Review dations --- 'I . I
I. ! .. i VICCODE 2 REVIEW
·DECEMBER 1 994 5 December 1994
The Hon. R. Maclellan Minister for Planning 477 Collins Street MELBOURNE 3001
Dear Minister
The Committee· appointed by you to review Vic Code 2 has now completed its· task and has pleasure in submitting its final report.
As requested, it has inquired into the,operational arrangements, content, problems and benefits of the Code. In carrying out its work it has consulted with local government, members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, town planners, architects, designers and lawyers involved in the field, with developers and developer bodies and with representatives of resident organisations.
It also commissioned a consultant report on resident attitudes and perceptions towards their living environment and the changes occurring with the increase in multi-dwelling developments in selected middle-ring municipalities. This resulted in a useful confirmation of perceptions gained through the other aspects of its work. ·
A call for input into an issues paper resulted in over 100 submissions from all sectors of the community, and a similar number of submissions were received in response to that paper. ·
The Panel wishes to formally record its thanks for the contribution of all of those who assisted it in consultation, discussion and by submission. It has been impressed by the depth of thought and breadth of vision which have been brought to the issues and the commitment to the aims of the Code and the desire to work creatively to improve it which the Panel has generally encountered as it pursued its tasks.
The assistance of officers of the Department of Planning, particularly Geoff Lawler and Adrian Williams in administrative and technical matters was also greatly appreciated.
With the help of all these people, the Panel has been able to complete. its task and tender this Final Report in the confidence that it reflects a broad consensus view and that its recommendations will · assist in the development of better designed medium density housing in Victoria.
Yours faithfully
Ton Jams
\,..• ~7 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. GENERAL OUTCOMES OF REVIEW ...... ~ ...... 1
2. THE REVIEW PROCESS ...... ~ ...... ; ...... 4 3. LOCAL VARIATIONS ...... ·9
4. PERFORMANCE MEASURES ...... ~ ...... 16 5. DENSITY ...... · ...... 19 6. CHARACTER ...... ·...... 27 7. GOOD DESIGN ...... , ...... 30 8. PROCESS ...... - ...... -...... 38
9. CODE ALTERATION ...... ~ ...... 41 10. STATUTORY CONTEXT ...... 50 11. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ...... •...... 62 APPENDIX A-· TERMS·OF REFERENCE ...... 66 APPENDIX B- REVIEW OF VICCODE 2
CITIES OF HEIDELBERG AND CAULFIELD QUALITATIVE RESEARCH- A REPORT FOR VICCODE 2 REVIEW PANEL BY MAXINE COOPER & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD, NOVEMBER 1994 ...... ; ...... ~ ...... ; .... ; ...... : ...... 68 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
GENERAL OUTCOMES OF REVIEW
VicCode 2 was introduced as an instrument of change. It was intended to facilitate an increase in density throughout the metropolitan area and encourage production of medium density housing. It was a direct response to the need to:
• . encourage innovation and variety in housing development;
• give Victorians more chance of finding appropriate and affordable housing;
• make better use of costly infrastructure and reduce urban sprawl;
• reduce the costly, frustrating and time consuming battle that is too often a part of the planning process. ·
As the Minister said in his Foreword to VicCode 2:
The Code is a commonsense response to our changing housing needs. It is now time to take it out of the debating arena. The best way to test the Code and see if it works is to put it into practice.
On the figures alone, the objective of encouraging medium density housing would appear to be working, although as the Panel observed in its issues paper, it doubts if this is solely attributable to VicCode 2, with the upsurge in medium density ' development in the past 12 months more probably a reflection of market forces which happened to coincide with it.
Nevertheless, criticism of VicCode 2, mainly from the middle and outer suburbs, suggests that in terms of community acceptance, it is not working.
The debate about VicCode 2 has focussed people's minds on the changes occurring to the physical face of their city. One outcome has been an expression of pride in the diversity. which the character of Melbourne exhibits and in its liveability. Whilst most people acknowledge the ·need for urban consolidation to slow growth at the urban fringe where the cost of new infrastructure is so massive, they fear this will be at the expense of the residential character of Melbourne's established suburbs. They see VicCode 2 as an instrument which, through its universal application, might transform the different suburbs into an amorphous whole.
In making its recommendations the Panel has recognised that inevitably medium density housing will play a much larger role in meeting Victoria's housing. . requirements than in the past. Changes in household structures and lifestyles are resulting in different social needs emerging which medium density development will help to meet. The community cannot afford to send this type of housing form into a decline similar to that following the spate of flat building of the 60s and 70s (which is still colouring people's attitudes to medium density development).
I !.
GENERAL OUTCOMES OF REVIEW- 1
/ VICCODE 2 REVIEW
The need for medium density development to meet a wide range of housing . requirements exists in all areas. It should be actively enoouraged in. those locations where it can be most effectively supplied with least disruption and opposition. For this reason, medium density housing in fringe suburbs is of particular significance. · In established areas large sites offer far better opportunities than standard infill sites where mediocre "bottom line" development has caused most public outcry against the perceived effects of VicCode 2. For this reason, incentives should be offered which favour development of large sites in preference to those where impact, ·and hence opposition, will be greatest.
In doing so, .it should be recognised that opposition to medium density housing is not always just an expression of the NIMBY syndrome ("not in my backyard') to be contemptuously dismissed, but often a real expression of concern about the value which the character of different neighbourhoods hold for their community. ·
Nevertheless the Panel considers that more should be done to educate the community about and demonstrate the positive benefits of change and the fact that the character of an area can be benfited, not simply by maintaining the status quo, but identifying opportunities for improvement.
In this respect the Panel believes that councils must develop a vision about what they want their urban environment to be, both visually and functionally. Not only will they need to plan how their municipalities can be used for medium density housing, but what sort of character they will develop which is enjoyable and appreciated by residents.
The Panel's general conclusion as a result of this review is that VicCode 2 is fundamentally a valuable document in guiding the design and assessment of medium density housing, but a number of its concepts require modification, the Code itself requires re-writing and the framework in which it sits and is supported needs change and better input.
The Panel fully supports the concept that good creative design, as distinct from "bottom-line" development should be rewarded.
In reporting on its review of VicCod·e 2, the Panel has addressed all the matters required by its terms of reference (which are set out in Appendix A). It considers it is more effective though to present its findings and recommendations in terms of the key issues which have emerged from the review process, rather than by reference to the specific points of the actual terms of reference.
There are 8 key issues which the Panel has distilled as the criteria for effectively satisfying the requirements of the stakeholders to the review process:
They are:
Local Variation: There is a need for the introduction of local variation to better respond to Melbourne's diverse residential environments.
Performance Measures: There is value in retaining and extending the use of performance measures.
Density: Benchmark densities should be established to draw a 'bottom line' for stakeholders requiring certainty in the development process.
Area Character: the effect of new medium density housing should be related to area character not a narrow definition of streetscape.
GENERAL OUTCOMES OF REVIEW - 2 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
Good Design: Understanding, assessing-and creating good design needs more effective education programmes for st~keholders. -
Process: There is a need for informed and consultative management in the development approval process of medium density housing.
Code Alteration: The code needs to be redrafted so that it is clear and simple to use.
Statutory Context: There is a need to reform statutory inconsistencies between VicCode 2 and other legislative requirements.
GENERAL OUTCOMES OF REVIEW - 3 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
THE REVIEW PROCESS
• 2.1 ·PANEL'S OBJECTIVES
In responding to its terms of reference and carrying out this review of VicCode 2 the Panel established a number of objectives :
• · Identify any trends emerging from figures before and since the introduction of VicCode 2. • See for itself what type of medium density housing is being built around Melbourne to which Vic Code is applicable; • Identify the experiences of different stakeholder groups with VicCode 2, namely:
residents of medium density developments neighbours the development industry local councils the state government
• Establish reactions to those experiences • Identify the expectations of the different stakeholder groups in connection with VicCode 2 and the provision of medium density housing. • Establish whether those expectations can be mutually accommodated . • . 2.2 PROCEDURES OF REVIEW
In the overall course of the review the Panel visited nine municipalities - Moorabbin, Keilor, Heidelberg, Nunawading, Boroondara, Stonnington, Caulfield, Croydon, _and Cranbourne- selected to provide a representative cross-section of local government in metropolitan Melbourne .
. It has held informal discussions with selected representatives from resident groups; the planning industry; the development industry, including both large developers, small builders and architectural drafting services; architects; local government; the Administrative Appeal Tribunal; the Urban Land Authority (ULA) and members of the former Panel which dealt with the initial introduction of VicCode 2. ·
The Panel has inspected a wide variety of medium density housing ranging from inner city warehouse and factory conversions; Central Equity developments; large and small architect designed projects; ULA estates at Blackburn and Narre Warren; and a multitude of units on infill sites throughout the metropolitan area.
An issues paper - VicCode 2 Review- Issues Paper September 1994 - was prepared. Input was sought to the issues paper which resulted in the receipt of over 100 submissions. A further 100 submissions have since been received in response.
THE REVIEW PROCESS - 4 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
In parallel to this review has been the debate and comment about VicCode 2 and medium density housing generally which has occurred in various sectors of the media.
In order to target the specific experiences of the people living in and adjacent to medium density housing, the Department of Planning and Development, at the request of the Panel, commissioned Maxine Cooper and Associates Pty Ltd to undertake certain research to gain an understanding of the attitudes and perceptions of residents living in Heidelberg and Caulfield toward their living environment and the changes occurring with the increase in multi-dwelling development. This research was presented in the report, Review of VicCode 2: Cities of Heidelberg and Caulfield: Qualitative Research - A Report for VicCode 2 Review Panel by Maxine Cooper and Associates Pty Ltd, November 1994, a summary of which is included in Appendix B. 0
The Panel has also had access to a further report prepared by Maxine Cooper and Associates Pty Ltd, City of Waverley Residents Perceptions Study , August 1994.
• 2.3 TRENDS IN OPERATION OF VICCODE 2
As part of its terms of reference, the Panel was asked to report on the operation of VicCode 2 in terms of trends before and since its introduction in December 1993 in:
• the number of multi dwelling applications across Melbourne • the distribution of multi dwelling applicants across Melbourne • % of applications going to appeal • %of applicants being refused at the AAT and the main reasons why • . %of application being approved (with or without modifications) by the AAT and the reasons why · . • % of applications where council officers recommend approval/refusal and council decisions go against officer recommendations and reasons why.
The Panel sent a questionnaire to all councils in Victoria requesting information on trends for medium density applications both prior to and post VicCode 2 approval.
Twenty-nine councils out of (then) 57 in the metropolitan area replied.
·In non metropolitan Victoria 58 councils out of 140 councils responded.
The Administrative Appeal Tribunal was also asked to provide information on appeals. ·
From the information provided it is very difficult to establish any particular trends as a result of the introduction of VicCode 2.
Firstly, figures have been provided fora full year prior to the introduction of VicCode 2, yet the figures for the period after the introduction of VicCode 2 are for a maximum of 9 months only and even so would not necessarily pick up incomplete appeals (ie a number would still be in the system).
The data collected does not differentiate between dual occupancies and small/large medium density applications.
.THE REVIEW PROCESS - 5 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
In general terms, interpreting the figures provided for the post Vic Code period on a pro-rata basis, the number of applications pre and post Vic Code are very similar . across the State. This is not to say that the number of units per application has remained static;
In term of appeals, there does appear to be ~ reduction in the number of applications going to appeal post Vic Code, however this could be affected by the shorter time period post Vic Code, the introduction of a $150 filing fee for appeals, and the fact that the appeals have not been completed. With respect to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, there is no indication of a significant change in the number of cases going to the AAT, or the outcomes.
There were insufficient reported numbers of cases where councils overrode officer recommendations to draw any patterns of trends .
. In term of major reasons for objection, ameriity/streetscape issues were by far the most numerous.
• 2.4 RESIDENT A TTITVDES TO MEDIUM DENSITY DEVELOPMENT
The Panel has found a strong consistency in resident attitudes to medium density development emerging from discussions with and submissions by residents, and from the Heidelberg/Caulfield Report and the City of Waverley Residents' Perceptions Study, both by Maxine Cooper.
It is fair to say that in the middle and outer suburbs the treed landscape is one of the most attractive features for residents choosing a particular area to move to and for liking that area. The loss of mature trees and the inability to plant more are consistently mentioned as concerns about medium density development.
Although residents in the Heidelberg/Caulfield Report tended to want fewer units on the site and fewer units in the street, an analysis of those units liked and disliked indicates that it is not density alone which determines whether a development is liked or not. Issues of architectural design and compatibility with the neighbourhood character are equally, if not more, important.
Two storey development, particularly close to boundaries, is a concern because of the perceptions about overlooking it raises.
Whilst residents generally recognise that change must occur to meet modern needs, they are concerned about the pace of change and its visibility. In particular, there is a feeling of powerlessness aboufthe ability to influence where and when change will occur. There is a feeling that no one is listening to them. As one submitter e~pressed it following an appeal against units in Caulfield:
The general feeling after the hearing was that no one was interested in the feelings of the people most affected by the proposal. There was a sense of disbelief, tinged with dismay, that nothing would or could be done to protect their streetscape, street trees and front gardens, residential character or privacy. The people against the development had worked and saved hard to provide a solid residential environment for their families and children., Yet all their efforts would be downgraded by a developer, encouraged by Government, who was plundering other people's amenity for quick profits.
THE REVIEW PROCESS - 6 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
In inner suburbs there is less concern about the provision of medium density development per se but more about the impacts of traffic, parking and overlooking. Streetscape issues are generally taken care of by existing urban conservation controls.
• 2.7 · OTHER ATTITUDES TO MEDIUM DENSITY DEVELOPMENT
The VicCode 2 Review- Issues Paper identified the experiences of councils, developers and the AAT, as well as residents neighbours. It discussed a range of concerns which have emerged about the operation of VicCode 2 affecting:
• quality of design • streetscape quality • local variations • education •· density • performance measures
The Panel's conclusions were that the different groups having an interest in medium density developments are all seeking certainty of one type or another:
• Future residents are seeking certainty that there will be an ongoing supply of well designed affordable accommodation in areas where they want to live offering an alternative to the traditional detached house.
• Existing residents are looking for certainty that the existing qualities of their residential areas will not be lost or alternatively, that there will be some certainty about the nature and level of change that may occur in given locations.
• The development industry is seeking a greater level of certainty of development proceeding in a timely and efficient manner. If they negotiate a design solution with the council officers they want reasonable certainty that the application will not then be rejected by council at the behest of resident objectors or that they will be taken to appeal by objectors. They are also. looking for certainty in terms of a quick answer to what the development potential of a site is. This will usually determine its value for them and its attractiveness for purchase, decisions to purchase usually being made well in advance of detailed designs.
• Local government is seeking certainty in terms of responsibility for managing population growth and targets in its own way which is responsive to the opportunities and local character which each municipality possesses.
• State government is seeking certainty for the implementation of policies which are necessary responses to satisfying housing needs and the economic imperative of slowing growth on the urban fringes.
The Panel is confident from the further discussions it has held and responses to the issues paper that the concerns it identified and the issues it raise~ in that paper are shared by the community and accurately reflect the mood of the various interest groups identified by its terms of reference. There is widespread support for . the use of a performance based code such as VicCode 2· to be used in the assessment of medium density development provided it is capable of accommodating the various needs of the stakeholder groups.
THE REVIEW PROCESS - 7 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
• 2:8 RECONCILING THE CONCERNS OF STAKEHOLDERS AND ACHIEVING CERTAINTY
The outcome of this review, after identifying the key issues relating to the operation and content of the Code, is to make recommendations to address these issues. In making. its recommendations the Panel has been guided by the needs identified in the issues paper of:
• accoiT!modating a changing social and demographic structure; • providing.the community with a continuing respect for the decision making process; • attaining for residents a continuing sense of satisfaction and identity with their local community; · • encouraging creativity in design.
The Panel believes it is possible to largely achieve the various certainties sought by stakeholders whilst at the same time acknowledging the needs it has identified. To do so however will require:
• a confident, creative approach by councils; • an acknowledgment by the community that change is necessary and will occur; • a willingness to accept trade offs in terms of managing that change; • a recognition by developers that they will be rewarded only. for good creative design; • a commitment by all sectors of the development industry and government to improving processes, education and support for achieving quality urban design _and building design.
