In November 2023 I posted some diagrams illustrating potential envelopes from the partially implemented change to the use of ResCode (the controls then governing housing of less than four storeys) to operate as “deemed to comply” controls.
We now have the final version of those provisions, which go into effect on 31 March. Once introduced you will find them in planning schemes, but for the next few days you can read the provisions here (look under “Gazettal”).
I won’t attempt a full description or critique of the provisions here – there is a lot changing. But I did think it was worth updating my old drawings to reflect the current controls.
(Some Annoying Technical Details)
The key point to understand about the new provisions is that they operate in a deemed to comply fashion.
Prior to September 2023, the provisions provided guidance regarding a typically acceptable outcome (called Standards). It remained open for councils to decide that particular circumstances justified either a more permissive or restrictive outcome than the Standard specified, as long as the intent of the control was met (technically this final level of assessment was against an Objective.) Those circumstances might include the character of the area; or they could be the immediate context, such as the location of neighbouring open space, buildings, windows and so on. Councils also had to consider a range of policy (including neighbourhood character policy) as part of their decision.
(A quick clarification, added 27/3: I have talked in this article about the traditional operation of ResCode, compared to how the new code works – but I should note for completeness that the controls became partially deemed to comply in September 2023, creating a hybrid situation too tediously complicated to bother explaining here).
Going forward, ResCode Standards are fully deemed to comply. This means that if a proposal satisfies the Standards, there is no longer any ability to consider whether local context warrants a different outcome. The council is also barred from considering local policies.
Previously residents usually had the right to object to, and appeal decisions about, most medium density development in established suburbs (with appeals going to VCAT). Now, however, a proposal that meets all the Standards will be exempt from appeal rights. Residents can still object to the council in this situation, but that objection would almost certainly be fruitless given the councils would have essentially no ability to refuse such a proposal.
In addition to this change to how they operate, the Standards themselves have been made more permissive. In particular:
- Increased site coverage is allowed in the General Residential Zone and Residential Growth Zone.
- A new building envelope is allowed (below) which requires a uniform 3m setback but then allows up to 11m of height (depending on the zone) at that 3m setback – higher than the old stepped barn-like ResCode envelope allowed.
- Landscaping standards have been removed, replaced by a tree canopy standard. While the details of this are somewhat complex, the baseline requirement is that tree canopy of 10% of site area needs to be provided.
All the Standards requiring qualitative judgement – for example about neighbourhood character, but also things like landscaping other than simple canopy coverage – have been removed. This means, for example, that if the canopy cover is met, however, there appears almost no scope to require further landscaping. The parts of the provisions requiring assessment of design quality (materials, articulation and the like) have also been removed.
A final change relates to council’s local variations to the Standards. Councils had previously been able to do strategic work to justify varying the state-wide Standards for certain ResCode requirements (which, once accepted by state government, were then specified through schedules to the zones). I have not seen a very clear statement about what is proposed to be done with these, but certainly many will be removed as they are no longer allowed for in the new code. My understanding – based on what I have been told, but which I have not spotted confirmed in writing – is that even those that are theoretically allowable are going to be removed unless they are more permissive than the new state-wide Standards.
As I did back in November 2023, I have tried to determine as best I can what these new deemed to comply forms look like below. These drawings are to give a sense of what the massing of the new buildings under the code will be.
Preparation of such drawings is, in my view, an important part of the assessment of a deemed to comply provision. The entire point of such controls is to provide clarity to developers and the community. Visualisation of the outcomes should therefore have been part of the preparation of the code and should be released as part of the material accompanying the provisions.
The entire point of such controls is to provide clarity to developers and the community. Visualisation of the outcomes should therefore have been part of the preparation of the code and should be released as part of the material accompanying the provisions.
A few points of explanation about my drawings:
- The site I used is the same 766sqm site, with a frontage of 15.24m and depth of 50.29m, that I used for my previous drawings. Whether this is a typical medium density redevelopment site will depend on where you live or work; I would describe this as a generous but not enormous “traditional” lot on which you would commonly see some infill housing developed. I got these dimensions from a real planning appeal I worked on in St Albans; I wanted to be able to check my various assumptions against a real example as I went.
- These drawings are based on the 3m setback envelope shown above. The option also exists to use what is basically the old setback diagram (applicants can choose which of the two setback diagrams they follow). I haven’t redone the previous exercise, but I expect using those envelopes would result in envelopes looking pretty similar to my old drawings. However I think this “new” envelope represents a more attractive proposition to developers and is the more relevant one to look at.
- These drawings are for a lot running north-south. For an east-west lot, a larger setback would be required from the south boundary.
- There are Standards that can’t be modelled in this scenario. Notably these drawings cannot account for overshadowing – but this would be unlikely to be a major constraint on a north-south lot.
- I haven’t calculated the envelopes to allow for ground floor open space – although some can be accommodated – as open space is allowed to be provided in balconies. In Residential Growth Zone areas – the clearest precedent we have for these new controls – that’s what typically occurs.
