DENSITY BONUSING: PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN

DENSITY BONUSING:

PROVIDING AFFORDABLE

HOUSING IN FISHERMANS

BEND

By Daniel Goode, Maryam Alizadeh, Xinwen Kang, Bai Geng

April 2016

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary

2. Introduction

3. Vision for Fishermans Bend

4. Density Bonuses

4.1 Key Definitions

4.1.1 Affordable housing

4.1.2 Density bonusing

4.1.3 Voluntary planning incentives

4.1.4 Mandatory requirements

4.2 Why is Density Bonusing important?

5. Current Practices

5.1 International Precedents

5.1.1 New York--America

5.1.2 Vancouver--Canada

5.2 Australian Precedents

6. Fishermans Bend: Context

7. Barriers and Enablers to Implementation of Density Bonusing in Fishermans Bend

7.1 Barriers

7.1.1 No Mandatory Requirement upon Density Bonus

7.1.2 Community Objections to Increased Density

7.2 Enablers: Current Policy Context

8. Overcoming Barriers: Recommendations for Fishermans Bend

8.1 Factors for Successful Implementation

8.2 Overcoming Barriers in Fishermans Bend

8.2.1 Community Objections

8.2.2 Voluntary Incentives Alone Unlikely to Entice Developers

8.3 Recommendations

9. Conclusion

10. Reference

1 | Page

1. Executive Summary

Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area (FBURA) is a potential area with significant opportunity

to transform into a diverse and modern city extensions with advantageous locations between the

Melbourne CBD area and Port Phillip Bay. The potential population increase presents a

significant challenge in FBURA. It is predicted by 2050, approximately 40,000 new jobs and

80,000 residents will be accommodated in this area (MPA 2014). The future for Fishermans Bend

is a mixed community that it will possible to provide affordable and adequate housing for people

of diverse income, age and types (Stubbs 2013). However, the overall amount of affordable

housing is not sufficient in supporting the potential population growth, so it is a great challenge

for FBURA to increase the total amount of affordable housing and enough resources and facilities

to support all residents living in Fishermans Bend.

This report is to provide a vision to deliver relatively 20% affordable housing for very low, low

and moderate income households through density bonusing in Fishermans Bend urban renewal

area. Density bonus as a key incentive towards the development of affordable housing, it

generates loads of benefits for both private developers and the government and it could

efficiently provide adequate affordable housing for the target group.

‘Density Bonusing’

● A voluntary incentive;

● Floor area ratios or height limits;

● Most commonly and effectively used;

● Determined by local officials.

Current practices in terms of density bonus have achieved much success to various degrees in

North America (New York & Vancouver), it is showed that density bonus is more productive in

large-scale development. Australia also have some remarkable developments refer to density

bonus. Lessons could be learnt from for FBURA both international and Australian precedents.

Lessons learned from precedents:

● Considering density bonus to combine with mandatory inclusionary zoning program;

● Considering effective density bonus to work within high density areas in large-scale

development;

● Considering the importance of the inclusion of density bonusing in planning scheme;

● Considering the unique situation and challenge of Fishermans Bend;

● Density bonuses are generous toward developers.

Barriers are existing from related stakeholders. Defining the main barrier is a vital process to

consider how to implement density bonusing in Fishermans Bend.

Two main barriers in Fishermans Bend:

2 | Page

● Community objections towards density bonus due to the concern of potentially

decreasing living amenity;

● No mandatory requirement upon density bonus.

These barriers are likely to influence the implementation of development of density bonus, and

some of them will determine the process of the plan. Thus, how to overcome those barriers in

order to successfully deliver affordable housing by density bonusing is essential to mention.

Current policy context is a key aspect to enable the delivery of density bonus in FBURA so that

current Australian policies relating to density bonus will be listed. The current policy context can

be seen as both an enabler and a barrier, the main applicable policies are:

● Plan Melbourne Refresh Discussion Paper - Enabler

● Fishermans Bend Advisory Committee Report - Enabler

● State Planning Policy Framework - Enabler

● Local Planning Policy Framework - Barrier

● Planning & Environment Act - Barrier

This report has found from literature and international best practice, that there are four key factors

for a successful density bonusing program; they are as follows:

● Strong property market with underlying demand

● Strong restrictive planning controls that are below the full potential of the site

● Clearly defined goals, expectations, and process including timeframe and length of

affordable housing commitment

● Flexibility to cater for varying locational contexts, such as site conditions and

demographics

This report contends that although barriers exist in Fishermans Bend, they can be successfully

overcome to implement a successful density bonusing program that achieves the levels of

affordable housing as set out in the vision. Community objections against higher-density

development and stigma attached to affordable housing can be overcome with:

● Good policy that ensures development balances density with public benefit (Hodyl 2014)

● The industrial context being favorable, with little impact on established neighbourhoods

● Any density bonuses being avoided in interface areas with reduced density restrictions

● Community advocacy for affordable housing to counter the vocal local opposition

Low take-up levels of voluntary incentives like density bonuses can be overcome by:

● Implementing a Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning program

● Using density bonuses and other incentives to offset the cost of delivery of affordable

units to developers

3 | Page

2. Introduction

This report combines literature with case studies, both from international and local contexts, to

assess density bonusing as a mechanism for delivering affordable housing, and how it could be

applied to the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area.The report sets off by outlining a vision for

density bonusing in Fishermans Bend. This vision guides the report, setting the goal for the final

recommendations to achieve. Density bonusing, and other key terms used throughout the report

are then defined for the reader’s reference.

The report then draws upon case studies of density bonusing in current practice. International

precedents in New York City in the United States, and Vancouver in Canada are examined, with

lessons being drawn from each, both on a program level and also on an individual project level.

Both New York and Vancouver are found to have generous density bonus provisions. While

density bonusing is not widely used in an Australian context, some examples of density bonusing

have been applied. The report looks at how density bonusing has been put into practice in

Western Australia and New South Wales, and notes recent proposals for density bonusing in

Victoria.

The report then drills down and takes focus on Fishermans Bend, outlining its locational context,

and its future as well as its historical land use. From here the report identifies two major barriers

to implementing a density bonusing program; being community objections and the difficulty

associated with getting developers to take up voluntary incentives. Complementing this analysis,

the existing Fishermans Bend policy context is examined, and policy enablers and opportunities

for density bonusing are identified.

The report’s final section uses the literature and case studies outlined throughout the report to

identify a course of action for density bonusing implementation in Fishermans Bend. Factors that

arose from the literature for successful implementation of a density bonusing program are

identified, and how Fishermans Bend performs against these criteria is examined. Discussion

upon how the two major barriers can be overcome in the Fishermans Bend context then follows,

with the findings indicating that density bonusing can be successfully implemented given certain

steps are taken. Finally, the report outlines the necessary steps to successful implementation,

giving four main recommendations to implement a density bonusing program that works

alongside a mandatory inclusionary zoning provision to achieve the vision for Fishermans Bend

as outlined at the beginning of the report.

4 | Page

3. Vision for Fishermans Bend

‘Our vision is to implement a Density Bonusing Program in Fishermans Bend that is economically

feasible, environmentally sustainable, and contributes to the delivery at least 20% of housing

that is affordable to low-, very low-, and moderate-income households without negatively

impacting on the amenity of the area and surrounding communities’.

