SUSTAINABLE HOUSING - A case study of Australia's first Green Home

Written June 1995

Abstract

Population increase will continue to drive growth in the first home buyer market on Australia's' urban fringes. The environmental impacts of this growth is significant. By examining Australia's' first demonstration Green Home the means of reducing these impacts are examined and options considered.

Keywords

Housing; Environment; Green; Home

All of us would have sympathy with the aim of achieving environmental sustainability in Australian housing. But where should we start on this noble endeavour?

This case study of the Australian Conservation Foundation's (ACF) Green Home at Roxburgh Park aims to show where sustainable opportunities may exist and how best to implement them within Melbourne's residential housing industry.

The national picture: population growth and housing demand.

Australia's total current housing stock is estimated to be approximately 6.5 million dwellings. The number of new private sector residential dwellings contributing to this figure was approximately 262,000 in 1994 (ABS, 1995a).

Of the number of new houses built nationally in 1994, 85,500 were in the first home buyers category thus representing a major share of the market. Though new homes purchased are a significant market share proportion, the bulk of first home buyers purchased established homes, approximately 632,000 in 1994.

The driving force behind the growth in new housing is population growth which is predicted to rise from approximately 18 million to 19 million by the year 2000 and increasing to 20 million by 2005 (ABS, 1995b). It would seem obvious that a significant environmental impact in terms of land use, energy, and resource use, will stem from the demand for new housing.

According to the 1994 ABS Australian Housing Survey, separate houses account for 79% of dwelling structures with the highest proportions of dwellings aged 10 years or less found in Queensland and Western Australia (29%), the States with the largest population growth rates over the last decade (ABS,1995a).

From these figures it is clear that existing separate houses followed by new house construction in the first home buyers market is where the greatest potential gains are to be made in achieving environmental improvements in Australian Housing.

Environmental sustainability: situation and dilemma.

Our ability to influence the environmental performance of existing houses is often dependent on a range of retrospective measures such as the addition of appropriate insulation, use of energy efficient appliances and products, selection of products, materials and furnishings with low environmental impacts and the substitution of conventional energy sources with alternative ones (such as solar energy and heat pump technology). In order for these changes to occur a combination of consumer education and financial incentives such as low interest loans or government subsidies will be required. A good example of such measures is the recent introduction of the "Energy Card" by the Federal Government which enables consumers to take advantage of low interest loans when purchasing solar hot water or heat pump systems.

None of these however are design decisions, at least not in the way that new housing design enables an integrated and optimal approach to environmental sustainability to be achieved. This does not imply that we should ignore the change in community values and behaviour that can also significantly contribute to the reduction in the environmental impact of existing housing, but merely recognises the significant contribution that new housing design can make towards achieving improved environmental performance.

The fringe market place: factors and segments.

The reality of the Australian new housing market is that growth is occurring in the outer suburbs of Melbourne, Sydney and south east Queensland (including Brisbane). Despite efforts at urban consolidation it appears likely that future growth will continue to occur in outer suburban areas. This growth is typified by the Melbourne fringe areas of Berwick, Cranbourne, Knox, Werribee and Bulla which accounted for 7,000 new homes in 1993, equating to "more than 30 new homes added to Melbourne's fringe every working day" (O' Connor K. and Rapson V.,1994, p. 16).

By the census year 2031 it is estimated that Victoria will have to accommodate an additional 1.5 million people, 800,000 of which will be living in metropolitan
Melbourne. Only 300,000 of this number will be located in the established suburbs of Melbourne. It therefore may be reasoned that half a million people will inhabit the outer reaches of Melbourne's growth corridors and fringe areas (Victorian Department of Planning and Urban Growth, 1990).

Metropolitan Melbourne's population in 1994 was just over 3 million, accounting for 18.1% of the nation's total population. Growth areas such as the Westernport and outer eastern regions account for approximately a million people. The Westernport region is situated some 30 kilometres from the CBD with the major part of its growth located around 50 kilometres from the CBD. The region is fast becoming the largest in the metropolitan area and will in the near future account for about 18% of Melbourne's population (O'Connor K and Rapson V.,1994).

