Planning scheme amendment C262

<html><body>
One of the batch of large planning applications still active yet submitted prior to the current Government's implementation of interim planning controls looks to have gained approval.

According to the State Government's <a href="https://planning-permits.delwp.vic.gov.au/greenlightExt/public/main.aspx?frm=uc_applicationDisplay_CompleteApplication.ascx&amp;appTypeId=1&amp;mId=103&amp;AppId=75">Greenlight online permit manager</a> a large residential tower at 272-282 Queen Street received approval on the 15th of June. Brady Property Group is behind the project with the tower now joining 380 Lonsdale Street as pending CBD projects for the prolific developer.

Submitted during late 2014 and designed by Peddle Thorp Architects, the project contains near on 600 apartments and spans 80 levels or 255 metres. Barring any indication that the tower has changed considerably since its submission, the approval of 272-282 Queen Street is significant in that the project would have contravened interim planning controls if submitted post their implementation.

<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/image22_5.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="272-282 Queen Street as submitted. Planning image: Peddle Thorp" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="464" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image22_5.jpg?itok=MkrvRXx1" title="272-282 Queen Street as submitted. Planning image: Peddle Thorp" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>272-282 Queen Street as submitted. Planning image: Peddle Thorp Architects</figcaption></figure>272-282 Queen Street's apparent approval poses a wider question; which notable planning applications submitted prior to the interim controls which took hold during September last year and have yet to receive a planning outcome? 

Given the State Government's Greenlight online permit manager is best described as hit and miss, here is Urban.com.au's best assertion as to which of the 'old guard' have yet to reach a planning outcome. Keep in mind that projects shown below are limited to Melbourne's CBD and Southbank, as only they are subject to interim controls, and soon permanent controls which will make the below projects nigh on impossible in many contemporary scenarios.

The vast majority of outstanding applications are centred in the CBD, more so along the CBD's western and northern flank. Eight major submissions dated prior to the interim planning controls are still in play according to Greenlight, with more than 4,400 apartments and an associated hotel still in the air.

Projects such as 111-125 A'Beckett Street, 183-189 A'Beckett Street, 478-488 Elizabeth and 441-451 Elizabeth are seeking to call the northern reaches of the CBD home whilst 640 Bourke Street, 140 king Street and 556-558 Lonsdale Street are looking for a western CBD presence.

This leaves DEXUS Property Group's 32-44 Flinders Street as the sole pre-interim planning control application in the CBD's eastern end.

Should some or all of these projects gain the nod, they will likely contribute to Melbourne's CBD becoming the densest in Australia, <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/melbourne-cbd-on-course-to-be-the-most-densely-populated-area-in-australia">in line with this article</a>.

<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/image27_2.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="A'Beckett, Bourke and Flinders Street towers in the offing" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="380" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image27_2.jpg?itok=Y5r4y3Gs" title="A'Beckett, Bourke and Flinders Street towers in the offing" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>A'Beckett, Bourke and Flinders Street towers in the offing</figcaption></figure>To Southbank and Central Equity have submissions over two sites at 71-87 City Road and 268-274 City Road, with both comfortably pushing beyond the 200 metre mark in their initial submission. Both were submitted during June 2015 and if the duo receive approval, Central Equity can expect to take another 1,300 plus apartments to market.

Another project under scrutiny south of the river is 135 Sturt Street with the Hayball-designed 41 level tower seeking approval for 300 plus apartments set above a highly active podium.

Less clear is the outcome of 295 City Road. According to Greenlight the project has yet to reach a planning outcome although project lead Crone Architects have the 70 level development as holding town planning approval on their website.

<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/image24_1.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="295 City Road. Image: Crone Architects" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="326" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image24_1.jpg?itok=bp-GPV5o" title="295 City Road. Image: Crone Architects" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>295 City Road. Image: Crone Architects</figcaption></figure>Projects that have seemingly fallen by the wayside include 293-303 La Trobe Street and 63 Exhibition street, whilst redesigned projects such as 158 City Road and 334-344 City Road have yet to be seen publicly.

Whether on not all of the above receive planning approval remains to be seen, but the confirmation of 272-282 Queen Street suggests that there is scope for the batch of 'old guard' applications to receive approval.

