Central City Built Form Review Synthesis Report

Central City Built Form Review Synthesis Report Prepared for Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning April 2016

Version 12 APRIL 2016

2

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Contents Executive Summary 5 1.

Introduction 9 1.1 Scope of this report 9 1.2 Purpose of the review 10 1.3 The Study Area 13 1.4 Interim controls 14 1.5 Strategic context for Central City growth 16 1.6 Population Projections and Development Trends 19 1.7 Evolution of Melbourne’s Planning Controls 21 1.8 The Vision for the Central City 24 2.

Current development patterns 28 2.1 What are the current challenges?

28 2.2 What is driving negative outcomes?

52 3.

Determining appropriate built form controls 57 3.1 What is the role of planning controls?

57 3.2 Method for determining proposed controls 58 3.3 Review of the Interim Controls 60 3.4 Proposed permanent built form controls – General Development Areas 64 3.5 Proposed permanent built form controls – Special Character Areas 78 3.6 Proposed permanent built form controls – all areas 84 4.

4.1 4.2 4.3

Determining appropriate density controls The relationship between density controls and built form Determining an appropriate Floor Area Ratio Introduction of a value sharing mechanism - Floor Area Uplift

89 89 92 94

5.

Discussion 98 5.1 How do these controls achieve the objectives of the CCBFR? 98 5.2 How do these controls compare to global standards?

101 5.3 How do these controls relate to capacity in the Central City?

107 5.4 How do these controls affect development feasibility?

108 5.5 Risks of re-introducing a FAR control 110 5.6 Alternative Frameworks 111 6.

Conclusion 113 References 115 Glossary 117

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

3

4

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Executive Summary Overview The Central City Built Form Review (CCBFR) is focused on understanding what planning controls Melbourne’s Central City needs in order to: • Provide much needed certainty and consistency of built form outcomes; • Improve public amenity; • Boost sustainable investment; and • Ensure development enhances Melbourne’s long-term liveability.

To achieve these outcomes, the built form controls in the Central City should balance short-term investment in the Hoddle Grid and Southbank with the overarching primary objective which is to protect Melbourne’s long-term value – both as a much-loved place and as the generator of significant economic growth. Growing acceptance internationally is that these two cannot be easily separated. A city’s competitiveness depends on its liveability which is directly influenced by the quality of its built form and infrastructure provision.

Melbourne is acknowledged as a benchmark in international liveability, which is evidenced by substantial investment, local and global, in Central City property development. This has primarily been in the form of high-rise apartment towers.

Prior to the introduction of interim built form controls in September 2015, these developments were assessed against a minimal framework of discretionary built form controls which were inconsistently applied. This has resulted in a significant number of permit approvals since 2010 exhibiting the following negative attributes: • Towers built up to or close to the street frontage which compromise the quality of the pedestrian experience and the character of the street; • Buildings that are out of scale with the local

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

heritage context; • Inactive or poorly articulated facades at street and lower levels due to the dominance of services areas and car parking; • Towers built too close together, which compromise internal amenity for occupants by reducing access to natural light, sunlight and an outlook; • ‘Walls of towers’ caused by a row of towers together with insufficient space between that reduces daylight and sunlight access into streets; and • Clustering of tall buildings that have created unacceptable windy conditions that compromise pedestrian comfort and safety.

There is significant concern that these patterns of development are now starting to erode the liveability within the Study Area that attracted this investment in the first place.

The proposed controls therefore incorporate a fundamental shift from the planning framework that was in place prior to the introduction of the interim controls. This shift aims to reconnect future development patterns with the longer term planning legacy of Melbourne which has focused on creating a Central City that residents, students and workers enjoy being in, that investors choose to invest in, and that visitors will be attracted to and recommend.

Built form controls should be updated regularly to meet new, and sometimes unexpected, challenges that arise as the city grows. This report articulates why the review is needed. It considers the overarching urban design vision and strategic planning objectives for the Central City, and the degree to which these are being compromised through poor development outcomes that are a result of inadequate built form controls. Drawing on a range of technical reports prepared for this

5

review, it provides an integrated analysis of the proposed controls and demonstrates how the Central City’s built form agenda can be put back on track.

Proposed Built Form Controls The Study Area incorporates two types of development areas: • General Development Areas, where emphasis is on growth and more intensive development and is primarily where towers can be located; and • Special Character Areas, where the emphasis is to protect and nurture specific valued attributes or realise a new vision for an area.

These two very different urban contexts require different built form controls.

The following controls are proposed in the General Development Areas: • A preferred maximum street wall height of 20 metres; • A minimum 5 metre upper level street setback for towers (above the street wall); • Minimum side and rear setbacks of 5 metres for buildings up to 80 metres in height; • Minimum side and rear setbacks that are 6 percent of tower height for buildings 80 metres or over; and • A commensurate separation distance (6 percent of the combined tower height) for multiple towers within larger sites.

Variations to the proposed controls that allow design flexibility are proposed in limited and well-defined circumstances in order to promote appropriate, site specific design responses and innovation while ensuring that certainty around development outcomes is not undermined.

6

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

In the Special Character Areas, where a mandatory height control was in place prior to the introduction of the interim controls this is proposed to remain.

This maintains the well-established built form character in the retail core and, in areas where these controls have only recently been reviewed, for example within Southbank and Bourke Hill, it aligns the proposed controls with implementation of the recommendations made by Planning Panels following detailed public assessment and review.

In the Special Character Areas where a discretionary height control was in place prior to the introduction of the interim controls, this is proposed to remain, however with additional criteria for development outcomes provided, including: • A preferred maximum street wall height of 20 metres (or 15 metres in areas covered by a 15 metre height limit); • A preferred 5 metre upper level street setback above the street wall; • Preferred side setbacks of 5 metres for buildings over 40 metres in height; and • Preferred rear setbacks of 5 metres for buildings over 20 metres in height.

The public open spaces and streets of the Central City should be safe, comfortable and enjoyable places to be for the increasing number of residents, workers and visitors who are in the Central City each day. In high density environments these spaces are even more critical as they provide space for people to socialise, do business, exercise, relax and simply get around. To achieve this, the proposed controls for both General Development Areas and Special Character Areas also include: • The protection of key public open spaces from overshadowing at defined times, including the introduction of new spaces for protection; and • Wind control targets that aim to achieve adequate levels of personal comfort for 80

percent of the time, rather than just protecting against extreme gust conditions.

Proposed Density Controls In the General Development Areas, no overall limits to development capacity are proposed. An allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 18:1 is introduced, however, as a threshold density control. This is paired with the option for developers to pursue a Floor Area Uplift (FAU) for those who may be able to develop at densities higher than 18:1. The FAU triggers a value sharing mechanism in the form of investment into public benefits in the Central City.

This aims to achieve two purposes: • Setting realistic and clear expectations about what a potential reasonable yield of a typical development site could be; and • Establishing a threshold density which triggers a value-sharing contribution towards public benefits.

Importantly, setting an allowable FAR is not an exact science that will determine the ‘perfect’ ratio.

Rather, it is about setting a reasonable threshold where the FAR is considered commensurate with a scale of development that can be accommodated on a typical site without causing the negative built form and amenity impacts that have been apparent with many recent developments. This threshold has been set through an iterative process of architectural and commercial testing for two case study areas in the Hoddle Grid and Southbank and through a review of national and international standards.

An allowable FAR of 18:1 would place Melbourne at the highest end of allowable densities globally, somewhat above cities such as Sydney, Hong Kong and Chicago. The combination of an allowable FAR control with a planning framework that incentivises the delivery of public benefit through the permitting

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

of increased development yield is accepted practice in Australia and internationally and has delivered demonstrable benefits. This could fund part of the much needed social infrastructure for the Central City, for example, the delivery of community spaces, affordable housing or additional open space which would be located on the development site.

Approval to exceed the allowable FAR of 18:1 will only be granted if it can be demonstrated that the development meets all of the built form controls and that it doesn’t have a detrimental impact on the surrounding urban context and public realm.

At densities of 18:1, there is sufficient capacity within the Study Area to meet projected commercial and residential demand for at least 20 years. Inner city urban renewal areas, such as Fishermans Bend, will provide alternative capacity long before this time. It is estimated that up to half of the developable sites within the Study Area could potentially accommodate densities above 18:1.

On sites within the Special Character Areas that are subject to discretionary height controls, a discretionary FAR control is proposed to ensure that the overall scale of development is commensurate with the built form design objectives in each area.

Benefits of the Proposed Controls The introduction of these controls delivers on the objectives of the review by: • Creating clear and consistent controls that support efficient decision-making and certainty of built form outcomes; • Improving public amenity through the protection and enhancement of the streets and open spaces within the Study Area to ensure that they are comfortable, safe, attractive and welcoming places for people;

7

• Supporting future investment by protecting Melbourne’s liveability, and therefore competitiveness, together with enabling sufficient capacity within the Study Area to meet projected residential and commercial demand for new floor space; and • Protecting the ongoing liveability of the Central City through improved outcomes for internal building amenity and the creation of a valuesharing mechanism for the delivery of public benefits to support sustainable population growth.

The proposed controls enable substantial development activity to continue within the Central City. They aim to ensure that this investment into the city makes a positive long-term contribution to the city’s growth and its legacy.

8

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

1. Introduction 1.1. Scope of this report This Synthesis Report has been prepared for the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP). It has been authored by Leanne Hodyl of Hodyl + Co, at the request of and in collaboration with DELWP. The opinions expressed in this report are opinions of Ms Hodyl, following an iterative process involving Department officers and the consultants whose work is referenced in the report. DELWP adopts this report.

This report articulates how the technical aspects of the Central City Built Form Review (CCBFR) have been integrated into a cohesive proposal for new built form controls. It incorporates the following: Section 1 - Introduction – An overview of the Central City Built Form objectives, the study area, the current interim controls, recent population projections, the strategic context and vision for managing city growth and a history of Central City built form controls; Section 2 - Current challenges – an outline of the key built form issues within the Study Area that are evident in current development patterns and that have been identified through the technical reports; Sections 3 and 4 - Determining Built Form and Density Controls – consideration of the proposed controls, including how they deliver the vision for Melbourne and address the current challenges; and Section 4 - Discussion – an overview of how the controls deliver on the objectives of the CCBFR, how they compare to Australian and international standards and potential limitations of the new controls and how they have been addressed.

Section 6 - Conclusion

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

This report synthesises the technical research commissioned by the Department, including: • Comparative Planning Controls Inter-city Research which investigates the built form controls in downtown, high-rise precincts within Chicago, New York, Singapore, Perth, Auckland and Sydney (Helen Day Urbanism, 2016a); • Planning Permit Data Review Report with case studies (2010-2015) which analyses permits for major development approved by the Minister (all permits) and the City of Melbourne (developments of 5 storeys or more) from 2010 to 2015 (Helen Day Urbanism, 2016b); • Architectural Testing of Built Form Controls which incorporates built form testing on two case study precincts in the Study Area and which provides an assessment of the feasibility of potential built form controls (Hayball, 2016); • Wind Assessments which provides an assessment of existing international planning controls for wind mitigation, a review of existing wind conditions in the Study Area and recommendations for controls that can achieve appropriate pedestrian safety and comfort levels in streets and public spaces (Global Wind Technology Services, 2016); • Daylight Modelling Assessment Analysis of Building Heights and Setbacks which investigates the effect that building height and separation have on daylight access at street and podium levels of buildings (Wood & Grieve Engineers, 2016); • Economic Issues which considers the economic context and potential impacts of the plot ratio control (SGS Economics & Planning, 2016); • Feasibility Review which considers recent development patterns, land value impacts and the impact of the proposed controls on development feasibility (Ernst and Young, 2016); • Urban Design Analysis - Special Character

9

Areas which considers the special character attributes of these areas and appropriate controls (Hodyl + Co, 2016); and • A History of Built Form Control in Central Melbourne which provides an overview of the background legislation that has led to built form controls in the Study Area and an overview of four specific controls; plot ratio, street wall height, tower setback and tower separation (Ramsay Consulting, 2016).

It also incorporates investigative work undertaken

by DELWP, including: • Existing Conditions Analysis which considers the existing built form conditions in the city (Victorian State Government, 2016a) • Overshadowing Technical Report which considers overshadowing impacts of buildings on public open spaces (Victorian State Government, 2016b).

1.2. Purpose of the review The CCBFR has the following overarching purpose: ‘The State Government has announced a review of built form in the Central City which will provide much needed certainty and consistency of built form outcomes… The review will deliver improved public amenity, boosting investment, and ensuring developments enhance Melbourne’s long-term liveability.’ (p1,Victorian State Government, 2015b) The four key outcomes sought within this purpose are as follows.

Certainty and consistency of built form outcomes Prior to the introduction of the interim controls on 4 September 2015, the Melbourne Planning Scheme favoured discretionary, performancebased controls to enable site specific built form responses. This has led to an inconsistency in the use of this discretion, resulting in uncertainty for developers, the community and government about preferred development outcomes (Victorian State Government, 2015b).

This is demonstrated by the number of permit approvals that did not meet the discretionary controls. This is discussed in detail in Section 2 of this report.

Improved public amenity The quality of the public realm is critical to the success of the Central City. This is explicitly acknowledged in the Melbourne Planning Scheme and accepted by the development and planning community.

Recent development patterns have begun to diminish the comfort and enjoyment of the pedestrian experience within the public realm,

10

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Ensuring Development enhances Melbourne’s long-term liveability Liveability is a popular term that can have a range of meanings for different people. This report has adopted the definition included in the Inquiry into Enhancing Victoria’s Liveability:

which could, over the longer term, compromise the overall vibrancy, appeal and success of the Central City.

Boosting sustainable investment The centre of Melbourne is an economic hub for the state of Victoria and Australia and a gateway to a global economy. Positive development, that is, that which adds lasting value to the city, beyond short term job growth, should be supported by the review. This includes developments that maximise Melbourne’s reputation as a well-designed, liveable city and that support core industries – including businesses in the knowledge economy, hospitality, tourism and the arts.

‘Liveability reflects the wellbeing of a community and represents the many characteristics that make a location a place where people want to live now and in the future.’ (pxviii, Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission, 2008) The term is primarily used to describe the physical attributes of a place, however it should be perceived as the interaction between the physical environment and the social life it sustains. A liveable place can therefore be conceived as:

The review should avoid unnecessarily constraining development or reducing incentives for further investment in construction projects. It should seek to ensure that short-term investment contributes to the longer term liveability and economic prosperity of the city.

‘Safe, attractive, socially cohesive and inclusive, and environmentally sustainable; with affordable

ing

Spr St

St

nS nsto

Swa

e rob LaT

t

r St

nce

Spe

Yarra

r

Rive

St Sturt

Rd

Ci ty

ilda

Rd

St K

CCBFR Study Area t

sS orca

D

City of Melbourne Permits Ministerial Permits

Figure 1: Central City Built Form Review - location of approved permits since 2010 (Source: DELWP)

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

11

and diverse housing linked to employment, education, public open space, local shops, health and community services, and leisure and cultural opportunities; via convenient public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure.’ (p11, Lowe et al., 2013) This review has been triggered by concerns that the current built form controls in the Study Area are unsuitable to deliver these four outcomes.

In particular, the controls that have operated since 1999 up until the introduction of the Interim Controls in 2015 were put in place when commercial development was both the highest and best use of land in the Central City. The demand for new apartments driven by population growth and the increased popularity of city living has radically shifted development patterns in the Study Area. This has exposed many of those controls as outdated and insufficient to address current built form challenges.

The City of Melbourne was the fastest growing municipality in Australia in 2013 with 11,000 additional residents calling the municipality home (City of Melbourne, 2015b). Of the permits approved for major developments since January 1 2010, 12 towers (2,900 apartments) have been constructed, approximately 23 towers are under construction (9,700 apartments) and 60 towers (21,200 apartments) have been approved but are yet to commence (Victorian State Government, 2016a).

The location of all approved permits (including both City of Melbourne and Ministerial permits) since 2010 is illustrated in figure 1. The significant scale of this development under construction, approved or being considered by the Minister is illustrated in figure 2 and emphasises the timeliness and importance of this review.

Under construction Ministerial Approvals Ministerial Applications City of Melbourne Permits City of Melbourne Applications Figure 2: Central City Built Form Review - Major development permits - approved since 2010 and under consideration (Source: DELWP)

12

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

1.3. The Study Area The Study Area for the Central City Built Form Review encompasses two distinct localities, the Hoddle Grid (north of the Yarra River) and Southbank (south of the river).

The Hoddle Grid and Southbank are facing similar challenges with regards to tower developments – clusters of towers built at very high densities, close together and which, cumulatively, will put increasing pressure on local infrastructure and the quality of the public realm.

Within the Hoddle Grid and Southbank there are two types of development areas defined by the CCBFR – Special Character Areas and General Development Areas. The Special Character Areas are defined by their special attributes, for example, valued heritage fabric or civic spaces. The General Development Areas cover the remaining portion of the Study Area. The General Development Areas are identified with Design Development Overlay (DDO) 10, while the remaining DDOs are aligned with the Special Character Areas. The extent of the Study Area and the existing DDO areas are illustrated in figure 3. This review considers revisions to the boundary of these DDO areas.

Significant public investment is underway in the Study Area which is aimed at improving the vitality of the city’s public spaces, and enhancing the economy and liveability of the city.

In the Hoddle Grid, this includes: • An upgrade of Elizabeth Street south of La Trobe Street (in order to create a civic streetscape comparable to Swanston Street); • An upgrade of Flinders Street Station; and

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

• The Melbourne Metro Rail project which is the largest overhaul of the public transport system since the introduction of the City Loop in the early 1980s.

The City of Melbourne is also leading a large-scale renewal of the Queen Victoria Market which is adjacent to the Study Area.

In Southbank, this investment includes: • Public realm upgrades to City Road in order to create a walkable and active street experience; • Transformation of Southbank Boulevard into a Linear Park and the upgrade of Dodds Street between Southbank Boulevard and Grant Street into a pedestrianised, civic space; • The creation of Boyd Park (integrated with the established Boyd Community Centre); • Early master plan work for the Arts Precinct (including Sturt Street) based on the adopted vision found in the Melbourne Arts Precinct Blueprint; and • Stage 2 of the Melbourne Exhibition and Convention Centre The built form of the Central City should be aligned with this investment and support its aim to foster a quality public realm experience and living and working environment.

There were 90 approved planning applications in the Study Area between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015 (major development applications only - over 25,000m2 or 5 storeys or more), including those approved by DELWP (49) and the City of Melbourne (41). Of these, 28 were in Southbank, and 62 were in the Hoddle Grid (Helen Day Urbanism, 2016b).

13

1.4. Interim controls Amendment C262 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme introduced interim controls into the Study Area which are in place for a period of 12 months from 4 September 2015 while this review is underway. The changes to the built form controls included: • Introduction of mandatory controls to limit overshadowing to identified public spaces and introduction of wind analysis application requirements (revision to Capital City Zone Schedules 1 and 2); • Introduction of mandatory controls to limit overshadowing to the Shrine of Remembrance and its northern forecourt (revision to Capital City Zone, Schedule 3); • Conversion of discretionary height controls in the Study Area into mandatory height controls (excluding tower precincts in Southbank). This applies to a number of Special Character Areas in the Study Area including those found in the Hoddle Grid - Chinatown, Hardware Lane and Guildford Lane (Design and Development Overlay Schedule 2), the former fish market site on the Northbank (Schedule 7), the Yarra River environs north of the river (Schedule 40), Southbank riverfront, the Arts Precinct, Sturt Street and surrounds (Schedule 60) and in part, Bourke Hill (Schedule 62); • Introduction of mandatory podium height and tower setback requirements with a discretionary site plot ratio control to the rest of the Study Area (introduced in DDO 10); and • Amendments to Clause 22.01 (Urban Design within the Capital City Zone) and Clause 22.02 (Sunlight to Public Spaces) for consistency with the changes proposed above.

In addition, the interim controls make the City of Melbourne a recommending referral authority for planning applications for developments in the Study Area with a gross floor area exceeding 25,000m2 * (introduced through amendment to Clause 66.04). This change formalises the input of Council in the assessment process for planning applications where the Minister for Planning is the Responsible Authority.

These interim controls do not apply to permit applications made prior to 4 September 2015.

(Victorian State Government, 2015c)

* Note, the measurement of gross floor area that determines the Responsible Authority status includes all floor area, including basements.

14

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

t

lin S

k Fran

t

S ket

c A’Be

robe La T

State Library

St

Parliament ing

Spr St

St

nsto n St

abe t

t

Will

en S

th S

Que

Town Hall

iam St

King

St

ins

Coll

St

nce

Spe

reet

r St

Southern Cross

St

sell Rus

Swa

St

Eliz

rke

Bou

ition

ib Exh

t le S

sda

Lon

St ders

Flin

Flinders St Station

Fannin g

St

Yarra River

South

St Dodds

ag

h

St

Sturt

Rd

St

Blvd

t

nt S

s ng

Ki

Gra

ay W

t ke S

Clar

N

n St ndo

h

W

St

e Clar

an

m ite

Ka va n

Melbourne Exhibition & Convention Centre

Ci ty

Queen s

bridge

St

bank

Arts Centre

lls We

Study Area

St

Areas subject to Design Development Overlay 10 - no height limits apply, an interim density control of 24:1 is in place along with mandatory tower form controls

y St

entr Cov

Areas subject to Design Development Overlays 2, 7, 40, 58, 60 and 62 - varied height limits apply, no density controls apply. Prior to introduction of interim controls, this included a mix of discretionary and mandatory height limits. The interim controls converted all discretionary controls to a mandatory control

Shrine of Remembrance

Figure 3: Central City Built Form Review Study Area with overview of interim controls shown

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

15

1.5. Strategic context for Central City growth

of all economic activity in Australia (Kelly et al., 2014).

Located in the very centre of Melbourne, the Study Area accommodates the highest concentration of economic activity in Victoria and is the hub of a global city. This fundamental and strategic role of the Central City is noted in a range of policy documents, including Plan Melbourne and the Melbourne Planning Scheme:

In 2015, the Gross Local Product (GLP) of the City of Melbourne, which measures the size of the local economy, was $90.6 billion and there were 450,336 local jobs (Geografia and City of Melbourne, 2016a).

‘‘The municipality is the location for many of the State’s premier economic and cultural infrastructure and for a wide diversity of uses 24 hours a day, 7 days a week including office and commercial, cultural, leisure, entertainment, research, educational and residential uses. The City is the venue for many major events and festivals attracting visitors from the metropolitan area, Victoria, interstate and globally...’

‘Metropolitan Melbourne is a global city. Along with Sydney and Brisbane, it is a key hub in Australia’s eastern seaboard economic region and gateway of trade, commerce and culture linking into the world economy’. (pp1-2, Melbourne Planning Scheme, Clause 21.02) The centres of Australia’s capital cities play a key role in the economic growth of the states and the nation with ‘eighty per cent of the value of all goods and services produced in Australia generated on just 0.2 per cent of the nation’s land mass – mostly in cities. Today, cities are the engines of economic prosperity’ (p1, Kelly et al., 2014).

The very core of our cities are especially important, as they represent the greatest concentrations of economic activity in the country. Together the CBDs of Sydney and Melbourne generated $118 billion of value in 2011-12, representing almost 10 per cent

16

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Melbourne’s CBD (defined as the Hoddle Grid, Docklands and Southbank) also has high levels of labour productivity at $87 per hour, compared to the metropolitan average of $53 per hour. This is explained by the opportunity that businesses have to interact with larger numbers of customers, suppliers, competitors and partners.

Concentrations of activity in the centre of the city mean that they can do this more frequently and at greater proximity (Kelly et al., 2014). The walking economy, and the quality of the pedestrian network that supports it, plays a critical role in facilitating this productivity.

The quality of the living and working environment is critical to the overall success of the city in continuing to attract businesses, investment, residents, employees and visitors. As outlined by a review of liveability in Victoria: ‘Enhancing liveability is important not only from the point of view of the quality of life of existing citizens, but it also impacts on the competitiveness and future prosperity of the State. For example, it is clear that liveability considerations are pivotal to attracting new migrants into the State. Where such migrants are skilled, creative and innovative, this may, in turn, attract high-value industries.’ (pvi, Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission, 2008)

The knowledge-based economy

Planning for the Central City

The largest proportion of jobs and the greatest economic value in the municipality is generated from the knowledge sector. While it includes the education sector, the knowledge-based economy has a broader definition and includes businesses and employment where knowledge intensive activities are the key drivers of productivity and economic growth.

There has been a substantial amount of strategic planning work recently undertaken or currently underway by federal, state and local government that will influence Melbourne’s growth. This includes:

The biggest industry by output in the municipality is Financial and Insurance Services, which contributed $32.73 billion (36% of total Gross Local Product) while the most jobs were in the ‘Professional, Scientific and Technical Services’ sector with 77,966 jobs (17.3% of total). In comparison, the construction industry output accounted for $1.99 billion (2.2% of total GLP), and provided 5,817 jobs (1.3% of total jobs).

(All figures sourced from Geografia and City of Melbourne, 2016a).

There is broad acceptance internationally that cities are now even more critical to the economy, as it is in the centre of these cities that the core production value in the knowledge sector is found – an educated, often highly mobile, workforce. As the federal Minister for the Environment noted in January 2016, ‘Our cities are the engine room of commerce, infrastructure, innovation, the arts, science and development. They are home to our most important economic resource – human capital’ (Hunt, 2016).

• Federal positioning paper on the state of Australian Cities (underway); • Plan Melbourne Refresh (Victorian State Government, DELWP – review underway); • Apartment Design Guidelines (Victorian State Government, DELWP - underway); • Fishermans Bend Strategic Framework Plan (Victorian State Government, MPA – review underway); and • Central City Strategic Framework (Victorian State Government, MPA - underway).

In addition, the City of Melbourne has undertaken a range of strategies in the past five to ten years focused on managing Central City growth. The Municipal Strategic Statement for the City of Melbourne articulates the need to accommodate the municipality’s growth over the next 30 years beyond the footprint of the traditional Central City into adjacent urban renewal areas.

State Government strategies are aligned with this growth agenda also identifying an expanded Central City with the Hoddle Grid and Southbank at its core. These urban renewal areas include the Dynon precinct, Arden-Macaulay, E-Gate, City North, St Kilda Road, Docklands and Fishermans Bend (see figure 4).