The new housing growth in these areas is overwhelmingly dominated by the first home owners market which is predominantly at the lower end (in dollar terms) of the market, that is less than $130,000 for house and land. According to the 1994 Australian Housing Survey the largest proportion of new homes nationally (around 28%) are priced between $85,000 to $110,000, with a further 19.8% priced between $110,000 to $135,000. Nineteen per cent of all new homes are priced at less than $85,000. It should be noted that the ABS considers the first home market to be defined by a price range of less than $85,000 to more than $185,000 (ABS, 1995a).

Continued new home growth at Melbourne's metropolitan fringe may be attributed to increased affordability due to relatively low land costs as well as the job growth in the middle to outer suburbs (O' Connor K. and Rapson V., 1994). Results of an Urban Land Authority (the Victorian Government's land development agency) survey of Roxburgh Park (an outer north western new housing development) residents in late 1993 found the most important attractions the estate had to offer were:

• the price of the house/land
• proximity to work, family and friends
• a sense of country living
• the size of the house/land

Residents aged between 25-29 represented the highest proportion of the age groups, comprising very young families or couples without children. Of occupations nominated, trades persons, labourers and para-professionals were cited more frequently than managers and administrators or professionals.

This segment of the market is notoriously price sensitive and operates on extremely tight builder's profit margins, which in combination necessarily limit the possibilities to introduce non-standard materials, products and innovations. This implies some severe limitations in terms of achieving environmental sustainability in this market segment.

This context provides some major challenges to how we might go about influencing this market segment. One method which seems to hold some attraction is by demonstration. The theory goes along the lines that by building a so called "green home" at the right price, in the right place, to the right design and with its environmental benefits in dollars explained, consumers will either replicate or draw inspiration and ideas from them. This theory seems to be gaining momentum with "green" low and medium density demonstration homes now in existence in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and the ACT (Anderson, 1995; Sunday Mail Adelaide, 4 June 1995, p.125.; 1995; Armitage, 1995).

The ACF Green Home.

Australia's first demonstration Green Home was completed in March 1993 at Roxburgh Park, a new housing estate located in the Shire of Bulla, a north western region of Melbourne's metropolitan fringe. It seems timely to evaluate the impact of this house to ascertain whether in fact it has influenced consumer choice in the market. By doing this we can learn whether this type of demonstration home is indeed the best way of guiding this housing sector towards sustainability and perhaps what to avoid and what to do to ensure success.

In order to explore the impact of Australia's first Green Home we accessed the various files held by the main players and conducted seven interviews which included the key players:

• Australian Conservation Foundation*
• The Department of Planning and Development (Housing and Construction)*
• The Over 50's Friendly Society
• The Urban Land Authority
• The Master Builders' Association of Victoria
• Builder, Hotondo, Michael Renwick*
• Architect, David Oppenheim*
• Sustainable Solutions, Alan Pears, co-developer of the Green Home Guidelines*
• Real Estate Agents, Stockdale and Leggo*

(* indicates key player organisation interviewees)

After viewing and comparing the Green Home file material of the key players a series of questions for each was developed exploring the project organisation and relationships. After initial contact by phone, seven key players were interviewed and recorded face to face.

The Green Home Guidelines.

The genesis of the Green Home came from the Australian Conservation Foundation which was seeking suitable projects for the investment of Green Bonds. The Green Bonds were set up as a joint venture between the ACF and the Over 50s Friendly Society as a means of supporting environmentally sound projects. In early 1992 the ACF commissioned Sustainable Solutions consultants to develop the Green Home Guidelines. These guidelines emphasised:

• the use of materials which have a low environmental impact;
• the minimisation of energy use and the utilisation of low energy greenhouse impact sources;
• the placement of minimal loads on infrastructure such as stormwater, water supply and sewerage, and energy supply;
• features which facilitate environmentally sound lifestyles;
• a high standard of comfort, security and aesthetics, and a healthy environment.

(ACF Green Home Guidelines, 1993)

The ACF Green Home: processes and relationships.

To build a green display home that complied with the Green Home Guidelines, the ACF entered into negotiations with the Victorian Department of Planning and Housing, the Urban Land Authority (ULA) and the Master Builders Association of Victoria. The ULA agreed to supply a block of land at Roxburgh Park and to recoup the cost of the land once the home was sold at the end of its use as a display home. The block selected by the project team from those offered by the ULA was 600 square metres in size, exceeding the Guidelines site size recommendation of less than 500 square metres. In July 1992 the Government called for expressions of interests to design and construct the Green Home. Over 100 tender documents were requested but only 3 tenders met both the tender requirements and the Green Home Guidelines. The panel awarded the tender to the team of David Oppenheim, architect and Hotondo builders with a tender price of $134,000. The basis for the selection appeared to be the combined mass market and sales experience at Roxburgh Park that Hotondo possessed and the 'energy efficiency' credentials of the architect David Oppenheim.