4. Density Bonuses

4.1 Key Definitions

4.1.1. Affordable housing

In the literature, affordable housing is defined as housing that is affordable for household whose

income are not sufficient to support the appropriate housing in the housing market (Milligan et

al, 2004). This means affordable housing is established to assist medium, low, and very low

income households to meet their housing needs in their living community that they work in. The

U.S and the Canadian government outlined that affordable housing must cost less than 30 per

cent of their income (Rager, 2013), and in Australia, housing crisis is also defined as when

households pay more than 30 per cent of their income on housing (National Housing Strategy,

1991). Affordable housing can be provided by governments, non-profit organisations, private

developers or even individuals (Disney, 2007).

4.1.2 ‘Density bonusing’

As financial resources are usually considered to be the most significant barrier in affordable

housing delivery, incentives are essential. Density Bonusing is the most commonly used and

effective way of encouraging the developers to contribute to affordable housing delivery. And it

is considered to encourage new affordable housing by reducing the costs associated with

development. This mechanism could encourage developers to produce private market housing

suitable for lower income earners to rent or buy (Gurran, et al. , 2008). In the meantime, density

bonusing are tools that can be applied to incentivize the production of a broad range of public

benefits. Density bonusing are voluntary incentives that usually works together with mandatory

inclusionary zoning as an offset to deliver affordable housing units in exchange for increased

floor area ratios or height limits (Conlan, 2013). Density bonuses vary from projects to projects,

and in Australia, it usually determined by local officials. For the purposes of this report, the focus

of these bonuses is the provision of affordable housing. In this context, density bonuses

represent a form of inclusionary zoning where additional floor space entitlement is provided in

exchange for the private developer’s production of housing that meets affordable housing criteria

(LISC 2015).

5 | Page

4.1.3 ‘Voluntary planning incentives’

Voluntary incentives are usually selectable by developers from previous incentives to counteract

the costs of mandatory affordable housing requirement, which could be offered by an existing

planning scheme to produce new social housing and attract funds towards it.

4.1.4 ‘Mandatory requirements’

Mandatory requirements are legal enforcement upon developers to contribute to a set of new

affordable housing project within a proposed area. While, many viable operations could be taken

on the basis of this legal control, like the quantity of affordable housing contribution and the

timeframe of using those housing stock as affordable housing, which could be decided by

different housing marketing contexts. (Gurran, Milligan, Baker & Bugg 2007)

4.1.5 ‘Very low, low and moderate income households’

Households who are not able to meet their housing cost and have spare expenditure spent on

other essential cost like transport, food, health care and other household needs are considered

as very low, low and moderate income household, depending on where they live (MCC 2010).

● ‘Very low income household: household who receive less than 50% of the local median

household income for the Melbourne Statistical Division;’

● ‘Low income household: household who receive more than 50% but less than 80% of the

median household income for the Melbourne Statistical Division;’

● ‘Moderate income household: household who receive more than 80% but less than 120

of the median household income for the Melbourne Statistical Division.’ (MCC 2010)

4.2 Why is Density Bonusing important?

Density bonuses is considered as a mechanism which provides opportunity to mitigate the

negative financial impact of mandatory inclusionary requirements on developers. In combination

with mandatory inclusionary zoning, it could facilitate implementation of a long-term, sustainable

affordable housing policy approach (Ryan & Enderle, 2012).

Current social housing fails to keep pace with population growth and increasing demand for

housing, which leads to an urgent requirement for increasing social housing supply for very low,

low and moderate income households. While, very small amount of newly constructed housing

are social housing in Port Phillip Local Government Areas. To be more specific, the level of

supply of social housing have declined from 6.0% to 5.3% between 2001 and 2011. There is a

‘housing stress’ among very low, low and moderate income families in City of Port Phillip,

accounting for 27% of total households (Stubbs, etc 2013).

6 | Page

A review on literature shows that greater housing density in the inner and middle ring suburbs

contributes positively towards more liveability in urban areas a variety of public transport options

high quality public spaces and playgrounds. This is currently the case in inner city suburbs of

Melbourne providing great opportunities for communities which are usually unaffordable for

lower-income households (Breen, 2015). As such density bonusing in Fishermans Bend which

is well-located to a variety of facilities and Melbourne’s CBD, could provide opportunities for very

low, low and moderate- income households to benefit inner city living style.

Given that density bonuses could facilitate and contribute to provision of affordable of housing

in Fishermans Bend it should be considered as one of the as a planning incentive mechanism

by which:

● The current housing stress level in Greater Melbourne and area close to Fishermans

Bend including City of Melbourne and City of Port Phillip will be reduced;

● An inclusive community will be developed. Based on current market most of very low,

low and moderate-income households forming approximately 60% of the community will

be mostly excluded from this area.

● Health and wellbeing of very low, low and moderate income families will be improved

who have to to scarify other needs to pay for housing costs (Breen, 2015; FBAC, 2015

& Stubbs, 2015).

7 | Page

5. Current Practices

Density Bonusing is an increasingly used tool internationally, with many precedents that can

each provide valuable lessons to implement a successful density bonusing program in

Fishermans Bend (TATUW, 2015).

5.1 International Precedents

5.1.1 New York -- America

Density bonusing has been successfully implemented in Northern America, one of the examples

is New York. According to NYC Planning, the Inclusionary Housing Program mandatorily requires

a certain percentage of the dwelling units within a building to be affordable units, however, the

affordable units can be provided off-site within the same community district, or within one-half

mile of the bonuses development. The first Inclusionary Housing Program was created for high

density districts. The density bonus is up to 20 percent of the maximum permitted residential

floor area, which means 1.25 to 3.5 square feet of extra floor area can be permitted per square

foot of floor area dedicated to affordable housing. In 2005, the mandatory inclusionary zoning

has been increased to be at least 20 percent, with an increased density bonus of 33 per cent in

floor area ratio. Both of them are applicable in nowadays. Under the implementing of such

mandatory inclusionary zoning policy with a generous density bonus as the offset, New York has

produced 2769 affordable units during 2005 and 2013, and 86 percent of them are located in

high-density areas with large-scale development (Petro, 2014). The success of New York’s

combining mandatory ordinance with generous density bonuses as offset has been attributed by

many literatures.

The Palmer’s Dock property was the first affordable housing property developed in the

Williamsburg, Brooklyn under New York’s Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning (Dockery et al, 2010).

The Brooklyn-based Dunn Development Corporation and L+M Development Partners built an

off-site affordable housing apartment on the Northside Piers in 2006, and a density bonus of 33%

extra floor area ratios are granted for the two luxury condominium on water side pocket of the

site (Dockery et al, 2010). The below-market rental apartment has six storeys, and contains 115

units.

From this example, a general consensus has been formed regarding the productivity of

combining mandatory inclusionary zoning program and density bonusing (Conlan, 2015). The

precedent also found density bonusing works more efficiently in high density areas where large-

scale development are undertaken. The inclusion of density bonusing in planning scheme also

recognised to be a key to success.

8 | Page

Figure 1: Affordable housing units of Northside Piers development

(Source: http://newyorkyimby.com/2014/08/bigger-density-

bonuses-needed-for-inclusionary-housing-program-to-

succeed.html )

Figure 2: Affordable Units- Street View

(Source:https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/spring13/hi

ghlight3.html )

9 | Page

5.1.2 Vancouver -- Canada

Amongst the largest countries in the world, Australia shares many similarities with Canada in

terms of urban development. As shown in figure 1, Canada and Australia have similar number

on both land area and population, while other countries have significantly denser population.

