Giorgio Marfella 0:06
Good afternoon and welcome everybody. My name is Giorgio Marfella. I'm the Chair of the Architects Registration Board of Victoria. So welcome to another ARBV webinar. As always, I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land, the lands in which we are meeting today. Myself, I'm in the land of the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin Nation and wish to pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging. So today's presentation deals with a topic that has great importance for architects given that it deals with the planning controls here in Victoria and in particular the recent amendment that introduced the mid-rise code.
And so as always, this webinar will be valid for the CPD programme that we monitor that is mandatory for architects in Victoria. We will have some questions that come along and that you can start to access by scanning this QR code, which we'll also provide later on in the presentation and as its usual practise also, we'll give 24 hours for anybody to submit the questionnaire after attending this webinar.
Now, we'll have a chat, sorry, Q&A function open in which you can put some questions that are pertinent for today's presentation. And before I hand over to our guest today, who has a group of dear colleagues from the Department of Transport and Planning, will be coming back to take some of those questions.
Now, given that we have several speakers today, I'll very quickly now hand over to Michael Orford, who is the Director of Strategic Planning, and I'll leave to Michael to introduce the rest of our guests today. So, with this, I can just hand over to you, Michael.
Michael J Orford (DTP) 1:58
Well, thank you so much, Giorgio, and hello everyone and welcome to today's technical briefing on the Mid-Rise Code. You'd be aware by now that the Minister for Planning announced the Mid-Rise Code on the 19th of March and that the code will be coming into operation in all planning schemes through Amendment VC300 from tomorrow.
Thursday, the 16th of April. I'm delighted to be joined today by the Better Apartments team, Nihal Altantas, who's the manager of the team, Fiona Henningsen, Hasnan Konker, Victoria Ainsworth, and Adam Vucic. And Nihal, Fiona, Hasnan, Victoria, and Adam will join me in presenting duties today.
So what will we be taking you through in the technical briefing? Well, Fiona will start with the context and process around the development of the code, including the government commitments that led to the code, the architectural and economic testing to develop the code, and the consultation undertaken. Then, Hasnan and Nihal will run through the standards in the code. Including which standards are new, which ones have changed from current clause 57, how they should be assessed and why they've been included.
Next, Victoria will walk us through the operation of the code, including the deemed to comply operation, the zones to which the code will apply, what happens when an overlay is in place, and other matters. And finally, Adam will help us to look at the tools available to support you to use the new midrise code.
including an overview of the mid-rise design guide and the mid-rise guidelines, plus how you can find out more about the code on the planning website. If we don't get to your question today and the online FAQs, guides and website content don't answer your question, you can e-mail us using the e-mail address on the screen at the bottom there. strategic. planning at transport.vic.gov.au. And the links to all of the online material was included in the planning matters e-mail, which you can subscribe to on planning.vic.gov.au. And there's also more information available on the mid-rise code on the planning website. But I'm going to pass over to Fiona now, who's going to take you through the context and the process to develop the code.
Thanks, Fiona.
Fiona S Henningsen (DTP) 4:13
Thanks, Michael. So before launching into the detail of the Mid-Rise Code, let's take a brief look at why and how the code was developed. We'll cover the policy drivers, the intended benefits of the code, and what we heard through consultation.
So, starting with the government commitments.
The Department of Transport and Planning has supported the Minister for Planning to deliver on key government commitments by developing the Mid-Rise Code. Starting with the housing statement, one of the key initiatives from the statement was to streamline planning approvals through deemed to comply pathways. The Mid-Rise Code follows the townhouse and low-rise code in delivering on this initiative.
The Mid-Rise Code also contributes to another initiative in the statement, which is to strengthen design standards to ensure high quality builds. The Mid-Rise Code also plays a key role in supporting the Train and Tram Zone Activity Centres programme by establishing a code targeted to the development scale that will be enabled through activity centre catchments. Finally, the Mid-Rise Code also supports the delivery of the Plan for Victoria pillar housing for all Victorians.
So early in the process to develop the mid-rise code, we identified the benefits it should aim to deliver. And I'll take you through those now. So we were seeking to deliver more mid-rise housing in existing, well-located neighbourhoods that have been identified for increased housing at this particular scale. So essentially more people can make better use of existing infrastructure.
We were seeking a better balance between existing and future resident needs, so delivering more homes and better amenity. More mid-rise buildings that are more comfortable, appealing, liveable and sustainable. Simpler building forms than what we see now, so less stepping, or as we often hear, wedding cake profiles, which leads to improved building efficiency and sustainability.
More space for trees to thrive to provide shade, amenity and better microclimates. Trees also play a role in softening transitions to mid-rise scale buildings. And finally, greater certainty, so that the community knows what to expect and how their neighbourhood might change over time, and developers have greater clarity about suitable forms of development.
Now, let's have a look at how the code was developed.
So to ensure the code could deliver the benefits I've just outlined, we undertook some really detailed testing and analysis. On screen now is one of over 60 detailed architectural tests that was undertaken while we developed the mid-rise code, and that was undertaken alongside economic modelling. So both of these tests considered a really vast array of aspects of liveability, amenity and feasibility. So, alongside this modelling, we also convened a technical reference group, and this group was made-up of experts from local government, design, planning and development industries.
