PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT REPORT
December 2015
BETTER APARTMENTS
© The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning 2015
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. You are free to re-use the work under that licence, on the condition that you credit the State of Victoria as author. The licence does not apply to any images, photographs or branding, including the Victorian Coat of Arms, the Victorian Government logo and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) logo. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
ISBN 978-1-74146-986-8 (pdf) Accessibility
If you would like to receive this publication in an alternative format, please telephone the DELWP Customer Service Centre on 136186, email [email protected] (or relevant address), or via the National Relay Service on 133 677 www.relayservice.com.au. This document is also available on the internet at www.delwp.vic.gov.au
Disclaimer
This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
1 INTRODUCTION 6
1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT 6
1.2 CONTEXT 6
1.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT 7
2 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT APPROACH 8
2.1 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS 9
2.2 COMMUNITY SURVEY 10
2.3 MINISTER’S FORUM 11
2.4 WORKSHOPS 11
2.5 INTERVIEWS 11
3 FINDINGS AT A GLANCE 13
3.1 COMMUNITY SURVEY 13
3.2 WORKSHOPS 14
3.3 INTERVIEWS 14
3.4 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS 15
3.5 VIEWS OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS 21
4 DETAILED FINDINGS
4.1 ISSUE 1 | DAYLIGHT 25
4.2 ISSUE 2 | SUNLIGHT 28
4.3 ISSUE 3 | SPACE 31
4.4 ISSUE 4 | OUTLOOK 36
4.5 ISSUE 5 | NATURAL VENTILATION 40
4.6 ISSUE 6 | NOISE 42
4.7 ISSUE 7 | OUTDOOR SPACE 45
4.8 ISSUE 8 | ADAPTABILITY 48
4.9 ISSUE 9 | LANDSCAPE 50
4.10 ISSUE 10 | UNIVERSAL DESIGN 52
4.11 ISSUE 11 | ENERGY & RESOURCES 54
4.12 ISSUE 12 | WASTE 57
4.13 ISSUE 13 | CAR PARKING 59
4.14 ISSUE 14 | ENTRY & CIRCULATION 62
5 IMPLEMENTATION | GETTING THE TOOLS RIGHT 64
6 NEXT STEPS 69
GLOSSARY OF TERMS 70
APPENDIX A | BETTER APARTMENTS SUBMISSION FORM 72
APPENDIX B | BETTER APARTMENTS COMMUNITY SURVEY 82
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The way we are living is changing. More and more Victorians are choosing apartments – as an affordable first home, as a way for older people to stay in their local area when they downsize, or simply because they prefer it.
Victoria has experienced successive years of record apartment approvals and development. There are now more apartments being approved for development in metropolitan Melbourne than houses in growth areas.
Guidelines in Victoria for apartment design and quality have not been updated in more than a decade. It is time to clarify our planning and design standards to ensure the next generation of housing in Victoria continues our tradition of high quality liveable housing, supports diverse communities, and delivers lasting economic value for investors and home owners.
In May this year, the Planning Minister Richard Wynne released the Better
Apartments – A Discussion Paper and invited public participation in a debate around apartment amenity, through the following approaches:
• Written submissions
• Community survey
• Minister’s Forum
• Community, industry and local government workshops
• Interviews with key stakeholders.
Overall, there was strong participation in all aspects of the engagement.
Over 1700 people responded to the survey and 145 submissions were received, demonstrating the public’s strong interest in this issue.
This report brings together the feedback on the discussion paper and the key issues that Victorians see as important in apartment design.
It will inform the development of new standards for apartments to ensure they meet the expectations of Victorians for quality, accessibility, and affordability.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
COMMUNITY SURVEY
The community survey confirms apartment living is an essential, highly valued living option in Victoria.
There is overall agreement from stakeholders that apartment living offers significant benefits. More than 50% of respondents selected close proximity to all amenities, cheaper transport costs and low maintenance as the leading benefits.
In contrast, the two aspects of apartment living that stand out as the most disliked by respondents are a lack of storage and noise.
All survey respondents agreed there are four main challenges for apartment living in the future:
• Coming up with the right design
• Ensuring apartments are affordable
• Ensuring there are a range of apartment options, and
• Working with industry to achieve the best outcomes.
WORkSHOPS
There is general acceptance about the need to improve some amenity issues related to apartment design. In general, these issues relate to outlook, the design of common areas (entry and circulation), size of apartments, daylight and sunlight, landscaping, adaptability and car parking.
In terms of implementation, there is general support among industry and local government for a performance-based model, which incorporates opportunities to vary planning provisions based on site context and one that allows opportunities for innovation – notwithstanding that some industry respondents do not see a need for regulation.
INTERVIEWS
Some interviewees feel there is a policy vacuum concerning apartment design and a consistent approach is required. Daylight, outlook and the size of apartments are the most widely discussed issues.
There is also general support for a ‘performance-based’ model. Some respondents are concerned that further regulation could affect development costs and housing affordability, and reduce innovation.
VIEWS OF kEY STAkEHOLDERS
COUNCILS
Councils are very supportive of better managing the amenity of apartment living through introducing additional guidance in the planning system and possibly the building system.
They call for a performance-based planning system that will enable design standards to be set while enabling innovation. Several councils claim that high quality
apartments can be delivered without substantially affecting development costs and point to the long-term financial benefits of a well-designed apartment.
DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY
Development industry representatives broadly support the need for a consistent approach to managing the amenity of apartments to provide greater certainty for the industry.
However, they are concerned that new standards could increase development costs, impact on the development potential of sites and affect housing affordability.
Therefore, careful consideration should be given to any new policy that seeks to insert regulation between planning and building systems. If new regulation is required, it should be conscious of the site context and be flexible enough to allow for design innovation, variety and choice.