Therefore, precedents in Canada could be highly valuable.

Figure 3. (Source: http://alldownunder.com/australian-facts/compare-size/htm)

In Vancouver, density bonus zoning as a zoning tool is applied, which means a zoning by law

may establish different density regulations within a zone to achieve affordable housing, as stated

by the City of Vancouver (2016), and extra density are granted for ones contribute to affordable

housing and amenities. In 2014, Council amended the Zoning and Development Bylaw, two new

zones for Marpole to include density bonus provision are introduced (City of Vancouver, 2014).

The zoning is applied in Townhouse/ Rowhouse Zones and 4-storey Apartment Zones, the

density bonus contribution rates is shown in table 1 (City of Vancouver, 2014). In 2016, the Four-

Storey Apartment Zones in Norquay Village are also amended to include density bonus

provisions (City of Vancouver, 2016), and a similar density bonus contribution rates are applied.

Figure 4:. Density bonus rate of Marpole

(Source: http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/Bylaws/bulletin/M001.pdf)

10 | Page

In cases of both New York and Vancouver, density bonuses provided are recognised to be

generous. The density bonusing process varies from countries to countries, and in Australia

context, the height limits are typically used rather than floor area ratios.

5.2 Australian Precedents

In Australia, affordable housing remains largely a state responsibility (Gilmour and Milligan,

2008). The National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA) are used to provide the framework

for all levels of government in working together to improve affordable housing delivery (Gronda

and Costello, 2013).

In Western Australia, voluntary incentives are identified to be one of potential options for

affordable housing, as it outlines “allow the use of voluntary incentives (e.g. density bonuses) in

local planning schemes and plans, to encourage the provision of affordable housing” (WAPC,

2013). The City of Gosnell is a representation of Western Australia council that offering density

bonuses. In 2005, a local level density bonus scheme has been established, however, it is limited

to nominated areas or lots, such as corner lots (Hughes, 2015). The scheme outlined in clause

6.2.4 that “any proposed lot or site area created through a density bonus subdivision and/ or

development is less than 600 square meters” (City of Gosnells, 2005).

In New South Wales, the Housing Plan has been introduced as part of its 2005 Strategic Plan

for the State, legislative and policy changes at the state level were introduced to achieve the

affordable targets (Conlan, 2013). The importance of affordable housing has been recognised in

the upper levels of the South Australian planning scheme as well as strategic targets for

affordable housing (Davison et al, 2012). In 2009, State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP)

(Affordable Housing) has been introduced, incorporating with existing provisions related to below

market housing, and measures to encourage below-market housing with density bonuses to be

one of the incentives (Davison et al, 2012).

The State government outlines that up to 20 per cent of extra floor area ratio would be provided

for higher density developments where 50 per cent affordable housing floor area is provided

(Whitzman et al, 2015). This has been used by local governments to increase affordable housing.

Waverley Municipal Council offers 15 per cent of additional floor area as density bonus to

developments that provide 50 per cent floor space for affordable rental units for at least three

years (Whitzman, et al, 2015).

In Queensland, the auspices of the Urban Land Development Authority (ULDA) has been

established in 2007, some site specific affordable housing initiatives has been pursued by

Queensland government, focusing on large residential redevelopment site in high growth areas

11 | Page

(Davison et al, 2012). Voluntary density bonusing has been included in some ULDA schemes to

offset the impact of Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning program. One specific site that applied

density bonusing in Queensland is Northshore Hamilton Urban Development Area, where

density bonus can only be accessed where higher-than-required number of affordable units,

performs well environmentally, and include a high level of accessible housing provision (Davison,

et al, 2012).

In Victoria, there are no schemes made by State government, however, density bonusing has

been proposed in many places. One example is at Arden-Macaulay, which is located north of

the Melbourne CBD. In 2011, the area has been proposed as a major urban renewal precinct

with objectives of increasing its population from 2670 to 20500 beyond 2040 (Conlan, 2013). A

mandatory inclusionary zoning overlay has first been proposed in 2007 with 15 per cent, but as

it was not approved, thus a modest MIZ ordinance of only 2.5 per cent for commercial floor space

development, and 2 per cent for residential floor space have been proposed in 2011 (Conlan,

2013). To offset the impact of such ordinance, a flexible density bonus scheme has been applied

in order to concentrate the higher incentives towards less sensitive areas, with the lowest density

bonus of 10 per cent (Conlan, 2013).

Density bonusing is a relatively new incentive to Australian context, especially for Melbourne.

But from both the international and nation precedents, it is an effective approach that works best

as offsets to decrease the impact of mandatory inclusionary zoning. It is valuable for modern

development, especially for those large urban renewal areas such as Fishermans Bend.

12 | Page

6. Fishermans Bend: Context

The Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area as the largest urban renewal areas in Australia and

with an area of 250 hectares is located to the south-west of Melbourne’s CBD. this area is

surrounded by Williamstown Road and Boundary Street to the south, City Road to the east, the

West Gate Freeway and Lorimer Street to the north, and City Link and Todd Road to the west .

The area comprises over 1000 parcels of land with multiple private ownership (Places Victoria,

2013 & MPA, 2016).

Figure 5: Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area Location Plan

(Places Victoria, 2013)

This area being located within City of Melbourne and City of Port Phillip, has been rezoned to

the Capital City Zone (CCZ) in 2012, by Minister for Planning being identified as an urban renewal

project of State significance. The area currently is used for light and heavy industrial,

manufacturing and convenience retail. It is projected that Fishermens Bend renewal area will

include employment, housing, retail, community and civic uses. The area will accommodate

approximately 80,000 residents and 40,000 jobs (Places Victoria, 2015).

13 | Page

As shown in figure 2, the area has five precincts:

● Montague;

● Wirraway;

● Sandridge;

● Lorimer; and

● Fishermans Bend Employment Precinct.

The precincts Montague, Sandridge and Wirraway are located in the City of Port Phillip and

Lorimer, Fishermans Bend Employment Precinct are located in the City of Melbourne ( City of

Port Phillip, 2016).

Figure 6: Fishermans Bend Precincts

(Places Victoria, 2013)

Responsible Authorities for planning applications within Fishermans Bend are the local

Council (all applications within the 4 and 8 storey mandatory height mapped areas) and the

Minister for Planning (all remaining planning permit decisions).

Figure 7: Responsible Authorities in Fishermans Bend

(Places Victoria, 2013)

14 | Page

The strategic importance of Fishermans Bend is highlighted by the availability of large

development sites in the suburb and the lack of industrial zoned land in Melbourne’s eastern and

south-eastern regions within 15 kilometres of the CBD. Consequently, land values in the suburb

are significantly greater than those of other industrial locations.

Over the past few years, high rise, high density units and apartments are considered as the most

preferred built form within the area surrounding Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area.

Figure 8: Zoning Map_ Fishermans Bend

(Source: http://services.land.vic.gov.au)

The Fishermans Bend Strategic Framework plan recognises the “opportunity for people of

all ages to live closer to existing jobs, services, public space and transport connections”,

and also “to become a new generation business and residential extension of Melbourne’s

CBD, taking it from Spring Street to the Bay, via Docklands (FBSFP, 2014). The strategic

plan outlines the objective to provide diverse and affordable housing choices; build new

houses that are affordable to low and moderate income household; and also contribute

towards affordable housing managed by Registered Housing Associations (FBFP, 2013). In

order to establish affordable housing in Fishermans Bend, density bonusing has the

potential to motivate developers without increasing costs.