This group was really great in helping us test key challenges and opportunities and identify potential paths forward to refine the approach to the mid-rise code. The testing and advice also identified multiple options for a range of standards, which is assisted with developing the draught provisions.
So, this led us to a period of targeted consultation in September last year. The department undertook 6 weeks of targeted consultation, inviting feedback from municipal councils and peak industry groups. At that time, we shared some background on the proposed mid-rise code, and that included the intended benefits of the code, the existing challenges and opportunities we had identified at that mid-rise development scale. We shared proposed standards, and for many of these standards, we provided multiple options for how we could take the code forward, we also shared the proposed operation of the code. We received 42 submissions from local councils, peak industry groups and practitioners during this period, which really helped us greatly in refining and finalising the provisions. So, thank you to anyone who's in attendance today that took the time to provide us a submission.
So now let's have a look at the assessment framework and how that will change with the introduction of the mid-rise code. And we're going to dive into this in more detail a bit later in the presentation. But just for now, we'll work with this overview. So moving from left to right, on the left at three stories or less, there is no change.
When we move to blue, previously Clause 57 had only applied to four-storey residential development and with the introduction of the Code, Clause 57 will apply to four to six-storey buildings with a deemed to comply operation.
Finally, on the right in purple, before the mid-rise Code, Clause 58, or otherwise known as Better Apartment Design Standards, applied to five or more stories and all apartments in commercial areas and activity centre zones. Clause 58 will now apply to seven stories or more and to all apartments in commercial areas and activity centre zones. And as I said, we'll provide a little bit more detail on this later in the presentation, but now I'll hand over to Nehal or Hasnan to run us through the standards in the code. Hasnan, apologies.
Hasnun W Khondker (DTP) 9:58
Thanks, Fiona. Now that we have covered the mid-rise code context, let's look at the standards in more detail.
Okay, so now on the screen, within the four themes are the suite of standards that make up the mid-rise code. We are not going through the particulars of each standard today, just a general overview. To familiarise yourself with the standards, please refer to the documentation in Amendment VC300. A link was included in the Planning Mattress e-mail a few weeks back. The 4 themes are urban context, liveability, external amenity, and sustainability.
Each of these standards has different features and metrics and may operate differently from the townhouse and low-rise code. For example, overshadowing secluded private open space and overlooking standards only apply when the side and rear setbacks and walls on boundary standards are not met.
Where all applicable standards under urban context and external amenity are met, there are no third-party appeal, and Victoria will explain this in a bit more detail later as a part of the operation and application.
We will explain 15 of the 26 standards highlighted in darker green in more detail today. The remaining 11 standards should be relatively familiar for those of you who have already used the clause 55 and the townhouse and low-rise code before. There are also third-party app exemptions like the townhouse and low-rise code.
Which, as I said, Victor will explain in further detail shortly.
First, I'll explain the site description and design response requirements. The objectives of each urban context standard in the mid-rise code refers to responding to future urban development instead of neighbourhood character, which is different to the approach that was taken in clause 55 in neighbourhood character standards and the existing or preferred urban context in clause 58. Clause 55 standards are compatible with neighbourhood character, changing and evolving over time. Clause 58 is a discretionary assessment, where the urban context remains an important consideration. In contrast, Clause 57 is deemed to comply and is intended to facilitate a fundamentally different bill form to what exists now. That is why the term future urban development is used in the mid-rise code. An application must include a site description, a design response and landscape plan.
A written statement outlining which standards are met and not met is also required.
Now let's look at the street setback standard. This standard requires a minimum of 4.5 metres from the front street and a minimum of 3 metres from a side street. It is also important to note that there is not a requirement for an upper-level setback. There are a few key benefits to these requirements. Firstly, the 4.5 metre setback provides adequate space for canopy tree planting, which improves the streetscape. It also supports simpler building forms, avoiding more complex wedding cake profiles that can occur with upper-level setbacks. And finally, the standard can be varied in a schedule to the zone to a less restrictive requirement. Hmm.
Next is the side and rear setback standard. This standard requires a minimum 4.5 metres to the side or rear boundaries, which allows for sheer walls up to six stories. This setback provides a good balance between resident amenity, development feasibility, and sufficient space for canopy trees and landscaping.
However, where a building is set back to a south boundary, increased setbacks are required, which is 6 metres up to 13.5 metres and 12 metres over 13.5 meters. These increased setbacks help minimising overshadowing to adjacent private open space.
The Midrise Code guidelines set out how to assess a south boundary.
It is also important to note that if the side and rear setbacks are met, the overlooking standard does not apply, which we will explain in more detail shortly.
Now, turning to the walls on boundaries standard, the standard provides greater clarity and flexibility and simplifies how wall length and height on a boundary are assessed. A new wall may be constructed on a boundary for 10 metres plus 25% of the remaining boundary length. Alternatively, it can match the length of an existing or simultaneously constructed wall or carport on the adjoining lot.
The height of a new wall constructed on the boundary does not exceed 3.6 meters, unless abating a higher existing or simultaneously constructed wall. It's important to note that the average wall height requirement in Clause 55 has not been carried through to Clause 57. Looking at the diagram, the lot has a boundary length of 44 meters, which allows for 18.5 metres of walls on the boundary. This example complies, as it provides 18 metres of wall on the boundary.