There does not seem to have been anyone with any overall responsibility for the project. It was managed by a steering committee made up of representatives with varying degrees of interest and differing agendas. The project management aspects were made more difficult due to a number of factors. The ACF was by all accounts chronically under resourced in terms of funds, personnel and time for the project. The project was further compromised by the overall lack of experience in entrepreneurial promotion and a lack of clear project parameters.

The Green Home was also considered to be new territory for the ACF, a shift from the natural environment into the built environment; and from campaigning to promotion aimed at creating a more pro-active public image and generating further funds. Press articles during the launch of the Green Bonds (which financed projects such as the Green Home) quote Mr Phillip Toyne the then executive director of the ACF, seeing the "greens as being proactive...coming up with the solutions". (Young, L.,1991). The ACF also took a percentage of the establishment fee to fund further environment projects.

Continuity was further complicated by a change of government shortly before project completion. Though the new government was not unsupportive of the project it was not considered to be a priority. Without the necessary commitment from within the Department of Planning and Housing to drive the project the Green Home soon lost momentum with those who had been involved moving on to other projects and positions.

The objectives of the respective parties in the project are worth considering at this point since many of the problems with the Green Home can be attributed to the lack of clarity of the objectives and the conflicting expectations of the parties.

Andrew McCutcheon the then Minister for Planning and Housing is quoted in a media release of the time as saying " the building of a 'Green Home' to the ACF
specifications with the assistance from the Master Builders' Association of Victoria aims to promote a wide range of conservation issues related to residential design and construction. Further, the home is to become an important focal point for the (housing) industry and home buyers in relation to sustainable residential development" (Kilgour, A.,1992).

There is also evidence of an intent to influence mass market housing in the first home buyers sector in the same media release which mentioned affordability in this statement by the Minister: "With over 25 thousand houses a year being built in Victoria it is vital we as a community assess present design and construction methods in relation to the use of energy, land and servicing resources within a framework of maintaining housing affordability" (Kilgour, A.,1992).

Although there is no written evidence of the ULA's objectives, a number of interviewees believe that the ULA saw the project as a means of publicising the
Roxburgh Park estate to prospective purchasers. It seems likely that the Victorian government also recognised this opportunity.

These differing objectives contributed to a number of undesirable outcomes including the choice of the site itself which was donated by the ULA. As previously stated it was considerably larger than that recommended by the guidelines, and its orientation and corner location meant that the siting of the house was constrained. Though in fairness to the ULA, few of the sites suggested were at this stage of Roxburgh Park's development, less than 500 square metres and the park aspect at the time was viewed by the project team as a compensatory trade off in lieu of site size.

The marketing of the Green Home seems to have been focused solely on the launch of the home and the accompanying publicity opportunities associated with the launch. There was no marketing plan developed or marketing budget allocated at the concept stage, and any significant marketing attempts following the launch emphasised the demonstration of the environmental aspects of the home rather than its appeal as a display home within the market place. There appears to have been no market research carried out to determine the suitability of either the concept or the actual proposed design (and its price) at any stage in the project.

The Oppenheim/Hotondo house was designed as a two storey house set back from the street. It appears that the decision to build a two storey house was made by the Green Home Project Team and was based on an assumption that this would enable views of the park across the road. It was believed that a site of that size could accommodate a larger more expensive home and that the house would still be within the upper end of the first home buyers market. The set back decision by the architect/builder was based on the view that this would indicate that the home could be built on a site that conformed to the Green Home Guidelines.

The ACF Green Home Specifications.

The house is a three bedroom brick veneer with the kitchen, lounge and dining rooms being fairly typical of this market. The environmental features incorporated in the house and considered mandatory to comply with the Green Home Guidelines are:

In respect to siting:

• The house must comply with Energy Victoria's 5 star rating
• The area of the site must be less than 500 square metres

In respect to floor plan:

• The major family living area must have access to north sun in winter
• The maximum floor area for a single storey house is 130 square metres for a 3 bedroom house, with up to an additional 15 square metres for each additional bedroom. Two storey houses may have an additional 20 square metres of floor area to allow for stairs
• Average ceiling height must not exceed 3 metres, and no area may exceed 3.6 metres (except in stairwells).