PLANNING AND DESIGN PRACTITIONERS
Planning and design practitioners support the introduction of new amenity guidance to provide greater consistency in decision-making, but have mixed views around the type of standards that could apply.
Performance-based controls are supported and need to be flexible enough to facilitate design excellence. A thorough site analysis and design response are essential to achieving the best outcomes.
COMMUNITY MEMBERS
Community members, including existing apartment residents, community groups and the broader community, are focused on ensuring the internal living spaces are better for occupants.
They tend to support mandatory standards to provide greater certainty in development outcomes for the community.
While they generally agree minimising development costs is important, there may be some specific features of an apartment for which they as consumers are willing to accept higher rent or a higher purchase price.
When choosing an apartment, some community members may also be willing to trade off internal amenity for a good location, including proximity of the apartment to local facilities such as public transport, social services, parks and shops.
Community members call for buyers and renters of apartments to have more information available to them when choosing an apartment.
There are notable differences in the views of current apartment residents compared to other stakeholders around issues of car parking, noise minimisation and natural ventilation.
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
This Public Engagement Report summarises the feedback received on the Better Apartments – A Discussion Paper that was released in May 2015. It adds to the evidence base that will help determine the right mechanisms to promote high quality apartment living opportunities in Victoria.
1.2 CONTEXT
The Better Apartments project is a joint initiative of the Department of Environment Land Water and Planning (DELWP) and the Office of Victorian Government Architect (OVGA). It aims to deliver on the Victorian Government’s commitment to better manage the amenity of apartment living and maintain Victoria’s liveability.
Victoria’s population is expected to grow from 5.8 million in 2014 to 10 million in 2051. Most people will live in Melbourne, with its population growing from 4.3 million in 2014 to 7.7 million by 2051. Current estimates show that apartments could make up one third of the new housing stock by 2051.
Victoria has a long history of suburban detached housing development and more recently medium-density housing (since the 1990s). Apartments are a relatively new part of the housing sector. The number of apartments currently approved and built in Victoria make up nearly one third of all new dwellings approved across the state – more than at any time in our history.
There are now more apartments being approved for development in metropolitan Melbourne than houses in growth areas. The design quality and internal amenity of apartments is therefore an issue of public significance.
1
1.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT
This report summarises the feedback received on the discussion paper.
Following this introduction, Section 2 provides an overview of the engagement approach.
Section 3 presents the results graphically and provides an overview of observations from the engagement processes and stakeholder groups.
Section 4 explains the results, including responses to the 14 issues affecting apartment amenity identified in the discussion paper.
Section 5 summarises the feedback received on getting the implementation tools right.
Section 6 outlines the next steps for the Better Apartments project.
A glossary of key terms is provided at the end of this report.
Figure 1: Annual number of residential building approvals in Melbourne, 1996-2015 Source: ABS Building Approvals, cat. no. 8731.0
Number of building approvals
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Houses in growth area municipalities
Apartments
Other
Financial year
1996 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2009-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT APPROACH
DELWP and OVGA developed a comprehensive approach to public engagement.
The objectives were:
• To inform the community of the Victorian Government’s intention to improve the design and amenity of new apartments to sustain and improve Victoria’s liveability
• To understand the views of a variety of people and organisations on the issues raised in the discussion paper relating to the amenity of apartments
• To encourage constructive feedback on how the development of apartments could be improved through planning and building systems
• To reach a broad range of people within the community including apartment residents and from the development industry and government sectors.
The approach comprised an invitation to prepare a written submission in response to the discussion paper, a community survey, a Minister’s Forum, workshops and interviews with key people and organisations (see Table 1).
A range of techniques were used to reach a variety of people and encourage participation. The public engagement process was advertised through the media, the DELWP website (www.delwp.vic.gov.au/better-apartments) and through general email and postal correspondence.
Participants included representatives from the development industry (including developers and planning and design practitioners), officers from local and state government, current apartment residents, people who have lived in apartments, representatives from peak planning and building practitioner bodies, resident associations and members of the wider community.
The public engagement process commenced in May 2015 with the release of the discussion paper, which called for feedback on 14 design issues and the most appropriate implementation tools. The discussion paper was supplemented by Better Apartments: Minister’s Forum Context Report (July 2015) outlining the market conditions and regulatory context of the project. The public engagement phase concluded in October 2015.
2
Table 1: Public engagement responses and participation
Date Public Engagement Number of
Respondents or Participants May-July 2015 Submission to the Better
Apartments – A Discussion Paper
145 Submissions
May-July 2015 Community Survey 1701 respondents
July 2015 Minister‘s Forum – Local government and peak industry bodies
46 participants
August 2015 Local Government Workshop 55 participants
September 2015 Community Workshops 44 participants
September 2015 Industry Workshop 56 participants
September 2015 Community Workshop (evening) 22 participants September-October 2015 Interviews with key stakeholders 12 participants
2.1 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
An online submission form was used to invite written submissions on the discussion paper (see Appendix A).
People were invited to rank the 14 issues affecting apartment amenity in order of importance.
A total of 145 written submissions were received with the majority of responses from individuals followed by metropolitan councils.
A full breakdown of the rankings of the 14 issues affecting apartment amenity is outlined in sections 3 and 4.
Those who responded via the online submission form are referred to as ‘written respondents’ for the purpose of this report. This report includes a number of quotes drawn from the written submissions. ‘#’ means written submission respondent number.
Figure 2: Number of written respondents by submitter type Local government – regional
State or Commonwealth government department or agency Sole provider or company development industry Community-based organisation Planning or development consultant Construction or development industry organisation Architect or building designer Local government – metropolitan Individual
Submitter type
Number of written respondents
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
2.2 COMMUNITY SURVEY
A short community survey was devised to invite community members to comment on their expectations and thoughts about apartment living, including likes and dislikes, overall attitudes towards apartment living and their opinions about apartment living in the future.