The Municipal Strategic Statement identifies the Hoddle Grid and Southbank as an existing Urban Renewal Area. It doesn’t distinguish between urban renewal and urban intensification, however the current patterns of development and activity

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

17

93 ha

RESIDENTS: WORKERS:

2051 4,500

3,500

14,000

2011

RESIDENTS: 9,500 WORKERS: 10,500

130 ha

20 ha

161 ha

2011 0

CITY NORTH

E-GATE

ARDEN MACAULAY

DYNON

2051 37,000 31,000

RESIDENTS: WORKERS:

2011 0

2051 9,000

2,500

5,000

2011

RESIDENTS: 4,500 WORKERS: 21,500

2051 22,000 41,000

PARKVILLE NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT/EDUCATION CLUSTER

HODDLE GRID / CBD CORE

FOOTSCRAY

216 ha 2011

RESIDENTS: 23,500 WORKERS: 243,000

WEST MELBOURNE

HODDLE GRID

PORT OF MELBOURNE

182 ha

2011

ARTS PRECINCT

LORIMER

FISHERMANS BEND NORTH EMPLOYMENT PRECINCT

SPORTS PRECINCT SANDRIDGE

MONTAGUE

WIRRAWAY

455 ha

2011 200

RESIDENTS: WORKERS: 30,000

2051 63,500 49,000

DOCKLANDS

ST KILDA ROAD

190 ha

2011 7000

RESIDENTS: WORKERS: 40,500

95 ha

2051 27,000 59,500

2011

RESIDENTS: 12,500 WORKERS: 44,500

2051 28,000

ST KILDA RD PRECINCT

63,000

Figure 4: Growth areas and development capacity in the Central City (Source: Victorian State Government)

18

500,000

SOUTHBANK RESIDENTS: 12,000 WORKERS: 48,500

FISHERMANS BEND

2051 107,000

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

2051 53,000 73,000

within the Hoddle Grid, which has evolved over 180 years of growth and investment and has a high concentration of public transport infrastructure, is distinctly different to the strategies required to drive urban renewal in a place like Arden-Macaulay or Fishermans Bend which are largely industrial areas transitioning to residential and mixed use.

Similarly, Southbank, which was triggered by a large scale urban renewal program in the 1980s, is in the process of transitioning out of this founding ‘renewal’ stage, and maturing into one of urban intensification.

The Council has prepared a number of strategies focused on planning for this future growth. These include: • • • • • • • • • •

Southbank Structure Plan, 2010; Transport Strategy, 2012; Arden-Macaulay Structure Plan, 2012; City North Structure Plan, 2012; Open Space Strategy, 2012 and the Open Space Contributions Framework, 2012; Walking Plan, 2014 - 2017; Homes for People, Housing Strategy, 2014-2017 Community Infrastructure Development Framework, 2014; West Melbourne Structure Plan (underway); and Knowledge City Strategy 2014-2018.

The City of Melbourne is also updating Future Melbourne 2008, which is the community’s vision for the municipality.

1.6. Population Projections and Development Trends The current residential population within the City of Melbourne is estimated to be 124,000.

The population of the municipality approximately doubled between 2001 to 2015 (City of Melbourne, 2015b). By 2036, this is projected to reach 240,000 residents (Geografia and City of Melbourne, 2016b) which means that there will be a need to accommodate an additional 116,000 people in the next 20 years.

This population growth, and the subsequent increasing demand for housing is reflected in rising apartment approvals which, almost tripled over the decade from 2004 to 2014. The average number of apartments approved in the decade from 200001 to 2009-10 was about 5,500 per year. In 201314 this had increased to an average of 14,000 approvals per year (Victorian State Government, 2015d). Residential population projections for the whole municipality are illustrated in figure 5.

Tertiary students make up a significant proportion of the population (approximately 37 percent) which has directly influenced housing demand in the municipality. This percentage, however is decreasing.

In 2014, over 96 percent of new housing in the pipeline was one and two bedroom apartments with 85 percent of new apartments purchased by investors (City of Melbourne, 2015b).

Approximately 854,000 people travelled to, or were present in the municipality on an average weekday in 2014. This represented a 2.9 per cent increase over the previous two years, suggesting a combination of three main factors – population growth, employment growth and increased visits from interstate and overseas. By 2030, this is

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

19

estimated to increase to over 1 million people each day (City of Melbourne, 2015a). This growth will continue to drive demand for new residential and, to a lesser extent, commercial development projects in the Study Area.

Land supply is not perceived as a critical issue for the Central City of Melbourne. In addition to the remaining capacity in the Hoddle Grid and Southbank discussed in this report, there are approximately 1,140 hectares of urban renewal land available outside of the study area within

approximately 5 kilometres of the city’s core (see figure 4). Over the next few decades, altogether this area can provide housing for an additional 227,000 residents (see figure 4 - total capacity noted for 2051 is 351,000 and there are currently 124,200 residents in the municipality and Fishermans Bend).

Projected residential population growth 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

0

Population

Total Private Dwellings

Figure 5: Projected population growth and dwelling demand for City of Melbourne (Source: Geografia and City of Melbourne, 2016b)

20

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

1.7. Evolution of Melbourne’s Planning Controls The built form controls for the Study Area have been modified a number of times in the past fifteen years, however, they have not been significantly altered for more than 30 years.

There has been a growing disconnect between the high level policy aspirations for Melbourne’s Central City and the capacity of the planning framework to deliver on this aspiration. The impacts of this is discussed throughout this report.

Understanding the context for the evolution of Melbourne’s planning controls is useful to both understand why there is a perception that the built form controls need to be reviewed now and to make sure that we don’t accidentally overlook past learnings. The summary below has been drawn directly from A History of Built Form Control in Central Melbourne (Ramsay Consulting, 2016).

The first ‘high-rise’ building in Melbourne was the Australian Building at 49 Elizabeth Street, built in 1888. Standing at 12 storeys high, this set the benchmark for tall buildings in the city for the next six decades. Figure 6 illustrates the built form of the Hoddle Grid in 1928.

In the United States, however, leaps in construction technology meant that high-rise buildings were commonplace as early as 1914 when the tallest building in New York was the Woolworth Building standing at 240 metres high. These were not appearing in Melbourne until the late 1950s, when the ICI Building was constructed.

Many of the built form controls being considered as part of this review have been utilised for many years, such as height limits and setbacks.

Similarly, density controls are not new for Melbourne. They were first introduced in 1964 in the form of plot ratio controls (identical to a

Figure 6: Aerial view of the Hoddle Grid and Southbank, 1928 (Source: DELWP website, photo by “Airspy” Shaw Aviation Company)

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

21

Floor Area Ratio control) when the highest plot ratio allowed was 12:1. At this time, the blanket 40 metre height control over the Hoddle Grid was removed.

The plot ratio controls were reviewed in 1977 when the maximum plot ratio was halved and bonuses were provided for the provision of an identified list of development features. These controls delivered some of Melbourne’s largest buildings including Nauru House, the Rialto tower, 101 Collins Street, 120 Collins Street, 530 Collins Street, 600 Bourke Street, Casselden Place at 2 Lonsdale Street and the Telstra building in Exhibition Street. All of these developments were obliged to comply with the mandatory plot ratio maximum (with bonuses) of 12:1.

This was revised in 1988 when the base plot ratio was increased to 8:1 and could be increased further to a maximum bonus of 12:1. This remained in place until 1999. Potential development features that could trigger a development bonus included: • Through block arcades / passageways; • Footpath and lane upgrades; • Indoor or outdoor space set aside for public enjoyment; • Weather protection; • Conservation and restoration of a building of architectural or historic interest; • Land to be acquired by the Responsible Authority; • Residential accommodation or hotel (which at the time was incentivising residential use); and • A range of other design features requested by the Responsible Authority.

The 1999 rewrite of the Melbourne Planning Scheme led to the mandatory, site specific plot ratio controls being removed and a discretionary plot ratio control being applied to whole city blocks. This can now be perceived as a radical

22

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

shift in planning for the Central City. Importantly, this removed the potency and effectiveness of the control, rather than its intent.

The reasons for the removal of the site specific plot ratio control cited at Panel were as follows: • It was considered that much of what the plot ratio system had been intended to do had been achieved; • Bonus features listed in the old scheme should be achieved through detailed urban design analysis that would form part of the permit approval process. This effectively sought to ‘raise the bar’ by absorbing what was seen as a bonus attribute into the normal expectations for development; and • The absolute maximum plot ratio of 12:1 was not a guarantee of the optimum design outcome in every case. The system encouraged the undesirable consolidation of smaller lots, with a subsequent loss of the ‘fine grain’ subdivision and resultant built form character of the city.

While not discussed at the Panel, the system was also perceived to be vulnerable to distortion, with sometimes quite dubious “features” included in applications for no clear design or public amenity reason but simply to increase plot ratio.

Since 1999, development in the city has been predominantly governed by a framework of policy, discretionary performance based controls and design guidelines. These planning scheme changes closely followed the introduction of Council’s Postcode 3000 program, which incentivised new residential development in the Hoddle Grid. The Capital City Zone was also introduced at this time. This broad zone enables the widest range of uses in the Central City and includes residential uses as an ‘as-of-right’ land use.

Redevelopment of smaller sites became far more profitable and attractive as investment options.

This change in policy and subsequent market demand, effectively, opened up almost every site in the city for potential redevelopment. As market pressure increased for more apartment developments, the discretionary controls – block plot ratios, upper level street setbacks, tower separation and height – have been increasingly compromised, leaving the city vulnerable to developments of a scale and density that were never contemplated by the controls. This has led to radically increasing densities in the Study Area.

Retrofitting planning controls to adjust to contemporary challenges and to achieve defined long-term strategic objectives for a city is good planning practice. Melbourne has done this many times. Cities like Hong Kong and New

York have all reviewed and revised their density controls downward to address concerns of overdevelopment (Hodyl, 2015).

The reformatting of the Melbourne Planning Scheme in 1999 did not involve a comprehensive assessment of built form. The review of Southbank built form controls (Planning Scheme Amendment C171) introduced minor but important amendments, but did not substantially change the built form controls in the area. The CCBFR, therefore, represents the most significant review of built form policy in the Study Area in the past 30 years.

Figures 7 and 8 show views of the existing built form in the Study Area.

Figure 7: View of the existing built form in the Hoddle Grid from Southbank, March 2016

Figure 8: View of the existing built form in Southbank from Sturt Street, March 2016

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

23

1.8 The Vision for the Central City The City of Melbourne has driven and implemented a design-led vision for the Central City over the past 30 years through work such as 1985 Strategy Plan, Grids and Greenery (1987) and Places for People (1994 - 2015). These addressed the overarching urban structure of the Central City, particularly the Hoddle Grid, and prioritised investment in the public realm. Each is focused on creating a city for people.

The heart of this vision has been captured as follows: ‘The identity of a city – its image, the way it works and feels, its presence in our memories and as a backdrop for new experiences – is embodied in its built form. The street structure, the scale, proportion and detail of its buildings, the qualities of its streets and open spaces, and the mix of uses it accommodates all combine to embody and express the unique character of the city and its culture.

Over time the cultural heritage of the city is laid down in this built form, tracing and reflecting changes in priorities and technologies in successive layers of city fabric. These culminate at any given time as a spatial, physical expression of a society, its culture and values.

Melbourne’s liveability is founded in the direct experiences of people within the city: the residents, workers and visitors who use the city across all hours and in diverse ways. Their access and movements through the city; the streets and public places they stop to eat, rest or engage with events; and critically, the quality of their experiences all affect their understanding and perception of Melbourne, and their connection with it. While there are relative constants such as street layouts, pathways, open spaces and landmark places, the

24

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

city’s liveability also comes down to the dynamics of seasons, weather, access to sunlight, protection from the wind and views of the sky - the amenity and extent of accommodation afforded by the public realm. Liveability is also affected by the private experiences of the city - the quality of its architecture as lived-in places that people occupy for work or home, and how these experiences intersect with the public realm through access, views, privacy and so on.

The city’s identity and liveability are its hallmarks.

Its success also lies in and will be supported by its on-going productivity, adaptability and resilience as the dynamic impacts of climate changes and technological advances are realised. Each new development will affect these critical aspects of Victoria’s capital, and as such, each has a responsibility to make a positive contribution. It is critical that Melbourne’s unique characteristics are recognised and enhanced through built form controls that support positive, contributory growth and change while enriching the defining form of the city, the particularity of its streets and open spaces, its landmarks and the pervasive quality and public realm amenity that make Melbourne a great city.’

(Source: provided by the City of Melbourne through the CCBFR) This vision for the Study area is effectively integrated into existing planning policy. Notably, the introduction for Plan Melbourne sets the scene by stating: “The city we enjoy today did not come about by accident. It has been shaped by the foresight and planning of earlier generations. We can see the legacy of their vision in the vibrant places we value and the liveable communities we participate in every day”. (p2, Victorian State Government, 2014)

This is also acknowledged in the Urban Design Charter for Victoria: ‘Victoria’s legacy of well-planned cities and towns has been achieved by design, not by accident’

• • • • • •

a city for people; a creative city; a prosperous city; a city of knowledge; an eco-city; and a connected city.

(Victorian State Government, 2009) Specifically, for the Central Subregion, Plan Melbourne states that: “Our aim is to plan for growth and change in Melbourne’s Central Subregion to consolidate Melbourne’s position as a highly competitive global city and to maintain the high standards of liveability, distinctiveness and character that make Melbourne special”. (p175, Victorian State Government, 2014) The specific standards of ‘liveability, distinctiveness and character’ that make Melbourne special are embedded across a number of City of Melbourne policy documents and within the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

The current Municipal Strategic Statement is based on the vision for the Central City established in Future Melbourne 2008 (City of Melbourne, 2008).

This vision is currently being reviewed as part of the Future Melbourne 2026 project that was launched in February 2016.

Future Melbourne 2008 is the community’s plan to grow Melbourne as a global city and as one of the top ten most liveable and sustainable cities in the world. The plan’s vision for the municipality is of a bold, inspirational and sustainable city (City of Melbourne, 2008).

To achieve this vision, Future Melbourne has six high level goals for Melbourne to be:

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Key objectives underpinning this vision are identified in the Municipal Strategic Statement, adopted Council policies or other parts of the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

Built Environment and Heritage Protecting existing built form character and heritage, in addition to providing an attractive and liveable built environment in parts of the City where development will intensify, is identified as essential. Also important is minimising the ecological footprint of the City and managing the City so that it is responsive to climate change (Melbourne Planning Scheme, Clause 21.03).

The Urban Design in the Capital City Zone policy, Clause 22.01 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme identifies the following valued attributes in the central city’s urban form: ‘Melbourne’s buildings, streets, open spaces and landscape features combine to give the Central City its unique appearance and feeling.

These elements have created a complex and attractive urban environment, giving Melbourne a grand and dignified city centre filled with diverse activities and possessing unique charm, character and a pleasant street level environment’ . (p1, Melbourne Planning Scheme, Clause 22.01) It includes the following overarching objectives: • To ensure that new development responds to the underlying framework and fundamental characteristics of the Capital City Zone while establishing its own identity;

25

• To enhance the physical quality and character of Melbourne’s streets, lanes, and Capital City form through sensitive and innovative design; • To improve the experience of the area for pedestrians; • To create and enhance public spaces within the Capital City Zone to provide sanctuary, visual pleasure and a range of recreation and leisure opportunities; and • To ensure that the design of public spaces, buildings and circulation spaces meets high quality design standards.

(Melbourne Planning Scheme, Clause 22.01) Public Realm Amenity The importance of a high-quality public realm to the social and economic livelihood of Central Melbourne is evidenced by the increased vibrancy of the Central City following a program of investment in public realm quality since the 1980s.

‘Combined with public open spaces, Melbourne’s network of streets and lanes form the landscape through which people move in their daily business and life within the city. The level of amenity within this public realm is a critical aspect affecting the level of pedestrian activity, enjoyment of open spaces and the business of the city. In the Hoddle Grid, the combination of major streets and smaller lanes running east-west, and the network of streets and narrower, more varied pedestrian and service linkages running north-south create a nuanced network of places for people that are effective and successful because of the generally high level of public realm amenity they offer.

Protection and enhancement of this critical aspect of the city is important to protect the public environment in both general and specific ways.

Access to sunlight is fundamental for the purpose and enjoyment of open spaces, and a hallmark of the fine north-south laneways that catch the lunchtime sun and in which eateries now proliferate.

In addition to allowing access to sunlight, the

26

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

openness of the public realm to sky views is important for orienting views to landmarks, and to enable awareness of the city as an open network with a characteristic hierarchy of larger and smaller streets. Protection from negative wind impacts is important in all streets and open places, where people should be free to move comfortably.

Built form controls must ensure protection and enhancement of the city’s public realm. Density levels, setbacks, heights of towers, separation distances, street wall heights, street interface, and architectural quality including form and proportion are all aspects of developments that have a direct impact on the experience of people in the streets.

Melbourne’s streets and laneways are now internationally recognised as spatial expressions of Melbourne’s history and its lively, creative culture.

This has grown with their increasing activation through improved amenity and use – protection from the elements, improvements in the detail and quality of pavements and shopfronts, and the opening up of retail and hospitality tenancies to serve and foster the growing market of pedestrian traffic. In turn, increased activation has contributed to a safer city and an economic surge aligned with the key pedestrian pathways that are comfortable and engaging to occupy and use.

Pedestrian prioritisation through shared zones, and for key street spaces such as Bourke St Mall, Elizabeth Street, the Swanston Street spine, Parliament forecourt, Market Street park, and others should be recognised within the built form controls. Equally, protection of public realm amenity in the streets, lanes and open spaces that are focal points for outdoor dining and street life is essential.

Underpinning these fundamental aspects that affect the experience of the public realm are the proportions and details of the fabric of the city’s streets.

(Source: provided by the City of Melbourne through the CCBFR)

Housing An important role for the city is in providing housing to accommodate the expected significant population growth, in balance with the broader mix of uses and activities that underpin the city’s life. In a densely developed city, it is a challenge to achieve a diversity of housing choices, housing affordability, a good standard of building design and amenity.

•

The City of Melbourne’s aspiration for the quality of living environment provided in the municipality is clearly defined in the adopted Housing Strategy, Homes for People 2014-2018 which states:

•

‘Housing is a fundamental human need and the foundation of a good quality of life. It plays an important role in people’s health and wellbeing, in people’s ability to access jobs, in bringing communities together and in shaping our city.

Homes are private places to retreat, relax, unwind and sleep, to cook, socialise, study or work, to raise children, recuperate, to celebrate and to just be. This Housing Strategy… helps achieve our established aspiration for an inner and Central City where housing is affordable, well-designed and meets the diverse needs of our residents’. (p4, City of Melbourne, 2015b) Diverse, well-designed and affordable housing is also identified as part of the Vision for the municipality in the Municipal Strategic Statement which emphasises this need, and also the challenge in a densely developed city, in achieving this (Melbourne Planning Scheme, Clause 21.03).

In very high densities, it is even more important to pay attention to the required built form policies that will deliver this aim.

Key housing challenges identified in the Strategy include: • The need for more affordable (subsidised) housing in the municipality; • High land values and construction costs are

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

• •

impacting affordability, housing mix and design quality - note, land supply is noted as not a key problem; High levels of housing supply isn’t delivering a good housing mix and social diversity; Quality, amenity and performance are decreasing while density is increasing; The majority of high-rise housing in the municipality delivers poor environmental performance; and that The lack of a mix of housing and affordable housing impacts long-term community building and support for a vibrant cultural life.

To deliver on the aspiration of the Council, Homes for People has the following three goals: • Help provide at least 1721 affordable homes (subsidised) for low and moderate income earners by 2024; • Improve the design quality and environmental performance of new apartments; and • Foster a high level of awareness and knowledge around good housing outcomes.

To help achieve these goals, a number of actions are identified. Of direct relevance to the CCBFR are: • Action 1. Consideration of affordable housing on City of Melbourne owned land; • Action 2. Supporting development bonuses to incentivise the provision of affordable housing (targeted in the Strategy for Arden-Macaulay, Fishermans Bend and E-gate); • Action 3. Work with Victorian Government to deliver apartment design standards; and • Action 5. Work with the Victorian Government on a good design and higher density living paper.

27

2. Current development patterns 2.1 What are the current challenges?

The inconsistent application of the limited measurable planning parameters prior to the introduction of the interim controls has created unpredictable and, often, poor quality development.

The elasticity of the discretionary built form controls led to a practice of negotiating development outcomes site by site through conditions on permits. This has created unpredictable, and often poor quality development that has led to the following development patterns: • • • • •

Hyper-dense development; Diminishing public realm quality; Compromised development equity; Poor housing choice; Lack of infrastructure funding combined with rapidly increasing population growth; and • Scale and design of developments that compromise internal apartment amenity.

Many of these issues have directly triggered the need for this review.

28

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

2.1.1 Hyper-dense development High-rise apartment towers are being built in the Study Area at over four times the allowable site densities allowed in Hong Kong, New York, Tokyo, Sydney, Chicago and others (Hodyl, 2015 and Helen Day Urbanism, 2016a).

Accelerating densities are risking Melbourne’s most prized economic and social asset – the quality of the living, working and visitor environment in the Central City. This asset needs to be cultivated through considered management.

Prior to the introduction of the interim controls, however, the discretionary, highly elastic controls led to the approval of tower developments that are ‘very tall and that squeeze out the space between buildings, with little regard on the effect on the residents within, the impact on the streets below or on the value of neighbouring properties’ (Hodyl, 2015).

The demand for residential development combined with leaps in construction technology means that small sites are now being developed for high-rise towers. While a typical floorplate for a commercial building is in the order of 1,500 - 2,000 m2, the preferred minimum residential floorplate for development efficiency is 600m2 . Even smaller floorplates are possible, with an example in Melbourne of a floorplate as small as 163m2. (see figures 9, 10 and 11). Between 2010 and 2015, 84 percent of all issued permits for major development were for predominantly residential uses. Of all issued permits, 61 percent were for small sites of 1,500m2 or less, with 31 percent of sites smaller than 800m2 (Helen Day Urbanism, 2016b).

FAR 58:1

FAR 52:1

FAR 30:1

Approved

Under construction

Completed

Existing FAR Approx. 1:1

Demolished building FAR Approx. 2:1

Figure 9: 54 Clarke Street, Southbank Figure 10: 496-504 Elizabeth Street, Hoddle Grid Site area: 597m2 Site area: 1,019m2, 2 Tower floorplate (typical): 380m Tower floorplate (typical): Approx. 900m2 Tower height: 243 m Tower height: 218 m

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Demolished building FAR Approx. 3:1 Figure 11: Phoenix Apartments, 82 Flinders Street, Hoddle Grid Site area: 163m2 Tower floorplate (typical): 163m2 Tower height: 85 m

29

The City of Melbourne’s Housing Strategy, ‘Homes for People 2014 - 2018’, also identifies the interrelationship between very high densities and poor quality of apartment design.

‘Problems with noise, daylight, privacy and overlooking all become more acute as densities increase. Higher density development also creates increased pressure on space and leads to more intensive use of communal, shared areas …

For these reasons, higher density development requires strong guidance and more careful design’ (p38, City of Melbourne, 2015b).

Densities in this report are typically represented for a site as a Floor Area Ratio (FAR). That is, the total gross building floor area built on a site (above ground level) in proportion to the site area. For example, a FAR of 8:1 designates that the gross floor area of the building is eight times the site area.

In the last five years, 60 percent of major permit applications had a FAR over 20:1, with 10 percent of sites having a FAR greater than 40:1. A sixth of all applications were for towers over 200 metres in height, and 61 percent were for towers over 100 metres in height (Helen Day Urbanism, 2016b). The breakdown of the FARs for all major permits in this period is illustrated in figure 12.

In this same period, of the permits issued by the Minister for Planning (those above 25,000m2) in floor area) over 25 percent had a FAR greater than 30:1. In the past two years this has increased with over 50 percent of permits exceeding a 30:1 FAR.

30

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

By May 2015, over 1 in 4 blocks in the Hoddle Grid exceeded the preferred maximum block plot ratio (equivalent to a FAR) of 12:1 that was designated in the Melbourne Planning Scheme at the time (refer figures 13 and 14). Taking into account approved permits, this will increase to almost 1 in 3 blocks exceeding the 12:1 ratio.

Examples of the poor built form outcomes that too often accompany these hyper-dense developments is illustrated and discussed in the remainder of this section.

The interim controls introduced a ‘holding’ FAR of 24:1 as it reflected a midpoint between recent approvals and international examples of accepted international practice for maximum density thresholds (Victorian State Government, 2015b).

Accelerating densities, coupled with increasing population growth generally, places greater pressure on local infrastructure while at the same time, making it difficult to predict infrastructure needs. For example, the cumulative effect of these hyper-dense developments on the pedestrian network when they are clustered together is illustrated in Section 2.1.6.

Site based FAR ‐ approved permits (2011‐15) Floor Area Ratio

>40:1

2

30.1:1‐40:1

7 6

13

20.1‐30:1

10

10.1‐20:1

9

<10:1

1 0

16 19

7 5

10

15

20

25

30

No. of developments Southbank

Hoddle Grid

Figure 12: Site-based Floor Area Ratio for permitted development 2010-15 in the Study Area (Source of data: Helen Day Urbanism, 2016b)

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

31

1982 1 block is over 12:1 plot ratio

2000 5 blocks are over 12:1 plot ratio Figure 13: Average Floor Area Ratio of blocks in the Hoddle Grid 1982 (above) and 2000 (below) (Source: DELWP)

32

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

May 2015 20 blocks are over 12:1 plot ratio 1 block is over 18:1 plot ratio

May 2015 + approved permits 24 blocks are over 12:1 plot ratio 4 blocks are over 18:1 plot ratio 1 block exceeds 24:1 Figure 14: Average Floor Area Ratio of blocks in the Hoddle Grid in May 2015 (above) and May 2015 + all approved developments - those blocks with an increased FAR are noted with an arrow (below) (Source: DELWP)

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

33

2.1.2 Diminishing public realm quality As densities increase, the need to protect the public realm is heightened. This is because the usage of the public realm increases, and residents have less private space (internal and outdoor space). They rely on public spaces more to relax, socialise and generally engage with their environment. Public space should be a key attraction of living in the city and central to the economic, social and environmental success of the city. It has many critical roles, including: • accommodating the movement network of the city (footpaths, streets, public transport infrastructure); • providing open space and green space for respite and relaxation; • providing places where we inscribe our culture (past and present) and express political views; • creating useable space between buildings; and • providing space for social interactions and commercial exchange.

The scale of development and the interface of buildings with the public realm has a direct impact on the quality of these adjacent spaces. This includes streets and parks and squares.

Melbourne’s public realm quality has been one of its most celebrated attributes and in the 1980s there was a deliberate policy shift when the City of Melbourne began investing in its quality. This investment, the subsequent increase in public realm quality and its success in attracting people into the city has been captured in the Places for People research series which articulates the popularity and vibrancy of streets and public spaces in the Hoddle Grid and Southbank.

This investment alone, however, will not guarantee good public realm outcomes. An upgrade to the design of a space - the layout, quality of materials

34

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

and landscaping - is important, but can be undermined by poor adjacent development that creates uncomfortable conditions, for example, buildings that visually dominate the environment, that overshadow or create windy environments, or which have poor interfaces to the street, for example, blank frontages or service areas.

