city of port phillip & city of melbourne · improved infrastructure for cycling, walking and...

City of Port Phillip & City of Melbourne Testing new approaches to city-shaping urban renewal Fishermans Bend environmental footprinting study

Issue | 12 November 2015

This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client.

It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party. Job number 242784-00

Arup Arup Pty Ltd ABN 18 000 966 165

Arup Level 17, 1 Nicholson Street Melbourne VIC 3000 www.arup.com

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

Attachment 1 - Fishermens Bend Environment Footprinting Study

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

jmcleod

Typewritten Text

| Issue | 12 November 2015 | Arup H:\TRIM\OFFLINE RECORDS (TP)\SUSTAINABILITY - COUNCIL BRIEFINGS 2014 2015\ATTACHMENT 1 ARUP ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINTING STUDY.DOCX

Document Verification

Job title Testing new approaches to city-shaping urban renewal

Job number

242784-00 Document title Fishermans Bend environmental footprinting study File reference

Document ref Revision Date Filename Arup - FBURA env footprinting report - 26 June 2015.docx Draft 1 25 Jun

2015 Description First draft

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Name Joan Ko, Duncan Blackburn Joan Ko Rob Turk

Signature Draft 2 26 Aug

2015 Filename Arup - FBURA env footprinting report - 26 August 2015.docx Description Revision to outline


Name Joan Ko Joan Ko Joan Ko

Signature Draft 3 10 Nov

2015 Filename Arup - FBURA env footprinting report - 10 November 2015.docx

Description Substantially complete draft to inform preparation of December Council paper. Includes refined modelling results.


Name Joan Ko, Duncan Blackburn, Kara Brussen

Joan Ko Joan Ko

Signature Draft 4 11 Nov

2015 Filename Arup - FBURA env footprinting report - 11 November 2015.docx

Description Updated with executive summary and feedback from CoPP and CoM.


Name Joan Ko Joan Ko Joan Ko

Signature Issue Document Verification with Document


Document Verification Page 2 of 2

Job title Testing new approaches to city-shaping urban renewal Job number

242784-00 Document title Fishermans Bend environmental footprinting study File reference

Document ref Revision Date Filename Arup - FBURA env footprinting report - 12 November

Issue 12 Nov 2015

Description Finalised with feedback from CoPP and CoM for release to Council.


Name Duncan Blackburn Joan Ko Joan Ko

Signature Filename

Description


Name

Signature Filename

Description


Name

Signature Filename

Description


Name

Signature Issue Document Verification with Document



Contents Page

Executive Summary 1

1 Introduction 13

1.1 Project overview 13 1.2 Objectives 15 1.3 Background 15 1.4 Planning applications as at October 2015 16 1.5 Strategic Framework Plan 17 1.6 Local policy and planning context 20

2 Scope and methodology 22

2.1 Approach 22 2.2 Defining scenarios 23 2.3 Modelling process 27

3 Results and discussion 31

3.1 Overview of scenario results 31 3.2 Land use and population 34 3.3 Low carbon city 37 3.4 Water sensitive city 43 3.5 Climate adept city 48 3.6 Connected and liveable city 51 3.7 Low waste city 56

4 Recommendations 59

4.1 Summary of key actions and opportunities 59 4.2 Headline targets for Fishermans Bend Sustainable

Development Plan 59 4.3 Engagement with independent sustainability rating schemes 64 4.4 Value proposition 65 4.5 Ongoing monitoring 67

5 Next steps 68

Appendices

Appendix A

Scenarios discussed in workshop and relationship to IRM model



Page 1

Executive Summary

Project background The Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area is a transformational urban renewal project covering:

• 250 hectares of Capital City Zoned land within the City of Port Phillip (CoPP) and City of Melbourne (CoM)

• 205 hectares of commercial and industrial zoned land within the City of Melbourne.

Fishermans Bend is more than 1.5 times larger than the areas of the Melbourne CBD and Docklands redevelopment combined. The enormous scale of urban renewal poses particular challenges for development staging, future proofing, and linking with wider Melbourne.

Such challenges can only be addressed by achieving sustainability and liveability outcomes.

The Fishermans Bend Strategic Framework Plan includes five sustainability goals to guide development:

• A low carbon city • A water sensitive city • A climate adept city • A connected and liveable city • A low waste city

Study objectives This study uses Arup’s Integrated Resource Management (IRM) tool to develop an evidence-based set of objectives, quantitative targets and requirements in order to inform planning, infrastructure and development at Fishermans Bend. Figure ES1 shows the conceptual framework of the IRM tool, which has been substantially adapted to reflect the precincts, available data and sustainability goals of the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area.

Fundamentally, this study provides CoPP and CoM a starting point and the evidence base for discussing the levers and mechanisms necessary for the government and private sector to deliver the sustainability, liveability and resilience outcomes sought by the community and industry.

This report and use of the IRM tool to test varied inputs and scenarios can assist CoPP and CoM in discussions with the Victorian Government and the Metropolitan Planning Authority as part of the current review of the Fishermans Bend framework plan, and the development of the associated Infrastructure Plan, Neighbourhood Precinct Plans and Sustainable Development Plan.



Page 2

Figure ES1 Conceptual framework for Fishermans Bend IRM model

Scenario modelling CoPP, CoM and Arup engaged a range of stakeholders to define four alternative scenarios for the renewal of Fishermans Bend to be modelled by IRM. The four scenarios involve different combinations of building control and infrastructure delivery coordination:

1. Market-led, characterised by development activity and utility provision (e.g. transport, electrical power) in an environment of minimal government intervention.

2. Building-led, characterised by development activity where the government sets requirements for individual buildings to deliver environmental and social benefits within a reasonable cost impost (e.g. 2-5%).

3. Precinct-led, characterised by minimal government intervention in the development of individual buildings, accompanied by proactive delivery of precinct-scale infrastructure (e.g. transport, water recycling) by various actors (e.g. government, public or private utilities).

4. Integrated, which is chiefly a combination of building-led and precinct-led interventions for both building performance and infrastructure delivery. In

Carbon price scenario

Waste streams collectedOrganic waste treatment

Mode share by tripsElectric vehicle uptake

Water demandWater supply option

Electricity supply optionMains gas connection

Residential demandCommercial demand

PopulationFloor area schedule

Master plan design components

Design data Resource performance outputs

Land use

Energy demand

Waste

Transport

Water

Energy supply

Carbon

Sustainability cost premiumCost of living

IRM Model

Greenhouse gas emissions

Potable water supply

Green space

Dwellings for families

Jobs per household

Community services

Car parking provision

Active and public transport travel

Waste reduction

On-site renewable electricity

IRM Model

Compare design performance

against targets

Compare performance of design iterations



Page 3

some cases, there are sustainability improvements beyond the combination of building and precinct-led scenarios.

Table ES1 provides a summary of selected features of the four scenarios.

Table ES1 Summary of four scenarios modelled in the IRM tool

Note that these scenarios can be adjusted to test the relative impact of different features such as population, land use, connection to cogeneration systems, contribution of onsite renewables and a range of other variables.

1 Cogeneration involves the combustion of fuel (in this case, natural gas) to produce electricity. Useful heat energy is captured for space and/or water heating. 2 Trigeneration involves the combustion of fuel (in this case, natural gas) to produce electricity. Useful heat energy is captured for space and/or water heating. Heat is also converted into cooling for buildings through the use of absorption chillers.

Scenario Selected features

1. Market-led

Population 160,000 people 7 Star NatHERS residential, 5 Star NABERS Energy commercial; ramping up to 8 Star NatHERS residential, 6 Star Energy NABERS commercial by 2037 Public transport relies on bus network. Minimal active transport infrastructure Reliance on mains water for potable and non-potable water demands. Minimal water sensitive urban design. Collection of recyclable and residual waste.

2. Building-led

Population: 100,000 people due to adoption of building height limits 8 Star NatHERS residential, 6 Star NABERS Energy commercial; ramping up to 9 Star NatHERS residential, 6+ Star Energy NABERS commercial by 2037 Public transport relies on bus network. Minimal active transport infrastructure. Building level cogeneration1, significant levels of solar photovoltaic panels Building level greywater recycling Building led waste management

3. Precinct-led

Population: 160,000 people. 7 Star NatHERS residential, 5 Star NABERS Energy commercial; ramping up to 8 Star NatHERS residential, 6 Star Energy NABERS commercial by 2037 Improved infrastructure for cycling, walking and public transport Precinct level cogeneration, providing low carbon electricity and heating Centralised water recycling plant, with third pipe supply to buildings Water sensitive urban design in the public and private realm Precinct-led waste management

4. Integrated Population: 100,000 people due to adoption of building height limits 8 Star NatHERS residential, 6 Star NABERS Energy commercial; ramping up to 9 Star NatHERS residential, 6+ Star Energy NABERS commercial by 2037 Improved infrastructure for cycling, walking and public transport Centralised water recycling plant, with third pipe supply to buildings Precinct level trigeneration2, providing low carbon electricity, heating and cooling Water sensitive urban design in the public and private realm A combination of precinct and building led waste management



Page 4

Overview of results The IRM analysis is structured around the five sustainability goals set out in the Strategic Framework Plan. The results for each scenario are summarised in Figure ES2. These visual summaries are based on:

• The seven headline indicators, listed in Table ES2, and

• Linear performance between the standard and best case benchmarks, identified in Table ES2.

Key observations The market-led scenario significantly underperforms all other scenarios for each sustainability goal, except in the case of affordability where it is on par with the building-led, precinct-led and integrated scenarios.

In general, the integrated scenario results in the best performance across the sustainability goals, although it is closely matched by the building-led scenario (for the carbon goal) and precinct-led scenario (for the waste, accessibility and water goals).

The use of grey water or sewer mining (building or precinct scale) in the building-led, precinct-led and integrated scenarios enables strong progress towards best practice water efficiency.

Only the integrated scenario approaches the best practice benchmarks for carbon performance. This is achieved through a combination of passive building design, building integrated renewables and precinct-scale trigeneration infrastructure. Focusing on building-based strategies (as per the building-led scenario) achieves better results as compared to focusing on precinct-scale cogeneration and trigeneration alone.

The mode shares for walking, cycling and public transport assumed in this study enable the precinct and integrated scenarios to meet and exceed the best practice benchmarks. However, these mode shares need to be robustly tested through an integrated transport study for Fishermans Bend.

Public open space is able to deliver around half the best practice benchmark for climate adeptness. This study identifies further opportunities to progress this goal further.

Finally, the provision of open space as identified in the Strategic Framework Plan (and implemented in this study in the building-led, precinct-led and integrated scenarios) falls short of the existing open space provision per resident in both the Port Phillip and Melbourne local government areas. This suggests that plans for open space amenity should be confirmed as being adequate for the long term liveability of the Fishermans Bend community.



Page 5

Table ES2 Headline indicators with standard and best benchmarks

Strategic Framework Plan goal

Indicator Unit Standard benchmark for visual summary

Best benchmark for visual summary

A low carbon city

Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per person compared to business as usual – buildings, infrastructure and transport

% reduction by tCO2e per capita compared to market-led scenario

0% As per market-led scenario

50% CoPP community goal

A water sensitive city

Reduction in potable water supply per person compared to business as usual – buildings and open space

% reduction by ML per capita compared to market-led scenario



A climate adept city

Proportion of site that is vegetated (public and private open space, green roofs and water sensitively designed road infrastructure)

% of site footprint by hectare


50% Green Star Communities Credit 31 Heat island effect

A connected and liveable city

Cost of living – reduction in housing, utilities and transport costs compared to business as usual

% reduction by 2015$ per annum per household


10% Arup assumed

Provision of public open space Square metres of public open space per resident

3.0 As per market-led scenario

19v Maintain current CoPP provision

Proportion of travel distance by active and public modes

% by passenger kilometres

17% CoPP current mode share

48% CoPP sustainability transport strategy

A low waste city

Reduction in landfill compared to business as usual

% by tonnes per person





Page 6

Market-led Building led



Page 7

Figure ES2 Visual summary of headline results for each scenario

Precinct-led Integrated



Page 8

Summary of key actions and opportunities Table ES3 includes the key actions and opportunities identified from this study. These actions can be embedded into design guidance as part of the Fishermans Bend Strategic Framework Plan review, within the Infrastructure Plan, Neighbourhood Precinct Plans, as well as the overarching Sustainable Development Plan.