Much is made nowadays of the concept of "best practice". The Panel believes it is a concept which should be applied to the provision of medium density housing. The intangible benefits of.liveability, satisfaction and sense of community identity associated With the residential environment of a city are too valuable to sacrifice for the sake of facilitating an unacceptable "bottom-line" type of development.
A hallmark of Melbourne is its high quality residential environment, irrespective of socio-economic status or location. In meeting future housing needs, the opportunity must be taken to improve this residential fabric by retaining and . enhancing what is good, at the same time recognising a.spects ripe for change.
THE REVIEW PROCESS - 8 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
LOCAL VARIATIONS
• 3.1 LOCATION OF MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING
In the process.of this review, medium density housing has been thought of very much as a problem or form· of development occurring in the established areas of Melbourne, be they inner, middle or outer suburbs. However, its importance as a form of development appropriate on the urban fringe ·should not be underestimated. Nor should i!s significance in such locations as a tool for achieving urban containment be overlooked.
The concept that urban consolidation should be pursued at all costs and that it should be primarily targeted at encouraging medium density housing in the inner and middle suburbs (the theory being that this will reduce pressure on the fringe for infrastructure by slowing down demand}, needs to be questioned.
The Panel considers that much great~r emphasis should be given to achieving urban consolidation at the urban fringe for the following reasons:
• From the ou.tset far greater opportunities exist to incorporate medium density housing into the fabric of a newly developing urban area without disruption than in established areas.
• There is a demand for medium densitY housing on the fringe.
• If expensive new infrastructure is being provided in these locations, it is logical to service as many new dwellings with it as possible. Thus servicing medium density housing will be more cost efficient than servicing traditional, lower density allotments.
• There are greater opportunities to provide affordable housing than in the majority of established areas. · ·
• There is opportunity to provide proportionately more medium density housing on the urban fringe.
The urban fringes are often pictured by planners as bleak outposts where people only go because "forced". This is a derogatory picture which fails to do justice to either the choices people make or the actual environments being created in these areas. There is no reason why people will not establish the same linkages and sense of identity with their community in these locations as people have in what are now established urban areas .. Well designed medium density development, planned around appropriate facilities, can create a satisfying community environment, perhaps even more effectively than can lower density conventional housing.
In advocating that urban consolidation principles be applied pro-actively at the newly developing fringe, the Panel is not suggesting that medium density housing should not be supplied in established areas also. But it needs to be realistically assessed where such housing can be most effectively supplied· in such locations with least disruption or opposition.
LOCAL VARIATIONS - 9 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
• 3.2 DIVERSITY: AN ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF MELBOURNE'S CHARACTER
In considering medium density housing in established areas, several strong underlying themes have emerged from the review.
• People are concerned about the pace of change and the uncertainties of not knowing when or where change may occur.
• They are concerned about their potential loss of choice in terms of being . able to select with reasonable certainty the type of neighbourhood they wish to live in. -
• Although people recognise that change will occur, they don't want the good qualities of Melbourne to be lost. There is a fear that unless these are identified and steps taken to protect them now, we may wake up one day to find that an irretrievable part of our heritage has been lost, in much the same way that so many wonderful and interesting buildings were lost during the frenzy of development in the 60s and 70s.
Thus, the opposition to medium density development in many suburbs is not because the new buildings will be unattractive or an unacceptable amenity will be created, but because the development is contrary to the qualities which those suburbs epitomise - treelined streets of attractive homes set on single allotments in a garden environment is one image of Melbourne valued by the community. There are other images of Melbourne which equally contribute to its identity, both as a world city and in the minds of its citizens.
These images are based on a combination of location, buildings, landscaping, density, subdivision patterns, topography, people and activities. Together they define the urban character of an area.
Fundamental to the Panel's conclusions therefore; is a recognition that the diversity of Melbourne's images is one of its ·strengths and a characteristic highly valued by the community. The Panel accepts that concern about urban character is a deeply felt, not always well articulated, feeling in the community.
It is from this basis that various aspects of the Panel's recommendations flow:
• It justifies the desire and need to provide for local variations.
• It gives strength to the finding that landscape, in particular tall canopied trees, are an integral element of Melbourne's identity; that provision needs to be made for them in most developments, and that such provision should not be secondary to the attainment of other element objectives and criteria. • It acknowledges the importance of fostering in residents a continuing sense of satisfaction and identity with their. local community. This in turn justifies involving them in the process of identifying future local character and evolving local variations as well as in the actual decision making process for individual applications. I • It justifies the importance of striving for good design so that new .I development adds to the character and identity of the city, which is essential for promoting an understanding that change can be positive and beneficial.
• .It provides a framework in which to manage change.
LOCAL VARIATIONS- 1 Q VICCODE 2 REVIEW
• 3.2 SHOULD LOCAL VARIATIONS BE PERMITTED?
In its issues paper the 1-'anel posed the question:
Is there a place for local variation in the implementation of State strategies for housing choice and urban consolidation and if so, under what condition and by whi~h techniques?
Without exception, from councils, professionals, developers and individuals, the response was affirmative - local variations should be permitted provided:
• they occur in a strategic context; and • are justifiable on sound criteria.
In particular, developers were not concerned aboutthe prospect of local variations. They were mo·re interested in knowing with reasonable .certainty what type of development was acceptable and in having policy administered unformly, than in having a theoretically uniform standard of development.
The Panel therefore recommends that local variations should be permitted subject to a process which ensures they are justifiable and strategically based . • 3.3 NATUREOFLOCAL VARIATIONS
3.3.1 General Nature
There are two ways in which local variations can be provided:
• changes to the performance measures contained in VicCode 2;
• local guidelines which would supplement or aid in interpreting the objectives · and criteria in VicCode 2.
VlcCode 2 was introduced with one prime objective being to achieve consistency in the assessment of medium density housing and common standards. In creating opportunities for local variations to reflect the diversity of Melbourne, this objective should not be forgotten.
Before VicCode 2 often a multitude of policies of varying status were used.in the assessment of medium density housing. It is important therefore that any local variations or guidelines be kept simple and relevant. They should not be introduced without demonstrating that they have some well thought through Validity, that they fit within a strategic or policy context, and there has been a public involvement in their preparation or adoption.
These are essential components for ensuring a proper balance between the need to accommodate a changing social and demographic structure by providing adequate housing variety, and maintaining for residents a continuing sense of satisfaction and identity with their local community. '
Nevertheless, an expectation that every street or neighbourhood may have its own local variations to performance measures should be avoided. Likewise, imposing criteria about" harmonising too rigidly with the character of an area or interpreting guidelines too strictly to protect the status quo, should also be avoided. This will undermine or constrain the opportunity for innovation and good contemporary design which is at odds with the underlying intention of the Code.
LOCAL VARIATIONS - 11 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
3.3.2 Variations to Performance Measures
As will be seen from Chapter 4, the Panel has recommended that performance · measures be retained in VicCode 2 as a guideline to acceptable standards. However, it does so on the basis that compliance with any particular performance measure does not obviate the need to comply with the objectives and criteria of all design elements in the Code. Performance measures have been retained because they provide a degree of certainty and consistency and because it is necessary to · establish certain "bottom line" standards. It is not intended that they be used to stifle creativity.
Performance measures are currently provided for the following four elements:
• E4 Building En.velope • E7 Open Space • E8 Car parking and vehicle access • E9 Visual and acoustic privacy
It is proposed that an additional performance measure for density be added.
It is. matters such as setbacks, height, site coverage, open space and density which are major influences in establishing the character of an area. In particular areas therefore, which presently. exhibit a particular character influenced by one or more of these factors, or where a future character is sought to be established, the Panel recommends that there be a capacity to vary the standard performance measure. Likewise, particular areas may have particular needs, or suffer from particular infrastruc~ure deficiencies, soil type or topography which justify a different approach to the standards in VicCode 2.
Whilst at the moment many people perceive local variations as a means to protect existing character and diversity, they are just as capable of establishing future character, either in newly developing areas or places considered appropriate for significant redevelopment. Because they should only be introduced in a strategic context, it may be that if a council decides to lower the density performance measure in one area, it may decide to raise it in another.
To avoid the proliferation of numerous local variations to performance measures, it was suggested in several submissions that a suite of performance measures be prepared from which municipalities could select those best reflecting local conditions and aspirations. By beginning with a standard (but diverse) suite of performance measures, local issues could be addressed whilst still providing some degree of uniformity within the metropolitan area.
Whilst this idea has certain attractions, it has been rejected by the Panel for a number of reasons:
• Considerable research would be necessary to identify a suitably representative suite of performance measures to cover likely local variations across Melbourne. The time and money required to undertake this research might significantly delay its practical implementation.
• Even if a suite of local variations was devised, there are likely to be. enough exceptions leading to pressure to approve more variations that it is unlikely the principle of a standard but limited suite of variations would remain intact.
LOCAL VARIATIONS- 12 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
• Without the necessity of undertaking their own investigations to identify appropriate and justifiable local variations, there may be a tendency for councils to ask for less intensive performance measures on political grounds thereby undermining one of the objectives of VicCode 2 which was to encourage the provision of medium density housing. ·
In general therefore, the Panel considers it more appropriate that individual · councils be responsible for the investigation, establishment and justification of their own local variations in order that they are a true reflection of valued local diversity.
Because VicCode 2 is an incorporated document in planning schemes, any local variations to performance measures would also need to be incorporated into the. planning scheme to establish the same status for the local performance measures as the standard performance measures they are replacing.
3.3.3 Local Guidelines
Local guidelines would have a different status to local variations of performance measures and would not be incorporated into the planning scheme.
They would be used as aids in interpreting the objectives and criteria of design · elements whether or not they have performance measures. At times, there may be a situation where compliance with some of the p~rformance measures of elements would not meet the objectives and criteria of another element interpreted in accordance with the guideline. lri such a situation, mere compliance with the performance measure would be insufficient to satisfactorily address all design elements. However, if application of a guideline in a particular area consistently led to a requirement to vary a pa,rticular performance measure, this may be evidence that a local variation of that particular performance measure was appropriate.
Because the application of the Code is discretionary- something to which regard · must be had - neither performance measures (including local variations) nor local guidelines should be interpreted as though they were statutory requirements but given such weight as is appropriate in each case.
Much explanatory information currently contained in VicCode would be more appropriately located in either local or general guidelines. • 3.4 MECHANISMS FOR INTRODUCTION OF LOCAL VARIATIONS AND GUIDELINES
3.4.1 Introduction of Local Variations to Performance Measures
The Panel recommends that the following steps are undertaken before incorporation of any local variations to performance measures:
(i) Identify the strategic context
· Many councils have nominated their Municipal Housing Statements as starting points for such a strategic context. Whilst it is generally acknowledged that many Municipal Housing Statements require refinement, this should not be· used as an excuse to delay the development of local variations. Possibly, in time, councils will be required to develop not only housing statements, but business, industrial and even rural statement~ for their municipalities. They will probably be documents subject to ongoing review and refinement, so any initial shortcomings should not be regarded as fatal.
LOCAL VARIATIONS - 13 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
(ii) Justify local variations
If a council wishes to establish or protect the character of a particular area this requirement would normally mean that it carries qut a character study for the area in question. This does not mean that the study need be of the entire municipality. Such a task may be both unnecessary and beyond the means of many municipalities. Rather, councils should be able to proceed incrementally if they wish.
Care should. be taken that the character study is not just a de facto urban conservation study. There will be an ongoing role for urban conservation area controls but they have a different purpose to the more complex concept of identifying character. ·
Character is the interrelationship of built form, topography, vegetation, density, subdivision patterns and activities,'both public and private. It is only when an identifiable pattern emerges from the interrelationship of these elements, which is capable of positive expression, that a local variation to performance measures should be contemplated.
Where local variations to performance measures are introduced, they should be supported by local guidelines which clearly and positively express the character of the area which new development is sought to complement or to make a contribution towards by way of improvement or change.
On the other hand, it is not always character which· may justify the introduction of local variations to performance measures. It may be that a different density or site coverage is required because of inadequate physical infrastructure, such as drainage. Different car parking arrangements may be required due to particular local circumstances. Whatever the nature of the variation, it needs to be justified.
(iii) Public involvement
Because local variations to performance measures should be incorporated into planning schemes, this means a planning scheme amendment will be required which has its own, well developed public participation process. It is up to councils whether they choose to carry out public consultation prior to this stage.
(iv) Ministerial approval
A number of councils made the point that to ensure local communities do not develop performance measures which are inconsistent with or attempt to undermine metropolitan policies and strategies, local performance measures should be subject to Ministerial approval.
The Panel endorses this as a requirement. It is a mechanism which ensures that local variations will sit within a policy framework. It will act as a brake on possible abuse, or at least overuse, of the opportunity. By requiring an amendment to incorporate local variations into the planning scheme, a built-in mechanism tor obtaining Ministerial approval is provided.
LOCAL VARIATIONS- 14 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
3.4.2 Introduction of Local Guidelines
Although local guidelines are not required to be incorporated into the planning scheme, they should also be required to be justified, to fit within a strategic context and to have been subject to some public consultation or input. They should not be policies adopted at the whim of council. .
LOCAL VARIATIONS - 15 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
• 4.1 SHOULD PERFORMANCE MEASURES BE RETAINED?
In its issues paper the Panel identified two problems which have emerged with performance meas~res:
• their use by developers as a prescriptive norm;
• uncertainty about whether development can be rejected notwithstanding compliance with relevant performance measures.
Experience with the Code is leading to a greater understanding that the elements of VicCode 2 are a package and all need to be addressed. Compliance with performance measures will not necessarily result in compliance with all the objectives and criteria of the Code. The AAT has made it clear in recent decisions that no part of VicCode 2 is mandatory and it is only a document to which responsible authorities must have regard:
The Responsible Authority must have regard to the performance measure, but must then decide the application, and that decision is not dictated by the meeting or non-meeting of the performance measure. A permit may still be granted whether the performance measure is met or not, provided that proper "regard" was had to it. [Bourakis v City of Northcote 12 AA TR 299]
For this reason the definition in VicCode 2 of performance measures needs deletion as it reflects their intended status when it was initially proposed that the application of VicCode 2 be mandatory. The Code's discretionary status now also requires that the second sentence of Clause 21 - 2 of the planning scheme be deleted.
One of the questions posed in the issues paper was whether:
... there [is] a place for persisting with performance measures as presently conceived and if not, what alternative techniques would be appropriate?
The real problem with performance measures has been their use by many developers as the primary design criteria for developments, with little or no regard for the objectives or performance criteria of the Code, resulting in a poor standard of design, particularly on standard infill sites.
The fundamental issue is whether the whole notion of performance measures is antithetical to the concepts of a performance based code.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES - 16 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
Whilst theoretically this may be so, the Panel has decided that in the interests of providing certainty to developers and residents alike, the concept of performance measures should be retained for the following reasons:
• . It is useful for clear parameters to be set for practical measures such as size of car parking spaces, width of access ways, sunlight'to open space, daylight to windows etc., all which have a universal application.
• Performance measures whose appropriateness may vary from place to place, such as set backs, site coverage, open space, number of car parks etc, will now be capable of being varied by the adoption of a local variation.
• If performance measures were removed, it is likely that councils would develop their own de facto set of rules by which to assess applications and the advantages of any degree of consistency would be lost.
• The performance measures set out in VicCode 2 have been adopted by the Building Regulations as the standards governing the issue of a building permit (see Chapter 10 ). If performance measures were removed, new standards would need to be incorporated into the Regulations.
• It is recognised that 'good design cannot be achieved by reading a book and applying a set of rules. Nevertheless it needs to be accepted that there is a section of the industry which will always seek the bottom line, and for them at least a bottom line needs to be drawn. In doing so however, it needs to be emphasised that compliance with a performance measure will not remove the need to comply with all element objectives and performance criteria. • 4.2 STATUS OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Whilst VicCode 2 is a discretionary document- that is, it is something to which regard must be had, but no part of which is mandatory - performance measures are nevertheless intended to operate as a guideline to how the objectives and criteria of various design elements may be met. They are intended to guide what is .acceptabie unless it can be demonstrated that some other standard is more appro.priate in the particular circumstances. ·
It is recommended that the concept of performance measures should be retained and performance measures should be defined as follows:
Performance measures are guidelines which are assumed to meet the objectives and performance criteria of an element unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the responsible authority either that · compliance will not meet the relevant objectives and performance criteria or that non - compliance will meet the relevant objectives and performance criteria.
