New permanent central city controls headed to independent planning panel

New permanent central city controls headed to independent planning panel
New permanent central city controls headed to independent planning panel

The Planning Minister has unveiled new draft permanent central city planning controls that are now to be sent to an independent planning panel which will allow the public to make submissions.

Chief among the proposed planning controls for Melbourne's CBD and Southbank is the introduction of a floor area ratio (FAR) of 18:1. The interim controls released last year put in place a FAR of 24:1.

Projects will have the ability to exceed the maximum FAR in the central city if there is a demonstratable public benefit. The public benefits can take the form of public open space, office uses, public space inside the building or social housing contained within the building.

New permanent central city controls headed to independent planning panel
How floor area uplift will work. Image supplied

In the podium and setbacks space, by default podiums will be limited to 20 metres in height with the discretion to increase it to 40 metres to match existing streetscapes and on certain street corners. Towers will need to be set back at least five metres from the podium edge and likewise there will be a minimum side and rear setback of five metres for proposals which include a tower measuring 80 metres or less.

For proposals which include a tower taller than 80m, side and rear setbacks of 6% of the overall height will be required.

New permanent central city controls headed to independent planning panel
The proposed podium and setback regime. Image supplied.

Height controls will only apply to areas like Bourke Hill and there will be reinforced shadowing and wind controls, both mandatory and discretionary. The key public spaces that are to be protected by wind and shadowing controls are Federation Square, State Library of Victoria, the Shrine of Remembrance, the Yarra, City Square, Bourke Street Mall and Boyd Park in Southbank.

The following diagram and video depict the possibilities under the new controls and compares it to the 'business as usual' scenario.

New permanent central city controls headed to independent planning panel
Development possibility: business as usual versus proposed new controls. Image supplied

The proposed planning controls have been devised with the input from City of Melbourne and the Office of Victorian Government Architect. The independent panel will begin public hearings in July, the planning controls are anticipated to be in place by the end of 2016. www.delwp.vic.gov.au/central-city

The images and video contained within this article were provided to Urban.com.au by the State Government of Victoria, CC 4.0

Alastair Taylor

Alastair Taylor

Alastair Taylor is a co-founder of Urban.com.au. Now a freelance writer, Alastair focuses on the intersection of public transport, public policy and related impacts on medium and high-density development.

Tags: 
Planning scheme amendment C270

Comments (16)

Help contribute to the Urban community by leaving your comments about this article
What would you like to say about this project?
db2
It should be noted that Victoria Market and west-wards are NOT subject to the new rules.

[img]http://www.smh.com.au/cqstatic/12z7v7/2604ratiosmap_729.jpg[/img]

Two landmark towers are scheduled, via the Melbourne City Council, to come to be over the next five or so years in that Vic Market area. King Street opposite Flagstaff could also support a landmark; new rules won't apply.

Telstra site another site for a big one.

Crown at Queensbridge is part of the mix as well landmark wise.

Plus everything that is already approved. There is enough tall stuff easily for the next five plus years even without another proposal.
Helpful
(0)
Not helpful
(0)
Reply

Reply to this comment

What would you like to respond to this comment?
bilby
Ok, but at what point do we start thinking of the CBD as being beyond the confines of the Hoddle Grid? Areas like Fishermans Bend have been designated high rise areas - and there are plenty of 3000m2 sites, or at least potential consolidation sites, in that location, not to mention future possibilities in E-Gate, Docklands, etc. So it is important to get the plot ratios right now, in order to avoid similar problems that we have already seen in the Hoddle Grid.
Helpful
(0)
Not helpful
(0)
Reply

Reply to this comment

What would you like to respond to this comment?
johnproctor
Which is the same way many of Te older towers in Melbourne got their height under the old plot ratio rules.

I should say I wasn't saying it negatively (necessarily) hat the age of the skyline defining rest tower was over. Eureka wouldn't be defining if every building was that tall as Matthew guy would have had it. The anything goes approach to planning wAs failing the city.

Although Alistair in your example how many 3000sqm sites are there in Melbourne? Queens place and the Telstra site.

Aurora is 3000sqm site area but your 74000sqm development area outlined above that doesn't leave much space.

Let's say it got a 40m podium. At 10 levels that's 12,000sqm (is basement levels excluded from the calculations?). That leave s64000 over the 80ish above ground levels or 800sqm per level. I'm guessing the top 20 levels are bigger floor plates than 800sqm let alone the majority of the towers cloverleaf design which at a rough guess might be 1600sqm floor plates. I'm guessing aurora is probably 50% above your development scenario.
Helpful
(0)
Not helpful
(0)
Reply

Reply to this comment

What would you like to respond to this comment?
bilby
Yes, some NY developers have purchased whole blocks (or close to it) to achieve their tall tower ambitions ... I believe one of them was a guy called Trump ...
Helpful
(0)
Not helpful
(0)
Reply

Reply to this comment

What would you like to respond to this comment?
Adrian's picture
Can someone please explain to me again how New York has an FAR of 12:1 yet that pencil thin 400m resi tower up near Central Park still got built ?
Helpful
(0)
Not helpful
(0)
Reply

Reply to this comment

What would you like to respond to this comment?

Pages