Next is the site coverage standard. The standard requires that buildings do not cover more than 70% of the site area. This ensures there is sufficient space for landscaping, deep soil, open space and permeability. It also helps prevent overdevelopment at ground level while still allowing for feasible building footprints.
The diagram shows how site coverage is calculated, with the shaded area representing the building area that counts towards the site coverage. This includes roof structures such as the main building, roofed basement entries, and any communal sheds, underground basements are excluded, as well as unroofed areas like access ways. This standard can also be varied to a less restrictive requirement in a schedule to the zone.
Now, let's look at the tree canopy standard. This standard is partly consistent with clause 55 but has been updated to introduce basement setbacks to support better deep soil outcomes. Basements must be set back at least 3 metres from the front boundary and at least one other boundary, shown here, at the front and rear in the diagram. Basement ramps are permitted to encroach into these setbacks, the key benefit is that it increases the area available for deep soil planting, which supports larger canopy trees and improves long-term landscaping outcomes. DTP is currently reviewing the tree canopy requirements in response to significant stakeholder feedback. The tree canopy standard will be updated in clauses 55 and 57 if the findings of that review are supported by the minister.
Next is the front fences standard. This standard is mostly consistent with clause 55, but it introduces a minimum 25% transparency requirement. The 25% transparency is measured when viewed perpendicular to the fence line. This means that if you stand on the street and look straight at the fence, at least 1/4 of it should be open rather than solid. The maximum front fence height is 1.5 metres for most streets, but on streets with the Transport Zone Two, it can go up to two meters. This improves visibility to the street, supports passive surveillance, and enhances street interface. Finally... This standard can be varied in a schedule to the zone.
Now moving on to the Street Integration Standard. This standard focuses on strengthening the relationship between new development and the public realm to ensure buildings actively engage with the street. Firstly, developments are required to be orientated to front the street. This creates a clear relationship between the building and the public realm and avoid blank walls to the street. It also strengthens passive surveillance by requiring at least one balcony or habitable room window at each story to provide a direct view to each street and any public open space.
A direct view simply means there is a clear, direct line of sight to the street or public open space. Pedestrian entries are to be located on street frontage. In addition, car parking areas and internal waste collection areas are to be visually concealed from the street.
Finally, each dwelling is to have a mailbox and at least one personal locker provided for every five dwellings with this located communally.
I will now pass on to Nihal to run through the remaining standards.
Nihal Altuntas (DTP) 19:40
Thanks, Hasnan. The next standard is building entry and circulation. Pedestrian building entries must be clearly separated from vehicle entry points. This reduces potential conflict between vehicles and people to improve safety. As the diagram shows, the pedestrian entry is distinct from the car ramp.
Shared corridors and common areas to have at least one source of natural light and ventilation. In addition, these areas must not be obstructed by building services. This ensures these spaces are functional, comfortable and visually uncluttered.
Finally, there is to be a clear line of sight from the building entry to the lift lobby area at ground level. This improves wayfinding, increases passive surveillance within the building and creates a greater sense of safety when entering the building.
Turning now to private open space. Ground level private open space is reduced to 15 square metres, aligning it with balcony requirements. Smaller minimum ground floor private open space for apartment typologies are likely to support larger shared communal outdoor spaces, so all residents can benefit from usable garden spaces.
It also provides better opportunities for meaningful tree planting, increased canopy, and enhancing overall site amenity. A minimum balcony length of three metres is required to discourage narrow or deeply inset balconies that have limited functional use. The option to provide a smaller balcony if a dwelling faces north or south is removed, recognising that a 1.2-metre-wide balcony provides limited usable space. Finally, the reference to secluded private open space has been removed to be consistent with clause fifty-eight.
We'll now look at communal space. The standard requires developments of 10 or more dwellings to provide communal space that is accessible to all residents. This must be at least 2.5 square metres per dwelling, or 25% of the site area, whichever is the lesser. This aligns with the communal open space requirements in Clause 58.
Solar access requirements are integrated into the standard. Where outdoor communal space is provided, 50% of the area or 25 square metres, whichever is the greater, is not to be overshadowed for a minimum of two hours between 9am and 3pm on 22nd of September. This differs from clause 58, which assesses overshadowing on 21st of June. The 21st of June assessment can favour roof terraces, making it more difficult to have communal space at ground level. While roof terraces can be effective, they often add cost and complexity, requiring ongoing maintenance and introduce long-term risks, such as waterproofing failure.
They also don't support canopy tree planting in deep soil or facilitate high quality biodiverse landscapes. Roof terraces can also be less accessible than ground level communal spaces. Other changes include changing the communal open space to communal space, the requirement for communal open space to be located on the north side of a building has also been removed. These changes are intended to provide flexibility and support a wider range of communal spaces, including indoor communal space.