 A full list of active major applications submitted prior to the implementation of interim planning controls is seen below. Feel free to comment should any of those seen below be incorrect.
</body></html>

silvermb

280 Queen Street gains approval, but who of the 'old guard' are left?

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

colleenp

Colleen Peterson on amendment C262

<html><body>
If you read the <a href="http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/melbourne/ordinance/43_02s10_melb.pdf">Schedule to DDO10</a> you probably have some questions, like many of my clients do.

Most of the controls are very clear in the Schedule to DDO10. They include height, set back and plot ratio. Some are unclear and dangerously open to interpretation.

On September 16 I attended an information session with the highly articulate Larry Parsons, Director of Development Approvals &amp; Urban Design Development at the Department of Environment, Land, Water &amp; Planning (DELWP). Here is what I learnt:

<h2>Plot Ratio</h2>

The plot ratio is a calculation of the gross floor area (GFA) divided by the site area. The GFA includes all covered areas above the ground, despite their use. This was chosen to encourage developers to put car parks and services in the basement.

The schedule allows for a greater than 24:1 plot ratio if the site is of “state significance”. The Minister will decide this. The example given was Federation Square East.

You can also exceed 24:1 if you can demonstrate “public amenity improvements”. To achieve this, the additional amenity needs to be in line with state policy. The examples given were a new park in a location where the policy wants it. Alternatively, if state policy called for a new library, this might be considered.

<h2>The design objectives</h2>

<blockquote>
To ensure development supports a high quality of pedestrian amenity in relation to human scale and microclimate conditions within the public realm including acceptable levels of sunlight access and wind.
<cite><a href="http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/melbourne/ordinance/43_02s10_melb.pdf">Schedule 10 to the Design and Development Overlay, Melbourne Planning Scheme</a></cite>
</blockquote>

This clause is open to interpretation. There is no definition for “high quality of pedestrian amenity” and “human scale”. We learnt that pedestrian amenity and human scale is different in the CBD than the suburbs, and fundamentally you will satisfy this requirement if you keep the street wall under 40m and respect the streetscape of heritage places.

<blockquote>
To provide a high level of internal amenity for building occupants.
<cite><a href="http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/melbourne/ordinance/43_02s10_melb.pdf">Schedule 10 to the Design and Development Overlay, Melbourne Planning Scheme</a></cite>
</blockquote>

There is no definition of “high level of internal amenity” in the planning scheme. We were told that this would be defined at a later date. I personally believe planners will use this clause to force developers to provide large luxury apartments and will ultimately eliminate affordable apartments.

<h2>The OVGA’s role</h2>

My previous comments about the Office of the Victorian Government Architect (OVGA) were wrong. They have no formal role in the planning scheme. They are an independent advisor to the Minister. I now know that the OVGA will have their role formalized once the new Government Architect is appointed. We can expect them to have strict timeframes applied; the Design Review Panel will see only significant projects (the criteria of these reviews are yet to be decided).

There will be a panel of experts advising the state, council and OVGA on the controls. It will consist of economists, planners, lawyers, wind consultants, overshadowing and scenario testers.

<h2>Setbacks</h2>

Setbacks will not be raked or become a “wedding-cake” from podium up. We were told taller buildings need bigger gaps from the top to the podium.

You can buy air rights over your neighbour. This effectively moves your side boundary setbacks over to the neighbour’s boundary. The permit will not be granted until evidence of this land transaction can be proved. You don’t need to combine the titles beforehand.

<h2>The involvement of Melbourne City Council</h2>

Melbourne City Council (MCC) will be involved in the same way they are now.

<ul>
<li>The Minister is not obliged to take MCC’s advice.</li>
	<li>MCC can take the Minister to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) if they disagree.</li>
	<li>MCC now has a strict 28 day timeline to provide their advice.</li>
</ul>
<h2>What happens after the interim controls?</h2>

When the interim controls end there may be a bonus scheme to increase the plot ratio. It was highlighted that the 24:1 might become lower and you actually need the bonuses to get back up to 24:1. Or they might add it to the 24:1. The appropriateness of 24:1 will be tested over the coming year.

