Regular readers of BDAV News will be aware of the proposed changes to the Residential Zones currently underfoot. Submissions relating to these changes closed on the 28st of the September, and the industry now begins a nervous wait to see whether the new Residential Zones launched by Minister Guy in July 2012 are to be implemented as drafted or revised prior to being rolled out.
In One Planners Tit Bits (July 2012), Clause 1 applauded many of the proposed changes to the Residential Zones, particularly those that sought to loosen restrictions on a number of uses within residential areas, and provision for non-residential uses to be established when in close proximity to business zoned land.
However, we were disturbed by proposed changes to the “Purpose” of the State’s most prolific Residential Zones which removes references to providing ‘residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households’ and instead place greater emphasis on the preservation of existing neighbourhood character.
We at Clause: 1 consider this increased emphasis upon neighbourhood character to be heavy handed, particularly in light of the changes to schedules for all Residential Zones which will provide Councils with a much greater opportunity to customise schedules for particular areas within their territories. As mentioned in earlier articles, the schedules will be provided with increased mechanisms such as mandatory maximum building height controls and further amendments to ResCode standards to more explicitly guide development in various neighbourhoods.
Seasoned players in the industry will be aware that ‘diversity and a range of densities’ has come to mean ‘affordable housing’, unit style development, finer grained residential development and regenerated housing stock that offers more in a suburb than 650 sqm blocks containing double fronted brick veneer housing.
Our overwhelming impression of the changes to the Purpose of the Residential Zones is that they demonstrate a quite alarming disregard for the pressing inequity between the need to provide additional housing stock within the city’s limits, and the absence of opportunities to do this. The move away from encouraging increased urban densities, in established suburbs, flies in the face of skyrocketing housing prices, commuter congestion, and pressure on urban growth boundaries. It constrains development first by imposing greater controls over neighbourhood character and later by discouraging unit development. The seemingly deliberate omission of the encouragement of increased densities and housing diversity also contradicts a number of the principles clearly established in Melbourne 2030 and Melbourne @ 5 Million.
To put the potential impact of this change into context it is important to understand that whenever any application to develop land is made the starting point for assessing that application is; ‘how does the proposal align with the purpose of the zone’. Up until now the purpose of the Residential 1 zone has included expressed support for infill development. The proposed change to the purpose of the zone does not just remove this support, but reinforces the protection of neighbourhood character as the key consideration.
In an attempt to quantify the impact of this change we reviewed the planning permit applications lodged with Melbourne’s middle ring municipalities throughout the 2010-2011 reporting year. Municipalities included: Monash, Banyule, Hobsons Bay, Manningham, Glen Eira, Darebin, Moreland, Kingston, Maribynong, Moonee Valley, Boroondara, Stonnington, Casey, Hume, Bayside, Greater Dandenong, Whittlesea, Frankston, Whitehorse, Brimbank, Maroondah, Wyndham, Knox, Melton, Mornington Peninsula and Cardinia.
Throughout these middle ring suburbs it is noteworthy that:
16,957 applications were received for 2+dwellings on a lot, throughout the reporting year;
2+dwelling applications (16,957) make up more than 40% of all applications in these municipalities;
The average construction cost per application throughout the reporting year was $453,976 (Nb: it is considered this average per application is an extremely conservative estimate when applied to the 2+ dwelling category. It is generally expected that the average cost of a 2+dwelling application would be far greater)
When the average cost per application ($453,976) is multiplied by the number of applications (16,957) for infill development within these middle ring suburbs it can be seen that this industry is worth more than $7billion to Victoria’s economy.
It is this planner’s assertion that the proposed changes to the zoning provisions, that will remove support for ‘residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households’ and unreasonably protect the existing neighbourhood character will place this $7billion industry at substantial risk. This is the small end of the construction market. As such we perceive small builders, designers and local tradesmen are likely to feel the pain associated with this change