The next standard relates to daylight to new windows. The standard specifies that habitable room windows are not located in basements. However, following stakeholder feedback, assessment of habitable room windows in basements has been included in the decision guidelines. This means a habitable room window can be located in a basement, but it is not deemed to comply and must be assessed on its merits. There has been some criticism that the standard will allow for Harry Potter bedrooms, meaning bedrooms without windows. However, this is not the case as all bedrooms are required to have a window. This slide looks at the building separation within a site standard. This is a new standard that introduces minimum setbacks between buildings within the same site. It's intended to manage internal views, improves access to daylight and provide for outlook for living rooms and balconies in apartment developments. The standard requires walls containing a habitable room window or balcony a setback at least 9 metres from other walls of buildings on the site. This does not apply to walls that form part of a light court.
In response to stakeholder feedback, the 4.5 metre setback to bedroom windows has been removed. Light courts standard is also a new standard. It is a form of building separation, providing clearer expectations for daylight through light courts. Light courts are for the primary light source to a bedroom or non-habitable room window. They may also be used as a secondary daylight source to living spaces.
The standard requires minimum dimensions of 4.5 metres by 4.5 metres. It also requires a maximum dimension of 6 metres and a maximum area of 36 square metres. This is to distinguish a light court from building separation.
If the dimensions of the light court exceed 6 metres or 36 square metres in area, it is no longer considered a light court and must instead be assessed under the Building Separation Standard.
Now I'll explain how to assess building separation and how it is different to assessing a light court. Starting with the diagram on the left, this shows two separate buildings on the same lot, where a wall with a habitable room window or balcony faces another building, a minimum separation of 9 metres is required.
The middle diagram shows a recessed building form. Where that recess is greater than 6 metres and the internal facing walls contain habitable room windows or balconies, a minimum separation of 9 metres is also required. The diagram to the right shows an internal courtyard with a dimension of greater than 6 metres. Where habitable room windows or balconies face into the courtyard, the width of the courtyard must be at least 9 metres. So, in each case, once the dimension exceeds 6 metres, it is treated as building separation and the 9-metre requirement applies.
Let's also look at how light courts are assessed and how they're different to building separation. Starting with the diagram on the left, this shows bedrooms facing into a light court. The court has a minimum dimension of 4.5 metres and a maximum dimension of 6 metres. It is open to the sky and enclosed for at least 75% of its perimeter. The diagram on the right shows a similar arrangement, with bedrooms also facing into a light court. Again, the maximum dimension is 6 metres, and the light court must be clear to the sky and enclosed for at least 75% of its perimeter. If the light court exceeds the specified dimensions, it should be assessed as building separation. If the light court includes spaces that are not a bedroom or non-habitable room, so usually a living room, it should be assessed as building separation. DTP's mid-rise code guidelines on the planning website set this out in greater detail, and Adam will shortly talk more about those guidelines, a bit later on.
Turning now to the overshadowing secluded private open space standard. This standard only applies when side and rear setbacks and walls on boundary standards are not met. The diagram shows the impact of overshadowing on a neighbouring property at 9am. Testing has demonstrated that the side and rear setback standards result in a reasonable balance between allowing building height and protecting neighbours from excessive overshadowing.
Finally, the last standard that we'll go through in detail today relates to overlooking. This standard does not apply where the side and rear setback standards are met. However, if a development proposes a closer setback to what the side and rear setback standard requires, the overlooking standard applies and an assessment of the overlooking standard is required. The standard requires a minimum horizontal distance of 6 metres, sill heights and obscure glazing must be 1.5 metres from the finished floor level. Importantly, a bedroom is included as a habitable room, which is different to clause 55.
That concludes the overview of the standards. I'll now hand over to Victoria, who will take you through the application and operation of the code.
Victoria E Ainsworth (DTP) 28:56
Okay, thank you, Nihal. So, as Nihal just said, I'll now step you through the application and the operation of the code.
So, let's start with the application. Without going into a full explanation of application to each zone, which you can see on the screen, the key points are that clause 57 now applies to developments of four to six storeys in the mixed-use zone, the township zone, where it applies inside the urban growth boundary in metropolitan Melbourne, the residential growth zone and the housing choice and
transport zone. In the other township zones where they apply outside of the urban growth boundary in metropolitan Melbourne, the general residential zone and the neighbourhood residential zone, no residential development provisions apply to four to six storey development. However, clause 57 may be considered through decision guidelines.
Clause 58 now applies to development of seven stories or more instead of five or more stories in residential zones, but the application of a commercial activity centre zone and special purpose zone remains the same. The requirements of clause 57 may be considered through decision guidelines in these zones. The application of Clause 55 or the Townhouse and Low-Rise Code remains the same as before.
It is also important to note that there are no circumstances where a VicSmart application would apply to Clause 57 and we know there are a number of local schedules to the general residential zone in a few councils that support development of four or more stories, and DTP has been directed to undertake a review of these areas. We expect to brief the Minister for Planning shortly on options to rezone these areas to a more suitable zone to reflect the existing building height specified in those schedules.
I'll now step through local variations in residential zones. As Haslan mentioned while going through the standards, the street setback site coverage and front fences standards can be varied by local schedules to the mixed-use zone, the township zone and the residential growth zone to allow more permissive requirements than those in Clause 57. A built form overlay, such as a design and development overlay,
can be applied to introduce additional design requirements where required.