The mandatory height controls in the central areas not covered by DDO10 are very unlikely to become discretionary. This is because of the potential amenity impacts.

Craig Yelland is a director of Plus Architecture.
</body></html>

cyelland

C262 clarification session with the DELWP: what I learnt

<html><body>
Following on from <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/comment-amendment-c262-will-stifle-design-innovation-in-central-melbourne">Craig Yelland’s article</a>, I thought it might be worth looking at the application of <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/interim-central-melbourne-planning-controls-the-detail">amendment C262’s new planning controls</a> on a block within the city.

This largely came about of a request from forum regular John Proctor, who suggested a study of:

<blockquote>
…the block bordered by Little La Trobe, La Trobe, Swanston, Elizabeth, do a comparison of the approved towers and what the 24:1 plot ratio would allow.

That block has 5/6 approved towers including Aurora - [it] would be quite interesting to see that sort of comparison.
</blockquote>

I have increased the study area slightly to extend a block further to A’Beckett Street, to allow for the inclusion of 398 Elizabeth Street (Empire) and A’Beckett Tower. This is illustrated in the diagram below. Melbourne Central has been included as a point of reference and for scale.

<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/existing_block_study-01_1.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Existing conditions 2015. © Urban.com.au"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="456" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/existing_block_study-01_1.png?itok=5WPyw__9" title="Existing conditions 2015. © Urban.com.au" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Existing conditions 2015. © Urban.com.au</figcaption></figure>The diagram highlights that the Elenberg Fraser designed A’Beckett Tower is currently the tallest on the two blocks, weighing in at 103 metres. The tower is built out to three boundaries with a minor setback from A’Beckett Street on a 900sqm site.

Now let’s take a look at the same study area with all approved towers highlighted.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/proposed_block_study-01.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Approved towers. © Urban.com.au"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="509" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/proposed_block_study-01.png?itok=xpq7qO9T" title="Approved towers. © Urban.com.au" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Approved towers. © Urban.com.au</figcaption></figure>This diagram illustrates a substantial change in scale and density for the block with six additional towers over 100 metres in height, the tallest of which supersedes Melbourne Central’s 211 metres:

<ul>
<li>Scape Melbourne: 393 Swanston Street, 42-storeys / 137.6 metres (Site Area: 780sqm)</li>
	<li>389 Swanston Street: 33-storeys / 121.5 metres (Site Area: 615sqm)</li>
	<li>Aurora Melbourne Central: 224 LaTrobe Street, 88-storeys / 267.15 metres (Site Area: 3,197sqm)</li>
	<li>Scape: 212-222 LaTrobe Street and 17-25 Little LaTrobe Street, 39-storeys / ~120 metres and 54-storeys / ~ 164 metres (Site Area: 942sqm)</li>
	<li>Empire: 398 Elizabeth Street, 55-storeys / 177 metres</li>
</ul>
What would those same two blocks look like if we applied the setback and height controls of amendment C262 and the floor area ratio (FAR) of 24:1?

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/proposed_block_-_c262-01.png" rel="gallery-all" title="With amendment C262 restrictions applied. © Urban.com.au"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="456" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/proposed_block_-_c262-01.png?itok=JcrZcPBT" title="With amendment C262 restrictions applied. © Urban.com.au" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>With amendment C262 restrictions applied. © Urban.com.au</figcaption></figure>It is worth noting this is a very high level study that does not delve into apartment layouts etc or architectural form and articulation, these are merely building envelopes to provide an idea of what the implications of amendment C262 are. The modelling was done on the basis that all the sites had 40 metre high podiums with any tower element(s) set back from the podiums.

The transparent pink building envelopes indicate it might be possible to accommodate a tower above the podium as far as FAR is concerned: five metre setbacks have been applied with overall heights (podium and tower) capped at 100 metres. The proportions of the floorplate make it difficult but with some innovative design (refer to Phoenix and Collins House) it would be possible to develop or in the case of the Scape dual site, a tower bridging across both sites.

Site consolidation might be necessary to achieve setbacks plus FAR requirements, in addition to producing a feasible scheme. As such, a site like 224 LaTrobe Street which covers 3,200sqm could still accommodate a 81-storey tower but with a typical tower floor plate of 500sqm; significantly less than that of Aurora.