In respect to construction:

• No rain forest or non-plantation timbers
• Ceiling and wall insulation with a total overall R value of 3.5
• New standard pressed bricks should not be used. Where new bricks are used, they should be lightweight and manufactured in an energy- efficient kiln
• Steel framing should not be used due to its high greenhouse impact in production and heat flow loss.
• Floor is to be concrete slab on ground with recycled steel reinforcing.
• Draughtproofing.
• Windows and doors timber only. Hardwood plantation or recycled timber is preferred
• Limited window area influenced by factors of orientation and degree of double glazing. South windows must be double glazed.

In respect to appliances:

• The use of energy efficient appliances.
• The use of gas for cooking rather than electricity.
• Gas boosted solar hot water systems.
• Zonable natural gas or LPG space heating with at least a 4 star rating.
• Automatic extinguishable pilot lights when unit is switched off.

In respect to other features:

• The installation of water conserving taps and toilets.
• Use of fluorescent lamps or lamps of equivalent efficiency.

(ACF Green Home Guidelines, 1993)

Green aesthetics.

The aesthetics of the Green Home have been the subject of a fair amount of critical comment. In particular, elements such as the reinforcing over the pergola (which was meant to be softened with deciduous planting but never happened), the window sill and head heights and the lack of an observable and prominent entry have come in for criticism from almost all interviewees.

Of more relevance in assessing the impact of the home is its context in the Roxburgh Park estate. The dominant aesthetic style is a variety of historically derived elements (Georgian, Federation, Victorian) superimposed, to a greater or lesser extent, on buildings with modern floor plans and constructed of modern building
materials. Whilst single storey brick veneers dominate, there are also a number of Victorian and Georgian two storey terrace rows.

Consequences and influences.

The ACF Green Home Guidelines, which are sold by the ACF, have been in demand since their creation. To date around 600 of them have been sold with a request rate of 1 to 2 a week. Most, as stated by the ACF administrator for the project, are requests from architects, students and libraries. To the extent that the number of guidelines sold can be said to indicate a measure of influence within the housing industry as a whole is questionable . As yet no follow up of guideline purchasers has been carried out so the extent to which their use has translated to actual buildings is not known.

The Green Home failed to sell when auctioned on 3 September 1994. It was passed in with a reserve price of $135,000. The Green Home's performance in the marketplace at the reserve price as measured by purchaser interest was at that time a failure. In June 1995 the Green Home was sold for $105,000, a substantial loss on its construction cost. Remembering that this cost did not include land price, the loss on sale is in the vicinity of $60,000, assuming an average Roxburgh Park land price of $30,000.

A further measure of its influence is the number of interested visitors who inspected the building to obtain ideas to utilise in either a new or established home context. Unfortunately there are no records to indicate either the number of visitors or their use of features present in the Green Home. Anecdotal evidence from the real estate agents currently selling the property indicate that visitation has been extremely poor. Further it was apparent from our interviews with the current agents that they were almost totally unaware of the environmental features of the home and therefore unable to explain them to visitors. It is noteworthy that no information was retained in the house after the initial 12 month display period to explain its many environmental features and their potential benefits to purchasers. It would therefore seem most unlikely that recent visitors gained any new knowledge from visiting the property.

It can be concluded that Australia's first Green Home failed to live up to the expectations of its inventors and proponents in terms of influencing the first home market
towards achieving environmental sustainability.

Some of the more obvious causes of lack of success have already been referred to. These causes may be summarised as follows:

• confusion as to who the likely purchasers would be (Interviewees were consistent in identifying potential purchasers as environmentally conscious and possibly ACF members which does not appear to typify the market segment the home was aimed at or the profile of Roxburgh Park house purchasers);
• under resourced primary research, particularly the specified products as outlined by the Green Home Guidelines such as the windows;
• no initial market research to determine market needs with respect to appearance and cost;
• lack of an integrated marketing plan and strategy from inception involving all main players;
• inconsistent project management and a lack of a single accountable project leader;
• failure to adequately identify, as a project team, the characteristics of the new home buyer market segment in general and Roxburgh Park consumers in particular;
• failure to investigate and understand the aesthetic preferences of the market segment and to produce a design that would be appealing;
• lack of familiarity and knowledge of the demographics, characteristics and preferences of potential consumers by the majority of the project "drivers";
• failure to separate the ideals and ideology of the Green Home Guidelines from the product, the home, entering the market place; There was an assumption that the concept alone would sell the product.
• failure to recognise the sensitivity of price in this housing sector; The affordability of houses and land as identified in the ULA Roxburgh Park survey is a primary concern for purchasers in the new home market. The design decisions with respect to site characteristics, view and scale, escalated the price of the Green Home from the envisaged price of around $110,000 to $134,000 (the cost quoted in the successful design and construct tender) which effectively priced the house out of the first home buyer category.
• allowing the characteristics of the site to influence the design so that it contravened the guidelines in terms of lot size and became the rationale for decisions relating to cost;
• lack of funds for continued demonstration role after the launch.

As a demonstration project, the Green Home can be seen to be a failure in terms of influencing the housing market towards greater sustainability. It may well transpire that the collective influence of a larger number of diverse green homes throughout Australia will turn out to be more significant. The lessons to be learnt from the Roxburgh Park example are clear and reasonably straightforward to avoid.

Though there was a failure to realise the full demonstration potential of the Green Home due partly to lack of funds and constancy of information, the significance of the home as Australia's first green home must not be overlooked. Where the Green Home Guidelines recognised and addressed environmentally sustainable issues such as embodied energy and the use of recycled materials, the construction of the Green Home confronted the application of these principles within the context of high volume housing. In this respect it was a valuable and practical experiment indicating the inherent problems encountered in implementing environmentally sustainable development within a socio-economic context.

The green challenge.

If we truly wish to influence the first home buyer market, whether on city fringes or in existing suburbs, then we need to appreciate the characteristics of the different market segments especially those relating to design and cost. The reality is that consumers in the first home buyers segment of the market will respond to environmental issues in their housing choices providing it fits their perception of the appearance of the type of house in which they see themselves living and it does not come at a cost penalty compared to houses that deliver inferior environmental performance.

For professional designers it may be difficult to accept that this market seems to demand uninspired designs that draw on historical architectural features to define their character and appearance. In terms of maximising their environmental performance it may therefore be more productive to concentrate on achieving least cost improvements. These would include the well established principles of passive solar design - north orientation, minimising east and west glazing, use of concrete slabs and insulation. The incorporation of other beneficial ingredients such as energy efficient products and appliances and resource conserving materials will only be able to be included if they offer no or little capital cost penalty relative to their alternatives. Whilst operating cost savings of many of these items indicate considerable amortisation cost opportunities the sensitivity of capital cost expenditure in this price tight and highly competitive area works against their adoption.

If additional cost items are to be included then developers, builders, utilities and governments will need to consider introducing innovative financial incentives for
consumers. It would be logical to relate these incentives to the potential operating cost savings to the consumer through the incorporation of products and materials, and features with improved environmental performance. This would act as an incentive for consumers to specify additional capital cost items that deliver improved environmental performance. The success of such a proposal would require the clear identification of tangible operating cost savings to be made by consumers related to the additional capital cost and benefit of the financial incentive scheme. The "Energy Card" which provides low interest loans for the use of alternative energy systems is an example of such a scheme.

Housing developers could offer environmental packages analogous to those offered by the car industry whereby a package of features at an additional cost is offered as a means of incentive to purchase their particular product. An "energy" pack for instance could offer full insulation, solar hot water and heat pump based heating for an all up discounted fee with or without low or interest free loans to cover the additional cost. If attractive enough to consumers such a scheme would enable economies of scale to be achieved with resultant lowering of package prices.

This type of scheme is more difficult if it is to be applied to non-operating cost items such as low environmental impact materials selection. In these cases the onus may need to be placed on the materials manufacturers to offer incentive schemes for the selection of their products. This of course raises the issue of competing environmental claims and the need for unbiased independent evaluation of environmental impacts on a life cycle basis.

Although currently unfashionable, governments could institute regulations requiring specific standards of environmental performance. These could be given force through existing building codes. Insulation is an example of a mandatory requirement currently in place. It must be recognised that such a move would cause a rise in building costs and would be resisted by the industry. It would also provide positive economic and environmental benefits to the community once instituted. As an example the use of rainforest timbers could be banned without significant cost additions, as plantation grown timbers are readily available at a comparable cost.