The ministerial direction on form and content has been updated to allow these variations. An amendment to update all local schedules to align with the updated form and content will follow shortly after the Mid-Rise Code comes into operation tomorrow. Existing variations to Clause 55 standards will not be translated to apply to clause 57.
Now turning to overlays and how they operate with the mid-rise code. There are no changes to the operation of other provisions of the planning scheme, including overlays and particular provisions like car parking and bicycle parking. Residential developments are still required to meet the requirements of any relevant overlay or particular provision that apply to the site or to the development, including planning permit requirements for land use, development and heritage. Clause 57 allows the mid-rise code standards to be modified by a zone or a schedule to a zone, like activity centre zones or precinct zones. It also allows the mid-rise code standards to be modified by an overlay or a schedule to an overlay, like the design and development overlay or the built form overlay. The key exception to this is the neighbourhood character overlay. The objectives and decision guidelines of the neighbourhood character overlay continue to apply, as does the permit requirement to demolish or remove a building. However, unlike the Townhouse and Low-Rise code, a neighbourhood character overlay cannot modify a standard of the mid-rise code. For developments of four to six stories, the mid-rise code standards prevail over any modified NCO standard.
On to the deemed to comply operation and requirements. The operation of the standards follows A deemed to comply assessment pathway, which is the same as the Townhouse and Low Rights Code. A development must meet all of the applicable objectives contained in clause 57. If a development meets a standard, the corresponding objective is deemed to be met, and the responsible authority is not required to consider the corresponding decision guidelines. If the standard is not met, the responsible authority must consider relevant decision guidelines to decide if the objective is still met. For example, the decision guidelines for the urban context objectives, include alternative design solutions to be assessed against any relevant urban design objective, policy or statement set out in the planning scheme, which means local policies can be applied when considering if an alternative design solution satisfies the objective.
So, this slide details what the responsible authority is not required to consider where a standard is met. Where a standard is met, the responsible authority does not need to consider the MPS, the PPF, the purpose of the zone, and any decision guidelines in clause 65 or specific sections of the act. This means that a fully compliant application must be granted a permit and matters such as urban design policies, neighbourhood character policies, ESD policies and matters not implemented by overlays cannot be considered. In A practical sense, this will mean that planning authorities should look to use overlays to ensure that matters such as contamination and flooding or areas of significant neighbourhood character are reasonably considered in the decision-making framework. A really important thing that I want to mention is that DTP understands that there has been significant feedback on the townhouse and low-rise code regarding the inability to consider matters not specified in the planning scheme directly like in an overlay, and we're working through that feedback as part of a more fulsome review of the residential development provisions across clauses 54, 55, 57 and 58. We acknowledge that the feedback also applies to the operation of the mid-rise code, but it's important to ensure that the residential development provisions operate consistently, so we don't have different requirements applying to different codes now.
So, let's look at the notice of application requirements. There are no changes to the way in which notice is to be given, which is consistent with the operation of the townhouse and low-rise code. Notice of an application can continue to be given to affected adjoining owners and occupiers and any other persons. A materially affected person is able to make an objection, and all objections must be considered by the responsible authority. Now for exemptions from review, or for, I'll start again. Now for exemptions from review, for an application assessed against clause 57, where a planning authority determines the application is fully compliant, the application is exempt from third party review. If a standard is not met, an objector can be involved in an appeal, but only as it relates to that standard, and providing it is not exempt,
which I will detail in the next slide. Responsible authorities are encouraged to contact all objectives and make clear the exemption requirement. Please also ensure the correct form in Schedule 1 of the Planning and Environment Regulations is used and that existing templates for notices of decision are up to date and consistent with Schedule 1 to the regs. It is also recommended that the responsible authority provide a copy of the planning permit issued to all objectors to ensure they are aware of the outcome. Practically, the exemptions from review mean that where all the applicable standards are met, there will be no third-party right of appeal. The applicable standards are all the standards in the urban context and external amenity themes, which includes overshadowing secluded open space and overlooking standards when they apply. BCAT s consideration is constrained to applicable standards that have not been met.
Let's now look at the transitional provisions. Existing applications will continue to benefit from provisions that applied before the operation of Amendment VC300. While VC300 was gazetted on the 19th of March this year, the amendment does not come into operation until the 16th of April, which is tomorrow.
This also includes Section 72 amendments where the original permit application was lodged before VC300. In these cases, clauses 3207-657 and 58 apply as they existed before VC300. Applications lodged after VC300 was gazetted are assessed under the current provisions. This approach provides certainty for both applicants and decision makers.
And finally, DTP also asked key stakeholders about design quality as part of the consultation on the Mid-Rise Code last year. This requirement was suggested to potentially allow assessment of specified elements of a design, such as external materials, in addition to assessment against seem to combined standards.
Following the Minister for Planning's decision, the final code does not include a dedicated assessment of design quality. However, we are confident that the combination of standards in the mid-rise code still provide for well-designed buildings. The standards are also complemented by very comprehensive design guidelines, which Adam is going to speak to now. So now I will hand over to Adam to talk about the tools and guidance available to support you.
