Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme · Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme Mark Sheppard 619 St Kilda Road, Melbourne David Lock Associates 2 [1] I am

Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme 619 St Kilda Road, Melbourne

Date of site inspection(s) 21 November 2014

Expert Urban Design Evidence

Mark Sheppard December 2014

Instructed by HWL Ebsworth

On behalf of Jewish Care

Mark Sheppard Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme David Lock Associates 619 St Kilda Road, Melbourne

1

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 2

2.0 Strategic Context .................................................................................................................................................... 3

3.0 619 St Kilda Road .................................................................................................................................................... 7

4.0 The Need for Amendment C107 ........................................................................................................................... 11

5.0 DDO26: General Design Objectives and Requirements ........................................................................................ 15

5.1 Street Wall/ Podium Level .............................................................................................................................. 15

5.2 Tower Design and Internal Amenity ............................................................................................................... 16

6.0 DDO26: Sub-Precinct 5c Requirements ................................................................................................................ 18

6.1 Front setback ................................................................................................................................................. 18

6.2 Street wall height ........................................................................................................................................... 18

6.3 Maximum building height .............................................................................................................................. 21

6.4 Mandatory height limit .................................................................................................................................. 23

6.5 Upper level, side and rear setback requirements .......................................................................................... 25

7.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................ 27

Appendix A: Summary of Evidence & Personal Details ............................................................................................... 28

Appendix B: Instructions ............................................................................................................................................. 31

Contents

Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme Mark Sheppard 619 St Kilda Road, Melbourne David Lock Associates

2

[1] I am a Principal of town planning and urban design consultants David Lock Associates (Australia) Pty Ltd. I hold qualifications in architecture and urban design. I have over twenty years’ professional experience and have practised exclusively in the field of urban design since 1993. Further details of my qualifications and experience are outlined in Appendix A.

[2] In November 2014, I was engaged by Jewish Care to provide an independent urban design assessment of Amendment C107 as it relates to 619 St Kilda Road, Melbourne. I have focused on proposed DDO26 as it contains the key urban design elements of the Amendment.

[3] I have organised my assessment under the following headings:

• Section 2 – The Strategic Context for the development of 619 St Kilda Road

• Section 3 – A description of 619 St Kilda Road and its interfaces

• Section 4 –The Need for Amendment C107 in relation to 619 St Kilda Road

• Section 5 – An Assessment of the General Design Objectives and Requirements of DDO26 that relate to 619 St Kilda Road

• Section 6 – An assessment of the Sub-Precinct Requirements of DDO26 that relate to 619 St Kilda Road

• Section 7 – Conclusion and Recommendations

1.0 Introduction


3

[4] The area of land subject to this Amendment, known as the St Kilda Road North Precinct, is generally bounded by Dorcas Street, Kings Way, Queens Road, and St Kilda Road. It also includes an area bounded by Albert Road, Moray Street and Palmerston Crescent.

[5] The Precinct is located approximately 1.5km south of the Melbourne CAD and Flinders Street Station, and adjoins the municipal boundaries of the City of Melbourne and the City of Stonnington.

[6] The Precinct is well served by public transport. St Kilda Road, Clarendon Street and Kings Way carry a number of bus and/or tram services. It is less than 2km from the intersection of Chapel Street and Commercial Road, at the heart of the Prahran/South Yarra Activity centre, and less than 3km from the South Melbourne Market and the Clarendon Street centre.

[7] St Kilda Road is Melbourne’s most renowned boulevard, forming a ceremonial gateway to the Melbourne CAD and the gateway from the north to the City of Port Phillip. This part of St Kilda Road has high value to the citizens of Victoria as the setting for the Shrine of Remembrance, and the study area also adjoins and links several large open spaces – the Domain, Albert Park and Fawkner Park. St Kilda Road also accommodates a large volume of commercial and residential development.

[8] Albert Road, Queens Road and Kings Way are also important gateway routes.

[9] The strategic context for the subject site is set at a State level through State Planning Policies and Plan Melbourne, and at a local level by the Port Phillip Planning Scheme and the Melbourne Planning Scheme. Within Plan Melbourne, Map 10 identifies the St Kilda Road Precinct as an area designated to support the expanding city and identifies the importance of this area for commercial and residential activity.