The surveys also asked respondents to rank the 14 issues affecting apartment amenity in order of importance. All members of the public were invited to complete the survey.
In addition, a ‘boost’ survey targeting 300 people who currently live in apartments throughout metropolitan Melbourne (post codes of 3000-3207) was undertaken.
The survey was open to members of the public, government and industry groups.
Respondents to the community survey are referred to as ‘survey respondents’ for the purpose of this report.
A total of 1701 survey respondents completed the community survey with:
• 955 respondents from the community and 446 respondents from industry, totalling 1401
• 300 community respondents from the ‘boost’ survey (all of whom live in an apartment).
People working in the industry*
446
Community members living in an apartment
622 Community
members not living in an apartment
591
*People working in the industry include government, planning and development consultants, architects, building designers and property developers.
Figure 3: Number of survey respondents by segment category
2.3 MINISTER’S FORUM
A Minister's Forum was held on 9 July 2015 with 46 people including the mayors and chief executive officers of metropolitan and regional city councils and executive officers of relevant peak bodies. At the Forum the Minister for Planning called for constructive feedback on the issues of internal apartment design and amenity. The Forum was facilitated by David Klingberg, urban designer and strategic planning specialist, and comprised a panel of industry representatives including:
• Thomas Alves, OVGA
• Tamara Brezzi, Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association (VPELA)
• Leanne Hodyl, City of Melbourne
• James Mansour, Charter Keck Cramer
• Mark Marsden, City of Moreland.
2.4 WORkSHOPS
Four workshops were held in August and September 2015 with a broad range of community, industry and local and state government stakeholders. The workshops provided an opportunity for those who had written a submission to identify solutions to the internal amenity design issues. All written respondents and survey respondents who expressed an interest in receiving more information, were invited to participate in the workshops. Each workshop was attended by 20 to 55 people.
A total of 223 people participated in the workshops. Participants at the workshops are referred to as ‘workshop participants’ for the purpose of this report.
2.5 INTERVIEWS
Twelve interviews were undertaken with a variety of representatives from industry peak bodies and community stakeholders that had lodged written submissions.
Interview participants included:
• Australian Institute of Architects (AIA)
• Building Designers Association of Victoria (BDAV)
• Council Alliance for a Sustainable Built Environment (CASBE)
• Docklands Community Association (DCA)
• Housing Choices Australia (HCA)
• Housing Industry Association (HIA)
• Master Builders Association of Victoria (MBAV)
• Planning Institute of Australia (PIA)
• Property Council of Australia (PCA)
• Urban Development Industry Association (UDIA)
• Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association (VPELA)
• Scott Wiley, Architect.
Interviewees were asked to speak openly about their submissions and expand on any key points, followed by a series of structured questions, which were designed to compare and contrast views among respondents. The questions were:
• Some submissions have said that apartment standards will erode affordability and increase costs. Do you agree? Why or why not?
• Some submissions have said that apartment guidelines will limit architectural expression and reduce innovation and design excellence. Do you agree? Why or why not?
• Is the quality of internal amenity for apartments in the inner city ‘acceptable’
now? Why or why not?
• Do we currently have the right ‘tools’ in Victoria to deliver an acceptable level of amenity for apartment occupants? Why or why not?
• Do you think that the current Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (former Department of Sustainability and Environment) provide an appropriate mechanism to deliver apartments with an acceptable quality of internal amenity? Why or why not?
• Some submissions say that the market will address concerns that people have about the quality and amenity of apartments. Do you agree? Why or why not?
FINDINGS AT A GLANCE
This section provides some general observations arising out of the public
engagement processes and an overview of views from different stakeholder groups.
3.1 COMMUNITY SURVEY
The community survey confirms that apartments are an essential, highly valued living option in Victoria. The high response rate and the quality of comments shows there is a keen interest in ensuring apartments meet the needs of the community into the future.
There is overall agreement that apartment living is highly beneficial. The three benefits of apartments selected by a large portion (over 50%) of the respondents included: close proximity to everything residents need; it cuts down on transport costs; and is low maintenance. In contrast, two key disadvantages of apartment living include a lack of storage; and the impact of noise.
Respondents point out two key issues facing apartment living for the future:
• Reasonable apartment sizes to ensure sufficient space and storage to suit any household type and life stage, and
• Quality of air, ventilation and natural daylight, because it is important for health and wellbeing.
There are some areas where respondents working in the development industry differ from people living in apartments. While all segments agree that adequate space and daylight are important, natural ventilation is considered of greater importance by those working in the industry, as is access to outdoor space.
People who live in an apartment value natural ventilation and believe noise
minimisation is important. A quality outlook appears to be more important to those working in the industry.
Many respondents believe there are four main challenges for apartment living in the future:
• Coming up with the right design
• Ensuring apartments are affordable
• Ensuring there are a range of apartment options, and
• Working with industry to achieve the best outcomes.
Overall the findings indicate an engaged community with strong emotional
connections to apartment living – many respondents have made the decision to live in an apartment and highly value what it offers.
3
The following graphs (Figures 4 to 8) outline how each issue raised in the discussion paper was rated by survey respondents.
Figure 4: Attitudes towards apartment living and the ‘trade offs’ people are prepared to make.