Adam G Wojcik (DTP) 39:01
Thanks, Victoria. I will now step through the tools and guidance which complement and support the code reforms. A range of tools have been released to support the implementation of the Mid-Rise Code and support industry practitioners in their application of these standards and the design and assessment of development proposals. It's also for members of the community to better understand and communicate potential outcomes for mid-rise developments.
The release of the mid-rise design guide is to support design thinking that complements the requirements set out in the code. It illustrates the many ways mid-rise residential buildings can fit comfortably in existing neighbourhoods, providing good amenity to both new and existing residents. It is intended as a practical tool to support design thinking and complement the requirements in the mid-rise code,
helping to achieve high-quality, site-responsive mid-rise development.
I'll now run through how the mid-rise design guide is intended to be used and how it can help support you. The guide contains 4 parts, site design, urban interface, building design, and dwelling design. I'll now take you through those four parts, and as I do, I'll give you a snapshot of some parts of the design guide.
Part one is about site design. This section provides design techniques on how consideration of the site and broader context informs site-specific design decisions. This section covers sunlight and daylight, wind, existing site features, levels and topography, and views.
This part of the guide is useful to understand how new mid-rise development should respond to the context and what makes a well-sited development.
Part 2 is about the urban interface. This section provides design techniques for buildings to connect with and contribute to the street and surrounding public spaces. This chapter covers activation, address to the street, landscaping, and entry and access. There is a lot of useful guidance here about creating active frontages.
providing passive surveillance, and how to order and detail a facade with clear and practical solutions to communicate with practitioners, designers, and developers.
This section is also useful for understanding how people experience mid-rise development from the human scale and how mid-rise development can contribute to an area and provide a positive address to the public realm.
Part 3 is about building design. This section addresses the design of apartment buildings in more detail. It focuses on building structure, layout, and communal spaces, as well as materials and site services. This section is useful for understanding how a mid-rise development can be set out to achieve efficient construction, a convenient layout, and enhance the overall liveability and experience of a building for occupants and visitors.
Lastly, part 4 is about dwelling design. This chapter provides design techniques for functional and comfortable living environments for residents, visitors and the community. This chapter covers dwelling amenity, which provides practical guidance for achieving good daylight, sunlight, natural ventilation, thermal comfort, privacy and outlook in dwellings. This chapter also covers dwelling diversity and flexibility, dwelling layout, and private open space.
This final chapter is all about, is useful for understanding what good mid-rise development looks like for occupants and how individual dwellings can be designed to enhance liveability.
DTP has also prepared the mid-rise code guidelines to support practitioners. This is similar to planning practise notes that you may already be familiar with, however, it is a lot more comprehensive. It matches the guidelines prepared for the townhouse and low-rise code. The purpose of the mid-rise code guidelines
is to inform the interpretation and application of the Mid-Rise Code standards, and includes annotated diagrams and detailed written explanations about how the standards operate and how they can be met.
Finally, we have updated our website, planning.vic.gov.au, so that anyone looking to find more information about the mid-rise code can start here. And as Michael mentioned at the start, we'll be holding training sessions to help understand how to apply these new provisions, which I don't know if Michael mentioned it, but keep an eye out for those session dates. You can also find links to the mid-rise design guide and the mid-rise code guidelines on the website and with that, I will hand back over to Michael and to Giorgio. So, thank you very much.
Giorgio Marfella 43:45
Yes, thank you very much, Michael. And also, thank you for all your contributions. It's a very comprehensive presentation, so very informative. Now, I don't have any specific questions that I could see unless there's some that come up, but I will, well, actually one just came up now. But in the meantime, we did receive a query whether this presentation can be made available. We will certainly leave the recording of this webinar like we always do on the ARBV. Whether we'll provide these particular slides or not, Michael, I'm not sure, but I do note that you have plenty of information available, including the guidelines that were just been introduced, so I wonder if it's possible someone to rely this as an introductory slideshow to our audience.
Michael J Orford (DTP) 44:35
Absolutely, I think we'll be making it available on the website and today's session has been recorded as well, so, if you want to watch back any particular part of the presentation, you can do so after today as well, is my understanding.
Giorgio Marfella 44:39
Right. Yes.
Thank you, Michael. So, I'll take you through some questions that just came up. So, the first one is a question asking why the design document is named Design Guide instead of Code.
Michael J Orford (DTP) 45:04
Yeah, really interesting question. So, we've prepared obviously a range of documents and some of those are requirements of the planning scheme and some of them aren't. And that's the main reason that they're titled differently. So, we've got the guidelines which help to interpret the requirements of the planning scheme in clause 57 and then we've got the guide itself, which is all about good design and how we can achieve good design through the mid-rise code. So that's the main reason why we've got different titles for the two documents. One relates to the requirements of the planning scheme, whereas mine is a more general guide about design quality.
Giorgio Marfella 45:43
Thank you, Michael. Another question to ask is quite specific, ask about the impact that this new code could have on adjoining buildings that may have solar panels. Has there been any consideration for that?