Compliance with the performance measures for one element will not automatically mean that the objectives and performance criteria for all elements are met. Each must be considered separately.
This would mean that performance measures would be the base line against which proporals would be measured. Compliance with them would be attuned to results in compliance with the objectives and c~iteria for that particular element. However, it would be open for an applicant who did not comply with the performance measures to demonstrate that even so, through good design, the objectives and criteria were still met.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES -· 1 7 \.
VICCODE 2 REVIEW
On the other hand, even where the performance measures were met, it would still be open for a coun.cil or objector to demonstrate that the objectives and criteria were not met.
In all cases it is intended that performance measures should be a solid starting point but not the end of the story, and that they should not be used to either stifle creative design or as an excuse for poor design. I
The term "performance measures" has been· retained as it has gained a currency with use and a better understanding of its implications. To replace it with a term such as "pperformance guidelines" might create confusion with the local guidelines the Panel has recommended.
The Panel also recommends that the planning scheme be amended by deleting the following sentence from Clause 21-2
If one or more performance measures cannot be met, a permit may be granted if the proposed development meets the relevant element objectives and performance criteria of the ·code. ·
. '
PERFORMANCE MEASURES - 1 8 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
DENSITY
.• 5.1 A TTl TUDES TO DENSITY
Density is not presently one of the design elements for which performance measures are set. Nevertheless, VicCode has encouraged the development industry to consider the purchase of medium density housing sites on the basis that buildings can be developed at a density of 1 unit per 200 - 250 square metres of site area.
Although VicCode 2 insists that site influences and good design should determine the form of new medium density housing, the industry is buying land largely on the basis of density yield as it always has, notwithstanding VicCode's aims.
This derives in part from the industry's need for "certainty" in the development process, a need reinforced to the Panel in both written and oral submissions by industry representatives on the basis that yield dictates land price so it is the first question a developer needs answered about a site.
Thus, in a submission by Tract Consultants on behalf of Central Equity Ltd, it was said:
Whilst it is acknowledged that performance objectives and criteria have ~ useful role in guiding and assisting the design process, of fundamental importance is the retention of a density standard or permitted density range. This may vaty between and within municipalities but the certainty it provides in approximating how many dwellings may be achieved on a particular site is immeasurable to the development industty. It may even have benefits to existing neighbours and the local community in that all . participants would be clear on how many dwellings may be achieved on any one site.
Density is one of the issues councils would most like to control, so they may . promote higher densities in certain locations and lower densities in others.
Density is also a major concern. of residents, both as it affects their individual amenity and their perceptions of street$cape and neighbourhood.
• 5.2 PROBLEMS WITH DENSITY
There are excellen.t examples of m'edium density housing constructed at densities .greater than 1:200.
Experience and observation however, are demonstrating that the medium density development sites presenting most problems and causing most negative community.reaction are the standard infill sites in middle and outer suburban locations. These problems are being caused by:
• constraints on diversity of possible design solutions;
• proportionally greater interface with neighbours, particularly their backyards;
DENSITY- 19 VICCO DE 2 REVIEW
• lack of space for landscaping;
• greater impact on the streetscape.
·L~uger sites offer more opportunities for:.
• creative design;
•· appropriate tree planting and landscaping;
• ameliorating adverse effects;
• .more sensitive edge treatment abutting neighbours;
• higher densities and more units;
• better living environment for residents of the proposed development itself and residents of adjoining properties.
· The same development densities however, ar.e being applied on standard lots as they are on larger development sites. Whilst some of the amenity problems caused by unit development on standard lots can ·be overcome.by creative design solutions, experience suggests that such solutions are less likely to result from conventional house and unit builders who are the predominant small scale operators.
The Code offers no incentives to amalgamate sites. This leads to the inefficient use of land where adjoining sites are independently developed duplicating driveways, crossovers etc.
It is not practical or desirable to eliminate development of infill sites altogether as this would adversely affect a large number of small builders and developers and would remove a legitimate housing choice for a particular sector of the market which prefers this type of small scale development in established areas.·
The practical solution would therefore appear to be to tie density to the size of the site. This was a solution suggested by a number of submitters. However, there are a number of factors other than just site size which influence density.
The first is location. In general terms densities are much higher in inner areas than other locations. Densities of 1 :200 or greater can be readily accommodated within the existing urban form and many housing solutions at higher densities are being produced in a form that satisfies the spirit and intent of VicCode 2.
The Code attempts to recognise this by specifying that densities greater than 1:200m may be located within the inner area of Melbourne defined by a 7 km radius from the GPO.
This attempt has attracted widespread criticism because its generality ignores the diversity of density which actually exists within this 7 km radius.
On the other hand, some residents' submissions urged densities as low as 1:SOOm in fringe areas.
DENSITY- 20 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
Other locational factors affecting density are proximity to good public transport, shopping and community facilities where it is generally accepted that higher densities should be encouraged. Again however, the attempts in VicCode to recognise and increase densities above 1:200m in such locations attracted criticism because they ignore existing diversity and neighbourhood quality...... The shape of the site is also a critical factor particularly frontage. The width of a · site will largely influence the layout of a development which in tum will influence the impact it has on adjoining properties. ·
• 5.3 THE SOLUTION
Despite the need and current demand for medium density housing throughout Melbourne's suburbs, many sections of the community are still wary of it. ·This attitude is based on the intrusiveness of many 1960's and 70's blocks of flats and the impact they had on streetscapes, coupled with the proliferation of newer . developments and the impact which many are also having.
It needs to be acknowledged that some housing solutions, despite meeting the performance measures of VicCode, are yielding solutions that are often awkward and poorly resolved in the context of the site and the. locality and ·that these "bottom line" developments often have their most severe effects on small standard infill sites.
It also needs to be acknowledged that density is one of the most critical factors in establishing the particular character of certain areas. Therefore, if it is intended that mechanisms be introduced to protect and encourage the diversity of Melbourne through local variations, it is essential that in appropriate circumstances density is able to be controlled. ·
Density will always remain a yardstick by which developers will assess a site and it is the most basic certainty which they are seeking from VicCode 2.
The Panel has therefore concluded that performance measures relating to density should be· introduced into VicCod,e 2 which will:
• satisfy the need for certainty sought by developers who want to calculate the potential yield of a site without the need to engage in a detailed design exercis.e;
• encourage smaller sites to be consolidated ·to provide greater numbers of units and a more flexible site layout;
• provide residents with a "certainty" bench mark from which they can generally be assured that sufficient on-site flexibility exists to minimise off site impact from "bottom-line" develpoments;
• · assist in reducing the intrusion of building bulk into neighbouring backyards and provide opportunities for landscaping;
• encourage designers and developers to pursue the objectives and performance criteria of VicCode 2 and be rewarded with densities higher than those nominated as the bench mark densities in the Code. ·
DENSITY- 21 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
• 5.4 DENSITY BENCHMARKS 5.4.1 Middle, Outer and Fringe Suburbs
In setting performance measures for increasing density related to size, the Panel has considered several options. The Panel considers that 1:30om2 should be the benchmark density for middle, outer and fringe suburban municipalities. This figure has been chosen to minimise the impact of development taking place on the average small infill site. It would generally mean that most development could be single storey.
It is a response to the situations creating most problems with medium density housing in the community, namely the unimaginative development of standard sized lots in established areas.
Like other performance measures, the density may be exceeded where it can be demonstrated that relevant" objectives and performance criteria can be met.
In setting performance measures for increasing density related to size, the Panel has considered several options.
. The first option is not to specify any alternative densities but to set out general principles that as site size increases above a certain level, higher densities should be permitted provided objectives and performance criteria continue to be met.
However, this would not provide the type of certainty developers are looking for and, without any guide, may create resistance on the part of councils and residents to significantly increasing density, even on suitable large sites, much above the benchmark level. This could well undermine government policy on urban consolidation.
It may also remove the incentive of councils to undertake the work necessary to properly justify appropriate local variations to performance measures, preferring iQstead to rely on the lower density specified in VicCode.
The other option is to provide a graduated range of densities dependent on site size.
For instance, in a study undertaken by Tract Consultants with Swinburne's Centre for Planning and Housing entitled "Medium Density Housing for Activity Centres - The Box Hill Case Study" (1992), it was:
... demonstrated that by amalgamating sites, the number of units that be accommodated on the consolidated titles will increase in greater numbers than a simple arithmetic progression eg. if one (1) lot of 700 square metres can comfortably accommodate three (3) units, two (2) lots can accommodate eight (B) units, rather than just (6). If three (3) lots are consolidated there is a potential yield of siXteen (16) units and not just nine (9) and so on.
In determining an appropriate progession in yield certain principles can be derived by considering the way in which typical infill allotments tend to be developed with medium density housing.
An average lot size in many middle suburbs is 650m2 with a 15m frontage. If . development is permitted at a density of 1:300 the way in which the width of the lot will typically be used is represented by Figure 1.
DENSITY- 22 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
Figure 1
w w 0 ~ I ~ en .. I en zw. z a.. I ~ § ·I o(; Z. I .z i=z I. ~ :5 a.. ., ~
1-3m 10-12m 1-2m SlREET·
It can be seen from this that at a 15m frontage development is "tight" whereas at 17m it is "comfortable".
If two 15m frontage lots are consolidated it can be seen from Figure 2 that sharing a driveway and removing the adjacent boundary planting buffer, additional area is available for development
Figure 2
. ~-- . - ..
z z w w a.. a.. 0 (!) ~w (!) (!) >- (!) (!)W zu z ~ z z z ::J ~ :::i ~Si -~ .J w i= i= w~ .J l-0.. !z(/) > > ZCI) 5 ~ 5 5 ~ 5 a.. ~ c a.. a.. c ~ a.. 1-3m 10~12m · 3-4m 1-2m _J . V/////Y//// ~;3-/v~//A 10-12m 1 1-3m I I .. NOW THIS AREA CAN BE SHARED AS A RESULT OF CONSOLIDATION
The densitY can then readily ir.tcrease to 1:200/1 :250.
DENSITY- 2J VICCODE 2 REVIEW
On .this basis the following benchmarks emerge.
Lot size Frontage Benchmark Density 65om2· or less less than 17m 1:300 65~75om2 17m or more 1:250 750m2 or more 17m or more 1:200
Both lot size and frontage criteria would need to be satisfied. Exceptions could occur where the frontage of the lot is narrow but the bulk of the lot is of sufficient size to allow design flexibility and minimise impact on adjoining properties (see Figure 3). ,
Figure3
. - -
DEVELOPMENT SITE DEVELOPMENT SITE
STREET
-- -· -- -·
The effect of these benchmarks will be to:
• Allow only two dwellings on standard infill sites, thereby minimising impact particularly by "bottom line" type developments.
• Allow the benefit of an increased yield on larger sites with a larger frontage.
• Encourage consolidation of adjoining standard lots to increase yi~ld from 4 to 6 units (650m2 @ 1:300 =2 units: 130oom2 @ 1:200 = 6 units).
It is important to emphasise that although these benchmark densities may be incorporated as performance measures, in common with all perfor·mance measures they may be departed from provided relevant objectives and criteria are met. Thus good creative d~sign can be rewarded by increased yeilds.
Any benchmark densities set as performance measures may be substituted by local variations setting either a greater or lesser density.
It may be appropriate to further increase density as lot sizes continue to increase to . offer greater incentives to develop large sites as opposed to standard infill sites. The Panel considers this to be a desirable objective. However, it considers it preferable that on lots 2000m2 or more, no density be specified but developers rely on compliance with clear objectives and criteria and any local guidelines to determine the most appropriate density for the particular site.
DENSITY- 24 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
·- 5.4.2 Inner Suburbs
The Panel considers that the 1:30om2 benchmark density. is not suitable for application in inner areas. The present figure indicated in VicCOde 2 is less than 1:2oom2. These inner areas have much greater flexibility and capacity to absorb higher densities and the Panel does. not wish to inhibit medium density housing in these locations.
The greatest difficulty is in identifying such locations appropriately. It is generally accepted that the 7km radius is too arbitrary. But adopting some other measurement is equally arbitrary.
Whilst it may be possible to identity general: criteria: for areas where higher densities are appropriate, unless specific areas a:re identifiable from a map this mechanism lacks certainty.
To define a smallert radius, as suggested by some councils, will reduce the a·rea where higher density· development is to be promoted too much and will·undermine a key objective· of VicCode 2.
The m~in reason for opposition to the 7 km radius is that it includes areas which, because of their partici:Jiar character, are inappropriate for higher density development. In some instances councils submit that they are even inappropriate for development at 1:200 or 1:250.
The Panel's conclusion is that since it has recommended a mechanism for the inclusion of local variations into VicCode 2 to cater for such situations, this mechanism should be employed: in setting densities for the areas which are exceptions to the. general· rule that ~ensities: greater than 1::200 will be acceptable.
Although the 7kliT.li radius is arbitrary, it is nevertheless a· lieasonably good guide to locations where l'ligher densities are appropriate and should be encouraged. The Panel therefore recomends retention: of the 7km radius as the best means of indicating where densities higher than 1:200 are generally acceptable and ought to be encouraged on the basis that councils may identify areas within this radius where a local variation to this performance measure should apply .
• 5.5 PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR DENS/tTY
The Panel recommends that a performance measure fbr. demsity be) ihtroduced! iiil: · VicCode 2 as follows: ·
lot size. Frontage Benchmark Density 65om2 or less less than 17m 1:300 65Q-75am2' nm 1:250 750-2'0'0om2 17m or more 1:200.
• Both lot size and frontage criteria must be satisfied. . . • The frontage criteria may be reduced for irregular shaped sites p.rovided the bulk of the site is of sufficient size to allow design flexibilitY and minimise · impact on adjoining land. ·
DENSITY- 25 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
• Developments with densities greater than 1.:200 may be located on sites:
within the inner area of Melbourne defined by a 7km radius from the GPO; or on sites larger than 20oom2.
., !
DENSITY- 26 . VICCODE 2 REVIEW
CHARACTER
• 6.1 NA TURf OF CHARACTER
The Panel found a common acceptance that "streetscape", as the term is used in VicCode 2, is too narrow to adequately encompass the type of character which is valued by the community and which it wants to protect or enhance.
However, there are really two levels of "character" being referred to by people which it is important to distinguish.
On the one hand, as discussed in Chapter 3, character is the interrelationship of various aspects of built form, topography, vegetation, density, subdivision pattern and activity, both in the public and private domain. Streetscape is one aspect of such character. When an identifiable pattern emerges from the interrelationship of these elements, it is possible to describe the character of a particular area and take steps to protect, enhance or change that character.
On the other hand, character is also used to refer to the "feel" of an area - the atmosphere perceived not only from the street but from the backyard. This is a much more amorphous concept, reliant as much on intangible qualities such as "peaceful", "secluded", "quier, "friendly" etc, as on descriptions such as "green and leafy". The feel or character of unremarkable and unpretentious areas is as strongly valued by their residents as the more easily identifiable architectural or environmental character is of other areas.
The first type of character, where an identifiable pattern of component elements can be described, is relatively easy to deal with by means of local variations to performance measure·s and local guidelines. The difficulty arises when residents and councils try to use the same means to protect the more intangible qualities of the second type of character in other areas.
Unless the two are distinguished, there is danger that the currency of the first type of character, as a valid and legitimate basis for introducing local variations to_ performance measures, will be undermined.
Already there are concerns being expressed about the extent to which the AAT is placing reliance on the notion of streetscape to justify rejecting particular styles of architecture.