15 | Page

7. Barriers and Enablers to Implementation of Density

Bonusing in Fishermans Bend

7.1 Barriers

7.1.1 NO Mandatory requirement upon density bonus

The Fishermans Bend Strategic Framework Plan was released in 2014 by the Metropolitan

Planning Authority. There are 146 guidelines in this Plan, while only 34 of them are mandatory

and there are no guidelines including height limits and mandatory density bonus requirements

(FBAC, 2015). And this reveals a fact that there are only voluntary incentives existing with

Fishermans Bend government areas. Some limitations are identified towards no mandatory

requirements upon density bonus in the following text.

Firstly, because of few mandatory requirements existing within the document, there is not enough

regulatory control on the private landowners who occupy the majority of the land in Fishermans

Bend Area to guarantee that they could provide adequate outcomes in the short term, let alone

in the long term. For instance, supposing that there are some small sites, which are owned by

private landowners, within a proposed area for density bonus plan, the whole plan would fail if

one of the landowners appeals to it（FBAC 2015).

Secondly, the only voluntary approaches are not effectively performed while applying to height

and density (Stubbs, etc 2013). Due to the voluntary characteristics, it probably merely adequate

for sites that in small scale and commercial development. (Gurran, Milligan, Baker & Bugg 2007)

In addition, exclusively rely on voluntary density bonuses would generate rather low quality

outcomes due to the voluntary nature. Mukhija, Regus, Slovin & Das (2010) indicated that

voluntary programs performed limited productive in Lake Forest, Long Beach and Monrovia

based on the recent survey collected by NPH (2007) than mandatory policies.

Thirdly, local communities or governments are more likely to use large amount of subsidy to

attract developers to produce social housing projects rather than to build appropriate social

housing constructions for very low, low and moderate households (Mukhija, Regus, Slovin & Das

2010). For instance in the US, in the case of East Brunswick and Piscataway, public subsidies

are required to make density bonuses viable rather than increase density bonus itself, which are

actually subsidies used to entice developers (Conlan 2014).

16 | Page

However, mandatory constraints are not the perfect solution for density bonusing, it also have

some limits. It could impact on height and density, which could influence other goals like

densification and protect of existing urban interfaces (Stubbs, etc 2013). Thus, a combination of

voluntary incentives and mandatory requirements are needed to reach the goal of sufficient

supply of social housing.

7.1.2 Community Objections to Increased Density

Community attitudes, thoughts and feedback are essential aspects to a new strategic planning

development, it could guide planning process and determine final outcomes to some extent.

Community voices come from community members and stakeholders relating to FBURA (Capire

Consulting Group 2012). In the community engagement summary in Fishermans Bend Urban

Renewal Area (CPP 2013), a well engaged community participation process is crucial to achieve

sustainable and qualified outcomes in the long term for existing and future community

development (CPP 2013).

However, high community engagement provide more opportunities for every stakeholders speak

of their own voices, some of their voices might delay the strategic planning process. Community

members are likely to object to some proposals that would potentially influence their own values.

In fact, in Fishermans Bend, community members are sensitive of increasing density, because

they are unwilling to let Fishermans Bend become a high density development with little social

infrastructure and poor environment to support it (CPP 2013). Four main reasons of community

objections are listed below.

To begin with, high density will possibly undermine existing urban interface. In Fishermans Bend,

there are two types of interface existing in Fishermans Bend, one is industrial and commercial

interface locating in the north and northeast of the area facing the west gate freeway and Yarra

River, the other one is the residential and commercial interface which is located in the south part

within Fishermans Bend, facing the inner CBD of Melbourne (MPA, 2014). The existing urban

interface represents unique cultural, social and economic of an area, it gives people a sense of

belonging and identity. The residential urban interface in Fishermans Bend is complicated, it

combines different types of residential housing types varying from housings, units, medium

height apartment and high-rise buildings. In return, residents living there prefer a richer diversity

of housing types rather than simply increasing height of density of buildings (CAPP 2015).

Secondly, high density is likely to increase the possibility of traffic flow and requirement for

parking spaces. Residents living in Fishermans Bend are currently facing the problem of traffic

congestion in some certain areas to access the city during the AM peak (Capire Consulting

17 | Page

Group 2012). The increasing density leads to a greater amount of residents and employees, a

massive influx traffic would be generated from new residents and new employees. The heavy

commercial traffic is another concern of Fishermans Bend community. Williamstown Road, which

is a heavy truck routes, has strong impact on the nearby residential area (CPP 2010). The

community is also worrying about the increasing density is likely to lead to busier commercial

trucks passing by.

Thirdly, losses of privacy and light might occurred due the increasing building density. Building’s

height and shape can not only influence adjoining neighbourhood’s inside private amenity and

sunlight access within the building, but also affect the scale of outside pedestrian paths and the

amenity of nearby streets. In order to reach the goal of density bonus, it is possible to increase

heights and sizes, to reduce surrounding areas of open spaces or to build different housing

patterns, which is a big threaten upon the existing living amenity of households.

Finally, density bonus might bridge down the previous status of the area by putting extra pressure

upon the environment and social infrastructure. Fishermans Bend community members want to

make sure that the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Areas will not become an area with high

density development without enough social infrastructure to support it (CPP 2013). Currently,

there already have some community voices in terms of inadequate schools in Fishermans Bend.

Residents are asking for more schools and related facilities, they regard this as a priority of future

development (CPP 2013). In this case, if the development of density bonus cannot satisfy

residents’ need in terms of social facilities, including enjoyable open space, elder care facilities,

education constructions and activity centres, they would likely be object to the process.

7.2 Enablers: Current Policy Context

The following section provides an overview of current planning policy context in relation to density

bonusing in Victoria. This review is provided with emphasis on effectiveness of these policies on

provision of affordable housing through density bonuses in Fishermans Bend.

As stated by Stubbs, currently policy context does not reflect legal constraints. This requires

ministerial approval for application of incentives such as density bonuses through an amendment

to including an overlay (Stubbs, 2013).

18 | Page

● Plan Melbourne Refresh- Discussion Paper

This document aims to provide an opportunity for a long-term land use policies to improve

housing diversity and affordability. It is acknowledged in this report that Melbourne currently

suffers from serious housing affordability problems for low-income households. As such

provision of social and affordable housing in urban renewal sites is highly recommended. It is

intended to increase number of new households in well-located areas to existing jobs, jobs,

services and transport infrastructure.

Section 5.5 of this report specifically relates to Affordable Housing. Recommendation 25 refers

to planning incentives such as incentive zoning (Floor Space Ratio bonuses, additional building

height) for all designated urban renewal precincts to facilitate provision of affordable and social

housing. It is also recommended that the costs, benefits and opportunities of implementation of

such incentives planning incentives should be assessed carefully to avoid detrimental impact on

existing communities and their amenities (MAC, 2015).

● Fishermans Bend Advisory Committee Report

The Fishermans Bend Advisory Committee (FBAC) was appointed to provide Minster for

Planning with advice on preparation of detailed Precinct Plans, Infrastructure Plan, planning

scheme amendment process and Community Engagement Plan.

Fishermans Bend Area is recognised as an area with opportunity to provide an affordable

development due to close proximity to Melbourne’s CBD which could provide an excellent

housing opportunity for a variety of households.