The Melbourne Planning Scheme states that: ‘The buildings in the private realm should be coordinated with the development of the streets, paths, parks and places in the public realm.

Development must add positively to Melbourne’s public realm and contribute to making it safe and engaging for users’.

(Melbourne Planning Scheme, Clause 21.06) There are many examples of this type of development in the Study Area. Unfortunately, there have also been an increasing number of built and approved examples of development where this direction is not being delivered. The cumulative impact of these developments can compound these effects.

An illustration of positive (preferred) and negative relationships between tower buildings and the primary public space of the city, the street, is illustrated in figure 15. The negative example illustrates recent attributes of poor development that are frequently compromising this relationship.

Towers that are too close together can also compromise the quality of the public realm by limiting daylight and sunlight access to the street and exacerbating wind impacts, creating uncomfortable public spaces. This is illustrated in figure 16.

Upper level setback mitigates wind impacts Greater tower separation improves daylight at street level Views to sky between towers

Sunlight between towers reaches footpaths and lower building levels

Lower street wall and sufficient upper level setback provide human-scale to the street

Lack of upper level setback creates downward wind drafts to street Lesser tower separation reduces daylight at street level Limited or no view to sky

sunlight only reaches upper levels of the facade

Lack of street wall and sufficient upper level setbacks = buildings visually dominant in street and loss of humanscale

Figure 15: Positive relationship between tower buildings and the street (above) and negative relationship (below)

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

35

2.1.3 Scale of development compromising capacity for good internal apartment amenity There is a direct relationship between the scale of a building (its height and bulk), setbacks and tower separation with internal apartment amenity.

Towers that are too close together will compromise the amount of daylight entering into apartments, reduce access to sunlight and diminish levels of privacy (see figure 16).

This has been an issue across laneways, for example Sutherland Street (see figure 20), and will present a problem in developments such as the approved design for 9-11 Exploration Lane which would establish residents looking into each others apartments across a distance of only 5 - 6 metres.

The quality of apartments in Victoria is subject to a separate review by State government. Recent consultation revealed that the top five issues ranked in response to the Better Apartments Discussion Paper 2015 were Daylight, Space, Natural Ventilation, Noise and Energy and Resources, followed by sunlight, outdoor space and car parking. Eighty percent of respondents nominated daylight and good ventilation as essential (Victorian State Government, 2015a).

Improving apartment quality is critical to the long-term quality of housing in the city. No building taller than 200 metres has ever legally been demolished anywhere in the world. Due to distributed ownership patterns, while technically possible, it would very difficult to organise all of the owners to agree to demolition. The importance of addressing the quality of the built form in the Central City is heightened by the fact that these buildings are here to stay.

36

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Examples of recent developments that exhibit some or all of these negative attributes that are compromising the quality of the public realm and the potential for good apartment amenity are illustrated in figures 17 to 23. They include: • Visually dominant tower buildings that are out of context in their environment and compromise the character and pedestrian-scale of the street - see figures 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23; • Buildings that are out of scale with existing heritage context - see figures 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23; • Poor interfaces to the street, with inactive or poorly articulated facades dominated by service areas - see figures 17, 18, 19 and 23; • Visual dominance (wall) of towers in a street caused by a row of towers together with insufficient side / rear setbacks. This also reduces daylight / sunlight to streets - see figure 23; and • Clustering of tall buildings that have created unacceptable windy conditions that compromise pedestrian comfort - see figure 21.

m ok fro d outlo d Limite ents locate apartm ide facade s along

Street in significant shadow with only a limited amount of sunlight reaching apartment facades between buildings

m k fro tloo ed u o t d loca rove Imp tments acade r f apa g side alon

Rear boundary TOWER

Street boundary

STREET

Rows of parallel buildings form a corridor creating a channel which can transmit wind at high speeds

Lesser tower separation reduces daylight at street level

Side boundary

Side boundary

Limted sunlight reaches facades

SIgnificant shadowing of street - sunlight only penetrates to street for limited time periods

Proximity of towers means that privacy between apartments is poor

Rear boundary

Sunlight reaches facades

TOWER

TOWER

Sunlight penetrates between towers and reaches facades between buildings and the street

Sunlight penetrates through to street for longer periods of the day

TOWER Privacy between apartments is acceptable

Street boundary Increasing gaps between adjacent buildings can allow wind to dissipate STREET and reduce speeds

Greater tower separation improves daylight at street level

Figure 16: Impacts of tower separation on the public realm and internal occupant amenity Towers too close together compromise privacy between and outlook from apartments or offices, access to sunlight and daylight into apartments or offices and the street and can exacerbate negative wind impacts (shown on left). Greater tower separation, created through side and rear setbacks can mitigate these negative impacts (shown on right)

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

37

street tower domin ates Full height of Figure 17: 496-504 Elizabeth Street, Hoddle Grid (Vision Development) - (left) view from Elizabeth Street and (right) view from Therry Street (from outside Queen Victoria Market)

Key Issues • Tower form visually dominates its urban context due to minimal to no upper level street setbacks and therefore no expressed street wall. A 2 metre upper level street setback to Elizabeth Street and no upper level setback to Therry Street means that the full height of tower is visually dominant on both streets. This ignores the existing urban context and creates a poor relationship to the pedestrian experience in street; • Poor interface to street at lower levels with 8 levels of car parking fronting the street.

This creates a podium that has a negative contribution to the street, with no interesting visual detail for the pedestrian and no passive surveillance provided from these podium levels; • The southern facade is built predominantly to the boundary therefore has been designed as a blank concrete wall, providing a poorly designed facade within the city skyline; and • Tower form is out of scale with the existing heritage context of the Queen Victoria Market and Drill Hall opposite.

See also figure 10 and figures 27-29 for further information on this development and the Elizabeth Street North precinct

38

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Figure 18: Corner City Road and Power Street - view from within City Road (Source: DELWP)

Key Issues • Tower form visually dominates its urban context due to minimal to no upper level street setbacks and therefore no expressed street wall. Very small upper level street setback to City Road means that the full height of tower is overly dominant in the street; • Poor interface to street at lower levels - podium levels of car parking provide little visual interest to street and no passive surveillance; and • Poor integration with existing heritage fabric, with tower above overpowering the smaller scale of the heritage building below.

Figure 19: Corner City Road and Moray Street - view from within City Road (Source: DELWP)

Key Issues • Tower form visually dominates its urban context due to minimal to no upper level street setbacks. This means that the full height of tower is overly dominant in the street; and • Poor interface to street at lower levels - podium levels of car parking provide little visual interest to street and no passive surveillance.

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

39

Figure 20: Sutherland Street, Hoddle Grid - view from Elizabeth Street (above left), looking into Sutherland Street from Little Lonsdale Street (above) and view from within Guildford Lane looking up showing small tower separation (left)

Key Issues â&#x20AC;˘ No upper level street setback to Little Lonsdale Street means that the full height of tower is overly dominant in the street; and â&#x20AC;˘ Apartment buildings built only 4.5 metres apart creating poor opportunities for good internal amenity and reducing daylight and sunlight into the street.

40

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

21: Little Collins Street, between Russell and Exhibition Streets - south side of street (left - Source DELWP) and Lt Collins Figure St looking east Lt Collins St looking east north side (right)

Central CityKey BuiltIssues Form Review 2016 â&#x20AC;˘ The Age Forecourt and the section of Little Collins Street between Russell and Exhibition Streets were recorded as the windiest test sites in the Hoddle Grid. Maximum wind speeds of 12.2m/s were recorded. Pedestrians surveyed at this Little Collins area rated this the windiest location, with 33 percent of respondents rating it as windy and 10 percent too windy; â&#x20AC;˘ The precinct has high street walls , minimal street setbacks and a number of tower sites lining each side of the street. The negative wind impacts are a cumulative effect of many individual developments over time.

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

41

58m

Figure 22: La Trobe Street between Elizabeth and Queen Streets, view from La Trobe (left) and from within Guildford Lane (right)

Key Issues â&#x20AC;˘ Very high street walls, in the order of 58 metres built on multiple adjacent sites with no side setbacks creates a wall of development within the street. This impacts daylight and sunlight reaching properties to the south within Guildford Lane precinct.

42

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Figure 23: City Road between Kings Way and Clarendon Street

Key Issues • Blank (concrete) facades creates poor design interface to neighbouring buildings and to the street (shown above); • Poor integration of heritage buildings which are dwarfed by towers above; • Podiums with car parking dominating the street, creating poor passive surveillance; and • Small upper level setbacks mean that towers are visually dominant in the street.

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

43

2.1.4 Compromised Development Equity While individual development sites might benefit from high yields, if these yields were realised by building very close to or on a side or rear boundary, it could compromise the development capacity of the adjacent site, diminishing its potential land value.

This was a key factor in the establishment of the New York Zoning Law in New York City in 1916, which introduced built form controls to ensure that light and air reached the street. This followed the development of the ironically named Equitable Building, which built straight up from its boundaries, compromising the development capacity of the immediately adjacent sites, rendering them less valuable (Washburn, 2013).

Figure 24 depicts two recent developments built to their boundaries on all four sides. This limits the design options and potentially the development capacity of adjacent sites if they were required to protect the amenity for the residents within these developments or to provide a separation distance from these towers within their own sites.

for low to middle income earners, therefore, is through the provision of subsidised housing’ (p24, City of Melbourne, 2015). One of the key adopted strategies for achieving an increase in the supply of affordable housing is through the incentivisation of its delivery through ‘development bonuses’ (Action Number 2, City of Melbourne, 2015b).

The strategy emphasises that this aspiration for affordable housing in the Central City should not be met by delivering poor quality housing.

2.1.5 Poor housing choice There is a housing affordability issue for lowmiddle income workers who want to live in the Central City. This is driven by a whole range of complex factors (City of Melbourne, 2015b). The high cost of housing is now impacting households on incomes of up to $100,000 per year. This includes key workers such as receptionists, cleaners, nurses, teachers and emergency workers that the city needs in order to function.

This is in spite of significant increases in housing supply in the municipality. The City of Melbourne’s Housing Strategy acknowledges the ‘only way to guarantee sufficient, secure and affordable housing

44

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Figure 24: Franklin Street, looking towards Elizabeth Street

2.1.6 Lack of infrastructure funding combined with rapidly increasing population growth The City of Melbourne does not have a development contribution scheme in place for the Central City. While it received a record $6 million in 2013 from developers through the open space contribution levy, no contributions were received for other community or physical infrastructure.

This can be compared to Sydney, which received over $100 million to support infrastructure investment in that same year. Sydney has both a development bonus scheme to incentivise infrastructure delivery, and a development contribution scheme that requires developers to contribute 1 percent of the development cost.

The City of Melbourneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposed Development Contributions Plan (DCP) for Southbank which was put forward as an amendment in 2014, sought a contribution from developers in the order of $1,500 per apartment. The amendment was not supported by Panel who were concerned that the nexus principle was not sufficiently demonstrated.

It highlighted the difficulty of introducing a DCP into an area undergoing urban intensification, as opposed to a renewal or greenfield area. Notably, the contributions from developers would only have recouped a portion of the predicted infrastructure costs, leaving a significant funding gap that would have to be covered by other revenue streams, for example, local government rates.

The proposal for a DCP for community infrastructure in the Hoddle Grid was put to the then Minister for Planning in 2014. This is still under consideration.

The following provides an overview of infrastructure in the Central City that is relevant to the built form review.

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Open Space The City of Melbourneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Open Space Strategy defines the open space needs of the future residential and worker population in the city.

The funding mechanism proposed to support this provision is through the Open Space Levy. A rate of 7.06% of land value was approved and came into effect in February 2016. This will only fund local open spaces, and not regional demands for open space.

Importantly, this study, finalised in 2012, has lower population projections for the Hoddle Grid and Southbank than is now considered likely.

This means that the funds that will potentially be provided through this funding mechanism could be insufficient to fund the overall needed open space.

In 2012, the Open Space Strategy estimated that the population for the Hoddle Grid in 2026 would be approximately 35,000 residents. Current estimates (2016) are that the population in 2026 will be in the order of 49,000 residents, so approximately 40% higher than what is predicted in the Strategy. As the contribution mechanism is based on a percentage of land area within a given site, as densities increase, the amount of open space provided per person effectively decreases.

In Southbank, the projected population for 2026 in the Open Space Strategy was approximately 23,000 residents. Updated projections predict a population in the order of 31,500 residents, approximately 37 percent higher than was predicted.

This implies that there will be a shortage of open space if these higher predictions are realised.

This shortage will be even greater with higher population numbers that would be realised if the trend of very high density developments continues.

45

Arts infrastructure The Arts and Culture sector plays an important role in attracting investment, visitors, residents and workers to the city. Concentrating cultural enterprises and creative workers in a geographic area, provides a competitive edge, improving a community’s ability to attract economic activity and support innovation (American Planning Association, 2011).

The provision of creative spaces for artists and creative industries has been sporadic and mostly negotiated through Council’s Creative Spaces program, where often it’s under-utilised or difficult to lease spaces that are considered for arts spaces or creative enterprises. This tactical approach has had considerable success with 115 studios now available, however it does not provide a secure funding mechanism for arts infrastructure and does not address the existing gaps in provision for infrastructure such as a lack of performance and rehearsal spaces.

This lack of infrastructure funding to support creative spaces and facilities is exacerbated by a lack of affordable housing for artists and those working in creative industries.

46

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Community Infrastructure (Hubs) The Community Infrastructure Framework (City of Melbourne 2014a) acknowledges that the clearest and most immediate priority for additional Council community infrastructure is in the Hoddle Grid, with the primary need being the replacement of the City Library. It notes that there is no mechanism through which Council can collect contributions from developers to assist in the funding of community infrastructure and that the continued absence of any mechanism will result in: ‘a significant burden on Council’s rate base... It is now vital that Council resolve how it can address the growing gap between funding availability and the ultimate cost of provision’ (City of Melbourne, 2014b) This Framework also acknowledges the benefit to the community of incentivising developers to deliver infrastructure within their developments in the Central City where the cost of land is high and therefore difficult for Council to purchase.

The delivery of Community Infrastructure in the Central City has typically lagged behind significant residential population increases - for example, the delivery of the Boyd Community Hub in Southbank and Docklands Library.

City of Melbourne purchased the Boyd site from general revenue with no developer contributions in place. This facility was delivered after approximately 11,000 people were already living in Southbank. Visitation rates are very high, in the order of 7,000 per month. Access to the hub for pedestrians, however, is still very poor.

Improvements to the public realm in this area are needed and are being considered by the City Road Master Plan, however this is also currently unfunded. It was to be partly funded through the proposed planning scheme amendment to introduce a Development Contributions Plan.

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Recreational Infrastructure The Community Infrastructure Framework acknowledges the potential need for recreation services, specifically indoor facilities. It notes that this requires further analysis given the trend of new developments to provide private indoor gymnasiums and pool facilities. There is no evidence, however, that private, disbursed facilities provide adequate community infrastructure. They donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t, for example, provide swimming lessons, support training squads or community classes or childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s activities which are typically provided in public pools and which have a role in communitybuilding.

47

Walking Infrastructure A key vision for the Central City is for a walking city. Walking is the primary means of transport in the Central City and is expected to continue to increase. Walking accounts for two-thirds of all trips within the City of Melbourne and is the primary and preferred mode of transport within the city. The daily number of visitors to the city is predicted to rise from around 840,000 in 2015 to over 1,200,000 by 2030, with the number of walking trips forecast to increase by 64 per cent in this same period (City of Melbourne, 2014b).

Walking has many benefits - it’s a healthy and affordable mode of transport, it’s sustainable, it activates the street and supports retail businesses and it’s an efficient and practical means of getting around the city for short distances. The numbers of people walking is a result of having a wellconnected, easily navigable network of streets and spaces, and good quality streets that are designed to make the pedestrian experience inviting, safe and comfortable.

Walking plays an important role in the city’s economy. The agglomeration effect – the relationship between connectivity and productivity is most evident in the Central City, where large numbers of people are closely located, enabling informal professional networks to flourish, and ideas and knowledge to be generated. It is estimated that a 10 per cent increase in the connectivity of the pedestrian network would add $2.1 billion to the City of Melbourne’s economy (p6, City of Melbourne, 2014b). In 2013, it was estimated that this would represent an increase in the value of the Central City economy of 6.6 per cent.

48

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Capacity of existing network Ensuring that Melbourne’s pedestrian network (the footpaths and public spaces) is comfortable to move in and not congested is critical to the city’s functionality. The current capacity of the footpath network, however, is compromising how people get around the city (see figures 12 and 13).

‘Crowding is already a significant issue for the walking network in Melbourne and city growth will exacerbate this. Locations where crowding occurs include in and around public transport stops and stations and in areas of the retail core of the city, such as Swanston Street.’ (P10 City of Melbourne, 2014b).

Walking is also the primary mode of transport for tourists and visitors to the Central City. One of the main problems reported by visitors is the difficulty of walking around the city due to narrow footpaths or delays in signals (p6, City of Melbourne, 2014b, feedback drawn from Destination Melbourne survey 2010).

A case study that demonstrates the impacts of the clustering of hyper-dense tower developments at the northern end of Elizabeth Street on the pedestrian network is illustrated in figures 25-27.

Figure 25 (left) : Walking mode share and projected trip growth in the City of Melbourne (Source: City of Melbourne, Walking Plan 2014b) Figure 26 (above): Counted pedestrian volumes on Central City footpaths on an average Tuesday, September 2012 (Source: City of Melbourne, Walking Plan 2014b)

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

49

3

Results

3.1

Projected residential population capacity

See Appendix 4 for the basis of the modelling and Appendix 5 for the full data set.

3

Results

3.1

Projected residential

Current development proposal under consideration for a tower of 399 apartments, (potential pedestrian numbers have not been included into this case study) population capacity

Dwellings

See Appendix 4 for the basis of the modelling and Appendix 5Potential for the full data set. site of 2,000 m2 development

Vision

Victoria One

Light House

MY80

Empire

Total

560

622

607

471

487

Studio

1

0

0

56

0

1 bed

80

110

255

161

169

2 bed

349

488

293

247

299

3 bed Apartments 4Total bed

127 * Vision

24 One * Victoria

Light59 House *

7 MY80

17 * Empire

560 3

622 0

607 0

471 0

487 0

1 1207.4 80

0 1254.6 110

0 1157.1 255

56 857.5 161

0 932.7 169

2 bed Total capacity

349

488

293 5409.3

247

299

3 bed

127

24

59

7

17

4 bed

965.92 3

1003.68 0

925.68 0

686 0

746.16 0

1207.4

1254.6

1157.1 4327.44

857.5

932.7

686

746.16

Dwellings

Studio Estimated resident 1 bed capacity

Figure 27: Case Study - Elizabeth Street North Precinct Study (* indicates building under construction) The MY80 building is Assumed complete and occupied. absenteeism These 5 developments, along approximately 250 metres of street length will bring approximately an additional 5,400 people (- 20%) intoEstimated this precinct. This represents approximately an 8.6 percent increase in the residential population of the whole Study Area.

resident Projected capacity occupancy

Total capacity Assumed absenteeism (- 20%)

50

Projected occupancy Synthesis Report

5409.3 965.92

1003.68

925.68

Central City Built Form Review Elizabeth Street (North) Capacity Study 7

4327.44

| Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

bourne, 2014, p. 47) provides context for what varying levels of pedestrian elbourne today. Data is sourced from the City of Melbourne Pedestrian ion (see Appendix 1), and levels of overcrowding generally correlate with see Appendix 2 and 3).

Figure 28: Location of five towers in proximity to existing intersections where significant and severe overcrowding have been recorded and key capital city destinations within the Hoddle Grid. (Base map source: City of Melbourne, 2014b)

1 2

3

Five subject developments of this study

4

1 Queen Victoria Market 2 RMIT campus

5

3 Melbourne Central Station 4 Proposed City North Metro Station

3.3.3 Weekend peak hour scenarios

If 20 per cent of projected population from five towers (865.49 people) entered or exited their buildings 5 during an average weekend peak hour (currently 1842.5 people per hour), the hourly flow would rise to 2707.99 people. This equates to 15.04 people per minute per metre of footpath width. At this level, normal 6 6 walking speed is still possible, but conflicts will become more frequent and in retail areas, people will start to consider avoiding the area.

State Library Bourke Street Mall Retail Core

The below figures have only counted population increases from the five developments in this study. A number of other, equally large developments have been approved in the immediate surroundings, and can be expected to have an increased impact on pedestrian volumes.

% of Projected Population from Five Towers

+ Average Weekend Peak Hour Flow without Five Towers (2014)

(4326.72)

(1842.5 people/hour)

10% (432.74)

20% (865.49)

Projected Crowding (ppmm)

2275.24

12.64

2707.99

15.04

3140.73

17.45

his study 30% (1298.23)

40% (1730.98)

3573.48

19.85

Figure 29: Elizabeth Street North Case Study - Potential pedestrian volumes at peak hourElizabeth and crowding impacts (Source: Central City Built Form Review Street (North) Capacity Study DELWP, 2016a) 14

Projected Pedestrian Comfort Levels

Project crowding is measured as the number of people per metre per minute (ppmm). This analysis indicates that if 4 out of 10 people exit the building within the weekend peak hour, the pedestrian environment will be classified as ‘Increasingly uncomfortable’, with 59% of movement restricted and the majority of people experiencing conflict or closeness with other pedestrians and bi-directional movement becoming difficult.

A Projected Pedestrian Comfort Level classified as ‘B’ or below, could result in people avoiding the retail core within the Central City. This will be reached if only 10% of people leave the building within the peak hour.

All of the scenarios noted in this table, will take the projected crowding levels above the preferred maximum of 11ppmm (City of Melbourne, 2014b)

Central City Built Form Review Elizabeth Street (North) Capacity Study 14 Central City Built Form Review Elizabeth Street (North) Capacity Study 11

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

51

2.2 What is driving negative outcomes?

2.2.1 Lack of enforceable built form controls The Melbourne Planning Scheme provides a complex planning framework guiding development within the study area. The evolution of the controls since the new format planning scheme, introduced on 4 March 1999, has resulted in built form controls being contained within local planning policy, the schedules to the zone (Capital City Zone), and through several schedules to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO2, DDO7, DDO40, DDO60 and DDO62).

Prior to the introduction of the Interim Controls, the Melbourne Planning Scheme had very few enforceable built form controls in the General Development Areas.

Both planning policy and/or controls provided guidance for discretionary: • Street wall height (podium) of 40 metres (Hoddle Grid, specified within Clause 22.01 policy and Schedule 1 and 2 to the Capital City Zone) and 30 metres (Southbank, specified within Schedule 60 to the Design and Development Overlay); • Upper level street setbacks above the street wall height (podium) of 10 metres (Hoddle Grid, specified within Clause 22.01 policy and Schedule 1 and 2 to the Capital City Zone, and Southbank, specified within Schedule 60 to the Design and Development Overlay); • Block density controls of 12:1 (Hoddle Grid only, specified within Clause 22.01 policy); • Tower height controls in Southbank (100 metres north of City Road, 160 metres south of City Road, specified within former Schedule 60 to

52

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

the Design and Development Overlay); and • Tower separation of 24 metres (Hoddle Grid, specified withinClause 22.01 policy) and 20 metres (Southbank, specified within Schedule 60 to the Design and Development Overlay).

There were no specific built form controls in place for the following: • Side or rear setback controls for towers from a site boundary; • Tower site coverage or floorplate controls; • Tower height controls in Hoddle Grid; and • Site specific density controls.

The increasing perception by a number of developers, planners, urban designers, politicians and decision makers was that the controls that were in place were out of step with contemporary development patterns and a strategic objective to support growth and investment in the Central City.

This has eroded away their potency and acceptance as appropriate controls for the Study Area.

Amplifying this at times was a lack of available evidence that supported each specific control and that could inform how discretion should be applied.

For example, a discretionary street setback of 10 metres is typically required in the Study Area, however evidence to the degree to which this could be reduced and still meet the preferred urban design outcome was not available. This has led to the erosion of street setback distances or no setback at all being provided with 17 percent of tower developments in the Study Area providing no street setback at all.

The interpretation of these controls in effect became highly elastic and therefore, inconsistent and unpredictable (Victorian State Government, 2015b). Developers, planners and decision makers responsible for assessing development applications

against the planning scheme increasingly were required to negotiate, site by site, for modifications that they believed would improve development outcomes or, at the minimum, that would mitigate the potential negative impacts of a development.

With a lack of certainty about what was required, individual approvals of developments that did not meet the controls began setting precedents for what was now potentially acceptable.

The controls and the degree to which they were met on major developments permitted between 2010 and September 2015 is outlined below.

• Discretionary minimum street setback of 10 metres - rarely met, with 7 percent providing a setback of 10 metres or greater. Of all permits, 43 percent of permits had a setback of 5 metres or greater; and • Tower heights – only 39% of approvals are within the discretionary height limits. The tallest approved tower, 38 Freshwater Place has a height of 283 metres, which is almost triple the discretionary height limit of 100m.

(All figures, source Helen Day Urbanism, 2016b)

Hoddle Grid • Maximum (discretionary) street wall height of 40m – generally met, with 64 percent of approvals built within this height limit. No street wall was provided in 19 percent of developments as they had no upper level street setback; • Discretionary minimum street setback of 10 metres - rarely met, with 13 percent providing a setback of 10 metres or greater. Of all permits, 44 percent of permits had a setback of 5 metres or greater; and • Block density control FAR of 12:1 – In May 2015, 20 blocks in the city had a FAR greater than 12:1 (refer to figure 14). Taking into account approved permits, the number of blocks that will exceed this density is 24. The highest density achieved for a particular block is 25.3:1.

Southbank • Maximum street wall height of 30 metres generally met with 61 percent of approvals built within this height limit. No street wall was provided in 11 percent of development sites;

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

53

2.2.2 Escalating demand for residential development The shift to residential development as the highest and best use of land in the Study Area was a result of a number of factors: • The Postcode 3000 program introduced in 1992; • The introduction of the Capital City Zone in 1999; • The commencement of Melbourne Docklands precinct which included substantial office development in early 2000s; and • The increase in numbers of international and local students seeking accommodation in the Hoddle Grid and the increasing costs of transportation.

The supply of apartments is being delivered by local and, increasingly, international developers (Ernst and Young, 2016).

2.2.3 Rapid changes in construction technology leading to towers on smaller sites Significant changes in construction technology have enabled the development of towers on very small sites (see examples provided in figures 9, 10 and 11). These leaps in technology have included: • Sophisticated prefabrication permitting simpler stacking of building units on sites with constrained access; • Structure innovations in concrete and steel technology enabling high slenderness ratios for tall buildings; and • Intelligent lift technologies producing more efficient vertical transportation.

