around the standards of some apartments in Victoria.

While I’ve seen some great apartments, I have also seen some dogboxes - poorly designed with little access to natural light, airflow and storage.

The Better Apartments discussion paper raises those concerns and weighs up housing needs, market demands and building standards with the aim of improving liveability and affordability.

The government’s goal is to deliver sustainable housing outcomes, deliver on affordability, respond to the desire to live near jobs and services while also supporting investment.

The discussion paper’s focus is on internal amenity, as well as outlook and privacy.

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.

We are working towards guidelines that give certainty but still allow for innovation and new ideas.

As well as Better Apartments, work has begun on a refreshed Plan Melbourne strategy and we have begun detailed work to plan the country’s biggest infill opportunity, <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/fishermans-bend-proposals-an-overview">Fishermans Bend</a>.

We aren’t starting from scratch. Rather, major issues left out of Plan Melbourne and Fishermans Bend plans to date, such as energy efficiency, housing affordability and climate change, will be included.

Future planning work will also factor in the major infrastrcuture projects the Andrews Labor Government has committed to, such as the Melbourne Metro Rail project.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on how we can deliver innovative, robust, world leading policy in apartment design. We will be holding stakeholder forums and already, online submissons and survey responses are rolling in.

We will strive to deliver apartments to balance affordability and liveability, in buildings which enhance the city skyline and the streetscape.

Melbourne leads the world in liveability, let’s see that reflected in our aspirations for apartment living.

http://delwp.vic.gov.au/better-apartments

The Hon Richard Wynne is the member for Richmond and the Minister for Planning. <a href="https://twitter.com/rwynnemp">Follow the Planning Minister on Twitter</a>.
</body></html>

Plan Melbourne

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Plan Melbourne

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News