Recommendation 27 of this report specifically refers to provision of diverse and affordable

housing in Fishermans Bend.This report recommends density bonuses as a mechanism to

ensure affordable housing provision in Fishermans Bend (FBAC, 2015).

● State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

It is acknowledged that Victoria’s planning system contains only relatively broad objectives and

strategies relating to affordable housing supply via the SPPF (MAC, 2015).

The SPPF includes an objective within Clause 16.01-2- Location of residential development in

which higher density housing development on sites that are well located in relation to activity

centres, employment corridors and public transport are highly encouraged (DELWP, 2016)It is

also noted that Clause 16.01-5, aims to deliver more affordable housing closer to jobs, transport

and services (DELWP, 2016).

19 | Page

Given the location of the Fishermans Bend renewal area in close proximity to Melbourne’s CBD

and also proposed future commercial activities and community and in accordance with objectives

of this policy, provision of higher density developments in Fishermans Bend could be supported

in some precincts.

8.Overcoming Barriers: Recommendations for

Fishermans Bend

8.1 Factors for Successful Implementation

Implementing a successful density bonusing program is a difficult task as each location has its

own unique variables and challenges. Despite this, all density bonusing programs require the

following key factors to be successful (LISC 2015):

● A strong property market

● Strong restrictive planning controls

● Clear goals, expectations, and process

● Flexibility to cater for different locational contexts

Strong market demand for housing is an essential ingredient in any voluntary incentive, as

without underlying demand no developer will be willing to supply, and continuous housing supply

is critical to achieving sufficient levels of affordable housing. Given that the affordable housing

supplied by density bonuses is created by a city’s consent to allow development above the

typical, the developer must be interested in extracting the maximum potential of a site for the

bonus to be attractive (LISC 2015). Fishermans Bend has strong market demand following the

rezoning of the land to Capital City Zone in 2012, evidenced by 46 apartment towers being

approved or proposed, indicating that density bonusing could be highly successful in the area

(The Age 2015).

In these areas, city’s must utilise this strong market demand to their advantage through the use

of strong planning controls that restrict development. In their study of Density Bonus programs

in the United States LISC (2015) found that the most productive environments for density

bonuses are those where local planning controls restrict the level of development through height

limits or maximum floor areas. In order for the density bonuses to be viable, developers must

find that the maximum potential of the site exceeds the limit entitled by right under the restrictive

planning controls (LISC 2015). To ensure controls are able to achieve this government will have

to translate thorough market and circulation analysis, as well as development potential

calculations into land use controls particularly as the market responds to any transport

20 | Page

infrastructure investment in Fishermans Bend (LISC 2015). Fishermans Bend does currently

have interim height limits, which will be discussed later, indicating that density bonusing could

be successfully implemented.

Any density bonusing program that is introduced must have transparency from the very start.

Reaping public benefits from private developers requires clear public expectations and process.

This includes a defined goal of what the density program will deliver - in this case affordable

housing - as well as a clear approval process with a predictable time frame (LISC 2015). Details

of the housing outcomes expected should also be clarified; for example whether they be rental

or owned, targeted at very low- or moderate-income households (LISC 2015). The length of time

that below-market units are commited to being at affordable rates should also be clearly defined

from the start of the program. Victoria’s lack of a clearly defined goal and expectations for

affordable housing within the planning system will need to be addressed in order to successfully

implement a density bonusing program in Fishermans Bend.

Finally, any density bonusing program that is implemented needs to be flexible in order to cater

for the different locational contexts within the city. Factors such as the shape and size of sites in

different areas, as well as different easements and soil conditions should all be considered and

catered for (LISC 2015). Given there are continual shifts in demographics, particularly with

regards to household size, emphasizing floor area over quantity of units for affordable housing

contributions within a density bonusing program would provide flexibility to adapt to market

change (LISC 2015). With an industrial history and unique soil type, the site conditions and sizes

in Fishermans Bend are quite different to Greater Melbourne’s. Therefore, any density bonusing

program implemented would have to incorporate flexibility in order to be successful in the

renewal area as well as other areas of Melbourne.

8.2 Overcoming Barriers in Fishermans Bend

8.2.1 Community Objections

One of the biggest challenges facing decision makers with regards to density bonusing, or

increasing density in general, is the impact it can have on the amenity of an area and its

community. High density development in Melbourne has typically been characterized by a lack

of control, and has led to some undesirable outcomes. Hodyl (2014) notes that high-rise

apartment towers in Melbourne’s CBD are being built at four times the maximum densities

allowed in high-density cities such as Hong Kong, New York, and Tokyo. This can be attributed

to the “weak, ineffective or non-existent” policies that have been used to regulate Melbourne’s

high-rise developments (Hodyl 2014 p.7). The built outcomes as a result are very tall, lacking

21 | Page

space between buildings, and generally show no regard for the amenity of the residents within,

the impact on the streetscape or the neighbourhood’s property values (Hodyl 2014). Hodyl

(2014), through her international research, found that a high-rise typology can be highly

successful as long as density is balanced with the provision of public benefit. Hodyl (2014) calls

for greater planning control over high-rise development, through density controls, tower

separation controls, and apartment design standards, as well as density bonusing to link

development to public benefit. The review of CBD high-rise planning by the Minister for Planning

and the introduction of Interim high-rise Planning controls, such as plot ratio controls, in 2015

represent a shift towards the stronger policy that Hodyl advocates for (Minister announcement).

While high-density development can be achieved in Fishermans Bend through density bonusing

without negatively impacting the amenity of the community, high-rise apartment towers standing

adjacent to low-rise communities such as Garden City would be a stark contrast and would be

highly likely to be met with objections. For this reason, reduced density or height controls should

be established and density bonusing avoided along the interface of the urban renewal area and

its surrounding communities.

Community perceptions of social housing are another challenge when implementing an

inclusionary housing program. As has been previously mentioned, the perception of lower

income households bringing down the status of an area can be a source of objections against

applications including affordable housing. Breen (2014) notes that one of the key challenges is

engaging communities in decisions on future growth to limit opposition to development

proposals. From her international research, Breen (2014) found that whilst ‘NIMBYism’ and

opposition to higher-density developments occurs everywhere, the level of community advocacy

for affordable housing developments was much higher overseas than in Australia. Campaigns

such as the #DontHave1Million, which attracted thousands of followers and gained political

attention to the average price of a home in Vancouver, are largely unheard of in Australia (Breen

2014). Given the impact that the lack of affordable housing has on the nations economy, it is in

the wider public interest to counter the voices of those in opposition to affordable housing

developments (Breen 2014). Advocacy groups such as the Sydney Alliance, a network of civil

society organisations, should be supported and encouraged as they can play a major role in

achieving the vision for density bonusing in Fishermans Bend.

Overall Consensus-building will play an important role in dealing with community opposition to

both higher density and affordable housing. It is important to provide a real opportunity for the

community to have their say in any proposed intensification process and additional density

density provision (Whitzman, et al., 2015). Given the industrial context of Fishermans Bend, and

the strong history of social housing provision in the area, the central areas of the urban renewal

area are unlikely to encounter strong community opposition, giving advocates the upper hand.