- I have assumed a 6m front setback. Lesser front setbacks can be allowed in some situations under the controls. However in practice if front setback changes, the distance is just swapped with the rear setback as the overall garden area needs to be maintained. (The tree canopy provisions are also a factor here, as a tree needs to be provided in the front setback).
- There are a few hard to account for functional issues – like turning circles into garages – so take these as informed approximations of a plausible form. The ground floor would likely have to have a cantilever adjacent to the driveway to provide a setback so that cars can enter the garage doors. Again, this is a form we already often see. That ground floor cutout isn’t shown, but doesn’t greatly affect the resultant massing in my view as it is thew upper storeys that are most visible from adjoining properties.
- To make the maths simpler, I have shown the driveway running the length of the site. This means the drawings may be a little conservative (meaning that the buildings could be a little bigger than shown), as the increased area of driveway means that the building hits garden area limits earlier than they otherwise might.
- There are some important questions about how tree coverage effects these volumes that I discuss below.
Finally, in interpreting these diagrams, it is important to remember that the effect of the provisions is not just that these forms might sometimes or typically be okay. The point is that within these zones, buildings of this size that meet all the Standards are always deemed okay.
…in interpreting these diagrams, it is important to remember that the effect of the provisions is not just that these forms might sometimes or typically be okay. The point is that within these zones, buildings of this size that meet all the Standards are always deemed okay.
You can click on the drawings for a better look.
General Residential Zone
This envelope allows a 37.6m long three storey, 11m high building 3m from each side boundary.
The measurements of the pictured building are as follows:
- Site size: 766sqm (15.24m by 50.29m)
- Building size: 346sqm (37.6m by 9.2m)
- Site coverage (portion covered by actual building): 45% (provisions allow 65% in the zone, up from previous 60%).
- Garden area: 268sqm (35% – the minimum allowable on a site this size).
Note it is garden area that is the constraint here, not site coverage.
The key unknown here is whether the tree canopy Standard would limit this envelope. There are lots of vagaries about how the tree coverage standard will work – and I foresee all sorts of unforeseen problems in applying this provision (I have since written about that here). However with 45% unconstructed site and 35% garden area, I am pretty confident the tree canopy standard could be met without further constraining this envelope.
Neighbourhood Residential Zone
This envelope allows a 37.6m long three storey, 9m high building 3m from each side boundary.
The measurements of the pictured building are as follows:
- Site size: 766sqm (15.24m by 50.29m)
- Building size: 346sqm (37.6m by 9.2m)
- Site coverage (portion covered by actual building): 45% (provisions allow 60% in the zone).
- Garden area: 268sqm (35% – the minimum allowable on a site this size).
As will probably be pretty obvious, this is almost identical to the previous drawing, but with height reduced to 9m. This is because, as noted above, the key constraint is garden area, not site coverage, and the permissible garden area is the same in both zones. The tree canopy requirement doesn’t change either.
The key difference between the two zones is therefore the allowable height, which comes down to 9m.
Residential Growth Zone / Mixed Use Zone / Housing Choice and Transport Zone
I haven’t prepared a diagram for these zones.
These zones don’t have a garden area requirement, and the site coverage has increased to 70% under the new provisions. That site coverage is so high that the key constraints become the rear setback and the tree canopy standard. I am confident that the tree canopy standard should be able to be satisfied within the General Residential and Neighbourhood Residential Zones shown above, but it’s much less clear to me how the requirement would be met within these higher growth zones. I therefore am not confident what forms would result in these zones.
I could prepare a diagram showing the form constrained only by the rear setback, but I am concerned it would be misleading as such an envelope would quite likely not allow for sufficient tree canopy to meet the Standards.
Final Thoughts
As I said back in November, 2023 my intention here is to try to illustrate the massing these changes allow. You can form your own views about whether this is encouraging good typologies, reflecting the levels change intended in the zones, or giving sufficient clarity or quality of outcomes to warrant removal of resident appeal rights. (I have written in some detail about what I think should be done with the medium density housing provisions in my book about the Victorian system).
You can download my Sketchup files below if you want to play around with them. (Sketchup has a 30 day free trial).
As in November 2023, I think my drawings make reasonable assumptions based on the provisions. And while I have checked them carefully, it is, again, possible I have made a mistake somewhere. There are a lot of moving parts in preparing these drawings while learning the software and making on-the-fly calculations. It is also possible that some other subtle practical constraint exists in the provisions that limits forms.
But as I said last time – my version of these plans should not matter at all. This is an enormously consequential change. The point of the controls should be to provide clarity, and preparation of deemed to comply provisions should involve testing of likely outcomes. Whatever you think of these changes, we should have modelling and visualisation of the buildings that the code is expected to facilitate.
Edited 27/3 to make it clearer that some standards went deemed to comply back in September 2023.