2.0 Strategic Context


4

St Kilda Road Precinct (red outline), as shown in Map 10 of Plan Melbourne. [10] There is extensive State Policy requiring new development to respect the

character of the surrounding area (for example, see Clauses 15 and 16). However, this policy must be considered alongside other policy supporting urban consolidation and increased housing diversity in well-serviced locations such as the DDO area (for example, see Clause 11 and 16).

Port Phillip Planning Scheme [11] Clause 21.01 seeks to maintain the role of St Kilda Road as the ‘City’s

premier commercial strip’. At Clause 21.02 the St Kilda Road area is defined as the ‘St Kilda Road Employment Area – Commercial Node’.

[12] The land use direction set out at Clause 21.04 identifies strategically appropriate locations for higher density residential development, such as the St Kilda Road North Precinct, as suitable for substantial residential growth in the form of more intensive development, and suitable for the creation of a new built form character. It directs the majority of new residential growth to preferred housing growth areas such as this.


5

[13] At Clause 21.05, the built form objectives seek to ensure that new higher density development is responsive to the existing scale and form of neighbouring sites, that a graduation in building scale and massing between areas of medium and higher density development is achieved within activity centres to the traditional low-rise fine-grain scale of established residential areas, and that new development at increased densities provides a transition in scale to any adjoining lower-rise development.

[14] The vision for the St Kilda Road Neighbourhood set out at Clause 21.06 is for St Kilda Road to maintain its role as a premier office location supporting the Central Activity District, and for the surrounding areas to realise their potential as preferred locations for well designed, higher density residential growth. At the same time, St Kilda Road is to maintain its role as a world famous boulevard and the Shrine of Remembrance maintains its prominence and landmark quality.

Melbourne Planning Scheme [15] Policy within the Melbourne Planning Scheme supports the vision in the

Port Philip Planning scheme to ensure St Kilda Road remains a premier boulevard containing high density office and residential development by encouraging high rise residential and office developments along St Kilda Road (Clause 21.06). Similar character and amenity considerations are repeated to ensure future development in St Kilda Road respects and maintains the prominence of the landscaped boulevard character and key view lines (Clause 21.06).

[16] In summary, the St Kilda Road spine is to continue to complement the Melbourne CBD for office and commercial space while providing for increased housing densities subject to character and amenity considerations. Specifically, character considerations include the streetscape character of St Kilda Road, the front setback landscaping along St Kilda Road and the significance of the Shrine of Remembrance.

Amendment C107 [17] The general design objectives for the St Kilda Road North Precinct are set

out within the proposed new schedule to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO26). These are consistent with the existing planning policy for this area including enhancing the commercial precinct through built form and landscaping outcomes and the protection of the key view corridors to civic buildings including the Shrine of Remembrance. Specifically, the objectives note the importance of transitioning between the medium to high scale buildings on St Kilda and Queens Roads and the surrounding residential neighbourhoods.


6

Summary [18] In summary, the St Kilda Road North Precinct has a highly important

strategic role in supporting the expanded CBD through high-density commercial and residential development. However, it is also critical that its highly-valued character elements are maintained and reinforced, and that the setting of the Shrine is protected.


7

Aerial of 619 St Kilda Road (red dashed outline) and surrounds [19] 619 St Kilda Road has four street frontages: St Kilda Road to the west,

Union Street to the south, Punt Road to the east and Raleigh Street to the north. It is zoned Commercial 1 Zone.

[20] The property has a large area of approximately 13,940 square metres. It currently contains a 7-storey aged care facility fronting Union Street and a 4-storey aged care facility fronting Punt Road.

[21] The character of this section of St Kilda Road is eclectic. It comprises a mix of office and residential buildings of varying heights.

3.0 619 St Kilda Road


8

Existing building at 619 St Kilda Road


9

[22] Developments in the vicinity of 619 St Kilda Road include:

• To the north, across Raleigh Street, a large surface car park associated with an aged care facility;

• To the east, across Punt Road, single and double storey dwellings;

• To the south, across Union Street, Wesley College Junior School (1-2 storey); and

• To the west, across St Kilda Road, residential and office buildings ranging from 3 to 7 storeys.

