This version of the Better Apartments – Minister’s Forum Context Report has been prepared for use
with screen reader software. The printed publication contains images, captions and design features that
may have been necessarily omitted from this version. In other respects this document contains identical
text to that in the PDF version of the document which is available at www.delwp.vic.gov.au/planning
Better Apartments – Minister’s Forum Context Report
July 2015
INTRODUCTION
Released by the Minister for Planning in May 2015, Better Apartments: A Discussion Paper (DELWP
2015) provides a summary of issues related to the design and amenity of apartments and examines what
could be done to make better apartments in Melbourne and Victoria.
The discussion paper provides a point of engagement between the Victorian Government and the
community. It is intended to encourage debate about how we can ensure the spaces within an apartment
match peoples’ needs and expectations during different phases of their lives.
This context report is a companion report to the discussion paper, and provides additional information and
data about the factors influencing apartment development across Melbourne. It is designed to be read
alongside the discussion paper and is divided into two sections.
The first section focuses on apartment regulation, and summarises:
 The history and current state of apartment regulation in Victoria
 A comparison of regulation in Victoria with other Australian states and England
 Issues and policy gaps in Victoria’s apartment regulations.
The second section provides an overview of the drivers and characteristics of apartment development in
Victoria, specifically:
 The scale and location of current apartment development
 The size and market price of recently sold apartments
 The demography of apartment residents
 The evolution of apartment development in Melbourne.
Scope of this context report
This context report provides a range of demographic, regulatory and economic information to help explain
and analyse Melbourne’s apartment boom. The report highlights the different ways in which other
Australian jurisdictions manage apartment development and where Victorian planning policy may learn
from the experiences of these jurisdictions in directing the appropriate form of new apartments. In this
context, the report identifies the rapid demographic and economic changes affecting Melbourne that are
causing an increasing number of households to choose apartment living.
The report contextualises Melbourne’s apartment growth in terms of population growth, changes in
household structure and growing housing needs. It also provides insights into the economic factors
driving Melbourne’s apartment market, particularly in relation to the changing locational patterns of jobs
and the resulting demand to access Melbourne’s central city area with its large employment base. The
globalisation of trade, changes in planning policy and greater numbers of people living, working and
studying in the central city has reinvigorated Melbourne over the last 20 years. Like many cities around
the world, apartment living is becoming much more common in Melbourne. However, this change may
need greater policy direction.
For the first time, approvals for multi-storey apartment construction in the Melbourne’s inner and middle
suburbs now exceed those for traditional detached houses in outer suburban growth areas.
1
To help understand this change, this report analyses the size, price and type of apartments currently
being supplied and marketed across the city to inform the debate about what types of new apartments are
best suited to meet Melbourne’s future housing needs.
1: REGULATION OF APARTMENTS
1. Apartments in Victoria
Historically, apartments have comprised a very small proportion of housing in Victoria.
Some apartment development occurred in Melbourne in the late 19th and early 20th centuries but it was
not until the interwar period that a significant amount of stock was produced. Most of these apartments
were in small buildings containing a limited number of flats. Many examples survive, often built in the Art
Deco style.
A second and larger boom in apartment development began in the late 1950s and 1960s, with the
construction of small walk-up apartment buildings. Between 1962 and 1974 the Housing Commission of
Victoria also built 45 high-rise apartment blocks in the inner suburbs of Melbourne.
In the early 1990s, a new wave of apartment construction began, this time concentrated in the inner city
and mostly high-rise. Many apartments were built in former industrial areas such as Southbank and a
swathe of office buildings were converted to apartments in the CBD.
A chronology of apartment regulation
Planning policy governing new apartment development has primarily focused on the external impact of
apartment buildings particularly in relation to issues of height, bulk, setback and footprint. More recently,
in response to the current apartment boom, there have been calls to expand the traditional remit of
planning policy to consider the internal condition of apartments. This is reflected in Plan Melbourne
initiative 2.1.5 Improve the quality and amenity of residential apartments and the Victorian Government’s
recently released discussion paper Better Apartments.
The following provides a chronological summary of planning controls for apartment development in
Victoria.
1954 – 1969
From 1954-1969 apartment development was ‘as of right’, where a permit was not required as long as
guidelines regarding minimum setbacks, open space and parking requirements were met.
1969
Planning assessments for apartments were devolved from the Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works to
local councils.
1977
Metropolitan standards for apartment development were introduced in 1977 in the Melbourne
Metropolitan Planning Scheme. These standards dealt with building height, daylight, open space and
setbacks. This standard could be varied by local government.
1993
VicCode 2 was introduced in late 1993 which promoted site responsive design for medium density
housing.
1995
In 1995, following a review of VicCode 2, the Good Design Guide was introduced. The Good Design
Guide responded to the community’s concerns about amenity impacts and introduced density
benchmarks.
2001
ResCode replaced the Good Design Guide in 2001 establishing neighbourhood character as the starting
point for the assessment of new residential development.
2
ResCode applies to development of two or more dwellings on a lot or a single dwelling on a lot of less
than 300m2 (unless a council specifies a 500m 2 threshold in its planning scheme). It does not apply to
apartment buildings of more than four storeys.
2005
Melbourne 2030, Plan Melbourne’s predecessor, identified that new housing was needed to
accommodate a growing population and diminishing household sizes, and that existing housing stock
lacked the variety to adequately meet these needs.
The Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (former Department of Sustainability and
Environment, 2004) were introduced to promote well-designed, higher density housing in activity centres
and other strategic redevelopment sites close to public transport. These guidelines are discussed in the
next chapter.
2014
Plan Melbourne was released in 2014. Initiative 2.1.5 of the plan is to improve the quality and amenity of
residential apartments. The plan identifies many of the issues currently raised in relation to apartment
design and sets out the need to review existing guidelines and introduce measurable standards for high
density residential and mixed-use development.
2. Current regulation in Victoria
The Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development are a statewide planning tool for high density
development across Victoria. The guidelines are a reference document under clause 15.01-2 (Urban
Design Principles) of the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPPs) and apply in the assessment of the design
and built form of residential development of five or more storeys.
The guidelines provide ‘better practice’ design advice to developers, councils and communities with the
aim to promote well-designed higher density housing. They are not compulsory standards. The guidelines
are structured around six elements of design: urban context; building envelope; street pattern and streetedge quality; circulation and services; building layout and design; and open space and landscape design.
For residential development higher than four storeys, Clause 52.35 of the VPP requires an Urban Context
Report and Design Response. The requirements of Clause 52.35 relate to issues of built form and urban
context rather than the interior spaces of a development.
Some councils, including Moreland and Maribyrnong, have drafted their own local codes and standards
for residential development to improve the internal amenity of housing in their municipalities. The City of
Melbourne has also considered the issue of improving the design quality of apartments in Future Living: A
discussion paper identifying issues and options for housing for our community, released in May 2013
(City of Melbourne 2013).
All construction in Australia is subject to building regulation as well as planning regulation. The National
Construction Code (NCC) provides the minimum necessary requirements for safety, health, amenity and
sustainability in the design and construction of new buildings (and new building work in existing buildings)
in Australia (Australian Government 2015). The NCC classifies apartment buildings as Class 2 buildings,
and the NCC requirements for Class 2 buildings cover room heights, natural light, ventilation, sound
insulation and energy efficiency, among other things. In Victoria, this is the main regulation governing the
internal design and amenity of apartments.
3. Other city codes
Standards for apartment development provide a level of certainty and comfort to the community and can
define a process by which the design and amenity of large buildings can be assessed. This chapter
profiles the standards for apartment development in other jurisdictions.
New South Wales
In New South Wales (NSW), the State Environment Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential
Flat Development (SEPP 65) is applied to certain developments that include three or more storeys and/or
contain four or more self-contained dwellings since 2002. A comprehensive review of SEPP 65
commenced in 2011 and was finalised in mid 2015, following extensive community and stakeholder
consultation. SEPP 65 now also covers: shop top housing; mixed use developments; and substantial
3
redevelopments, refurbishments or conversions of existing buildings. The amended SEPP 65 takes effect
from mid July 2015. The review has also updated the term “flat” to “apartment”.