To finish off is a comparative study of approvals overlaid with the amendment C262 masses.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/proposed_block_-_comparison-01.png" rel="gallery-all" title="A comparison of the approved towers and C262 controls. © Urban.com.au"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="510" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/proposed_block_-_comparison-01.png?itok=HGIu4b-X" title="A comparison of the approved towers and C262 controls. © Urban.com.au" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>A comparison of the approved towers and C262 controls. © Urban.com.au</figcaption></figure>I will leave it to you to decide which is the better outcome for Melbourne.
</body></html>

Laurence Dragomir

A City of Melbourne amendment C262 case study

<html><body>
The recent, and very quiet, amendment to the <a href="http://dsewebapps.dse.vic.gov.au/Shared/ats.nsf/(attachmentopen)/56223C4737D8B17BCA257EB50080ED28/%24File/Melbourne+C262+Explanatory+Report+Approval+Gazetted.pdf?OpenElement">C262 planning amendment</a> by the Minister for Planning, Richard Wynne, which has placed new plot ratio restrictions and increased setbacks for <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/developments/melbourne-vic">Melbourne CBD buildings</a>, spells disaster for our industry and simply cannot be ignored.

This amendment has far-reaching implications including:

Innovation is now stifled.

If you own a narrow site that is say 15m wide in the CBD, under the new planning amendment your planned development will now be restricted to a 10-storey office building or a 12-storey apartment building, making the project almost certainly unviable to redevelop.

These slim-line sites are difficult to develop but innovation is – or was – possible. Just look at the design-led Phoenix building at 82 Flinders Lane.

This building took an incredibly tight 6.7m frontage and created a refreshing and innovative design-response to the site which has made a positive contribution to the environment in which it sits. The reason this was made possible was due to the ability to utilise most of the tiny site. With the new increased set-back amendment, design responses such as the Phoenix building will become impossible to deliver.

I’m not saying there should be no restrictions on mandatory setbacks as we as architects are seeing the issues caused by the many CBD buildings that were built up to the boundaries in the more lax days of planning in bygone eras. However, I believe that each project should be considered on its own merit, to consider the pros and cons of each individual site and design application.

Only then can we encourage true innovation while still respecting the limitations of each individual site.

This amendment will dramatically reduce development in Melbourne’s CBD. The result will be massive job losses in the construction industry.

In real terms, this amendment removes the opportunity to redevelop a host of C-class office buildings in the city.

Before this amendment, <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/architects/plus-architecture">Plus Architecture</a> completed a site analysis for a 13 metre wide site in the CBD. On one side sat a tall office building built right up to the site boundary, the other side was an open space containing a heritage building. Under the previous planning scheme we could have built a 25 storey office building, however because of mandatory setbacks, the site is now limited to 10 storeys.

To a developer, this means the site is worth more as the existing four storey office block and will continue to stand as-is, taking up precious space in our CBD but without any feasible development potential.

Now imagine this scenario across the entire CBD – pretty soon we are going to see a pattern of stagnant urban renewal sites and a stalled development rate. This in turn starts to stifle the economic growth of our city while pushing up prices as supply is literally cut off at the knees.

This new design objective will be the death of affordable apartments and offices.

<blockquote>
To provide a high level of internal amenity for building occupants.
<cite>C262 Planning Amendment</cite>
</blockquote>

The term “high level of internal amenity” is not defined in the planning scheme. It goes above and beyond what is acceptable to the majority of occupants.

What does this statement even mean? Luxury apartments? A corner office for every staff member? Maybe a requirement for a pool and gym in every building? The interpretation of this clause lies in the personal opinion of the planning officer. It gives council authority to reject affordable apartments based on the merit of prejudice alone.

This will result in the sole delivery of large, luxury apartments that only the rich can afford, as large luxury apartments will be the only viable product developers will be able to deliver in order to make their money back on the site.

This therefore restricts future diversity of product which will have a vast and long-reaching impact on the future of our commercial and residential real estate industry.

The approval process just got slower and more expensive.

Before this amendment, buildings over 25000sqm were fast-tracked to the Minister’s office for assessment.

