Planning scheme amendment C270

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

colleenp

Minister approves central city built form controls

<html><body>
Two evidentiary documents published by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) in recent times have provided insight into the effects of Amendment C270 upon key proposed development sites.

Located in both Southbank and the CBD, either site would be considerably hamstrung in terms of the project size and subsequent design outcomes, should the respective developers choose to proceed with their potential projects.

With Southbank and the Melbourne CBD subject to revised planning overlays, the reports both outline the case for their respective sites, whilst also intending to inform the Planning Panel established by Planning Minister Richard Wynne in relation to Amendment C270.

<h2>42 Moray Street and 11-13 Hancock Street, Southbank</h2>

<a href="http://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/342995/Melbourne-C270-Evidence-for-Capital-Eight-Pty-Ltd-42-Moray-St-and-11-13-Hancock-St,-Southbank-Peter-Brook.pdf">June 2016 Report</a>

On behalf of entity Capital 8 Pty Ltd, Peddle Thorp Architects were engaged during April 2015 to assess the merits of redevelopment of the Southbank plot.

In the works was a substantial tower consisting of 520 apartments set above an activated ground level, two commercial levels, community levels and podium car parking which would see apartments begin above the adjoining West Gate Freeway. The design allowed for 5 metre setbacks to both street boundaries.

Similar in scale to nearby approvals, the tower was to intended to provide maximum capture for ‘off the grid’ solar energy generation, usage and storage; essentially designed to become Australia's first substantially ‘off the grid’ solar and wind energy generating mixed use tower.

According to the document, the proposal was prepared prior to the introduction of the original DDO10 C262 and the proposed C270, but not submitted.

<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/image1pts.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Differing Moray Street outcomes. Image: Peddle Thorp Architects"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="197" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image1pts.jpg?itok=fyKEh8rp" title="Differing Moray Street outcomes. Image: Peddle Thorp Architects" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Initial and compliant Moray Street outcomes. Image: Peddle Thorp Architects</figcaption></figure>Key points for the report authored by Peddle Thorp's Design Director, Peter Brook include:

<blockquote>
I believe that, in their current form, the regulations are confusing and in many aspects compromise the design and innovation potential of projects. The blanket application of these regulations across the entire CBD and Southbank, without recognition and accommodation of well known physical and geological differences both within and between these precincts will, in my view, lead to poor design outcomes to the detriment of all stakeholders.

We subsequently prepared a study of a ‘compliant’ scheme for comparison and concluded that the clients objectives for the site could not be met. This demonstrated that our interpretation of DDO 10 in every sense diminished the design potential of the site and the inflexible way that it was drafted made it impossible to respond to the specific constraints and issues presented in this Southbank Precinct.

The process of preparing this amended design has again demonstrated that DDO 10 and the proposal of C270 in their current forms do not allow the best response to the site.
</blockquote>

In concluding the report Peter Brook recommends a number of changes to the current planning policy, allowing essentially for greater flexibility within the planning framework.

<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/image3pts_0.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Moray Street at full height. Image: Peddle Thorp Architects"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="335" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image3pts_0.jpg?itok=uMrecbKI" title="Moray Street at full height. Image: Peddle Thorp Architects" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Moray Street at full height. Image: Peddle Thorp Architects</figcaption></figure><h2>130 Little Collins Street, Melbourne</h2>

<a href="http://delwp.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/343001/Melbourne-C270-Evidence-for-Lt-Col-JV-Pty-Ltd-130-Little-Collins-St,-Melb-4-Roger-Poole.pdf">July 2016 Report</a>

Former Bates Smart Executive Chairman Roger Poole was enlisted to provide independent architectural and urban design evidence as to the appropriateness of Amendment C270 upon 130 Little Collins Street.

Set over a 665sqm corner site, the plot is home to the Uniting Church Centre which was constructed during 1961. Elenberg Fraser has been nominated as a prospective joint venture partner for the possible development, and have provided indicative documentation for a possible development.