Headline targets for Fishermans Bend Sustainable Development Plan Goals or targets in a future Fishermans Bend Sustainable Development Plan can be informed by this study. Table ES4 suggests headline targets based on the scenario that delivers the best performance through measures onsite over the 50 year development timeframe for Fishermans Bend.

Arup considers that the suggested headline targets are likely to be technically feasible based on the pathway of actions built into the IRM model. Headline targets will need to be supported by building and infrastructure standards (e.g. solar PV coverage guidelines), which are relevant to the day-to-day decision making of developers, infrastructure agencies and government service providers. These standards can be drawn from the assumptions built into the IRM model.

Next steps To facilitate the implementation of key actions and opportunities (Table ES3), the immediate next steps from this study are:

1. Discuss the findings of this study with the Metropolitan Planning Authority, the Fishermans Bend Advisory Committee, Property Council of Australia, utilities, and other interested parties.

2. Use the study findings to inform the preparation of the Neighbourhood Precinct Plans, Infrastructure Plan, Sustainable Development Plan and the revision of the Strategic Framework Plan.

3. Engage current utilities (e.g. South East Water) and private utilities to identify the conditions required for the delivery of precinct-scale infrastructure.

4. Engage groups of landowners at Fishermans Bend in discussion of the mutual benefits of infrastructure coordination.

5. Investigate the benefits, disadvantages and potential governance structures for a precinct sustainability rating such as Green Star Communities, Eco-Districts, EnviroDevelopment, Living Building Challenge or One Planet Communities.

6. Develop community-facing materials that draw on the findings, such as narratives, visualisations and possibly a web-based interactive tools for a non-specialist audience.

7. Investigate opportunities to implement recommendations through the Local Policies for energy, water and waste (CoM) and Environmentally Efficient Design (CoPP).



Page 9

Table ES3 Key actions and opportunities to deliver sustainability goals

Goal Action / opportunity Implementation

Carbon CB1 Require residential buildings to achieve high levels of energy efficiency – better than 7 Star NatHERS which is slightly better than the minimum required for 4 Star Green Star Design & As Built.

Design guidelines

CB3 Require non-residential buildings to achieve high levels of energy efficiency – at least 50% better than current good practice, which is better than the minimum required for 4 Star Green Star Design & As Built.

Design guidelines

CB4 Maximise uptake of solar photovoltaic panels on building roofs (model assumes a maximum of 40% roof coverage for a building) and facades (model assumes a maximum of 50% façade coverage for a building). Ensure that building typologies (e.g. tower podium model, mid-rise / courtyard residential) safeguard solar access and minimise overshadowing.

Design guidelines

CB5 Preferentially allocate roof space to solar photovoltaic panels, rather than solar hot water, as these are more carbon efficient. Design guidelines

CB6 Precinct cogeneration or trigeneration should not be the primary strategy, but rather focused on the mixed use and dense hubs of the development, where these energy sources can operate most efficiently.

Neighbourhood Precinct Plans

Water WT1 Deliver more open space beyond what is currently noted in the Strategic Framework Plan to meet a range of benefits including amenity, water quality and urban heat island. This may be possible by setting standards for private open space, green roof and water sensitive design of road infrastructure.

Strategic Framework Plan Design guidelines Neighbourhood Precinct Plans

WT2 Achieve substantial substitution of water supply, focusing on sewer mining. Infrastructure planning by South East Water suggests that this is the most viable source of non-potable water.

Infrastructure Plan

WT3 Investigate the potential for wetlands to deliver stormwater treatment at Fishermans Bend. This would require substantial commitment within the land use budget.

Infrastructure plan

Climate adeptness

CA1 Seek to deliver more open space beyond what is currently noted in the Strategic Framework Plan to meet a range of benefits including amenity, water quality and urban heat island. Increasing the current requirements for open space would approach the urban heat island best practice benchmark.

Strategic Framework Plan

CA2 Require private space softscaping by controlling plot coverage (limiting to no more than 80%). Design guidelines

Connected & liveable

LI1 Enable the ‘sustainability cost premium’ to be minimised through mechanisms such as: providing a clear road map for industry to adapt and build capability towards delivering improved building standards; achieving critical mass in the sustainable supply chain; and rapidly disseminating lessons learned.

Governance



Page 10


LI2 Ensure a level playing field in building standards, so that consumers benefit from competition in the Fishermans Bend housing and commercial real estate market.

Design guidelines

LI3 Prioritise walking, cycling and public transport as movement modes in the site’s planning and infrastructure. This needs to be informed by a comprehensive integrated accessibility / transport plan.

Strategic Framework Plan and Neighbourhood Precinct Plans

LI4 Investigate options to better link residential areas with employment precincts on or near the urban renewal area. Strategic Framework Plan and Neighbourhood Precinct Plans

LI5 Seek to deliver more open space beyond what is currently noted in the Strategic Framework Plan to meet a range of benefits including amenity, water quality and urban heat island. Confirm that the current provision of open space meets the amenity needs of future residents.


Waste WS1 Collect and treat household organic waste, as this represents up to 50% of waste generation. This will require regional scale infrastructure (beyond Fishermans Bend) or substantial investment in onsite anaerobic digestion or in-vessel composting. In the case of anaerobic digestion, it may be possible to combine organic waste treatment with the treatment train for sewer mining. This has the benefit of reducing the requirement for EPA amenity buffers around infrastructure.

Infrastructure Plan



Page 11

Table ES4 Suggested headline targets based on onsite measures at Fishermans Bend


Indicator Unit Suggested headline target

Relevant scenario

Related local government policy positions

A low carbon city

Proportion of electricity supply from on-site renewables % by MWh 10-15% Building-led



40-50% Integrated CoPP: 50% reduction in per capita emissions by 2020 (from 2006 baseline) CoM: Carbon neutral by 2020




50% Building-led Precinct-led Integrated

CoPP: 50% reduction in potable water use by 2020 (from 2001 baseline) CoM: 8% of water from alternative water sources by 2018, 20% by 2030




30% Integrated CoM: Increase canopy cover from 22% to 40% by 2040




0% No additional increase in cost of living

All scenarios


10 (strongly dependent on population assumptions)

Building-led Integrated

Proportion of travel distance by active and public modes % by passenger kilometres 50-60% Precinct-led Integrated

CoPP: Active and public transport to account for 48% of mode share CoM: Active and public transport to account for 80% of mode share



Page 12



Relevant scenario


A low waste city

Reduction in landfill compared to business as usual % by tonnes per person 40-50% Precinct-led Integrated

CoPP: 75% reduction in residential per capita waste to landfill by 2020 CoM: 65% recovery of municipal solid waste by 2014



Page 13

1 Introduction

1.1 Project overview The Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area is a transformational urban renewal project covering:

• 250 hectares of Capital City Zoned land within the City of Port Phillip and City of Melbourne

• 205 hectares of commercial and industrial zoned land within the City of Melbourne.

The redevelopment of Fishermans Bend over coming decades presents an opportunity to extend the principles of sustainability and liveability into this key urban regeneration area, which is critical as the decisions of today will have implications for future generations.

City of Port Phillip, working with City of Melbourne, engaged Arup to investigate specific pathways for achieving and exceeding the sustainability aspirations of the Fishermans Bend Strategic Framework Plan.

This report documents the process and outcomes of defining scenarios, undertaking quantitative modelling, analysing results and making recommendations.

The study uses a quantitative sustainability model to develop an evidence-based set of objectives, targets and requirements in order to inform planning, infrastructure and development at Fishermans Bend.



Page 14

Figure 1 Map of Fishermans Bend urban renewal area in relation to Melbourne Central Business District (Fishermans Bend Advisory Committee, Oct 2015)



Page 15

1.2 Objectives The Fishermans Bend Environmental Footprinting Study seeks to achieve the following objectives, as outlined in the project brief.

• To quantify the likely environmental impacts of the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area (FBURA) on a business as usual (BAU) trajectory (with current planning controls, design guidelines and current development response)

• To establish scenarios for varying levels of sustainability performance for FBURA, ranging from BAU through to a ‘beyond best practice’ scenario which aligns/surpasses the draft Sustainability Goals for the development, and the intent of City of Port Phillip’s (CoPP) and City of Melbourne’s (CoM) sustainability policies

• To model the environmental performance outcomes of each scenario at a building, precinct and whole of development level, against current development timeline and density/height trajectories, taking into account developments already approved through planning

• To undertake a high level evaluation of the environmental, social and financial costs of each scenario, and recommend the combination of features across energy, water and waste

• To establish a decision-making tool that allows the environmental features to be re-modelled over time, with adjustment to assumptions, development typologies, and infrastructure plans as they emerge.

Fundamentally, the study provides CoPP and CoM a starting point and the evidence base for discussing the levers and mechanisms necessary for the government and private sector to deliver the sustainability, liveability and resilience outcomes sought by the community and industry.

This report can assist CoPP and CoM in discussions with the Victorian Government and the Metropolitan Planning Authority as part of the current review of the Fishermans Bend framework plan, and the development of the associated Infrastructure Plan, Neighbourhood Precinct Plans and Sustainable Development Plan.

1.3 Background The State Government, City of Port Phillip and City of Melbourne share responsibilities for planning and servicing Fishermans Bend over the next 50 years of development and beyond.

Key documents to date include:

• Fishermans Bend Strategic Framework Plan (2014 – revision planned for publication in 2016/2017), Metropolitan Planning Authority and State Government of Victoria

• Montague Precinct Structure Plan (2012), City of Port Phillip



Page 16

• Fishermans Bend Draft Vision (2013), Places Victoria

Alongside published documents, a range of consultation and investigation activities have taken place to engage stakeholders interested in the future of Fishermans Bend (Box 1).

Box 1 Acknowledgements

Arup, City of Port Phillip and City of Melbourne thank representatives of the following groups, who attended workshops or participated in interviews in the development of this study.

• Sustainability Victoria

• Property Council of Australia, Victoria – Sustainability Sub-Committee

• Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

• South East Water

• Melbourne Water

• Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living – University of Melbourne School of Engineering

• Metropolitan Planning Authority

1.4 Planning applications as at October 2015 At October 2015, 15 planning permits have been approved for developments at Fishermans Bend. These involve 20 individual residential apartment buildings between 20 and 49 storeys, as well as a number of lower profile buildings. Combined, these buildings comprise 6,700 dwellings.3

An additional 23 applications have been lodged up to 30 June 2015. These applications propose another 26 apartment buildings between 20 and 64 storeys, and a number of lower profile buildings, representing an additional 10,900 dwellings.

By 2050, the capital city zoned land in Fishermans Bend could host up to 160,000 residents. This population figure is possible when taking into account parameters such as building setbacks, separation, height, dwelling typologies and land use mix.

3 Fishermans Bend Advisory Committee, first report, October 2015, available at http://www.mpa.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/FBAC-Report-Number-1-October-2015.pdf



Page 17

1.5 Strategic Framework Plan

1.5.1 Purpose In July 2014, the Metropolitan Planning Authority released the Fishermans Bend Strategic Framework Plan, which sets out a simplified long term framework to guide urban renewal. It covers key elements including:

• Street network • Sustainable transport • Open space • A series of places

The Strategic Framework Plan and accompanying design guidance are statutory planning tools to inform the consideration of planning permit applications.