Now each applicant needs to liaise with the Minister’s Office, the Victorian Design Review Panel and Melbourne City Council. Each entity has a different agenda. Each requires different presentations and each work to a different timeframe.

Now, under the new planning amendment, once a developer receives a permit from the Minister they are then faced with the risk that Melbourne City Council could take the Minister to VCAT. This is just ridiculous. If the Minister doesn’t want to be the responsible authority he should just hand over all approval rights to council.

This current situation is at risk of creating a real shortage of development opportunities in the CBD which in turn will hinder our economic growth across multiple industries.

If this government is serious about implementing change for the long term, economic viability of this great state, it should consult with the developers and architects whom must work within these guidelines to deliver Melbourne’s future.

With the dollar falling and foreign investment pushing affordability out of reach for many, now is not the time to be further stifling Melbourne’s development opportunities and therefore the delivery of affordable product to the marketplace.

Craig Yelland is a Director of <a href="http://www.plusarchitecture.com.au/">Plus Architecture</a>.
</body></html>

Comment: Amendment C262 will stifle design innovation in Central Melbourne

<html><body>
Has the baby been thrown out with the bathwater? Quite possibly.

It has been a week since Planning Minister Richard Wynne introduced <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/interim-central-melbourne-planning-controls-the-detail">significant and immediate changes</a> to central city planning that will inhibit the scope in which much of Southbank and Melbourne's CBD can be developed into the future.

In recent days, various sources have sought to analyse the changes applied to the Planning Scheme for the aforementioned areas. Alan Davies via <a href="http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2015/09/07/are-these-planning-changes-mostly-symbolic/">The Urbanist</a> has provided comment, Ratio Consultants have provided a <a href="http://www.ratio.com.au/changes-to-central-city-planning">concise summary</a> of changes implemented, yet perhaps the best indicator has come via Urban.com.au's forum where the changes have garnered pages of discussion since their implementation.

Of the many forum posts on the topic, one factor has become abundantly clear: a week's discussion has led to contradiction and uncertainty when trying to interpret and notionally apply the new rules. And therein lies the blunder in how the new changes have been implemented.

I have yet to see one person, representative or peak body state that the changes applied to the Melbourne Planning Scheme are unnecessary. The Victorian Government on the face of it does indeed have the best of intentions in mind; essentially promoting quality residential development over poorly conceived, maximum yield-driven developments.

Perhaps the best summary of the main issue surrounding the changes was from the Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA):

<blockquote>
While the Institute will support the intentions of the Central City Planning Review, it has vigorously opposed the Minister’s action to introduce interim controls of this nature overnight, without any consultation with the urban development industry.

The merits of addressing issues such as amenity and preserving Melbourne’s liveability are very much supported by the urban development industry. However the blunt action by the Minister in introducing interim controls without warning has set the tone for this important and complex discussion.

Swift, uncanvassed action such as that taken overnight by the Planning Minister serves only one purpose – to undermine investor confidence, which can only lead to reduced activity.
<cite>Danni Addison, Victorian chief executive, UDIA</cite>
</blockquote>

This is where now the baby is in danger of disappearing down the gurgler entirely.

It is all well and good to implement changes to the Melbourne Planning Scheme, but where was the tact or transparency in the process? By going about it the way they have, the Andrews Government has left the door ajar to stymie investment in central Melbourne. The ambiguity now cast over the approvals process is tantamount to inviting trouble.

I would assert that the method these changes have been implemented may undermine investor confidence, specifically in the short to medium term. And of course I refer to the rivers of investment capital flowing from Asia into Melbourne. This investment and subsequent boom in construction in Melbourne's heart represents a hefty and buoyant portion of the Victorian economy at present, with billions of dollars in play.

If prospective investors (of which there are no shortage) perceive the changes and the heavy-handed manner in which they were implemented to be counter beneficial, they will simply shun Melbourne altogether. Investment capital in this sense relates to the foreign-backed developers and is liquid; it will find the path of least resistance. Whether the capital remains in Melbourne or whether we are shunned in favour of other Australian or international cities remains to be seen, but on the face of it the events of the last week certainly will not help the cause.

This potential to forsake an untold amount of investment in Melbourne would have surely been enough to prompt the current Victorian Government to approach changes to the Melbourne Planning Scheme in a more thoughtful, encompassing manner… apparently not.