Comparative schemes for the site show a preferred outcome of 33 levels with an indicative height of 100 metres, as opposed to the compliant scheme which would yield a tower of 18 levels or 55 metres. The compliant scheme is a literal translation of Amendment C270, and according to Roger Poole leads to the likelihood of small, inefficient and potentially unworkable floorplates.

Conversely, the preferred outcome is assessed to provide a superior outcome in terms of floorplate efficiency, air rights, views and design attractiveness.

<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/image7efc.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Comparative schemes. Image: Elenberg Fraser"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="351" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image7efc.jpg?itok=s54uxQGe" title="Comparative schemes. Image: Elenberg Fraser" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Comparative schemes. Image: Elenberg Fraser</figcaption></figure>Key comments within the report as delivered by Roger Poole:

<blockquote>
The history of architectural-design-by-setback as it were, is neither a happy or distinguished one. Planning scheme provisions which are simple and easily administered can have very unfortunate, unintended architectural and urban design consequences unless there are provisions for some flexibility based on performance criteria.

It would be most unfortunate if the literal application of Amendment C270 would compromise or destroy the development potential of smaller sites such as 130 Little Collins Street.

If equitable development rights are to be protected in the administration of planning and urban design policy, then I believe that Amendment C270 needs to provide greater flexibility to allow for the reasonable development potential for sites such as 130 Little Collins Street.
</blockquote>
</body></html>

silvermb

C270 on show: the case studies of 42 Moray Street and 130 Little Collins Street

<html><body>
A few weeks ago it was reported that Charter Hall had acquired a future development site at 55 King Street for $78.5 million. The site neighbours the vacant 22,000-square-metre building at 555 Collins Street which owners Fragrance Group are looking to offload following failure to receive approval for a 90-storey 300 metre residential tower on the site.

The possibility of Charter Hall acquiring the site led me to wonder what the development potential of the combined sites may be, particularly now that Planning Scheme Amendment C270 looks set to be introduced by the end of the year.

<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/55k555c_existing.png" rel="gallery-all" title="55 King Street and 555 Collins Street in their present form."><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="260" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/55k555c_existing.png?itok=lSExlysK" title="55 King Street and 555 Collins Street in their present form." width="580"></a>

<figcaption>55 King Street and 555 Collins Street in their present form.</figcaption></figure>What we know so far about Amendment C270 and how it might apply to a potentially consolidated 55 King Street and 555 Collins Street site:

<ul>
<li>Introduction of a floor area ratio (FAR) of 18:1.</li>
	<li>The maximum FAR in the central city can be exceeded if there is a demonstratable public benefit. The public benefits can take the form of public open space, office uses, public space inside the building or social housing contained within the building.</li>
	<li>Buildings up to 80 metres in height may be constructed up to one side or rear boundary if a minimum setback of five meters is met to to all other side and rear boundaries.</li>
	<li>By default podiums will be limited to 20 metres in height with the discretion to increase it to 40 metres to match existing streetscapes and on certain street corners.</li>
	<li>Towers will need to be set back at least five metres from the podium edge and likewise there will be a minimum side and rear setback of five metres for proposals which include a tower measuring 80 metres or less.</li>
	<li>For proposals which include a tower taller than 80 metres, side and rear setbacks of 6% of the overall height will be required.</li>
	<li>No additional overshadowing of the Northbank 15 metres from the river edge between 11am and 2pm on June 22nd.</li>
</ul>
As the above diagram illustrates the combined site area of both buildings is in the general vicinity of 3,720sqm. Applying the FAR of 18:1 yields a Gross Floor Area of 66,690sqm.

This means that the site extruded to the full extent of its boundaries would hold an 18-storey tower, however based on a 20 metre podium this would actually result in a building of 22-storeys with an overall height of 84 metres.