An ‘airy’ apartment that has good natural daylight, direct sunlight and
good ventilation is essential and is worth paying more for. 2% 5% 13% 38% 42%
Apartments can be designed so they meet needs of everyone who
wants to live in them. 3% 9% 13% 39% 35%
Location is the most important thing when it comes to choosing an
apartment. 3% 12% 28% 40% 17%
There should be minimum apartment sizes to ensure apartments have
reasonable sized rooms and storage. 7% 7% 10% 21% 55%
You can never get everything you want in an apartment. 7% 19% 20% 40% 14%
Location is not so important if the apartment has good access to public
transport and/or a car parking space. 8% 26% 23% 32% 10%
It’s important that an apartment is pleasant to live in and has a good
outlook/view and outdoor spaces, but it’s not worth paying more for it. 11% 31% 22% 22% 13%
Environmentally-friendly aspects in an apartment such as recycling facilities, water efficiency and sustainable energy sources are ‘nice to
haves’ rather than ‘must haves’. 27% 29% 13% 21% 10%
It’s not possible to design an apartment in a way that makes it suitable
for every life stage. 28% 31% 171% 16% 8%
Strongly disagree 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
Figure 5: What is liked most about apartment living by survey respondents.
Percentage of survey respondents I have good storage space
It provides an opportunity to make money as an investment Other I can have my pets There is a strong sense of community It’s quiet I have good access to car parking Utility costs (water, power) are more affordable It is an affordable way of getting into the housing market I enjoy the view/outlook A smaller home better suits my lifestyle I feel safe A smaller home better suits my stage of life It is close to where me and/or my family members work I’m close to dining, recreation, sport and/or entertainment It is low maintenance Being close to everything cuts down my transport costs
Most liked about apartment living
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Figure 6: What is liked least about apartment living by survey respondents.
I am not close to dining, recreation, sport and/or entertainment My transport costs are expensive It is not close enough to where me and/or my family members work or study It is high maintenance I don’t feel safe It is not close enough to schools Utilities and other living costs are not affordable The smaller size does not suit my stage of life I don’t enjoy the view/outlook The smaller size doesn’t suit my lifestyle It is not an ideal living arrangement when you have children I have limited access to parking There is not a strong sense of community I can’t have pets It is my only option given that any other type of housing is unaffordable It is noisy There is limited storage
Percentage of survey respondents
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Least liked about apartment living
Figure 7: Most important issues affecting apartment living by survey respondents.
Other Natural landscaped areas A quality outlook Easy and friendly access to enter the building and to move from floor to floor The ability to adapt if the environment or the occupant’s requirements change Universal floor plans that work well for everyone, regardless of age or ability Systems that help manage waste including supporting recycling Car parking Access to direct sunlight Access to outdoor spaces Sustainable energy and resource usage Noise minimisation Natural ventilation Adequate natural light Reasonable size and space including ceiling heights and storage
Issues affecting apartment living
Percentage of survey respondents
Those working in the industry
Those living in apartments
Total sample
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Adequate natural light Natural ventilation Reasonable size and space including ceiling heights and storage Noise minimisation Other Sustainable energy and resource usage Access to direct sunlight Access to outdoor spaces Systems that help manage waste including supporting recycling A quality outlook Natural landscaped areas Easy and friendly access to enter the building and to move from floor to floor The ability to adapt if the environment or the occupant’s requirements change Universal floor plans that work well for everyone, regardless of age or ability Car parking
Figure 8: Least important issues affecting apartment living by survey respondents.
Issues affecting apartment living
Those working in the industry
Those living in apartments
Total sample
Percentage of survey respondents
3.2 WORkSHOPS
The stakeholder workshops highlight differing attitudes to regulation for internal apartment amenity. In general it was observed that:
• Some workshop participants feel there is a policy vacuum and a consistent approach is required
• There are conflicting views about what are appropriate outcomes in relation to internal amenity
• There is a general acceptance about the need to improve standards relating to outlook, design of common areas (entry and circulation), size of apartments, daylight and sunlight, landscaping, adaptability and car parking
• In terms of implementation, there is general support among industry and local government for a performance-based model, which incorporates
opportunities to vary planning provisions based on site context and innovation, notwithstanding that some respondents do not see a need for regulation
• Community respondents generally favour a mandatory approach to regulation
• There are some concerns that regulation could impact on development costs, affordability and innovation
• Some respondents note that many issues raised in the discussion paper are covered by the National Construction Code (NCC). In general, there is a view that regulation should remain in one place and this may require a review of the NCC.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
3.3 INTERVIEWS
The interviews highlight differing attitudes to regulation for internal apartment amenity. In general it was observed that:
• Some interviewees are not aware of any need for ‘new’ regulation on internal amenity
• Some interviewees feel there is a policy vacuum concerning apartment design and a consistent approach is required
• Daylight, outlook and size were the most widely discussed issues. A range of views were shared about the degree of amenity currently provided to apartment residents
• In terms of implementation, there is general support for a performance-based model that incorporates opportunities to vary provisions based on site context and innovation, notwithstanding that some respondents do not see the need for new regulation
• Some respondents are concerned that new regulation could affect development costs and reduce innovation
• Some respondents note that many issues identified in the discussion paper are covered by the National Construction Code (NCC). Most industry stakeholders feel regulation should be in one place, and if there are deficiencies in design, these should be addressed by reviewing the NCC.
3.4 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
The following graphs (Figures 9 to 12) outline how each issue raised in the discussion paper was rated by written respondents (community organisations, government, industry, individuals and the total sample).
Figure 13 shows the number of written respondents that commented on issues, implementation and other issues.
Entry and Circulation Waste Landscape Car Parking Universal Design Adaptability Outlook Outdoor Space Sunlight Noise Natural Ventilation Energy and Resources Space Daylight
Issues affecting apartment amenity
Percentage of written respondents Figure 9: Most important issues affecting apartment living by written respondents.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Figure 10: Least important issues affecting apartment living by written respondents.
Figure 11: Most important issues affecting apartment living by written respondent stakeholder group.