The aim of SEPP 65 has been to deliver a better living environment for residents choosing apartment
living and to enhance streetscapes and neighbourhoods. It has established a consistent approach to the
design and assessment of apartments and has reportedly contributed to the lifting of standards.
Since its inception, the policy has been accompanied by a set of design guidelines that has now been
reviewed and republished as the Apartment Design Guide. The Apartment Design Guide addresses local
character and context, siting of the development, amenity, building configuration and performance,
reviews and controls. It has to be considered at various stages of the development approval process,
alongside SEPP 65.
Under the Design Guide criteria, apartments will be required to have the following minimum internal
areas:
 Studio apartments 35m2
 1 bedroom apartments 50m2
 2 bedroom apartments 70m2
 3 bedroom apartments 90m2
These areas include only one bathroom. Additional bathrooms increase the minimum size by 5m 2 each.
Fourth and any further bedrooms increase the minimum internal area by 12m 2 each. Every habitable
room must have a window in an external wall with a total minimum glass area of not less than 10% of the
floor area of the room. Daylight and air may not be borrowed from other rooms.
Where an application satisfies other relevant design criteria in the Apartment Design Guide, local
government is able to approve apartments of a smaller size. A consent authority cannot refuse a
development application that meets minimum ceiling height, minimum car parking and minimum internal
apartment area requirements as long as other relevant design criteria have been satisfied.
Minimum ceiling heights for habitable rooms of apartments not in mixed use areas is 2.7m, although this
minimum does not preclude higher ceilings if desired. Slightly different conditions apply for second
storeys and attics. In mixed use areas, the minimum ceiling height for ground and first floor is 3.3m, to
promote future flexibility of use. The objective of specifying ceiling heights is to achieve sufficient natural
ventilation and daylight access. Ceiling height is seen as important to the sense of space in apartments.
Under SEPP 65, design review panels have been able to provide independent advice to councils about
apartment design quality. Uptake of these panels has been low, but with the announced changes,
councils will be able to appoint their own design review panels under delegation from the Minister, and
decide the membership and operation of those panels. In consultation with the Minister, groups of
councils can also appoint a design review panel. Advice from design review panels will have legal weight.
Affordability has been a consideration of the SEPP 65 review. Economic advice to the review confirmed
marginal cost impacts can vary significantly, depending on a range of factors associated with individual
development including location, land cost, site constraints and design characteristics (NSW Government
2014). The costs of car parking provision were considered in the amendments, and a reduction of spaces
will be allowed to recognise access to public transport and to potentially alleviate local traffic. The use of
car share, bicycles and motorcycles is encouraged. The new policy aims to support housing affordability
as well as facilitate development assessment.
An education and support program is proposed to ensure the updated SEPP and guidelines are used
consistently. Additional diagrams and pictures will be provided to assist interpretation.
The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Reform Council’s 2011 Review of Capital City Strategic
Planning Systems (COAG 2011) identified SEPP 65 as best practice in delivering outcomes consistent
with the criteria for capital city strategic planning systems. The review of SEPP 65 found the policy had
contributed to a marked improvement in apartment design and was widely supported.
Existing regulation in Victoria and NSW are compared in the Appendix.
4
Australian Capital Territory
The ACT manages apartment development through the Multi Unit Housing Development Code (ACT
Government 2015).
This code applies to multi unit housing in all zones. The purpose of the code is to provide additional
planning, design and environmental controls to support the objectives of the relevant zone. The code
provides rules that are quantitative or definitive controls with associated criteria that are qualitative (with
some being mandatory) for multi unit housing of four or more storeys in all zones.
The general controls for multi unit housing in all zones focus on building and site controls, site design,
building design, amenity, parking and vehicular access, environment and services. They include minimum
dwelling floor areas for studio dwellings, one bedroom dwellings, two bedroom dwellings and dwellings
with three or more bedrooms, with criteria which specify that dwelling sizes and layouts provide functional
living spaces, flexibility in furniture layout and adequate storage and service areas. The controls also
address the adaptability of dwellings for use by people with a disability and housing diversity. Amenityrelated issues are addressed such as solar access (for apartments and dwellings other than apartments),
privacy, principal private open space, separation between external walls, balustrades, storage, natural
ventilation, and noise attenuation from external sources.
South Australia
In South Australia, the Adelaide City Development Plan guides medium to high density residential
development in the central city area (SA Government 2015). This development plan seeks to achieve a
high standard of amenity, environmental performance and functional internal layout, and is adaptable to a
variety of accommodation and living needs with well-designed and functional recreation and storage
areas.
The development plan includes minimum internal apartment sizes as follows:
 Studio apartments 35m2
 1 bedroom apartments 50m2
 2 bedroom apartments 65m2
 3 bedroom apartments 80m2
In addition, the plan lists a number of design principles that address various internal amenity elements
including building entrances, daylight, sunlight and ventilation (with design techniques for layout options,
ceiling heights, cross ventilation), private open space, visual privacy, noise and internal layout, minimum
unit sizes, adaptability and outlook. Measurable standards are provided with possible design solutions.
The development plan takes a performance-based approach. It outlines objectives and principles of
development control and design techniques that satisfy the requirements of a particular principle of
development control. The design techniques include standards and measures that are intended to guide
the level, quality or outcomes of the development. Alternative solutions can be proposed providing the
outcome is as good or better than the design technique and satisfies the associated principle of the
development control.
Queensland
Queensland’s Medium and High Rise Buildings – Priority Development Area Guideline No. 08 (Economic
Development Queensland 2014) outlines standards for the design of medium (three to six storeys) and
high rise (seven plus storey) buildings in Priority Development Areas in Queensland. The guideline
includes design standards for building form and building elements.
The building form section provides design standards for climate responses – energy rating, cross
ventilation from balcony areas through habitable rooms and dwelling units, building orientation,
architectural features to reduce solar heat gain and sun shading to windows. It also includes standards for
maximum building height, podium height, street, side and rear setbacks, privacy, car parking and end-oftrip facilities. The guidelines do not address apartment sizes.
The building elements section includes design standards for the detailed components of the building
design. It also covers surface materials and treatments, windows, doors, balconies, awnings, entries and
5
landscaping. The guideline encourages perimeter built forms to create internal communal open spaces
and courtyards in both residential and commercial developments and to frame public spaces.
The guideline includes design standards for building form and building elements that should be read in
conjunction with the provisions of development schemes, land use plans, guidelines and practice notes.
Applicants can propose alternative, innovative solutions that do not comply with the guideline yet meet
the Priority Development Area criteria and related provisions.
Western Australia
Western Australia has the R-Codes, State Planning Policy 3.1, Residential Design Codes (policy) (WA
Government 2013) to provide a comprehensive basis for the control of residential development
throughout Western Australia, for both single houses and multiple dwellings. The policy provides
objectives, design principles and ‘deemed to comply’ requirements addressing context, streetscape, site
planning and design, and building design. Within the building design section, measurable requirements
under the ‘deemed to comply’ requirements are specified for visual privacy, solar access for adjoining
sites, dwelling size, outbuildings, external fixtures and utilities.
The City of Perth City Planning Scheme No 2 – Planning Policy Manual 1 - Development and Design
Policy Section 4.1 (City of Perth 2015) recognises housing in the central area of Perth is generally at a
greater density and is different to living in any other part of Western Australia.
The policy generally takes a performance-based approach and encourages designers to find innovative
and site-specific ways to meet planning principles. Each element of the policy has principles and
guidelines with overarching objectives. Compliance with these objectives and principles ensures
compliance with the policy. Guidelines for each element provide direction on how these objectives can be
satisfied.
There are five elements that deal with built form, development interface and interaction, access traffic and
movement, safety and security, and environment and microclimate. The overarching objectives of these
elements are to enhance built form quality and character, deliver a high level of amenity within the public
realm, conserve and enhance Perth’s architectural heritage and historic character, promote adaptability
through development that can respond to changing social, technological and economic conditions, and to
deliver a high level of amenity within buildings by providing appropriate natural light access, natural
ventilation, privacy and outlook.
England
Housing development in England is guided by Building for Life 12 developed by a partnership between
the Design Council, Design for Homes, and the Home Builders Federation (Birbeck & Kruczkowski 2015).