Michael J Orford (DTP) 45:58
There absolutely has, and this is a really important question. So, in areas where we're expecting to see new mid-rise development, we don't have explicit requirements in most cases to consider solar panel overshadowing and the reason for that is that we've done a lot of testing, and when we have four, five and six storey development that gets built next to a single dwelling, it's very difficult to accommodate an area on the roof of that single dwelling that's protected from overshadowing. And particularly given these areas are going to be experiencing a lot of change, what we want to ensure is that as we have new developments of a mid-rise scale, that they're able to be built effectively and efficiently and make the most of the space on the lot, rather than responding to existing site conditions for something like a single dwelling that's likely to be transformed soon, in the near future anyway, because of the fact that mid-rise development in these areas is to be expected. Whether we do have some protections for solar panel overshadowing in particular zones, so if there is a mid-rise development that's sited next to a development in, I think it's in a neighbourhood residential zone and general residential zone, and the mid-rise development is in a residential growth zone, There are additional setback requirements to protect those single dwellings from overshadowing of the solar panels. So, it does apply in some cases, but not in the majority of cases.
Giorgio Marfella 47:24
Okay, there was another question that asks -you mentioned the timeline, of course, this becoming into effect from tomorrow, so that's important to, good timing, I suppose, for this presentation. But you mentioned also the opportunity of additional training sessions, and could you give us some heads up when these will occur?
Michael J Orford (DTP) 47:48
Certainly, I wonder if I might be able to pass over to Nihal to see if we've got any details around the dates for those yet, Nihal, or if it's still a case of keeping an eye out for those dates.
Nihal Altuntas (DTP) 47:57
Yes, just keep an eye out for those dates. We'll announce them soon,
just finalising the dates for those.
Giorgio Marfella 48:05
Yeah.
Thank you. Another question that just came up is concerning light courts and I'll read it live, so bear with me, hopefully it's clear. Is there a concern that the new light court requirements will lead to smaller internal offsets as developers reduce offsets to under 6 metres instead of going to 9 meters?
Michael J Orford (DTP) 48:30
I think this is a really important question and we did do a lot of testing around light courts and building separation. And I think Nihal articulated really well the difference between the two and the fact that if we are using the light court requirements that only certain types of rooms are eligible to face into a light court, and that where we've got living rooms, the primary space needs to be not onto a light court.
So, I don't know, Nihal, if you've got anything further to add in respect of that, but the testing did demonstrate that we would achieve acceptable outcomes through having bedrooms and the secondary windows of living areas onto light courts.
Giorgio Marfella 49:13
Okay, well, there's a few other comments that just came up. But in the meantime, I also had a question I wanted to put forward. You mentioned obviously the integration of this into local planning controls. Is there any specific things that you would like to add? So, in other words, what I'm asking is the is the prospect that this might induce local planning controls to be amended further. You did mention that there's been some discussions going, right?
Michael J Orford (DTP) 49:43
Yeah, so across the state government, there's a lot of initiatives in the housing space. One of those that you might be familiar with is the Train and Tram Zone Activity Centre Program. And that's looking at up-zoning 60 activity centres across Melbourne. And as part of that up-zoning, the what we call catchment areas of those activity centres, so the areas within walking distance of those activity centres,
are proposed to be up-zoned to what's called the Housing Choice and Transport Zone. And that zone facilitates 4, 5 and six storey development. So, we're expecting a lot of local areas across Melbourne will be supporting mid-rise development in the near future as those different activity centres are up zoned and that land comes online. So, we expect those areas will be the areas that will be able to make the most of the new mid-rise code.
Giorgio Marfella 50:35
Thank you. And so obviously, there'll be further developments, so this could trigger further changes locally. And now there's a few other comments that came in. Again, I'll read them as they come. So, there's a comment here talking about separation of 6 meters, which may result in non-compliance or separation of compartments if separations walls are not fire-rated. Do you understand that there could be potential discrepancies, say, between the five separation requirements of the National Construction Code and the Planning Code? Awfully not. I mean, I mentioned you would have considered this thoroughly. Is that, are we able to provide a response for that?
Michael J Orford (DTP) 51:19
Yeah, of course. So, we did absolutely consider the requirements of the National Construction Code in putting together the standards in the mid-rise code. And absolutely, it's the case that you need to meet both requirements. So, you need to obviously continue to meet the requirements of the National Construction Code when designing A mid-rise development around the mid-rise code.
Giorgio Marfella 51:39
And there's another question here I'll read. Single adjoining dwellings will not necessarily be developed, and the DTP should not assume this be the case. Existing single dwellings which will not be developed in the near future should be considered more appropriately, including the existing solar panels. So, I suppose this is somewhat going back to your observation about solar panels.
I'm not sure I understand entirely the comment. Mike, would you like to respond to that?
Michael J Orford (DTP) 52:04
Yeah.
Look, I think it's a fair comment. And so, as part of preparing advice for government, what we did is we put together some advice around balancing these different aspirations. So in large parts of Melbourne and Victoria, where mid-rise development isn't permitted under the zoning regime, those dwellings will continue to be afforded protection for solar panels on their roof, But in areas where the government is looking to create additional housing, we don't want to prejudice or sterilise the ability to provide that additional housing where we put in place requirements like to protect solar panels from overshadowing. So, it's a holistic response where we balance the need for new housing against the protection of solar panels across a very broad area.