The Strategic Framework Plan responds to the strategic directions of the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area Draft Vision (September 2013):

• The creation of 21st century jobs • A great place for families • The timely provision of infrastructure • A high quality built environment • A place that is easy to get around • Smart environmental solutions • A vibrant mix of uses and activities • Environmental constraints addressed • Distinctive and diverse neighbourhoods • Strong partnerships and effective governance

1.5.2 Challenges and drivers for sustainability The Fishermans Bend urban renewal area is more than 1.5 times larger than the areas of the Melbourne CBD and Docklands redevelopment combined. The enormous scale of urban renewal poses particular challenges for development staging, future proofing, and linking with wider Melbourne.

The Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area Draft Vision (September 2013) sets out these challenges including (amongst others):

• Improving public transport links during the early stages of development to attract investment and support increased population growth,

• Successfully integrating with surrounding suburbs,

• Upgrading utilities infrastructure to meet the demands of an increasing population,

• Creating a network of public spaces and additional open space,

• Expanding community infrastructure to deliver accessible services to support a growing population and ensure active healthy and connected communities,



Page 18

• Designing and delivering infrastructure, spaces and buildings which are responsive to the impact of climate change,

• Establishing innovative infrastructure funding mechanisms which enable the timely delivery of infrastructure, and

• Creating high density, family friendly living environments and public spaces.

Fundamentally, such challenges can only be addressed by achieving sustainability and liveability outcomes.

The Strategic Framework Plan design guidance includes five sustainability goals to guide development:

• A low carbon city • A water sensitive city • A climate adept city • A connected and liveable city • A low waste city

The Strategic Framework Plan provides specific sustainability expectations for development at Fishermans Bend, examples of which are shown in Box 2.

This environmental footprinting study has been shaped to directly respond to the five sustainability goals above. Arup’s Integrated Resource Management (IRM) model robustly addresses the carbon, water and waste goals. Arup’s analysis also supports the investigation of climate adept and transport accessibility goals. However, due to the strong spatial and dynamic character of issues such as urban heat island, flooding, people movement and traffic generation, the climate adept and transport accessibility goals require further specialist study beyond the analysis using Arup’s IRM model.

1.5.3 Recasting Fishermans Bend In April 2015, the Minister for Planning announced the review of the Strategic Framework Plan to take into account the inclusion of the employment precinct into the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area and the development of Neighbourhood Precinct Plans. The review is being led by the Metropolitan Planning Authority, with input from the Fishermans Bend Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee includes the mayors of both CoPP and CoM.



Page 19

Box 2 Sustainability in design guidance in the Strategic Framework Plan

The Strategic Framework Plan (2014) contains the following design guidance that relate to sustainability expectations.

Transport

• Provision of at least one cycle space per 5 dwellings, one visitor space per 10 dwellings, one space per 300 sqm of net office floor area and one visitor space per 1,000 sqm of net office floor area. These cycle park standards are a minimum, with one cycle space per dwelling and one cycle space per 50 sqm of net office floor area preferred.

• Provision of car parking for dwellings at a rate less than the maximum specified in the relevant Planning Scheme is encouraged, with a target rate of 0.5 spaces per dwelling. and one car space per 100 sqm for offices

Stormwater management

• Provision should be made to manage stormwater generated on-site within the development footprint.

• Each building should capture runoff from 100% of the roof area and successfully retain on-site at least 50% of the volume of runoff derived from a 5 year 72 hour storm event.

• Development must meet or exceed best practice stormwater quality treatment standards prior to discharge to receiving waterways.

Water efficiency

• Stormwater captured onsite must be re-used in toilet flushing and irrigation or, as a last option, controlled release.

• New buildings must install a third pipe to supply non potable uses within the development, including for toilet flushing, fire services, irrigation and cooling.

• Grey water collection and re-use is expected for all larger developments (over 200 dwellings).

Energy

• Residential development should be designed to allow cross ventilation, including allowing for dual aspect and for all habitable rooms to have openable windows.

• Solar panels for water heating and photovoltaic electricity production should be made use of.



Page 20

1.6 Local policy and planning context The Cities of Port Phillip and Melbourne are leading local governments in climate change and sustainability, and share planning responsibilities at Fishermans Bend with the Minister for Planning.

City of Port Phillip CoPP’s Toward Zero4 Sustainable Environment Strategy sets Council’s policy direction, outlining nine sustainability challenges. Key strategies and action plans for delivering Toward Zero are:

• Greenhouse Action Plan • Climate Adaptation Plan • Water Strategy • Sustainable Transport Strategy

A range of 2020 targets have been set for the Toward Zero Strategy, however the Strategy also provides a longer term framework and priority focus beyond 2020.

City of Port Phillip acknowledges that the built environment has a significant impact on the wider natural environment and most current development practices are not sustainable in the long term. CoPP is committed to promoting sustainable design and development.

Critical to achieving this commitment is for development to meet appropriate environmental design standards. CoPP planning policies that apply to sustainable development at Fishermans Bend are:

• Clause 21.03-1 Ecologically Sustainable Development • Clause 22.13 proposed Amendment C97 Environmentally Efficient Design

Local Planning Policy • CoPP 21.03-2 Sustainable Transport

Clause 22.12 proposed Amendment C78 – Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design

The Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process (SDAPP) framework is the key mechanism for ensuring alignment with the policies through planning.5

City of Melbourne City of Melbourne’s Council Plan sets out the vision to create a bold, inspirational and sustainable city. This vision is further articulated through the six externally

4 CoPP sustainability policies and strategies are available at http://www.enviroehub.com.au/articles/councils-sustainability-policies-and-strategies 5 Available at http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/sdapp.htm



Page 21

facing goals, one of which is to become an Eco-City.6 Key strategies that form the basis of the Eco-city goal and that have informed this study are:

• Zero Net Emissions by 2020 • Climate Change Adaptation Strategy • Total Watermark – City as a Catchment • Open space strategy

The City of Melbourne has established environmental sustainability requirements within the Melbourne Planning Scheme. Key planning requirements7 that apply throughout the municipality, including the Lorimer precinct of Fishermans Bend, include:

• Clause 22.19 Energy, Waste and Water Efficiency • Clause 22.23 Storm Water Management (Water sensitive urban design)

6 CoM sustainability policies and strategies are available at www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/sustainability 7 Available at www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/planningandbuilding



Page 22

2 Scope and methodology

2.1 Approach Figure 1 provides an overview of the approach to this. Arup worked with CoPP and CoM to define in detail the scenarios to be modelled.

Arup’s Integrated Resource Management (IRM) tool was substantially adapted to reflect the scenarios and metrics of interest to the City of Port Phillip and City of Melbourne, with assumptions and calculations reviewed by the University of Melbourne’s Infrastructure Engineering8 department. Major changes to the model include:

• Restructuring to analyse the distinct performances FBURA’s four residential precincts over the 50 year timeframe for the urban renewal,

• Calculation of key performance indicators that reflect the priorities and goals articulated in the Strategic Framework Plan and CoPP and CoM’s policies and strategies, and

• Changes to model relationships to take into account assumptions and data specifically developed for Fishermans Bend.

The final outputs of the project include:

• This project report,

• A completed IRM tool (Microsoft Excel) and user guide for the ongoing monitoring of FBURA’s development, and

• Final presentation of results and findings.

8 The researchers involved are core to the Mutopia research project, which is the University of Melbourne’s multidisciplinary 4D urban sustainability modelling platform. The team is part of the Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living. For more information, refer to the Mutopia website at http://mutopia.unimelb.edu.au/index.html



Page 23

Figure 2 Methodology overview for environmental footprinting study

2.2 Defining scenarios The purpose of defining scenarios is to investigate what measures will make the most impact on the sustainability and liveability objectives for Fishermans Bend.

On 1 May 2015, CoPP hosted a scenarios workshop involving people with a range of backgrounds including:

• Sustainability • Transport • Landscape and parks • Economics • Policy and planning

• Academic research • Energy • Water • Urban design and architecture

Task 1 Project inception Task 1 Project inception

Task 2 Establish modelling scenarios & assumptions

Task 2.1 Scenarios workshop Task 2.2 Scenario definition and sustainability

framework Task 2.3 Scenario review and finalisation

Task 3 Initial modelling

Task 3.1 Initial modelling Task 3.2 Initial modelling review

Task 4 Refined modelling Task 4 Refined modelling

Task 5 Draft submission Task 5 Draft submission

Task 6 Completion Task 6 Completion



Page 24

The purpose of the workshop was to discuss the aspects to be reflected in four scenarios:

5. Market-led, characterised by development activity and utility provision (e.g. transport, electrical power) in an environment of minimal government intervention.

6. Building-led, characterised by development activity where the government sets requirements for individual buildings to deliver environmental and social benefits within a reasonable cost impost (e.g. 2-5%).

7. Precinct-led, characterised by minimal government intervention in the development of individual buildings, accompanied by proactive delivery of precinct-scale infrastructure (e.g. transport, water recycling) by various actors (e.g. government, public or private utilities).

8. Integrated, which is chiefly a combination of building-led and precinct-led interventions for both building performance and infrastructure delivery. In some cases, there are sustainability improvements beyond the combination of building and precinct-led scenarios. This generally occurs when the combination of demand (typically at building scale) and supply (typically at precinct scale) measures enhances performance.

The four scenarios reflect differing levels of building control and coordination of infrastructure delivery, as shown in Figure 3.

At the scenarios workshop, participants were asked to define how the variables in Table 1 would change across the four scenarios.

Following on from the workshop, Arup proposed the scenarios in Appendix A as the basis for IRM modelling. The features of the four scenarios are summarised in Table 2.

Figure 3 Scenarios framework

High building control

Low building control

Precinct infrastructure delivery

Individual infrastructure delivery

1. Uncoordinated development 2. Building-led

3. Precinct-led 4. Integrated development



Page 25

Table 1 Scenarios question prompts

Residents, workers and visitors Who lives here and why? What community facilities are here? What businesses and institutions are here? Who might visit and why?

Building performance How do residential buildings perform? How do commercial buildings perform? What aspects of performance are controlled?

Open space & green infrastructure How much open space is there? How is it distributed? What is the role of green infrastructure on ground, on walls and on roofs?

Building typology How much of each plot is built out? How are a mixture of uses accommodated? Where is the parking?

Transport & access What kinds of trips do people make (and don’t make)? What public transport is there? How much parking is there? What is the role of walking and cycling?

Water supply & demand How efficient is water use in buildings and open space? How much water is captured / recycled? What is recycled water used for?

Energy demand & supply What is the role of passive building design? What proportion of energy sources are renewable? Low carbon? What is generated within the urban renewal area?

Cost of living & doing business What is the role of affordable and social housing? What businesses can afford to stay in the area? What incentives and subsidies are there?

Waste & materials How is waste collected? How is waste treated? On or off site? Are there economically valuable waste products?

Culture & heritage What existing buildings, spaces and other features are retained? How does the area reflect its past?

Climate change resilience How does the urban scale respond to climate change pressures? How are individual buildings prepared? What uses remain vulnerable?

Links to wider Melbourne How does the area interact with its neighbours? How does its development change Melbourne?



Page 26

Table 2 Summary of four scenarios refined from workshop input

Scenario Selected features

1. Market-led

Population 160,000 people 7 Star NatHERS residential, 5 Star NABERS Energy commercial; ramping up to 8 Star NatHERS residential, 6 Star Energy NABERS commercial by 2037 Public transport relies on bus network. Minimal active transport infrastructure Reliance on mains water for potable and non-potable water demands. Minimal water sensitive urban design. Collection of recyclable and residual waste.