Building for Life 12 is the industry standard for the design of new housing developments comprising 12
easy-to-understand questions that are designed to be used as a way of structuring discussions about a
proposed development. There are four questions in each of the three chapters: integrating into the
neighbourhood; creating a place; street; and home. Six of the 12 questions have an alternative prompt to
suit urban situations, in particular for apartment developments of three or more storeys.
Assessment is based on a simple ‘traffic light’ system. New developments are encouraged to secure as
many ‘greens’ as possible, minimise the number of ‘ambers’ and avoid ‘reds’. Developments that achieve
12 ‘greens’ are eligible for ‘Building for Life Diamond’ status as exemplars and this enables developers to
market their developments.
Within Greater London, The London Plan (Mayor of London 2015) sets out minimum internal apartment
size standards as follows:
 Studio/1 bedroom apartment for 1 person 37m 2
 1 bedroom apartments for 2 people 50m 2
 2 bedroom apartments for 3 people 61m 2
 3 bedroom apartments for 4 people 74m2
Size is related to the intended number of residents in the dwelling. Therefore, as the intended occupancy
rate increases, the minimum internal area that is required also increases. For example, a two bedroom
6
apartment that is designed for four people is required to have a minimum size of 70m 2. Developers are
encouraged to exceed these minimums.
The London Plan incorporates baseline standards, which have to be achieved. These standards have
been described as a safety net designed to prevent dwellings of such a low standard that there is
significant concern about their long term sustainability and suitability for occupants. The standards are
complemented by good practice guidance which is contained in the London Housing Design Guide
(Mayor of London 2010) and focuses on six key themes:
 Shaping good places
 Housing for a diverse city
 From street to front door
 Dwelling space standards
 Home as a place of retreat
 Climate change mitigation
 Adaptation.
The London Plan is intended to ensure that all new homes in London are fit-for-purpose and offer the
potential to be occupied over time by households of all tenures.
4. The need for greater policy guidance
As buildings get bigger and accommodate greater numbers of dwellings, issues of internal amenity, such
as ensuring adequate light and ventilation, become more important.
Recent decisions on apartment proposals by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal have
evaluated the internal amenity of proposals. These cases often highlight the limitations of the National
Construction Code (formerly known as the Building Code) (Australian Government 2015) and the
Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (DSE 2004) and, in turn, express the need for
stronger guidance in evaluating internal amenity. For example:
It is the case that higher density forms of residential development usually require planning permission,
and such developments are more likely to raise questions of internal amenity which are arguably not
adequately addressed by building regulation. – PDG Corporation Pty Ltd v Yarra CC (VCAT 2009,
Decision 737)
What is an acceptable level of internal amenity is again a matter upon which there are no prescribed
standards. Further policy guidance would be beneficial for reasons of consistency and informing
reasonable expectations. – Highbury Venture Pty Ltd v Melbourne CC 2013 (VCAT 2013, Decision 2094)
The Tribunal has been grappling with acceptable standards for internal amenity in recent years. There
has been a gradual shift in approach such that what is acceptable is not a matter for compliance with
prescribed standards under building (or other) law. – Abby Apartments Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC (VCAT
2014, Decision 172)
The Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (DSE 2004) provide some basis for
considering internal amenity, particularly in distinguishing between ideal outcomes and those to be
avoided. For instance, Design Suggestion 5.4.1 states:
Encourage direct natural light and ventilation to all habitable rooms – living rooms, bedrooms, studies – in
the form of operable windows. The ‘borrowing’ of light and air should be avoided, particularly in ventilating
bedrooms, although this may not always be possible, when reusing existing buildings. Where light is
borrowed from another room, ideally it should be taken from the principal living area rather than from
corridors or other bedrooms (DSE 2004, p. 46).
However, the above Design Suggestion does not provide a sufficient framework to assess the complex
issues entailed in evaluating the internal amenity of apartment proposals. This might include determining
the appropriate distance between a major light source and a bedroom without access to direct light, the
7
conditions in which internal amenity (such as a balcony) might be traded-off for access to external
amenity, and the use of light wells and voids.
For this reason, decision-makers are seeking more guidance and policy support and it explains why
councils such as Moreland and Maribyrnong, in the absence of relevant policy, have sought to create
their own apartment policies. There is, nevertheless, a consensus that statewide guidance is preferable.
5. Research findings
Urban research sheds light on the issues examined in the Better Apartments Discussion Paper (DELWP
2015) including the role and limitations of studio apartments and the underlying principles of good
apartment design.
Studio apartments
Research undertaken by the Urban Land Institute in the United States (ULI 2014) examined the residents
of studio apartments (these are often referred to as micro apartments in the United States).
The research identified the following:
 Studio apartments are attractive because of their affordable rent (approximately 20% to 30% below
that of a conventionally sized unit), their location (typically, urban/urbanising, walkable to public
transport), and the ability to live alone.
 Studio apartments outperform conventional units in the marketplace in terms of higher occupancy
rates and rental-rate premiums (rent per square foot) compared with conventional apartments.
 Studio apartment dwellers were generally most satisfied with the location of their apartment and less
satisfied with perceived value in terms of rent paid, the floor plan or the layout of their apartment.
Good design
Good interior design, clever layout and adequate storage are all factors that improve amenity and reduce
any negative impacts of apartment living, particularly in smaller apartments. Low ceilings have been cited
as part of the concern when it comes to poor quality, while higher ceilings are seen to be an advantage in
creating a sense of space, and providing room for a mezzanine (e.g. for a bed) (ULI 2014). Taller
windows also allow more natural light and air flow, which is particularly important in smaller apartments.
For example, in a building (My Micro NY) currently being constructed in New York by nARCHITECTS, the
apartments will be 24 to 33m 2 yet have ceilings of 2.75m to 3m. The apartments are intended for low to
middle income households, aimed at singles and students on a tight budget (Hylton 2015). Notably, in
NSW, the planning system provides for the potential to achieve higher ceilings by allowing the developer
to exceed the default height limit of the building.
A recent study involving interviews with housing professionals found:
There was little evidence identified during this research that living in high-rise apartments is inherently
problematic or bad for residents. Rather the consensus was that the three critical factors that impact the
social outcomes of the residents were the quality of the living space inside the apartment, the quality of
the neighbourhood (including the urban form and provision of open space) and access to local services
and facilities (Hodyl 2015).
One the key issues of living space quality is the issue of ‘in-board’ bedrooms, which are bedrooms that
have windows that face onto other rooms in the building rather than to the outside of the building. These
bedrooms tend to have less natural light and limited natural ventilation and may rely on ‘borrowed light’
from a source not directly within the room.
The issue of ‘in-board’ bedrooms has been addressed in a number of recent VCAT cases whereby the
adequacy of daylight and ventilation to habitable rooms was evaluated as well as the use of light courts,
the size of light courts and light wells, and the distance of rooms from light sources. In Rima Apartments
Pty Ltd v Moreland CC & Ors (VCAT 2013, Decision 994), a significant number of changes were made to
the initial design to improve the resulting amenity of the apartments. In contrast, in Green, Gaud and
Others v Hobsons Bay CC (VCAT 2014, Decision 2091), the member found “borrowed light acceptable, in
principle, as such apartments offer a particular product to the housing market which may be less
8
expensive.” This case, nonetheless, required a number of changes to the internal layout of the proposed
apartments to improve their amenity.
Developers have contended that the amenity of a central city location can be traded-off against internal
amenity. In Highbury Venture Pty Ltd v Melbourne CC (VCAT 2014, Decision 2094) a witness for the
developer argued that “that overall amenity is a function of both internal and external amenities…[and]
that internal amenity that might not be accepted in a suburban setting may be traded-off against the
benefits of communal facilities and the central city location.” Similarly, in discussing minimum apartment
sizes the Australian Institute of Architects (NSW) contend:
…context should also be taken into account. More urban areas that have higher public amenity and
development that have more communal open space could achieve a desirable outcome with smaller
apartments, and less private open space. More suburban locations with lower levels of public amenity
demand larger private areas (AIANSW 2014, p. 7).