Lead image courtesy fastcodesign.com
</body></html>

Comment: ramifications of the new Melbourne Planning Scheme changes

<html><body>
While you were sleeping on Friday night, the Victorian Government gazetted new interim planning controls for the CBD and parts of Southbank, chief among them is the re-introduction of site plot ratios. A media release distributed at midday on Saturday states the City of Melbourne has been made a referral authority, after the council signed a memorandum of understanding with the Victorian Government.

<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/central_city_study_area.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The Central City Study Area. Image supplied"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="413" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/central_city_study_area.jpg?itok=9EsVqJAe" title="The Central City Study Area. Image supplied" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The Central City Study Area. Image supplied</figcaption></figure>All development applications arriving on the Planning Minister's desk before Friday will be assessed under the regime existing prior to the interim controls coming into effect. This means all projects shown in this video distributed by the Victorian Government will not be subject to newly gazetted interim controls.

<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RUTnLb0udRY" width="100%"></iframe>

<h2>Setbacks and plot ratios</h2>

The <a href="http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazette/Gazettes2015/GG2015S256.pdf">Government Gazette from Friday night</a> states that the City of Melbourne Planning Scheme has been amended with the following:

<ul>
<li>A new <a href="http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/283512/43_02s10_melb.pdf">Schedule 10 to Clause 43.02</a> has been inserted to the Design and Development Overlay.

	<ul>
<li>Buildings up to or equal to 100 metres in height will require a tower setback of minimum five metres to all boundaries or from the centre of a laneway above the podium.</li>
		<li>Buildings above 100 metres in height will require tower setbacks to be the equivalent of five per cent of the building's overall height, and likewise these tower setbacks will be required to all boundaries or from the centre of a laneway above the podium height.</li>
		<li>A plot ratio requirement of 24:1 has been added.</li>
	</ul>
</li>
</ul>
A plot ratio - or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_area_ratio">FAR (Floor area ratio)</a> - is a tool which relates to Gross Floor Area and prescribes the maximum density allowable for a development site. By way of an example, alongside other new controls as outlined in the link section below, a 1,000 square metre site in Melbourne's CBD will now only be permitted to have up to 24,000 square metres of Gross Floor Area.

The following image was distributed by the Victorian Government on Saturday showing the pre-interim control conditions in central Melbourne. No matter which way you look at it, the new plot ratio requirements appear to be very generous when compared to other cities which use them.

<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/qfgottlaogo0_pzgkrhpsvwiorlo9b8op0zw3brtpam.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Melbourne's central area now has an interim plot ratio of 24:1"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="435" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/qfgottlaogo0_pzgkrhpsvwiorlo9b8op0zw3brtpam.jpg?itok=rfwuPt1p" title="Melbourne's central area now has an interim plot ratio of 24:1" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Melbourne's central area now has an interim plot ratio of 24:1</figcaption></figure><ul>
<li>A <a href="http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/melbourne/ordinance/66_04s_melb.pdf">schedule to Clause 66.04</a> has been amended to add the City of Melbourne as a recommending referral authority.</li>
	<li>
<a href="http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/melbourne/ordinance/37_04s01_melb.pdf">Clause 7 in Schedule 1 to the Capital City Zone</a> deals with the prohibition of "overshadowing the northern bank of the Yarra, 15 metres from its edge and any open space at Federation Square, City Square, and the State Library Forecourt between 11am and 2pm from 22nd of March to 22nd September".
	<ul>
<li>Clause 7 likewise introduces a wind analysis requirement.</li>
	</ul>
</li>
	<li>
<a href="http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/melbourne/ordinance/37_04s02_melb.pdf">Clause 3 in Schedule 2 to the Capital City Zone</a> prohibits the construction of "footbridges, pedestrian ways, vehicle bridges and links across the above ground level of Bourke Street, Collins Street, Swanston Street and Elizabeth Street".
	<ul>
<li>Clause 3 likewise states that "a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works which would cast a shadow between 11am and 2pm on 22nd March and 22 September over public space, public parks and gardens, public squares, major pedestrian routes including streets and lanes, and privately owned plazas open to the public. A permit may only be granted if the responsible authority considers the overshadowing will not prejudice the amenity of those areas".</li>
	</ul>
</li>
	<li>
<a href="http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/melbourne/ordinance/37_04s03_melb.pdf">Clause 6 in Schedule 3 to the Capital City Zone</a> prohibits "the construction of buildings and works which would cast any additional shadow across the Shrine of Remembrance and its northern forecourt between 11am and 4pm on 22nd September".</li>
</ul>
<h2>Discretionary height limits become mandatory</h2>