<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/55k555c_extruded.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Extruded site vs tower and podium typology."><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="260" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/55k555c_extruded.png?itok=elUVj_vH" title="Extruded site vs tower and podium typology." width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Extruded site vs tower and podium typology.</figcaption></figure>Working on the theory that Charter Hall might seek to develop the site into a commercial office tower, let's assume the floorplates can come down in size to allow for a taller tower with better views and a floor plate in the vicinity of 2,170sqm.

This allows for an additional five floors to be added but also requires an increased setback from the western boundary so based on a 104 metre tower that equates to a 6.2 metre setback. At 104 metres, this is only 12 metres taller than the existing Enterprise House building currently occupying the site.

<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/55k555c_increased_setbacks.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Increased setbacks to allow for a taller tower."><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="451" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/55k555c_increased_setbacks.png?itok=ASr_27eB" title="Increased setbacks to allow for a taller tower." width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Increased setbacks to allow for a taller tower.</figcaption></figure>The story is very different if a residential scheme were considered for the site. A tower of 48-storeys atop the 5-storey podium would yield a project with an overall height of 164 metres and 1000 sqm floor plates which is not too dissimilar to the likes of Victoria One, Lighthouse and Empire.

Pushing the tower as far north to the site as possible also deals with the overshadowing issue to Northbank.

<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/residential_scheme-01.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Comparison of residential tower to commercial tower opportunity"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="451" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/residential_scheme-01.png?itok=q-vVwTU2" title="Comparison of residential tower to commercial tower opportunity" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Comparison of residential tower to commercial tower opportunity</figcaption></figure>Based on this very brief study it would seem that we can still expect tall, thin residential towers albeit on much larger sites and employing a true tower and podium typology.

Commercial towers appear to be constrained by the requirement from tenants for larger floor plates, although this may see a shift back to smaller floor plates in order to allow developers to go taller with office buildings in the future meaning less bulk buildings with greater separation.
</body></html>

Laurence Dragomir

An Amendment C270 case study: 55 King Street and 555 Collins Street

<html><body>
Skyscrapers generate a lot of buzz around Melbourne.

We are reviewing the central city planning controls for the first time in 30 years and this has generated more interest than any other planning issue I have been involved in.

Melburnians love their CBD and our city draws residents, tourists and investment from around the world.

Developers want to build here, more people want to live here and businesses base themselves here because of the amenity and character around the Hoddle Grid and Southbank.

This week we began public consultation for proposed controls which would require an 18:1 floor area ratio.

Developers can still build beyond that ratio, and there is no upper limit - but there must be something in it for the city.

Large-scale development cannot suffocate the inner city. Modelling done as part of our review showed the central city would be over-developed and degraded without government intervention.

The inner city needs to be shaped with a clear vision and we cannot allow projects to be rubber-stamped in isolation from their surrounds.

We’ve already had encouraging feedback from the property industry and the public, pleased we are creating certainty and a vision for how we want the city to grow.

It has also been said that the horse has bolted, that the sheer volume and scale of approvals to date will create dark, windy streets.

Which reinforces why new controls were necessary.

I have approved 28 inner-city projects as minister, under the previous rules - more than $7 billion worth of construction.

I have sought the best outcome for the city with every approval, and for some permits I have included conditions such as increased setbacks and improved apartment layouts.

But we need a system which pushes for great design and the best outcome from inception.

Conditions shouldn’t be bolted on at the end of the planning process.

I also reject any notion that developers will shift their focus to Sydney.

In central Sydney plot ratios rarely exceed 15:1, even with bonuses, and the average project has a 12:1 ratio.

Melbourne’s land is more affordable and the permit process in Victoria is considerably faster.

Internationally, New York, Vancouver and Hong Kong have included plot ratios of 5:1 to 10:1 with bonuses for open space, affordable housing and other community infrastructure.

Requiring good community outcomes from major development: it is common sense – and common practice.

The record demand for sites and appetite for investment would not continue if we allowed for more overshadowing and homogenous building design, with no incentive for investing in amenity.