Nonetheless, in considering such trade-offs, VCAT has been reluctant to compromise internal amenity for
the benefits of what is available to residents outside of the apartment. In Melbourne Domain Pty Ltd v
Melbourne CC (VCAT 2013, Decision 1832, p. 43), for instance, the member ruled that they “do not
accept the applicant’s contention that a trade-off for the availability of the attributes of the cultural city is
an apartment with a poor level of amenity … there are many apartments in the city which have, for
example, poor solar access. We do not think that their numbers need to be increased.”
The comparison between central urban and suburban spaces is addressed by Baker (2004) in his
discussion on ceiling heights in San Francisco. He notes that low ceilings can create uninviting spaces
that feel cramped and which are often compared negatively to older buildings where feelings “of space
and grace” are created through higher ceilings. The importance of ceiling heights is seen to be particularly
significant in denser inner urban areas than suburban areas:
These issues don’t come up in the suburbs, where all buildings are more or less single storey and where
working, shopping, and living are separated … In a city, where activities are mixed vertically in the same
building, it is critical to livability that multistory buildings be designed to feel comfortable. (Baker 2004, p.
8)
In reviewing Planning and Building Codes for San Francisco, Baker argues that having a standardised
approach to matters such as ceiling heights creates problems for inner urban areas. In such locations
raising the minimum ceiling height standard for multi-storey residential development would have major
benefits to the quality of living in those higher density neighbourhoods. Thus he suggests that, rather than
allowing the same or lower standards in denser areas, there is a need to counterbalance the effects of
high density with relatively small changes such as increasing ceiling heights to create a greater sense of
space.
Minimum space requirements
In 2005 the Greater London Authority commissioned the study of Housing Space Standards (HATC
2006). The work was motivated by a “growing concern that the internal space of new dwellings may be
getting smaller” (HATC 2006, p. 5), which is similar to the concerns currently being expressed about
Melbourne’s apartments.
Based on a literature review of trends in space standards, their own professional experiences in
developing public and private housing, and the Building Research Establishment Housing Design
Handbook (BRE 2010) and the National Housing Federation Guide to Standards and Quality (NHF 2008),
the research team proposed a range of minimum internal dwelling areas based on the intended
occupancy of the dwelling.
The approach quantified the space requirements of typical domestic functions, including those of a
kitchen, dining area, bedrooms, living area, storage facilities and circulation spaces. The results are
summarised in Table 1 below. As can be seen, the required space increases with the number of
occupants.
9
Table 1: Minimum Internal Dwelling Area outlined in London Housing Space Standards
Occupants
1 person
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Kitchen/Dining/
Living
Bedroom
Circulation
Storage
Total (rounded)
7
7
1
37
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Kitchen/Dining/
Living
Bedroom
Circulation
Storage
Total (rounded)
12
9
1.25
44
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Kitchen/Dining/
Living
Bedroom
Circulation
Storage
Total (rounded)
19
13
1.5
57
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Kitchen/Dining/
Living
Bedroom
Circulation
Storage
Total (rounded)
24
15
1.75
67
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Minimum
Internal
Dwelling Area
(m2 )
Kitchen/Dining/
Living
Bedroom
Circulation
Storage
Total (rounded)
31
18
2
81
22
Occupants
2 person
22
Occupants
3 person
24
Occupants
4 person
27
Occupants
5 person
30
Source: HATC 2006, p. 66
The table has the advantage of enabling planners to consider the adequacy of different functions within a
design. As the researchers note, focusing on the overall minimum internal dwelling area without
considering the space allocated to specific functions has the “… disadvantage that a dwelling may be
larger than the [minimum area] and yet provide insufficient space in habitable areas because it has been
designed with a lot of circulation space, additional bathrooms etc. … this is exactly what has been
happening over the last decade or so – bedrooms have been shrinking to accommodate extra bathrooms”
(HATC 2006, p. 66).
It should be noted that this research set out to establish “safety net” standards. These standards aim to
prevent dwellings that are considered to be too small to be sustainable over the 100 year period that
properties are expected to function. This approach has been adopted in the London Plan (Mayor of
London 2015), which sets out compulsory standards as well as good practice outcomes.
10
2: APARTMENT CONSTRUCTION & POPULATION GROWTH
6. Apartments, population change and growth
Population growth – key trends
Melbourne will need a significant and continuing supply of new dwellings over the next 30 to 40 years, of
which apartments will play an increasing role. This is because the population of Victoria – and Melbourne
in particular – is growing rapidly, and this is expected to continue.
The population of Greater Melbourne is projected to almost double from 4.2 million in 2011 to 7.8 million
by 2051, as shown in Figure 1. This will result in an associated increase in the number of households and
create significant challenges in ensuring there is sufficient housing to meet community needs.
Figure 1: Estimated resident population of Greater Melbourne
Source: ABS 3218.0 Regional Population Growth, and Victoria in Future (VIF 2014)
As the population grows, the value of metropolitan land will undoubtedly increase and compel more
intensive development, both to justify its cost and meet community needs. The current intensification of
development densities in Melbourne’s growth areas, and the increasing density of development in
Melbourne’s inner and middle ring, is indicative of this. For State and local governments, the ongoing
challenge will be to ensure that increasing housing and population density results in appropriate
outcomes.
Changing household structure
Apartments and units are becoming a larger proportion of Melbourne’s housing stock, with a greater
proportion of all household types living in apartments. At present, the vast majority of apartments in
buildings of four or more storeys are occupied by one-person (44%) or two-person (40%) households
(Kelly 2011). By 2051, it is projected that one and two-person households will make up a much larger
proportion of total households. It follows that demand for smaller dwellings such as apartments is likely to
grow (see Figure 2).
11
Figure 2: Change in household types, actual and projected, Greater Melbourne, 2001 to 2051
Source: Estimates based on ABS Census and Estimated Resident Population (ERP), and VIF 2014
Families with children currently make up only a small proportion of households living in apartments.
Twelve per cent of apartment households are families with children (equally split between one- and twoparent families). This pattern is gradually changing. Figure 3 shows that the proportion of families with
children living in Melbourne’s apartments and units increased between the 2001 and 2011 censuses.
Figure 3 also shows the proportion of families with children living in apartments in Sydney, which also
increased, but from a much larger base. As discussed in the Grattan Institute’s report, The Housing We’d
Choose (Kelly 2011), when choosing a dwelling, many households are willing to trade off dwelling size
and type in order to access a preferred location and/or to manage housing costs.
Figure 3: Proportion of families with children living in apartments and units, Melbourne and
Sydney, 2001-2011
Source: ABS Census
The increase in the number of families with children living in apartments is most evident in Melbourne’s
inner suburbs, particularly families with one child. This is demonstrated in Figure 4, which shows
household growth by dwelling type in the City of Port Phillip. Between 2006 and 2011 the number of
12
families with children households living in apartments in the City of Port Phillip increased by over 400
households. This same pattern is evident in municipalities such as Yarra, Monash and Boroondara.
Figure 4: Net change in couples with children by dwelling type, Port Phillip.
Source: ABS Census 2011)
Apartments in Melbourne are mostly rented (58%), while detached houses are mostly owned or
mortgaged (77%). Like households living in apartments, this is also changing, and proportionally more
detached houses were rented and more apartments owner-occupied in 2011 than in 2001. This may
indicate that apartments are increasingly a long-term housing option for a greater number of households.
Nevertheless, the majority of apartments, particularly studio and one-bedroom apartments, are rented.
Labour market impacts on housing
Globalisation has transformed city centres around the world, including Melbourne. Like many successful
global cities Melbourne has experienced strong jobs growth in the ‘knowledge’ sector, including jobs in
financial services and business services that tend to cluster in city centres. One result of this change has
been an increased demand in Melbourne to live in or near the city centre close to these jobs.
Apartment development has provided a way of increasing the number of dwellings in and near the city
centre, whereby large sites that previously supported non-residential uses have been redeveloped as
apartments.
Figure 5 shows the City of Melbourne saw a greater increase in employment than any other local
government area between 2001 and 2011.
Figure 5: Change in employment, total, Greater Melbourne, 2001 to 2011
13
Source: DELWP employment estimates (derived from ABS Census data)
Figure 6: Commuter catchment of the Melbourne CBD
Source: ABS Census 2011
Other drivers of apartment development
Job opportunities are not the only driver of the demand for inner city apartment living. Partly as a result of
jobs growth and increased population density, the inner city has experienced a boom in entertainment,
dining and other recreational activities. This in turn has encouraged a cycle of more jobs, more business
opportunities, more apartment development and more population growth.