2. Building-led

Population: 100,000 people due to adoption of building height limits 8 Star NatHERS residential, 6 Star NABERS Energy commercial; ramping up to 9 Star NatHERS residential, 6+ Star Energy NABERS commercial by 2037 Public transport relies on bus network. Minimal active transport infrastructure. Building level cogeneration9, significant levels of solar photovoltaic panels Building level greywater recycling Building led waste management

3. Precinct-led

Population: 160,000 people. 7 Star NatHERS residential, 5 Star NABERS Energy commercial; ramping up to 8 Star NatHERS residential, 6 Star Energy NABERS commercial by 2037 Building energy performance meeting National Construction code only Improved infrastructure for cycling, walking and public transport Precinct level cogeneration, providing low carbon electricity and heating Centralised water recycling plant, with third pipe supply to buildings Water sensitive urban design in the public and private realm Precinct-led waste management

4. Integrated Population: 100,000 people due to adoption of building height limits 8 Star NatHERS residential, 6 Star NABERS Energy commercial; ramping up to 9 Star NatHERS residential, 6+ Star Energy NABERS commercial by 2037 Improved infrastructure for cycling, walking and public transport Centralised water recycling plant, with third pipe supply to buildings Precinct level trigeneration10, providing low carbon electricity, heating and cooling Water sensitive urban design in the public and private realm A combination of precinct and building led waste management

9 Cogeneration involves the combustion of fuel (in this case, natural gas) to produce electricity. Useful heat energy is captured for space and/or water heating. 10 Trigeneration involves the combustion of fuel (in this case, natural gas) to produce electricity. Useful heat energy is captured for space and/or water heating. Heat is also converted into cooling for buildings through the use of absorption chillers.



Page 27

2.3 Modelling process The IRM tool was modified to reflect the four scenarios described in Section 2.2 for:

• Five geographic scales:

• Whole urban renewal area (240 hectares) • Lorimer (27 hectares) • Montague (43 hectares) • Wirraway (91 hectares) • Sandridge (83 hectares)

• Two time points:

• Mid-development at 2037 • Full build out at 2066

The model does not calculate the impact of existing buildings and infrastructure, nor the employment precinct, as there is not yet sufficient information about the vision or plan for this area. The model instead focuses on the impact of new development in the mixed use residential areas of the urban renewal area.

The IRM models the interactions and results of the following topic areas.

• Land use mix and development scenarios

• Energy demand and supply • Water demand and supply • Stormwater

• Transport • Waste generation and treatment • Carbon efficiency • Cost of living

The assumptions and calculations for these areas are based on Arup’s extensive experience and research on current and future trends. These assumptions were peer reviewed by the University of Melbourne. Details of assumptions and data sources are provided in the IRM tool, provided to CoPP.

The results of these calculations were translated into indicators of interest to stakeholders. The indicators that were modelled are shown in Table 3, along with related credits in the Green Star Communities and Design & As Built rating schemes for masterplans and buildings respectively.



Page 28

Table 3 Sustainability framework with headline indicators highlighted (italics)


Indicator Unit Benchmarks used in Figure 4 visual summaries (headline indicators only)

Related Green Star Communities credits

Related Green Star Design & As Built credits

Standard Best

A low carbon city

Proportion of electricity supply from on-site renewables

% by MWh 23 Peak electricity demand reduction

16 Peak electricity demand reduction

Greenhouse gas emissions per person (residents + employees) – no carbon price scenario

tCO2-e per capita 25 Greenhouse gas strategy 11 Sustainable buildings

15 Greenhouse gas emissions





Total annual greenhouse gas emissions tCO2-e


Provision of water sensitive infrastructure required to achieved best practice environmental management for urban water

% of the benchmark necessary to achieve best practice benchmarks

24 Integrated water cycle 26 Stormwater 18 Potable water

Potable water supply per person (residents + employees)

ML per capita 24 Integrated water cycle 11 Sustainable buildings





Total annual potable water supply ML


Permeability of urban renewal area – buildings and landscape


24 Integrated water cycle 26 Stormwater




50% Green Star Communities Credit 31 Heat island effect

29 Ecological value 31 Heat island effect 24 Integrated water cycle 9 Healthy and active living

12 Visual comfort 23 Ecological value



Page 29


Indicator Unit Benchmarks used in Figure 4 visual summaries (headline indicators only)

Related Green Star Communities credits

Related Green Star Design & As Built credits

Standard Best


Proportion of dwellings suitable for families % of dwellings with at least 3 bedrooms

17 Affordability n/a




10% Arup assumed

n/a

Number of jobs per household Number of jobs per dwelling

18 Employment and economic resilience

n/a


3.0 As per market-led scenario

40 Maintain current CoPP provision

9 Healthy and active living 12 Visual comfort

Provision of community services – community facilities, retail, education, leisure

Square metres of service space per resident

13 Walkable access to amenities

n/a

Provision for car parking per person (residents + employees)

Square metres of car parking per person

27 Sustainable transport and movement

17 Sustainable transport


% by passenger kilometres 17% CoPP current mode share

48% CoPP sustainability transport strategy

A low waste city

Diversion of waste from landfill % by tonnes of waste per annum

30 Waste management 8 Operational waste


% by tonnes per person 0% As per market-led scenario




Page 30

Box 3 Introduction to Arup’s Integrated Resource Management (IRM) model

The IRM model is a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that models the interactions between buildings, infrastructure and people at neighbourhood and city scale. It was developed as a life cycle assessment model for cities, focusing on the concept masterplanning phase for greenfield and existing neighbourhood developments. It is a complex model, with thousands of links and nodes to represent the integrated nature of city systems.

Since 2005, IRM has been used to test around 30 spatial plans in Australia, UK, USA, Canada, Brazil, Abu Dhabi, China, South Korea, Hong Kong and South Africa. The IRM has been the subject of testing and research by the University College London and University of Bath, with findings published in peer reviewed papers.

The tool is flexible, being adapted for each project and improved with learnings of past projects. The Fishermans Bend version of the IRM model has been set up with a dashboard that allows the City of Port Phillip to select different scenarios and precincts, and to toggle sustainability strategies on and off in order to understand the impact on metrics.

Carbon price scenario

Waste streams collectedOrganic waste treatment

Mode share by tripsElectric vehicle uptake

Water demandWater supply option

Electricity supply optionMains gas connection

Residential demandCommercial demand

PopulationFloor area schedule

Master plan design components

Design data Resource performance outputs

Land use

Energy demand

Waste

Transport

Water

Energy supply

Carbon

Sustainability cost premiumCost of living

IRM Model

Greenhouse gas emissions

Potable water supply

Green space

Dwellings for families

Jobs per household

Community services

Car parking provision

Active and public transport travel

Waste reduction

On-site renewable electricity

IRM Model

Compare design performance

against targets

Compare performance of design iterations



Page 31

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Overview of scenario results As described in Section 1.5.2, the IRM analysis is structured around the five sustainability goals set out in the Strategic Framework Plan. The key performance indicators (Table 3) have been chosen to reflect the sustainability goals and to benchmark against CoPP and CoM’s municipal goals and targets.

The results for each scenario are summarised in Figure 4. These visual summaries are based on:

• The seven headline indicators, as highlighted (italics) in Table 3, and

• Linear performance between the standard and best case benchmarks, identified in Table 3.

The market-led scenario significantly underperforms all other scenarios for each sustainability goal, except in the case of affordability where it is on par with the building-led, precinct-led and integrated scenarios.

In general, the integrated scenario results in the best performance across the sustainability goals, although it is closely matched by the building-led scenario (for the carbon goal) and precinct-led scenario (for the waste, accessibility and water goals).

The trends across scenarios for each sustainability goal are discussed in detail in the following sections.



Page 32

Market-led Building-led



Page 33

Figure 4 Visual summary of headline results for each scenario

Precinct-led Integrated



Page 34

3.2 Land use and population Across Fishermans Bend and for all scenarios, the majority of development floor areas is residential, followed by commercial office. Residential and non-residential car parking across the development accounts for a substantial component of floor area. The land use breakdown can be seen in Figure 5. Figure 5 and subsequent figures show the progression in development at Fishermans Bend from 2037 to 2066.

As noted in Box 4, there is some variation in land use between the four precincts. The IRM model provided to CoPP and CoM reflects the different populations and land uses for each precinct. The model can be used to generate results for each precinct.

It should be noted that Scenario 2 (building-led) and Scenario 4 (integrated) both adopt more stringent height limits for development, which leads to lower residential population and commercial activity (100,000 people compared to 160,000 for the other two scenarios). It is possible to change the population in each scenario using the IRM dashboard.

Box 4 Introducing the four precincts

The IRM model reflects the distinct characters of the four precincts in the mixed use areas of Fishermans Bend.

Lorimer

Lorimer is a modern urban village, with a mix of high density residential and commercial uses. The Lorimer Parkway will be the focus of the precinct, which also has connections to the Yarra River.

Montague

The principal commercial and retail centre of Fishermans Bend is located in Montague. This precinct also has strong transport connections, serviced by the existing 109 tram route.

Sandridge

The Plummer Street Civic Boulevard will run through the Sandridge precinct. The Civic Boulevard will include retail, office, community and entertainment uses, with high density residential above.

Wirraway

The Civic Boulevard will continue into the Wirraway precinct. This precinct will include a mix of housing densities, with a larger proportion is family dwellings (3+ bedrooms) than the other precincts.

It is useful to note that as Fishermans Bend’s residential population increases, the IRM shows a number of impacts:



Page 35

• Total greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption increases directly with population.

• The proportion of electricity supply from on-site renewables decreases, as the urban renewal area has a fixed footprint and hence roof area, which cannot keep pace with increasing energy demand.

• As a result of the above (a less clean energy mix), per capita emissions slightly increases. It should be noted that IRM does not demonstrate improved uptake / performance from cogeneration and trigeneration as a result of population increase, as this relates primarily to the diversity of land uses to efficiently use different types of energy over the day.

• Household cost of living slightly decreases as some fixed costs are distributed across a larger population / more dwellings.

• The square metres of public open space and service space per resident decreases.

• The number of jobs per household is relatively constant, as the model assumes non-residential development keeps pace with residential development.

• Site-related metrics (i.e. permeability of site, proportion of site that is vegetated and proportion of dwellings suitable for families) remain constant.

• The square metres of parking per resident and employee is constant.

• The proportion of travel by active and public transport modes remains constant (in reality, this may be affected by the degree of road congestion).

The IRM model does not model the following important opportunities and constraints, which arise as a result of population increases:

• Potential for enhanced provision of public transport infrastructure and services, as increased density improves business case for investment.

• Enhanced diversity, provision and access to community services and retail

• Capacity constraints on the road network, leading to reduced mode share by private vehicles.



Page 36

Figure 5 Results for land use mix



Page 37

3.3 Low carbon city

3.3.1 Key findings

Principle

Greenhouse emissions will be minimised through energy efficiency, and use of clean and renewable energy generation.

Current local government policy position

CoPP: 50% reduction in per capita emissions by 2020 (from 2006 baseline)

CoM: Carbon neutral by 2020

Table 4 Low carbon city indicators and results

Indicator Unit Market-led

Building-led

Precinct-led

Integrated

Proportion of electricity supply from on-site renewables

% by MWh 1.2% 11.4% 0.5% 8.0%

Greenhouse gas emissions per person (residents + employees) – no carbon price scenario

tCO2-e per capita

4.5 3.3 3.8 2.8



0% 27% 16% 38%

Total annual greenhouse gas emissions

tCO2-e 1,230,000 560,000 1,030,000 480,000

As shown in Table 4 and Figure 6, the IRM shows that none of the scenarios are able to achieve the CoPP and CoM carbon goals through onsite measures alone (i.e. it would be necessary to procure offsite renewables, rapidly increase uptake of transport biofuels or purchase offsets).

The integrated scenario performs the best in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per capita, while the building-led scenario has the greatest proportion of renewable energy.



Page 38

The improvement of the integrated scenario over the precinct and building-led scenarios suggest that there is an important role for both passive building energy design, building integrated solar power and precinct scale trigeneration.

This reflects the mix of uses (combination of residential and non-residential activity) and density that is currently assumed for in the modelling. As the proportion of non-residential uses increases, Arup expects that the benefit of precinct-scale cogeneration and trigeneration would further increase, and would reflect in the performance of the integrated scenario compared to the others.