Aged care facility in north-east corner of 619 St Kilda Road (left) and 1-2 storey dwelling east of the subject land (right)

Wesley College Junior School (left) and multi-storey office building north-west of the subject land (right)


10

[23] A planning permit has been granted for a 9 storey building on the subject land. The proposed building has an overall height of approximately 38m (including rooftop plant).

Perspective view of the approved development for 619 St Kilda road viewed from Union Street, extracted from Town Planning Application


11

[24] 619 St Kilda Road is currently affected by DDO4, which imposes a 24m preferred maximum height on it. The reason for this height limitation is to ensure that built form steps down from the Melbourne CAD to St Kilda Junction.

[25] However, there are now two tall buildings at St Kilda Junction of approximately 60m and 80m in height.

20 storey apartment building at 635-643 St Kilda Road

4.0 The Need for Amendment C107


12

Office building (on the left) at 636 St Kilda Road (21 levels) [26] Further, the part of St Kilda Road affected by a 45m preferred maximum

height (area 4-3) has a number of buildings over this height.


13

Precinct Plan showing existing DDO controls and height control breaches, extracted from Planisphere Review of Design Overlay 3 & 4 (November 2013)


14

[27] Therefore, the 24m preferred maximum height in area 4-4 has become an anomaly along this stretch of St Kilda Road.

[28] Given the strategic importance of this part of St Kilda Road in absorbing growth, I consider it appropriate to increase the maximum height to bring it into line with the rest of the corridor from Domain Junction to St Kilda Junction. Therefore, I support the need for this Amendment in relation to 619 St Kilda Road.


15

[29] The proposed DDO contains area-wide and Sub-Precinct-specific Design Objectives at Clause 1.0. These are generally appropriate from an urban design perspective insofar as they relate to the subject land.

[30] The proposed DDO contains General Requirements at Clause 3.0. These are generally appropriate from an urban design perspective, except as outlined below.

5.1 Street Wall/ Podium Level [31] The first requirement refers to a ‘human scale’. The draft St Kilda Road

North Precinct Plan (June 2014) implies that this term relates to the height of a building at the street edge. However, despite common perception, human scale has nothing to do with the height of a building. The clearest explanation of the term comes from internationally-renowned urban designer Jan Gehl, who defines it as the quality of a place that is designed based on a walking pace, rather than driving speed:

Five km/h (three mph) architecture is based on a cornucopia of sensory impressions, spaces are small, buildings are close together and the combination of detail, faces and activities contributes to the rich and intense sensory experience … The 60 km/h (37 mph) scale has large spaces and wide roads. Buildings are seen at a distance, and only generalities are perceived. Details and multifaceted sensory experiences disappear, and from the perspective of a pedestrian, all signs and other information are grotesquely magnified … Taking a walk in 60 km/h (37 mph) architecture is an impoverished experience: uninteresting and tiring. (Gehl, J. (2010) Cities for People, Island Press, Washington)

[32] The poorly-understood nature of this term is illustrated by the fact that, in different municipalities across Melbourne, ‘human scale’ is used to justify street wall heights ranging from 2 storeys to 30-40m. Even within the proposed DDO, the term ‘human scale’ is applied to street walls ranging from 18m to 60m (see pages 56 and 83 of the Precinct Plan).

[33] If the real meaning of ‘human scale’ is to be implemented, the requirement should be amended, e.g.: “The design of podiums should incorporate vertical articulation that provides visual interest at a pedestrian pace, ameliorate …”

[34] The same requirement calls for the design of podiums to provide access to sunlight and sky views. It is not clear how the design of podiums can achieve this. Access to sunlight and sky views is primarily determined by

5.0 DDO26: General Design Objectives and Requirements


16

the height and setback of tower forms, which are dealt with on a sub-precinct by sub-precinct basis.

[35] The 4th requirement appears to prohibit car parking in the podium. Whilst it is good practice to avoid parking at the front of the podium, there is no particular reason why it should be prohibited provided it is ‘sleeved’ by regularly inhabited accommodation (e.g. apartments or office space) at the street edge. I note that the second last Vehicular Access and Car Parking requirement contemplates ‘sleeved’ above-ground parking and the Precinct Plan refers to a requirement that “any car parking in the podium level is sleeved with active uses such as offices” (page 56).