The uptake in the number of developments installing car stackers has also enabled condensed parking footprints without ramps and aisles, significantly reducing the floorplate depths required to accommodate and move vehicles within a building.

Figure 30: 134 Spencer Street, Hoddle Grid, Sales History (Source: Ernst and Young, 2016)

54

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

2.2.4 Rapid land value escalation Land value increases in the Central City accelerated following the sale in January 2014 of 70 Southbank Boulevard which will accommodate the ‘Australia 108’ development which is 108 storeys high (currently under construction). This sale reset vendors’ expectations for sites in the Study Area with 50-100 percent land value increases in a relatively short period. This increase in land values brought with it an increase in gross yield and therefore higher floor area ratios to support these higher sale prices (Ernst and Young, 2016). Figure 30 illustrates the rapid increase in land value for 134 Spencer Street.

This ‘extraordinary growth in the land prices of potential development sites’ (p15, Ernst and

Young, 2016) is driving a cycle of poor development outcomes as increasingly higher densities (yields) are sought and permitted on sites, raising the benchmark expectation for yield, with land prices increasing commensurately. Cumulatively this contributes to poor built form outcomes as increasingly high densities of development are reducing the capacity to deliver good design, shrinking setbacks and building separation, compromising privacy, limiting daylight and sunlight access and reducing sky views. This cycle is illustrated in figure 31.

High land values have also exacerbated the challenge for the public sector in delivering affordable housing, open space and other community infrastructure in the Central City.

Figure 31: The relationship between increasing floor area ratios in the Central City, land value, yield expectations and decreasing quality of built form

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

55

2.2.5 Limited (if any) Value Capture or Sharing Since 1999 with the removal of the plot ratio bonus scheme (see Section 1.7), the Study Area has been operating with no value sharing mechanism.

Only one type of development contribution, an open space levy which represents a user pays framework, has been in place. Prior to the introduction of a mandatory minimum levy contribution of 7.06 percent in February 2016 for the Hoddle Grid and Southbank, this contribution ranged up to the previous maximum requirement of 5 percent.

The restoration of a plot ratio system with bonuses providing defined community benefits would assist in addressing this gap, but this does not exclude the need for development contribution on all developments to offset broad infrastructure costs, as well as to mitigate triggered impacts through very high density development, for example the reduction in open space per capita.

The current practice of sporadic negotiation of site specific development agreements can be a very opaque, inconsistent and contested way to attempt value capture and sharing (SGS, 2016).

56

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

3. Determining appropriate built form controls 3.1 What is the role of planning controls?

The use of legislation to control city development is a relatively recent phenomenon, no more than 150 years old (Ramsay Consulting, 2016). Regulating the development of land is an accepted practice in most global cities.

Section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act), includes the following objectives: • To provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land; • To conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value; and • To balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.

Balancing certainty and flexibility in the planning and design process is typically framed around a debate between the need for mandatory (compulsory) or discretionary (preferred, performance-driven) controls. The Planning Practice Note that outlines the role of mandatory provisions in planning schemes identifies the need to balance the benefits of a mandatory provision in achieving a built form objective against the resulting loss of opportunity for flexibility in delivering the objective. It notes that there ‘will be circumstances where a mandatory provision will provide certainty and ensure a preferable and efficient outcome’ (p1, Victorian State Government, DELWP, 2015e).

In addition to delivering on the vision and specific urban design outcomes sought in the Study Area, such as managing growth while protecting the public realm, the intent of all of the controls proposed below is for: • Consistency and clarity of regulation; • Simplification of feasibility assessment of development site value; and • Promotion of diversity and variation, not a ‘cookie cutter’ approach.

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

57

3.2 Method for determining proposed controls This report synthesises the technical research undertaken or commissioned by DELWP and considers how these integrate into a cohesive proposal for new built form controls. These reports included: • Comparative Planning Controls Inter-city Research - which investigates the built form controls in downtown, high-rise precincts within Chicago, New York, Singapore, Perth, Sydney and Auckland (Helen Day Urbanism, 2016a); • Planning Permit Data Review Report - with case studies (2010-2015) which analyses permits for major development approved by the Minister’s office (all permits) and the City of Melbourne (developments of 5 storeys or more) from 2010 to 2015 (Helen Day Urbanism, 2016b); • Architectural Testing of Built Form Controls which incorporates built form testing on two case study precincts in the Study Area and which provides an assessment of the feasibility of potential built form controls (Hayball, 2016); • Wind Assessments - which provides an assessment of existing international planning controls for wind mitigation, a review of existing wind conditions in the Study Area and recommendations for controls that can achieve appropriate pedestrian safety and comfort levels in streets and public spaces (Global Wind Technology Services, 2016); • Daylight Modelling Assessment - Analysis of Building Heights and Setbacks - which investigates the effect that building height and separation have on daylight access at street and podium levels of buildings (Wood & Grieve Engineers, 2016); • Economic Issues - which considers the economic context and impacts of the plot ratio control (SGS Economics & Planning, 2016);

58

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

• Feasibility Review - which considers recent development patterns, land value impacts and the impact of the proposed controls on development feasibility (Ernst and Young, 2016); • Urban Design Analysis - Special Character Areas which considers the special character attributes of these areas and the proposed controls (Hodyl + Co, 2016); and • A History of Built Form Control in Central Melbourne - which provides an overview of the background legislation that has led to built form controls in the Study Area and an overview of four specific controls; plot ratio, street wall tower setback and tower separation (Ramsay Consulting, 2016).

It also incorporates investigative work undertaken

by DELWP, including: • Existing Conditions Analysis which considers the existing built form conditions in the city (Victorian State Government, 2016a) • Overshadowing Technical Report - which considers overshadowing impacts of buildings on public open spaces (Victorian State Government, 2016b) Each study provides a discrete understanding of that particular field of expertise in relation to built form in the Study Area. Together, they can effectively inform and enable evaluation of built form controls that balance the multiple objectives required to deliver the vision and objectives for the Central City.

Across these reports, the key elements of built form that are considered and tested include: • • • • •

Street wall heights; Upper level street setbacks; Side and rear setbacks; Overall massing; and Building height.

1.0 1.2

Introduction Key Features and Development Assumptions

HODDLE G

Key Feature

- 8 sites wit

- 3 sites wit yellow)

- Several lo

- 1 site stra (indicated - Range of HODDLE GRID PRECINCT

Developme

- Average a

BOURKE ST

- Average e

D

G K

L

M

- Basement

F

KING ST

SPENCER ST

C

A

J

- Car parkin

- Minimal or

- Number o

H

I

LITTLE COLLINS ST

SOUTHBAN

Key Feature

SOUTHBANK PRECINCT IT WH

EM

AN

- 10 sites w

ST PO

- 3 locally s WE

L

RS

- 2 sites stra (indicated

T

- 1 site deve GE

ST

- Varied fron H

ID

M

BR

GS

- Average a

EE

N

I

QU

KIN

NS

Developme

G F

Y WA

K

D A

C

- Average e

E

CIT

Y

- Basement

RD

- Car parkin

- Commerc

B

Figure 32: Location of two case study precincts

- Number o 1:250,000

Architectural Testing of Built Form Controls Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning Š Hayball

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

59

In particular, the architectural analysis incorporated an iterative built form testing process using two case study precincts â&#x20AC;&#x201C; one in the Hoddle Grid and one in Southbank (see figure 32). These two blocks provide a variety of sizes of sites, a range of street interfaces, and some heritage buildings which are likely to be retained as part of future development. The case studies incorporate commercial realities, such as the viability of floorplates and construction (structural) feasibility to test outcomes delivered by a variety of potential planning controls.

3.3 Review of the Interim Controls The interim controls were put in place for 12 months to address some of the critical concerns emerging in the Study Area as outlined in Section 1.2. They were not based on a detailed analysis of built form outcomes nor development feasibility.

This review has been undertaken during the 12 month period of the interim controls to both test them and identify what the permanent built form controls should be. Figures 33 and 34 illustrate proposed developments submitted in this interim period.

Prior to the interim controls, there were no limits to density or height on most sites within the General Development Areas (except in certain areas of Southbank), and discretionary controls for upper level street setbacks and tower separation were inconsistently applied (refer Section 2.3.1).

For each case study, the pre-C262 and the interim

29:1

Figure 33: 600 Collins Street, Hoddle Grid (Source: DELWP) A base FAR of 24:1, with bonuses sought for open space / pedestrian links and the provision of a publically run art space Complies with setback and overshadowing controls

60

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

15:1

Figure 34: 24-46 Aâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Beckett Street, Hoddle Grid (Source: DELWP) A FAR of 15:1 Complies with setback controls

4.0 4.01

Conclusion Comparison of Controls Testing

HODDLE GRID PRECINCT 77 levels 72 levels

40 levels 32 levels

2.0 2.03

Hoddle Grid Precinct Pre-Amendment C262 Interim Controls Testing

Hoddle Grid Precinct Amendment C262 Interim Controls Testing | 5% Tower Setbacks for Buildings Above 100m Maximised Floor Area Ratio

AMENDMENT C262 - INTERIM CONTROLS

Tower Heights: 40 - 77 levels above ground Tower site coverage: 48-59%

SITE PLAN | 1:1000

Street wall height: 20 metres

Architectural Testing of Built Form Controls Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

9

9

5 5 11 5

5

8

5

65 LEVELS FAR: 28.7

8

J

10

I

8

4 LEVELS

550m2 39.5%

H

52 LEVELS FAR: 21.9

5

-

30

Buildings range Floor Area Ratio Tower site cove Increased towe opportunities.

Floor Area Ratio potential to exc Floor Area Ratio setbacks and d Slenderness rat maximum heigh Car parking can Podium heights prevailing built f

Sites may reach F - Site A: 36.8:1 - Site C: 19.5:1 - Site H: 21.9:1 - Site J: 28.7:1 - Site K: 22.5:1 - Average FAR =

LINS STREET

Tower Heights: 32-72 levels above ground Tower site coverage: 35-45%

SITE PLAN | 1:1000

Average tower separation: 10 metres © Hayball

718m2 43.1%

K

L

G

32 LEVELS FAR: 14.8

5

-

512m2 44.0%

5

LITTLE COLLINS STREET

5

-

6

KING STREET

M

32

30

7.5

5

-

F

5

32 LEVELS FAR: 13.7

5

4

A

KEY FINDINGS

480m2 40.7%

E

C

5

H

60 LEVELS FAR: 32.2

-

B

GODFREY STREET

4 LEVELS

723m2 52.0%

-

Buildings range from 40-77 levels above ground.

806m2 44.0% Floor Area Ratios range between 22.4:1-44.4:1.

7.5 7.5 Tower site coverage ranges between 48-59%. 49 LEVELS FAR: 19.5 5 5Low tower reduces daylight and outlook 79 LEVELSseparation FAR: 36.8 opportunities.

Floor Area Ratios beyond 24:1 can be achieved on most sites.

Car parking can be accommodated within basements.

Podium heights of 2-5 levels generally more consistent with 668m2 prevailing built form and heritage fabric.

35.2% Sites may reach Floor Area Ratios of: 8 10 8 411m2 44.8% -5 Site A: 44.4:1 (approximately 259m) 5 52 LEVELS - Site C: 34.4:1 (approximately 199m) FAR: 22.5 32 LEVELS FAR: 25.0:1 16.3 - Site F: (approximately 139m) - Site G: 26.5:1 (approximately 154m) - Site H: 32.2:1 (approximately 184m) - Site J: 35.5:1 (approximately 199m) LITTLE COL - Site K: 39.4:1 (approximately 216m) - Site M: 22.4:1 (approximately 124m) Average FAR = 32.5:1 5

I

5

-

of upper l 6% Testing TOWER with consideration balance appropria ABOVE 80 development opp

INCREASED SETBACK TO STREET TO ACKNOWLEDGE HERITAGE VIEW LINES AND SIGNIFICANT TREE

D

626m2 37.6%

20

J

SPENCER STREET

5

65 LEVELS FAR: 35.5

50 LEVELS FAR: 26.5

KING STREET

889m2 53.4%

8

70 LEVELS FAR: 39.4

6

9

5

5

G

STREET

KEY FINDINGS

5

5

K

5

660m2 51.8%

5

20

L

5

5

M

40 LEVELS FAR: 22.4

908m2 54.6%

4

5 5

5

32

4

5

5

7

5

5

4

442m2 48.1%

GODFREY STREET

2.5

2.4

F

45 LEVELS FAR: 25.0

65 LEVELS FAR: 34.4

77 LEVELS FAR: 44.4

5

4.7

5

5

5

A

645m2 54.8%

E SOUTHBANK PRECINCT C B

10

9

7

D

866m2 52.0%

1078m2 58.9%

4.8

7

8.1

6.1

10 2.4

5 5

SPENCER STREET

2.5

Modelling was undertaken to illustrate a pre-amendment C262 BOURK E INCREASED SETBACK TO STREET TO development scenario. Recent ACKNOWLEDGE HERITAGEapprovals VIEW LINES were used as benchmarks to establish minimum setbacks and building heights across the study precincts.

30

BOURKE STREET

30

PRE INTERIM CONTROLS

12

2.0 2.02

Average tower separation: 14.75 metres (AM:17m, CK: 15.5m, KJ:18m, FG:10m, GH:13m, JG:15m)

Architectural Testing of Built Form Controls Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning © Hayball

Project No 2029

14

Street wall height: 20 metres

Figure 35: Hoddle Grid Case Study - Pre-interim controls illustrated (left) and interim controls illustrated (right) PRE INTERIM CONTROLS

AMENDMENT C262 - INTERIM CONTROLS

6% TOWER ABOVE 80

Architectural Testing of Built Form Controls Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning © Hayball

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

61

PRE INTERIM CONTROLS

AMENDMENT C262 - INTERIM CONTROLS

6% TOWER S ABOVE 80M

SOUTHBANK PRECINCT

3.0 3.02

Southbank Precinct PRE INTERIM Pre-Amendment C262CONTROLS Interim Controls Testing

3.0 3.03

POWER

STREE

T

Southbank Precinct AMENDMENT C262 - INTERIM CONTROLS Interim Controls Testing | 5% Tower Setbacks for Buildings Above 100m Maximised Floor Area Ratio POWER

6% TOWER S ABOVE 80M

T

30

STREE

T E T A M

5

5 32 LEVELS FAR: 19.7

7.5

7.5

41.0% 655m2

I

5

5

49 LEVELS FAR: 23.0

E

55 LEVELS FAR: 26.1

H

S

T

E

R

T

5

E

8.5

D R Y 5

C

7 LEVELS FAR: 4.8

-

E

T

A

B

Tower Heights: 12-72 levels above ground

Architectural Testing of Built Form Controls Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning © Hayball

Project No 2029

44

Tower site coverage: 53-77%

Tower site coverage: 39-64%

Average tower separation: 10.5 metres

Average tower separation: 13.8 metres

Street wall height: 20 metres

Street wall height: 20 metres

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

-

IT

43 LEVELS FAR: 20.9

C

D

Figure 36: Southbank Case Study - Pre-interim controls illustrated (left) and interim controls illustrated (right)

62

-

O

A

7 48.9% 908M2

SITE PLAN | 1:1200

Tower Heights: 18-70 levels above ground

-

5

E

RESERVE

Architectural Testing of Built Form Controls Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

-

30

SITE PLAN | 1:1200

© Hayball

5

7.5

8.5

EEN QU

39.6% 1225M2

5

7.5

10

F

5

32 LEVELS FAR: 20.6

7

6

A

R

5

7.5

EET E S TR IDG

52.3% 370m2

SBR

15.3

11

N

T

A

G

Testing of upper limits of F with consideration of optim balance appropriate tower development opportunity.

KEY FINDINGS

47.0% 660m2 49 LEVELS FAR: 26.4

N

S 63.9% 420M2

35 LEVELS FAR: 23.0

B

A

Y

H

7 LEVELS FAR: 4.8

K

H

A

A

N

C 5

N

W

N

Y

2

5

9

R Y IT

5

C

65 LEVELS FAR: 36.2

S

A

A

H

W

55 LEVELS FAR: 33.5

D

G

53.0% 984M2

4

54.0% 543m2

5

O

A

6

D

6

7

S

K

IN

G

5

59.4% 554M2

EET

1150m2

H

5

5

59 LEVELS above ground.

- Buildings range from 18-70 levels (180m) Floor Area Ratios range between 12:1-41:1. 5 - Tower site coverage ranges between 53-77%.

30 - Insufficient tower separations 56.8% limit daylight and outlook 263M2 opportunities.

5 5 12 LEVELS FAR: 40.0% - Podium heights of 2-8 levels8.9 generally more consistent with 412M2 5 5 prevailing built form.

LEVELS - Sites may reach Floor Area Ratios 32of: FAR: 16.9 5 - Site A: 23.0:1 (approximately 110m) - Site D: 36.2:1 (approximately 199m) - Site E: 41.3:1 (approximately 216m) 5 63.9% - Site F: 20.3:1 (approximately 100m) 420M2 - Site G: 25.7:1 (approximately 124m) 21 LEVELS - Site H: 37.0:1 (approximately 170m) FAR: 14.1 - Site I: 35.2:1 (approximately 184m) RESERVE - Site K: 33.5:1 (approximately 170m) - Site M: 40.6:1 (approximately 216m) - Average FAR = 30.8

41

K

IN

76.9% 356M2 18 LEVELS FAR: 15.0

7

K

N

M

FAR: 31.3

5 KEY FINDINGS

5

30

R S TR

WA

E

30 70 LEVELS FAR: 41.3

H

21.6

W

5

5 57.7% 1516M2

1430m2

72 LEVELS Modelling was undertaken to illustrate (220m)a pre-amendment C262 5 development scenario. Recent approvals were used as SEPARATION minimum setbacks and building benchmarks to TOWER establish EQUIVALENT TO 5% OF HEIGHT heights across theCOMBINED study precincts. 44.3%

20

60 LEVELS FAR: 35.2

5

LKE

I

5

J

E IT H

7.8 5 54.9% 877m2

5

EEN 5

41

5

5

QU

1600m2 70 LEVELS

2

F

32 LEVELS FAR: 20.3

L

6

54.9%

M

FAR: 40.6

4

5

40 LEVELS FAR: 25.7

30

5

5 5

10 55.1% 370m2

63.0% 880m2 55 LEVELS FAR: 37.0

5

5

3

G

SBR

5

H

3 56.7% 570m2

15.3

IDG

1600m2 70 LEVELS

14

WA

E S TR

13

10

EET

4

LKE

R S TR

8

21.6

12

EET

H W

L

J

H

7.3

IT

E

37 20

30

N

9.1

M

A

S

4.9

N

S

R

E

8.5

R

T

© Hayball

E

E

2.6

T

1.6

30

Architectural Testing of Built Form Controls Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

-

Buildings range between Floor Area Ratios range Tower site coverage ran Increased tower separa opportunities.

Floor Area Ratios on lar Floor Area Ratios on sm setbacks.

On smaller sites (<24m neighbouring boundary, achieved. Site coverage exceed 50%.

Car parking easily accom podiums.

40m street wall heights and heritage fabric. Pod more consistent with pre 100m-220m height towe heights.

Sites may reach Floor A - Site D: 20.9:1 (approx - Site E: 26.1:1 (approx - Site F: 19.7:1 (approx - Site G: 20.6:1 (approx - Site H: 26.4:1 (approx - Site I: 23.0:1 (approxim - Site M: 31.3:1 (approx Average FAR = 20.8

controls were modelled to assess the built form outcomes. These are illustrated in figures 35 and 36. The pre-C262 model incorporates any recently approved but unbuilt developments.

Southbank Case Study The pre-C262 controls demonstrate that a very high density of development is achievable with the following development outcomes:

Hoddle Grid Case Study The pre-C262 controls demonstrate that a very high density of development is achievable with the following development outcomes:

• Buildings range in height from 18 - 70 levels • Highest Floor Area Ratio on a site is 41.3:1 • Tower site coverage ranged between 53 - 77 percent

• Buildings range in height from 40-77 levels; • Highest Floor Area Ratio on a site was 44.4:1; and • Tower site coverage ranged between 48-59 percent.

The interim controls in the Southbank case study enabled the following development outcomes: • Buildings range in height from 12-72 levels • Floor Areas Ratios ranged between 8.4:1 - 28.2:1 • Tower site coverage ranged between 39 - 64 percent • Average Floor Area Ratio was 20.8 • Floor Area Ratios on smaller sites limited by side and rear setback controls

The interim controls in the Hoddle Grid case study enabled the following development outcomes: • Buildings range in height from 32-72 levels; • Floor Area Ratios ranged between 13.7:1 and 36.8:1; • Average Floor Area Ratio of 21.8; • Tower site coverage ranges from 35-45 percent; • Floor Area Ratio on two larger sites could exceed 24:1; • Floor Area Ratios on smaller sites limited by side and rear setback controls; and • Slenderness ratio (ratio of height:width assumption was ratio of 10:1 required for structural efficiency) which effectively limits maximum heights.

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

The review of the interim controls demonstrated the following issues: • Street walls at 40m are considered too high for their context and the existing scale of the streets; and • Tower separation created by side and rear setback controls is not considered adequate, with poor outlook and insufficient spacing for daylight and sunlight penetration to the street.

The interim controls therefore do not address all of the deficiencies in the built form controls prior to their introduction.

63

3.4 Proposed permanent built form controls – General Development Areas Controls that address the following built form elements are proposed for the General Development Areas (see figure 37): • Street wall height control; • Upper level street setbacks; • Side / rear setbacks for towers; • Tower separation within a site; and • Variations to setback controls under specific (limited) circumstances No overall building height is proposed. The maximum height of a tower, however, will continue to be affected by the Commonwealth aviation controls (above 226-228m AHD), and by the additional shadows they may cast on public open spaces (see section 3.6) and any particular site context considerations.

3.4.1 Street Wall Height Why regulate street wall height?

The height of the street wall has a direct impact on the experience of the pedestrian within the street.

A preferred street wall height should: • Relate to the existing urban form context; • Establish a preferred character for the street; and • Create a positive micro-climate for pedestrians.

What control is proposed?

• The preferred street wall height above which buildings will be required to setback from all street frontages is 20 metres; • This can be varied up to 40 metres where it is appropriate to match a prevalent street wall height; • Where it is agreed that special definition of a prominent street corner is appropriate (both streets must be greater than 9m wide and one greater than 20m wide) a street wall height up to 80 metres will be considered; and • When a site fronts a large public open space, a street wall height up to 80 metres will be considered.

How does this compare to existing controls?

This is a revision to the interim controls which designated a maximum street wall height of 40 metres.

Prior to the introduction of the interim controls, a maximum street wall height of 40 metres applied generally in the Hoddle Grid, and a maximum of 30 metres applied to podiums in Southbank.

The proposed controls set a new, lower street wall height as the preferred outcome for most situations. They then outline in what circumstances this can be exceeded. This will need to be justified based on an urban context analysis for the

Figure 37: General Development Areas

64

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

rry

The

St

e St

rob La T

St

tt cke

St ton ans Sw

m

ing

Spr

e Aâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;B

St

e St

rob La T

ay ri W

dje

un

ur W

Ba tm

an

Av e

ilda

St K

Sturt S

t

Wells St

Rd

Street wall heights Less than 20m 21-40m 40-80m

cas

Dor

St

80+ Study Area

Figure 38: Map of street wall heights in the Study Area

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

65

development site that demonstrates that a higher street wall is consistent with the prevalent street wall height, appropriately defines a street corner or fronts a large public open space and that it doesn’t compromise any other objectives of the Central City built form controls.

Evidence to support the proposed control A number of the technical reports support this preferred 20 metre street wall height control, including: Daylight Modelling Assessment • An analysis on street wall heights (20m & 40m podiums) showed light levels were adversely affected with taller podiums.

Existing Conditions Analysis - Permit analysis • An assessment of existing street wall heights in the Study Area illustrate that a 20 metre street wall is commonly aligned with the existing urban context (see figure 38).

Comparative Planning Controls Inter-city Research • The comparative analysis of Australian and global cities shows a convergence of preferred street wall heights around 20 metres – primarily driven by a desire to allow sunlight into streets and to create human scaled streets.

Architectural Testing of Built Form Controls • Built form testing of the two case study blocks which demonstrated that heights over 20 metres typically don’t sit well within their context.

The preferred street wall height control is also supported by established urban design principles for good street design, including: • That in 30 metre wide streets a 20 metre street wall height on the northern side of streets typically enables sunlight to reach the southern footpaths much of the time;

66

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

• As podiums become higher, the demand for active uses in the podium is typically low due to deep floor plates, which generally favour car parking; and • A general urban design principle that building heights at the street edge which are approximately equal to the street width provide a balanced sense of openness and enclosure.

Placing taller buildings on street corners to reinforce that corner is an established urban design principle and there are a number of precedents found within the Study Area (locations indicated in figure 38). The rectilinear Hoddle Grid has very few sites that punctuate long axial views, it is therefore on street corners that taller, more prominent buildings have been located.

Taller buildings in these corner locations are less likely to dominate neighbours or adjacent public spaces, as, on corner sites, there is more public space available around the buildings.

Drawing from local examples, a maximum height of 80 metres is considered appropriate, as shown by examples such as the Australian Institute of Architect’s building on the corner of Exhibition Street which doesn’t overly dominate the surrounding context.

In all circumstances it must be demonstrated that a taller form does not cause significant additional wind impacts or overshadowing.

3.4.2 Upper Level Street Setbacks Why regulate upper level street setbacks?

Upper level street setbacks enable the benefits of a preferred street wall height to be realised.

Street setbacks need to be of a sufficient depth to ensure that there is clear delineation between the street wall and tower elements above, otherwise the many benefits of the street wall element are diminished or lost.

In addition, upper level street setbacks can: • Mitigate the downward wind impacts from taller buildings; • Reduce the visual dominance of taller built forms above the street wall.

Setting upper levels of a building back above the street wall has been common practice in the Study Area. It is the predominant existing condition and a defining characteristics of Central City built form.

Figure 39: Example of existing defined street corner up to 80m - the Architect’s Institute

What control is proposed?

• A 5 metre minimum setback above the street wall.

How does this compare to existing controls?

This is the same as the existing interim control.

Prior to C262, the upper level street setback control in the General Development Areas within the Hoddle Grid and Southbank was 10 metres.

This was a discretionary control. The practice in the consideration of approvals was generally to support a minimum of 5 metre setback.

An example of the 10 metre setback control in practice is seen in Collins Street between Exhibition Street and Russell Street (see Figure 40).