Local and State planning policies such as Melbourne 2030, Postcode 3000 and various local structure
plans and Activity Centre plans, have also successfully facilitated a clustering of new apartments with
shops, jobs, recreation and open space. These enable households to trade-off less internal space for
access to convenient, nearby external amenities.
Melbourne has also seen an increase in student numbers in recent years, with two major universities and
international research facilities located in the central city. In addition, Melbourne’s property market is
attracting significant overseas investment, particularly in new apartments which are seen to provide a
reliable income stream.
High rise apartments in the City of Melbourne
The majority of Melbourne’s apartment towers are located in the City of Melbourne and immediate
surrounds. In 2011, more than half of the City of Melbourne’s residents were living in apartment buildings
of four or more storeys. The City of Melbourne is therefore the best location to further investigate the
characteristics of households living in apartments.
14
Figure 7: Age profile of high-rise residents in the City of Melbourne and Greater Melbourne, 2011
Source: ABS Census 2011, specialised table order
Residents of high-rise apartments in the City of Melbourne are predominately young adults (aged 20-34),
a significant proportion of whom are likely to be students. In 2011, there were more than 10,000 full-time
students living alone or in shared arrangements within the City of Melbourne. Research suggests that
younger residents in apartments often see this as a stepping-stone to other living arrangements (Chappell
2015). For Greater Melbourne, there is a much more even spread of age groups living in high-rise
apartments including relatively high proportions of children and the elderly. This may be because highrise public housing is included in these statistics.
High-rise residents in the City of Melbourne include high proportions of low income residents (most likely
students) and high proportions of relatively high income residents (most likely young professionals. This
description uses counts of individuals but equivalised household incomes, the latter being a way of
attributing to an individual the spending power of the household when certain efficiencies arising from
household size are taken into account.). This suggests that apartments cater to a wide range of pricepoints and that the size, design and appointment of different apartments might also reflect this diversity.
Figure 8 compares the income ranges and age groups of those in the private rental market in the City of
Melbourne. It shows a high proportion of renters on relatively low incomes in inner city apartments, which
are most likely to be students.
Figure 8: Percentage of Melbourne LGA high rise residents renting from a real estate agent, by
age and household income 2011
Source: ABS Census 2011, special order
15
Ownership of an apartment is much more prevalent among older households. Older apartment owners
tended to reside longer in their apartment, and City Futures research indicated that older people were
overwhelmingly supportive of the statement ‘apartment living is my long-term preferred option’ (Easthorpe
et. al. 2009). In contrast, the City Futures research and a recent Sydney study by Chappell (2015) shows
that many young adults (25 to 34 year-olds) currently living in an apartment eventually wanted to live in a
detached house. As discussed earlier, these trends may be changing and the preferences of young
adults might ultimately be constrained by property market factors (Chappell 2015).
Around 4% of City of Melbourne residents in 2011 were living in studio apartments. Eight in 10 of those
were in high-rise apartments. Almost half were on annual household incomes of less than $20,800 and
primarily lived alone, as shown in Figure 9. This may indicate that studio apartments are predominantly a
dwelling for students.
Figure 9: Number of residents of the City of Melbourne living in studio (no bedroom) high rise
apartments according to equivalised household income, 2011
Source: ABS Census 2011, Special order
7. Apartment construction in Melbourne
Apartment construction now overtaking detached houses
Apartments now play a much more important role in housing supply than they did when the Victorian
Government’s Guidelines for Higher Residential Development (DSE 2004) were produced.
For the first time there are now more apartments being approved in Melbourne, than detached houses in
Melbourne’s growth area municipalities. Between 2001 and 2007, average apartment approvals were
around 4,000 per annum. By 2010 this had grown to over 10,000 approvals and by 2014 approvals were
over 14,000, making up nearly one third of all housing approvals in Melbourne.
Apartment development in Melbourne’s middle suburbs
The growth of apartment development in inner Melbourne is well known but mid to high-rise apartments
are also being built in Melbourne’s middle suburbs – reaching over 5,500 approvals in 2014.
Figure 10 shows the distribution of recent apartment approvals across Melbourne’s inner and middle ring
municipalities. Recent data from Charter Keck Cramer (CKC 2015) indicates that an increasing proportion
of Melbourne’s new apartments are being marketed in the city’s middle suburbs, many of which have not
typically experienced significant apartment development.
In the 2015 to 2018 period, it is predicted that 8,100 apartments will be constructed in Melbourne’s middle
suburbs, representing a substantial increase on previous years and a major change in built form in certain
shopping strips and commercial areas. (In the 1990 to 2014 period 10,700 new apartments were
constructed in middle suburbs at an average of 400 dwellings per annum. The next three years will see
an average 2,700 new apartments per annum (CKC 2015).)
16
Figure 10: New apartments approved in buildings of four storeys or more between 2011 and 2014
Source: ABS Building approvals, cat. No. 8731.0
In 2000 there were 63 suburbs in Melbourne where new apartments were built. By 2014 this had
increased to 116 suburbs (CKC 2015). For many low- and middle-income households, the price and
rental cost of detached and semi-detached dwellings in Melbourne’s inner and middle suburbs, means
that an apartment is the only way they can afford to live in these areas. Apartments also provide
opportunities for older households to downsize and for households undergoing life changes such as
divorce to remain in a preferred location.
High levels of apartment construction are likely to continue. Charter Keck Cramer forecast that over
45,000 apartments will be constructed throughout Greater Melbourne between 2015 and 2017, as shown
in Figure 11.
Figure 11: Past and forecast apartment stock – 2000-17, Greater Melbourne
Source: Charter Keck Cramer 2015
Even though more apartments are being approved and constructed, detached houses still dominate
Melbourne’s housing stock and will do so for the foreseeable future. Figure 12 shows the gradual yet
steady shift away from detached houses towards smaller dwellings over the last four Censuses. Dwelling
stock differs by area. For instance, in Port Phillip and the City of Melbourne, and increasingly in Moreland,
Yarra and Stonnington, the local housing stock is made up of many more apartments and units.
17
Figure 12: Housing Stock by dwelling type, Melbourne 1996-2011
Source: ABS Census various years
8. Key trends in the size and market price of apartments
Discussion about Melbourne’s new apartments often focuses on their size and, to a lesser extent, the
number of bedrooms they provide. There is some indication that apartment size is a concern for some
occupiers, with recent community consultation undertaken by the City of Melbourne (City of Melbourne
2013) revealing that almost four out of 10 respondents considered the statement “apartments are too
small” to be one of their top 5 housing issues.
To improve understanding of the type, size and price of apartments currently being marketed and built,
the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning commissioned Charter Keck Cramer to
undertake an analysis using a sample of its residential apartment database (CKC 2015). Of the sample of
10,373 apartments across 110 projects currently under construction or being marketed:
 4,428 (43%) were one-bedroom apartments (which includes studio apartments)
 5,393 (52%) were two-bedroom apartments
 552 (5%) contained three or more bedrooms.
In terms of bedrooms, this sample of current development differs from the existing stock of apartments in
the 2011 Census. Figure 13 shows that, although one and two-bedroom apartments dominated the
existing stock in the 2011 Census, there was found to be a greater proportion of three or more bedroom
apartments (12%) as compared to the Charter Keck Cramer analysis (5%).
18
Figure 13: Percentage of apartments by bedroom number in Greater Melbourne, 2011
Source: ABS Census 2011
In the Charter Keck Cramer sample, most one-bedroom apartments (72%) are between 41 and 50m 2.
The median size of new one-bedroom apartments in the central city is 45m 2 while outside the central city
the median is 50m2. As shown in Figure 14, only a small proportion of one-bedroom and studio
apartments fall outside the 40-55m2 range.
Figure 14: Proportion of new one-bedroom apartments by size and median sale price in Greater
Melbourne
Source: Charter Keck Cramer 2015
As shown in Figure 15, the majority of new two-bedroom apartments are between 55 and 75m 2. Smaller
two-bedroom apartments are more prevalent in the central city where the median is approximately 60m 2,
while outside the central city the median size is 70m 2. For both one and two-bedroom dwellings, a greater
internal floor area is associated with a higher purchase price.