5.2 Tower Design and Internal Amenity [36] The first Tower Design and Internal Amenity requirement discourages

tower forms that exceed a maximum width and depth of 35 metres to:

• Ensure that daylight penetrates through to parts of the building and streets, and adjoining buildings.

• Reduce their perceived visual bulk. • Maintain sightlines between buildings.

[37] Given the width of St Kilda Road, I do not consider that a tower width and depth control is needed to ensure adequate daylight or sense of openness in the street. Tower separation and side and rear setback controls to ensure adequate internal amenity are found within each sub-precinct. I discuss these in section 6.

[38] Expectations in relation to visual bulk relate to the prevailing character. Towers that are longer than 35m are common within the DDO area, as shown below:


17

Aerial showing approximate lengths of longer tall buildings in the vicinity of the subject land [39] Therefore, I do not consider this requirement to be warranted.


18

6.1 Front setback [40] The DDO contains a mandatory 13.7m landscaped front setback from St

Kilda Road and a 4.5m landscaped setback from Raleigh Street, Punt Road and Union Street. The purpose of these setbacks appears to be to maintain the existing character. Landscaped setbacks are a feature of St Kilda Road, although the other streets are not consistently landscaped.

[41] I note that the proposed DDO provides for minor buildings and works to encroach within this setback. Such features enhance the ‘depth’ of the building façade.

[42] Therefore, I support this requirement.

6.2 Street wall height [43] The DDO does not contain a podium provision for the St Kilda Road

frontage. However, it contains a mandatory maximum building height of 18m within 9.5m of Raleigh Street, Punt Road and Union Street. The Precinct Plan indicates that “Strong podium/setback controls will create human scale proportions, with the tower recessive behind the podium. To reinforce the pedestrian scale, a mandatory podium height of 18 metres (equivalent to 5 storeys) will be applied ...”. However, as noted above, human scale has nothing to do with the height of a building.

[44] A maximum street wall height can be justified to achieve one or more of a number of urban design objectives, including:

• Contributing to the ‘fit’ of new development with the existing character (assuming it is relatively consistent and valued)

• Respecting a heritage streetscape • Establishing a cohesive new built form character • Establishing a new public realm character based on a particular

level of solar access, daylight access and sense of openness (when combined with control over the overall height and upper level setbacks)

[45] There is currently no sense of a street wall along this part of Raleigh Street, Punt Road or Union Street (although there is a relatively consistent and well-defined 1-2 storey street edge on the opposite, east side of Punt Road). The existing buildings have varying setbacks, and much of the street edges are undefined by built form.

6.0 DDO26: Sub-Precinct 5c Requirements


19

Southern edge of Union Street [46] Therefore, the proposed maximum street wall height of 18m is not

warranted in order to ensure development ‘fits’ the existing character. [47] The only heritage place near the subject land is the single-storey, brick,

former Gas Valve House at 617 St Kilda Road. This does not warrant a maximum building height on Union Street.

[48] The proposed street wall height limit could, over time, establish a cohesive built form and public realm character. In relation to public realm amenity, a street wall height that is equivalent to the width of the road reserve is generally accepted as providing a good balance between spatial definition (‘framing the street’) and a sense of openness. It also ensures good solar and daylight access.


20

Diagram illustrating principle of street wall height matching width of street [49] Adjacent to 619 St Kilda Road, Raleigh Street is 16m wide, Punt Road

ranges from approximately 25m to 40m wide, and Union Street is 15m wide. Therefore, a maximum street wall height of 18m is generally consistent with reasonable public realm amenity in Raleigh Street and Union Street. The same street wall height can be justified in Punt Road, despite its greater width, to contribute to a transition down to the lower building scale on the opposite side.

[50] In cases where the rationale for a maximum street wall height is to ensure good ‘fit’ with a highly valued and consistent existing built form character, or respect for heritage values, or to avoid overshadowing an important part of the public realm, a mandatory control may be justified. However, that is not the case here. Given the highly inconsistent existing built form character, the only rationale for a maximum street wall height is to establish an inviting public realm character. Given the lack of a minimum street wall height, this will not be absolutely consistent, ‘hedge cutter’ style, but will inevitably involve varied street wall heights. Therefore, there is no need for the maximum street wall height to be mandatory.