However, the second type of character cannot be ignored, as it is the erosion of this which is arousing community disquiet about medium density housing. If such housing is to be provided in a way which meets government policy and community needs, it must be acceptable to the community and for this to occur it must be respectful of its context. This does not mean that the community should expect there to be no change. Submissions and the research conducted by Maxine Cooper and Associates indicate that people do not oppose units per se. ·In the main they recognise that a certain rate of change is inevitable if not desirable. They do object to the erosion of the character or feel of their area. This cumulative process is described by the Shire of Eltham:
CHARACTER - 2 7 VICCO DE 2 REVIEW
While each individual development when tested against many of the Code criteria may not reveal any apparent defect the cumulative effect of a number of developments is most damaging. The effect has been that described by Robin Saunders, Chief Executive Assessment Officer, Qepartment of Planning and Development as "destruction by insignificant increment". (North American Study Tour Report, February 1994). It may be that no single development has been disastrous in itself (although a small number is perceived by neighbours to be of that nature) but the cumulative effect of tree removal, mass excavation and site access difficulties is of significant concern.
• 6.2 THE ROLE OF LANDSCAPE IN CHARACTER
The most dominant theme in submissions from individuals about the impact of VicCode 2 was their concern about the loss of trees which unit developments caused. Not only was most vegetation usually removed from a site before development commenced, but no provision was made, nor was there room, for replanting canopied trees.
Most medium density developments, particularly on standard infill sites, borrow their amenitY from neighbouring properties. If these are redeveloped also, the cumulative impact of the loss of trees becomes. obvious and begins to significantly change the "character" of the area as described by the Shire of Eltham.
One of the hallmarks of Melbourne is its gardens and the predominance of trees across the majority of its suburbs. It is the single feature common to most people's perception of the character of their neighbourhood. It is the loss of their softening effect and the privacy they afford which is most keenly felt when adjoining land is developed for units. Even where suitable design measures are employed to prevent overlooking, buildings are still perceived as intrusive without a buffer of vegetation.
Therefore, if change is to occur within the suburbs, it needs to do so in a context which respects and maintains the essential garden character of Melbourne where gardens are a dominant feature of the "character" or "feel~ of a neighbourhood. Several steps need to be taken to achieve this.
Landscape as a design element needs to be strengthened and amalgamated with the streetscape element to become an element dealing with neighbourhood character.
Provision must be made in new development for the retention or planting of trees which will develop a canopy.
This will be easier to achieve on larger sites where communal open spa99 or internal streets offer opportunities without reduction in density. On standard infill sites opportunities are more limited, which is one reason why densities on such sites should be lower and setbacks probably greater.
Each site should make a positive contribution to the amenity of the area as a whole, not just refrain from adversely affecting the amenity of neighbouring properties.
The placement of buildings on a site to maximise room for trees and garden should be encouraged.
CHARACTER - 28 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
• 6.3 MECHANISMS TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE CHARACTER
Three mechanisms are recommended by the Panel to promote the retention or development of area character. ·
• Insert a new design element in VicCode 2 for neighbourhood character to replace the streetscape character and landscaping design elements.
• In appropriate cases, introduce local variations to performance measures.
• Prepare local guidelines to guide development.
It is anticipated that the combination of density performance measures and the neighbourhood character design element will, in themselves, be adequate to address most concerns relating to the second type of character identified by the Panel, namely the "feel" of an area. The preparation of local guidelines and, in appropriate circumstances, local variations to performance measures should be confined to those areas which possess the first type of character identified by the Panel.
. I
I
CHARACTER - 29 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
GOOD DESIGN
• 7.1 QUALITY OF EXISTING MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING
The issues paper identified a widespread concern that, in general, developers had failed to rise to the challenge of VicCode 2 by responding with innovative designs. It would be misleading to suggest that there are no good examples of medium density development, but by and large these have tended to occur in the inner areas or on larger sites where less constraint has been imposed on design by preconceptions about form and where the majority of developments have been designed by architects.
Whilst design by an architect is no guarantee of good design any more than design by a drafting service is a guarantee of poor design, nevertheless many submissions criticised the quality of development prepared by drafting services. Such designs tended to be repetitive, unimaginative and driven by a strict application of the performance measures in VicCode 2.
The Panel acknowledges that such designs are often dictated by the builder or developer and are not necessarily the responsibility of the drafting service. It also acknowledges that the development industry is working within the parameters of housing market demand and the potential to create a profit, generally through maximising the yield on any development site and undertaking the shortest possible construction period.·
The fundamental assumption underlying VicCode 2 however, is that these factors should not excuse poor design. Concepts of choice and affordability need not be equated with poor quality outcomes. A much greater understanding of the opportunities and diversities which medium density housing offers therefore needs to be cultivated in suppliers of housing.
In terms of market, criticisms were made to the Panel that the real needs of various market place sectors were not being met by much of the current medium density housing being provided. For example, in suburbs where there is a demand for smaller houses by older people wishing to remain in their traditional neighbourhood, many design features of available units- two storey, steps between rooms etc- were unsuitable. Such units were still being sold however, because there was nothing else available.
Although there may be grounds for questioning the appropriateness of current supply vis a vis the demand which exists, planning has not traditionally involved itself in attempting to regulate the market. The Panel does not consider it is appropriate for a document like VicCode 2 to attempt to control or guide development to meet certain market needs. Nor is it appropriate to regulate internal · design features which do not relate to externalities such as orientation, over looking, noise intrusion etc. It may be useful to investigate such matters as guidance for developers and to assist strategic planning, but they are inappropriate . inclusions in planning controls.
GOOD DESIGN - 30 VICCODE 2 REVI.EW
In terms of medium density housing form, the Panel agrees with the comment by \IPELA that:
.. . in time, with rigorous and appropriate assessment, coupled with improvements in design, a form of design and development will evolve which is identifiable in character as being of the multi dwelling form. This evolution has not yet commenced and the design of most projects owes · little to the integrated concept of designing multi units and more to the design of individual anp unrelated dwellings.
At present, with the exception of large apartment complexes such as Central Equity, Becton and other inner.area developments, much of the medium density housing being constructed is a mini version of conventional housing. The use of zero lot lines, inherent energy efficient design and other features promoted by VicCode 2 have not been embraced with any degree of sophistication or enthusiasm. Even on ULA estates, the use of such devices by individual builders on adjacent lots in many cases has been awkward, despite the ULA's extensive consumer education program and use of precinct design plans and design review panels.
Part of the reason for this is the inherent conservatism of the development industry. The ULA suggested that the failure of industry to capitalise on the potential of VicCode 2 may be attributable to a range of factors:
1. The housing industry is conservative and wary of new concepts until proven in the market place.
2. The commercial opportunities of VicCode have not yet been promoted.
3. Fresh entrepreneurs have not been targeted.
4. Both designers and regulators are accustomed to the traditional prescriptive approach to design and require practice with a· performance based approach.
5. The housing industry lacks integration. Builders, designers, land developers, financiers, owners and investors each seek to serve their own na"ow interests.
The Shire of Eltham identified the problem as follows.
Builders will provide what they perceive the market to want. Consumers have no better examples on which to make a choice. Design alternatives and their relative merits are not available for examination. The market buys what's available, the building industry provides that which the market buys; there is no incentive for real estate agents to promote anything other than the "safe" products that are perceived to sell, and so the cycle continues.
. Part of the problem also stems from the conservatism of the public. Residents tend to be negative about medium density housing based on the intrusiveness of much flat development in the 1960s and 70s and the present proliferation of "bottom line" examples throughout the middle and outer suburbs. Two storey developments tend to be automatically opposed because of perceptions of overlooking and because it doesn't reflect current housing stock in the area: There is a general tendency to regard higher density as only suitable for inner areas and that outer areas should retain their uniform low density character.
GOOD DESIGN - 31 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
As the Shire of Eltham expressed it:
There will continue to be a difficulty in guaranteeing that the objective of the Code in promoting good design (despite the Minister's recent re-affirmation of this essential objective) if the designers, assessors, decision makers, developers, marketing bodies, consumers and the general community have no common view of what constitutes good design. • 7.2 PROMOTING GOOD DESIGN
An assumption which appears to underlie VicCode 2 is that the people designing and assessing applications are skilled in issues of urban design or will get these skills from reading and applying the. document. Neither is necessarily correct.
The Panel agrees with the VPELA submission that there are two aspects to the issue of design: Th~y are design and design assessment.
Improving and promoting good design will largely be a matter of education and ensuring that appropriate expertise is used at the right stage of the development process. • 7.3 EDUCATION
7.3.1 The Community
The Panel considers that the Department of Planning and Development and the Government as a whole need to actively promote why changes are necessary to residential urban form; how they can be best achieved through good design and . what constitutes good design.
The Panel supports the comments of the City of Port Phillip which said:
... there needs to be a better understanding encouraged in the community that Councils and Governments are trying to achieve a balance between implementing urban consolidation objectives and maintaining the level of existing residents' amenity. There needs to be an extensive educational/media campaign on the need for implementing urban consolidation policies; one which dramatically highlights the increasing costs to the community of continual suburbanisation and declining population in the inner and middle suburbs. Furthermore, the public needs to gain an understanding of what actually constitutes a loss of amenity, e.g. unfair overshadowing, overlooking, excessive loss of daylight, etc. rather than just accepting that a unit development next door constitutes a loss of amenity. ·
The public needs to be exposed to good examples of medium density development. This can be achieved through promotion in the media and encouraging good design awards.
Public education is also needed to overcome prejudice to multi-storey development. Provided that adverse effects of overlooking and building bulk do not cause unreasonable loss of amenity, two-storey developments can overcome problems of excessive site coverage and loss of opportunities for landscaping.
GOOD DESIGN - 32 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
Arranging two-storey buildings widthways across infill sites (akin to terrace or row houses) rather than lengthwise, flanked by a gun barrel drive, can result in far less ·intrusion into the "backyardscape" of adjoining properties and leave more room for tree planting.
It should also be recognised that there are certain locations along main roads and on large sites where multi-storey development is not only acceptable but should be encouraged. If higher densities and increased population are desired, advantage needs to be taken of such sites, particularly if there is to be a trade-off in terms of lower densities on small infill sites generally and protection of areas of special character.
7.3.2 Consumers
Educating consumers requires the Department of Planning and Development and other agencies such as the City of Melbourne, with its Postcode 3000 program, to identify questions consumers should be asking before purchasing a medium . density dwelling.
As inadequacies in supply of medium density housing are overcome and choice becomes greater, there is evidence via media reports that consumers are becoming more discriminating, demanding better quality and better design solutions.
At all times it is vital for both consumers and developers that they have well promoted access to a range of good. innovative, medium density developments suited to their locations. This applies as much to fringe and outer suburbs as to the middle and inner areas.
Despite the ULA's extensive consumer education program and the sales success of its smaller "smart blocks", the Panel was disappointed in the lack of imagination some builders had displayed in the design and detailing of new houses it saw at Blackburn and Timbarra.
The Panel believes there is potential for the ULA to utilise its expertise and resources in developing and promoting a series of medium density demonstration houses in a variety of locations. It is only if excellent, affordable examples are available for inspection that many consumers will be able to make informed choices about new concepts and developers can be persuaded of the commercial opportunities of VicCode 2. · ·
The Panel believes this is particularly important in fringe areas where, as indicated in Chapter 3, it considers medium density housing will play a vital role in the provision of affordable housing and slowing growth.
The Panel also believes that if there are enough examples of well-designed medium density housing on the ground, over time, this will generate a greater demand for this type of housing and a greater public acceptance of it, thereby further facilitating the urban consolidation process.
7.3~3 Development Industry
Education of the development industry, particularly small builders, will also be ·· aided by the availability of well-designed demonstration houses.
GOOD DESIGN - 33 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
The continued provision of training courses for developers and designers was advocated by many and is supported by the Panel. However, it Qelieves that the content, provision and targeting of recipients should be reviewed by the Department of Planning and Development. For instance, it may be more appropriate for bodies, other than the Department to actually provide the training.
The Panel believes that involvement of developers in a pre-application process will also help educate them in applying the concepts and principles of good design embodied in VicCode 2 (see Chapter 8).
Several suggestions were made that some form of accreditatio·n·process for accepted VicCode 2 designers be implemented. The Panel has rejected such an approach for several reasons:
• Designers are subject to instruction by their client. No matter how skilled a designer, the outcome may still be governed by a client's requirements, which may not accord with Vic Code 2.
• The whole principle of VicCode 2 is that applications should be assessed against objectives and criteria to determine their acceptability. This principle would be undermined by developing a system of accredited designers where the way an application was dealt with would depend on who designed it, rather than its merits.
• Development of a satisfactory system of accreditation is likely to be time consuming and bureaucratic.
• It would become elitist.
The Panel believes a preferable approach would be to accredit the application procesS (see Chapter 8) rather than designers. 7 .3.4 Assessors
When it comes to. assessing VicCode 2 applications, many planners lack good urban design skills. In fact, there are relatively few people around with well developed skills in this field as the education of both planners and architects tends to result in a gap where urban design is concerned, rather than any overlap shared by the professions.
In the long term the Panel recommends that the initial education of planners be refocussed to provide them with good urban design skills in addition to physical planning skills.
In the more immediate term however, short courses should be developed to equip · planners and other professionals with appropriate urban design skills .
. To assist planners in assessing VicCode applications, councils as a body will be required to be proactive in articulating their vision for their municipality and ensuring that their staff embrace and implement this vision in their dealings with developers and the public.
GOOD DESIGN - 34 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
7.3.5 Councils
To properly implement the mechanisms recommended by the Panel for introducing local variations to performance measures and local guidelines, councils will need to develop character area studies and their own vision of how they want their municipalities to develop.
Rather than devoting resource~ to developing model sets of guidelines or the like, the Panel recommends that the Department investigate means of providing councils qn an individual or small collective basis with more proactive and visionary advice about how to create satisfying urban environments and manage change in their residential precincts in a way which suits their particular requirements. • 7.4 ACCESS TO APPROPRIATE EXPERTISE
To bridge the current gap in urban design skills experienced by many council planners, there is a common consensus that councils should have access to independent design advice.
The general concept was that councils would nominate a pool of external design advisors· who could be employed on a sessional fee paying basis to provide advice on the design and consideration of medium density application's. The involvement of such an advisor in the pre-application process (see Chapter 8) would be essential.
Employing such advisors on a sessional basis was seen as being more cost . effective than employing someone as a council officer. The Panel considers that the cost should be borne by the council as par1 of its assessment costs, rather than being passed on to the applicant. The ability to draw from a pool of people avoids any one person or point of view becoming too dominant or autocratic. Whilst employed by the council, an outside design advisor would bring a degree of independence to any negotiations between council, the applicant and residents in the pre-application process. Such an advisor is seen as a facilitator more than a critic in this process - someone whose role is to draw out how the design responds to the elements of VicCode 2 and to assist in achieving its objectives and meeting its criteria.
Rather than individual councils nominating their own pool of advis.ors, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA) offered to set up an advisory panel of experts to operate in this capacity.
Whilst the RAIA and VPELA saw advisors as only having a role in larger projects, the Panel considers it is best left to individual councils as to how they utilise any outside design advice. On occasions, standard infill sites can be very sensitive, although it may _be unnecessary for advisors to be used for every application.
The Panel recommends ttiat councils adopt the principle of nominating a pool of external design advisors and utilising them to assist in the evaluation of proposals, preferably as part of a pre-application process. ·
The Panel recommends the Department liaise with the RAIA to establish an advisory panel which can be utilised by tliose councils not wishing to establish their own pool of nominated advisors.
In addition, the Panel also recommends that the Department communicate with restructured councils about the need for in-house access to urban design skills which should be considered when staff restructures occur.
GOOD DESIGN - 35 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
• 7.5 SITE ANALYSIS
Site layout is Element 1 of VicCode 2. Although it contemplates the provision of a detailed site analysis with each application, this was not occurring on a regular basis until the introduction of Amendment R123 which coincided with the release of the Panel's issues paper. As a consequence Clauses 20A-2 and 21-2 now provide:
Before deciding an application, .a detailed site analysis as described on page 8 of the Code and the information described as Application guidelines on pages 51-523 of the Code must be submitted to the satisfaction of the · responsible authority. The effect of this paragraph will expire on 31 January 1995.
· The introduction of Amendment R123 has been universally welcomed and its continued application supported.