Key actions / opportunities • Require residential buildings to achieve high levels of energy efficiency –

better than 7 Star NatHERS which is slightly better than the minimum required for 4 Star Green Star Design & As Built.

• Require non-residential buildings to achieve high levels of energy efficiency – at least 50% better than current good practice, which is better than the minimum required for 4 Star Green Star Design & As Built.

• Maximise uptake of solar photovoltaic panels on building roofs (model assumes a maximum of 40% roof coverage for a building) and facades (model assumes a maximum of 50% façade coverage for a building). Ensure that building typologies (e.g. tower podium model, mid-rise / courtyard residential) safeguard solar access and minimise overshadowing.

• Preferentially allocate roof space to solar photovoltaic panels, rather than solar hot water, as these are more carbon efficient.

• Precinct cogeneration or trigeneration should not be the primary strategy, but rather focused on the mixed use and dense hubs of the development, where these energy sources can operate most efficiently.

Watching brief As more non-residential uses are introduced, the use of cogeneration and trigeneration technologies11 are likely to become more efficient, as energy infrastructure can balance the diversity of heating, cooling and electricity demand over a 24 hour period. The optimal mix of land uses will depend on a variety of factors (e.g. the types of activities, built form of the development and clustering of land uses) and IRM can be used to test different scenarios as part of detailed Neighbourhood Precinct Planning and Infrastructure Planning.

The IRM model also includes the option to introduce a carbon price. The results in this report currently do not include a carbon price. The introduction of a carbon price would significantly affect the carbon intensity of grid electricity and therefore the relative attractiveness of passive design (a feature of the building-led and integrated scenarios) versus renewable / low carbon energy supply. 11 Cogeneration involves the combustion of fuel (in this case, natural gas) to produce electricity. Useful heat energy is captured for space and/or water heating. Trigeneration involves the additional step of converting the useful heat into cooling for buildings through the use of absorption chillers.



Page 39

3.3.2 Energy demand trends As shown in Figure 6, most energy demand is from residential buildings, followed by commercial office. However, the ventilation and lighting of car parks is also significant.

Demand for heating energy is higher than cooling across all building types. The heating demand is driven by residential and commercial office areas. In the case of cooling, commercial offices become a more significant driver.

3.3.3 Energy supply trends Gas use is substantial in all scenarios, although minimised in the building-led scenario. As uptake of both building and precinct scale cogeneration and trigeneration increases over the scenarios, the gas use increases.

In the building-led and integrated scenarios, solar power has a higher uptake. The use of solar power displaces cogeneration and trigeneration, as the production of PV coincides with the peak times for cooling demand.

Reducing the use of solar hot water and replacing it with solar photovoltaic panels results in improved greenhouse gas emissions, as solar photovoltaic panels are more carbon efficient (particularly if hot water is instead provided by gas-fired boilers).

Table 4 shows that the precinct-led scenario does not perform as well as the building-led scenario in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per capita. This is likely due to the substantial demand for natural gas resulting from the use of cogeneration.

3.3.4 Greenhouse gas emissions Building controls make a substantial difference to greenhouse gas emissions, as the building-led and integrated scenario perform relatively similarly on greenhouse gas emissions. This is because as energy demand decreases, the requirement for cogeneration and trigeneration also decreases (and therefore reduces their advantage of traditional fossil-fuelled energy strategies).

The IRM results suggest that the investment in precinct energy infrastructure strategies should be relatively focused, particularly on high density, mixed use ‘hubs’, where precinct cogeneration and trigeneration can be run efficiently.

Energy use is accounts for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions (between 60 and 70% depending on the scenario), while transport is the second most significant energy source. Waste and water treatment is relatively minor.

If the carbon price is introduced, emissions across the precinct reduce around 30-50%. The impact is particularly observable for the market-led and precinct-led scenarios, which do not feature enhanced passive energy demand management of buildings (and are therefore more exposed to the intensity of the electricity grid).



Page 40

Emissions impact of electric vehicles is substantial. For integrated scenario, electric vehicles account for 14% of all direct electricity demand at Fishermans Bend.



Page 41



Page 42

Figure 6 Results for energy and greenhouse gas emissions goal for each scenario



Page 43

3.4 Water sensitive city

3.4.1 Key findings

Objective

Potable water will be minimised through water efficient buildings, open space and infrastructure; use of rainwater, stormwater and recycled water. Water sensitive urban design will play a key role in water management.


CoPP: 50% reduction in potable water use by 2020 (from 2001 baseline)

CoM: 8% of water from alternative water sources by 2018, 20% by 2030

Table 5 Water sensitive city indicators and results


Building-led

Precinct-led

Integrated

Provision of water sensitive infrastructure required to achieved ‘best practice environmental management for urban water’12

% of infrastructure necessary to achieve best practice benchmarks

0% 30% 60% 94%

Potable water supply per person (residents + employees)

ML per capita 0.049 0.028 0.027 0.024



0% 43% 45% 51%

Total annual potable water supply

ML 13,200 4,740 7,200 4,060

Except for the market-led scenario, all scenarios approach the CoPP’s municipal goal of reducing potable water use by 50%. This is achieved by a combination of water efficiency and non-potable water supply. In the case of the integrated scenario (which meets the best practice benchmark), this is delivered a 10%

12 This is the minimum requirement under the State Environment Protection Policy and is based on CSIRO’s CSIRO Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines for Urban Stormwater. The water quality parameters cover Suspended solids (SS), Total phosphorus (TP), and Total nitrogen (TN).



Page 44

reduction in water demand and substantial sewer mining (43% of all water supply).

As shown in Figure 7, it is possible to achieve the standards for best practice environmental management for urban water (the minimum requirement under the State Environmental Protection Policy) using passive measures. This is achievable through a combination of public and private open space, green roof and water sensitive roads. Given the contamination status of much of Fishermans Bend, water sensitive infrastructure such as raingardens and tree pits need to be relatively shallow and lined. This is to prevent infiltration to groundwater to minimise impacts to an already shallow groundwater table and mobilisation of contaminants.

Key actions / opportunities • Deliver more open space beyond what is currently noted in the Strategic

Framework Plan to meet a range of benefits including amenity, water quality and urban heat island. This may be possible by setting standards for private open space, green roof and water sensitive design of road infrastructure.

• Achieve substantial substitution of water supply, focusing on sewer mining. Infrastructure planning by South East Water suggests that this is the most viable source of non-potable water.

• Investigate the potential for wetlands to deliver stormwater treatment at Fishermans Bend. This would require substantial commitment within the land use budget.

Watching brief The use of recycled water (rain, grey and blackwater) for potable demands is currently problematic, as it is not regulated by the Department of Health. As precedents arise for the use of recycled water for drinking, bathing and cooking, it may be possible to further improve progress towards the water goals.

3.4.2 Water demand and supply trends This study drew on the on data from ongoing investigations by South East Water and Melbourne Water into options for integrated water management at Fishermans Bend.13

Residential water demand dominates the water profile across the site.

Up to 50% of demand is substitutable with non-potable water. Precinct-led and integrated scenarios are able to draw around 40% of their water from sewer mining. In the building-led scenario, building-based greywater systems provide around a third of the water demand. Rainwater and stormwater are not considered substantial sources of non-potable water (no more than 5% of total water supply).

13 GHD on behalf of South East Water & Melbourne Water, Final report for Fishermans Bend Integrated Water Management Options Evaluation, October 2015



Page 45

As long as there is a major non-potable water source (grey water or sewer mining), all the scenarios perform similarly for potable water demand.

According to South East Water’s investigations, supplying Class A water from a building scale greywater treatment system will have a lower energy use than a local sewer mining plant. Collecting wastewater and treating wastewater locally will have lower energy use than water supplied from the desalination plant. However, the IRM modelling shows that greenhouse gas emissions from water emissions are extremely small (less than 1% of total emissions).

3.4.3 Stormwater trends The water sensitive city goal emphasises the need to safeguard stormwater quality. Only the integrated scenario approaches the ‘rule of thumb’ provision of water sensitive site treatment to meet State Environment Protection Policies through the landscape. This is achieved through the following proportions of the site area:

• 15% as public open space, assuming delivery of public open space as per the Strategic Framework Plan

• 6% as private softscaping, assuming 20% of private plots are reserved for softscape

• 5% as green roofs on buildings, equivalent to requiring 10% of all roof areas to be green roofs

Refer to Figure 7 and Figure 8.

Alternatives to the integrated landscape/building approach is to create treatment wetlands, which is not modelled by IRM.



Page 46



Page 47

Figure 7 Results for water goal for each scenario



Page 48

3.5 Climate adept city

3.5.1 Key findings

Objective

Built form, infrastructure, and vegetation will be used in ways to create a more favourable local climate, whilst ‘absorbing’ the impacts of extreme weather events during the asset life (at least 100years).


CoM: Increase canopy cover from 22% to 40% by 2040

Table 6 Climate adept city indicators and results


Building-led

Precinct-led

Integrated

Permeability of urban renewal area – buildings and landscape


9% 24% 24% 30%

Proportion of site that is vegetated


9% 22% 22% 26%

In terms of the climate adept goal, IRM does not directly model urban heat island and urban flooding. More complex spatial and dynamic models are required to reflect the interaction between built form and these goals.

However, IRM does model some aspects of development relevant to urban heat island and stormwater management. As green open space increases, urban heating tends to decrease, which is recognised in the Green Star Communities scheme (Credit 31 Urban heat island). As site vegetation increases, stormwater conveyance is slowed during urban flooding events.14

The best practice benchmark is for 50% of the site to be designed to mitigate urban heat island. Except for the market-led scenario, all scenarios can deliver around half this requirement through landscaping. The other half could be achieved through minimising the surface reflectance of building roofs.

14 Joint Steering Committee for Water Sensitive Cities, Evaluating Options for Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD), 2009, available at https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/1873905a-f5b7-4e3c-8f45-0259a32a94b1/files/wsud-guidelines.pdf



Page 49

Key actions / opportunities • As noted in Section 3.4, seek to deliver more open space beyond what is

currently noted in the Strategic Framework Plan to meet a range of benefits including amenity, water quality and urban heat island. Doubling the current requirements for open space would approach the urban heat island best practice benchmark.

• Require private space softscaping by controlling plot coverage (limiting to no more than 80%).

Watching brief The quality of stormwater on site will be influenced by upstream stormwater conveyance into Fishermans Bend. The approach to stormwater should therefore be informed by catchment-scale studies.

Other factors contributing to the heat vulnerability of Fishermans Bend’s population will include socio-economic (non-built) factors such as age, demographics, single person households, health, and socioeconomic status. The climate adeptness of the population is therefore strongly influenced by governance and community mechanisms not represented in physical planning tools.

3.5.2 Site vegetation trends The extent of site vegetation is driven by the provision of public open space, private softscaping (through limits on plot coverage) and green roof requirements.

In all scenarios, public open space is a key factor. As of 2011, CoPP and CoM provide 17-20% of their municipal areas as public open space.15 The Strategic Framework Plan delivers around 15% of site area as public open space.

3.5.3 Water detention via landscape As with site vegetation, the major contribution to the water sensitivity of the landscape is made by public open space. Market-led approach has minimal public open space beyond currently identified ‘undevelopable’ area. IRM also assumes that 90% of private plots are covered with built surfaces.

The integrated scenario includes 23 hectares public softscaping, mostly the public open space identified in the Strategic Framework Plan. Other public softscaping is water sensitive infrastructure in road infrastructure, which needs to be carefully managed to limit contamination impacts (refer also to Section 3.4).

15 VEAC 2011 – expand reference



Page 50

Figure 8 Results for climate adept goal for each scenario



Page 51

3.6 Connected and liveable city

3.6.1 Key findings

Objective

Residents, visitors and workers can live and travel car free by improving the convenience, safety, accessibility and range of sustainable travel choices.