*Planning and development consultants, architects, building designers and property developers.
Entry and Circulation Waste Landscape Car Parking Universal Design Adaptability Outlook Outdoor Space Sunlight Noise Natural Ventilation Energy and Resources Space Daylight
Issues affecting apartment living
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Percentage of written respondents
Community organisation
Government (State and Local)
Individual
Industry*
Energy and resources Natural ventilation Daylight Sunlight Space Landscape Noise Outdoor space Waste Universal design Adaptability Outlook Entry and circulation Car parking
Issues affecting apartment living
Percentage of written respondents
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Figure 12: Least important issues affecting apartment living by written respondent stakeholder groups.
*Planning and development consultants, architects, building designers and property developers.
Energy and Resources Natural Ventilation Daylight Sunlight Space Landscape Noise Outdoor Space Waste Universal Design Adaptability Outlook Entry and Circulation Car Parking
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percentage of written respondents
Issues affecting apartment living
Community organisation
Government (State and Local)
Individual
Industry*
Number of submitters
Figure 13: Number of written respondents that commented on the issues.
Other Implementation Outlook Waste Adaptability Universal design Landscape Entry and circulation Noise Sunlight Natural ventilation Car parking Energy and resources Outdoor space Daylight Space
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Issues affecting apartment living
The following graphs (Figures 14 and 15) outline how each issue raised in the discussion paper was rated by survey and written respondents.
Figure 14: Most important issues affecting apartment living by comparison of survey and written respondents.
Issues affecting apartment living
Other Landscape Outlook Entry and circulation Adaptability Universal design Waste Car parking Sunlight Outdoor Space Energy and resources Noise Natural ventilation Daylight Space
Percentage of respondents
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Survey respondents
Written respondents
Figure 15: Least important issues affecting apartment living by comparison of survey and written respondents.
Daylight Natural ventilation Space Noise Other Energy and resources Sunlight Outdoor space Waste Outlook Landscape Entry and circulation Adaptability Universal design Car parking
Percentage of respondents
Issues affecting apartment living
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Survey respondents
Written respondents
Figure 16 ranks the issues affecting apartment living from ‘most’ to ‘least’ important based on feedback from survey and written respondents.
3.7 VIEWS OF kEY STAkEHOLDERS
COUNCILS
Councils are very supportive of better managing the amenity of apartment living through introducing additional guidance in the planning system and possibly the building system. Many councils are experiencing similar issues with apartment developments irrespective of their geographical area.
Many council officers express that the existing Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2004) are not an effective tool for decision-making as they have insufficient statutory weight in the planning permit process.
Councils call for a performance-based planning system that will enable design standards to be set while enabling innovation. Officers indicate that the current (ResCode) provisions within Clause 55 of the Victoria Planning Provisions are insufficient to assess apartment developments. A range of approaches were put forward by councils to address the amenity issues.
Several council officers claim that high quality apartments can be provided without substantially affecting development costs, and that there are long-term benefits of a well-designed apartment.
“The need to improve the design quality of new homes while also improving housing affordability has sometimes been framed as a choice between the two.
The quality of new residential development, however, should not be reduced to the lowest common denominator in pursuit of affordability. Well-designed homes help ensure they are energy efficient and don’t have high energy, management and maintenance costs for the occupant.” (City of Melbourne #105)
Figure 16: Ranking of issues affecting apartment living.
DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY
Development industry representatives broadly support the need for a consistent approach to managing the amenity of apartments as it provides greater certainty for the industry. However, they are concerned that new standards could increase development costs, impact on the development potential of sites and housing supply and affordability.
“It is essential that any policy with respect to apartments is considered within the parameters of what Government considers to be affordable.” (The Property Council of Australia #136)
“The development and implementation of any approach to delivering better apartments must take into account the significant role apartments play on providing an affordable choice for homebuyers and renters.” (Urban Development Institute of Australia (Victoria) #115)
It was also expressed that new standards should not duplicate existing regulation and that careful consideration should be given to the placement of new policy between planning and building systems. Where new planning regulation is required this should be cognisant of individual site context and be flexible enough to allow for design innovation, variety and choice.
PLANNING AND DESIGN PRACTITIONERS
Planning and design practitioners (architects, building designers and planning consultants) support the introduction of new amenity guidance to provide greater consistency in decision-making, however they have mixed views around the type of standards that could apply.
There is some support, particularly among planning groups, for the introduction of performance-based controls such as a ‘Rescode for apartments’ and for regulation to be flexible enough to facilitate design excellence.
Planning and design practitioners emphasise that well-designed apartments rely on thorough site analysis and design response and that the size of an apartment is not always the only factor in achieving the best outcome.
“MAArchitects supports the introduction of apartment design guidelines, similar to those currently existing in NSW in the form of the SEPP65 framework.
We believe that the key issue to consider when developing a new framework for apartment design for Victoria is how to raise the bar on design quality without stifling innovation, or overly restricting development and impacting on affordability.” (MAArchitects #74)
“We believe that addressing the issues raised in the discussion paper is critical to ensuring that Melbourne delivers well-designed apartments that are functional and provide a high level of amenity. As a way of implementing the key elements for better apartments, we recommend that a predominantly performance-based apartment code be included in the Victorian Planning Provisions that is similar to clause 54 and clause 55 of the Planning Scheme (the Scheme).” (Collie Pty Ltd
#103)
COMMUNITY MEMBERS
Community members, including existing apartment residents, community groups and the broader community, are genuinely interested in making the internal living spaces better for occupants, and have mixed views about how this may be achieved.
“We also see the need to address the broader issues of context and place making. Additional planning mechanisms are needed which should go hand in hand to develop better housing outcomes ensuring liveability and increasing opportunities for people to live productive and fulfilling lives.” (Fishermans Bend Network #104)
Community members call for greater information for buyers and renters of apartments in terms of what to look out for and what plans mean with regard to space and amenity.