The purpose of a site analysis is to explain graphically the key influences on a design, thus allowing an informed debate between those parties who have a legitimate interest in the design process, namely:
• the applicant; • neighbours; • the council.
It is not a document where unimportant detail should override the key reason for requiring it, which is to explain the relationship of proposed dwellings with each other and with.the environment.
The Panel therefore considers that not all of the information presently required by VicCode 2 is essential in all cases. On the other hand, it considers that a statement should be required explaining how the design has responded to the site analysis.
Preparation of a site analysis will be an essential first step in the pre-application process described in Chapter 8. ·
The Panel therefore recommends that:
• The planning scheme should require a site analysis to be submitted to the satisfaction of the responsible authority with every application.
• The requirements for a site analysis in Vic Code 2 should be modified.
• A written statement explaining how the design has responded to the site analysis should form part of the material required to be submitted.
GOOD DESIGN - 36 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
. - • 7.6 ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND DEVELOPMENT FORM
The conservatism of the development industry emerges not only in the form of , housing being built but the mock historic styles being widely adopted. Nevertheless, whilst clearly the market place will have a significant influence on architectural style, influencing style from a planning point of view will only be appropriate where local guidelines indicate there is an identifiable character to an area which should be respected, Even then, the style of new developments should be encouraged to be respectful of any identified architectural character rather than copy it.
The Panel has emphasised in Chapter 6 that the character of an area is not normally confined to existing architecture. Thus, in areas of mixed development, whilst all the elements of mass, proportion, detailing, etc. will be relevant in assessing the relationship between a new development and its surrounds, care should be taken not to constrain architectural style or inhibit the evolution of appropriate medium density housing forms.
The Panel has already commented on the opportunities presented by two storey buildings providing their adverse effects are addressed. Whilst two storey developments currently present significant concerns to many residents, this is because many of them are poorly designed or sited. Two storeys or more should not be seen as an inherently inappropriate form of development for M~lbourne's suburbs.
Similarly, forms of development such as row and terrace houses arranged widthways across a block offer opportunities for maximising open space at the rear and for the open space of adjoining dwellings to abut, thus cumulatively creating larger areas without buildings and providing greater visual buffers for adjoining · properties. ·
It should also be recognised that the form and style of buildings are constantly evolving in response to new building techniques and materials, fashion and changing needs. Providing the essential valued qualities of an area are not compromised, new developments should be encouraged which incorporate both new form and style.
GOOD DESIGN - 37 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
PROCESS
• 8.1 NEED FOR AN EFFECTIVE PROCESS
As the Panel noted in its issues paper, VicCode 2 was introduced to facilitate an. increase in densities, achieve a wider spread of medium density housing and increase production by offering greater incentives to developers to build more of this product. .Its introduction was also intended to make the process of assessment of medium density developments, through the use of performance measures, more certain and less time consuming.
This has not necessarily been the result. Where performance measures have been used as a prescriptive tool by developers, councils and, initially, by the AAT, residents have been left feeling dissatisfied and powerless. Their frustrations have · been expressed politically and through the media, resulting in a backlash of public opinion to medium density developments.
By and large, however, the Panel has found that in situations where there has been meaningful consultation between developers and residents, and where each has acknowledged the other's reasonable expectations, there has been less overali delay than where developers have taken an uncompromising initial stance and finished up at appeal.
Because medium density development represents a different form of housing to the suburban norm, because it is generally being inserted into a pre-existing urban fabric and because its nature is such that buffers between activities and impacts are being reduced, much greater care is required to ensure an acceptable long term outcome is achieved than with more conventional housing or where greater distances can buffer impacts.
The Panel therefore considers it essential to acknowledge that if acceptable long term outcomes are to be achieved with medium density housing, care rather than speed in processing applications will produce the best results, although such an approach should not be used as an excuse for inefficiencies or delay.
The process should not seek to exclude residents who have a legitimate interest in the outcome of the application. However, people need to be educated in what constitutes a "legitimate interesr at the application stage. They need to be encouraged to participate at earlier, more appropriate stages, when other interests are being considered, such as establishing local variations to performance measures or preparing local guidelines.
The Panel believes that time is better spent in consultation and development of an application when the design is not yet fixed, than in statutory formalities and · negotiations from fixed positions once an application has been lodged .
. PROCESS - 38 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
• 8.2: NATURE OF-PROCESS
The Panel outlined in the issues paper the type of process developed by the City of Heidelberg to handle medium density applicat!ons which includes the following stages:
1. Pre-application enquiries. 2. Proactive housing strategy. 3. Quality design advice. 4. Design workshops. 5. Mediation.
There is wide support for a pre-application process. Whilst this may increase the time taken to prepare an application, the time then taken to process it is likely to be significantly reduced. The additional time and effort put into the pre-application stage is also likely to result in the granting of a permit for a higher quality development in terms of building design and layout._
Participation in the process should precede lodgement of the application. It should involve consultation with residents, including a site visit, and should lead to the production of a design which Council is satisfied with in terms of meeting its - requirements and which satisfies reasonable resident concerns.
Consultation between residents and applicant should be facilitated by the council and involve someone with urban design skills.
In return for a developer participating in the process, the Council should undertake to fast-track the approval process once the application is lodged, including issuing the permit by delegation. ·
Whilst the City of Heidelberg process offers one model, councils need to develop processes which are appropriate to their own circumstances. The Department of Planning and Development should assist councils in developing such processes.
Ideally an incentive should be offered to applicants to participate in- the pre application process and means should be investigated to achieve this.
The Panel therefore recommends that the Department of Planning and Development assist councils to develop effectives processes for handling medium density development applications which involve the following elements:
• . Discussions between council and applicant based on site analysis before application plans are prepared.
• Consultation between applicant and affected neighbours/residents, facilitated by council before app-lication is lodged, preferably involving an on-site meeting.
• Skilled urban design assessment and input from council.
• Development of application plans which respond to:
_site analysis; · legitimate neighbour/resident concerns; local guidelines. ·
• Lodgement of application.
PROCESS- 39 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
• Fast-track handling of application by oouncit
• Permit dealt with by delegation.
· The Panel also recommends that the Department consider mechanisms to provide incentives to developers to participate meaningfully in such a pre-application process.
PROCESS- 40 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
CODE ALTERATION
• · 9.1 WHY ATTEMPT TO REDRAFT THE CODE?
A common criticism of VicCode 2 is that it is verbose, confusing and contradictory. It is unclear what weight should be given to the notes and diagrams, compared to the objectives, criteria and performance measures. In general terms it is not considered to be user-friendly.
A study of VicCode 2 reveals that its authors wanted to make the community change its thinking about urban living space, the way we occupy it and the things we consume as a result. ·
They wanted to encourage the public to see medium density residential development as more than simply an. alternative form of housing, neither better nor worse than detached alternatives.
They wanted the community to see medium density housing as an agent for domestic and transport energy conservation. They hoped to motivate the construction industry towards intelligent and aesthetically pleasing design, and sensitivity to the location a I context of the development. They wanted to foster awareness of the social impacts of different forms of development and to create a new concern for aesthetics in domestic architecture.
In creating such a huge agenda for one document, it was inevitable that some difficulties would arise. This is not to say that a policy document should not be self contained. The problem is that VicCode 2 is only one part of the information available to help the developer and others, yet ittries to carry everything - philosophy, demographic rationale, objectives, principles and means to the various ends, within its covers.
Given what it set out to achieve it is hardly surprising that many of the people who use it, planning professionals, builders, draftsmen and the general public included, find the concepts it embodies difficult or debatable, and its content too much to assimilate.
In response, they reduce it to a digest which reflects their own interest or bias. The sense of the whole, which is undoubtedly valuable, albeit ambitious, is then lost.
Many submitters and others with whom the Panel has consulted have recognised this and stated that greater education and professional support should be available from the Department of Planning and Development and perhaps others so that VicCode 2 can be properly interpreted and used.
The Panel supports this. In addition it recommends that the Code should be totally redrafted in a format which is both educative, objective, clear and simple to use. In doing so, the following general principles should be followed.
CODE ALTERATION - 41 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
• 9.2 FORMAT OF REDRAFTED CODE
· 9.2.1 Leaflet and Notes
. ' An overview leaflet can be produced, if it is considered useful or desirable, to contain whatever brief rationale for the policy is needed, state the objectives and explain the history ·of VicCode 2 as far as is necessarY to clarify the status of the new edition. This material should therefore be omitted from the Code.
It would be helpful if the leaflet or one of the supporting note sheets contained a flowchart of the process so that applicants and others, particularly those more comfortable with diagrams than large amounts of text, can see at a glance all of the participants in the system, the steps involved and the overall process from the initial idea to final permission.
A leaflet could also contain a list of contacts for further help or information.
Notes on design, application guidelines, local guidelines and any other additional material could go into a sleeve or separate section (not an Appendix) at the back of the Code to distinguish it unequiv
The inclusion of essential summary and guidance leaflets will free the Code to contain policy and r:tothing more. ·
9.2.2 The Code
A loose-leaf format would be useful to give councils the opportunity to insert any local variations to performance measures, or reference diagrams .into the Code so it can function as a complete compendium of information.
The Code itself should be self-explanatory, and contain brief sections dealing with:
• Use of this Code
• What the Code covers
• Local variations
• Local guidelines
• Statement of purpose
Apart from this it should contain no editorial, justificatory or explanatory material. ·
The Code should contain design elements in an order which moves logically from broad strategy to matters of design detail as follows.
1. A strategic section dealing with issues having broad implications:
Density Energy efficiency Infrastructure
CODE ALTERATION-- 42 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
2. A neighbourhood section dealing with effects in the general and immediate area:
Neighbourhood character Site layout - Building envelope Visual and acoustic privacy Car parking and vehicle access.
3. An on-site section dealing with detailed design within the development:
Open space Site facilities Dwelling entry and interior
This structure reflects the hierarchy of concerns from community-wide to matters of fine detail which will probably affect only the occupier. An intending developer can make sure that the proposal passes each test in turn before progressing to the next level of detail.
Each section should be laid out such that objectives and actions are clearly related, preferably within a two-page spread for each topic area. The use of graphic devices such as boxes and colour coding can help make it easier to read. Any illustrations or photographs included in the text should be carefully selected to indicate a principle rather than invite imitation.
• 9.3 CHANGES TO CODE CONTENT" 9.3.1 General
The Code should delete editorial and introductory material. Any concepts expressed in these parts not previously carried over into objectives, criteria or measures should be inserted. The Code should divide the content on the basis of intention and implementation ;___what is wanted and how to achieve it.
The Code should attempt to deal with topic areas more succinctly, in part by condensing material repeated in the introduction and other sections in the original. Diagrams should be removed and opinionated material deleted, as ·should words and statements whose meaning is unclear or which add nothing to the sense. It is not necessary to repeat material in more than one section.
It should remove planner's jargon and express requirements and techniques in direct terms where possible.
The intention of any redraft of VicCode 2 should be to produce a document which can be read and understood by all. ·
In revising the Code, the Panel recommends modifications to the content in a number of ways to reflect its general findings and specific matters raised in submissions. General changes should be made throughout with the intention of emphasising matters of principle such as the need to preserve and replace mature trees, to enable on site retention and surface infiltration of stormwater, and to consider neighbours.and neighbourhood values: These are changes of emphasis· only. The Panel also recommends a number of specific changes which incorporate wordings to reflect its key findings, or in response to specific matters raised in submissions. .- ·
CODE ALTERATION- 43 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
9.3.2 Specific. Changes to the Code
Many submissions raised specific concerns about wording within the Code and problems with specific performance measures.
Some of these concerns have been dealt with by the Panel·in its recommendations about the major issues it has dealt with elsewhere in this report. · ·
In dealing with specific changes, with the exception of the criteria for imposing .different standards for car parking and open space, the Panel has not · recommended any changes to performance measures as this would require a greater technical assessment than the Panel has had time. to. undertake.
The Panel has recommended that some specific matters. be ftJrther investigated' blllt: it also makes a general recommendation that alll peliformance; measures be · reviewed to ensure that the measures will achieve theiir objectives in the light of . practical experience and are readable in line with "Plain English" criteria.
Where specific performance measures are considered unsuitable for specific areas, and this unsuitabilitY' can be justified, the capacity to introduce local variations should be used' to substitute alternative performance measures.
·The following deal onl.y· with specific submissions not covered elsewhere.·
Energy Efficiency (from E5)
This section should be modified to make explicit the intention that energy efficiency is an important design consideratio11. rather than specifying the use of one or other form of energy based on a belief that it may be the economical option. Specifying the end purpose means the clauses will stay valid although relative efficiencies may change as technology improves.
Outdoor clothes drying should be provided where practical!.
Infrastructure (from E12)
Many residents and individual submitters raised concerns about councils' inability · to control the cumulative effects of medium density development on inadequate drainage systems and other infrastructure such as local streets and community facilities.
The Panel's view is that, althot:~gh these· matters are important, they are dealt with as best as possible in the Code as present framed. They may be dealt with more specifically through other means or they may be justification for local guidelines or local variations to performance measures.
Building Envelope (from E4)
Various submissions were madesuggesting chances to'perlormance measures about street setbacks, buildings on boundaries, site coverage, height and: setbac~s ..
The Panel has not recommended any changes on t~e basis that this is best done by means of a local variation if ·appropriate.
The 7km radius has been retained as a criterion for differentiation because it has been maintained for a similar purpose in setting performance measures for density.
CODE AlTERATION - 44 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
· With respect to sunlight, criticism was made of the Code's use of the September equinox as the criterion on which maximum over shadowing was based, rather than the winter solstice. The lack of a performance measure to protect overshadowing of main living rooms of adjacent dwellings was also criticised.
In the Panel's opinion winter sunlight is more valued where it penetrates indoor living areas than private open space, compared with the equinox when outdoor open space is likely to be used and sunlight is then appreciated. The penetration of winter sunlight to living rooms also relates to energy efficiency. - J • . The Panel recommends at this stage retention of the use of the September equinox. Further research should be undertaken into developing a performance measure to protect access to winter sun to the main living rooms of adjoining dwellings.
Site Layout (from E1)
A submission was received from the Access and Mobility Committee of ACROD, acting on behalf of organisations in the disability field, which recommended a series of changes to introduce an emphasis of ease of access for the disabled into the Code. The Panel concurs with thes'e suggestions, and changes should be made to the Code to reflect these.
Visual and Acoustic Privacy (from E9)
Some submitters wanted acoustic materials and treatments spelt out to increase the likelihood that standards would be met. As with dwelling interiors and layout, the question arises as to how far the Code should venture into this sort of detail. If it is decided that standards, whether detailed or indicative, are to be written in to the Code, they should be identical with, or refer directly to identifiable standards to avoid conflict and confusion. No changes are recommended at this stage.
Diagrams in this section should be omitted. The Panel agrees with. submitters that the graphics in the Code lead to confusion about what is policy and what are illustrations. Diagrams and their captions should be clear and unambiguous and should be used only where there is real benefit in communicating an idea or concept, not simply to reproduce content in a different way. They can occur in the text to help readability or, if highly technical, in a separate section containing notes for guidance as distinct from policy.
Submissions about the techniques set out in performance measures for visual privacy pointed to the need for good design in preference to screening, and the Panel agrees with this principle. Some queried the effectiveness of angles suggested to prevent overlooking. The Panel takes up the general point that PM1 should address overlooking into rooms of adjoining buildings and not simply private open space and the need for privacy in adjoining dwellings within a development, but it has not carried out any detailed analysis of the effectiveness of the measures in this section. This should be part of the general review of performance measures recommended by the Panel to verify that technically they will achieve their objectives.
·. CODE AlTERATION - 45 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
Carparklng and Vehicle Access (from ES)
The Panel received· a detailed submission from VicRoads which included proposed new wordings for criteria and measures in this section, which deal with issues of reversing in and out of sites on arterial roads, parking restrictions on arterial roads, inclusion of Roads Corporation requirements for driveways and access points, reduce the need to consult with the corporation in routine cases and rewording to avoid misinterpretation of the standard for noise incorporated in PMB. These changes should be incorporated into the· Code.