Evidence to support the proposed control The technical reports generally support the introduction of an upper level street setback control as follows:

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

67

Collins Street, Hoddle Grid 10 metre setback above street wall

Corner Little Bourke and Spencer Streets, Hoddle Grid 5 metre setback above street wall

Figure 40: Examples of varying setbacks in the Hoddle Grid and Southbank

68

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Fanning Street, Southbank 0 metre setback

Daylight Modelling Assessment • The daylight analysis report demonstrates the importance of tower separation for allowing daylight access to streets. In smaller streets, in particular the Little Streets within the Hoddle Grid, this will have a significant impact. On a typical 10 metre wide Little Street, a setback of 5 metres on both sides of the street will create a 20 metre tower separation which is demonstrated to provide significantly better daylight levels (see figure 41).

Comparative Planning Controls Inter-city Research • The comparative analysis of other jurisdictions demonstrates that a street setback is common practice to ensure that the lower levels of buildings provide a human-scaled street, to reduce visual bulk, to minimise wind impacts and to create tower separation.

Wind Impact Analysis • The Wind Effects Control Mechanisms identified in the analysis include the recommendation to integrate podiums into taller buildings to reduce downward wind flows. This can deflect the downwash wind effect and dissipate the wind away above pedestrian level.

• Setbacks are standard practice in design guidelines to mitigate wind impacts for tower developments in a large number of cities around the world, as varied as Brisbane, Portland, Salt Lake City and Mumbai.

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Architectural Testing of Built Form Controls • Setbacks greater than 5 metres can make it more difficult to generate functional floor plans as this increases the distance that the tower core is setback from the street. This creates a deeper apartment depth for apartments within the podium, reducing the potential to create well-designed apartments with good access to natural light.

In addition, established urban design principles acknowledge that upper lever street setbacks (a podium and tower format) provide good definition to the street (while allowing sunlight and daylight into the street) and reduce visual bulk by setting upper levels back away from the view of the pedestrian.

Upper level setbacks should be at least 5 metres from the street wall to achieve these objectives.

As illustrated in figure 40 when setbacks are removed these benefits are lost completely.

69

3.4.3 Side and Rear Setbacks Why regulate side and rear setbacks?

Side and rear setbacks create spaces between buildings on adjacent sites by delineating the distance that a building should be setback from a site boundary.

Side and rear setbacks provide the following benefits: • Enable adequate natural light and sunlight to reach internal areas of buildings or open spaces within developments (e.g. roof gardens or terraces); • Enable adequate natural light and sunlight to reach the street or public open spaces at ground level; • Provide a reasonable privacy distance between buildings, which is particularly important for apartment buildings; • Allow air flow between buildings; • Enable equitable development rights by ensuring that a building on one site does not diminish the potential to develop a building on the adjacent site; and • Avoid creating the perception of a wall of towers that overly dominate the pedestrian spaces below, limiting sky views and creating a canyon effect and continuous shadows.

The proposed controls respond to the need to clarify building separation above the pre-interim control distances where many of these benefits were compromised.

What controls are proposed?

• Above the street wall height or 40 metres whichever is lesser, a minimum of 5 metres or 6 percent of the total building height whichever is greater.

This will create separation distances between

70

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

towers on adjacent sites in the order of 12 - 27m (for 100 - 226 metre high towers).

The proposed controls recognise that side and rear setbacks can be varied but only in certain circumstances and where rigorously justified by specific site context, including evidence that the amenity and development potential of neighbouring sites is not unduly decreased.

For buildings under 80 metres in height it is proposed that the development may build to one site boundary only if the adjoining site does, or may do, likewise, but only if a minimum setback of 5 metres is met to all other side and rear boundaries.

Above 80 metres in height, the building floor plate above the street wall height may be adjusted to achieve: • Reduced impact on existing and potential neighbours in terms of privacy, outlook, daylight and sunlight access; • Minimisation of visual bulk; • Reduced impact on public spaces, including overshadowing and wind effects and reduced visual dominance; and • Minimisation of visual dominance of heritage places and streetscapes, as well as significant view lines.

The building floorplate(s) above the permitted street wall height may be adjusted in terms of location and/or shape but must not: • Result in an increase in the floorplate area; • Be situated less than 5 metres to a side or rear boundary (or from the centre line of an adjoining lane); and • Be less than 5 metres to a street boundary.

7.3

Graph Comparison

The above results have been plotted on the following graph to determine what the approximate height would be. The graph compares building height (X axis) with its equivalent stree

Building Height to Daylight Factor Relationship 40.0

35.0

30.0

Daylight Factor

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0 0

50

100

150

200

Building Height 10m building separation 20m building separation P:\28984\PROJECT DOCUMENTATION\28984 - DAYLIGHT ASSESSMENT_REV05.DOCX 09 February 2016 Figure 41: Relationship between building height, building separation and daylight factor (Source: Wood and Grieves Engineering, 2016)

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

71

DEVELOPMENT AREA WITHIN FAR 18:1 DEVELOPMENT AREA ABOVE FAR 18:1

RECOMMENDED

for Buildings Above 80m Ratio Maximised RECOMMENDED

S

6% TOWER SETBACKS FOR BUILDINGS ABOVE 80M

or Buildings Above 80m Ratio Maximised

S

6% TOWER SETBACKS FOR BUILDINGS ABOVE 80M

S

DEVELOPMENT AREA WITHIN FAR 18:1 DEVELOPMENT AREA ABOVE FAR 18:1 DEVELOPMENT AREA WITHIN FAR 18:1 DEVELOPMENT AREA ABOVE FAR 18:1

8% TOWER SETBACKS FOR BUILDINGS ABOVE 60M

DEVELOPMENT AREA WITHIN FAR 18:1 DEVELOPMENT AREA ABOVE FAR 18:1

8% TOWER SETBACKS FOR BUILDINGS ABOVE 60M

6% TOWER SETBACKS BUILDINGS 8% TOWER SETBACKS FOR BUILDINGS Figure 42: Illustration of theFOR refined floor plate in the Hoddle Grid case study (above) and Southbank case study (below) ABOVE 80M

and Planning d,nment, WaterLand, andWater Planning

S

6% TOWER SETBACKS FOR BUILDINGS ABOVE 80M

ABOVE 60M

8% TOWER SETBACKS FOR BUILDINGS Project No 2029 41 Project No 2029 ABOVE 60M

77

, Water and Planning 72

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Project No 2029

77

x Contour plots for Street Level and at Podium Levels

Southbank Precinct Option 1 Option 1: Pre-Amendment C262 Interim Controls Testing False Colour Lux Contour plots for Street Level and at Podium Levels

Figure 43: Daylight modelling of pre-interim controls (above) and proposed controls (below) for the Southbank case study (Source: Wood and Grieves, Daylight Assessment report, 2016).

The Lux plot scale defines the level of illuminance corresponding to colour band.

Blue represents lower lux levels and red represents higher lux levels

MENTATION\28984 - DAYLIGHT ASSESSMENT_REV06.DOCX

Southbank Precinct Option 2 Option 2: 6% Tower Setbacks for Buildings above 80m Maximised Floor Area Ratio False Colour Lux Contour plots for Street Level and at Podium Levels

APPENDIX C

ADDITIONAL TESTING – CASE STUDY | 33

Generally agreed daylight luminance levels at midday on a clear sunny day APPENDIX C are ADDITIONAL as follows: TESTING – CASE STUDY | 31 • 10,000 -20,000 Lux - Shade of a tree • 5,000 Lux - Shade of a solid object The Lux plot scale defines the • 1,000 - 2,000 Lux - the internal level of illuminance corresponding to colour band.

Blue represents lower lux levels perimeter of a glazed building and red represents higher lux levels • 100 Lux - a deep internal space of a glazed building

MENTATION\28984 - DAYLIGHT ASSESSMENT_REV06.DOCX

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

APPENDIX C

ADDITIONAL TESTING – CASE STUDY | 34

73

How does this compare to existing controls?

The proposed control is partially aligned with the intent of the interim control that increased the setback distance as the tower height increased, but is proposing a 6 percent separation distance calculation rather than the interim control of 5 percent. This is based on the findings of the architectural testing.

Prior to the introduction of the interim controls, there were no side or rear setback controls in place in the Hoddle Grid. A tower separation policy of 24 metres was generally not applied. Amendment C171 in Southbank introduced a discretionary minimum side and rear setback distance of 10 metres.

Evidence to support the proposed control Daylight Modelling Assessment • This indicates that building separation has a far greater impact on the amount of daylight reaching street (ground) levels than the overall height, for buildings over 50 metres tall (Wood & Grieve Engineering, 2016). Doubling the height of a tower from 100m to 200m, for example, has minimal impact on the amount of daylight reaching the street. Doubling the separation distance between towers, however, effectively doubles the amount of daylight at street level. Building separation has the greatest positive impact, then a lower podium height, and then finally overall building height; and • While the daylight analysis does not explicitly support increasing separation as tower height increases, it does acknowledge that the resultant separation at street (or lower building) level is the critical determinant of the quantum of daylight in a street or reaching these lower levels (see figures 41 and 43).

Comparative Planning Controls Inter-city Research • The comparative analysis of other cities illustrates that it is accepted practice to 74

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

regulate the separation of buildings. This is predominantly done through mandatory provisions that reflect the importance of this built form control.

Wind Impact Analysis • The wind analysis also notes that effective ‘walls’ of buildings have a detrimental effect to the comfort and safety of pedestrians. Setbacks are generally recommended to mitigate wind impacts. Gaps between buildings can particularly address wind channelling which is caused when rows of buildings parallel to each other form a corridor which can transmit wind effects at high speeds.

Architectural Testing of Built Form Controls • The Study Area is not a blank slate, and there are a variety of sites of different size and shape, as well as varied street orientation and contexts, including existing buildings of all shapes and sizes, heritage fabric and open spaces.

• Considering the importance of maintaining building separation, any discretion to reduce side and rear setbacks should be carefully considered. Introducing controls that balance this need for securing adequate minimum setbacks, while enabling appropriate site specific design responses are in principle, supported. These would need to be very carefully articulated to ensure that this did not re-introduce many of the negative impacts that diminishing side and rear setbacks have had in recent developments.

• The benefits of allowing flexibility in floor plate design is demonstrated in the architectural testing which illustrates how, through a site specific design response, better outlook from towers and improved daylight and sunlight access can be achieved by, for example, converting rectilinear to curvilinear forms (see figures 42, 47 and 48).

3.4.4 Tower separation within sites Why regulate tower separation?

The benefits of tower separation are effectively the same as side and rear setback controls. Tower separation controls within a site provide guidance on appropriate separation distances between towers that are not separated by a site boundary.

What controls are proposed?

Tower separation distance controls are proposed that are equivalent to 6 percent of the combined tower height. Lesser tower separation can be considered, but this should not be less than 10 metres and only at this minimum when the design avoids direct overlooking and all other applicable built form controls can be met. The floorplate adjustment justifications apply as per the side and rear setback controls outlined above.

How does this compare to existing controls?

The interim controls do not include a tower separation control. Prior to the introduction of the interim controls, a preferred tower separation distance of 24 metres applied in the Hoddle Grid and 20 metres in Southbank with a minimum separation distance between towers of 10 metres.

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

The proposed controls would create separation distances as follows: Tower Heights*

Combined

6% separation

80m (25 levels)

160m

10m (not 9.6m)*

100m (32 levels)

200m

12m

120m (39 levels)

240m

14.4m

140m (45 levels)

280m

16.8

160m (48 levels)

320m

19.2m

167m (54 levels)

334m

20m

180m (58 levels)

360m

21.6m

200m (65 levels)

400m

24m

220m (72 levels)

440m

26.4m

228m (74 levels)

456m

27.36m

*Note a minimum separation distance of 10 metres for towers is required.

Evidence to support the proposed control Evidence to support tower separation within sites is provided by the evidence to support side and rear setbacks generally as outlined in Section 3.4.3.

75

The combination of these built form controls are illustrated in figures 43 - 48.

Built Form Controls for buildings less than 80 metres high

Figure 43: Preferred built form outcome for buildings under 80 metres in height (Source: DELWP)

Figure 44: Preferred built form outcome for buildings under 80 metres in height with modified setback requirement to one boundary (Source: DELWP)

76

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Figure 45: Preferred built form outcome for buildings under 80 metres in height with modified setback requirement to corner or open space (Source: DELWP)

Built Form Controls for buildings above 80 metres high

Figure 46: Preferred built form outcome for buildings over 80 metres in height (Source: DELWP)

Figure 47: Preferred built form outcome for buildings over 80 metres in height with modified location of floorplate (same floorplate area) (Source: DELWP)

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Figure 48: Preferred built form outcome for buildings over 80 metres in height with modified shape of floorplate (same floorplate area) (Source: DELWP)

77

3.5 Proposed permanent built form controls – Special Character Areas 3.5.1 Overview A Special Character Area in the Study Area is an area where the emphasis is to protect and nurture specific valued built form attributes or to realise a new vision. They provide significant contrast to the General Development Areas where development is underway on a significant scale. Instead, the focus in the Special Character Areas is on incremental change that ensures the highly valued character of these areas is not compromised.

The identified Special Character Areas incorporate many of the most important, identifiable and landmark features that define Melbourne. This includes Melbourne’s key civic spaces such as Parliament, Town Hall and the State Library, the heart of the state’s cultural institutions, including the Arts Centre, Hamer Hall, Recital Centre, the National Gallery of Victoria and Australian Centre for Contemporary Art ,and the city’s premier shopping district, including Bourke Street Mall and the surrounding streets . They incorporate special places such as the Yarra riverfront which is important to our indigenous, European and natural history, as well as the intimate and fine-grain laneway network that houses shops, cafes, street art and bars.

Together they represent some of the most important and popular destinations in the Central City for residents, workers and visitors.

78

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

A total of 17 Special Character Areas have been identified within the Study Area. These have been classified by their co-location with key identifiable precincts, e.g. Chinatown, Parliament or the Arts Precinct, or, by the streets and laneways that bound them or define them, e.g. Collins to Flinders Street or Dodds Street.

A Special Character Area can incorporate built form controls from a number of areas as listed in the Design Development Overlay (DDO) schedules.

For example across the different parts of Chinatown, the built form controls that are listed in Areas 2, 3, 6 and 8 in DDO Schedule 2 apply.

Similarly, an area control as listed in the DDO schedules can apply across multiple Special Character Areas. For example, the Area 2 controls in Schedule 2 apply within Guildford Lane, Hardware Lane and Chinatown.

In each of the Special Character Areas, the primary built form controls influencing development are height controls. Prior to the introduction of the interim controls these were mandatory in some areas, and discretionary in others. The interim controls switched all of the discretionary height controls to mandatory while this review was underway.

Hoddle Grid

Southbank

Within the Hoddle Grid, there are 11 Special Character Areas and 4 DDOs are in place - DDO2 - Capital City Zone, DDO62 - Bourke Hill and DDO40 - River Environs. The Former Fishmarket Site (DDO7) has been completed and the DDO is proposed to convert to a General Development Area. Each Area and the DDO that applies is as follows:

Within Southbank there are six Special Character Areas and 2 DDOs that apply - DDO 60, which was updated through Amendment C171 in 2012 and DDO 58. Each Area and the DDO that applies is as follows:

Capital City Zone (DDO2) • Retail Core ( Area 1) • Guildford Lane (Area 2) • Hardware Lane / Hardware Street (Areas 2 & 3) • Chinatown (Little Bourke Street and surrounds - Areas 2, 3, 6 & 8) • Bourke Street (between Russell and Exhibition - Area 5) • Little Collins St north (between Russell and Exhibition - Areas 5 & 7) • Town Hall precinct (bounded by Little Collins and Collins, and Swanston and Russell - Area 9) • Collins to Flinders Street (between Swanston and Russell - DDO2 - Area 5)

Southbank (DDO60) • Southbank - River Environs (Area 1) • Arts Precinct (Area 1) • Sturt Street spine (Area 4A) • Dodds Street (west side between Grant and Coventry Streets - Area 4B, and east - Area 6) • Wells Street (Areas 5A and 5B) 312- 332 St Kilda Rd (DDO 58) • St Kilda Road (between Coventry and Dorcas Streets).

Each of the identified Special Character Areas is illustrated in figure 49. The extent of each DDOs (and associated height limits) is illustrated in figure 50.

Bourke Hill (DDO62) This area was reviewed and the DDO updated through Amendment C240 in 2015. All areas are between Exhibition Street and Spring Street.

• Parliament and surrounds (Areas B1, B2 and B3) • Bourke Hill periphery (Lonsdale Street, Exhibition Street and Little Collins Streets (Areas B4, B5 and B6) River Environs (DDO40) • North bank of the Yarra River (between Clarendon Street and St Kilda Road)

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

79

t

lin S

k Fran

Hill rke Bou iphery per

t

S ket

c Aâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Be

e St

Arts

e St

t

St

nt S

St Kilda Rd lls We

t Stree

Dodds S

ay W

Sturt

gs

treet

Gra

n Ki t ke S Clar

t

on S

end Clar

Ka va n

ag

h

Dodds

Sturt

Rd ty Ci

St

St

sbridg

Blvd

t

Queen

cinc

bank

Pre

Fannin g

St

r St

South

et Stre St

ls Wel

y St

entr Cov

Identified Special Character Areas Areas with mandatory height controls prior to the introduction of Amendment C262 interim controls - these areas have not been examined as part of the CCBFR review

Figure 49: Map of Special Character Areas

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

St

St

Yarra River

ing

n St

t

t

iam

St

Nor

Flin

nce

Spe

St

m ite

h

80

ibitio

th S

en S

Will

King

ank

th B

reet

St ders

ank th B nvirons u o S er E Riv

an

W

Exh

abe

n St

ins Coll s o t der Flin

St

nsto

Swa

Eliz

St

Que

ins

Coll

sell Rus

ne

St

l

Hal

n Tow

Hill rke Bou iphery per

Spr

ail Ret

e Cor

/ La

rke

Bou

St rke Bou llins o Lt oCrth N

St

ll

St

rke Bou

reet

Lon

Lt

t re S

le sda

n atow

Chin

dwa Har

rob La T

St

dale

ons

Lt L

Hi rke Bou e Cor

ne

a rd L

dfo Guil

t

lin S

k Fran

t

S ket

c Aâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Be

15

St

60 20 30

St dale

ons

Lt L

Lt

s

Lon

60

St

40

ing St

n St

ibitio

Exh

St

40

nsto

abe

n St

Eliz

St

t

24

t

Will

en S

th S

Que

ins

sell Rus

Swa

B

40 15 40

80

30

15 e St ourk

Coll

40 40

60

Spr

St dale

rke Bou

15

60

25

15

20

40

25

robe La T

100

iam St

King

t

St

Yarra River

Flin

r St

nce

Spe

e Stre ders

St Dodds

St va na gh Ka

Sturt

Rd

St

Blvd

40

t

nt S

Gra

t ke S Clar

t

14 lls We St

15 metres 20 metres 24 metres 30 metres 40 metres 60 metres 80 metres 100 metres Proposed boundary extension to Retail Core

24

ay sW

W

bank

ng Ki

h

m ite

St

on S end Clar

an

South

Ci ty

Queen

sbridg e St

Fannin

g St

24

y St

entr Cov

70

60

Figure 50: Extent of Design Development Overlays within the Special Characters and associated height controls (which remain unchanged from pre-interim or interim controls).

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

81

3.5.2 Extent of Review

3.5.3 Proposed built form controls

A high level review of each of the Special Character Areas has informed the proposed controls. This review is primarily based on the report Urban Design Analysis - Special Character Areas (Hodyl + Co, 2016).

The urban design analysis identifies the key characteristics of the Special Character Areas, including: • Fine-grain subdivision patterns; • Significant heritage buildings and identified heritage precincts; • Human-scaled public realm with high pedestrian amenity; • Activated laneways; and • Key landmarks and viewlines.

The CCBFR has not considered those areas that had a mandatory height control prior to the introduction of the interim controls as no built form control changes have been proposed to these areas through this review process. This applies to the Retail Core, Bourke Hill Core, Dodds Street, Wells Street (part) and the Arts Precinct (refer figure 49).

The urban design review of these areas did not consider changes to the existing height limits in each area, rather it was scoped with considering whether these height limits should be mandatory or discretionary.

While no built form control changes have been proposed to the Retail Core, previous reviews of this area have flagged an anomaly between the area defined by the zoning compared to the application of the built form controls, with recommendations to extend the retail core to the western side of Elizabeth Street. The extent of the Retail Core precinct has been considered in this review.

The urban design analysis of the Special Character Areas has identified the following recommendations: • Reversion of the mandatory height controls for those areas that were previously discretionary back to a discretionary height control; • Introduce maximum preferred street wall height controls of 20 metres (or 15 metres in Design Development 2 - Area 2), with a maximum of 40 metres; • Introduce a preferred minimum 5 metre side setback for upper levels of building above 40 metres in height; • Introduce a preferred minimum 5 metre rear setback for upper levels of buildings above 20 metres in height. This is particularly relevant where a one Special Character Area is adjacent to another Special Character Area with a lower height limit; • Extend the boundary of the Retail Core (Design Development Overlay 2 - Area 1) to the west side of Elizabeth Street.

This analysis has led to the following recommendations for further work: • Consider whether other existing fine-grain precincts in the Hoddle Grid should be added to Special Character Area ; • Undertake a review of the heritage building overlays in the Hoddle Grid and Southbank to

82

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

3.5.3 Proposed density controls

determine whether additional Special Character Areas need to be identified. This need for this review has been identified by the City of Melbourne; • Incorporate the viewline to Government House along Exhibition Street into any design brief / development proposals for Federation Square East; • Reconsider built form controls for Guildford Lane on completion of the current heritage review; and • Updating the Local Policy - CBD Lanes to provide current classification of laneways and guidance about their design.

In order to ensure that the overall scale of development in the Special Character Areas is sensitive to the existing character, and in the case of Sturt Street, supports the creation of a new civic spine, it is proposed that the discretionary height control is paired with a discretionary Floor Area Ratio. This will enable the overall scale of development within the Special Character Areas to be carefully managed. The proposed FARs are indicated in Table 1.

Table 1: Proposed built form controls for Special Character Areas Height Controls

Proposed FAR

Special Character Areas

Hoddle Grid - DDO2 Area 1

Mandatory 40m

N/A

Retail Core

Area 2

Discretionary15m

4:1

Hardware Lane, Chinatown, Guildford Lane

Area 3

Discretionary 20m

6:1

Chinatown, Hardware Street

Area 5

Discretionary 40m

10:1

Bourke Street, Collins to Flinders Street

Area 6

Discretionary 30m

8:1

Chinatown

Area 7

Discretionary 80m

12:1

Little Collins North

Area 8

Discretionary 60m

13:1

Chinatown

Area 9

Discretionary 30m

7:1

Town Hall precinct

Hoddle Grid - DDO62 B1

Mandatory 15m

N/A

B2

Mandatory 25m

N/A

B3

Mandatory 40m

N/A

B4

Discretionary 40m

10:1

B5

Discretionary 60m

13:1

B6

Discretionary 100m

15:1

Bourke Hill Core

Bourke Hill Periphery

Hoddle Grid - DDO40 -

Discretionary 24m

6:1

North Bank

Southbank - DDO60 1

Discretionary 24m

6:1

Arts Precinct / Southbank Yarra Riverfront

4A

Discretionary 40m

10:1

Sturt Street

4B

Mandatory 14m

N/A

Dodds Street

5A

Discretionary 60m

13:1

Wells Street

5B

Mandatory 70m

N/A

Wells Street

6

Mandatory 14m

N/A

Southbank Village

7

Mandatory 24m

N/A

Arts Precinct

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

83

3.5.4 Extension of the Retail Core The significance of the Retail Core and its contribution to the State is identified in policy but does not have effective control within the statutory framework. The western side of Elizabeth Street is included in the Retail Core Figure 6 at Clause 21.12 and is included within the CCZ 2 Schedule.

The City of Melbourne is proposing a significant upgrade of the public realm within Elizabeth Street (south of La Trobe Street). This is intended to improve the experience of this area for the many thousands of pedestrians that use this space, including shoppers within the retail core, and commuters accessing Flinders Street station.

The construction of the Metro rail project, which will co-locate a new underground station with Melbourne Central, is also expected to significantly increase pedestrian movements in this street.

It is considered that the alignment of Schedule 2 (Area 1- Retail Core) of the Design and Development Overlay to the western edge of Elizabeth Street is warranted so that the zoning and built form boundaries align. In particular, this will assist with maintaining the fine grain patterns of development with a coherent and human scale built form that frames views south along Elizabeth Street to the Flinders Street station clock tower which is a key viewline. This is recommended as part of this review (extension of boundary is illustrated in figure 49).

3.6 Proposed permanent built form controls – all areas Public realm amenity controls, including overshadowing controls and wind controls, have been modified to improve the safety, comfort and enjoyment for people within the streets and open spaces in the Study Area.

3.6.1 Sunlight protection to open spaces Consideration of an appropriate level of control (mandatory, discretionary) or specific or generic (no prescriptive overshadowing control) has taken into account the following criteria: • Occupation level - is the space well used for sitting, stationary activities or gatherings; • Catchment - is there limited availability of other open spaces nearby and/or does it provide an important forecourt/setting for a building; • Strategic Location - is it located adjacent to significant draw card buildings, train stations, or the Yarra River; • Ownership - is it public open space, Crown Land i.e. non-privately owned; • Historic recognition - does it already have specific protection in existing policy or is its importance noted in the Municipal Strategic Statement; and • Suitability - does it have enough sunlight reaching it now to warrant protection.

The resultant controls are illustrated in figure 51.

Mandatory protection - no overshadowing allowed in certain time periods Testing has shown that different key public spaces have varying degrees of existing overshadowing.

Those with limited existing overshadowing have the highest level of protection in terms of the longest extent of time period protection. For example, Federation Square is recommended for the highest

84

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

t

lin S

k Fran

t

S ket

c Aâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Be

rob La T

e St ourk

Lt B

St

ing St

n St

St

t

t

Will

en S

Co

n

io erat Fed are u Sq

th S

abe

Que

St llins

n St

Eliz

nsto

Swa

City are Squ

ibitio

St

Exh

St rke Bou l l Ma

sell Rus

rke

Bou

St

Spr

le sda

Lon

dale

ons

Lt L

e St

e Statrary Lib ecourt For

iam St

King

et

St

Stre

Yarra River

Fannin g

St

r St

nce

Spe

ders

Flin

South

St Dodds

Ci

Sturt

Rd Bo Ka yd va na Pa gh rk St

St

Blvd

t

nt S

gs

n Ki

Gra

ay W

t ke S Clar

t

on S

h

W

St

end Clar

an

m ite

ty

Queen

sbridg

e St

bank

lls We

Discretionary control (note: times and dates of overshadowing controls vary - refer to DELWP, 2016b)

St

Mandatory control

Shrine of Remembrance

y St

entr Cov

Figure 51: Map of open spaces with solar access protection proposed

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

85

level of overshadowing protection; from 11.00 am – 4.00 pm, which will maintain its existing solar access commensurate with its function as a civic space of metropolitan and State significance that is in almost constant use throughout the year.