CoPP: Active and public transport to account for 48% of mode share

CoM: Active and public transport to account for 80% of mode share

Table 7 Connected and liveable city indicators and results


Building-led

Precinct-led

Integrated

Proportion of dwellings suitable for families

% of dwellings with at least 3 bedrooms

39% 39% 39% 39%



0% -2% 0% -2%

Number of jobs per household

Number of jobs per dwelling

1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38


% by passenger kilometres

7% 35% 51% 62%

Provision of space (square metres per person)

Public open space 3.0 6.4 4.1 6.7

Community services – community facilities, retail, education, leisure

2.7 3.3 2.7 3.3

Provision for car parking per person (residents + employees)

14.8 13.2 12.1 10.2

This sustainability goal covers a wide range of topics: sustainable transport, access to jobs and services, as well as the ongoing cost of living for households.

Key trends to note are that except for the market-led scenario, all scenarios are able to achieve the best practice benchmark for accessibility by walking and cycling (the ‘20 minute city’ principle), provided Fishermans Bend is able to meet



Page 52

the mode share assumptions provided by the CoPP for this study. However, there needs to be a future detailed investigation and implementation plan for integrated transport across the site.

In terms of cost of living, there is minimal variation across scenarios. The slightly higher costs associated with the building-led and integrated scenarios is due to the assumption of a 3% cost premium for higher building standards.

This study has assumed that this premium holds constant throughout the long development phase of Fishermans Bend, and that the premium is directly passed onto property purchasers. This may not always be the case, as the market may absorb those costs during times of greater competition, and the construction and development sectors build capacity in delivering green buildings. The IRM has been set up so that users can test the impacts of alternative approaches to the ‘sustainability cost premium’.

It should be noted that currently there are no differences in the mix of dwelling types and employment areas across the scenarios. This is a key driver for the liveable and connected goal. The IRM has been set up so that these assumptions can be tested as part of future planning investigations.

Finally, the headline indicator (Table 3) for the amenity aspects of the connected and liveable goal is the provision of public open space. As shown in Figure 4, all scenarios fall substantially short of the best practice benchmark.

The best practice benchmark defined in this study is CoPP’s current public open space provision of 40 square metres per resident (in CoM, the provision is 59 square metres per resident).16 Except for the market-led scenario, all scenarios are based on the delivery of open space identified in the Strategic Framework Plan. Even under with the building-led and integrated scenarios, which have reduced populations (100,000 people), the Strategic Framework Plan is only able to provide around 6.5 square metres of public open space per resident.

This may be appropriate given the dense urban nature of Fishermans Bend. However, this level of amenity needs to be carefully reviewed and confirmed that it safeguards the liveability of Fishermans Bend future community.

Key actions / opportunities • Enable the ‘sustainability cost premium’ to be minimised through mechanisms

such as: providing a clear road map for industry to adapt and build capability towards delivering improved building standards; achieving critical mass in the sustainable supply chain; and rapidly disseminating lessons learned.

• Ensure a level playing field in building standards, so that consumers benefit from competition in the Fishermans Bend housing and commercial real estate market.

16 Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (VEAC), Metropolitan Melbourne Investigation Final Report, 2011, available at http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/documents/VEAC152-MMI-Final-Report-FINAL-low-res.pdf



Page 53

• Prioritise walking, cycling and public transport as movement modes in the site’s planning and infrastructure. This needs to be informed by a comprehensive integrated accessibility / transport plan.

• Investigate options to better link residential areas with employment precincts on or near the urban renewal area.

• As noted in Section 3.4, seek to deliver more open space beyond what is currently noted in the Strategic Framework Plan to meet a range of benefits including amenity, water quality and urban heat island. Confirm that the current provision of open space meets the amenity needs of future residents.

Watching brief Over the next few years, government authorities and infrastructure agencies (e.g. Yarra Trams) will undertake detailed transport analysis and infrastructure planning. The potential for plans to deliver on the ‘20 minute city’ principle embedded in Plan Melbourne should be carefully scrutinised.

There is currently limited data on the cost consequences of delivering high performance buildings for developers, builders and buyers of residential buildings. Stakeholders should maintain a watching brief on updated data as it arises, particularly on the ability for developers to pass on premiums (if any) to purchasers. It may also be possible to quantify the long term value of quality buildings through the retention of value, reduced occupancy rates, and reduced maintenance etc.

3.6.2 Transport trends The result for the transport indicator in Table 7 is highly sensitive to the mode share assumptions built into IRM (e.g. in the market-led scenario, the mode shares are 90% private car, 6% public transport and the remainder of trips by walking and cycling). These mode shares are identified in Appendix A.

Therefore, there is a need to ensure these mode share assumptions are robust. As discussed in Section 1.5.2, there is a need for transport accessibility modelling outside the IRM tool as part of a detailed integrated transport plan. Such a plan would then feed into the infrastructure plan for Fishermans Bend.

It is also worth noting that the IRM reflects changes in fuel mix for private vehicles between now and 2066. For example, by 2066 (full build out), the integrated scenario assumes 80% of vehicles are electrically powered. As highlighted in Section 3.3.4, electric vehicles can represent a substantial proportion of electricity demand from Fishermans Bend.

3.6.3 Cost of living trends As shown in Figure 9, the annual household cost of living results takes into account housing costs (mortgage repayments and rent), transport costs (private vehicle ownership and public transport costs), energy, water and waste costs (including any premiums associated with sustainable infrastructure and ongoing



Page 54

utility costs/savings). Around two-thirds of annual costs are housing-related, and just under 30% are transport-related. Utilities are relatively minor, comprising around 6-7%.

Across the scenarios, differences in the cost of living are relatively small and are largely driven by housing-related costs. A ‘sustainability premium’ does show up in the building controlled scenarios (building-led and integrated) as a 2% increase in the annual cost of living (somewhat mitigated by reduced energy costs).

This trend is based on the assumption that there is indeed an additional cost associated with constructing high performance buildings, and these costs are directly passed onto the home owner / renter.

A study published in 2010 estimated the additional cost for achieving a 4 Star Green Star for a multiunit residential building as 0-2%.17 The estimated cost premium for a 5 Star development was 5%. The results presented in this report are based on a 3% costs premium throughout the life of the development. The IRM model has been set up so that this cost premium can be varied by the user.

3.6.4 Amenity trends In terms of open space provision, the market-led scenario falls well short of the other three scenarios, which assume delivery of the public open space in the Strategic Framework Plan.

However, as highlighted in Figure 4 and Section 3.6.1, on a per resident basis, even the integrated scenario is not able to match the current provision of open space in CoPP and CoM.

Community services are defined as community facilities, retail, education and leisure uses. The IRM model assumes that the provision of space for community facilities keeps pace with residential development. The model will need to be updated with data from a future community infrastructure plan for Fishermans Bend.

17 Langdon (2010) The Road to ‘Green Property’, http://www.gbca.org.au/uploads/1/2817/Davis%20Langdon.pdf



Page 55

Figure 9 Results for connected and liveable goal for each scenario



Page 56

3.7 Low waste city

3.7.1 Key findings

Objective

Minimal waste during construction and operations, by applying the principles of the ‘waste hierarchy’. Demolition and refurbishment waste will be minimised through adaptive reuse. Maximum value will be extracted from the waste stream and waste to landfill minimised.


CoPP: 75% reduction in residential per capita waste to landfill by 2020

CoM: 65% recovery of municipal solid waste by 2014

Table 8 Low waste city indicators and results


Building-led

Precinct-led

Integrated

Diversion of waste from landfill

% by tonnes of waste per annum

49% 49% 60% 60%


% by tonnes per person

0% 18% 38% 35%

The IRM model applies three key waste management strategies in line with the waste hierarchy18:

• A 20% reduction in waste generation in all scenarios except market-led

• Automated waste collection in the precinct-led and integrated scenarios, and

• Recovery of organic waste streams and treatment onsite in the precinct-led and integrated scenarios.

Table 8 shows that the combination of these interventions come close to achieving CoM’s waste goal of 65% recovery of municipal waste, but falls well short of CoPP’s goal of reducing waste per capita by 75%.

The key to achieving a step change in waste diversion from landfill is the collection of all organic waste from residential and non-residential buildings.

18 As highlighted by the Victorian Government’s waste policy, it is important that the waste hierarchy is applied in decision making in conjunction with other sustainability objectives such as product stewardship, economic and social considerations. Refer to Victorian State Government (2013) Getting full value: the Victorian waste and resource recovery policy. The IRM model assists in identifying and balancing the multi-criteria nature of urban scale environmental management.



Page 57

Key actions / opportunities • Collect and treat household organic waste, as this represents up to 50% of

waste generation. This will require regional scale infrastructure (beyond Fishermans Bend) or substantial investment in onsite anaerobic digestion or in-vessel composting. In the case of anaerobic digestion, it may be possible to combine organic waste treatment with the treatment train for sewer mining. This has the benefit of reducing the requirement for EPA amenity buffers around infrastructure.

Watching brief EPA Victoria sets separation distances (amenity buffers) between advanced resource recovery technology facility (including anaerobic digestion), composting facilities and sewage treatment facilities and residential areas.19 These distances can be hundreds of metres and would constrain the development of buildings around such facilities. Should such buffers change (either through revised EPA Guidelines or via negotiated precedent), this would have implications on the viability and spatial planning around precinct infrastructure.

There is currently minimal capacity in regional scale composting facilities in Melbourne, which limits the end uses for organic waste collection. The Victorian Government is focused on the development the market for recovered organics.20 As demand for recovered organics increase, the viability of composting or digestion facilities improves.

3.7.2 Waste trends Organic waste (food and green waste) makes up around 50% of municipal solid waste.21

The precinct-led and integrated scenarios collect three waste streams (landfill, recyclables and organics). By collecting the additional organics stream, up to two-thirds of waste is diverted from landfill. Combined with measures to reduce waste generation by 20% at source, this could lead to around 35-40% improvement on the market-led scenario.

19 EPA Victoria (2012), Recommended separation distances for industrial residual air emissions, Publication 1502, draft, available at http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/~/media/Publications/1506.pdf 20 Sustainability Victoria (2015), Victorian Organics Resource Recovery Strategy, available at http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/~/media/resources/documents/our%20priorities/integrated%20waste%20management/organics%20strategy/victorian%20organics%20resource%20recovery%20strategy%20september%202015.pdf 21 Refer to the contextual information (Part 2) in Metropolitan Waste and Resource Recovery Group, 2015 Market Assessment, available at http://www.participate.mwrrg.vic.gov.au/application/files/9014/3642/5206/Market_Assesment_Guide_2015.pdf



Page 58

Figure 10 Results for waste goal for each scenario



Page 59

4 Recommendations

4.1 Summary of key actions and opportunities Table 9 extracts the key actions and opportunities identified throughout this report. These actions can be embedded into design guidance as part of the Fishermans Bend Strategic Framework Plan review, within the Infrastructure Plan, Neighbourhood Precinct Plans, as well as the overarching Sustainable Development Plan.

4.2 Headline targets for Fishermans Bend Sustainable Development Plan

Goals or targets in a future Fishermans Bend Sustainable Development Plan can be informed by this study. Table 10 suggests headline targets based on the scenario that delivers the best performance through measures onsite over the 50 year development timeframe for Fishermans Bend.

For most sustainability goals, these targets would need to be supplemented with off-site measures (e.g. renewable energy production) and enhanced sustainability strategies to achieve the best practice benchmarks outlined in Table 3.

Arup considers that the suggested headline targets are likely to be technically feasible based on the pathway of actions built into the IRM model. Should planning, technology and policy change substantially (as per the ‘watching briefs’ e.g. introduction of a carbon price, increase in employment onsite, changes to population), then these targets could potentially be stretched further.

Headline targets will need to be supported by building and infrastructure standards (e.g. solar PV coverage guidelines), which are relevant to the day-to-day decision making of developers, infrastructure agencies and government service providers. Again, these standards can be drawn from the IRM model, particularly the detailed assumptions and user-defined dashboard parameters in the model.