19
Figure 15: Proportion of two-bedroom apartments by size and median sale price, Greater
Melbourne
Source: Charter Keck Cramer 2015
Only 5% of the apartments in the sample included three or more bedrooms, and these are sold at higher
prices than one and two bedroom apartments. This may mean that very few new apartments would
appeal to households with children, who tend to prefer dwellings with more than two bedrooms
(Weidmann & Kelly 2011, p.11).
Compared to other dwellings, apartments are generally a lower cost housing option. A sample of 70 new
one-bedroom apartments recently sold in Melbourne’s inner east illustrates the comparatively lower cost
of apartments in locations where median house prices are relatively high (CKC 2015).
Of the 70 apartments, 49% were below 50m 2 and sold for less than $500,000, as shown in Figure 16. For
many households (both owner-occupiers and renters) these apartments are the lowest cost housing
option in the inner east where median prices for houses and units/low-rise apartments in some suburbs
are in excess of $1 million.
Figure 16: New apartment sales in Melbourne’s inner east
Source: Charter Keck Cramer 2015
The same pattern is demonstrated in Melbourne’s middle suburbs in the following analysis of recent
apartment sales in Doncaster. Over 600 individual housing transactions in Doncaster, with a mix of both
20
established and new housing supply, were analysed. Figure 17 shows that all new apartment sales (in
completed projects or projects under construction) were transacted below the median housing price in
Doncaster based on the sales ($900,000). In addition, 67% of new apartments were sold for less than
$500,000, which is well below the median house price of the suburb.
For purchasers in Doncaster, new apartments are a lower cost option compared to other housing types.
In those middle suburbs experiencing new apartment development, there also appears to be lower price
growth associated with other forms of attached housing such as townhouses, which may be related to the
competition provided by new apartment supply.
Figure 17: Sales of new apartments in Doncaster
Source: Charter Keck Cramer 2015
As well as analysing apartment sales in Melbourne, there is a need to better understand the relationship
between apartment supply and rental prices.
Rental report data suggests that private rental tenants are prepared to pay a premium to live in
apartments in Melbourne’s CBD. Figure 18 demonstrates that, as of 2014, the median weekly rental of a
one-bedroom apartment in the CBD was very similar to that of a two-bedroom apartment further away
from the CBD. The relatively high median rent for one-bedroom apartments also suggests that singleperson households may pay a premium to live alone.
Figure 18: Median weekly rents of one-bedroom apartments in the Melbourne CBD compared to
two-bedroom apartments in Brunswick and Kew, 2004 to 2014
Source: DHHS 2014, Rental Reports
21
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Apartment – An apartment is a dwelling that sits on its own parcel of land but is part of a larger building
and typically has other dwellings above and/or below it.
Inner suburbs – This usually refers to suburbs within a group of Melbourne LGAs that are commonly used
by DELWP for analysis. However, where the document is referring to work by Charter Keck Cramer, this
refers to groupings of suburbs that Charter commonly uses to divide Melbourne into spatial housing submarkets. Please contact DELWP if you would like to request complete definitions of areas referred to in
the report.
Middle suburbs – This usually refers to suburbs within a group of Melbourne LGAs that are commonly
used by DELWP for analysis. However, where the document is referring to work by Charter Keck Cramer,
this refers to groupings of suburbs that Charter commonly uses to divide Melbourne into spatial housing
sub-markets. Please contact DELWP if you would like to request complete definitions of areas referred to
in the report.
Inner east – This refers to a grouping of suburbs commonly used by Charter Keck Cramer to divide
Melbourne into spatial housing sub-markets. Please contact DELWP if you would like to request complete
definitions of areas referred to in the report.
Detached house – This is based on a category of dwelling used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics,
and is a dwelling that does not share any walls with other dwellings.
Unit – This is a dwelling of one or more storeys that is attached to other dwellings on one or more sides
but without other dwellings above or below. These dwellings are often referred to as units, villa units, or
townhouses, and are usually on a strata-title.
Low-rise apartment – This is a combination of dwelling categories used by the Australian Bureau of
Statistics made up of units and apartments of three or fewer storeys
Apartment building of four or more storeys – This category is used in this report because this is a
category used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics
High rise apartment building – This term is used to describe apartment buildings of approximately 10+
storeys. Sometimes in this report this term is used based on Australian Bureau of Statistics data that
actually refers to buildings of 4+ storeys, but in some areas such as Melbourne’s CBD, we know that the
significant majority of buildings are 10+ storeys.
Greater Melbourne – The definition of the capital city area used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
APPENDIX: COMPARISON OF APARTMENT REGULATION IN
VICTORIA AND NSW
APPLICATION
APPLICATION
NSW SEPP 65
Victorian Planning System
All residential developments of three or more (above
ground) storeys and four or more dwellings in the
categories:
Clause 55 of the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPPs)
applies to residential development of two or more
dwellings on a lot and not more than three storeys.
 Residential flat buildings.
Clause 15 and Clause 52.35 of the VPP applies to
residential development of four storeys or greater (and
also to non-residential development).
 Mixed use development with a residential component.
 Shop top housing.
 New apartment building, substantial redevelopment or
refurbishment of an existing building or conversion of
an existing building.
 Under limited circumstances, boarding house or
serviced apartment.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
22
NSW SEPP 65
Victorian Planning System
Legislates 9 Design Quality Principles
Urban Design Principles in Clause 15
Principle 1: Context and Neighbourhood Character
Context
Good design responds and contributes to its context.
Context is the key natural and built features of an area,
their relationship and the character they create when
combined. It also includes social, economic, health and
environmental conditions.
Development must take into account the natural, cultural
and strategic context of its location.
Responding to context involves identifying the desirable
elements of an area’s existing or future character. Well
designed buildings respond to and enhance the qualities
and identity of the area including the adjacent sites,
streetscape and neighbourhood. Consideration of local
context is important for all sites, including sites in
established areas, those undergoing change or
identified for change.
Planning authorities should emphasise urban design
policies and frameworks for key locations or precincts.
A comprehensive site analysis should be the starting
point of the design process and form the basis for
consideration of height, scale and massing of new
development.
The public realm
The public realm, which includes main pedestrian
spaces, streets, squares, parks and walkways, should
be protected and enhanced.
Principle 2: Built Form and Scale
Safety
Good design achieves a scale, bulk and height
appropriate to the existing or desired future character of
the street and surrounding buildings.
New development should create urban environments
that enhance personal safety and property security and
where people feel safe to live, work and move in at any
time.
Good design also achieves an appropriate built form for
a site and the building’s purpose in terms of building
alignments, proportions, building type, articulation and
the manipulation of building elements. Appropriate built
form defines the public domain, contributes to the
character of streetscapes and parks, including their
views and vistas, and provides internal amenity and
outlook.
Principle 3: Density
Good design achieves a high level of amenity for
residents and each apartment, resulting in a density
appropriate to the site and its context.
Appropriate densities are consistent with the area’s
existing or projected population.
Appropriate densities can be sustained by existing or
proposed infrastructure, public transport, access to jobs,
community facilities and the environment.
Principle 4: Sustainability
Good design combines positive environmental, social
and economic outcomes. Good sustainable design
includes use of natural cross ventilation and sunlight for
the amenity and liveability of residents and passive
thermal design for ventilation, heating and cooling
reducing reliance on technology and operation costs.
Other elements include recycling and reuse of materials
and waste, use of sustainable materials, and deep soil
zones for groundwater recharge and vegetation.
Principle 5: Landscape
Good design recognises that together landscape and
buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable
system, resulting in attractive developments with good
amenity. A positive image and contextual fit of well
designed developments is achieved by contributing to
the landscape character of the streetscape and
neighbourhood.
Good landscape design enhances the development’s
environmental performance by retaining positive natural
features which contribute to the local context, coordinating water and soil management, solar access,
micro-climate, tree canopy, habitat values, and
preserving green networks. Good landscape design
optimises usability, privacy and opportunities for social
interaction, equitable access, respect for neighbours’
Landmarks, views and vistas
Landmarks, views and vistas should be protected and
enhanced or, where appropriate, created by new
additions to the built environment.