There is general support for mandatory standards to provide greater certainty for the community of the development outcomes.
While minimising development costs is important, there may be some specific features of an apartment for which consumers will be willing to accept higher rent for or a higher purchase price. Key examples are daylight, sunlight and ventilation.
In the community survey, an overwhelming 80% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that ‘an airy apartment that has good natural daylight, direct sunlight and good ventilation is essential and is worth paying more for’.
“We feel that there are a number of development outcomes identified in the Better Apartments paper that should be mandatory through regulation.
Other issues affecting apartment amenity should be addressed as part of a performance-based mechanism. We suggest mandatory standards would help to streamline the planning assessment process.” (Community Housing Federation of Victoria #108)
Some community members commented that consumers may be willing to trade off internal amenity for good locational amenity when choosing an apartment.
Locational amenity includes the proximity of the apartment to local facilities such as public transport, social services, parks and/or shops.
“When purchasing or leasing an apartment, every household – except for the very rich – makes trade-offs between the costs of these attributes and their individual budget constraints. For issues that buyers or tenants are not able to assess, such as certain safety aspects or excessive noise transmissions between apartments, there is a need for robust regulation. However, dwelling features such as ceiling heights or floor areas are assessed by prospective buyers or tenants and taken into consideration as part of their decision-making process, so they can optimise their own particular preferred mix of attributes within their budget.” (Committee for Melbourne #132).
According to apartment residents the top three benefits of apartment living are proximity to services, low maintenance and a home that is a suitable size to suit their lifestyle. In comparison to other stakeholders, apartment residents view noise minimisation as more important than other design issues, and appropriate car parking design and natural ventilation as less important.
4 DETAILED FINDINGS
MOST IMPORTANT LEAST IMPORTANT
ISSUE 1 | Daylight
General views:
• Daylight access affects the health and wellbeing of apartment residents.
• There is a need to set minimum standards for daylight access.
Mixed views:
• The best method for determining an appropriate minimum standard for daylight access.
• Whether ‘borrowed’ light provides an acceptable means of daylight access.
RANkING OF IMPORTANCE
SURVEY RESPONDENTS
Many survey respondents (60%) view access to ‘adequate natural daylight’ as a significant issue for apartment living. They strongly agreed (80%) with the statement
‘an airy apartment that has good natural daylight, direct sunlight and good ventilation is essential and is worth paying more for’.
WRITTEN RESPONDENTS
Most written respondents (60%) view access to daylight as the most important issue for apartment living. Government and industry stakeholders value access to daylight more than the general public and other stakeholders.
The vast majority of written respondents believe that access to adequate daylight is vitally important to the health and wellbeing of apartment residents.
“The provision of good natural light (daylight) within an apartment is considered central to the quality of life for the occupant.” (Brimbank City Council #69)
“The construction of higher density housing has the potential to impact the mental health and longevity of residents by exposing them to a number of environmental stressors including noise (from neighbours and traffic), poor air quality and inadequate ambient light.” (University of Melbourne #58)
‘TELL US MORE’ qUESTIONS
What spaces within apartments are the most important in terms of access to daylight?
Many stakeholders consider it important to provide daylight access to habitable rooms such as living areas (e.g. lounge rooms and dining areas). However, there are mixed views on whether habitable rooms include bedrooms. Other stakeholders add that the provision of daylight access to kitchens is particularly important for personal safety.
4.1
kEY FINDINGS
Access to daylight is the
most important issue
affecting apartment
amenity, particularly to
living areas.
“Living rooms are more important than bedrooms in terms of daylight requirements.” (Port Phillip City Council #79)
“All rooms (except for bathrooms, laundries, hallways and similar) should be provided natural light. This includes kitchens, which are often seen as non- habitable rooms, but which are becoming more like secondary living rooms, particularly in open plan apartments.” (Individual, Footscray #16)
“Kitchen use requires adequate light for safety, particularly when chopping food.” (Best Environments #120).
“CASBE considers it is appropriate that all habitable rooms receive adequate amounts of daylight. This includes living rooms, bedrooms, kitchens and studies.” (Municipal Association of Victoria – The Council Alliance for a Sustainable Built Environment (CASBE) #50)
Do you think daylight should be required in secondary spaces such as corridors and bathrooms?
Most stakeholders agree the provision of daylight to secondary spaces such as corridors and bathrooms is not essential. Good daylight access to corridors within the apartment building is considered important for personal safety.
“Daylight into bathrooms is not important.” (Moreland City Council #78)
OTHER ISSUES RAISED
Is it acceptable to provide borrowed daylight to bedrooms?
Stakeholders have diverse views about the acceptability of borrowed daylight to bedrooms, particularly for apartments that have a single aspect. ‘Borrowed light’
is where light enters an interior room or passage from an adjoining room that has windows or a skylight.
Stakeholders, mostly from the development industry, express support for apartments with borrowed light and believe it is acceptable if the space is used primarily as a study and/or is not the main bedroom. They contend that borrowed light makes good use of space and maintains housing affordability. In addition, some of these stakeholders also state that the apartment market is diverse and borrowed daylight may appeal to some occupants.
“We know that borrowed light bedrooms can be cleverly delivered and that a well-designed apartment with borrowed light can meet amenity objectives and in many cases make better use of space.” (The Property Council of Australia
#136)
“If an apartment with borrowed light is more affordable, the purchaser may trade off on price to allow them to enter the market rather than being locked out.” (Urban Development Institute of Australia #115)
In contrast community and local government stakeholders call for borrowed light to bedrooms to be limited within a development or banned for reasons of liveability and poor internal amenity.