21

[51] I note that the DDO allows flexibility for the resolution of varying podium height requirements at corner sites. This provides an example of the need for discretionary podium height controls.

[52] In summary, I consider that the proposed maximum 18m street wall heights on Raleigh Street, Punt Road and Union Street are warranted. However, I recommend that they be made discretionary. Exceedences should not be approved unless they continue to meet the objectives of the DDO and offer a net community benefit.

6.3 Maximum building height [53] The proposed DDO contains a mandatory maximum building height of

60m (beyond 13m from St Kilda road), except within 50m of Punt Road, where buildings are proposed to be limited to 40m in height. I note that this is a significant increase from the 24m preferred maximum height that currently applies on the east side of St Kilda Road south of High Street.

[54] The primary purpose of the maximum height in this sub-precinct appears to be to reinforce the pattern that is emerging as a result of the existing upper limit of building heights along St Kilda Road. The existing buildings along St Kilda Road are highly varied in scale and form. However, the more recent developments are generally around 60m in height, while the lower buildings are more likely to be replaced with 60m high buildings.

[55] I note that the Melbourne Planning Scheme contains a (discretionary) 60m maximum height control along the east side of St Kilda Road.

[56] Therefore, I consider that there is good justification for the proposed maximum height (though not its mandatory nature—see section 6.4 below).

[57] The Precinct Plan explains that the 40m limit near Punt Road is to create a transition to the lower scale of the residential neighbourhood on its east side and to recognise adjoining sensitive uses such as a school and a health care facility (page 96). However, as shown below, the transition zone need not extend so far from Punt Road or be such a ‘coarse’ step.


22

Diagram showing the potential for increases height at the Punt Road frontage [58] Therefore, I consider that the 40m height limit should be replaced with a

more flexible requirement such as “Development within 35m of Punt Road should step down to a maximum height at a setback of 9.5m from Punt Road of 40m.”

[59] The DDO also contains a requirement to limit overshadowing of Wesley College Junior School at the winter solstice between 11am and 2pm. This requirement is not one of those that cannot be varied, so I assume it is intended to be discretionary, although I note that the DDO somewhat confusingly uses the phrase “must”.

[60] Presumably, it is the playing field in the northwest corner of the school that is considered sensitive to overshadowing. (I note that the playing field appears to be artificial grass.) However, as indicated below, buildings need to be limited to well below 60m in height in order to avoid any overshadowing at that time of year.


23

Diagram showing winter solar angle to Wesley Junior College School and proposed DDO26 height requirements on 619 St Kilda Road

[61] Therefore, some winter overshadowing of the school cannot be avoided unless the regular pattern of 60m high buildings along St Kilda Road is to be compromised. I do not consider winter solar access to the whole of the playing fields to be important enough to compromise the highly valued character of St Kilda Road. Such a control would be highly unusual in my experience.

[62] Further, I note that the recently approved development would overshadow the school.

[63] Therefore, I recommend the deletion of the overshadowing requirement.

6.4 Mandatory height limit [64] The draft St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan June 2014 offers one sentence

to explain why mandatory controls are proposed for maximum building and podium heights, front and tower setbacks and spacing between towers. It states that this is to “provide planning certainty in decision making and to protect key character elements”.


24

[65] I have reviewed the appropriateness of a mandatory height control having regard to Practice Note 59: The Role of Mandatory Provisions in Planning Schemes (DPCD). I have also considered Practice Note 60: Height and Setback Controls for Activity Centres because most of the DDO area is zoned C1Z, effectively making it an activity centre.

[66] As identified in both practice notes, the application of mandatory height and setback controls is not the preferred method for controlling built form outcomes, and the implementation of such controls will only be considered in exceptional circumstances. Discretionary controls, combined with clear design objectives, is the preferred approach, as this provides flexibility to accommodate contextual variations and innovative design.

[67] Practice Note 59 offers the following five criteria for assessing whether the benefits of mandatory controls outweigh any loss of opportunity and flexibility that flow from performance-based controls:

• Is the mandatory provision strategically supported? • Is the mandatory provision appropriate to the majority of

proposals? • Does the mandatory provision provide for the preferred outcome? • Will the majority of proposals not in accordance with the

mandatory provision be clearly unacceptable? • Will the mandatory provision reduce administrative costs?