Pedestrian spaces
Design of interfaces between buildings and public
spaces, including the arrangement of adjoining activities,
entrances, windows, and architectural detailing, should
enhance the visual and social experience of the user.
Heritage
New development should respect, but not simply copy,
historic precedents and create a worthy legacy for future
generations.
Consolidation of sites and empty sites
New development should contribute to the complexity
and diversity of the built environment. Site consolidation
should not result in street frontages that are out of
keeping with the complexity and rhythm of existing
streetscapes. The development process should be
managed so that sites are not in an unattractive,
neglected state for excessive periods and the impacts
from vacant sites are minimised.
Light and shade
Enjoyment of the public realm should be enhanced by a
desirable balance of sunlight and shade. This balance
should not be compromised by undesirable
overshadowing or exposure to the sun.
Energy and resource efficiency
All building, subdivision and engineering works should
include efficient use of resources and energy efficiency.
Architectural quality
New development should achieve high standards in
architecture and urban design. Any rooftop plant, lift
over-runs, service entries, communication devices, and
other technical attachment should be treated as part of
the overall design.
Landscape architecture
Recognition should be given to the setting in which
buildings are designed and the integrating role of
23
amenity, provides for practical establishment and long
term management.
landscape architecture.
Principle 6: Amenity
Good design positively influences internal and external
amenity for residents and neighbours. Achieving good
amenity contributes to positive living environments and
resident wellbeing.
Good amenity combines appropriate room dimensions
and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation,
outlook, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and
outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas, and
ease of access for all age groups and degrees of
mobility.
Principle 7: Safety
Good design optimises safety and security, within the
development and the public domain. It provides for
quality public and private spaces that are clearly defined
and fit for the intended purpose. Opportunities to
maximise passive surveillance of public and communal
areas promote safety.
A positive relationship between public and private
spaces is achieved through clearly defined secure
access points and well lit and visible areas that are
easily maintained and appropriate to the location and
purpose.
Principle 8: Housing Diversity and Social Interaction
Good design achieves a mix of apartment sizes,
providing housing choice for different demographics,
living needs and household budgets.
Well designed apartment developments respond to
social context by providing housing and facilities to suit
the existing and future social mix. Good design involves
practical and flexible features, including different types
of communal spaces for a broad range of people,
providing opportunities for social interaction amongst
residents.
Principle 9: Aesthetics
Good design achieves a built form that has good
proportions and a balanced composition of elements,
reflecting the internal layout and structure. Good design
uses a variety of materials, colours and textures.
24
DESIGN STANDARDS / GUIDELINES
DESIGN STANDARDS / GUIDELINES
NSW SEPP 65
Victorian Planning System
Apartment Design Guide
Clause 55 contains 34 ‘Standards’ addressing similar
matters to those covered in the NSW RFDC.
 Resource for pre-development application –
advocates early discussions on design and planning
process
These are organised under the following broad
headings:
 Linked through 9 design quality principles to SEPP 65
 Neighbourhood character and infrastructure
 Content given statutory force when translated into
LEPs and DCPs (cannot be inconsistent with
Apartment Design Guide in respect of visual privacy,
solar and daylight access, common circulation and
spaces, apartment size and layout, ceiling heights,
private open space and balconies, natural ventilation
and storage).
 Site layout and building massing
Organised under the following broad headings:
 Identifying the context
 Developing the controls
 Siting the development
 Designing the building
 Amenity
 Configuration
 Performance
 Amenity impacts
 On-site amenity and facilities
 Detailed design
(and only apply to development to which Clause 55
applies).
The Guidelines for Higher Density Residential
Development are referenced in Clause 15 and apply to
development over three storeys.
The City of Moreland has developed a local code and is
seeking to include this in the Moreland Planning
Scheme.
Other local governments have begun embarking on
similar processes and/or identified the need to do so
within their housing strategies.
 Design Review Panels
 Appendices
 Site analysis checklist
 Pre-development application checklist
 DA documentation checklist
 Apartment building example schemes
 Sunlight access analysis tool
DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY
DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY
NSW SEPP 65
Victorian Planning System
A registered architect must verify the Design Quality
Principles have been addressed by the proposal or
amended proposal.
Clause 55 and Clause 52.35 require a ‘Design response’
Development applications
Design response
The design response must explain how the proposed
design:
Note: The Environmental Planning and Assessment
Regulation 2000 contains the following provision in
Clause 50 (How must a development application be
made?):
 Derives from and responds to the neighbourhood and
site description
(1A): A development application that relates to
residential flat development, and that is made on or after
1 December 2003, must be accompanied by a design
verification from a qualified designer, being a statement
in which the qualified designer verifies:
 Responds to any neighbourhood character features
for the area identified in a local planning policy or a
Neighbourhood Character Overlay.
(a): that he or she designed, or directed the design, of
the residential flat development, and
 Meets the objectives of Clause 55
The design response must include correctly
proportioned street elevations or photographs showing
the development in the context of adjacent buildings. If,
in the opinion of the responsible authority, this
requirement is not relevant to the evaluation of an
application, it may waive or reduce the requirement.
(b): that the design quality principles set out in Part 2 of
State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 - Design
Quality of Residential Flat Development are achieved for Clause 55 requires a ‘Neighbourhood and site
description’
the residential flat development.
Clause 3 of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Regulation 2000 contains the following
definition:
Clause 52.35 requires an ‘Urban context report’.
qualified designer means a person registered as an
25
architect in accordance with the Architects Act 2003
(NSW).
DESIGN REVIEW
DESIGN REVIEW
NSW SEPP 65
Victorian Planning System
SEPP 65 contains provisions for the appointment of
design review panels and outlines their function:
Victorian Design Review Panel (VDRP)
Functions of panels
1: The functions of a design review panel are as follows:
 Established to provide design review for government
projects
 Now review private development projects nominated
on a voluntary basis by responsible authorities.
a. to give specific independent design advice to the
consent authority on a development application for
Some local governments (including Moreland) have
development to which this Policy applies or an
established design review panels but these are not
application for the modification of development consent
governed by any State policy.
for such development and, in particular, to give such
advice on the design quality of the development to which
this Policy applies (or modifications) when evaluated in
accordance with the design quality principles and the
Apartment Design Guide
b. to provide independent advice to consent authorities
and applicants, and their consultants and advisers,
before the lodging of relevant development applications
or applications for the modification of development
consents as well as afterwards, on the design quality of
development to which this Policy applies having regard
to the design quality principles
c. to give independent advice to councils on the design
content of draft local environmental plans, development
control plans, master plans, similar plans and draft
planning policy documents having regard to the design
quality principles
d. to give independent advice to councils on other
mechanisms and initiatives to improve achievement of
the design quality principles
e. to contribute to the understanding of design quality,
and to improve the achievement of the design quality
principles, by making public its advice under paragraphs
(a) and (c)
f. to contribute to the coordination of design quality
across boundaries of local government areas
2. A design review panel may:
a. carry out a review of provisions relating to the design
quality of plans and development control plans in the
area or areas for which it is constituted, and
b. advise the relevant council or councils whether or not
it endorses the provisions.
A design review panel consists of 3 or more persons
with expertise in architecture, landscape architecture or
urban design. Officers or employees of a consent
authority being advised by the panel are not permitted to
be members. A mix of expertise is expected.
REFERENCES
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Census of Population and Housing, various years. www.abs.gov.au
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Building Approvals, cat. no. 8731.0.
www.abs.gov.au
Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Government 2015, Multi Unit Housing Development Code, Environment
and Sustainable Development Report No. NI2008-27, Canberra.
http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/2008-27/copy/101627/pdf/2008-27.pdf Accessed 19 June 2015.
26
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Regional Population Growth cat. No. 3218.0
Australian Government 2015, National Construction Code (NCC) Australian Building Codes Board
(ABCB) https://services.abcb.gov.au/NCCOnline/ Accessed 19 June 2015
Australian Institute of Architects (NSW) 2014, Submission to SEPP65 Amendment Number 3 Apartment
Design Guide. http://www.architecture.com.au/docs/default-source/nsw-submissions/sepp-65amendment-amp-apartment-design-guide.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Accessed 19 June 2015.