“Limit the number of apartments with internal (borrowed light) bedrooms to a maximum of 10% of the total apartments proposed.” (City of Yarra #41)
“Proposing situations where ‘battle-axe’ bedroom layouts and borrowed-light arrangements might be acceptable, and the form they may take.” (City of Darebin #93)
“Melbourne prides itself on being a liveable city, borrowed light is not liveable and should be outlawed immediately.” (Anonymous, Camberwell #38)
Most stakeholders also agree that a well-designed apartment includes bedrooms that do not rely on borrowed light and this can be avoided with early planning.
“Saddlebacks and borrowed light apartments are a compromise and should be avoided with master planning.” (Elenberg Fraser #135)
Even though there is no consensus among stakeholders regarding borrowed light, many stakeholders suggest regulating borrowed light in bedrooms through guidance on the setbacks, dimensions and layout of rooms and light shafts.
What is the best way of determining appropriate daylight access?
Many stakeholders are concerned that uncertainty about daylight access in the planning process is leading to inconsistent decision-making. However, there are mixed views on the appropriate means of determining daylight access. For instance, some stakeholders query whether daylight modelling could be standardised.
The provision of daylight is affected by numerous factors including the depth of the apartment, the distance to a neighbouring development, the ceiling height and the orientation and position of windows.
Council officers highlight the need to consider appropriate building separation to maintain good access to daylight. Other stakeholders add that achieving building separation and ventilation standards could avoid the need to set minimum standards for daylight.
Development industry stakeholders claim the National Construction Code (NCC) adequately addresses daylight access. Other stakeholders believe that as the NCC does not consider outlook and building separation it does not adequately address daylight access.
SUGGESTED DESIGN APPROACHES
Design approaches suggested for daylight include:
• Providing minimum standards for the separation distance between buildings
• Providing more than one source of daylight to an apartment
• Limiting the number of apartments with borrowed light
• Limiting the height of building walls adjacent to courtyards
• Avoiding the use of light courts
• Providing minimum standards for ceiling heights, room depths, window sizes, saddleback rooms with borrowed light and light wells.
ISSUE 2 | SUNlight
4.2
kEY FINDINGS
Apartments should receive access to sunlight, although access to daylight is more important.
General views:
• Sunlight needs to be balanced with thermal comfort requirements.
Mixed view:
• The best means of ensuring the majority of apartments receive adequate access to sunlight.
RANkING OF IMPORTANCE
SURVEY RESPONDENTS
Survey respondents consider sunlight to be less important than daylight for apartment living – 33% of respondents rate ‘access to direct sunlight’ as one of the most important design considerations.
WRITTEN RESPONDENTS
Written respondents do not view access to sunlight as important as other amenity issues. It ranks sixth out of the 14 design issues – 37% of respondents identifying sunlight as one of the most important issues.
‘TELL US MORE’ qUESTIONS
Should there be rules to ensure a majority of apartments receive sunlight?
Many stakeholders support mandating that the majority of apartments within an apartment building receive access to sunlight. This is because it would reduce the need for artificial lighting, makes apartments more energy efficient and support the health and wellbeing of residents.
In contrast, some stakeholders highlight that sunlight can affect the thermal comfort of an apartment, and increase energy costs.
“…there should be guidelines to ensure a majority of apartments receive adequate sunlight for health and psychological wellbeing.” (Australian Institute of Landscape Architects #100)
”Sunlight is not always a good thing. Sunlight in summer tends to generate heat and as a consequence more demand on refrigerated cooling systems.”
(Anonymous, Brunswick East #8)
“Access to sunlight needs to be considered in combination with measures to improve the thermal efficiency and comfort of those apartments receiving direct sunlight.” (City of Port Phillip #79)
MOST IMPORTANT LEAST IMPORTANT
Are there other options that can provide for thermal comfort?
Some community and government stakeholders believe the thermal comfort of an apartment must be taken into account when considering access to sunlight.
Stakeholders suggest using a range of environmentally sustainable design features such as double glazing, insulation, external shading devices, landscaping, ventilation, ceiling fans and windows that can open.
OTHER ISSUES RAISED
What are the best means of ensuring the majority of apartments receive adequate access to sunlight?
Limiting the number of south-facing apartments in a development and introducing minimum standards for separation distances were suggested mainly by community and government stakeholders. However, development industry stakeholders claim that south-facing apartments (without restricted views) may be a more affordable apartment option for buyers. They also state that people living in south-facing apartments in inner Melbourne sometimes access views of the city and the bay and remain cooler in summer. Interview and workshop participants reinforce that any standards or guidance over south-facing apartments should take into account views and vistas.
Stakeholders frequently reference the New South Wales Government’s State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) as an appropriate tool. Other environmental assessment tools referenced included in the Built Environment Sustainability Scorecard (BESS), Sustainable Design in the Planning Process (SDPP) and the Moreland Apartment Design Code.
“Living rooms and private open space areas should need to be designed to receive at least two hours of sunlight at the winter solstice, between 9am and 3pm.” (Bayside City Council #98)
“…daylight and sunlight access are harder to achieve in medium or high-density environments than they are in low-density environments. Taking this into consideration, SEPP 65 recommends two hours of sunlight access in mid-winter for Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong, but three hours for the rest of the state.
Again, there are potential learnings here for similar guidelines in a Victorian context.” (Committee for Melbourne #132)
What areas should receive the most sunlight?
Many stakeholders identify living areas, private open space and, to a lesser extent bedrooms, as the key areas of an apartment that should have direct access to sunlight.