An effective approach to reducing the environmental impact of the critical first home buyers market will require many integrated strategies administered by a variety of independent players. Therein lies the major challenge to effecting meaningful change. At their best, demonstration green homes have the potential to show how the challenge can be met. Avoiding the structural problems identified with Australia's first green home should be reasonably straightforward to avoid in light of experience; confronting the real difficulties and realising the benefits is the challenge of future demonstration green homes.

References.

Andersson E., 1995, "Future Houses", Sun Herald, Sydney, 11 June, p128.

Armitage L., "Greenhouse ideal halves heat bill", Canberra Times, 30 May, p.16-17.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 1995b, Australian 1995 Year Book, Number 77, Catalogue No. 1301.0, Australian Government Publishing Service,
Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS),1995a, 1994 Australian Housing Survey, Selected Findings, Catalogue No. 4181.0, ABS, Canberra.

Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF)1993, Green Home Guidelines, revised edition, ACF, Victoria.

Australian Conservation Foundation undated, ACF Green Home, The Victorian experience, ACF, Victoria

Clout, J. 1992, "Promising start for ACF Green Bonds", Financial Review, 17 August, p.52.

Department of Planning and Urban Growth 1990, Urban Development Options for Victoria, A Discussion Paper, Department of Planning and Urban
Growth,Victoria.

Sunday Mail , '"Green" project a reality', Adelaide, 4 June 1995, p.125.

Urban Land Authority (ULA), 1993 Roxburgh Park, New Residents Surveys, ULA, Victoria.

Young, L. 1991, 'The greening of an investment' Age 5 June, p.13.

Bibliography.

Department of Planning and Development, Public Affairs Branch March 1993, The Green Home. Now you have a choice, Department of Planning and
Development, Victoria.

Unpublished personal communications.

Australian Conservation Foundation undated, ACF Green Home Guidelines.

Australian Conservation Foundation, 8 July 1992, ACF Green Home Project Overview.

Australian Conservation Foundation, 10 April 1992, Minutes, Meeting of the Green Home Project Team.

Australian Conservation Foundation, January 1993, ACF Green Home project, Background Briefing Paper for Marketing Officer.

Brotherton, P. 9 March 1992, Facsimile, Green Home Guidelines, Sustainable Solutions.

Corporate Media Communications 12 March 1992, Facsimile, ACF Green Home.

Department of Planning and Development , Public Affairs Branch, October 1992, Green Home Marketing Outline, Victoria.

Department of Planning and Development, Public Affairs Branch March 1993, Australia's First Green Home, Victoria.

Gaffney, J.28 February 1992, Facsimile, Draft Guidelines: ACF Green Home (Victorian Conditions), Master Builders Association of Victoria.

Isaacs, T., 4 July 1992, Facsimile., Family Housing Branch, Housing and Construction Victoria.

Kilgour, A., 3 March 1992, Media Release, Government seeks Builders of Environmentally Friendly Homes, Department of Planning and Housing, Victoria.

Psarras, B February 1993, Facsimile, ACF Green Home - Project Outline, Public Affairs Branch, Department of Planning and Development Victoria.

Smith, R. January 1992, The ACF Green House an extension to the ACF Green Bond program, Corporate Media Communications.

Acknowledgments.

The authors would like to thank the following people for their invaluable time and cooperation in participating in the interview process.

Mr Peter Allen, ACF, Sustainable Industries campaign coordinator (interview conducted 25/5/95).

Mr Raymond Eid, agent, Stockdale and Leggo (interview conducted 26/4/95).

Mr Tony Isaacs, the then team leader, Family Housing, Department of Planning and Housing Victoria (interview conducted 9/6/95).

Ms Trish McGuane, ACF Green Home Guidelines administrator.

Mr Alan Pears, Sustainable Solutions, co-developer of the Green Home Guidelines and technical adviser to the Green Home panel (interview conducted 29/5/95).

Mr Bill Psarras, the then manager, Public Affairs, Department of Planning and Housing Victoria (interview conducted 24/5/95).

Mr David Oppenheim, Taylor Oppenheim Architects (interview conducted 4/5/95).

Mr Michael Renwick, director, Hotondo (interview conducted 4/5/95).