Page 60

Table 9 Key actions and opportunities to deliver sustainability goals


Carbon CB1 Require residential buildings to achieve high levels of energy efficiency – better than 7 Star NatHERS which is slightly better than the minimum required for 4 Star Green Star Design & As Built.

Design guidelines

CB3 Require non-residential buildings to achieve high levels of energy efficiency – at least 50% better than current good practice, which is better than the minimum required for 4 Star Green Star Design & As Built.

Design guidelines

CB4 Maximise uptake of solar photovoltaic panels on building roofs (model assumes a maximum of 40% roof coverage for a building) and facades (model assumes a maximum of 50% façade coverage for a building). Ensure that building typologies (e.g. tower podium model, mid-rise / courtyard residential) safeguard solar access and minimise overshadowing.

Design guidelines

CB5 Preferentially allocate roof space to solar photovoltaic panels, rather than solar hot water, as these are more carbon efficient. Design guidelines

CB6 Precinct cogeneration or trigeneration should not be the primary strategy, but rather focused on the mixed use and dense hubs of the development, where these energy sources can operate most efficiently.

Neighbourhood Precinct Plans

Water WT1 Deliver more open space beyond what is currently noted in the Strategic Framework Plan to meet a range of benefits including amenity, water quality and urban heat island. This may be possible by setting standards for private open space, green roof and water sensitive design of road infrastructure.

Strategic Framework Plan Design guidelines Neighbourhood Precinct Plans

WT2 Achieve substantial substitution of water supply, focusing on sewer mining. Infrastructure planning by South East Water suggests that this is the most viable source of non-potable water.

Infrastructure Plan

WT3 Investigate the potential for wetlands to deliver stormwater treatment at Fishermans Bend. This would require substantial commitment within the land use budget.

Infrastructure plan

Climate adeptness

CA1 Seek to deliver more open space beyond what is currently noted in the Strategic Framework Plan to meet a range of benefits including amenity, water quality and urban heat island. Doubling the current requirements for open space would approach the urban heat island best practice benchmark.

Strategic Framework Plan

CA2 Require private space softscaping by controlling plot coverage (limiting to no more than 80%). Design guidelines

Connected & liveable

LI1 Enable the ‘sustainability cost premium’ to be minimised through mechanisms such as: providing a clear road map for industry to adapt and build capability towards delivering improved building standards; achieving critical mass in the sustainable supply chain; and rapidly disseminating lessons learned.

Governance



Page 61


LI2 Ensure a level playing field in building standards, so that consumers benefit from competition in the Fishermans Bend housing and commercial real estate market.

Design guidelines

LI3 Prioritise walking, cycling and public transport as movement modes in the site’s planning and infrastructure. This needs to be informed by a comprehensive integrated accessibility / transport plan.


LI4 Investigate options to better link residential areas with employment precincts on or near the urban renewal area. Strategic Framework Plan and Neighbourhood Precinct Plans

LI5 Seek to deliver more open space beyond what is currently noted in the Strategic Framework Plan to meet a range of benefits including amenity, water quality and urban heat island. Confirm that the current provision of open space meets the amenity needs of future residents.


Waste WS1 Collect and treat household organic waste, as this represents up to 50% of waste generation. This will require regional scale infrastructure (beyond Fishermans Bend) or substantial investment in onsite anaerobic digestion or in-vessel composting. In the case of anaerobic digestion, it may be possible to combine organic waste treatment with the treatment train for sewer mining. This has the benefit of reducing the requirement for EPA amenity buffers around infrastructure.

Infrastructure Plan



Page 62

Table 10 Suggested headline targets based on onsite measures at Fishermans Bend



Relevant scenario


A low carbon city

Proportion of electricity supply from on-site renewables % by MWh 10-15% Building-led



40-50% Integrated CoPP: 50% reduction in per capita emissions by 2020 (from 2006 baseline) CoM: Carbon neutral by 2020




50% Building-led Precinct-led Integrated

CoPP: 50% reduction in potable water use by 2020 (from 2001 baseline) CoM: 8% of water from alternative water sources by 2018, 20% by 2030




30% Integrated CoM: Increase canopy cover from 22% to 40% by 2040




0% No additional increase in cost of living

All scenarios


10 (strongly dependent on population assumptions)

Building-led Integrated

Proportion of travel distance by active and public modes % by passenger kilometres 50-60% Precinct-led Integrated

CoPP: Active and public transport to account for 48% of mode share CoM: Active and public transport to account for 80% of mode share



Page 63



Relevant scenario


A low waste city

Reduction in landfill compared to business as usual % by tonnes per person 40-50% Precinct-led Integrated

CoPP: 75% reduction in residential per capita waste to landfill by 2020 CoM: 65% recovery of municipal solid waste by 2014



Page 64

4.3 Engagement with independent sustainability rating schemes

CoPP and CoM currently advocate that performance standards be set for development at Fishermans Bend, as expressed by Green Star Communities and Green Star Design & As Built (or tools that achieve equivalent performance outcomes).

The Green Star schemes are developed and managed by the Green Building Council of Australia in close collaboration with its industry and government members. The rating scheme is designed to recognise ‘best in market’ buildings and masterplanned communities (typically the top 20% of the market).

CoPP and CoM’s local planning schemes already nominate Green Star as one of a number of pathways/tools for developers to demonstrate the fulfilment of local policies for sustainability (described in 1.6).

The commitment of Fishermans Bend stakeholders to achieving an independent performance standard such as Green Star has a number of benefits:

• A well regarded rating scheme provides a common language for industry and therefore facilitates specification, competition and procurement processes,

• It enables the market to compare and value sustainability across individual development projects on a like-for-like basis,

• It enables a long term project such as Fishermans Bend to benefit from regular revisions of standard to ensure continued relevance and industry support,

• It is potentially less costly to administer the verification of performance, as certification costs are centralised under an administrator such as the Green Buildings Council of Australia,

• It provides certainty to utility and other service providers that there will demand for sustainable supply chain, thus potentially reducing commercial risks and overall costs to consumers,

• It provides the government, delivery agencies, developers and other stakeholders a way of achieving firm commitment by all parties to the ongoing achievement of sustainability standards.

Sustainability rating schemes generally provide built-in flexibility for projects to prioritise the achievement of individual credits (e.g. on renewable energy versus liveability). This means that in some cases, Fishermans Bend stakeholders may wish to specify the achievement of particular points under particular credits in order to achieve sustainability goals identified in the Strategic Framework Plan.

For example, currently to be certified under Green Star Design & As Built, buildings must achieve improvements on minimum compliance (Building Code of Australia) for building energy use. For residential buildings, this is currently slightly below the 7 Star NatHERS standard assumed in IRM. It may therefore be advantageous to specify (for example) energy efficiency or water efficiency



Page 65

standards compatible with the Green Star scheme (or its equivalent), but beyond the conditional requirements for certification.

4.4 Value proposition A key next step from this study is to translate the sustainability benefits of the various sustainability strategies into financial and economic value to specific parties.

Identifying and quantifying financial benefits enables delivery agencies to design transactions to fund and finance hard infrastructure, soft infrastructure (e.g. community facilities) and building-based improvements.

As an example, Table 11 qualitatively identifies mechanisms for the State Government to capture the value of sustainability benefits. Each benefit can then be quantified and be captured through a financial transaction.

Table 11 Capturing of a sustainable Fishermans Bend

Benefit Beneficiary Possible mechanism for Government or delivery agency to capture value

Low carbon city

Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions

Community Possible State or Federal grants available

Reduction in peak load on electricity grid

State Government through avoided costs of electricity grid upgrade and generation capacity

n/a

Avoidance of new substation or reduced requirement for substation

Electricity distributor Avoided ‘bring forward’ costs of substation development

For precinct energy systems, reduced capital expenditure for building-scale infrastructure

Developers Land value uplift and/or connection charges Quicker divestment of infrastructure or sale of land

Reduced capital expenditure for peak capacity within a building


Reduced space requirements for chillers and heat exchanges for heating and cooling


Reduced risk of achieving sustainability benchmarks (energy credits in Green Star)




Page 66


Reduced cost of utilities (electricity, heating and cooling) for buildings

End users Land value uplift Quicker divestment of infrastructure assets

Reduced exposure to carbon price and energy price changes

End users Land value uplift

Potential to provide for off-site users of heat and cooling

Neighbours Connection charges Quicker divestment of infrastructure assets

Reputational benefits – Leadership and innovation by Government

State Government Possible State or Federal grants available

Demonstrating and enabling sustainable technologies and business models

State Government n/a

Water

Improved resilience to drought conditions (e.g. to maintain green landscape, which enhances amenity and saleability) and future proofing

End users Developers

Land value uplift

Potential to provide for off-site users of recycled water

Neighbours Connection charges

Avoided cost of new water supplies

Water authority Co-contribution by water authority to project

Avoided cost of managing sewage at treatment plant

Water authority Co-contribution by water authority to project

Ease of developing higher value sustainable buildings (water credits in Green Star)



State Government Possible State or Federal grants available



Low waste city

Reduced waste to landfill State Government through avoided landfill development cost

n/a Possible State or Federal grants available

Reduced landfill costs due to improved recycling and recovery rates and organics treatment

Community Local government

Rates reduction leading to land value uplift

Street level amenity improved due to fewer waste trucks

End users Marketability of development leading to higher rate of sales



Page 67


Ease of developing higher value sustainable buildings (operational waste credits in Green Star)

Developers Land value uplift and/or connection charges

Space saving for waste and recycling rooms

Developers Land value uplift and/or connection charges

Reduced demands on manual handling of waste, which reduces waste management costs

End user Land value uplift


State Government n/a Possible State or Federal grants available



4.5 Ongoing monitoring The IRM model is a tool to consistently assess the sustainability implications of future planning changes to Fishermans Bend. It can provide the Victorian Government, the Metropolitan Planning Authority, CoPP and CoM with an evidence base for decision making.

CoPP is the custodian of the IRM model and will manage updates to its data and assumptions. There are a number of conditions that would trigger updates to the existing IRM model such as:

• Any changes that influence the population numbers,

• The release of refined land use and floor area schedules, including commitments to infrastructure such as leisure centres, schools, parks and public transport,

• Confirmation of height limits,

• Updates to design guidelines or sustainability requirements through the Strategic Framework Plan, local policies or State-wide sustainability requirements,

• Background changes such as updated forecasts for grid electricity intensity, utilities prices, technology improvements etc.,

• Any notable changes to the types of planning applications being received by the State and local governments, and

• Changes to the boundary of Fishermans Bend or the capital city zone within Fishermans Bend.



Page 68

5 Next steps To facilitate the implementation of key actions and opportunities (Section 4.1), the immediate next steps from this study are:

1. Discuss the findings of this study with the Metropolitan Planning Authority, the Fishermans Bend Advisory Committee, Property Council of Australia, utilities, and other interested parties.

2. Use the study findings to inform the preparation of the Neighbourhood Precinct Plans, Infrastructure Plan, Sustainable Development Plan and the revision of the Strategic Framework Plan.

3. Engage current utilities (e.g. South East Water) and private utilities to identify the conditions required for the delivery of precinct-scale infrastructure.

4. Engage groups of landowners at Fishermans Bend in discussion of the mutual benefits of infrastructure coordination.

5. Investigate the benefits, disadvantages and potential governance structures for a precinct sustainability rating such as Green Star Communities, Eco-Districts, EnviroDevelopment, Living Building Challenge or One Planet Communities.

6. Develop community-facing materials that draw on the findings, such as narratives, visualisations and possibly a web-based interactive tools for a non-specialist audience.

7. Investigate opportunities to implement recommendations through the Local Policies for energy, water and waste (CoM) and Environmentally Efficient Design (CoPP).