There was considerable criticism of the provisions indicating that it is acceptable for visitors and residents to park on the street. On-street parking and associated problems of access to neighbouring houses and general congestion was widely reported by residents and councils as a major problem associated with the gradual increase in numbers of multi-unit developments in established residential areas.
The requirement to provide a minimum of one visitor space on-site per 5 units is not considered unduly onerous, including sites which are designed for single or elderly persons. In these cases, as stated by submitters, there is still a need for vehicles belonging to medical personnel, taxis, relatives and others to be able to park on-site and convenient to each dwelling unit.
Disputes over the use of visitor spaces, referred to in the Code, are a site management or site design and layout issue, not a planning p·roblem.
References to the 7km radius and to proximity to public transport in relation to carparking have been omitted. As submitters rightly pointed out, linking carparking ratios to distance from the G.P.O. or to public transport provision does not reflect residents' present needs or habits, and is unlikely to change behaviour or achieve benefits in efficiency.
The importance of the influence of paved areas within any site on on-site retention or infiltration of storm water is reflected in detailed provisions of the Code but the Panel agrees with submitters that this is a topic which should be emphasised and a new criterion reflecting this should be inserted into this section. ·
Submitters and councils have criticised the minimal design standards applied to driveways and turning areas within medium density sites. The standards iri the performance measures for this topic have not been recommended to be re-written at this stage, but could be expected to be modified by councils drawing on recognised traffic engineering principles and the practical experience of problems arising in developments in the local area. Further research should be done on this.
Open Space (from E7)
The Panel concurs with the view of many submitters that there is no logical link between distance from the G.P.O or public transport services and private open space requirements and recommends such references be omitted from the Code.
Some submitters like Booroondara, queried the validity of setting a minimum · amount of 40m2 of private open space without reference to dwelling type, number of bedrooms and so on. The Panel agrees that criteria should include reference to likely users.
On the other hand, Central Equity suggested that balcony width dimensions of 1.6m could be overly prescriptive and it should be possible to trade-off private open space ~gainst the provision of attractive a.nd useable communal open space.
CODE AlTERA liON - 46 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
The experience of Central Equity suggests that well designed communal operi space can be a significant benefit to the liveability of particular medium density developments. The Panel recommends that the criteria for communal open space be expressed more positively and the possibility of trade-offs with private open space be acknowledged.
No other changes to the details of open space are recommended as this should be picked up by local variations if appropriate. ·
Site Facilities (from E11)
A variety of topics arose in submissions which directly affected quality of life and livability of smaller dwellings.
Storage, space, both internal and external, was noted as inadequate in many peoples' view, particularly in smaller units. Few dwellings had any garden storage. Garage space was limited and indeed often seemed to have been built to minimum dimensions.
The Panel saw many examples in the course of its inspections where garages were being used for storage leaving·cars permanently on the street.
Experience from elsewhere suggests that in apartments with inadequate storage, balConies are often used for this purpose, becoming unsightly and incapable of recreational use. As bikes become more popular their storage and security becomes an increasing problem.
A clear message from many end users was that the storage space provided in many medium density dwellings is inadequate. •
Without the benefit of further research the Panel is reluctant to recommend an alternative standard to that mentioned in the Code. Instead, it recommends that this matter be studied in greater detail and the Code be modified to refer to the need for adequate accessible and secure storage.
Some submitters were concerned that porous paving materials became unstable after a while if not properly seated, and were dangerous for older people. Open air clothes drying was considered essential, and proper provision for accessible meters and rubbish bins to the front of developments, designed and sited to reduce unsightly clutter, was noted as a concern.
Mr G Cutts made a detailed submission on a number of matters but drew particular attention to the common problems of mail security and large volumes of litt~r from poorly designed mail boxes, particularly the small cast-aluminium framed variety often used in multi unit developments.
The performance criteria should be modified to draw attention to these points.
Dwelling-Entry and Interior (from E6)
Some submitters felt that the Code should contain detailed specification of matters such as window construction widths of passageways so that furniture could be .. moved and so on. It is debateable how much of the material under this heading is properly dealt with in a planning document, rather than through regulations or other standards. There is a view, however, that such matters should be included in the Code so that they are' made explicit at this stage of the development and approval process, if nowhere else.
CODE ALTERATION- 47 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
The Panel acknowledges councils' concerns about poorly designed and constructed developments. It is not convin.ced that a Code chiefly focussed on the planning issues of extern.al amenity and off-site impact is the appropriate or indeed · the best place to set out detailed requirements governing construction standards or materials and internal layout. Such matters do need to be addressed, whether through building control of some form of guideline, in the interests of future resic;jents'.living conditions. Councils and the industry should not simply rely on what the market appears to indicate are acceptable minimum standards.
However, at this stage, the Panel has not recommended any changes to this part · of the Code. · 9.3.3 Recommendations Abou_t Specific Changes
The Panel recommends that:
• _The Introduction to the Code should contain clarification about the role of objectives, criteria and performance measures and the need to comply with the Code as an integrated policy document.
• The Introduction should contain sections on local variations to performance measures and on local guidelines which outline how these would be introduced and i~plemented.
• The Code should contain a formal statement of purpose which embodies the main policy concepts underlying the Code:
• Energy efficiency criteria should not refer to specific energy sources, but express the objective of selecting appliances and designing units which are energy efficient and state that outdoor drYing facilities should be provided.
• A comprehensive review of the performance measures relating to sunlight should be undertaken with a view to establishing appropriate criteria and performance measures to protect access by winter sun to the main living rooms of adjoining dwellings.
• Sections on site layout, carparking and access, dwelling entry and interior should include clauses which refer to the need for design to consider the needs of people who are disabled.
• Sections on carparking and vehicle access should be modified to address the points set out in VicRoads submission about avoiding reversing movements on arterial roads, parking restrictions on arterial roads, avoiding the need for consultation with the Roads Corporation in all routine developments and removing ambiguity in the interpretation of noise standards.
• Clauses in "carparking and vehicle access" which encourage on-street parking should be deleted in favour of the· provision of a minimum level of on-site spaces to prevent local traffic congestion and loss of amenity.
• References to· the 7km radius and proximity to public transport in relation to · carparking and to the standards for the provision of public open space should be deleted.
CODE ALTERA liON - 48 v-'\"\:·;·~~v;-,i;'
. \~ .•
VICCODE-2 REVIEW
• The criteria relating~to communal open space should be expressed more positively and the possibility Of trade-offs with private OPen space Should be acknowledged.
• Site facilities requirements should emphasis the provision of adequate, accessible and secure dedicated storage areas to each dwelling unit and the need for adequate mail boxes to protect mail security and reduce litter.
The Panel has not undertaken a detailed review of performance measures because of the level of technical expertise required. However, in the light of criticisms expressed by users this should be undertakento verify that they achieve their objectives. The Panel also recommends:
• a technical reappraisal of performance measures to ensure that they achieve policy aims and objectives and are readily understood;
• a review of diagrams and other" illustratory material to ensure that they further policy aims and facilitate use of the Code;
• the compilation of essential "Notes" to accompany the Code.
• The requir~ments for site analysis should be incorporated into a consolidated and revised set of Application Guidelines.
CODE ALTERATION- 49 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
STATUTORY CONTEXT
• 10.1 RELATIONSHIP OF VICCODES 1 AND 2 WITH BUILDING ACT 1993 AND BUILDING REGULATIONS 1994
As well has having an application under planning schemes, VicCodes 1 and 2 have also been adopted and given an effect for certain purposes under the Building Regulations 1994.
• 10.2 VICCODE 1 AND SINGLE DWELLINGS
Division 3 of Part 4 of the Building Regulations deals with siting requirements of single Class 1 buildings and associated Class 10 buildings. ·
A Class 1 building has the same meaning as in the Building Code of Australia 1990 and, so far as relevant for these purposes, includes:
• a detached house; or
• a row house, terrace house, town house or villa unit, which is not located above or below another dwelling or another Class of building other than a private garage. -
Regulation 4.3 provides that:
4;3 Subject to section 11 of the Act this Division applies to a single Class 1 building and associated Class 10 buildings not forming part of an integrated de~elopment.
Regulation 4.4 provides as follows:
4.4 .Sitingrequirements- VicCode 1
(1) Subject to this regulation, Class 1 buildings and associated . Class 10 buildings must comply with the following VicCode 1 provisions -
Element 2 Building siting and design - Performance Measur:f]s . 1-12; and
Element 3 Private open space- Performance Measure 1; and
Element 4 Vehicle parking - Performance Measures 1 and 2.
(2) The consent and report of the relevant council must be obtained to an application for a building permit in relation to a design which does not comply with sub-regulation (1 ). ·
STATUTORY CONTEXT- 50 r------~"
VICCODE 2 REVIEW
(3) The relevant council may give its consent under sub-regulation (2), if the design meets the appropriate Performance Criteria and Objectives set out in VicCode 1 for the Elements listed in sub-regulation (1 ) .
. In the Residential C zone, wtiich is the main zone covering.the established residential areas of metropolitan Melbourne, detached house is a Section 1, as-of right, use. There are therefore no planning controls over this use. The siting and design of buildings, provision of open space and car parking is governed solely by the Building Regulations which incorporate the VicCode 1 provisions referred to above.
On the other hand, an attached house is a Section 2, permit required, use. Attached houses may occur as either a single house on a single lot, as a dual oci::upancy or as part of a multi-dwelling development of 3 or more dwellings on a site.
If it is either of the latter, under Clause 21-1 of metropolitan planning schemes, VicCode 2 must be considered before granting a planning permit.
If an attached house forms part of an integrated development then the performance measures in VicCode 2 spelt out in Regulation 4.6 of the Building Regulations will apply in granting a building permit.
However, if an attached house is a single house on a single lot, because attached house is a Class 1 building, Regulation 4.4 referring to the performance measures in VicCode 1 would apJ?IY• in granting a building permit. Thus different performance measures could apply in the granting of a building permit for an attached house depending on whether subdivision has occurred prior or subsequent to the development taking place. This distinction may become increasingly relevant if attached houses (in the form of row or terrace houses) become a popular form of medium density housing, either to avoid the need for body corporates or to improve the design layout.
Section 24(1 )(c) of the Building Act requires that the relevant building surveyor must not issue a building permit unless satisfied that any relevant planning permit or other prescribed approval has been obtained or is to be granted concurrently with the building permit.
The difficulty which arises is when a planning permit condition requires a different standard to the relevant performance measure set out in the Building Regulations. This situation is discussed below in 10.4. • 10.3 VIC CODE 2 AND MULTIPLE DWELLINGS
Pursuant to Regulation 4.5, Division 4 of Part 4 of the Building Regulations deals with Class 1 and 2 buildings and associated Class 10 buildings forming part of an · integrated development.
A Class 2 building, pursuant to the Building Code of Australia, is a building containing·2 or more sole-occupancy units each being a separate dwelling, excluding buildings of Class 1.
STATUTORY CONTEXT --51 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
It appears that VicCode 1 is intended to apply to single dwellings and VicCode 2 is intended to apply to multiple dwellings. However, this intention is confused by the use of the term "integrated developmenr, by tl:le fact that the concept of integrated development discussed in both VicCodes 1 and 2 is somewhat different to the way in which the term is actually defined, and by the fact that the concept as discussed in the Codes has not been fully translated into the planning scheme.
Pursuant to Regulation 4.1 an "integrated developmenr h_as the same meaning as it has in VicCode 2. · According to the Glossary of VicCode 2:
Integrated development means the subdivision and development of lots for dwellings for which development approval is given for subdivision in conjunction with the siting and design of buildings, services and landscaping, and where necessary the construction of streets.
The difficulty immediately apparent with this definition is that it only applies where approval is given for both subdivision and development, not where development only is contemplated.
The same definition of "integrated developmenr appears in VicCode 1.
VicCode 1 contains a section under the heading "How the Code Works" about integrated development as follows:
Integrated development
Lots less than 300 square metres are allowed under the Code. Where such sized lots are proposed they must be considered as part of an integrated development. _ •
The Code introduces the concept of integrated development as a means of providing additional flexibility, and, where required, design control. Integrated development is where approval is to be given for subdivision in conjunction with approval for construction of services; landscaping, the siting and design of buildings and where necessary the construction of streets. In these circumstances additional negotiation may be required to ensure that the nature and scale of a development is appropriate to a particular site.
Presumably this understanding, that lots_ less than 300 square metres can only be permitted as part of an integrated development, arises froni Performance Measure 3 of Element 1 (Lot Size and Orientation} of VicCode 1 as follows:
PM3. Lots, including lots less than 30om2 in area, forming part of a designated integrated development site or lots greater than ·450m2 designated as a dulfll occupancy site, with_ requirements for development plans to be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
However, a requirement that the creation of lots less than 300m2 in area can only occur as part of an integrated development can only be given effect to in zones where Vic Code 1 applies (see Clauses 7-5 and 24-7}. In the Residential C Zone ·(and many other zones} Vic Code 1 does not apply to subdivisions. Whilst a planning permit is required for subdivision, there is no minimum size for allotments. Thus it will not be uncommon to find lots of less than 300m2 on which-a detached house may be built without need for a planning permit, or an attached house may _be built with a planning permit.
STATUTORY CONTEXT -52 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
in b9th eases, where they are single Class 1 building-s it would be the relevant performance measures under VicCode 1 which would govern the issue of a bUIIdnig perm1t. I his is notwithstanding the statement in VicCode 2 under the heading "How the Code Works" that:
The Code applies to:
• in fill development of two or more dwellings in existing residential areas
• vacant sites in existing urban areas which are being made available for residential use
• residential components of retirement villages and mixed-use projects
• sites designated for multi-unit development, integrated development or medium density housing in new urban fringe estates
• individual dwellings or specification of detailed building envelopes on dwelling sites of less than 300m2
• developments where applications for dwellings precede or are made in conjunction with the submission of a plan of subdivision
• extensions to the above dwellings.
The apparent intention from this statement that dwellings on sites less than 300m2 shall be governed by VicCode 2 has not been translated into the planning scheme.
' Clause 21-1 of the Metropolitan Regional Section of planning schemes defines the scope of application of Vic Code 2 and provides (as amended by Amendment R123}:
21-1 Scope
The Code applies to land in an urban zone or to reserved land where a planning permit is required for any of the following:
• The development and use of 3 or more dwellings on a site, other than a movable dwelling unit or high-rise apartments requiring lifts.
• The development and use of a dual occupancy.
• The development and use of residential buildings.
· • The subdivision of land into lots and the development and use of dwellings in accordance with specific building designs or building envelopes.
• Dwelling extensions to any of the above.
STATUTORY CONTEXT -53 ------~~------,
VICCODE 2 REVIEW
The fourth dot point of Clause 21-1 may make VicCode 2 applicable to lots either greater or lesser in area than 300m2 (no lot size is specified) where a permit for subdivision is being granted together with permission for the use and development of dwellings in accordance with specific building designs or building envelopes. This seems to tie in with the concept of an integrated development, but presumably if the use of the land for a dwelling was for a detached house for which no planning permission was required, Clause 21-1, and hence VicCode 2 would not apply. Nor would VicCode 1 apply (in any planning sense) unless the land was in ·a zone specified in Clause 24-1 .
In each of the other dot points in Clause 21-1 subdivision is not mentioned, only use and development. The further question therefore arises as to what performance measures must be met in such cases when issuing a building permit? When the development does not form part of an integrated development (in that no subdivision is occurring in conjunction with the development), it does not appear as though Division 4 of the Building Regulations (which incorporates VicCode 2) would be applicable. Nor would Division 3 necessarily be applicable as this applies only to~ Class 1 buildings.
The situation is made no clearer by the explanation given on page 5 of VicCode 2 about the relationship between VicCodes 1 and 2.
The Panel's conclusion is that if it was intended that VicCode 1 apply to .all single dwellings (whether attached or detached houses) and VicCode 2 apply to all multi- . dwellings or to all dwellings on sites less than 30om2, the intention has not been effectively translated into legislation or the planning scheme. The intention has been further confused by the introduction of the concept of "integrated development".
The Panel considers that Division.4 of the Building Regulations requires amendment to clarify the concept of "integrated development" and to remove the nexus between development and subdivision being required to occur in conjunction. Alternatively, the concept should be removed altogether and it should be stated clearly the types of buildings VicCode 1 applies to and those which VicCode 2 applies to so that the Building Regulations are consistent with the planning scheme.
