Amendment C245 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme · Mark Sheppard Amendment C245 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme David Lock Associates Expert Urban Design Evidence 3 [5] This section

Amendment C245 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme Expert Urban Design Evidence

Mark Sheppard April 2016

Instructed by Melbourne City Council

Mark Sheppard Amendment C245 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme David Lock Associates Expert Urban Design Evidence

1

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

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

2.1 Amendment Area ............................................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Strategic Context .............................................................................................................................................. 4

2.3 Planning Policy Context .................................................................................................................................... 5

3.0 DPO/ DDO Boundary .............................................................................................................................................. 7

4.0 DPO11................................................................................................................................................................... 10

4.1 Framework Plan ............................................................................................................................................. 10

4.2 Permit requirements ...................................................................................................................................... 10

4.3 Development plan requirements ................................................................................................................... 24

5.0 DDO14 .................................................................................................................................................................. 26

6.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................ 28

Appendix A: Summary of Evidence & Personal Details ............................................................................................... 30

Appendix B: Building and Podium Heights surrounding Queen Victoria Market ........................................................ 33

Contents


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-five 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 July 2015, I was engaged by Ashurst Australia on behalf of the City of Melbourne to provide independent urban design evidence to inform the Panel considering proposed Amendment C245 (The Amendment).

[3] The Amendment proposes to rezone the majority of the Queen Victoria Market land and Queen Street extension to Public Use Zone (PUZ7), and the Queen Victoria Market car park to Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ). The Amendment also seeks to introduce a new Schedule to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO11), amend the existing schedule 14 to the Design and Development Overlay, and amend the Municipal Strategic Statement and local policy. My evidence focuses on the proposed new Schedule to DPO11. I also comment on whether the DDO area should be treated the same as the balance of the Hoddle Grid in terms of built form controls.

[4] I have organised my evidence in the following sections:

Section 2 A summary of the context of the Amendment area

Section 3 An assessment of the DPO/ DDO boundary

Section 4 An assessment of proposed DPO11

Section 5 An assessment of the appropriateness of extending the emerging Central City controls into the DDO14 area.

Section 6 Conclusion

1.0 Introduction


3

[5] This section provides a summary of the context of the Amendment area.

2.1 Amendment Area [6] The area of land subject to this Amendment is known as the Queen

Victoria Market (QVM) precinct. It is generally bounded by Victoria Street to the north, Peel Street to the west, William Street to the south-west, A’Beckett Street to the south, Elizabeth Street to the east and Therry Street to the north-east.

Amendment C245 area

2.0 Context


4

Amendment C245 proposed planning controls

2.2 Strategic Context [7] The Queen Victoria Market (QVM) precinct is located within the Hoddle

Grid, north-east of the Flagstaff Gardens and south of the City North Urban Renewal Area. It is well served by public transport including tram routes 19 (North Coburg City / Flinders Street Station), 55 (West Coburg / Domain Interchange) and 59 (Airport West City / Flinders Street Station).


5

[8] The QVM performs many vital functions in the City of Melbourne. It is the last operating market in the CBD, attracting both the local community and worldwide visitors. It contributes to the economic and cultural values of the municipality.

[9] The Queen Victoria Market is protected by two heritage overlays (HO496 and H07) while a number of heritage overlays apply to individual sites within the QVM precinct.

2.3 Planning Policy Context [10] The strategic policy context for the Amendment area is set at a State level

through State Planning Policies and Plan Melbourne, and at a local level by the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

[11] Within Plan Melbourne, the QVM precinct is identified as part of the Expanded Central City where business investment, tourism, residential housing, community infrastructure and services, and cultural activities are encouraged. Central Melbourne is designated as an Activity Centre, which is considered ‘a place of state significance’ and encouraged to enable a ‘20-minute neighbourhood’ by providing access to a wide range of good, services and employment.

[12] Plan Melbourne Initiative 4.2.3 includes the implementation of “planning provisions that allow for the strategic redevelopment of the Queen Victoria Market and immediate surrounding area that provides for a low scale market that fits within a backdrop to the south and south east of higher density development, with appropriate building spacing, commercial and employment opportunities, community infrastructure and community facilities”.