Baker, D. 2004, “Why can’t new buildings be as nice as old buildings? It’s the ceiling heights, for one
thing.” SPUR Ideas and Actions for a Better City. http://www.spur.org/publications/article/2004-05-01/whycant-new-buildings-be-nice-old-buildings .
Birbeck, D. and Kruczkowski, S. 2015 Building for Life 12 The Sign of a Good Place to Live, third edition
edited by Paul Collins and Brian Quinn, prepared through a partnership of the Design Council, Design for
Homes, and the Home Builders Federation supported by Nottingham Trent University.
http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/Building%20for%20Life%2012_1.pdf
Accessed 19 June 2015.
Building Research Establishment (BRE) 2010, Housing Design Handbook: Energy and Internal Layout
(BR 253) BRE Press.
Chappell, S. 2015, “Who lives in apartments … and what do they want?”, In partnership with
ResearchNow 18 March 2015
http://www.urbantaskforce.com.au/images/stories/Extras_for_Newsletters/Report_by_Seonaid_Chappell_ResearchNow.pdf
Charter Keck Cramer 2015, “Apartment market – Project Benchmarking. Metropolitan Melbourne
Analysis”, unpublished report prepared for Department of Environment Land, Water and Planning April
2015.
City of Melbourne 2013, Future Living. A Discussion Paper Identifying Issues and Options for Housing
Our Community.
http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/BuildingandPlanning/FutureGrowth/Documents/future_living_discussion
_paper.pdf Accessed 19 June 2015.
City of Perth 2015, City Planning Scheme No.2 Planning Policy Manual – Part 1 Section 4.1 City
Development Design Guidelines
www.perth.wa.gov.au/static_files/cityplanningscheme2/policies/4.1%20City%20Development%20Design
%20Guidelines.pdf Accessed 19 June 2015
Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Reform Council 2011, Review of Capital City Strategic
Planning Systems.
Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) 2015, unpublished employment
estimates derived from ABS Census data.
Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) 2015, Better Apartments: a Discussion
Paper, Victorian Government Melbourne.
http://delwp.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/301542/Better-Apartments-Discussion-Paper-FINALONLINE-version.pdf Accessed 19 June 2015.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) 2014, Rental Reports.
http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/about-the-department/documents-and-resources/research,-data-andstatistics/rental-reports-2014
Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) 2004, Guidelines for Higher Density Residential
Development Victorian Government Melbourne. http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/planning/urban-design-anddevelopment/urban-design-guidelines/higher-density-residential-development Accessed 19 June 2015
Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DELWP) 2014, Victoria in Future (VIF) 2014,
Victorian Government, Melbourne. http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/data-and-research/population/census2011/victoria-in-future-2014
Easthorpe, H. Tice, A. and Randolph, B. 2009, The Desirable Apartment Life? ARC Project DP0073388
Working Paper No. 5, City Futures Research Centre, UNSW.
27
Economic Development Queensland 2014 Medium and High Rise Buildings – Priority Development Area
Guideline No. 08 Economic Development http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/resources/guideline/pda/guideline-08med-high-rise-buildings.pdf Accessed 19 June 2015.
Glaeser, E. 2006, Cities, Agglomeration and Spatial Equilibrium, Oxford University Press.
HATC Ltd 2006, Housing Space Standards, prepared for the London Authority.
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/archives/uploads-space-standards.pdf Accessed 19 June
2015.
Hodyl, L. 2015, Report by Leanne Hodyl – 2014 Churchill Fellow: To investigate planning policies that
deliver positive social outcomes in hyper-dense, high-rise residential environments, Winston Churchill
Memorial Trust of Australia.
https://www.churchilltrust.com.au/media/fellows/Hodyl_L_2014_Social_outcomes_in_hyper-dense_highrise_residential_environments_1.pdf Accessed 19 June 2015.
Hylton, O. 2015, “City’s First Micro-Apartment Project ‘MY Micro NY’ Ready for Stacking”, posted online
at 6sqft on April 21, 2015. http://www.6sqft.com/citys-first-micro-apartment-project-my-micro-ny-ready-forstacking/ Accessed 19 June 2015.
Kelly, J. 2011, The Housing We’d Choose, Grattan Institute, Melbourne. http://grattan.edu.au/report/thehousing-wed-choose/ Accessed 19 June 2015.
Mayor of London 2010, London Housing Design Guide Interim Edition. London Development Agency.
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Interim%20London%20Housing%20Design%20Guide.pdf
Accessed 19 June 2015.
Mayor of London 2015, The London Plan The Spatial Development Strategy for London, consolidated
with alterations since 2011.
www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/London%20Plan%20March%202015%20%28FALP%29.pdf
Accessed 19 June 2015.
Mitchell, Kathryn (1999) Dual Occupancy and its Impact on Metropolitan Growth in Melbourne (1986 1992). Research Master thesis thesis, Victoria University. http://vuir.vu.edu.au/222/
National Housing Federation Ltd (NHF) 2008, Standards and Quality in Development: a Good Practice
Guide (2nd edition), report prepared by Andrew Drury.
New South Wales (NSW) Government 2002, Residential Flat Design Code, Department of Planning and
Environment, Sydney. http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/residential-flat-design-code Accessed 19 June
2015.
New South Wales (NSW) Government 2014, Overview. Proposed amendments to SEPP 65 and the
Residential Flat Design Code. Department of Planning and Environment, Sydney.
https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/6c0df5892d8ee6f2553175d981c91ebc/SEPP65%20%20Overview%20of%20Proposed%20Amendments.pdf Accessed 19 June 2015.
South Australia (SA) Government 2015, Adelaide (City) Development Plan, consolidated 2 April 2015,
South Australia Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure, Adelaide.
http://www.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/21603/Adelaide_Council_Development_Plan.pdf
Accessed 19 June 2015.
Urban Land Institute (ULI) 2014, The Macro View on Micro Units. Washington DC
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) 2009, Decision 737, PDG Corporation Pty Ltd v Yarra
CC. http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2009/737.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(%20PDG%20Corporation%20Pty%20Ltd%20and%20Yarra%20CC%20) Accessed 19 June 2015.
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) 2013, Decision 1832, Melbourne Domain Pty Ltd v
Melbourne CC. http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/1832.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Melbourne%20Domain%2
0Pty%20Ltd%20v%20Melbourne%20CC Accessed 19 June 2015.
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) 2013, Decision 2094, Highbury Venture Pty Ltd v
Melbourne CC. http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi28
bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/2094.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(%20Highbury%20Venture%20Pty%20Ltd%20and%20Melbourne%20CC%20) Accessed 19 June 2015.
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) 2013, Decision 994, Rima Apartments Pty Ltd v
Moreland CC & Ors. http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/994.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Rima%20Apartments%20P
ty%20Ltd%20v%20Moreland%20CC Accessed 19 June 2015.
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) 2014, Decision 172, Abby Apartments Pty Ltd v
Stonnington CC. http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2014/172.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(Abby%20Apartments%
20Pty%20Ltd%20and%20Stonnington%20CC%20) Accessed 19 June 2015.
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) 2014, Decision 2091, Green, Gaud and Others v
Hobsons Bay CC. http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/2091.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Green,%20Gaud%20and
%20Others%20v%20Hobsons%20Bay%20CC Accessed 19 June 2015.
Weidmann, B. and Kelly, J. 2011, What Matters Most? Housing Preferences Across the Population,
Grattan Institute, Melbourne. http://grattan.edu.au/wpcontent/uploads/2014/04/109_what_matters_most.pdf Accessed 19 June 2015.
Western Australia (WA) Government 2013, State Planning Policy 3.1, Residential Design Codes,
Department of Planning, Perth. www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/State_Planning_Policy_3_1Residential_Design_Codes_Print.pdf Accessed 19 June 2015.
© 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 reuse 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/
Printed by Impact Digital, Brunswick
ISBN 978-1-74146-687-4 (Print)
ISBN 978-1-74146-684-3 (pdf)
Accessibility
If you would like to receive this publication in an alternative format, please telephone the DELWP
Customer Service Centre on 136186, email customer.service@delwp.vic.gov.au (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.
DOCUMENT ENDS
29