22 | Page

8.2.2 Voluntary Incentives Alone Unlikely to Entice Developers

When implementing an inclusionary housing program, every community face a difficult decision:

Should mechanisms be voluntary or mandatory? Will incentives be enough to ensure the

provision of the amount of affordable housing required, or is the only way to ensure sufficient

production through government mandates? Will the community be able to provide the levels of

incentives that developers would need to persuade them to provide the required affordable

housing? Will mandatory provisions deter developers from investing in the community and

reduce overall housing supply? These are all questions that must be considered (BPI).

From a review of the literature it can be seen that density bonusing programs generally require

mandatory provisions to complement them, in order for the program to be viable. Many studies

have found that voluntary incentives like density bonuses working alone without any mandatory

requirements suffer from low take-up rates (Mallach 1984, Calavita & Grimes 1998). Other

studies have found that purely voluntary inclusionary housing programs also come at a high cost

to the taxpayer. Brunick (2004 p.3) argues that “without a mandatory requirement, communities

will most likely have to provide an extremely high level of subsidy to entice developers to produce

homes and apartments affordable for low- and very low- income households”. Mallach (1984), in

his analyses of local governments of New Brunswick and Pascataway in the United States, found

that areas that used density bonuses without any mandatory requirements needed high levels of

public subsidy to make them viable, and that it was this subsidy more so than the density bonuses

that enticed developers to produce affordable housing.These findings suggest that mandatory

inclusionary housing programs are more successful.

Arguments against mandatory inclusionary housing claim that it leads to lower long term housing

supply. This argument, led most notably by Ellickson (1981), follows classical economic theory

and sees mandatory inclusionary housing as a form of tax. Powell & Stringham (2010) argue

“taxing new housing makes the vast majority of housing less affordable”. These arguments

however have a number of flaws. The first major flaw is that the notion of a mandatory program

being a tax is highly contestable (Conlan 2014). Dietderich (1996 p.42) argues that mandatory

programs could in fact be interpreted as a ‘tax relief’ as they tend to increase supply “by mitigating

cartel restrictions on the supply of residential land”. The second major flaw is that they fail to

acknowledge the incentives, such as density bonuses, provided to offset costs of production of

affordable units (Conlan 2014). This flaw is particularly pertinent given the fact that no local

government has implemented a mandatory inclusionary housing program without such

incentives (Dietderich 1996).

While these main arguments are contested, mandatory inclusionary housing requirements

working without any voluntary incentives to offset them do have their weaknesses. Mandatory

23 | Page

requirements for affordable housing delivery, without additional voluntary incentives, can place

too much onus on the private sector (Conlan 2014). In infill development contexts, such as that

of Fishermans Bend, mandatory requirements can discourage development, and encourage

developers to look elsewhere for investment. Infill development is typically characterized by

higher land prices, and often delivers “marginal profitability” due to high costs associated with

higher density development and site contamination remediation (Rowley & Phibbs 2012). With

slim profit margins associated with market-rate developments in these contexts, any mandatory

requirements for the provision of affordable housing, which essentially means selling units at a

loss, can make development in these areas highly unattractive (Rowley & Phibbs 2012). Thus,

according to Rowley & Phibbs (2012 p.48), voluntary incentives like density bonuses are critical

in contexts such as that of Fishermans Bend, “to replace that lost revenue by allowing the

developer to deliver additional, or more profitable, units in the overall scheme”. A mandatory

inclusionary zoning program will be necessary to accompany density bonuses in order to achieve

the affordable housing vision in Fishermans Bend.

8.3 Recommendations

Following extensive research on successful density bonusing programs and the factors for their

success, a number of potential actions have arisen that could allow for a similarly successful

programs to be implemented in Fishermans Bend. The report will now outline a number of

recommended steps that will guide implementation and help achieve the vision for density

bonusing in Fishermans Bend.

● Define ‘Affordable Housing’ in the Planning & Environment Act

It is recommended that the Planning and Environment Act be amended to include a clear

definition on Affordable Housing. The proposed amendment also should provide an appropriate

level of authority for local governments to implement appropriate mechanisms to provide

affordable housings in proper locations. This report puts forward Breen’s (2014 p.5) definition

of Affordable Housing as a good example: “any housing response (rental or home-ownership)

that is specifically made available to lower-income households (households in the bottom 40%

of income distribution) at an affordable price point, defined as less than 30% of gross

household income”. By defining the term within a statutory context, a clear goal and

expectation is set removing any uncertainty amongst developers and the wider community.

LISC (2015) found that in the US, jurisdictions that had a clearly defined goal were more likely

to have a successful density bonusing program. With a clear goal to work towards, community

advocacy can play a major role in gaining political interest and the community in general can

24 | Page

be more engaged in the process. For example in Fishermans Bend, there could be

opportunities for landowners to get together and combine their sites in order to obtain a greater

density bonus, benefiting both their own interests and those of the wider community through

the delivery of affordable housing (FBAC 2015).

● Establish Strict Restrictive Density Limits

For a density bonusing program to be implemented successfully in Fishermans Bend It is

essential that state government in collaboration with local governments, developers and

community advocates develop a strict framework for density limits and bonuses. As mentioned

above, one of the keys to a successful density bonusing program is to have density controls that

are below the potential of a site. In Fishermans Bend, different height limits have been used on

development approvals. Initially, only discretionary height limits were applied to Fishermans

Bend, meaning that individual projects could be negotiated to build above the limits. As shown

in figure 8, development applications submitted prior to 17 April 2015 were assessed against

these height controls. For all applications submitted after 17 April 2015, mandatory interim height

controls apply. It is noted that interface area were supposed to include low density developments

( 4 storey). The central parts with a maximum height limit of 12 storey and the northern portions

being identified as a discretionary zone.

Figure 8 : Fishermans Bend Discretionary height controls

(Source: https://cityportphillip.maps.arcgis.com)

The mandatory interim height limits that apply now are shown in Figure 9. This report argues that

these height limits should be used as a guide to what density limits should be established and

maintained for a density bonusing program.

25 | Page

Figure 9: Interim Mandatory Height controls in Fishermans Bend

(Source：https://cityportphillip.maps.arcgis.com)

The Fishermans Bend Advisory Committee argue for adequate height limits that are coordinated

with adjacent buildings in nearby precincts, with the consideration of the local geotechnical

conditions upon development viability. Hodyl (2014) however argues that density limits should

look beyond the height of buildings. She argues that the overall number of people living within a

development, the quality of the living space inside, and the overall impact the building has on its

surrounds are far more important. Apartment design guidelines should be considered by the

Office of the Victorian Government’s Architect and determined by the Minister, and this process

should be public and transparent (FBAC 2015). Hodyl (2014) argues that density or a floor area

ratio limits should be used instead of height limits, and this view is supported by this report, as

floor area ratios allow flexibility as household sizes shift over time.

● Implement Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning

As previously mentioned in this report, voluntary incentives do suffer from low take up rates from

developers. This report takes the position that a mandatory inclusionary zoning provision should

be coupled with a density bonusing program .From an analysis of inclusionary housing programs

across the United States, the BPI (YEAR) found the following:

● Mandatory programs produce more housing

● Mandatory programs better serve low- and very low-income housholds

● Mandatory programs provide better reliability and predictability for community and

developers

● Mandatory programs have not caused decreases in overall levels of housing production

26 | Page

● Mandatory programs much more widespread than voluntary programs

Mandatory inclusionary zoning provisions should be implemented in Fishermans Bend, with

density bonuses and other voluntary incentives offered to allow developers to recoup the costs

of delivery of affordable units, in order to achieve the vision for the urban renewal area. Other

incentives could include planning incentives, such as expedited planning processes and reduced

car parking requirements, and financial incentives, such as property tax abatement programs or

a Federal-State Fund like the former National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS).