The Panel therefore recommends that:
• Division 4 of the Building Regulations 1994 should be amend~d to clarify the concept of "integrated development" and to remove the requirement that development and subdivision be required to occur in conjunction or alternatively the concept should be deleted altogether.
• The Building Regulations 1994 shoulc:! be amended to provide that any type of dwelling constructed on a lot of 300m2 or less, in addition to any other dwelling covered by Regulation 4.6, needs to comply with the specified performance measures of VicCode 2, not VicCode 1, and that this applies irrespective of when subdivision occurs.
[This recommendation ties in with the Panel's recommendations that the planning scheme be amended to provide for the application of VicCode 2 to any dwelling on a lot of 30om2 or less.] .
STATUTORY CONTEXT- 54 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
• 10.4 STATUS OF VICCODE 2 PERFORMANCE MEASURES
However, assuming that Division 4 is applicable, Regulation 4.6 provides as follows: ·
4.6 Integrated development - VicCode 2
(1) Subject to this regulation, Class 1 or 2 buildings and associated Class 10 buildings forming part of an integrated development must comply with the following VicCode 2 provisions -
Element 4 Building envelope - Performance Measures 1 to 10; and
Element 7 Open space - Peiformance Measures 1 and 2; and
Element 8 Car parking and vehicle access - Performance Measures 1 to 14.
(2) The consent and report of the relevant council are required to an application for a building permit in relation to a design which does not comply with sub-regulation (1 ).
(3) The relevant council may give its consent under sub-regulation (2), if the design meets the appropriate Performance Criteria and Objectives set out in VicCode· 2 for the Elements listed in sub-regulation (1 ).
Whilst VicCodes 1 and 2 bear certain similarities in their approach - in that each contains, for a number of elements, objectives, performance criteria and performance measures -they differ significantly in terms of the status of their respective performance measures. Under VicCode 1 performance measures are "deemed to comply" provisions or, as defined in VicCode 1:
Performance measures are provisions which are accepted without any further evidence being required as one option for meeting the performance criteria.
Under the planning scheme if the performance measures are met in VicCode 1 there is no discretion not to approve the proposal.
In VicCode 2 however, although a similar approach was contemplated when it was initially proposed, the mandatory nature of performance measures has been abandoned in favour of a discretionary approach. Thus, under Clause 21-2 of the planning scheme the responsible authority must have regard to the element objectives, performance criteria and performance measures for all elements of the Code.
STATUTORY CONTEXT -55 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
The Code itself states:
The elements of the Code are a package, and all must be addressed satisfactorily. Compliance with the perlormance measures provided for the · four elements does not negate in any way the need to satisfy the objectives and performance criteria of all other elements. Of course, not all performance criteria will be optimally or fully satisfied in every proposal. Council, developers and the community need to decide on priorities and trade-offs on a site-by-site basis.
Thus, in planning terms, simple compliance with the performance measures of the four elements, will not necessarily ensure that a proposal is acceptable. Notwithstanding compliance with the performance measures, a proposal may be considered not to comply with objectives and/or performance criteria for either that or some other element.
Therefore the use of the performance measures in VicCode 2 in the Building Regulations vests them with a different significance than they have under the planning scheme.
One difficulty which arises with this is in interpreting Regulation 4.6(3). This provides that if a particular performance measure is not met, the relevant council may give its consent if the design meets the appropriate performance criteria and objectives set out for the particular element in question. However, although the design may meet these particular criteria and objectives, it may fail to meet the performance criteria and objectives of some other element. Presumably under the Building Regulations this is irrelevant even though· it may be necessary under the planning scheme.
• 10.5 RELATIONSHIP OF BUILDING REGULATIONS WITH .SECTION 62(4) OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987
The greatest difficulty however, in reconciling the relationship between VicCode 2 as applied in a planning context and as applied under the Building Regulations lies in the wording of Section 62(4) of the P Ianning and Environment Act 1987, inserted as a consequential amendment of the Building Act 1993. It states as follows:
(4) The responsible authority must not include in a permit a condition which is inconsistent -
(a) with the Building Act 1993; or
(b) the building regulations under that Act; or
(c) a relevant determination of the Building Appeals Board under that Act in respect of the land to which the permit applies.
STATUTORY CONTEXT- 56 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
Section 11 of the Building Control Act provides:
11. Errec::l uf planning sc::hemes
(1) If a provision of a planning scheme under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 regulates the siting of buildings in respect of a municipal district or part of a municipal district, any building regulation which also regulates that matter-
(a) if not inconsistent with that provision, must be complied with in addition to that provision;
(b) if inconsistent with that provision -
(ij so far as is practicable, must be read so as to resolve the inconsistency; and
(ii) subject to sub-paragraph (i), to the extent of the inconsistency, ceases to have effect in that municipal district on the coming into operation of the provision of the planning scheme for the period that . the provision is in force.
(2) A council must publish notice in a newspaper circulating generally in its municipal district of the fact that a regulation · under this Part has ceased to have effect in the municipal · district or part of it.
There is no doubt therefore that if a planning scheme contains a provision requiring, say, a greater setback than specified in PM1.of Element 4, or more open· space or more car parking, then the planning scheme provisions govern both the issue of ~ny planning permit and any building permit.
However, there are relatively few provisions in planning schemes in residential zones which specify setbacks or other siting requirements of the sort covered by the Building Regulations. On the other hand, these are often matters covered by conditions in planning permits.
The question therefore arises as to whether a responsible authority could successfully defend a planning permit which imposes conditions not in accordance with the performance measures in VicCode 2.
As part of the review of VicCode 2 advice was sought from the Victorian Government Solicitor on this point. This advice is reproduced below.
Section 11 of the Building Act 1993
6. This section provides that if an inconsistency arises between a provision in a planning scheme and a building regulation in relation to the siting of buildings in respect of a municipal district, the building regulation ceases to have effect in that mu_nicipal district or that part of the municipal district on the coming into operation of the provision of the planning scheme for the period that the provision is in force. In effect, the legislature has determined that in relation to the siting of buildings, the planning scheme provisions override the building regulations.
STATUTORY CONTEXT- 57 ------
VICCODE 2 REVIEW
Section 62(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987
7. This section provides that a responsible authority must not include in a permit a condition which is inconsistent with the Building Act 1993 or the regulations. In order to reconcile the existence of the above two provisions, it is necessary to examine the effect they have on each other. If one was to obtain a planning permit in relation to the erection of a building and the responsible authority issued the permit with a condition which infringed a building regulation, then the condition would run foul of section 62(4), unless the building regulation which was breached was in relation to the siting of the building. In that case, section 11 deems the regulation as· ceasing to have any effect in relation to that municipal district o; part of the municipal district. In other words the operative provision in relation to the siting of the building is that in the planning scheme and not in the· regulations.
Provision 21-2 of the Metrooolitan Regional Section of the Planning Scbeme
B. This provision gives the responsible authority the discretion to grant a permit in a case where one or more performance measures are not met, if the element objectives and performance criteria of the Code are met. Therefore, if the application before. the responsible authority relates to the siting of the building, and the proposed development does not comply with the minimum or maximum provided for in the relevant performance measure, which may be applicable, nonetheless, the permit may be granted if the element objectives and the performance criteria are met. For example, if a permit was sought for a development which did not comply with "PM1" of Element 4 (Building Envelope) of the Code because the frontage setback from the existing street was less than the minimum of 3m, the permit may be granted if the element objectives and performance criteria are met, provided that this performance measure is deemed to relate to the siting of the building.
9. I understand the second aspect of the question to refate to the situation where a proposed development meets the performance measures in the Code, but the responsible authority grants the permit with a condition which requires the developer to comply with a more onerous standard. If the developer challenges that condition can the responsible authority successfully defend it? Provision 21-2 of the planning scheme requires the responsible authority to have regard to the Code. If, however, the responsible authority, after having regard to the Code, deems it appropriate to place a condition on the permit which requires the developer to exceed the maxima or minima specified in the performance measure, then it is within its discretion to do so.
10. In relation to the further question as to whether a building permit can be issued that complies with the performance measures but not the planning permit conditions, it follows from the above comments, that where there is inconsistency, it is not the role of the building permit to deal with siting issues. It is therefore difficult to conceive of a situation where the planning permit and the building permit will both be issued in relation to the siting of the development. In relation to other aspects of the development however, the above does not apply. If the inconsistency does not arise in relation to the siting of the building but in relation to some other aspect of the development, section 62(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987
STATUTORY CONTEXT- 58 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
provides that it is the Building Regulations 1994 which must be complied with. In other words, if, for example, Element 7 of the Code was deemed not to relate to the siting of the building, and the planning permit issued imposed a condition· which did not accord with the performance measures of the element, either by exceeding the minima or maxima, or by being more generously within the minima or maxima, then it would be inconsistent with regulation 4.6, and therefore in breach of section 62(4).
11. It must be noted, however, that regulation 4.6(2) and (3) provide for the situation where the development does not meet the performance measures of the elements referred to in sub-regulation (1 ). In such an instance, the relevant council's consent will need to be sought under the terms of that \. sub-regulation.
The conclusion of the Victorian Government Solicitor therefore is that:
There is no inconsistency between the application of section 11 of the Building Act 1993 and section 62(4) of the Planning and Environment Act .1JlfJZ. The planning scheme provision applies in relation to all matters relating to the siting of the building and the building regulations must be complied with in the issue of a planning permit in relation to the other matters.
In the Panel's opinion this outcome is contrary to the intention of making VicCode 2 discretionary, not mandatory, in the planning scheme. It undermines the performance based approach embodied in VicCode 2.
If a planning scheme gives a council discretion to control any matter also controlled by the Building Regulations, then the planning control should take precedence and any building permit should be in compliance with any planning permit. There should · be no difference between siting or other matters. For an effective planning outcome all matters are interrelated.
It might be argued that Section 62(4) of the Planning and Environment Act is necessary to prevent planning permits from including unreasonable conditions or conditions incapable of compliance because of conflict with the Building Regulations. This argument may have been valid when building regulations dealt with an array of detail not covered by planning controls but today, when the Building Regulations actually incorporate what are planning standards, the argument loses its validity. If a planning permit condition is unreasonable or incapable of compliance then the time to argue about it is at the time the planning permit is issued. If this only becomes apparent subsequently, Section 87(2) of the Planning and Environment Act provides a mechanism to amend the permit. In all cases however, the decision should be made in a planning context and the _building permit which issues should flow from what is appropriate in planning terms. The Building Regulations should not adopt planning standards then invest them with a status they do not possess under the planning scheme in such a way as they then take precedence over the planning controls.
To overcome this problem in the short term it may be possible to amend the Building Regulations to deem all the matters set out in Regulation 4.6 as "siting" matters. But for a more satisfactory result the Panel recommends that:
• Section 62(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 should be repealed.
•. STATUTORY CONTEXT- 59 ------
VICCODE 2 REVIEW
• The Building Act 1993 should be amended to make it clear that the performance measures of VicCodes 1 and 2 incorporated in the Building Regulations 1994 are applicable only insofar as they are not contrary to any planning permit condition and that·no building permit can be issued which is not in accordance with any planning permit.
• 10.6 TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT TO WHICH VICCODE 2 APPLIES
It has already been seen that the concept of integrated development used in the Building Regulations is confusing because of the nexus it creates between development and subdivision and its requirement that these occur in conjunction.
Equally in the planning context the Panel considers there should be no relevance when deciding whether VicCode 1 or VicCode 2 should apply as to when subdivision occurs - whether before or after development.
The principles and approach embodied in VicCode 2 are intended to promote site responsive ,designs for dwellings on small sites with minimal adverse impact on the neighbouring environment. Basically, as dwellings become smaller and closer together more care is required in their design to ensure that they function effectively for their occupants and don't impact adversely or unreasonably on their neighbours. The same care is needed regardless of when (or if) subdivision of the· · actual development occurs.
It is for this reason that the non-application of VicCode 2 to dual occupancies has been regarded as such an anomaly.
There is increasing pressure from the development industry to allow subdivision before construction, either to facilitate financing or to avoid the use of body corporates. The lack of control over minimum sizes of allotments means there is nothing to ~revent a developer subdividing a site (into allotments greater or less than 300m ) then building detached houses (as-of-right) or attached houses (with a planning permit) neither of which need comply with VicCode 2, whereas if the development preceded the subdivision a planning permit would be necessary and VicCode 2 would apply.
In the Panel's opinion VicCode 2 should apply tq all situations where two or more ·dwellings are proposed to be constructed on a sin~e site or where single dwellings are proposed to be constructed on any lot of 300m or less. In both situations the potential of the dwellings to impa_~ on neighbours (or vice versa) exists and the type of design criteria embodied in VicCode 2 should be applied.
As-of-right dual occupancies should not be exempt from this requirement. Much of the public criticism of medium density dwellings has· been caused by dual occupancy developments.
Amendment R123 provided that if one or more of the as-of-right requirements of Clause 20A-1 are not met regard must be had to the element objectives, performance criteria and performance measures for all elements-of VicCode 2. There has been considerable support for this amendment but it now leaves as-of right dual occupancies as even ll)Ore of an anomaly. The time has therefore come to abolish them and to treat all multipl~ dwellings on a site equally.
STATUTORY CONTEXT- 60 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
This proposal is in line with the approach proposed to be adopted in the planned new residential zones.
In the Panel's opinion the application of VicCode 2 requires clarification and simplification now. It should apply to all development which the community commonly regards as medium density development and should not be tied to the timing of subdivision
The Panel therefore makes the following recommendations:
• Replace the term multi-dwelling development by the term medium density dwellings in VicCode 2
• Delete Ciause 20A of the planning scheme.
• Delete all other reference to dual occupancies from planning schemes.
• Amend the planning scheme so that a permit is required to construct a house on any lo~ 300 square metres or less.
• Amend Clause 21-1 by deleting the first two dot points and inserting the following: · ·
• The developrnent of 2 or more dwellings on a site, other than a moveable dwelling unit or high-rise apartments requiring lifts.
• The development of one dwelling on a lot 300 square metres or less.
STATUTORY CONTEXT - 61 · VICCODE 2 REVIEW
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Panel's recommendations can be grouped into three categories:
• philosophical • general • specific
They shoulc;l be read in conjunction with the discussion in the Panel's report.
PHILOSOPHICAL
• VicCode 2 is endorsed as a fundamentally valuable document in guiding the design and assessment of medium density housing. With modifications, it should be retained in planning schemes as a matter which responsible authorities must have regard to when considering any application for medium density housing.
• Medium density housing should be actively encouraged in newly developing fringe areas where it can be incorporated as an integral element of the urban fabric from the outset.
• The diversity of Melbourne's residential environments should be recognised as one of its strengths and a characteristic highly valued by the community. Medium density housing in established areas should be encouraged in locations where it can be most effectively provided in a way which enhances and maintains this diversity.
• Councils should be encouraged to develop a vision of what they want their urban environment to be, visually and functionally, and the sort of character they want their residential areas to develop so they will be enjoyable and appreciated by residents. ·
GENERAL
• There should be a capacity to introduce local variations to performance measures in VicCode 2 by means of an amendment to the planning scheme provided:
the variations.fit within a strategic and policy context; they are justifiable; there has been public involvement in their preparation or adoption; they receive ministerial approval.
• Councils may introduce local guidelines to supplement or aid in interpreting objectives and criteria in VicCode 2.
• A new design element should be inserted in VicCode 2 for neighbourhood character to replace the streetscape character and landscaping design elements.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS-· 62 . ~-· .
VICCODE 2 REVIEW
• The neighbourhood character d~sign element should el"((phasise the need for appropriate landscaping and the need to retain and plant trees which contribute to the amenity and character of the neig~bourhood.
• Planning schemes should require a site analysis to be submitted to the satisfaction of the responsible authority within every application.
• A written statement explaining how the design has responded to the site analysis should form part of the material required to be submitted.