[13] State policy supports the concentration of commercial activity and higher density housing in well-serviced locations such as this one (for example, see Clauses 11 and 16). It also requires new development to respect character and heritage values, contribute to a high quality public realm, and minimise detrimental impact on neighbouring properties and future developments (for example, see Clauses 15 and 16).

[14] In the Municipal Strategic Statement at Clauses 21.04 and 21.12, the QVM precinct is identified in the Hoddle Grid and Central City. Clause 21.04 seeks to retain the Central City functions in the Hoddle Grid. It encourages continued growth and quality public realm, enhanced pedestrian amenity, and connectivity.


6

[15] Clauses 21.06 and 21.07 encourage significant growth in the Central City while ensuring the character and heritages values are preserved and the existing and future residents are protected from off-site amenity impacts.

[16] Clause 21.12 supports residential development in the Hoddle Grid. It also seeks to maintain the retail, tourist and heritage asset of State of significance of the Queen Victoria Market. I note that the Amendment seeks to delete the strategy to ensure that development in the area bounded by Latrobe and Victoria Streets and Elizabeth/Peel Streets has a lower built form, contrasting with the higher scale of the Hoddle Grid and the lower scale of Carlton and North Melbourne.

[17] Clause 22.01 provides urban design objectives to ensure new developments respond to the characteristics of the Capital City Zone and enhance the public realm and pedestrian amenity.

[18] Clause 22.04 seeks to protect and enhance the character of heritage places. In particular, it seeks to maintain the QVM precinct low-scale and visual dominance in the surrounding area.

[19] The Design and Development Overlay that currently applies to the QVM area (DDO14) seeks to ensure development around and in close proximity to the market provides a transition in scale from the low-scale of the market, surrounding residential developments and adjacent precincts, and the high rise towers of the CBD. It provides preferred maximum building heights ranging from 7m to 60m across different areas.

[20] In summary, the QVM precinct is identified as a strategic location for supporting commercial and residential growth, subject to heritage and built form considerations. It is critical that the precinct maintains, enhances and respects the highly-valued heritage and character elements and public realm amenity, while enabling future development in this area.


7

[21] Amendment C245 proposes to amend the extent and provisions of DDO14, and introduce a new schedule to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO11).

[22] The amendments to DDO14 are generally aimed at treating it as an extension of the Central City. Its provisions are largely ‘generic’, in the sense that they are unrelated to the particular circumstances of the land to which they apply.

[23] DPO11 will introduce a suite of controls to the development of the land immediately abutting the southern and eastern edges of Queen Victoria Market and outline the requirements for a Development Plan. It contains a mix of place-specific provisions, and ‘generic’ provisions which generally align with those in the proposed DDO.

[24] I support the division of the Amendment land into that which abuts the Market, and will therefore have a direct effect on its heritage values and other aspects of its public realm quality, and the land further away which is to be treated as an extension of the Central City.

[25] The southwest corner of Therry and Elizabeth Streets has been retained in the DDO and omitted from the DPO, because it is in a different heritage overlay than the QVM precinct (HO1125). However, it lies directly opposite the eastern corner of the Market. Therefore, I recommend that 501-503 Elizabeth Street, on the southwest corner of Therry and Elizabeth Streets, be included within the DPO rather than the DDO, to reflect its location directly opposite the Market and so that it is affected by heritage provisions within the DPO. This will enable the deletion of the only place-specific objective within the DDO—the last, which refers to the significance of the Queen Victoria Market as a historic and cultural landmark. It will also allow the deletion of the only place-specific reference in a Built Form Outcome within the DDO—that to the Market in the 5th Built Form Outcome of each Table—although I consider that the Built Form Outcome should remain with a general reference to heritage buildings.

3.0 DPO/ DDO Boundary


8

Map of DPO and DDO areas, highlighting 501-503 Elizabeth Street


9

Corner of Therry Street and Elizabeth Street—501 Elizabeth Street (top) and the Market building opposite (bottom)

[26] For the same reason, there might be logic in including 201 Franklin Street (Melbourne Terrace) within the DPO rather than the DDO. However, given that this property is already developed for apartments (which are presumably strata-titled so that there is no real likelihood of redevelopment), this is a moot point.