● Amend Planning Scheme to include Density Bonusing provisions

It is proposed to provide an opportunity for local governments to support provision of

affordable housing through density bonuses in combination with other mandatory and incentive

mechanisms. In this regard, a toolbox of approved measures should be defined in consultation

with the development industry, local governments and relevant state government agencies.

It is also required to identify carefully which areas will be appropriate to have Density overlays.

A quantitative goals for affordable housing production through density bonuses should be

developed and annual benchmarks to measure future effectiveness of density bonuses

established (Casella, & Meck, 2009).

The density bonus program should incorporate flexibility and offer density bonuses in exchange

for "in lieu contributions to an affordable housing trust fund or for prior construction of

affordable housing at offsite locations if there are practical difficulties to affordable housing

(such as a lack of jobs or public transit nearby). The in-lieu fees should be kept at an adequate

level and updated consistently. Furthermore, to make sure the fees are responsibly and

reasonably used to producing enough supply of affordable housing. (Mukhija, Regus, Slovin &

Das 2010).

As mentioned previously, density bonusing should be avoided along interface areas so as to

minimise community objections. It should be targeted at the central areas of Fishermans Bend

where there there can be good access to transport and services. The public transport network

in Fishermans Bend should be enhanced, including increase the frequency and variety of

public transport, improve the amenity of trams, buses and trains, explore advanced technical

equipment support and reduce the risk of delay. New community infrastructure should be

established in Fishermans Bend aligning with the development of density bonus project, in

order to ensure there are sufficient services to support the expected future population.

27 | Page

The American Planning Association (2004?) provides a model density bonusing ordinance as a

guide for density bonusing programs in the United States. This report recommends that an

amendment to the planning scheme to include density bonusing follows this model ordinance as

a guide. The model ordinance is structured into 5 main sections (APA 2004):

● Definitions; including “affordable housing”, and “low- and moderate- income households”

● Procedures for the review of affordable housing developments

● Requirement for developer to enter an agreement with the responsible authority to ensure

that affordable units remain affordable

● Designation of a responsible authority to assess and approve developments that will

include affordable housing

● Provisions for enforcement

By implementing these statutory changes alongside those of a mandatory inclusionary zoning,

the vision for density bonusing in Fishermans Bend can be achieved, contributing to an inclusive

and diverse neighbourhood, reduced housing stress levels and improved health and wellbeing

for very low-, low- and moderate-income households (Breen 2014, FBAC 2015, Stubbs 2015).

9. Conclusion

In conclusion, Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal area is planning to increase the affordable

housing units in order to decrease housing affordability crisis in Melbourne and plan for future

population to continue the reputation of “the most liveable city in the world”. As an incentive to

lower the costs on affordable units, the feasibility of density bonusing has been examined.

As density bonusing has been successfully applied across international but a relatively new term

in Australia, international precedents are studied and each gives valuable lessons. In the case

of New York, America, density bonus is combined with mandatory inclusionary zoning and works

more efficient in high density areas with large-scale developments. In Vancouver, Canada,

density bonus zoning is used by municipalities as a zoning tool to grant bonus for those

developments contribute to affordable housing. In both cases, density bonus succeeded in

delivering affordable housing units. In Australia, affordable housing remains largely state’s

responsibility, thus policy related to density bonus in various state have been listed. And in

Melbourne, though density bonusing has only been proposed but not approved in many projects,

Fishermans Bend Renewal Area has the great opportunities to apply density bonusing given the

current situation compared to the successful precedents.

28 | Page

In Fishermans Bend, an analysis of barriers and enablers has been identified in the article. One

is the implication of using density bonus without mandatory requirement. Another is increased

density would cause community objections. On the other hand, planning incentives have been

encouraged by Plan Melbourne Refresh, and recommended by Fishermans Bend Advisory

Committee Report, while objectives of more affordable housing closer to jobs, transport and

services are outlined in State Planning Policy Framework. To successfully implement density

bonus in Fishermans Bend, four key factors for implementation has been identified to be ‘a strong

property market’, ‘strong restrictive planning controls’, ‘clear goals, expectations, and process’,

and ‘flexibility to cater for different locational contexts’.

Though density bonusing itself have barriers, they can be overcame before being implemented

in Fishermans Bend. For community objections, Fishermans Bend has a strong history of social

housing provision in the area which means the barrier would less likely to occur in the site. And

a mandatory inclusionary zoning program is identified necessarily in applying density bonusing

in Fishermans Bend.

Finally, some recommendations are given to implementing density bonusing in Fishermans

Bend, including: a clear definition of the term ‘affordable housing’ should be given in the Planning

& Environment Act; strict restrictive density limits should be established so that density bonusing

would be more likely to be used if higher density is wanted by individual developers; Mandatory

Inclusionary Zoning is also recommended to work together with density bonus as the effective of

combining the two program has been evidenced across nations; at last, the inclusion of density

bonusing in planning scheme is key factor of implementing such term in Fishermans Bend.

10. References

American Planning Association (2004), ‘Model Affordable Housing Density Bonus Ordinance’,

viewed on March 30 2016, http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/images/IH-model-ordinance-

APA%20.pdf

Breen, K. (2015): International approaches to facilitating affordable housing outcomes and their

application to Victoria, Australia.

Brunick, N. (2004) ‘The Inclusionary Housing Debate: The Effectiveness of Mandatory

Programs Over Voluntary Programs’, American Planning Association

Business and Professional People for the Public Interest (BPI) (2004), ‘Voluntary or Mandatory

Inclusionary Housing? Production, Predictability, and Enforcement’, viewed on March 27 2016,

http://www.bpichicago.org/documents/mandatoryv.voluntary5.06.pdf

Calavita, N. & Grimes, K. (1998), ‘Inclusionary housing in California: the experience of two

decades’

Capire Consulting Group, (2012): Communication and Community Engagement Strategy,

Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Project, Phase 1-Strategic Framework Plan Draft, Retrived

March 2016, <http://www.mpa.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Communication-and-

Community-Engagement-Strategy-Capire_December-2012.pdf>.

City of Gosnells. (2005):Local Planning Provision. Residential Density Bonuses - Corner Lots.

Retrieved April 2016, from

http://www.gosnells.wa.gov.au/files/sharedassets/public/website/governance/policy/1-

lpp_4_8_residential_density_bonuses_-_corner_lots.doc.pdf .

City of Port Phillip, (2014): Fishermans Bend Strategic Framework Plan, Retrived March 2016

from http://www.mpa.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Fishermans-Bend-Strategic-

Framework-Plan-July-2014_medium-res-file.pdf.

City of Port Phillip, (2013): Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area, Community Engagement

Summary, Retrieved March 2016 from http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/fishermans-bend-

urban-renewal-area-ce-summary-report.pd

City of Port Phillip, (2010): Fishermans Bend Planning and Economic Development Strategy

(Draft), Retrieved March 2016 from http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/default/Report_8.5_-

_Attachment_1_-_Draft_Strategy_(July_2010).pdf.