SUGGESTED DESIGN APPROACHES
Design approaches suggested for sunlight include:
• Mandating that a proportion of apartments receive access to sunlight at certain times of the year
• Maximising the orientation of apartments to the north, east and west
• Mandating that only a proportion of apartments are south-facing
• Introducing minimum standards or guidance for building separation distances, light well dimensions, size and location of windows
• Providing thermal comfort measures (e.g. double glazing and external shading devices)
• Utilising existing measurement tools (e.g. the BESS – Built Environment Sustainability Scorecard).
ISSUE 3 | SPaCE
4.3
kEY FINDINGS
Adequate space is essential to apartment amenity. Functional space is just as important as size.
General views:
• Setting minimum standards for room sizes within an apartment is more beneficial than setting minimum standards for an overall apartment size.
• Provision of a variety of apartments (i.e. different numbers of bedrooms) will help meet the needs of a diversity of households.
• Adequate storage space contributes to apartment amenity.
Mixed views:
• The best measure of an appropriate minimum apartment size and ceiling height.
RANkING OF IMPORTANCE
SURVEY RESPONDENTS
The majority of survey respondents (66%) consider that providing ‘reasonable size and space including ceiling heights and storage’ is the most important aspect of apartment living. ‘Space’ is therefore the most important issue according survey respondents.
Survey respondents (76%) strongly agree that ‘there should be minimum apartment sizes to ensure apartments have reasonable sized rooms and storage’.
Limited storage within an apartment is the least popular aspect of apartment living (63%).
WRITTEN RESPONDENTS
Written respondents (51%) view space as the second most important issue for apartment living.
‘TELL US MORE’ qUESTIONS
Do we need to set minimum apartment sizes in Victoria?
Stakeholders in support of establishing minimum standards believe it will ensure apartments are functional and accessible.
MOST IMPORTANT LEAST IMPORTANT
“There should be a minimum size for apartments in Victoria with minimum ceiling heights. I think the biggest issue we have faced is finding apartments of different sizes that can house more than two people or two people with a child.
It is difficult to find 3 bedroom apartments with reasonable bedroom sizes.
Many bedrooms can barely fit a twin bed let alone a wardrobe.” (Brenda Lin, Prahran #25)
“The space and size of apartments being built is a primary concern for the real estate industry with 72% of agents surveyed agreeing there is a need for minimum apartment sizes in Victoria. With increasing demand for affordable properties across the city, the diminishing size and quality of one and two- bedroom apartments is affecting agents who are struggling to sell and rent poorly designed dwellings. …New-build one-bedroom apartments can be below 50m2, with some poorly designed with a lack of adequate ventilation. There is general consensus from REIV members that one-bedroom apartments should be no less than 50m2 and two-bedroom properties should be at least 62m2.” (Real Estate Institute of Victoria #87)
Development industry representatives and some other stakeholders oppose setting minimum standards for apartment size for the following reasons:
• Mandating minimum apartment size could increase the cost of new apartments and affect housing affordability
• The layout design of an apartment is a more important determinant of amenity than the size of the space
• Setting minimum size standards will limit creativity in design and result in a lack of diverse apartments
• Well-designed apartments will not necessarily result from setting minimum size requirements
“Whilst minimum sizes for apartments are good in principle, there is concern around the impacts that the introduction of minimum standards may have on construction costs and in turn, housing affordability.” (City of Hobsons Bay #56) Do we need to increase minimum ceiling heights for apartments in Victoria?
Community and local government stakeholders strongly support introducing standards to increase the minimum ceiling height of an apartment. Higher ceilings can create a sense of openness, improve ventilation and daylight access.
“An increase in minimum ceiling heights is also supported by the majority of REIV members as it would improve ventilation and access to daylight. In addition, the REIV would support the introduction of a minimum industry standard alongside the existing building regulations.” (Real Estate Institute of Victoria #87)
Development industry stakeholders do not support increasing standards for ceiling heights because it could increase construction costs and energy costs (i.e. heating and cooling), making apartments less affordable.
“Residential developments are typically 3m floor to floor. The slab is 200mm and the ceiling space 150mm leaving living rooms with a 2650mm ceiling.
This is considered a high ceiling. Higher ceilings require more heating. Higher ceilings increase construction cost and reduce affordability and mandatory height areas (e.g. 18m in Port Phillip) a floor to floor height over 3m will result in one less floor of development. The land cost will need to be spread over fewer apartments resulting in a higher purchase price.” (Plus Architecture #65)
“To ensure that [the] current role of apartments in providing affordable housing options is maintained, minimum and maximum requirements, sizes and ceiling heights must be avoided.” (Urban Development Institute of Australia (Victoria)
#115)
Should larger developments be required to include different types of apartments catering to different types of households?
Most stakeholders strongly support encouraging a mix of apartment types (i.e.
different apartment sizes and bedroom numbers) to cater for different household needs.
“A variety of dwelling types is important to ensure that different family structures and types have the ability to live comfortably in different building typologies. Larger developments should therefore be required to include different types of apartments and diversity in the number of bedrooms.” (City of Whittlesea #51)
Workshop and interview participants believe the current supply of apartments in Victoria best caters for single person and two person households. Industry workshop participants assert that there is demand for apartments with three or more
bedrooms and that the housing market is beginning to respond.
Some stakeholders also highlight that there is demand for smaller apartments (e.g.
studio and 1 bedroom apartments) for student accommodation.
OTHER ISSUES RAISED
Do we need to set minimum standards for room sizes?
Stakeholders strongly believe that the size of rooms is a more important amenity factor than the overall size of an apartment. Having functional room spaces is what matters most.
Some stakeholders suggest that minimum standards could be set for the size of living rooms and bedrooms.
“I have discovered the experience is not about size, aspect, balconies or
communal space it is about… proportions (rooms should be capable of fitting the basic furniture required for that room’s activity).” (Anonymous, Melbourne #62)