These public spaces warrant a mandatory overshadowing control; that is, a prohibition on any additional overshadowing, because they are the premier, iconic public spaces in the study area based on their civic or symbolic function, broad and high intensity usage, and they are an embedded aspect of the identity and character of the Study Area.

For the Shrine of Remembrance and its northern forecourt, the increasing scale of development in Southbank (eg Australia 108 and 25 Power Street) could adversely overshadow this public building and space of the utmost civic, ceremonial and social significance that is in use throughout the year. It therefore warrants mandatory protection from overshadowing up until 3pm in the afternoon, noting that after this time, existing high rise development in Southbank already causes overshadowing.

In the case of Boyd Park, this public open space is included because it is at the community heart of Southbank being part of a community hub which provides the only significant ‘green’ public open space in the whole precinct. As such, it will be more intensively used as Southbanks’ resident and worker populations continue to grow.

86

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

3.6.2 Wind controls The interim and pre-interim controls include the application requirement for a Wind Analysis for new development in Southbank (Melbourne Planning Scheme, Capital City City Zone Schedule 3). The analysis has to show how the development proposal avoids unacceptable wind exposure which is outlined according to the use of the street adjacent to the development. Developments affected by Schedule 1 to the DDO (Active Street Frontages - Capital City Zone) should be designed to be generally acceptable for stationary long term wind exposure, while all others areas are to be designed to be generally acceptable for short term wind exposure.

The definitions of generally acceptable wind exposure were related to the peak gust speed during the hourly average with a probability for exceedence of 0.1 percent. For long term wind exposure, this must not exceed 10m/s, while for short term, this can increase to 13m/s with a higher speed of 16m/s allowed if the street frontage or trafficable area is only likely to be used as a thoroughfare.

These controls are focused on avoiding an undesirable level of wind exposure. The proposed controls introduce an important shift in that they include both a measure for wind safety (avoiding strong gust conditions) and a measure for what constitutes a desirable outcome (where a certain level of comfortable wind speed related to the primary use of the space, must be met for 80 percent of the time).

Table 2: Proposed wind controls

Parameter

Measurement

Rationale

Assessment Trigger

Total building height over 40 metres requires wind impacts assessment by qualified professional, including wind tunnel testing of proposal

Within the Hoddle Grid and Southbank, buildings below 40 metres in height are generally protected by existing structures.

Greater heights may bring wind down wash to street level.

Assessment Area

Public areas within a distance equal to twice the longest building diameter must be considered by the wind impact assessment

Wind impacts cover a wider area beyond the development site and depend on the building width more than on height.

Safety Criterion

Maximum 3 second gusts must not exceed 20 m/sec more than 0.1 percent of the time from all directions combined

Accepted international criterion for human safety to avoid a healthy pedestrian losing balance.

Comfort Criteria

For 80 percent of the time the mean wind speed from all directions combined must be equal or less than : â&#x20AC;˘ Sitting comfort : 3m/s â&#x20AC;˘ Standing comfort : 4m/s â&#x20AC;˘ Walking comfort : 5m/s according to the principal role of each public space tested.

Time period is defined as 80 percent of the time measured across all hours in the year. Mean wind speed (a time-averaged wind speed) is defined as: Maximum of (1) hourly mean wind speed or (2) gust equivalent mean speed (3 second gust wind speed / 1.85).

Accepted international criterion chosen to promote everyday or average pedestrian comfort rather than just avoiding extreme events.

Main role of tested space (sitting, standing or walking) should be agreed and mapped to determine appropriate comfort level for each proposal.

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

87

It makes sense to consider safety all of the time and comfort as related to the use of the space for the majority of the time. As noted in the Wind Analysis report: ‘A location can potentially meet a given comfort criterion based on gust wind speed once a year but may be considered windy most of the time.

Similarly, a location may have several exceedences in a year and be categorised as windy by infrequent wind criteria but for the majority of the time can be considered comfortable’. (p8, Global Wind Technology Services, 2016) The recommended controls to regulate wind in the Study Area are outlined in Table 2.

The findings of the wind assessment report also support, in principle, the proposed built form controls for the Study Area, including the provision for setbacks and the flexibility provided to the shape of floorplates to enable curved or multi-sided towers. Introducing a control that is focused on the general comfort and safety of people within the city is practical and aligned with policies that support walking, street activity and retailing within the Study Area.

3.6.3 View line controls There are a number of important views in the Study Area generally identified in different parts of the Melbourne Planning Scheme (MPS) and worth protecting more specifically. These are: • To the Shrine of Remembrance along Swanston Street; • To Parliament House along Bourke Street; • From steps of Parliament House down Bourke Street; • To the Old Treasury Building along Collins Street; • To Flinders Street clock tower along Elizabeth Street; • To the Arts Centre spire from Sturt Street and Federation Square; • To Government House along Exhibition Street (not currently identified in the MPS); and • To the Royal Exhibition Building along Spring Street.

With the exception of the Arts Centre spire, all of these view lines are along streets and therefore the direct line of sight from the middle of the street is relatively protected. The built form flanking each of these streets however, sets the frame for the view and should be carefully managed. It’s worth noting too, that these view lines are not experienced from the middle of the street, but rather from one side of the street on the footpath. The built form on the opposite side of the street to the viewer is therefore more prominent and should not dominate in terms of scale. This also highlights the importance of street wall height and upper level setbacks.

The overshadowing controls (both existing and proposed) on the forecourts of certain buildings (particularly Parliament, Old Treasury, the Shrine of Remembrance, State Library and the Elizabeth Street clock tower, also ensure sunlight frequently reaches the iconic building facades that frame these view lines and the landmarks themselves.

88

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

4. Determining appropriate density controls 4.1 The relationship between density controls and built form The relationship between a density control and built form outcomes is indirect as the total allowable gross floor area on a site could be delivered in a range of building typologies.

As densities increase, however, the range of potential building typologies decreases as providing the floor area on a limited site can only be achieved through tower forms. There is therefore a threshold at which a density control will primarily result in a high-rise tower environment.

In the late 1960s when block densities ranged from 1.0 to 7.6:1 there were very few buildings taller than 40 metres in height.

Many of the specific high-rise examples included in this report which have extremely high densities are contributing to the rapid increase in block plot ratios as illustrated in figures 13-14 earlier in this report.

To understand the scale of density that is realistically achievable within a block, while delivering positive urban design and private amenity outcomes it is useful to consider two recent case studies in the Study Area - the Upper West Side development in the Hoddle Grid and the recently approved 93-119 Kavanagh Street proposal in Southbank. Both of these case studies involved designing a large site that included multiple towers and public space. Both have multiple street frontages.

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Upper West Side This example of a very large site development (approximately 8,800m2) has a Floor Area Ratio of approximately 25:1.The site includes 4 residential towers with ground floor retail premises. It comprises over 2,500 apartments and approximately 2,500m2 of retail and a green roof of approximately 3,900m2. The site has access from three streets and a laneway (see figure 52).

Tower separation varies with Towers 3 and 4 as close as 4.75 metres, Towers 1 and 2 separated by 10.4 metres, and Towers 2 and 3 separated by 19.6 metres. The building heights range from 32 - 51 storeys high. The towers are generally setback a minimum of 5 metres from the street frontages, although Tower 2 and Tower 4 are only 4.8 metres from Lonsdale Street and Little Bourke Street respectively.

While the towers are arranged to generally avoid direct overlooking, the green roof would be predominantly in shadow due to the minimal spacing between Towers 3 and 4. The apartments at the lower levels of Tower two on the eastern side would also receive little sunlight.

Increasing development within this site would either require a reduction in upper level street setbacks (which are at a minimum already and which only just provide sufficient articulation to the street wall), bringing the towers closer together (reducing further access to daylight and sunlight) or increasing the tower heights (which is likely to have the least impact of these three options).

This site demonstrates that when considering the integrated design for a larger site (the site is approximately half a city block in area), it is difficult to develop to densities above the level of 24:1 without creating significant urban design and private amenity issues.

89

24:1

90

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Figure 52: Upper West Side Development plan (above - source: DELWP), and views from Lonsdale Street (far left) and from within Little Bourke Street showing the 10 metres spacing between Towers 1 and 2 (left).

93 - 119 Kavanagh Street This whole city block in Southbank has been designed as one precinct. It demonstrates that a FAR of approximately 18:1 can: â&#x20AC;˘ Achieve a good balance between the amount of development and the space between the buildings required to deliver a good public realm outcome; â&#x20AC;˘ Reasonable outlook from within the apartments within each building; and â&#x20AC;˘ Sufficient privacy distances between towers (see figure 53).

The very high densities of development delivered on many of the individual sites illustrated earlier in section 2, are relying on the adjacent sites remaining undeveloped in order to maintain internal apartment amenity, an outlook from within apartments and access to light and sunlight to lower ground floors and within the street.

It would be difficult to develop either the Upper West Side site or the Kavanagh Street site at these very high densities and retain sufficient internal amenity within the site and provide a high quality public realm outcome to the surrounding streets.

This has been created through considered floorplate design and tower separation. This site includes six towers, over 2,600 apartments, 680 hotel rooms, 59,000m2 of commercial space, 10,000m2 of retail and over 27,000 m2 of open space (which includes the internal streets and publicly accessible spaces).

The site has access from three streets, no sensitive interfaces (including a freeway to the south which removes overshadowing concerns). The tower separation distances comply with the interim controls.

Figure 53: Kavanagh Street Southbank development proposal. (Source: DELWP) This proposal demonstrates the scale or development that would be realised with an 18:1 allowable Floor Area Ratio.

This proposal was submitted under the C262 Interim Controls and received a permit in December 2015. The permit was determined in only 73 days in part due to the simplicity of assessing the development against the clearly defined interim controls.

18:1

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

91

4.2 Determining an appropriate Floor Area Ratio Why regulate density?

There are a range of rationales for setting a Floor Area Ratio. These include ‘limiting development density, managing infrastructure demand, managing development bulk and benchmarking in the granting of ‘bonuses’. FARs can simultaneously serve multiple such purposes.’(p9, SGS, 2016).

Importantly, while the FAR sets an allowable floor area on a site, and therefore determines the quantum of built floor area, it is not established principally as a built form control.

A FAR indicates to the market a reasonable expectation of development yield on a typical site. ‘Reasonable’ would equate to a quantum of development which would not be expected to have negative impacts on the city. A typical site would be one that had a certain degree of predictability of built form outcome – regular shaped sites of sufficient size, not subject to solar access requirements of an adjacent public space, and not subject to a heritage control. On atypical sites – small or awkwardly shaped with solar access or heritage constraints - it is reasonable to expect that the allowable FAR cannot be achieved (SGS, 2016).

Setting an expectation of potential development yield through a FAR also provides an indicative market value for the site as a redevelopment proposition (SGS, 2016).

The level of reasonable development yield that has minimal negative external impacts has been determined through the iterative built form testing in the two case study precincts. This testing enables a reasonable development capacity to be determined for a typical site.

The reintroduction of a FAR planning framework

92

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

back into the Melbourne Planning Scheme will have the following benefits: • Greater certainty of development outcomes for developers and the community; • Sets the basis to establish a bonus or uplift value sharing mechanism enabling the community to share in any above reasonable development yield; and • Importantly, when combined with the Floor Area Uplift provision, optimum capacity in the Central City is not compromised, promoting development to support economic growth and investment while maintaining Melbourne’s valued identity and character.

What control is proposed?

The proposed allowable Floor Area Ratio on sites within the general development areas is 18:1. This aims to achieve two purposes: • Setting realistic and clear expectations about what a potential reasonable yield of a typical development site could be; and • Establishing a threshold density which triggers a value-sharing contribution towards community infrastructure.

This is not a mandatory FAR and developers can seek to increase density on their site through a Floor Area Uplift (FAU) which is a value-sharing mechanism granted in exchange for contribution by the developer towards a defined public benefit see Section 4.3.

A simple calculation method is recommended to measure GFA which includes all floor area above the ground. This method has been selected to: • Avoid complex verification requirements; • Avoid manipulation of exempt elements; • Acknowledge that it is the overall building bulk that counts visually and determines amenity; • Promote reduction in parking and services; and • Avoid frequent recalculation and negotiation

with every internal layout change (noting that requests to amend permits are common in the Capital City Zone).

How does this compare to existing controls?

This is a lower FAR than the existing interim control of 24:1 which was a holding FAR. It retains, however, the discretionary nature of the controls with opportunities to increase densities on a site in exchange for the provision of a defined public benefit and subject to meeting all applicable built form controls. This is aligned with the existing interim controls.

Evidence to support the proposed FAR control (in the General Development Areas) Setting an allowable Floor Area Ratio, is not an exact science that will determine the ‘perfect’ ratio.

Rather, it is about setting a reasonable threshold, where the FAR is considered commensurate with a scale of development that can be accommodated on a typical site without causing the negative built form and amenity impacts that have been apparent with many recent developments.

Architectural Testing of Built Form Controls • This threshold has been set through an iterative process of architectural testing for two case study precincts in the Hoddle Grid and Southbank. The built form testing led to the establishment of a range of Floor Area Ratios that were able to meet the defined built form objectives. The built form testing in the Hoddle Grid indicated an average feasible plot ratio of 18.3:1 in the Hoddle Grid and 18.0:1 in Southbank; • Around 38 percent and 50 percent of sites could exceed the 18:1 FAR in the Hoddle Grid and Southbank respectively; and • The testing of the interim controls demonstrates that a base plot ratio of 24:1 is too high to achieve the defined objectives of the CCBFR. The built form testing has determined

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

the reasonable level of development that can be accommodated on each site.

Comparative Planning Controls Inter-city Research • An allowable FAR of 18:1 would place Melbourne at the highest end of allowable densities globally, somewhat above cities such as Sydney, New York and Chicago. The combination of an allowable FAR control with a planning framework that incentivises the delivery of public benefit through permitting increased development yield, is accepted practice in Australia and internationally with demonstrable benefits. This could fund part of the much needed community infrastructure for the Central City, for example, the delivery of community facilities or affordable housing.

The FAR should also be determined by considering the appropriate threshold at which a Floor Area Uplift should be triggered. This is a policy decision that balances the following outcomes: • Setting a FAR that establishes development yield expectations at a reasonable level, in terms of managing potential negative built form impacts on the public realm and private amenity; • Setting a FAR which is aligned with international and national standards, (taking into account differing measuring techniques e.g. Sydney excludes services, circulation areas and regulated parking which typically represents approximately 15 percent of the floor area), but that also retains Melbourne’s competitive advantage; • Setting a FAR that meets the strategic objectives of providing capacity in the Central City to accommodate growth; and • Setting a FAR, where the FAU would not be triggered on all sites, in recognition of the diverse size and dimensions of allotments and

93

the increasing redevelopment of small sites that is occurring.

Setting a FAR that considers the overall development density, and subsequently a population density, appropriate for the overall study area commensurate with existing and potential infrastructure provision and capacity is also critical. At this time, there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate what that threshold density would be in either the Hoddle Grid or Southbank. An increase in infrastructure provision could support increased densities. This should only occur, however, in a considered way when the provision of this infrastructure is committed to and funded.

The Elizabeth Street North case study demonstrates that walking infrastructure is at capacity in certain parts of the city, and that increased densities in concentrated areas will exacerbate this existing issue.

The 18:1 ratio has been selected as an appropriate ratio as it achieves the following: • The approximate average FAR at which development can meet the built form objectives, that is, that does not compromise public and private amenity; • The FAR that enables a substantial development potential that exceeds projected Central City demand (refer section 5); and • The FAR that provides for an appropriate quantum of potential value-sharing sites.

In the case studies, delivering a FAR of 18:1 was possible for 38 percent of sites in the Hoddle Grid, and 50 percent of sites in Southbank.

4.3 Introduction of a value sharing mechanism - Floor Area Uplift A value sharing mechanism, a Floor Area Uplift (FAU), is recommended in the proposed planning controls. Value sharing is standard practice in many jurisdictions. It is a common practice to fund the delivery of infrastructure internationally and is being given serious consideration by the Federal Government (Hunt, 2016).

Others frameworks include: • User pays contributions for off-site infrastructure, e.g. a Development Contributions Plan; • Impact mitigation, e.g. ‘make good’ conditions on development permits; and • Inclusionary requirements / Development standards (Cash-in-lieu), e.g. contributions for open space.

It is important that the FAU is not confused with any of these other commercial transfers. Importantly, each of these frameworks is additive, not mutually exclusive. It is therefore possible that a user pays contributions plan could be combined with the value sharing contribution – see figure 54 (SGS, 2016).

In effect, the Interim Controls enabled a FAU as an unspecified plot ratio bonus was available for development if it met the following conditions: • The development is declared to be of State or regional significance; and • The applicant demonstrates a commitment and ability to deliver public amenity improvements as agreed to by the Responsible Authority and performance of which can be appropriately secured to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(Victorian Government Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 2015c)

94

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

FI G URE 1. FR AM ES FOR DE VE LOP M E NT CON TR IB U T ION S

Figure 54: Frames for Development Contributions (Source: SGS Economic Issues, 2016)

Source: SGS Economics & Planning Pty Ltd

FI G URE 2. F LO OR A REA RATIO VE RS U S E N VI RON ME NTAL C APACI T Y TA BLE 1. CAN DI DATE COM M UN Y BESchemes NE FI TS(Source: FOR FSGS, LO OR Table 3: Candidate Public Benefits or Floor AreaI TUplift 2016)A REA U PLI F T SC HE M ES Owned by the Tight primary Advantages the Permanent / public service area wider long lived community Suburb level community facilities (libraries, aquatic centres, sports centres, art galleries and     performance spaces etc.)

Neighbourhood level community facilities     (meeting rooms, kindergartens etc.)

Other permanent social infrastructure (affordable and social housing owned by local registered     housing associations) Suburb level open space (major parks, embellishments to major parks, piazzas and     embellishments etc.)

Neighbourhood level open space (pocket and     micro parks, embellishments to these) Other neighbourhood public realm (footpaths, tree planting, lighting, seating, sustainable water     infrastructure etc.)

Source: SGS Economics & Planning Pty Ltd

TA BLE 2.

IN DI CATI VE LI ST OF C O M MU NI T Y B E NE F I T I TE MS

Required community infrastructure

Source: SGS Economics & Planning Pty Ltd

Suburbs or Neighbourhoods in need

Area (square metres)

Cost*

When required

2,300

$13.8 M

2020

TBD

TBD

TBD

Suburb level City Library Melbourne Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co Sport Centre

TBD

95

This ‘bonus’ is currently being considered on two developments in the Study Area, for example, see figure 33, with others in the pipeline.

Value sharing can be incorporated into the planning scheme or negotiated at the development permit stage. The amendment made to Manningham Planning Scheme, for example, for the expansion of Doncaster Shoppingtown set out in an Incorporated Plan Overlay a requirement for the proponent to pay Manningham City Council $4.6 million towards the provision of community facilities.

At the development permit stage, value sharing has been negotiated a number of times on a site by site basis in the Study Area. For example, the proponent of 70 Southbank Boulevard (Australia 108 development) agreed / was required, through a planning consent condition, to contribute $3,500 per apartment towards improvements to City Road in the immediate vicinity of the development site. While this contribution may positively assist in improving infrastructure provision in the city, there is no justification for the specific amount of contribution, and the decision making process for determining what type of contribution is appropriate is not obvious.

A multiplicity of approaches, negotiated on a site by site base, does not provide certainty or transparency in the planning process. It is important that the FAU scheme is ‘subject to clearly foreshadowed policies, guidelines and formulas which would enable proponents to accurately price the value sharing obligation in advance, rather than entering into an unclear and open ended negotiation situation’(p8, SGS, 2016).

It is proposed to publish guidelines ‘Public Benefit Provision and Delivery through Floor Area Uplift’ to clearly establish parameters for uplift considerations. These guidelines will govern valuation of Uplifts and appropriate Benefits to be

96

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

provided, with agreement of the receiving agency.

The FAU scheme also ensures that an optimum development capacity is reached in the Study Area. The optimum is considered to be the highest yield achievable on a given site, considering the specific attributes of that site including site area, orientation, urban context, specific heritage values and the need to meet defined urban design outcomes, including wind mitigation, daylight and solar access, in order to provide a high quality public realm and living and working environments.

On specific sites, this ‘environmental capacity’ of a site may exceed the allowable FAR of 18:1.

The FAU scheme works by making this additional quantum of floorspace above the allowable FAR available to the developer in return for the provision of a defined public benefit and provided that the relevant built form parameters are met. That is, it is not to be considered a trade-off.

In the case studies, a potential uplift was possible for 38 percent of sites in the Hoddle Grid, and 50 percent of sites in Southbank.

Defined Public Benefits A Defined Public Benefit would generally have the following attributes (p12, SGS, 2016): • The assets should belong to the public; • They should be located proximate to the development site and serve a reasonably small catchment area; • They should have broad community benefit (either through direct use, or through enhancement of the precinct generally that benefits residents, workers and visitors); and • They should represent a permanent or long-lived enhancement of local community infrastructure.

Examples of the range of community assets that would meet these criteria is shown in Table 3.

The proceeds from the FAU could be used in tandem with other funding streams available to pay for a defined community benefit (SGS, 2016).

This is established practice in many international cities (see figure 55): ‘Incentivising developers to deliver public benefit through density bonuses is common practice in many cities and has effectively delivered parks, plazas, community facilities like childcare and cultural facilities such as cinemas or performing arts spaces. It also enables the delivery of affordable housing to ensure low-income earners are supported and have good access to their central-city jobs.’ (p7, Hodyl, 2015).

The Defined Public Benefit will be provided on-site and in-kind. The categories of Public Benefits that can be provided are: • Publically accessible open areas on site (additional to any public open space contribution under Clause 52.01) - this includes plazas, laneways, parks directly accessible from public street of public area; • Publically accessible enclosed areas within proposed building - independent floor space suitable for public use with appropriate access from public area or street; • Social housing within proposed building dwelling unit(s) whose title is transferred to a not-for-profit registered housing association or provider; • Competitive design process for design of proposed building - in accordance with Australian Institute of Architects approved parameters; and • Commercial office use on site or within proposed building - with office use to be secured by legal agreement for a period of at least 10 years.

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Figure 55: Vancity Development, Vancouver The site is within a zoning area that has an allowable FAR of 5:1. A density bonus of 60 percent above this base allowance was agreed with the developer in exchange for the delivery of the Vancouver International Film Centre. In Vancouver it is practice for 70-80 percent of developer profits that are realised for developing above the base FAR to be distributed directly into public benefits. This is negotiated on a site by site basis.

97

5. Discussion 5.1 How do these controls achieve the objectives of the CCBFR? The objectives of the CCBFR are to: • Provide much needed certainty and consistency of built form outcomes; • Improve public amenity; • Boost sustainable investment; and • Ensure development enhances Melbourne’s long-term liveability.

The degree to which the proposed controls achieve these objectives is discussed below.

Provide much needed certainty and consistency of built form outcomes Certainty and consistency in built form outcomes is realised through the provision of clear, easily understood and evidence-based planning controls that are focused on creating positive living and working environments. This in turn enables transparent and predictable decision-making, with all participants in the planning process clear of the intent of the controls and how they will be implemented.

This also minimises land speculation and avoids the escalation of land values which can result in increased pressure to compromise the desired built form outcomes to meet development yield targets necessary to make the development financially viable.

Recent research in Perth and Sydney has identified that almost all landowners have unrealistic expectations for the price of their land (Rowley & Phibbs, 2012). This is often based on a misunderstanding of the development process, the risks taken on by the developer and a belief that property prices never fall. Establishing a predictable potential yield from a site through a FAR, would help to set more realistic expectations

98

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

from landowners and reduce speculation. This demonstrates that certainty is good for genuine developers, but not necessarily perceived as such for landowners or speculative developers.

Much of this speculation has been based on the scale of recent development approvals.

Increasingly higher densities (yields) have been permitted on sites, raising the benchmark expectation for yield, with land prices increasing commensurately (as illustrated in Section 2).

Cumulatively, this contributes to high degrees of uncertainty in terms of poor built form outcomes as increasingly high densities of development are reducing the capacity to deliver good design outcomes, shrinking setbacks and building separation, compromising privacy, limiting daylight and sunlight access and reducing sky views.

The deliberate intention is to break this cycle through the establishment of clear built form controls that enable feasibility assessments to be undertaken with relative predictability, and which reduce commercial risk for the developer and provide greater certainty for the community about built form outcomes.

Improve Public Amenity The proposed controls will create a more comfortable and welcoming public realm by: • Reducing wind impacts; • Improving daylight access to streets; • Improving sunlight access to streets and open spaces; and • Reducing visual dominance of high street walls.

This will address many of the poor built form examples that are demonstrated in section 2 of this report. It will provide appropriate emphasis on protecting the public realm which is one of the city’s globally renowned and most highly prized assets.

Boost sustainable investment The introduction of the proposed planning controls are expected to lead to a market adjustment to expectations and current development practices, particularly for those parties who have purchased property based on expected development yields possible under the pre-interim controls (SGS, 2016). The biggest impact in the short-term will be on land values, with a recalibration expected in the real estate marketplace to adjust to potential development yields as determined by the allowable FAR and the proposed built form controls. As land values have increased significantly over the past two years, it it likely that parties who purchased within this time period will be most affected, with an expected reduction in their land value (Ernst & Young, 2016). The duration of this period, and scale of adjustment required, will depend on the balance between development rights allowed through the FAR and the FAU and how the FAR is introduced. Adequate forewarning will enable development proponents to factor in the ‘cost’ of the FAU into future acquisitions. It can be argued that the introduction of interim controls have already alerted the market to these new trading conditions and that its impact may have already been substantially absorbed into the market (SGS, 2016).

This adjustment is necessary to recalibrate a market that has become increasingly speculative.

As developers generally do not hold significant land reserves, impacts will be more on landowners who have purchased in the recent speculative boom, and not on developers and the cost of the final housing or office product.

In conditions of good levels of supply, product substitutability, planning certainty and sufficient timing, changes to planning policies are likely to impact residual land value rather than the price of apartments. (AHURI and SGS referenced in City of Melbourne, 2015b). At present, and particularly

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

considering the vast pipeline of permit approvals, we are in a time of potential over supply of Central City apartments.

The development capacity of the Study Area is not compromised by the proposed controls and enables the development of sufficient commercial and residential supply to meet projected demand beyond 2031.

The proposed controls will also enable equity of development potential into the Study Area, with the number of development sites that are adjacent to poorly sited or designed towers (particularly those built on or very close to a boundary) minimised.