[68] In general, there is clear strategic support across the DDO area for the use of height controls to achieve preferred outcomes. The proposed maximum heights would be appropriate to the majority of proposals, and provide for the preferred outcome.

[69] It is not so clear that the majority of proposals not in accordance with the maximum heights I have proposed would be clearly unacceptable. For example, the objectives to be achieved by the proposed maximum heights relate largely to the height of towers towards the street edge. A little greater height set back from the leading edge of the tower would have little or no impact on the achievement of these objectives. Further, I note that the current approval for 619 St Kilda Road would not meet the proposed mandatory height controls.

[70] It is unlikely that mandatory controls would notably reduce administrative costs, given that the DDO also includes both general and precinct-specific discretionary provisions that any development proposal would be need to be assessed against.


25

[71] Practice Note 60 lists examples of exceptional circumstances that might warrant mandatory height and setback controls, including:

• Sensitive coastal environments where exceeding an identified height limit will unreasonably detract from the significance of the costal environment.

• Significant landscape precincts such as natural waterways, regional parks and areas where dense tree canopies are the significant dominant feature.

• Heritage places where other controls are demonstrated to be inadequate to protect unique heritage values.

• Sites of recognised State significance where building heights can be shown to add to the significance of the place, for example views to the Shrine of Remembrance and major waterways.

• Helicopter and aeroplane flight paths and other aeronautical needs.

[72] I consider that the sensitive setting of the Shrine represents an exceptional circumstance that warrants a mandatory control. I note that Plan Melbourne also provides for mandatory height controls in sensitive CBD locations, and neighbourhood centres.

[73] However, the Shrine Vista is already protected by DDO13. Therefore, there is no need for DDO26 to address this objective. 619 St Kilda Road does not form part of a neighbourhood centre.

[74] Therefore, given the strategic importance of the DDO area to achieving metropolitan growth aspirations, I do not consider that mandatory height limits are warranted in sub-precinct 5c. I recommend that the maximum height requirements be discretionary.

[75] I note that there are a number of existing buildings along St Kilda Road that exceed 60m to a relatively small degree, and the 60m maximum building height along St Kilda Road in the Melbourne Planning Scheme is discretionary. I can see no reason why a different approach should be adopted here.

6.5 Upper level, side and rear setback requirements [76] The DDO effectively contains a mandatory setback above the Raleigh

Street, Punt Road and Union Street podiums of 5m. The purpose of these setbacks is to “provide a sense of separation between the lower and upper levels of a building” and manage “detrimental effects to public and private amenity such as overlooking, sunlight access and extreme wind effects” (draft St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan, June 2014, pages 56 and 78).


26

[77] In general, I consider that 5m is an appropriate setback requirement in wider streets given the proposed scale of the podium and tower. However there are a number of ways of distinguishing a podium and its tower and managing the impacts of a tower on the public realm, including narrowing the width of the tower, varying its form (e.g. an elliptical or raking tower form will assist in distinguishing it from a rectilinear podium) and architectural expression. It is conceivable that a slightly lesser setback could still achieve a clear distinction when allied with other measures, and also manage impacts on public realm amenity. Lesser setbacks may be necessary to enable narrower sites to be developed above podium height. Therefore, I recommend that the tower setback requirement be discretionary to allow the flexibility for alternative design solutions.

[78] The proposed DDO contains a mandatory side setback requirement of 4.5m. The purpose of this requirement is to “ensure a high degree of internal amenity for building occupants” including cross ventilation and outlook, and to “assist in maintaining the sense of space and ‘open sky views’ at street level”. I assume this is intended to consider both the proposed building and its current and future neighbours.

[79] In this sub-precinct, the 4.5m side setback requirement reflects a consistent existing pattern along St Kilda Road too.

[80] I support the principle of a minimum separation of 9m between facing apartments or office spaces. This avoids the need for the apartments to incorporate privacy screens, which adversely affects their amenity. It also ensures adequate daylight, ventilation and a sense of outlook.

[81] The 4.5m side setback requirement also provides for landscaping, which integrates buildings with their setting.

