15 Aug

Apartment Standards and C270 Amendment 

Yesterday the Government released the latest version of the Better Apartments Draft Design Standards. While we welcome this announcement and some of the liveability initiatives contained within it, we are disappointed that there is no stipulation for minimum sizes and that the Institute’s focus on mechanisms for ensuring design excellence has not been included. We are pleased to see that the process will accommodate design innovation and flexibility and also resource the education of assessors – a move that is is vital to ensuring the effectiveness of the standards. We support the introduction of quality regulations, and will continue to engage with the Government to raise the quality of the standards. I encourage you all to review this latest draft and submit your own response (prior to the 19th of September). We will keep you posted on the Institute’s response.

In other news on the advocacy front, the Institute’s position on the proposed Central City Planning Provision Melbourne: Amendment C270 was presented at a Planning Panel’s hearing last Thursday. The presentation focused on two key points. The first being that design excellence is a key pillar of any good planning outcome and should be rewarded and second that the definition and scope of Floor Area Uplift (FAU) for Public Benefits needs expansion.

Design excellence is not given any weight in the current C270. The current proposal is set around planning guidelines only, determining the built envelope. A well designed city needs both good built form outcomes and good design outcomes, the two are not mutually exclusive. Good design is critical to good city outcomes and should not be separated from planning. Good design needs to be integrated into the granting of a planning permit to ensure that the city, the public and the occupier receive the best possible outcome. To achieve this end we proposed Design Review Panels (DRP) for any project over 18:1 or to provide significant FAU for projects that gain permits through a DRP process. Any panel needs to be independent, transparent, qualified, with set guidelines and broad discretionary power to review design, and the deliberations need to be enforceable. Controls should be mandatory unless a DRP process is pursued. A DRP would, for example, be empowered to allow for a variety of built form outcomes by considering an average setback calculation when in keeping with the planning principles and delivering design excellence. We advocated for the mandatory use of independent architects to deliver design excellence.

The second part of the presentation focused on expanding the definition and scope of FAU for Public Benefits. The Institute supports Public Benefits which improve the quality of the public realm and architecture, the diversity and accessibility of the city, and which allow architects to design innovatively to create a memorable and sustainable built environment.

The definition of Public benefits should be expanded to include:

– Heritage Buildings – the retention, upgrade, integration and on-going maintenance of Heritage Listed buildings

– Sustainable Design – a clear incentive should be given to provide significant sustainable solutions, in particular to residential projects

– Innovation – projects which illustrate innovation could gain additional uplift as assessed by the DRP or another independent body

– Social Use/Mixed Use – the options to be broader than Social Housing and Commercial Office to allow projects to promote other uses that can meet public requirements for facilities

– Competitions – should not be mandatory, but if implemented the Institute’s competition guidelines and endorsement should be a prerequisite. The valuation for Design Competitions requires further review to create a greater incentive, however a DRP should be the pathway to achieving greater uplift.

Precinct based benefits were proposed (ie off site benefits) and point to the need for Precinct Masterplans. Site based uplifts are limiting as certain sites do not lend themselves to the proposed FAU’s however the site may be suitable for higher yield. Precinct based planning allows for the immediate community around the development to gain the benefit, whilst not limiting potentially important developments from proceeding.

The presentation was made by Alison Cleary (Vic Chapter Manager), Tim Leslie (Vic Chapter Councillor, Bates Smart) Vanessa Bird (Vic Chapter President, Bird de la Couer Architects) and Matthew Smith (Large Practice Forum member, Architectus). Consultation was sought from Large Practice Forum members including Jesse Judd (ARM), Craig Baudin (Fender Katsalidis) and Ingrid Bakker (Hassell) and Adam Pustola (Vic Chapter Councillor, Lyons)

Vanessa Bird