Ensuring development enhances Melbourne’s long-term liveability The new controls aim to balance short-term economic growth and investment in the Study Area with the overarching primary objective which is to protect Melbourne’s long-term worth, as both a valued and much-loved place, and its financial value as an investment / economic asset. In fact, growing acceptance internationally is that these two cannot be easily separated. A city’s competitiveness and capacity to attract investment and knowledge-based workers, depends on its liveability which is directly influenced by the quality of its built form and infrastructure provision.

The introduction of a value-sharing mechanism will distribute the broader uplift in land value to the community, rather than provide this only as a windfall for existing landowners. This will enable a long-term investment into the future liveability of the Central City through infrastructure provision.

There are multiple benefits from each of the proposed controls. How each contributes to the overall aims (outlined above) in the General Development Areas is shown in table 4.

99

Table 4: Benefits of Proposed Controls in General Development Areas

Built Form Controls (where * is noted, minor modifications are allowed).

Key Objective

Preferred

Minimum

Minimum

Rear and

Solar access

Allowable FAR

Unlimited

maximum

street

rear and

side tower

protection of

of 18:1

FAU

street wall

setbacks

side tower

setbacks

public open

height of

of 5m*

setbacks of

of 6%

spaces

5m*

above

20m

of CCBFR

consistency

All of the proposed controls provide clear direction for development assessments and provide certainty on the built form outcomes that will be delivered on any particular site.

2. Improved public amenity

Wind Controls

80m*

1. Certainty and

Density Controls

The street wall height, upper level street and

Wind controls that seek to

A FAR

Provision

side and rear setbacks all improve public realm

provide comfortable conditions

assists

of the FAU

outcomes by providing pedestrian-scaled streets,

for 80% of the time, together with

indirectly in

will deliver

and enabling daylight and sunlight to reach streets

protection from overshadowing,

delivering

public

and public spaces.

aim to improve pedestrian comfort

public realm

benefits,

in streets and public spaces.

improvements

which could

by decreasing

include

pressure for

public realm

increasing

upgrades.

yields.

3. Boosting sustainable Investment

Protection of the

Protects the public

Protection of the public

Provides

realm, and in the

realm is critical in enhancing the

simple

development

in enhancing the city’s

long-term, protects

city’s liveability and therefore it’s

development

capacity

liveability and therefore

development capacity

competitiveness.

feasibility

as overall

it’s competitiveness.

of future development

assessment

development

sites adjacent to existing

without

capacity is

development sites.

restraining

not limited

capacity as

by density

FAR can be

controls.

exceeded.

4. Ensuring Development enhances Melbourne’s long-term liveability

100

Optimises

public realm is critical

All of the proposed controls contribute to the long-term liveability of Melbourne’s Central City by: •

enhancing and protecting the quality of the public realm;

•

promoting a walkable city, with attractive, comfortable pedestrian-friendly streets;

•

requiring separation between towers to enable good internal occupant amenity; and

•

funding some public benefits through a value-sharing mechanism.

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

5.2 How do these controls compare to global standards?

While every city should create tailored built form controls that respond directly to that city’s preferred urban design vision, urban land use and transport strategies, local climate and existing urban and historic context, there are merits in understanding how other cities choose to regulate development. This is particular relevant where they are seeking to achieve outcomes that are universal to each city, such as pedestrian-friendly streets and high quality living and working environments.

The tower has common design elements that must be considered regardless of location, and many common issues are faced when towers are the predominant building typology relied upon to deliver high-density urban environment:

The following draws from the existing comparative research provided in the Comparative Planning Controls Inter-City Research (Helen Day Urbanism, 2016a) and the Churchill Report to Investigate Planning Policies that Deliver Positive Social Outcomes in Hyper-dense, High-rise Residential Environments (Hodyl, 2015). While the method of analysis was slightly different, together these reports incorporate a review of the following cities: • Chicago, Auckland, Singapore, Perth and Sydney (Helen Day Urbanism report) • New York (covered by both studies) • Vancouver, Tokyo, Hong Kong and Seoul In each city, a typical downtown area was assessed.

In the Churchill Report, the downtown location that allowed the highest residential densities was generally assessed.

‘All jurisdictions prioritise the quality of street level environments... There is consistent acknowledgment that the high quality resolution of tall built form at street and street wall levels is paramount to the experience of the Central City.’ (p48, Helen Day Urbanism, 2016a)

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

101

5.2.1 Built Form Controls Street wall height With the exception of Chicago and Seoul, all these cities have a maximum street wall height control. This ranges from 18 metres in New York to a maximum of 100 metres in Singapore. The typical range, however, is in the order of 20-40 metres. In Perth a maximum 1:1 street wall to street width ratio applied. Assessment is typically based on street wall context, including heritage considerations.

Setbacks Building setback controls vary and may be determined by a range of parameters, including the size of the site, a proportion to height of a building, the existing street wall conditions, heritage context, adjacent street width and corner intersection policies.

Upper Level Street setback Chicago does not have street setbacks, but Auckland, Singapore, Perth and Sydney do. These controls range from a minimum of 3 metres (Singapore and on New York’s wide streets), to 10 metres in Perth (for buildings above 65 metres in height). This range corresponds to the proposed control of 5 metres. In Singapore, the street setback increases with height.

The Churchill Report does not consider upper level street setbacks.

Side or rear setback / tower separation The importance of side and rear setbacks is demonstrated through the mandating of setback controls in planning frameworks in all comparable cities except Tokyo, Hong Kong and Chicago. In jurisdictions that incorporated residential towers, the setback distances ranged from a minimum of 5 metres in Auckland up to 12 metres in Vancouver.

102

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Seoul has explicit setback controls that increase the setback requirement in proportion to its height, similar to that incorporated into the proposed controls. This same outcome is effectively delivered through tower floorplate controls in New York, Sydney, Vancouver and Hong Kong that relate the size of the tower footprint to its height. As the tower height increases, the floorplate decreases, creating larger setbacks from the site boundaries and other buildings.

Wind controls Cities around the world use various regulations in their development approval process to ensure the wellbeing of their pedestrians with regard to wind comfort and safety. Of 109 planning authorities consulted through the Wind Impact review, 64 acknowledged wind in planning documentation, 37 provided some guidance on wind design, 37 had an asessment trigger for a wind study, 15 provided wind criteria for assessing developments with the most commonly used criteria the mean, gust and gust equivalent criteria (Global Wind Technology Services, 2016).

In general, the proposed controls are still far less prescriptive when compared to national and international standards. For example, the proposed controls do not place any limitations on the following: • Tower heights, which are regulated in Sydney, Tokyo, Vancouver, Seoul, Chicago, Auckland and Singapore; • Floor plate sizes or minimum / maximum dimensions, regulated in New York, Auckland and Vancouver; • Maximum site coverage of towers, regulated in New York, Vancouver and Hong Kong; • Skyline controls (e.g. tower top design controls) regulated in New York;

5.2.2 Density Controls

• Dwelling densities / apartments per floor, for example, as found in the New York Quality Housing guidelines and Sydneys SEPP 65; and • Sunlight to communal, private open spaces or streets, for example sun plane angles which effectively regulate tower height and setbacks in Tokyo, Seoul and Sydney.

The proposed FAR allows development densities that are lower than the interim controls of 24:1, but significantly higher than Sydney and all the internationally compared cities (see figures 56 and 57).

The proposition of an allowable (base) Floor Area Ratio is common to all of the cities studied. This ratio ranged from as low as 4:1 in Seoul and 5:1 in Vancouver and Tokyo. The proposed FAR of 18:1 is the highest base FAR of the comparable cities,

International Comparison of allowable FAR Melb (max individual site) Melb (5 yr average) Melb (interim) Melb (proposed) Chicago Tokyo Singapore Hong Kong New York Auckland Sydney Perth Vancouver Seoul

18 16

6 5 4 0

63.5

35

24

13 12.6 12 10 9 8

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Figure 56: International comparison of allowable FAR (base without any uplift).

Note: There are variations in Gross Floor Area calculations for different jurisdictions. Due to differing measurement criteria, the ratios shown above the comparative cities could vary up to 15-20%. Even with these variations, the trend in Melbourne’s recent floor area ratios is still far higher than international or other Australian standards. (prepared from Hodyl, 2016 and Helen Day Urbanism, 2016a)

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

103

ALLOWABLE FAR 24:1 (SHOWN DASHED)

MAXIMUM HEIGHT DISCRETIONARY (190M SHOWN)

Figure 57: Global comparisons of built form and density controls are compared in maximum density massing diagrams. This illustrates Melbourne’s interim controls.

(Source: Helen Day Urbanism, 2016a) TOWER SEPARATION MINIMUM 25M (30M SHOWN)

NO FAR UPLIFT SHOWN

GHT A O IT’

ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) FLOOR AREA UPLIFT (FAU)

FLOOR AREA UPLIFT UP TO 45% OF ALLOWABLE FAR

PLIFT LLOWABLE

EXISTING SITE CONTEXT

ALLOWABLE FAR 9:1

mium Hotel, nity Facilities

INDICATIVE 24:1 (non-compliant)

R 6:1

GROSS FLOOR AREA (GFA)

T SETBACK -BASED

TOTAL FAR = ALLOWABLE FAR+FAU

TOWER SEPARATION NOT REGULATED (34.5M SHOWN)

SPECIAL HEIGHT CONTROL CALCULATED BY SUN AND VIEW CONTROL PLANES (122M SHOWN)

OPTIMAL FAR 17.5:1 SHOWN

TOTAL FAR 13:1 SHOWN

MINIMUM STREET SETBACK 5M SIDE AND REAR SETBACK 5% OF OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT (9.5M SHOWN FOR190M BUILDING HEIGHT)

MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK 6M MINIMUM SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS 5M

The highest allowable base FAR in the international MAXIMUM HEIGHT city comparisons was 16:1 in Chicago which SETBACKcan CORNER 50 STOREYS EXEMPT WITHIN 8M OF (185M SHOWN) CORNER INTERSECTION UP increase with bonuses.

TO 12 STOREYS TOTOL FAR 14:1

SETBACKS BELOW 65M HT) (ABOVE HEIGHT)

ET WALL

(8 STOREYS SHOWN)

MAXIMUM STREET WALL HEIGHT 28M

BLE FAR 24:1 O DASHED)

Of the developments permitted in the Study Area generally between 2010 and 2015, 60 percent TOWER SEPARATION NOT REGULATED exceeded a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 20:1.

(28M SHOWN)

MINIMUM STREET WALL HEIGHT 19M (25M SHOWN)

AUCKLAND

SHOWN

MAXIM HEIGH

MAX STREET WALL FLOOR AREA UPLIFT - UP TO HEIGHT 40M 10% OF ALLOWABLE FAR Eg: Communal facilities at ground/ first floor

MELBOURNE MELBOURNE

EXEMPT FROM GFA CALCULATION COMMUNAL SKYRISE GREENERY FEATURES

TOWER SEPARATION NOT REGULATED (25M SHOWN)

SHOLD UPLIFT SHOWN

TOWER SEPARATION MINIMUM 24M ABOVE 45M WINDOW TO WINDOW, RESIDENTIAL (29M SHOWN)

ASSUMES RESPONSE TO STREET WALL AND PARTY WALL CONTEXT

Y 4M AL 158M

TOWER SEPARATION MINIMUM TOWER SEPARATION 18M, WINDOW TO WINDOW NOT REGULATED (33.3M SHOWN) (30M SHOWN)

FAR OWN

STANDARD GREEN BUFFER (STREET)

PLIFT - UP TO ABLE FAR

TOWER SEPARATION MINIMUM 25M (30M SHOWN)

MINIMUM SIDE AND REAR

SETBACK - 3 METRES ABOVE MAXIMUM HEIGHT NOT REGULATED PARTY WALL TOTAL FAR 12:1 MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK 3M+0.3M FOR EACH SHOWN ADDITIONAL STOREY MAXIMUM HEIGHT FLOOR AREA UPLIFT - UP TO (13M SHOWN) VARIED20%

BY AREA OF ALLOWABLE FAR MINIMUM INCLUDING ‘NO (e.g Inclusionary Housing STREET WALL HEIGHT/ 19M (4 STOREYS) PRESCRIBED LIMIT’ Program in mixed-use

ndmark eme’ and sing Fund

(72M SHOWN) commercial precinct) 3-5M SETBACK FOR COVERED PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY OR COLONNADE

R 16:1

M STREET SETBACK

DREGULATED REAR SETBACK LE FOR 3M VERALL BUILDING ND UPPER S) OWN FOR190M G HEIGHT)

SINGAPORE

EILING UND FLOOR

RONTAGE D EETS

MAXIMUM STREET WALL HEIGHT 26M MINIMUM STREET WALL HEIGHT 18M (20M SHOWN)

IGHT D

TOTAL FAR 9:1 MINIMUM CEILING HEIGHT FLOORALLOWABLE AREA UPLIFTFAR 10:1 AT STREET LEVEL FOR UP TO 50% OF ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS FAR MORE THAN 55% OF FLOOR 6M Eg. 40%AREA for Premium Hotel, BELOW 45M 10% for Community Facilities TOWER CAN PENETRATE SKY ALLOWABLE FAR 6:1 EXPOSURE PLANE PROVIDED IT IS SET BACK AT LEAST 3M FROM A WIDE STREET AND 4.5 FROM NARROW MINIMUM FRONTASETBACK - STREET (INDICATIVE SLOPE RATIO PERFORMANCE-BASED SHOWN IS 5.6:1 FOR WIDE (5M SHOWN) STREET AND 2.7 FOR NARROW STREET) SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS -MINIMUM 5M (BELOW 65M MAXIMUM BUIDLING HEIGHT)50% TOWER COVERAGE FOR SMALL -MINIMUM 10 M (ABOVE SITES (<1860M2) 65M BUILDING HEIGHT) MAXIMUM STREET WALL HEIGHTMINIMUM 4 M CEILING 1:1 STREET RATIO HEIGHT AT GROUND LEVEL (25M SHOWN)

NEW YORK NEW YORK PERTH

104

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

TOTAL FAR 24:1 23:1 SHOWN

FLOOR AREA UPLIFT - UP T 50% OF ALLOWABLE FAR (44% SHOWN) Eg. 'Adopt A Landmark Restoration Scheme’ and Affordable Housing Fund

ALLOWABLE FAR 12.6:1

M HEIGHT ONARY OWN)

MAXIMUM THRESHOLD MINIM HEIGHT HEIGH DISCRETIONARY (20M RESIDENTIAL 134M NON-RESIDENTIAL 158M (130M SHOWN)

MAXIMUM HEIGHT FAR 16:1 ALLOWABLE VARIES BY DESIGNATED AREA MANDATORY SETBACKS NOT REGULATE (153M (FAU SHOWN) IS AVAILABLE FOR 3M SPECIAL HEIGHT CONTROL STREET WALL TOTAL FAR 15.4: 1 AND UPPER CALCULATED BY SUN AND LEVEL SETBACKS) (SHOWN) VIEW CONTROL PLANES (122M SHOWN) FLOOR AREA UPLIFT DISCRETIONARY TOTAL TOTAL FAR 13:1 (INCLUDES MAXIMUM SHOWN MINIMUM 4M CEILING ALLOWABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT AT GROUND FLOO USE, 6.1 AND DESIGN FLOOR AREA UPLIFT EXCELLENCE, UP TO 45% OF ALLOWABLE 10% OFMINIMUM TOTAL FAR + FAU) 60% FAR TRANSPARENT FRONTAGE FOR DESIGNATED FLOORPEDESTRIAN PLATE SIZE STREETS ALLOWABLE FAR 9:1 UNDER 1000M2 GFA STREET WALL HEIGHT NOT REGULATED ALLOWABLE FAR 8:1

MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK PRIMARY STREET 8M (WEIGHTED AVERAGE) MAXIMUM STREETWALL HEIGHT 45M (45M SHOWN PRIMARY STREET,

CHICAGO

MINIMUM STREETWALL HEIGHT 20M MAXIMUM STREET (20M WALL SHOWN HEIGHT -28M SECONDARY STREET ) MINIMUM STREET WALL HEIGHT 19M (25M SHOWN)

AUCKLAND SYDNEY AUCKLAND

MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK MINIMUM SIDE AND REAR 6M SETBACKS MINIMUM SIDE AND REAR RESIDENTIAL 6M SETBACKS COMMERCIAL 3M 5M (6M SHOWN)

MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK SETBACK CORNER SECONDARY STREET, EXEMPT WITHIN 8M OF CORNER 6M CORNER INTERSECTION UP TO 12 STOREYS (8 STOREYS SHOWN)

ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) FLOOR AREA UPLIFT (FAU) ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) EXISTING SITE CONTEXT FLOOR AREA UPLIFT (FAU) INDICATIVE 24:1 (non-compliant) EXISTING SITE CONTEXT GROSS FLOOR AREA (GFA) INDICATIVE 24:1 (non-compliant) TOTAL FAR = ALLOWABLE FAR+FAU GROSS FLOOR AREA (GFA) TOTAL FAR = ALLOWABLE FAR+FAU

MAXIMUM HEIGHT 50 STOREYS (185M SHOWN) TOTOLHEIGHT FAR 14:1 MAXIMUM SHOWN 50 STOREYS (185M SHOWN) FLOOR AREA UPLIFT - UP TO

TOWER SEPARATION NOT REGULATED (25M SHOWN) TOWER SEPARATION NOT REGULATED (25M SHOWN)

10% OF ALLOWABLE FAR TOTOL FAR 14:1 Eg: Communal facilities at SHOWN ground/ first floor

MAXIMUM THRESHOLD HEIGHT DISCRETIONARY RESIDENTIAL 134M NON-RESIDENTIAL 158M MAXIMUM THRESHOLD (130M SHOWN) HEIGHT DISCRETIONARY TOTAL FAR134M 24:1 RESIDENTIAL 23:1 SHOWN NON-RESIDENTIAL 158M (130M SHOWN) FLOOR AREA UPLIFT - UP TO 50% FAR OF ALLOWABLE FAR TOTAL 24:1 23:1 SHOWN (44% SHOWN) Eg. 'Adopt A Landmark Restoration Scheme’ FLOOR AREA UPLIFT - UP and TO 50% OF ALLOWABLE FAR Affordable Housing Fund (44% SHOWN) Eg. 'Adopt A Landmark Restoration Scheme’ and Affordable Housing Fund

TOWER SEPARATION TOWER SEPARATION NOT REGULATED NOT REGULATED (28M SHOWN) (30M SHOWN) TOWER SEPARATION TOWER SEPARATION NOT REGULATED NOT REGULATED (28M SHOWN) (30M SHOWN)

ALLOWABLE FAR 16:1

SETBACKS FAR NOT16:1 REGULATED ALLOWABLE (FAU IS AVAILABLE FOR 3M STREET WALL AND UPPER LEVEL SETBACKS) SETBACKS NOT REGULATED (FAU IS AVAILABLE FOR 3M STREET WALL AND UPPER LEVEL SETBACKS)

STANDARD GREEN BUFFER (STREET)

MINIMUM 4M CEILING HEIGHT AT GROUND FLOOR MINIMUM 4M60% CEILING MINIMUM HEIGHT AT GROUND FLOOR TRANSPARENT FRONTAGE FOR DESIGNATED PEDESTRIAN STREETS MINIMUM 60% TRANSPARENT FRONTAGE FOR DESIGNATED STREET WALL HEIGHT PEDESTRIAN STREETS NOT REGULATED

CHICAGO CHICAGO CHICAGO CHICAGO

TOWER SEPARATION MINIMUM 18M, WINDOW TO WINDOW TOWER SEPARATION (33.3M SHOWN) NOT REGULATED TOWER SEPARATION MINIMUM (30M SHOWN) 18M, WINDOW TO WINDOW TOWER SEPARATION (33.3M SHOWN) NOT REGULATED (30M SHOWN)

STANDARD GREEN BUFFER (STREET)

SINGAPORE SINGAPORE PERTH SINGAPORE SINGAPORE PERTH

TOWER SEPARATION MINIMUM 24M ABOVE 45M WINDOW TO WINDOW, RESIDENTIAL (29MSEPARATION SHOWN) TOWER MINIMUM 24M ABOVE 45M WINDOW TO WINDOW, RESIDENTIAL (29M SHOWN) TOWER SEPARATION MINIMUM 25M (30M SHOWN) TOWER SEPARATION MINIMUM 25M (30M SHOWN)

MAXIMUM HEIGHT NOT REGULATED MAXIMUM HEIGHT TOTAL FAR 12:1 NOT REGULATED SHOWN

FLOOR TOTAL FARAREA 12:1 UPLIFT - UP TO 20% OF ALLOWABLE FAR SHOWN MAXIMUM HEIGHT (e.g Inclusionary Housing VARIED BY AREA FLOOR AREA - UP TO ProgramINCLUDING in UPLIFT mixed-use / ‘NO 20% OF ALLOWABLE FAR commercial precinct) MAXIMUM HEIGHT PRESCRIBED LIMIT’ (e.g Inclusionary Housing VARIED BY AREA SHOWN) ProgramINCLUDING in(72M mixed-use / ‘NO commercial precinct) PRESCRIBED TOTAL FARLIMIT’ 9:1 (72M SHOWN) ALLOWABLE FAR 10:1 FLOOR AREA UPLIFT FAR 9:1 MORETOTAL THAN 55% OFOF FLOOR UPFAR TO 50% ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE 10:1 AREA BELOW FAR 45M FLOOR AREA UPLIFT Eg.55% 40%OF forFLOOR Premium Hotel, MORE THAN UPCAN TO 50% OF ALLOWABLE TOWER PENETRATE SKY Facilities 10% for Community AREA BELOW FAR 45M EXPOSURE PLANE PROVIDED Eg. 40% for Premium Hotel, IT IS SET BACK AT LEAST 3M6:1 ALLOWABLE FAR TOWER CAN PENETRATE SKY Facilities 10% for Community FROM A WIDE STREET AND EXPOSURE PLANE PROVIDED 4.5 FROM A NARROW STREET IT IS SET BACK AT LEAST 3M6:1 ALLOWABLE (INDICATIVE SLOPEFAR RATIO FROM A WIDE STREETFRONT AND SETBACK MINIMUM SHOWN IS NARROW 5.6:1 FORSTREET WIDE 4.5 FROM A PERFORMANCE-BASED STREET AND 2.7 FOR (INDICATIVE SLOPE RATIO (5M SHOWN) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK NARROW STREET) SHOWN IS 5.6:1 FOR WIDE PERFORMANCE-BASED STREET AND 2.7AND FOR REAR SETBACKS SIDE (5M SHOWN) MAXIMUM 50% TOWER NARROW STREET) -MINIMUM 5M (BELOW 65M COVERAGE FOR SMALL BUIDLING HEIGHT) SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS SITES (<1860M2) MAXIMUM 50% TOWER -MINIMUM M (ABOVE -MINIMUM 5M10 (BELOW 65M COVERAGE FOR SMALL 65M BUILDING BUIDLING HEIGHT)HEIGHT) SITES (<1860M2) -MINIMUM 10 M (ABOVE MINIMUM 4 M CEILING MAXIMUM STREET WALL 65M BUILDING LEVEL HEIGHT) HEIGHT AT GROUND HEIGHT MINIMUM 41:1 M STREET CEILING RATIOWALL MAXIMUM STREET HEIGHT AT GROUND LEVEL (25M SHOWN) HEIGHT 1:1 STREET RATIO (25M SHOWN)

MAXIMUM STREET WALL HEIGHT 26M MAXIMUM STREET WALL MINIMUM STREET WALL HEIGHT 26M HEIGHT 18M (20M SHOWN) MINIMUM STREET WALL HEIGHT 18M (20M SHOWN)

NEW YORK PERTH NEW YORK PERTH

PERTH PERTH

EXEMPT FROM GFA CALCULATION COMMUNAL SKYRISE GREENERY FEATURES EXEMPT FROM GFA MAXIMUM HEIGHT CALCULATION VARIED

BY AREA COMMUNAL SKYRISE ALLOWABLE FAR‘NO 12.6:1 INCLUDING GREENERY FEATURES PRESCRIBED LIMIT’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT (72M SHOWN) VARIED BY AREA ALLOWABLE FARFAR 12.6:1 INCLUDING ‘NO TOTAL 9:1 PRESCRIBED LIMIT’ (72MFLOOR SHOWN) AREA UPLIFT UP TO RESPONSE 50% OF ALLOWABLE ASSUMES TO TOTAL FAR 9:1 FAR STREET WALL AND PARTY Eg.CONTEXT 40% for Premium Hotel, WALL FLOOR AREA UPLIFT 10% for Community Facilities UP TO RESPONSE 50% OF ALLOWABLE ASSUMES TO MINIMUM SIDE AND REAR FAR STREET WALL AND PARTY ALLOWABLE FAR 6:1 SETBACK 3 METRESHotel, ABOVE Eg. 40% for-Premium WALL CONTEXT PARTY WALL 10% for Community Facilities MINIMUM SIDE AND REAR SETBACK MINIMUM FRONT MINIMUM FRONT ALLOWABLE FAR 6:1SETBACK SETBACK - 3 METRES ABOVE PERFORMANCE-BASED 3M+0.3M FOR EACH PARTYADDITIONAL WALL (5M SHOWN) STOREY (13M SHOWN) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK MINIMUM FRONT SIDE ANDSETBACK REAR SETBACKS PERFORMANCE-BASED 3M+0.3M FOR EACH MINIMUM STREET -MINIMUM 5MWALL (BELOW 65M (5M SHOWN) ADDITIONAL STOREY HEIGHT 19M (4 STOREYS) BUIDLING HEIGHT) (13M SHOWN) -MINIMUM 10 M (ABOVE SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS 65M BUILDING HEIGHT) MINIMUM STREET -MINIMUM 5MWALL (BELOW 65M HEIGHT 19M (4HEIGHT) STOREYS) BUIDLING MAXIMUM STREET WALL -MINIMUM 10 M (ABOVE MINIMUM CEILING HEIGHT HEIGHT 65M BUILDING HEIGHT) AT STREET LEVEL FOR 1:1 STREET RATIO RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (25M SHOWN) MAXIMUM STREET WALL 6M MINIMUM HEIGHTCEILING HEIGHT AT STREET LEVEL FOR 1:1 STREET RATIO RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (25M SHOWN) 6M

3-5M SETBACK FOR COVERED PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY OR COLONNADE 3-5M SETBACK FOR COVERED PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY OR COLONNADE

STREET WALL HEIGHT NOT REGULATED

FLOOR AREA UPLIFT - UP TO 10% OF ALLOWABLE FAR Eg: Communal facilities at ground/ first floor

MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK PRIMARY STREET 8M (WEIGHTED AVERAGE) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK PRIMARY STREET MAXIMUM STREETWALL 8MHEIGHT (WEIGHTED 45M AVERAGE) (45M SHOWN MAXIMUM STREETWALL PRIMARY HEIGHT 45M STREET, (45M SHOWN PRIMARY STREET,

MINIMUM STREETWALL HEIGHT 20M (20M SHOWN MINIMUM STREETWALL MAXIMUM SECONDARY STREET ) HEIGHT 20M STREET WALL HEIGHT 28M (20M SHOWN MAXIMUM SECONDARY STREET ) MINIMUM STREET WALL HEIGHT 28M STREET WALL HEIGHT 19M (25M SHOWN) MINIMUM STREET WALL HEIGHT 19M (25M SHOWN)

MAXIMUM HEIGHT VARIES BY DESIGNATED AREA MAXIMUM HEIGHT MANDATORY VARIES

BY DESIGNATED (153M SHOWN) AREA TOTAL FAR 15.4: 1 MANDATORY SPECIAL HEIGHT CONTROL (SHOWN) (153M SHOWN) CALCULATED BY SUN AND VIEW CONTROL PLANES TOTAL FAR 15.4: 1 UPLIFT FLOOR AREA SPECIAL HEIGHT CONTROL (SHOWN) (122M SHOWN) DISCRETIONARY TOTAL CALCULATED

BY SUN AND (INCLUDES MAXIMUM VIEW CONTROL PLANES FLOOR AREA TOTAL FARUPLIFT 13:1 ALLOWABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL (122M SHOWN) DISCRETIONARY TOTAL SHOWN USE, 6.1 AND DESIGN (INCLUDES MAXIMUM EXCELLENCE, TOTAL FAR 13:1FOR RESIDENTIAL ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA UPLIFT 10% OF TOTAL FAR + FAU) SHOWN USE,UP 6.1 TOAND 45%DESIGN OF ALLOWABLE EXCELLENCE, FAR FLOOR AREA UPLIFT 10% OF TOTAL FAR + FAU) FLOOR PLATE SIZE UP TO 45% OF 1000M2 ALLOWABLE UNDER GFA FAR ALLOWABLE FAR 9:1 FLOOR PLATE SIZE UNDER 1000M2 GFA ALLOWABLE FAR 8:1 ALLOWABLE FAR 9:1 ALLOWABLE FARSIDE 8:1 AND REAR MINIMUM MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK SETBACKS 6M RESIDENTIAL 6M MINIMUM SIDE AND REAR MINIMUM SIDE AND REAR COMMERCIAL 3M MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK SETBACKS SETBACKS 6M (6M SHOWN) RESIDENTIAL 6M 5M MINIMUM SIDE AND REAR COMMERCIAL 3M SETBACKS (6M SHOWN) 5M

MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK SECONDARY STREET, SETBACK CORNER CORNER 6MSETBACK MINIMUM FRONT EXEMPT WITHIN SECONDARY STREET,8M OF CORNER SETBACK CORNER CORNER 6M INTERSECTION UP TO WITHIN 12 STOREYS EXEMPT 8M OF (8 STOREYS SHOWN) CORNER INTERSECTION UP TO 12 STOREYS (8 STOREYS SHOWN)

SYDNEY SYDNEY

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

AUCKLAND SYDNEY AUCKLAND SYDNEY

105

M ST

M ST (2

The next highest is Chicago which has a base FAR of 16:1. It is considerably higher than the standard base ratio in other Australian cities studied, including Sydney at 8:1 and Perth at 6:1. With bonuses these FAR commonly reach 15:1 in central Sydney and 9:1 in Perth.