City of Vancouver. (2016). Norquay Village neighbourhood centre - density bonus zoning and

public benefits. Planning - By-law Administration Bulletins. Planning and Development

Services.Retrieved April 2016, from http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Norquay-Density-Bonus-

Zoning-Bulletin.pdf.

City of Vancouver. (2014): Marpole - Density Bonus Zoning and Public Benefits. Planning - By-

law Administration Bulletins. Planning and Development Services. Retrieved April 2016, from

http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/Bylaws/bulletin/M001.pdf.

Community Alliance of Port Phillip, (2015): Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Plan

Submission, Creating an inner urban, mixed use suburb comprising four diverse, vibrant and

inclusive neighbourhood, Retrieved April 2016 from

http://www.fishermansbendnet.org/library/FBURPS-0115.pdf.

Conlan, J. (2014): Inclusionary Zoning and Density Bonuses at Arden-Macaulay, Retrived

March 2016 from https://msd.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/James%20Conlan-

%20Inclusionary%20Zoning.pdf.

Davison, G. Gurran, N. van den Nouwelant, R. Pinnegar, S. Randolph, B. & Bramley, G.

(2012): Affordable Housing, Urban Renewal and Planning: Emerging Practice in Queensland,

South Australia and New South Wales. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

AHURI Final Report No. 195.

Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning (DELWP), (2016): Port Phillip Planning

Scheme. Retrieved April 2016, from http://planning-

schemes.delwp.vic.gov.au/schemes/portphillip.

Dietderich, A.G. (1996), ‘An Egalitarian's Market: the Economics of Inclusionary Zoning

Reclaimed’, Fordham Urban Law Journal, 24, p. 23

Ellickson, R.C. (1981) ‘The irony of “inclusionary” zoning’, Southern California Law Review, 54,

pp. 1167-1216

Fishermans Bend Strategic Framework Plan. (2014). Available from

<http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/Fishermans-Bend-Strategic-Framework-Plan-July-2014_low-

res-version.pdf>

Fishermans Bend Advisory Committee (FBAC), 2015: Fishermans Bend Advisory Committee

Report 1. Retrieved April 2016, from http://www.mpa.vic.gov.au/wp-

content/uploads/2014/07/FBAC-Report-Number-1-October-2015pdf.

Gilmour, T. & Milligan, V., (2008): Stimulating Institutional Investment in Affordable Housing in

Australia: Insights from the US. In refereed papers presented at the 3rd Australasian Housing

Researchers Conference, 18th-20th.

Gronda, H. & Costello, L. (2013): Spotlight on: the National Affordable Housing Agreement.

Retrived April 2016 from

http://www.vcoss.org.au/documents/VCOSS%20docs/insight/VCOSS_Insight_06_National_aff

ordable_housing_agreement.pdf.

Gurran, N. Milligan, V. Baker, D. & Bugg, L. B. (2008): New Directions in Planning for

Affordable Housing: Australian and International Evidence and Implications . Australian

Housing and Urban Research Institute. Sydney.

Gurran, N. Milligan, V. Baker, D. & Bugg, L. B. (2007): International Practice in Planning for

Affordable Housing: Lessons for Australia. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

Sydney.

Hodyl, L. (2014), ‘To investigate planning policies that deliver positive social outcomes in

hyper-dense, high-rise residential environments’, Churchill Trust

Hughes, C. (2015): Compact Housing Scoping Study - A review of regulations, planning

schemes, strategies and actions. A handbook of exemplar compact housing projects. Defence

Housing Australia.

Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) (2015), ‘Green Line Density Bonus Study: Final

report’ , The Big Picture Project, viewed on March 28 2016, http://tclisc.org/densityrpt.pdf

Mallach, A. (1984) ‘Inclusionary Housing Programs: Policies & Practices’ Inclusionary Housing

Programs: Policies & Practices

Milligan, V. Phibbs, P. Fagan, K. and Gurran, N. (2004): A practical framework for expanding

affordable housing services in Australia: Learning from experience. Final Report No. 65.

Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

Ministerial Advisory Committee (MAC), (2015): Plan Melbourne Refresh Discussion Paper.

Retrieved April 2016 from http://refresh.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/plan-melbourne-refresh-

discussion-paper.

Manningham City Council (MCC), (2010): Affordable Housing Policy and Action Plan 2010-

2020, Retrieved April 2016 from

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sc4Ye-

GiucwJ:www.manningham.vic.gov.au/file/4511/download+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

Mukhija, V., Regus, L., Slovin, S. & Das, A. (2010): Can Inclusionary Zoning be an Effective

and Efficient Housing Policy, Evidence from Los Angeles and Orange Counties.’ Journal of

Urban Affairs, vol. 32 (2): 229-252.

Petro, J. (2014): Bigger density bonuses needed for inclusionary housing program to succeed.

New York YIMBY. Retrieved April 2016 from http://newyorkyimby.com/2014/08/bigger-density-

bonuses-needed-for-inclusionary-housing-program-to-succeed.html.

Places Victoria, (2015): Amended Fishermans Bend Strategic Framework Plan. Retrieved April

2016, from http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/fishermans-bend-project-history.htm.

Places Victoria, (2013): Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area Draft Vision. Retrieved April

2016 from http://www.mpa.vic.gov.au/fishbendreports.

Places Victoria, (2013): Fishermans Bend Demographic Profiling. Retrieved April 2016, from

http://www.mpa.vic.gov.au/fishbendreports.

Powell, B. and Stringham, E., 2005. 'The economics of inclusionary zoning reclaimed: how

effective are price controls?’, Florida State University Law Review, 2,

Rager,C.(2013): Affordable housing, Salem Press Encyclopedia, Research Starters,

EBSCOhost, Retrieved April 2016.

Rowley, S. & Phibbs, P. (2012), ‘Delivering diverse and affordable housing on infill

development sites’, viewed on March 30 2016,

http://www.ahuri.edu.au/downloads/publications/EvRevReports/AHURI_Final_Report_No193_

Deliv ering_diverse_and_affordable_housing_on_infill_development_sites.pdf#page=41

Ryan, S. & Enderle, E. E. (2012): Examining Spatial Patterns in Affordable Housing:

the Case of California Density Bonus Implementation. Journal of Housing and the Built

Environment, Vol. 27 (4): 413-425.

Stubbs, J, etc. (2013): Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area: Options for Delivery of

Affordable Housing, Retrived March 2016 from http://www.mpa.vic.gov.au/wp-

content/uploads/2015/03/Affordable-Housing-Options-Paper.pd.

The Age (2015), ‘Report Slams Matthew Guy on Rezoning of Fishermans Bend’, retrieved April

4 2016, http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/report-slams-matthew-guy-on-rezoning-of-

fishermans-bend-20151019-gkcyrv.html

Vines, G. (2013): Fishermans Bend Heritage Study, Biosis Pty Ltd, Melbourne . Retrieved April

2016 from, http://www.mpa.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Heritage-Study-

Biosis_June-2013.pdf.

Whitzman, C., Newton, C. & Sheko, A. (2015): Transforming Housing: Affordable Housing for

All. Partnership Options for Policy, Investment, and demonstration Projects.

Western Australian Planning Commission, (2013). Planning Provisions for Affordable Housing

Discussion Paper. Department of planning. Western Australian Planning Commission.

Western Australian Planning Commission -WAPC, (2010): Central Metropolitan Perth Sub-

Regional Strategy. Future Directions. Retrieved April 2016, from

http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/plan_Central_Metro_Perth_Part6.pdf.