10

4.1 Framework Plan [27] The DPO schedule contains a Framework Plan at Figure 1, which identifies

how Franklin Street west of Queen Street and the car parks between it and the Market are to be restructured, including:

the narrowing of Franklin Street,

the creation of a new street (‘New Franklin Street’),

the creation of a large new public open space,

the removal of the roundabouts at the intersections of Franklin and Queen Streets, and Franklin and Peel Streets,

the development of the land between the former and new Franklin Streets, William Street and Queen Street, and

the provision of two mid-block links through this development parcel.

[28] I support these restructuring ‘moves’. They will result in a series of well-defined streets, introduce valuable additional open space in a part of the city centre that is rapidly densifying, maintain a permeable environment and make more efficient use of this land. Although it is arguable whether two mid-block links are needed through the new block between the former and new Franklin Streets for permeability reasons, given that the block is only approximately 200m long, I understand that the eastern link is also intended to give definition to the edge of the ‘sheds’ and recognise the boundary of the cemetery.

[29] The Framework Plan also identifies podium heights. These are discussed further below.

4.2 Permit requirements

Mandatory v. discretionary

[30] The introduction to clause 2.0 states that development “must achieve all of the following design requirements” (my emphasis), implying that they are mandatory. The subsequent requirements include some provisions containing the word “must”, and others containing the word “should”, implying that they are discretionary. I consider this to be ambiguous, and recommend that the construction of the DPO schedule be reviewed to ensure clarity in relation to which provisions are mandatory and which are discretionary.

[31] For the purpose of my assessment, I have assumed that provisions containing the word “must” are intended to be mandatory, and those containing the word “should” are intended to be discretionary.

4.0 DPO11


11

Overshadowing

[32] The DPO includes overshadowing requirements in relation to the proposed new public open space and Flagstaff Gardens. Solar access is sought to be maintained to the new open space between 11am and 2pm at the winter solstice, but to Flagstaff Gardens between these hours only at the September equinox. I note that, in contrast, proposed DDO14 and the proposed amended clause 22.02 seek to protect solar access to Flagstaff Gardens at the winter solstice. I consider that the winter solstice is an appropriate requirement given the metropolitan importance of these spaces. Therefore, I recommend that the solar access requirement for Flagstaff Gardens in the DPO be amended to the winter solstice. I note that Ms Heggen’s shadow analysis indicates that this would limit buildings in the new development parcel to be created south of the new public open space to a maximum of approximately 160m in height at its eastern end and progressively lower heights towards the west.

[33] The overshadowing requirement relating to the proposed new open space allows for overshadowing if it will not significantly prejudice the amenity of the space. However, no such provision is made in relation to Flagstaff Gardens. Given that the near edge of Flagstaff Gardens is an embankment and/or is already significantly overshadowed by large trees, I consider that it would be appropriate to add the ‘amenity provision’ to the Flagstaff Gardens overshadowing requirement too, so that development which merely overshadows that edge is not necessarily precluded.

Eastern edge of Flagstaff Gardens


12

Building height

[34] The DPO does not contain any maximum building heights. The shadow study undertaken by Ms Heggen demonstrates that the solar access requirements discussed above will not limit building height east of Queen Street.

[35] A number of buildings 200-240m in height have been approved in the area south and east of the Amendment land (and some are under construction). The DPO provides for buildings of this (or even higher) scale to occur immediately east of Queen Street, close to the proposed new open space and set back only 10m from the street edge.

[36] The photo below illustrates the prominence of a 240m high building approximately 300m away in a view from a relatively central location within the proposed new open space. I consider that buildings of this height within the DPO land immediately surrounding the new open space would overwhelm it. I note that the new open space is approximately 160m long and 85m wide—significantly less than the potential height of new buildings in the DPO land east of Queen Street.

View looking east from location of proposed new public open space


13

[37] To the south of the DPO land, between William Street and Elizabeth Street, there have been a large number of new towers approved and developed in recent times. They are largely between 66m and 103m in height. Given this emerging character, the height limitation (by overshadowing control) of new buildings south of the new open space, and the dimensions of the proposed new open space, I consider that a maximum height of around 100m is appropriate in the DPO land. This will provide a ‘layer’ of moderate height buildings that ‘buffers’ the new open space from the taller buildings beyond. It will provide a relatively consistent scale of buildings on two sides of the open space that will strongly define the open space without overwhelming it.