• The Department of Planning and Development should assist councils to ·develop effective processes for handling medium density development applications which involve the following elements:
Discussions betWeen council and applicant based on site analysis before application plans are prepared. Consultation between applicant and affected neighbours/residents, facilitated by council before application is lodged, preferably involving an on-site meeting. · Skilled urban design assessment and input from council. Development of application plans which respond to: site analysis; legitimate neighbour/resident concerns; local guidelines. Lodgement of application. Fast-track handling of application by council. Permit dealt with by delegation.
• The Department of Planning and Development should investigate mechanisms to provide incentives to developers to participate meaningfully _ in any pre-application process. -
• Councils should adopt the principle of nominating a pool of external design advisers and utilising them to assist in the evaluation of proposals, preferably as part of a pre-application process. '
• The Department of Planning and Development should liaise with the RAIA to establish a panel of urban design experts which can be utilised by councils not wishing to establish their own pool of nominated advisers.
• The Department of Planning and Development should consult with restructured councils about considering the· need for access to appropriate urban design skills when staff restructuring occurs.
• VicCode 2 should be totally redrafted in a format which is educative, objective, clear and simple to use following the principles and recommendations set out in chapter 9 of the Panel's report.
• The expertise of the ULA should be utilised to develop and promote a series of model medium density dwellings in a variety of locations demonstrating excellence, affordability and locational suitability.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS - 63 -----. ------
VICCODE 2 REVIEW
• Effective education and information campaigns should be developed and co ordinated by the Department of Pliiinning and Development targeting the general public, consumers a·nd the development industry aimed at increasing awareness of:
the need for urban consolidation; what constitutes good urban design in medium density housing; how good design can be achieved. ·
• · The Department of Planning and Development should ensure that appropriate courses are provided for council staff, designers and developers in the development of urban design skills and the use of VicCode 2.
SPECIFIC
• Performance measures should be described in VicCode 2 as follows:
Performance measures are guidelines ·assumed to meet the objectives and performance criteria of an element unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the responsible authority either that compliance will not meet the relevant objectives and · performance criteria or that non-compliance will meet the relevant objectives and performance criteria.
Compliance with the performance measures for one element will not. automatically mean that the objectives and performance criteria for all elements are met. Each must be considered separately.
• A performance measure for density should be introduced in VicCode 2 as follows: ·
Lot size ·Frontage Benchmark Density 650m2 or less less than 17m 1:300 650-750h-J2 17m or more 1:250 750-200om2 17m or more 1:200
• Both lot ~ize and frontage criteria must be satisfied.
• The frontage criteria may be reduced for irregular shaped sites provided the bulk ofthe site is of sufficient size to allow design flexibility and minimise impact on· adjoining·land.
• Developments with densities greater than 1:200 may be Ideated on sites:
within the inner area of Melbourne defined by a 7km radius from the .GPO;or · on sites larger than 2006m2.
• In VicCode 2 the term multi-dwelling development should be replaced by the medium density dwellings.
• In VicCode 2 the 7km radius from the GPO and the distance of 400m from a metropolitan tram line or train station should be deleted as criteria for assessing car parking or open space. ·
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS - 64 ,. VICCODE 2 REVIEW
- • The Metropolitan Regional Section of planning schemes should be amended as follows: ·
Delete Clause 20A. Delete all other reference to dual occupancies. Insert new provisions requiring a permit to constru_ct a house on any lot 300 square metres or less. In Clause 21-2 delete the first two dot points and insert the following:
• The development of 2 or more dwellings on a site, other than a moveable dwelling unit or high rise apartments requiring lifts. .
• The development of one dwelling on a lot 300 square metres or less. ·
Delete the following sentence from Clause 21-2:
If one or more performance measures cannot be met, a permit may be granted if the proposed development meets the relevant element objectives and performance criteria of the Code.
Delete the following sentences from Clause 21-2 where they appear:
the effect of this paragraph will expire on 31 Janu~ry 1995.
In Clause 21 under the heading "Purpose" in the third dot point replace the words streetscape amenity with the words neighbourhood amenity
• Section 62(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 should be repeated.
• The Building Act 1993 should be amended to make it clear that the performance measures of VicCodes 1 and 2 incorporated in the Building Regulations 1994 are applicable only insofar as they are not contrary to any planning permit condition and that no building permit can be issued which is not in accordance with any planning permit.
• Division 4 of the Building Regulations 1994 should be amended to clarify the concept of "integrated developmenf' and to remove the requirement that development and subdivision be required to occur in conjunction; or alternatively the concept should be deleted altogether.
• The Building Regulations 1994 should be amended to prqvide that any type of dwelling constructed on a lot of 300m2 or less, in addition to any other dwelling covered by Regulation 4,6, needs to comply with the specified performance measures of VicCode 2, not VicCode 1, and that this applies irrespective of when subdivision occurs.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMEN-DATIONS -- 65
------···~~"' - VICCODE 2 REVIEW
APPENDIX- TERMS OF REFERENCE
VicCode 2 was introduced on 16 December 1993 and has provided the basis for assessment of all multi-dwelling planning applications throughout the metropolitan area. It is also being used on a Council-adopted basis in some country areas and in inner Melbourne for dwellings on small existing lots where permits are required:
At the time of its introduc;tion the Minister indicated that a VicCode Advisory Panel would be established to monitor and review the Code's operation.
The review panel will consist of the following four people:
• Helen Gibson • Tim Biles • Gail Sanz • TonyJames
The review will focus on both the operational arrangements and the content of the Code. It will be focused towards identifying any problems with the Code, as well as identifying the benefits which have already resulted from the Code.
The review will document issues and make recommendations, taking into consideration the five key stakeholder groups:
• the future residents of multi-dwellings- {housing choice, affordability and appropriateness).
• the development industry - (improved consistency of planning control, investment viability) etc.
• the neighbours- (protection of existing residents amenity and streetscape character).
• the government (satisfying housing needs, promotion of urban consolidation · and efficient use of infrastructure).
• Councils (main administrators of VicCode 2, responsible for residential amenity, housing strategies). ·
The Review will be conducted in two parts- firstly the production of an interim report in about six weeks, highlighting preliminary issues and facts associated with trends in multi-dwelling development applications, approvals and appeals.
Secondly a final report will be produced after consideration of submissions from stakeholders, and further research as necessary, which will include any recommendations to the Minister for changes to the operation or content of the Code, and recommendations related to optimising the benefits and opportunities provided by the Code.
APPENDIX A - 66 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
In .undertaking the review, the panel shall investigate and report on:
,•. (a) · the operation of VicCode 2 in terms of trends before and since 16 December 1993, in-
• the number of multi-dwelling development applications submitted across Melbourne • the distribution of multi-dwelling applications across Melbourne • percentage of applications going to appeal • percentage of applications being refused at AAT, and the main reasons why • percentage of applications being approved (with or without modifications) by the AAT and reasons why • percentage of applications where council officers recommend approval/refusal and council decisions go against officer recommendations and reasons why.
(b) the extent to which the intentions of VicCode 2 and its related amendments (AM S23 and R113) are being satisfied by its current operation. (The intentions are as expressed in the policy objectives and purposes of the documents). This will be assessed in part by taking submissions from the community, industry, and local government.
(c) the extent to which VicCode 2's design ·and performance basis has been understood and applied by industry, designers and regulators.
(d) .from (a), (b) ·and (c). the key issues relating to the operation and content of the Code, and suggested recommendations to address these issues.
(e) the likely implications of the proposed recommendations on the five key . . stakeholder groups (developers, future residents, neighbqurs, government and councils). ·
(f) the extent to which the operation of VicCode 2 has been or could be assisted by the provision of local gu.idelines as specified in page 4 of the Code.
(g) the need for further education training, and technical support for developers, designers and regulators, and the oppqrtunities for supportive changes to municipal administration of VicCode 2, taking into account the new circumstances resulting from local government amalgamation.
(h) the ways in which other Government initiatives relating to housing strategy, zone review, building control, and local government amalgamation have either assisted or frustrated the effective application of VicCode 2.
(i) any other relevant issues.
APPENDIX A - 67 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
APPENDIX- REVIEW OF VICCO DE 2: CITIES OF .HEIDELBERG AND CAULFIELD: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH- AREPORT FOR VICCO DE 2 REVIEW PANEL by Maxine Cooper & Associates Pty Ltd, November 1994
• 1 OBJECTIVES OF RESEARCH
The specific objectives for the research unc:Jertaken by .Maxine Cooper and Associates Pty Ltd were to : ·
• Establish what residents believe are good and bad things 1 about living in multi-dwelling developments and what residents' and neighbours' perceptions are about the rate and quality of development that is occurring in the selected municipalities.
• Establish, as part of the above, what physical aspects of the selected municipalities makes them good places to live.
• Establish if there are diff~rences of opinion between the selected municipalities.
• Utilise the above information as an input into the review of VicCode 2. • 2 MUNICIPALITIES SELECTED
The Cities of Heidelberg and Caulfield were choseri for this research as both are middle ring suburbs but are experiencing different population trends and are at different stages in the life circle. Subsequently the level and rate of medium density development in these municipalities are quite different
The City of Heidelberg is located some eight kilometres to the north east of the Melbourne GPO. It is experiencing a reduction both in population and household size due to the combined effect of the aging of the population and people postponing having families, despite an increase in housing stock of approximately 10% between 1976 and 1993.
In 1991 approximately 20% of the housing stock comprised multi-dwelling developments. There has been only limited interest in replacing detached dwellings with medium density housing. Moreover, the 60 - 80 units provided per year over the last five years is not as visible as in other municipalities. The rate of development has increased marginally. Since October last year 70 applications were made to council for multi-dwelling developments. In the previous year (October 1992 - October :1993) there were 59 applications. In that same time period in 1990- 1991; only 38 applications were made to Council.
1 Good and bad things relate to the perceptions of the council officers and residents involved in the study and are not a reflection or judgement of the researcher
- APPENDIX B - 68 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
The City of Caulfield .is -situated 10 kilometres south east of Melbourne. However unlike the City of Heidelberg, this municipality's population decline has slowed down. In fact at the time of the 1991 census the population had increased by 82 ·persons. The area has moved through a number of life-cycle changes. Its older population is now declining whilst the younger age groups are becoming more pronounced.
To match the population's accommodation needs, the City of Caulfield has a diverse range of housing types. In contrast to the Heidelberg municipality, around 50% of the housing stock is multi-dwellings; approximately 33% flats and apartments, and 17.5% medium density dwellings.
Residential development has been occurring at the rate of approximately 120 permits per year for an average of 220 additional dwelling per year, although this has not had an impact on the population growth. However, it is significant t!lat there have already been 201 application received by council for new multi-unit development this year. This number is almost four times the number of applications (55) made in 1991 and by the end of this year that figure of 201 could be double the number of applications (119) recorded for 1993. In other words, the rate of multi-dwelling developments is much more marked in Caulfield than in Heidelberg.
• 3 PROCEDURES OF QUALITATIVE. RESEARCH
The qualitative research method of group discussions and supplementary interviews was adopted. Three group discussions as well as some forty interview were undertaken in each municipality.
Discussions were held with a number of target groups:
reside.nts living in an example of good multi-unit development residents living in an example of bad multi-unit development residents living in areas abutting multi-unit development, residents who objected to the multi-unit developments.
The good and bad examples were chosen by the council officers of both councils based on specified criteria of the sort of design elements found in VicCode 2. In other words, the selection was not based on the look of the building but how it works and how it relates to the neighbouring properties and other external elements. · · ·
• 4 KEY FINDINGS
The key findings discussed in the body of the report are summarised below:
• Residents do not like to see the character of their neighbourhoods changing significantly in terms of original built form or architecture, trees and green spaces or household structure. Whilst they generally accept change and the need for multi-dwelling development, it would appear they question the pace of .change and the impact on their own patch, their quality of life and above all the value of their property. If the pace of change is too rapid or too visible, their investment is threatened.
APPENDIX B - 69 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
• . Residents in· both the Heidelberg and Caulfield municipalities - whether they be unit dwellers or residing in detached housing nearby and/or previous objectors - are very clear about what they like and dislike and what impacts, negatively and positively, on neighbourhood amenity. In spite of design being quite subjective, residents from both the Cities of Heidelberg and Caulfield are quite consitent in their responses to particular types of developments and what ·is sympathetic to a particular streetscape in their municipality. In other words, there cannot be uniformity in design as well as uniformity in the application of VicCode 2. Characteristics peculiar to a particular area·must be taken into consideration. Residents certainly have an appreciation of this. It is also notewo.rthy that the reasons for disliking certain unit developments were generally consistent with the original grounds for objection. Furthermore, development approved by the Administrative Appeal Tribunal were generally not liked by residents.
• Developments liked were those that fit into the streetscape character and neighbourhood and were not too dense. These factors were of prime importance followed by careful con~ideration of design to overcome any possible problems of overshadowing or overlooking neighbouring properties. It is noteworthy that not all examples liked were single storey. In fact double storey was acceptable in an environment where there were other two storey houses existing and/or other forms of multi-dwelling developments. The attic style roof was more appealing as this was set back. This created a greater sense of privacy for neighbours. These rooves were also seen to be less imposing on the streetscape. Some residents who participated in the study from the Caulfield municipality also preferred double storey units to be constructed along the width of the block.
• Key grounds for objections in the two municipalities generally relate to:
traffic or parking problems overlooking and loss of privacy change in character of street loss of property values and overshadowing
• It would appear that not all residents' fears are realised post development. This is especially the case in the Heidelberg municipality. When the group . discussion participants and the .interviewees were asked about what features in their street which contained unit development - were a problem to them the issue of increased traffic generation post unit development was perceived as such in both municipalities.
• Issues surrounding lack of green spaces and the change in the charact.er of the street, density on a site, the traffic hazards surrounding cars backing out of unit driveways, and to a lesser degree, overlooking were more pertinent in the City of Caulfield.
• Problems surrounding overlooking.people in units seeing into nearby homes ·and gardens and other units reduced privacy and overshadowing were not always significant problems post construction. Whilst not all participants resided in dwellings adjacent to two storey developments it can still be said that fears of reduced privacy and overlooking and overshadowing with these developments in particular did not always become an actuality.
APPENDIX B- 70 VICCODE 2 REVIEW
·• Study participants believe that standards could be better applied to multi dwelling development in relation to:
fewer units on site, ·fewer units in the street more car spaces for visitors more attention to landscaping
and to a lesser degree:
greater distance between windows of units and boundaries designing of units so that windows do not face windows or gardens of nearby units or next door dwellings.
• The depth of concern held by the group discussion participants with regard to unit development problems experienced as well as better application of standards - did vary between the two municipalities. It seems that residents' perceptions do differ according to the development rate of the area. Whilst the City of Heidelberg does give building design advice and has a mediation process in place which does seem to be having an effect on resident satisfaction, residents are not experiencing the rate of change that has occurred across the City of Caulfield hence their level of actual concern is not likely to be as great. They fear the change to their environment that could be created by multi-dwelling developments. The City of Caulfield residents appear to be more concerned and are certainly more outspoken about their problems and what standards should be applied but they are enduring more problems as a result of the multi-dwelling developments in their municipality. They also want more say and control over the development of their neighbourhood. Whilst the building design advice and mediation provided in the City of Heidelberg is not the· only solution, particularly in an area which contains so·much unit development, an extension of this process would be considered. This process could be lengthy and costly. However, it would provide some equity. If the developers were more willing to participate, residents of any age or socio-economic background would have greater opportunity to have a say in the development of their street. ·
• Households moving into units are generally the older couple or single person living alone or the young professional couple not wanting a larger block of land, bigger house and maintenance.
• Whilst some residents living in detached dwellings complained about the units being boxy and of poor standard in design, the majority of unit dwellers who participated in this study were living in developments of three single storey units, 10 -15 squares with two bedrooms and were in the main satisfied with their choice.
• It was beyond the scope of this exercise to carry out a detailed assessment of the existing supply and so explore fully whether the units are matching the needs of the consumer groups. This would entail a series of in-depth interviews in the home of the unit dwellers. It would a lengthy process and would involve considerable input from designers as well. It would be important for the unit dweller to talk about what it is like living in the unit and how functional and comfortable each room in the house is and the relationship between the indoor and outdoor spaced and the neighbouring properties, etc.
· APPENDIX B- 71