Appendix A

Scenarios discussed in workshop and relationship to IRM model



Page A1



Page B2

A1 Land use / floor use schedule

Parameter 1. Market-led 2. Building-led 3. Precinct-led 4. Integrated IRM congruence

Private residential

Largely private residential

Largely private residential

Reduced private residential Reduced and diverse private residential

Compatible with IRM scenarios

Dwelling size Mainly 1 and 2 bedroom apartments (average 1.2 people per dwelling)

1-3 bedroom apartments Mainly 1 and 2 bedroom apartments (average 1.2 people per dwelling)

Larger dwellings (apartments and townhouses) to suit families. Population of 1.9-2.3 people per unit (1.9 Montague / Lorimer and 2.3 Wirraway).

Not modelled in IRM scenarios

Affordable housing

No affordable / key worker

10% affordable / key worker

5% affordable / key worker Community / social housing

15% affordable / key worker Community / social housing


Retail Minimal retail (local serving, ground floor of towers), few supermarkets

Some neighbourhood-scale retail

Minimal retail (local serving, ground floor of towers), few supermarkets

Some neighbourhood-scale retail


Commercial & industry

Small office to service population (e.g. accountants, legal)

Small office to service population (e.g. accountants, legal)

At least 3 industry hubs (IT, creative, clean tech) One major transport logistics hub (underground?)

One major research hub (e.g. designate a block as commercial) At least 3 industry hubs (IT, creative, clean tech) One major transport logistics hub (underground?) Urban manufacturing (e.g. microbrewery) Significant commercial / industrial




Page B3


Community facilities

Minimal Some local community infrastructure Significant local community infrastructure Regional scale community infrastructure including schools for Docklands, sports infrastructure

Significant local community infrastructure Regional scale community infrastructure including schools for Docklands, sports infrastructure


Building typology

Towers, maximising to height limits

Towers A number of 4 and 8 storey interface areas on boundary of precinct, as per the SFP

Towers, maximising to height limits Some existing uses retained and refurbished

Towers A number of 4 and 8 storey interface areas on boundary of precinct, as per the SFP 6-10 storey medium density where appropriate Good medium density where appropriate including terraces, courtyard model


Building heights

Maximum or even beyond maximum (previous height guidelines)

Maximum or even beyond maximum (previous height guidelines)

More height variation due to retention of existing uses (see below) Adhere to height limits

More height variation due to retention of existing uses (see below) Adhere to height limits (see building typology above)


Retention of existing uses

No retention of anything without heritage overlay Only heritage facades retained – no refurbishment

Some refurbishment and renewal Existing laneways in Montague retained Retain Toyota office in Sandridge

Significant existing buildings are retained and refurbished with a buffer around them – mostly in Montague and along Williamstown Road Existing laneways in Montague retained Retain Toyota office in Sandridge

Significant existing buildings are retained and refurbished with a buffer around them – mostly in Montague and along Williamstown Road Existing laneways in Montague retained Retain Toyota office in Sandridge


Plot coverage 0.9 0.9 0.85 0.8 Direct input to IRM scenarios



Page B4


Open space provision & distribution

Almost 100% site coverage by buildings / paved surfaces Mostly private open space Mostly built open space, not green open space Fragmented

Building-scale open space (equivalent to 10% of each plot) Green space as per Strategic Framework Plan Mostly private open space Mostly built open space, not green open space Fragmented

15-20% (?) of site as open space (mostly green, significantly public) 3 regional public open spaces in urban renewal area 1-2 local public open spaces per precinct

20-25% (?) of site as open space (mostly green, significantly public) 3 regional public open spaces in urban renewal area 1-2 local public open spaces per precinct Green corridors to existing regional open space Significant private open space (equivalent to 20% of each plot)


Private open space

100% hardscaping 50% hardscaping, 50% softscaping 50% hardscaping, 50% softscaping

50% hardscaping, 50% softscaping

Direct input to IRM scenarios

Public open space

No additional public softscaping Additional 18.9 ha public softscaping Public softscaping as per SFP

Additional 20.8 ha public softscaping 10% increase in public softscaping from building-led scenario

Additional 22.7 ha public softscaping 20% increase in public softscaping from building-led scenario


Parking provision

0.8 parking spaces per 1 bedroom apartment 1.0 parking spaces per 2+ bedroom apartments

0.8 parking spaces per dwelling




Parking location

Parking built into tower podiums Parking built into tower podiums Shared car parking & car sharing 10% of car spaces in standalone neighbourhood facilities

Shared car parking & car sharing 10% of car spaces in standalone neighbourhood facilities




Page B5


Floor areas required for precinct utility

None None Approx. 8 hubs (5,000 m2 each) distributed amongst the precincts to accommodate shared energy and water treatment infrastructure

Approx. 8 hubs (5,000 m2 each) distributed amongst the precincts to accommodate shared energy and water treatment infrastructure


Phasing As driven by the market As driven by the market May be partly driven by policy – the most viable plots are located near infrastructure investments (public transport and community infrastructure)

May be partly driven by policy – the most viable plots are located near infrastructure investments (public transport and community infrastructure)


Demographics Largely investors Combined investor / owner occupier Combined investor / owner occupier

Reduced investor demand, more owner occupier (reflecting larger dwellings for families)




Page B6

A2 Building strategies


Residential energy efficiency

Average 7 Star NatHERS by 2037, new build from 2037 to 2066 8 Star NatHERS





4 Star Green Star for multi-unit residential Behaviour: in-home displays with real time feedback, central off-switch

5-6 Star Green Star for multi-unit residential Behaviour: in-home displays with real time feedback, central off-switch Common area energy efficiency (e.g. foyers, lifts)


Commercial energy efficiency

Average 5 Star NABERS by 2037, new build from 2037 to 2066 5.5 Star NABERS (25% reduction)

Average 6 Star NABERS by 2037, new build from 2037 to 2066 6+ Star NABERS (75% reduction compared to 5 Star NABERS)

Average 5 Star NABERS by 2037, new build from 2037 to 2066 5.5 Star NABERS (25% reduction)

Average 6 Star NABERS by 2037, new build from 2037 to 2066 6+ Star NABERS (75% reduction compared to 5 Star NABERS)


Retail / community / education energy efficiency

Average good practice by 2037, new build from 2037 to 2066 25% reduction

Average 50% better than good practice by 2037, new build from 2037 to 2066 75% better than good practice

Average good practice by 2037, new build from 2037 to 2066 25% reduction

Average 50% better than good practice by 2037, new build from 2037 to 2066 75% better than good practice


Electricity plug loads

Appliances MEPS (minimum compliance – new)

Appliances MEPS (minimum compliance – new)

Incentives to reduce plug loads by 20%

Incentives to reduce plug loads by 30%




Page B7


Operational waste

Current waste generation rates

20% reduction on current waste generation rates




A waste management plan that addresses waste and recycling collection Separate waste and recycling chutes for tall buildings

Compliance with SDAPP and LP 22.19 Green Star Mat-1 Separate waste and recycling chutes for tall buildings

A waste management plan that addresses waste and recycling collection Space for reuse / donations

A waste management plan that addresses waste and recycling collection Space for reuse / donations


Water efficiency Standard practice at 2037, 10% reduction by 2066

10% reduction on standard practice by 2037, 20% reduction by 2066

Standard practice at 2037, 10% reduction by 2066

10% reduction on standard practice by 2037, 20% reduction by 2066


Green Star Wat-1 Green Star Wat-1 Compatible with IRM scenarios

Building materials

Standard building materials Modular pre-fabricated construction Cross-laminated timber Reduced urban heat island materials (lower reflectance)

Standard building materials Cross-laminated timber Recycled content Portland cement replacement Reduced PVC Responsible sourcing


Cyclist facilities Minimal ( 1 space per 5 units as per planning scheme)

High level of cycling end of trip facilities (1 per dwelling)

Centralised cycle storage and end-of-trip facilities

High level of cycling facilities (1 per dwelling)


Electric vehicles Negligible electric vehicles in transport mix

20% electric vehicles by 2037, 40% by 2066




Centralised vehicle charging, act as precinct energy storage (‘smart garage’)

Act as precinct energy storage (‘smart garage’)


Green infrastructure

Minimal 5% of roof area is green

10% of roof area is green

Minimal 5% of roof area is green

10% of roof area is green




Page B8


Roof gardens, green roofs, green facades

Roof gardens, green roofs, green facades ‘Green tramway’




Page B9

A3 Infrastructure strategies


Energy supply Grid-based electricity Mains gas supply Some rooftop PV (10% of max.) Some solar hot water (10% of max.)

Grid-based electricity Mains gas supply Building-based gas-fired cogeneration Significant rooftop PV (60% of max.) Building integrated PV (40% of max.) Significant solar hot water (60% of max.)

Grid-based electricity Mains gas supply Precinct shared gas-fired cogeneration Some rooftop PV (10% of max.) Some solar hot water (10% of max.)

Grid-based electricity Mains gas supply Precinct shared trigeneration Significant rooftop PV (80% of max.) Building integrated PV (60% of max.) Significant solar hot water (80% of max.)


Off-site renewables generation (virtual net metering)


Water sourcing South East Water integrated water management options – Scenario 1 Predominantly mains water supply Some rainwater capture and reuse

South East Water integrated water management options –Scenario 5 Lot scale approach Class-A supply from building greywater plant

South East Water integrated water management options –Scenario 4 Precinct scale stormwater harvesting Sewer mining

South East Water integrated water management options –Scenario 3 Mix of lot and precinct scale initiatives Sewer mining


Local water storage (Albert Park Lake / JL Murphy Reserve)

Local water storage (Albert Park Lake, JL Murphy Reserve plus two other sites)


Wastewater treatment

Off-site sewage treatment Off-site sewage treatment Off-site sewage treatment Sewer mining

Off-site sewage treatment Sewer mining




Page B10


Waste collection Conventional waste collection approach (Council and privately operated vehicles) 2 streams – landfill and recycling

Conventional waste collection approach (Council and privately operated vehicles) 2 streams – landfill and recycling

50% conventional waste collection approach (Council and privately operated vehicles) 50% precinct underground vacuum waste system 3 streams – landfill, recycling, organics

100% precinct underground vacuum waste system 3 streams – landfill, recycling, organics


Waste treatment Offsite landfill and recycling No organics treatment

Offsite landfill and recycling No organics treatment

Offsite landfill and recycling On-site anaerobic digestion for organics, methane used in cogen / trigen

Offsite landfill and recycling On-site anaerobic digestion for organics, methane used in cogen / trigen


Water sensitive urban design / irrigation

Public hardscaping not planned to manage water

10% of public hardscaping is water sensitive urban design




Water sensitive urban design performance meeting current planning scheme requirements for individual developments

Enhanced precinct scale water sensitive urban design Landscape water retention Use of water features to reduce urban heat island

Maximum use of green infrastructure to passively collect and treat water Landscape water retention Use of water features to reduce urban heat island Water sensitive urban design performance meeting current planning scheme requirements for individual developments


Food production None None One community garden in each precinct

One community garden in each precinct Street or large scale vertical gardens




Page B11


Public transport Buses Community buses

Buses Community buses

Buses Tram through centre of urban renewal area Charging stations for electric vehicles

Heavy rail link to CBD and Western Suburbs Buses Tram through centre of urban renewal area x 2 Charging stations for electric vehicles


Active transport Minimal Minimal Priority parking for cycling

Join up with existing cycling and pedestrian links Comprehensive cycling network on site

Join up with existing cycling and pedestrian links Comprehensive cycling network on site Priority parking for cycling, on site change and storage facilities


Mode share (number of trips)

Private car 90% Public transport 6% Cycling 2% Walking 2%

Private car 50% Public transport 25% Cycling 7.5% Walking 17.5%




Types of trips To shops To city and back

To shops To city and back

Fewer city trips – more internal jobs and schools / sports facilities

High internal job share and schools / sports facilities


Infrastructure materials

Standard materials Standard materials Reduced Portland cement Locally sourced materials Permeable surfaces

Reduced Portland cement Locally sourced materials Use of heritage character materials (brick, cobblestone)


city of port phillip & city of melbourne · improved infrastructure for cycling, walking and...

Documents