Approvals granted by the former Planning Minister included average plot ratios of 35:1 and up to 63:1.

Rubber-stamping under the previous government meant the bar begin to fall on design quality in favour of maximum yield for profit.

Some applications which have crossed my desk clearly seek to target a high-as-possible yield with little regard to the surrounding streetscape.

That sort of unfettered development does little for innovation.

I believe our generous controls, unrestricted upper limit and the sheer talent of our architectural industry will encourage innovation.

These controls have the flexibility to respond to individual sites.

We will continue to see investment in Melbourne, but it will be coupled with good community outcomes.

I look forward to working through the submissions and ideas which come through the consultation over the next month.

But more than anything, I cannot wait to see what future projects our vision inspires.

Richard Wynne is the member of the legislative assembly for Richmond and Minister for Planning.

Editor's note: Submissions on the Central City Built Form Review close on May 30 and public hearings will be held by Panels Victoria in the coming months, before permanent controls are implemented in September. For more information, visit <a href="http://delwp.vic.gov.au/planning/policy-and-strategy/central-city-built-form-review">www.delwp.vic.gov.au</a>
</body></html>

rwynne

The Planning Minister: on the proposed central city planning controls

<html><body>
C270 is the amendment to the interim planning controls (C262) that landed like a bomb <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/a-city-of-melbourne-amendment-c262-case-study">last year</a>. For the most part, this amendment is a step in the right direction. However, there is one change that will have a profound impact on development viability: the Plot Ratio is now 18:1.

If you own a site and were planning on lodging for a permit based on 24:1 plot ratio, you will be hit hard. Your yield will now be based on an 18:1 plot ratio unless you can convince Council to agree to additional height by providing 10% of your yield above 18:1 for “public benefits”.

Within hours of this news breaking yesterday, we had clients withdrawing offers to buy sites. Unfortunately this change will slow down development acquisition activity considerably.

The basic effect of this bonus scheme is that sites will be worth less. This is potentially damaging if you already own a site. However, this will have no effect for developers looking to buy a site. Developers will now factor this “public benefit” in as an additional tax they have to pay; therefore the amount they will be indebted for the site will decrease.

Here is the trap: If a developer factors in a yield of over 18:1 in their purchase price they will end up paying for it twice. The project won’t stack up with this.

My advice to developers is to buy a site based on an 18:1 plot ratio. Any extra yield will cost the developer 10%. The developer will be able to afford it, provided they haven’t already included this in the land purchase,

Obviously the biggest long term losers are land owners trying to sell their sites to developers. Their sites just went down in value… considerably.

We have been anticipating that the Minister will bring in inclusionary zoning – i.e. developers paying for public housing – for some time, however, this is the first amendment that has given such a number.

Here is more detail on what we have been told yesterday, how it differs from the interim controls (C262), and how it affects development:

<h2>Plot Ratio</h2>

Whilst they have changed the wording from “Plot Ratio” to “Floor Area Ratio”, the meaning remains the same. The maximum is now 18:1 but when considering the “Public Benefits” allowance, you can effectively build to an additional height provided you allow for an additional 10% extra to either:

<ul>
<li>Public open space and laneways on site</li>
	<li>Office use</li>
	<li>Public space in the building</li>
	<li>Social housing in the building</li>
</ul>
The public benefit comes with a bracketed “(agreed with council)”, which suggests the council has to choose the benefit they want or if they want it at all. With this in mind, and at this stage you can’t bank on the additional yield above 18:1.

<h2>Setbacks</h2>

Above the podium:

<ul>
<li>5m front setback from the street</li>
	<li>Side and rear 5m, however, you can now build on a boundary if the site context allows it.</li>
	<li>Side and rear setback over 80m high is now 6% of height, “with discretion to allow the building floor plate to be adjusted” – we interpret this as meaning buildings with larger setbacks at the top and with a step down to 5m at the podium is allowed.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Overshadowing</h2>

This control will only affect the key public spaces such as Federation Square, the State Library forecourt, the Shrine of Remembrance, Yarra River, City Square, Bourke Street Mall, and Boyd Park. It is currently unclear whether the winter or equinox overshadowing will come in to effect. If it is winter, it’s really bad news.