[82] Therefore, I support this requirement.


27

[83] In conclusion, I support the need for Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme in relation to 601 St Kilda Road. I have reviewed the proposed Amendment insofar as it affects 619 St Kilda Road, and make the following recommendations:

• Delete the General Requirement in relation to ‘human scale’ or amend it as suggested in paragraph 33.

• Amend the General Requirement about parking in the podium to allow for such parking provided it is screened, preferably behind regularly-inhabited accommodation.

• Delete the General Requirement for buildings not to exceed a width or depth of 35m.

• Make the maximum podium height at Raleigh Street, Punt Road and Union Street discretionary. Exceedences should not be approved unless they continue to meet the objectives of the DDO and offer a net community benefit.

• Make the maximum overall building height discretionary.

• Replace the requirement for buildings to step down to a height of 40m within 50m of Punt Road to “Development within 35m of Punt Road should step down to a maximum height at a setback of 9.5m from Punt Road of 40m.”

• Delete the requirement to avoid overshadowing Wesley College Junior School.

• Make the requirement for a 5m setback above the podium on Raleigh Street, Punt Road and Union Street discretionary.

7.0 Conclusion


28

Name and Address

Mark Peter Sheppard Principal David Lock Associates (Australia) Pty ltd 2/166 Albert Road SOUTH MELBOURNE VIC 3205

Qualifications

• Recognised Urban Design Practitioner (Urban Design Group, UK), 2014

• Corporate Member of the Planning Institute of Australia, 2008 • MA Urban Design, Oxford Brookes University, UK, 1992 • Diploma Urban Design, Oxford Brookes University, UK, 1992 • Bachelor of Architecture, University of Auckland, NZ, 1990

Professional experience

• Director, David Lock Associates (Australia), 1997 to present • Urban Designer - Associate, David Lock Associates, UK,

1993 – 1997 • Architectural Assistant, Sipson Gray Associates, London, UK,

1990 – 1993 • Architectural Assistant, Kirkcaldy Associates, Auckland, NZ,

1988 – 1990

Area of Expertise

I have over twenty years’ experience in private practice with various architecture and urban design consultancies in New Zealand, England and Australia, and have practised exclusively in the field of urban design since 1993.

Expertise to prepare this report

I have been involved in the design and assessment of numerous activity centre and urban infill projects in Victoria. These have included:

• Structure Plans for Montague, Preston Central (2007 National PIA Urban Planning Award), Highpoint, Forrest Hill, Wheelers Hill and three urban villages in Moreland;

• Urban Design Frameworks for Darebin High Street (2004 National PIA Urban Design Award), Highpoint, Central Dandenong, South Melbourne, Carlisle Street Balaclava, St Albans and Footscray;

Appendix A: Summary of Evidence & Personal Details


29

• Built form controls for the Brunswick Major Activity Centre, Port Melbourne and Ormond Road, Elwood; and

• Numerous independent urban design assessments of development proposals to inform VCAT hearings.

Other significant contributors

I was assisted in the preparation of this report by Jessica Guirand of David Lock Associates.

I have been requested to give expert evidence in relation to urban design aspects of the proposed planning provisions.

Instructions which define the scope of this report

I am engaged by Jewish Care.

I have received written instructions from HWL Ebsworth including various documents relating to the proposal.

Facts, matters and assumptions relied upon

• Inspection of the subject site and surrounding area; and

• Review of planning controls and policies affecting the area.

Documents taken into account

• Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107 documentation;

• The Port Phillip Planning Scheme and Reference documents;

• Approved plans for 619 St Kilda Road dated 18 December 2013; and

• Various correspondences relating to the proposed development.

Summary of opinions

Refer to the conclusion of this statement (section 7).

Provisional Opinions

There are no provisional opinions in this report.

Questions outside my area of expertise, incomplete or inaccurate aspects of the report

This report is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge.


30

I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and confirm that no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.

Mark Sheppard


31

Appendix B: Instructions


32

• I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and confirm that no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Tribunal.

Level 2/166 Albert Road t: +61 3 9682 8568 ABN: 45 080 477 523 South Melbourne 3205 [email protected] ACN: 080 477 523 Victoria www.dlaaust.com

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.dlaaust.com/