It is worth noting that the measurement of the attributable Gross Floor Area that determines the FAR does vary within each jurisdiction. This is because some cities, for example, exclude service areas, or car parking in the GFA calculation.

This can lead to highly complex calculations to determine the resultant yield of a development.

The new controls simply include all gross floor area above ground. This is preferred as it makes the assessment process less complicated, feasibility assessments far simpler and recognises that it is the overall building bulk that is the key consideration.

The variations in calculations, however, are likely to impact the base floor area ratios by around 15 percent. This makes the 18:1 proposed controls akin to the Chicagoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s controls of 16:1, which with a 15 percent increase is 18.4:1. In Sydney, a development that, with bonuses, has a FAR of 15:1 represents an equivalent FAR of around 17:1.

106

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

A key point of difference is that no cap is proposed on the FAU, and so no overall constraints are placed on the total capacity of growth in the study area. This learns from the experience of Sydney, where the maximum ratios that can be achieved through a development bonus, has effectively become the perceived minimum yield and land valuation is set to achieve this target.

In general, the massing diagrams included in the comparative cities reports, demonstrate that the allowable FAR is achievable within the built form planning controls.

5.3 How do these controls relate to capacity in the Central City?

A key consideration for revised built form controls will be the potential impact on development capacity in the Central City. As the proposed controls do not put a cap on maximum densities, total developable capacity is therefore independent of the operation of a FAR and FAU scheme (SGS, 2016).

majority of remaining development sites in the city were developed to an average of 14:1, the potential supply within this period would significantly exceed the projected total residential and commercial GFA demand (as shown at #2) (SGS, 2016). The Ernst and Young report notes that they would expect that most developers will seek to deliver a yield greater than 18:1 on their sites (Ernst and Young, 2016).

This indicates that the proposed controls do not adversely impact capacity in the Study Area.

Recent analyses of the demand for new residential and commercial development in the Study Area up until 2031, along with the potential supply (capacity) of Gross Floor Area are illustrated together in figure 58. They indicate that the significant supply of apartments in the development pipeline (both under construction and permitted) approximately equals the projected residential demand for GFA in this period (as shown at #1). Assuming that the

In addition, the Study Area does not represent the only sites available for development in the Central City. Approximately 1,140 hectares of urban renewal land is available within approximately 5 kilometres of the city core. If there was any curtailment of development capacity within the Central City it is likely to be offset to a reasonable degree by an increase in demand in these other locations. (SGS, 2016).

25,000,000

20,000,000

15,000,000

2,069,360

10,000,000

5,000,000

0

#2 Potential total capacity at 14:1 FAR significantly exceeds highest projected GFA demand to 2031

#1 Apartment supply (under construction + approved) approximately equals projected demand for residential GFA up until 2031 2,240,000

2,720,000

11,437,325

4,960,000

5,440,000

9,903,057

Existing

776,000

2,472,000

9,903,057

City of Melb Projected dwellings as GFA

Urbis Demand Residential

SGS Demand Residential

Urbis Demand Residential + Employment

Projected demand for GFA to 2031

SGS Demand Residential + Employment

Existing

Residential Under Construction

Residential Urbis Gross Under Capacity Construction + (assumed FAR 14:1) Approved

Supply of GFA as at 2015

Figure 58: Development supply and capacity in the Study Area compared to projected demand (Urbis and SGS figures sourced from SGS, 2016, Residential supply under construction and approved sourced from Victorian State Government, 2016a, assumes 80m2 / dwelling gross)

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

107

5.4 How do these controls affect development feasibility?

The side and rear setback controls are likely to have as great an impact on the potential feasibility of a site, as the introduction of a density controls.

This is the necessary outcome of restoring controls that protect amenity.

Assuming a minimum width of a tower of 10 metres then most sites with a street frontage narrower than 20m will not accommodate a tower over 80 metres in height where the 6 percent setback control will diminish the tower width to less than this minimum 10 metres. These sites are indicated in figure 59. A small number of these sites already have tower permits.

A FAR at 18:1 is lower than the current interim control of 24:1. While it can be increased via approved Floor Area Uplifts without limit, there is however, likely to be an impact on land values in the Study Area. There needs to be a period of transition, where the expectation of current land owners of their land value may be greater than the value determined by the development feasibility of the site under the FAR and new built form controls. This effect is expected to be temporary.

Considering the significant supply of apartments currently in the market (under construction and with permits), it is considered the introduction of new controls at this time, will have a lesser impact on the overall supply, and apartment purchase prices, than had it been introduced when apartment supply levels were low.

108

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

The Ernst and Young report identifies that the introduction of a reduced GFA on sites will, in particular, impact sites purchased since January 2014 when land values started to escalate and which do not have a current planning permit.

There is no clear data available on the number of sites (and landowners) that this will impact. The report does note that a decrease in land values to pre-2014 values, will mean that the introduction of a reduced GFA will have minimal effect on the viability of the site.

t

lin S

k Fran

t

S ket

c Aâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Be

robe La T

St

dale

ons

Lt L

St

St

St

sell Rus

nsto

St

Swa

St

t

t

Will

en S

th S

Que

abe

n St

Eliz

rke

Bou

ing

Spr

e St ourk

Lt B

ition

ib Exh

t le S

sda

Lon

iam St

King

ins

Coll

St

St

nce

Spe r St

reet

St ders

Flin

t Dodds S

St va n

ag h

Sturt

Rd

St

Blvd

t

Ka

nt S

Gra

s ng ay W

t ke S

Clar

n St

ndo

h

W

bank

Ki

St

e Clar

an

m ite

South

Ci ty

Queen

sbridg e St

Fannin

g St

Yarra River

lls We

Study Area

Site frontage 10 - 20 metres

St

Site frontage less than 10 metres y St

entr Cov

Special Character Areas (existing) Special Character Areas (proposed extension to Retail Core) Blocks which contain a high number of fine grain lots (frontage less than 20m) that are generally subject to General Development Area controls Figure 59: Sites within the General Development Areas that are unlikely to accommodate a tower as the street frontages are less than 20 metres wide

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

109

5.5 Risks of re-introducing a FAR control The reasons for the removal of the site specific plot ratio control in 1999 included: • It was considered that much of what the plot ratio system had been intended to do had been achieved; • Bonus features listed in the old scheme should be achieved through detailed urban design analysis that would form part of the permit approval process. This effectively sought to ‘raise the bar’ by absorbing what was seen as a bonus attribute into the normal expectations for development; and • The absolute maximum FAR of 12 was not a guarantee of the optimum design outcome in every case, with the system encouraging the undesirable consolidation of smaller lots, with a subsequent loss of the ‘fine grain’ subdivision and resultant built form character of the city.

While not declared to the Panel, the system was also perceived to be vulnerable to distortion, with sometimes quite dubious “features” included in applications for no clear design or public amenity reason but simply to increase plot ratio. (Ramsay Consulting, 2016).

The Panel was skeptical that the proposed urban design policy would be only a partial replacement for the removal of the plot ratio control. This has, in effect, been the case, with the principle-based urban design policy not having enough weight to deliver good urban design outcomes in all instances (Ramsay Consulting, 2016).

These concerns have all been addressed by the proposed controls as follows: • The schedule of Defined Public Benefits (with City of Melbourne support) is designed to elicit

110

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

•

•

•

•

meaningful uplift sharing; A known, and quite high potential yield of 18:1, and no overall cap, frees the designer to concentrate on contextual response rather than chasing a maximum yield. Some jurisdictions provide development incentives, in the form of extra floor area or extra height, to reward design excellence. This is the case, for example, in Sydney. In Victoria, it is the expectation that design excellence is a requirement in all development and all submissions are subject to demonstrating this key requirement; In addition, when proponents undertake a design competition for their site to promote innovative options, the competition could be recognised through agreement to a Floor Area Uplift. Basically, an approved competition will be considered a ‘public benefit’ resulting in the awarding of additional gross floor area, whose value should offset and be commensurate with the competition costs. It is proposed that the Australian Institute of Architects’ competition parameters will be used with guidance from the Office of the Victorian Government Architect; Site consolidation continues to this day without FAR controls. Leaps in technology also mean that tower developments are possible on small sites. Finer grain development, which encompasses not just the size of a lot frontage but the design of that frontage, is not necessarily protected therefore by retaining the small site. Towers built on small sites often have a significant amount of the street frontage dedicated to services, for example, which diminishes the pedestrian-friendly scale of the street; and It is recommended that the revised governance that made the City of Melbourne a Referral Authority in the Central City (as introduced with Amendment C262) be made permanent which should enable improved consistency, timeliness and transparency of decision-making. This should assist in avoiding any future ‘distortions’.

The FAU mechanism connects Ministerial decisions made on large-scale permit approvals directly with City of Melbourneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s responsibilities for delivering local infrastructure and the design and maintenance of the public realm. It acknowledges the need to balance development and population growth with the delivery of a high quality living and working environment.

Protocols are now in place between the City of Melbourne and DELWP to promote cooperation and data sharing, with weekly officer level meetings to facilitate permit assessment. A protocol is also in place to govern referrals from DELWP to the OVGA and its Victorian Design Review Panel.

5.6 Alternative Frameworks A range of alternative built form frameworks were discussed for the Central City and not pursued as follows, noting that returning to the pre-262 controls was not considered a viable alternative.

Strengthening the performance based controls (particularly setback controls leading to better building separation).

While this would address many of the current concerns in the built form review and is a critical component of the recommended new controls, it would miss the opportunity to reintroduce a valuesharing proposition into the planning framework for the Study Area. As outlined in Section 2 of this report, the infrastructure needs of the city are currently under funded. A DCP will not provide adequate financial resources to deliver all the required infrastructure. Similarly, many of the defined public benefit items, such as affordable housing, arts spaces and design excellence (through competitions) would be foregone.

It is also reasonable to assume that there will be threshold densities where the local infrastructure, such as footpaths, will not be able to cope with the additional congestion of people that this will bring.

While this threshold is not presently known and therefore an overall cap cannot be determined, the CCBFR has illustrated where the clusters of very high densities are creating this problem, for example, the issues at the northern end of Elizabeth Street.

The absence of a reasonable FAR to indicate allowable site yield misses the opportunity to set market values without the need for elastic permit negotiations.

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

111

Tower Height controls, with or without a density control It is not uncommon in the comparator cities for height limits to be introduced in tandem with a Floor Area Ratio. Height limits can also serve as proxies for a density control. This indirect approach, however, can be confusing. If height is a primary issue then it should be regulated, however the technical evidence does not demonstrate that overall height is the key driver of built form issues outside of the Special Character Areas.

This approach was proposed in Planning Scheme Amendment C171, which sought to introduce mandatory height and setback controls. The primary purpose of doing this was to address the cumulative impact of tower developments built very close together. It was driven by a similar objective to the CCBFR, to create certainty and to improve public realm outcomes. The Panel report considered the merits of this approach and recommended against it, with concerns that mandatory heights and setbacks would create a ‘formulaic’ approach to building design.

A detailed analysis of built form impacts of towers, however, was not prepared to support this amendment. It is difficult, potentially arbitrary, to adopt a particular height limit for very tall towers and this is, appropriately, not supported by the CCBFR. There is further evidence of poor development outcomes that have continued in Southbank since the introduction of Planning Scheme Amendment C171 which retained the discretionary tower height controls.

The daylight study illustrates that height (above 50 metres) does not have a significant detrimental effect on daylight access. Obviously, overshadowing increases in length as the building becomes taller, however often the shadow ‘moves more quickly’ than a shorter, squatter building form.

Taller buildings do have a significant impact on

112

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

wind patterns, however it is often the effect of multiple buildings together that can exacerbate or potentially mitigate these impacts rather than just the height of each building.

FAR control with prescribed incentive bonuses This is the common practice for many cities around the world that operate the equivalent of a Floor Area Uplift framework. Typically, additional floor area is granted as a ‘bonus’ that is provided for the delivery of a prescribed benefit. In many jurisdictions the amount of bonus is published in an explicit list, for example, in Sydney, incorporating a design competition into the development provides the developer with a 10 percent FAR bonus. In Vancouver, in specifically defined locations, if a development comprises a prescribed minimum percentage of affordable housing, the FAR that applies to the development is raised from from 3:1 to 5:1.

This is similar to the plot ratio bonus scheme that was in place in the Hoddle Grid prior to its removal in 1999. This system was subject to criticism as there was a lack of transparency about the relationship between the benefit the developer had to provide and the scale of the received bonus.

The proposed framework avoids this by linking the potential FAU to a defined public benefit defined in terms of land value.

Mandatory maximum FAR across the whole Study Area There is insufficient evidence to support the introduction of a capped FAR across the whole Study Area.

As with all good planning it is anticipated that the process for applying a FAR and a corresponding FAU will be refined with practice. It is therefore proposed to update and publish clear parameters regularly.

6. Conclusion The integration of the technical reports prepared as part of the Central City Built Form Review create a cohesive proposal for built form controls in the Study Area.

The proposed controls will achieve the following: • Positively change the pattern of poor development outcomes that are compromising the amenity of the public realm and internal private amenity; • Support positive growth in the Central City, providing adequate long-term development capacity; • Shift emphasis from tower heights to more critical issues such as setbacks and density outcomes; and • Create a value sharing mechanism to deliver local infrastructure, to support the rapid population growth and visitation increases to the city.

This will effectively address the overarching key objectives of the Central City Built Form Review to protect the Central City’s long-term prosperity by: • Providing much needed certainty and consistency of built form outcomes; • Improving public amenity; • Boosting investment; and • Ensuring development enhances Melbourne’s long-term liveability.

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

113

114

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

References

American Planning Association 2011. Economic Vitality: How the Arts and Culture Sector Catalyzes Economic Vitality.

Helen Day Urbanism 2016b. Planning Permit Data Review Report with case studies (2010-2015)

City of Melbourne 2008 Future Melbourne 2008, A Bold Inspirational and Sustainable City - Executive Summary.

Hodyl, L. 2015. Churchill Fellowship Report: To investigate planning policies that deliver positive social outcomes in hyper-dense, high-rise residential environments.

City of Melbourne 2014a. Community Infrastructure Framework 2014.

Hodyl + Co, 2016. Urban Design Analysis - Special Character Areas

City of Melbourne 2014b. Walking Plan 2014-2017.

Melbourne: City of Melbourne.

Hunt, G. Minister for the Environment 2016. Longterm planning and cities for the next century: speech to the Sydney Business Chamber 19 January 2016.

City of Melbourne 2015a. Daily Population Estimates and Forecasts 2015 Update.

City of Melbourne 2015b. Homes for People, Housing Strategy 2014-2018. Melbourne: City of Melbourne.

Ernst and Young 2016. Central City Built Form Review - Feasibility Review.

Geografia and City of Melbourne 2016a. City of Melbourne Economic Profile 2016. Available at: http://melbourne.geografia.com.au/ (Accessed: March 1 2016.

Kelly, J.-F., Donegan, P., Chisholm, C. and Oberklaid, M. 2014. Mapping Australiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Economy: Cities as engines of prosperity, Melbourne: Grattan Institute. Available at: http://grattan.edu.au/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/814-mapping-australiaeconomy1.pdf.

Lowe, M., Whitzman, C., Badland, H., Davern, M., Hes, D., Aye, L., Butterworth, I. and Giles-Corti, B. 2013. Liveable, Healthy, Sustainable: What are the Key Indicators for Melbourne Neighbourhoods.

Research Paper 1, Place, Healthy and Liveability Research Program, University of Melbourne.

Geografia and City of Melbourne 2016b. City of Melbourne Population Summary 2016. Available at: http://melbournepopulation.geografia.com.au/ (Accessed: 3 March 2016.

Ramsay Consulting 2016. Central City Built Form Review - A History of Built Form Control in Central Melbourne.

Global Wind Technology Services 2016. Central City Built Form Review Wind Assessments. Melbourne.

Rowley, S. and Phibbs, P. (2012) Delivering Diverse and Affordable Housing on Infill Development Sites.

Hayball 2016. Central City Built Form Review Architectural Testing of Built Form Controls.

SGS Economics & Planning 2016. Central City Built Form Review - Economic Issues. Melbourne.

Helen Day Urbanism 2016a. Central City Built Form Review: Comparative Planning Controls Inter-city Research.

Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission 2008. Final Report - Inquiry into Enhancing Victoriaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Liveability.

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

115

Victorian State Government, 2009. Urban Design Charter Victoria.

Victorian State Government 2014. Plan Melbourne.

Victorian State Government, Planning, Department of Environment Land Water and Planning 2015e.

Planning Practice Note 59: The role of mandatory provisions in planning schemes

Victorian State Government, Department of Environment Land Water and Planning 2015a.

Better Apartments: Public Engagement Summary December 2015.

Victorian State Government, Department of Environment, L., Water and Planning 2016a.

Central City Built Form Review - Existing Conditions Analysis.

Victorian State Government, Department of Environment Land Water and Planning 2015b.

Central City Built Form Review - Shaping the City Fact Sheet.

Victorian State Government, Department of Environment, L., Water and Planning 2016b.

Central City Built Form Review - Overshadowing Technical Report.

Victorian State Government, Planning, Department of Environment Land Water and Planning 2015c.

Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C262 Explanatory Report.

Washburn, A. 2013. The Nature of Urban Design: A New York Perspective on Resilience. New York: Island Press.

Victorian State Government 2015d. Plan Melbourne Refresh Discussion Paper 2015.

116

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Wood & Grieve Engineers 2016. Central City Built Form Review Daylight Modelling Assessment Analysis of Building Heights and Setbacks.

Glossary

Air rights

Unused Allowable Gross Floor Area on designated heritage sites.

Allowable Gross Floor Area

The maximum allowable GFA above ground in m2 = Floor Area Ratio (FAR) x Site Area (includes services and covered balconies).

Architectural Projection

Limited depth element (no greater than 300mm) that articulates a building façade and which may encroach within the setback zone.

Basement

Any floor area that is located below ground level. This is not included in calculating Gross Floor Area.

Building density

The proportion of Gross Floor Area built as a multiple of the site area. This can be measured at different scales – site, block, neighbourhood/precinct or city.

Building envelope

The maximum three-dimensional volume of space on a site within which a structure can be built, as permitted by applicable height (street wall and building height if designated) and setback controls.

Building separation

The distance between any part of two buildings (excluding architectural projections).

Central City

The area within the central sub-region that contains key capital city functions and civic facilities, as well as several precincts identified for major and strategic change.

It is a larger area than the Melbourne CBD (Source: Plan Melbourne Glossary). Also to be used when referring to the project title – Central City Built Form Review.

Corner Site

A site bounded by at least two intersecting streets, where both streets are greater than 9m in width and where one street is equal to or greater than 20m in width. Street setbacks apply to all street frontages.

Covered balcony

A balcony that is roofed, but with open side(s).

Defined community benefit

The provision of community infrastructure or facilities as authorised in an incorporated policy document, or the provision of cash in lieu, or the transfer of air rights from a designated Heritage item, in exchange for the granting of an approval that permits a Floor Area Uplift (FAU).

Development rights

See Allowable Gross Floor Area.

Developable site area

The entire site area (be it one or multiple titles) compromising the subject land on which the development is to be built.

Floor area bonus

An additional development right typically awarded for the provision of a particular design feature, specific land use or infrastructure provision, defined through a nominated increase in the Floor Area Ratio. Generally not used in this study unless referencing established controls in other cities that use this term.

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

117

118

Floor Area Ratio (FAR)

The ratio of total gross building floor area allowable on a site to the site area. For example, a FAR of 8:1 designates that building a gross floor area that is eight times the site area is permissible on that site.

Floor Area Uplift (FAU)

Additional floor area approved by Responsible Authority, above the Allowable Gross Floor Area, in recognition of provision of defined community benefit, where this does not compromise any other planning scheme provisions.

General Development Area

The area within the Study Area that is not defined as a Special Character Area.

Gross Floor Area

All floor area within a building that is located on ground level and above. Includes circulation areas, services, vehicle and bicycle parking and covered balconies.

Gross Realisable Value (GRV)

The projected total gross value expected to be received from a completed development (excluding GST).

Height

The vertical distance from natural ground level to the roof or parapet at the mid-point of the site frontage (Source: Melbourne Planning Scheme)

Hoddle Grid

As defined by City of Melbourne Municipal Strategic Statement, Local Area Map

Lane

A laneway is an access way that is publicly owned or accessible to the public at all times of the day, that is less than 9 metres in width.

Plot Ratio

Identical to Floor Area Ratio. Generally not referred to unless referencing established controls in other cities that use this term.

Podium

The base of a tower building where the tower is setback above the street wall.

Population density

The number of people living within an area. Typically measured as people / hectare â&#x20AC;&#x201C; either net (for the developable site area only) or gross (for a precinct / local area / city area which incorporates the road network / open spaces etc.).

Public amenity

The conditions present within the public realm (including conditions created by buildings interfacing the public realm) that influence the experience of those within the public realm. High amenity results in a more positive experience.

Public realm

The spaces between buildings that are publicly owned or accessible to the public at all times of the day, including streets, lanes and open space (parks and squares).

Residential density

The number of dwellings within an area. Typically measured as dwellings / hectare â&#x20AC;&#x201C; either net (for the developable site area only) or gross (for a precinct / local area which incorporates the road network / open spaces etc.).

Setback

The distance between a building and a site boundary.

Residual Land Value

The sum a developer will pay a landowner to secure a site for development. It equals the total development value minus total construction costs minus developer profits.

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

Side or rear setback

The distance between a building (excluding Architectural projections) and a side or rear site boundary.

Small site

A site that cannot accommodate a tower without compromising the setback provisions outlined in the proposed controls.

Special Character Area

Those areas within the Study Area that are characterised by special built form or spatial attributes, for example, heritage buildings, a specific precinct use or identity, for example, the Arts precinct or retail core, or a special setting, for example, the Yarra riverfront.

Southbank

As defined by City of Melbourne Municipal Strategic Statement, Local Area Map

Street

A public access way, in public ownership that is wider than 9 metres.

Street frontage

The width of the site that fronts the street. A site can have multiple street frontages (see Corner sites and Through sites).

Upper Level Street setback

The distance between a building and the street boundary or boundaries (applicable for Corner sites and Through sites).

Street wall

Wall of a building that fronts a street(s).

Street wall height

The height of the wall of a building that fronts a street(s) before any setback.

Study Area

The area under consideration that is incorporated into the Central City Built Form Review â&#x20AC;&#x201C; including a significant part of the Hoddle Grid, part of Southbank as well as the Shrine of Remembrance building and its northern forecourt which has been included to investigate overshadowing impacts from Southbank development.

Through site

A site that spans the depth of the full block and fronts two streets. Front setbacks apply to both street frontages.

Tower

A building or structure high in proportion to its lateral dimensions, either isolated or forming part of a larger building.

Tower setback

The distance between the tower façade (including all balconies and excluding Architectural projections) and a site boundary.

Tower floorplate size

The gross floor area of a particular storey within a tower.

Tower site coverage

The relationship between the tower floorplate size and the Developable Site Area. Expressed as a percentage, e.g. a 600 m2 tower floorplate size on a 1000 m2 developable site area has a tower site coverage of 60%.

Transferable Development Rights (TDR)

Refers to a planning mechanism that allows the transfer of nominal development rights from one location to another in order to preserve existing desirable characteristics of the donor site and environs, where such transfers represent a type of Defined Community Benefit.

Synthesis Report | Central City Built Form Review | Hodyl+Co

119

Central City Built Form Review Synthesis Report Prepared by Hodyl + Co for the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning April 2016