As with the last controls, most of Flinders Street is still unable to be developed.

<h2>Wind</h2>

The revised wind speed criteria is now based, on average comfort levels, not just extreme wind events. This is great news. It must be said that it is impossible to provide comfortable walking criteria on extremely windy days.

<h2>Height Controls</h2>

Unchanged

<h2>Street Wall Height</h2>

Reduced to 20m with discretion to increase to 40m if site context allows. This doesn’t have a big impact because, firstly it is discretionary, and secondly, you can take the lost yield and put it on top of the building.

Now is the time to put in your public submissions.

Craig Yelland is a Director of <a href="http://www.plusarchitecture.com.au/">Plus Architecture</a>
</body></html>

cyelland

C270: How will it affect development in Melbourne’s central city?

<html><body>
The Planning Minister has unveiled new draft permanent central city planning controls that are now to be sent to an independent planning panel which will allow the public to make submissions.

Chief among the proposed planning controls for Melbourne's CBD and Southbank is the introduction of a floor area ratio (FAR) of 18:1. The interim controls <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/interim-central-melbourne-planning-controls-the-detail">released last year</a> put in place a FAR of 24:1.

Projects will have the ability to exceed the maximum FAR in the central city if there is a demonstratable public benefit. The public benefits can take the form of public open space, office uses, public space inside the building or social housing contained within the building.

<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/floor_area_benefits.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="How floor area uplift will work. Image supplied"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="422" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/floor_area_benefits.jpg?itok=SP-l-qpo" title="How floor area uplift will work. Image supplied" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>How floor area uplift will work. Image supplied</figcaption></figure>In the podium and setbacks space, by default podiums will be limited to 20 metres in height with the discretion to increase it to 40 metres to match existing streetscapes and on certain street corners. Towers will need to be set back at least five metres from the podium edge and likewise there will be a minimum side and rear setback of five metres for proposals which include a tower measuring 80 metres or less.

For proposals which include a tower taller than 80m, side and rear setbacks of 6% of the overall height will be required.

<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/new_controls_setbacks.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The proposed podium and setback regime. Image supplied."><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="360" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/new_controls_setbacks.jpg?itok=9_I4zUvn" title="The proposed podium and setback regime. Image supplied." width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The proposed podium and setback regime. Image supplied.</figcaption></figure>Height controls will only apply to areas like Bourke Hill and there will be reinforced shadowing and wind controls, both mandatory and discretionary. The key public spaces that are to be protected by wind and shadowing controls are Federation Square, State Library of Victoria, the Shrine of Remembrance, the Yarra, City Square, Bourke Street Mall and Boyd Park in Southbank.

The following diagram and video depict the possibilities under the new controls and compares it to the 'business as usual' scenario.

<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/new_v_old_controls.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Development possibility: business as usual versus proposed new controls. Image supplied"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="471" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/new_v_old_controls.jpg?itok=Fxb3eDWy" title="Development possibility: business as usual versus proposed new controls. Image supplied" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Development possibility: business as usual versus proposed new controls. Image supplied</figcaption></figure>The proposed planning controls have been devised with the input from City of Melbourne and the Office of Victorian Government Architect. The independent panel will begin public hearings in July, the planning controls are anticipated to be in place by the end of 2016. www.delwp.vic.gov.au/central-city

<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" scrolling="no" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pT7N44i6dHM" width="100%"></iframe>

The images and video contained within this article were provided to Urban.com.au by the State Government of Victoria, <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC 4.0</a>
</body></html>

Planning scheme amendment C270

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Planning scheme amendment C270

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News