Schedules 2, 7, 40, 60 and 62 to the Design and Development Overlay deal with previous discretionary height controls now being mandatory.

<ul>
<li>
<a href="http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/melbourne/ordinance/43_02s02_melb.pdf">Clause 2 in Schedule 2 to the Design and Development Overlay</a> outlines the maximum building heights in prescribed areas such as Chinatown, around St. Paul's Cathedral, Town Hall and Parliament.

	<ul>
<li>The maximum permissible heights vary between 15 metres in the Hardware Lane area up to 80 metres for areas along Bourke Street.</li>
	</ul>
</li>
	<li>
<a href="http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/melbourne/ordinance/43_02s07_melb.pdf">Clause 2 in Schedule 7 to the Design and Development Overlay</a> outlines the maximum building heights in the Northbank Promenade and Batman Park area.</li>
	<li>
<a href="http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/melbourne/ordinance/43_02s40_melb.pdf">Clause 2 in Schedule 40 to the Design and Development Overlay</a> outlines the maximum building heights in the River Environs.
	<ul>
<li>The design objectives for this schedule relate to "maintaining the existing low-scale river edge urban form along the river corridor" and the maximum height has been set at six storeys.</li>
	</ul>
</li>
	<li>
<a href="http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/melbourne/ordinance/43_02s60_melb.pdf">Clause 2 in Schedule 60 to the Design and Development Overlay</a> relates to height limits in various areas of Southbank.
	<ul>
<li>The applicable areas in the CBD &amp; Southbank context are around the Arts Centre, Sturt Street, Wells Street and Dorcas Street.</li>
	</ul>
</li>
	<li>
<a href="http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/melbourne/ordinance/43_02s62_melb.pdf">Clause 2 in Schedule 62 to the Design and Development Overlay</a> is dedicated to Bourke Hill and the heights for that precinct.</li>
</ul>
<a href="http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/melbourne/ordinance/22_lpp01_melb.pdf">Ordinance 22.01 (Urban design within the Capital City Zone)</a> is probably where all architects will want to head to straight away and rounding out the mass-linkage of all the amended documents is <a href="http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/melbourne/ordinance/22_lpp02_melb.pdf">Ordinance 22.02 (Sunlight to public spaces)</a>.

<h2>A year of consultation and review</h2>

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/proposed_planning_response.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Key topic areas which will be a focus in the upcoming central city planning review. Image supplied"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="435" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/proposed_planning_response.jpg?itok=6kPRGUt-" title="Key topic areas which will be a focus in the upcoming central city planning review. Image supplied" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Key topic areas which will be a focus in the upcoming central city planning review. Image supplied</figcaption></figure>2016 is set to be an even busier year in the planning world for Central Melbourne. Fishermans Bend's review and now the CBD and Southbank's own planning review are set to be completed and published. Likewise, according to details embedded in a referral posted on the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=referral_detail&amp;proposal_id=7549">Federal Government's Department of Environment website</a>, Melbourne Metro will have its planning and environmental assessment complete.

Based on reports in other media and the Victorian Government-supplied image above, we should expect to hear a lot about equitable development opportunities and density bonuses in the coming review period.

Urban.com.au is interested to hear reaction from all sectors of the urban development industry, academia, the public sector and other stakeholders. We encourage to send your comments to <a href="mailto:editor@urban.melbourne">editor@urban.melbourne</a>. Received comments will not be attributed to the source should we decide to use them in a future article. If any individual wishes to go on the record, we may invite them to write an op-ed.

Lead image credit: <a href="http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=125998143&amp;postcount=3437">GlennWilson</a>
</body></html>

Planning scheme amendment C262

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Planning scheme amendment C262

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News