Giorgio Marfella 52:54
I'll let another question that came to my mind in your presentation. It seems like this is a very, as you explained very well, there is obviously a strategic intent here to streamline the approval of projects, particularly of a certain size beyond the low-rise residential developments that are very common in our neighbourhoods. But
do you anticipate that there could be some public reaction against the fact that perhaps these changes may attract opposition and some, you know, the public concern maybe that there's less recourse to appeals? Obviously, I imagine this would have been part of the discussion that came in the consultation process. So, what would you answer to reassure us, was the public in general, beyond architects, about the fact that they might feel that some new developments in the neighbourhood somehow are happening and they might not be happy with it, but yet they don't have recourse to a third-party review.
Michael J Orford (DTP) 53:53
Yeah, it's a really important question. And I guess there's a couple of components to this answer. So, the first is that as part of the rezoning of large parts of our activity centre network across Melbourne, it's going to be clearer where change is to be expected for the community and areas where change isn't to be expected
for the community. So that's the role of zoning is to provide clarity for the community about which parts of Melbourne and Victoria are going to change and which parts aren't.
So as part of the community consultation on the Train and Tram Zone Activity Centre program, yes, the government has heard a lot of feedback around change in different neighbourhoods and in terms of the mid-rise code, we're very confident that the standards and the testing has demonstrated acceptable outcomes for neighbours for mid-rise developments. And so as part of that, I think that the community can be rest assured that meeting the standards, the strict standards that have been inserted into the planning scheme through the mid-rise code,
means that we will have acceptable outcomes in terms of the amenity for neighbours and those on adjoining lots in areas that are changing and evolving over time.
Giorgio Marfella 55:03
And in fact, thank you, Michael, for answering that. I know it's an important topic and some complexities associated with it, but there's probably a follow-up comment here, which is whether there may be a review of overlays to ensure that the overlays somehow don't become tools to block mid-rise by development councils. So, in other words, it could be somehow the local council pushing against the state government initiative. What do we want to say about that? Is there a risk that this could happen?
Michael J Orford (DTP) 55:35
So all overlays that are put in place by local councils are subject to approval by the Minister for Planning. And so as part of that assessment, the Department of Transport and Planning will provide advice to the Minister around the suitability of any planning scheme amendment that seeks to apply additional overlays. So obviously, you know, when there's a heritage overlay or a neighbourhood character overlay or a design and development overlay with different building heights specified, those sorts of overlays are subject to an assessment and advice provided to the minister in due course around the suitability and appropriateness of applying overlays in different parts of Melbourne and Victoria.
Giorgio Marfella 56:13
Good. Yeah, so the state government obviously will have some say in this. I think there's a follow-up. So, what about the existing ones? I suppose we're probably going back to what we said before, but the existing one probably are likely to remain in place. I don't know. Michael, is that right?
Michael J Orford (DTP) 56:31
Yes, that's right. So local councils are obliged to review their planning scheme every four years. And as part of those planning scheme reviews, the Department of Transport and Planning supports councils to identify areas that should be subject to review, and whether that's different parts of their municipality geographically or different parts of their planning scheme in terms of specific overlays and will continue to support local councils in those reviews of planning schemes.
Giorgio Marfella 56:56
Okay, thank you again, Michael. And another question going back to the light courts. What happens if an existing light court on boundary is smaller than 4.5 by 4.5? The new light court will be built exposing an ugly boundary wall?
Michael J Orford (DTP) 57:13
So it's a really good question and so as part of the development, it needs to ensure that all of the standards are met, so that includes the walls on boundaries standard and the light court standard. And so, we've done the testing to ensure that where we've got multiple standards that apply to the same part of a building, that that outcome continues to be acceptable. If it is smaller or it doesn't comply with the rules on boundaries standard, it's considered what's called an alternative design response. And so, the designer would need to justify to the local council, who's going to be most likely the assessor of these applications, why that design response is acceptable and why the standard hasn't been met in that instance.
Giorgio Marfella 57:53
Great, thank you. We almost reached the end. I have another final question possibly to ask. In view of these changes, do you think that there might be a threat to consolidation of land parcels to allow for more mid-rise?
Michael J Orford (DTP) 58:12
Another really good question. And as part of the changes through the Train and Tram Zone Activity Centre programme and that housing choice and transport zone that I mentioned earlier, there are different height requirements that apply to different lot sizes. And so, you can get additional height where you have a larger lot and so I understand that there's been testing done to demonstrate that on larger lots with additional height, that development becomes more feasible and is more likely to occur. So that's one of the ways that some of the changes, complementary changes to the mid-rise code, can help to support lot consolidation across Melbourne and different parts of Victoria.
Giorgio Marfella 58:51
Thank you again, Michael. And let me extend also my thanks to everybody here, Adam, Victoria, Nihal, Fiona, Hasnan.
So, it was a very interesting and very informative presentation. So yes, we will provide a record of this and we've been very, very much pleased to host you all from the Department of Transport and Planning to keep us abreast of all these things. So, there might be opportunities to come back on this. And also, I'd like to thank all the audience today, in particular, imagine the architects who have contributed to these changes and given their feedback to the state government about this.
So, with this, I can just say
Wish you well and look forward to see you at the next webinar. And thanks again to our guests from DTP. See you later. Bye.
stopped transcription
Updated