[38] There are two exceptions to this:

The eastern end of Parcel A, 93-141 Therry Street (and 501-503 Elizabeth Street if my recommendation about the DPO/DDO boundary is adopted), is more distant from the proposed new open space and will be ‘buffered’ from it by future development on the corner of Queen Street and Therry Street.

The corner of Queen Street and New Franklin Street is an important node in the local movement system, and marks the entry to the QVM precinct from the south. A taller building at the eastern end of the new block between the former and new Franklin Streets would create an appropriate marker, terminating vistas along Queen Street from the north and Franklin Street from the east. Its separation from the proposed new open space by parcel C and new Franklin Street, and its nature as the only taller building within approximately 80m of the open space, will avoid the space being overwhelmed.

[39] Therefore, I recommend the addition of a discretionary maximum height of 100m to the DPO, except for 93-141 Therry Street (and 501-503 Elizabeth Street if my recommendation about the DPO/DDO boundary is adopted), and the part of parcel D east of the ‘sheds’. Any criteria to guide variations from this height should include demonstration that the proposed development will not visually overwhelm the public open space.


14

Recommended 100m discretionary maximum building height

Podium height and design

[40] The DPO contains a mandatory maximum podium height of 20m on Therry Street and Queen Street north of Franklin Street. I understand that the basis for this requirement relates to heritage, and I defer to Mr Lovell in this respect. From an urban design perspective, a maximum 20m podium height will ensure that new development sits comfortably in the existing low-rise streetscapes.

[41] The DPO contains a mandatory maximum podium height of 40m elsewhere. I consider a maximum 40m podium height to be generally appropriate except for the locations noted above (and on the north side of the former Franklin Street between William and Queen Streets—see below), given the width of the streets in this area and the rest of the Central City, and the longstanding nature of a maximum 40m podium height requirement in the Central City. I also note that this is consistent with the interim provisions of DDO10, which apply to the Central City. In general, I do not consider there to be any reason for the maximum podium height requirement in the DPO area to differ from that in the Central City. Therefore, I support the proposed consistency between the two controls.


15

[42] However, I do not support a mandatory maximum 40m podium height requirement in DPO11 (or DDO14). I do not consider that there is a sufficiently uniform podium character in this area to warrant a mandatory requirement. Whilst I consider that a substantially greater podium height is unlikely to be appropriate in the majority of cases, I consider that a modest increase in podium height might be acceptable on sites at the corner of two wider (30m wide) streets, given the greater openness afforded by such a location and the corresponding need for a stronger built form to define the public realm.

[43] Therefore, I recommend that the maximum 40m podium height requirement for land other than that fronting Therry Street or Queen Street north of Franklin Street should be discretionary, unless a mandatory maximum 40m podium height requirement is retained permanently in the Central City through Amendment C270.

[44] Further, I note that Franklin Street is proposed to be narrowed to a 10m wide road reserve, consistent with the ‘Little’ streets in the Central City. The creation of a single development parcel in one ownership along the north side of this street between William Street and Queen Street means that a 40m high podium along this whole 200m length (with the exception of mid-block links) is a likely outcome.

[45] I consider that a continuously 40m high podium on a 10m wide street would be a poor outcome, because it would create a ‘canyon-like’ effect and significantly reduce solar access to buildings on the south side of the street. I note that there is a relatively recent 10-11 storey apartment building on the south side of this street, the lower 8 storeys of which (or thereabouts) would be shaded by the proposed podium alone, at the equinox.


16

Proposed cross-section of former Franklin Street


17

Existing apartment building on the south side of Franklin Street between William Street and Queen Street

[46] Although 40m high podiums are possible fronting the ‘Little’ streets in the Central City, none have the potential for a 200m long podium of this scale. The existing ‘Little’ streets benefit from existing buildings and podiums that are mainly significantly lower than 40m, providing visual relief and much greater daylight and sunlight into the street than would result from a continuous 40m high podium.


18

Typical ‘Little’ street in the CBD with indicative continuous 40m high podiums shown dashed

[47] Therefore, I recommend that the maximum podium height on Franklin Street between William Street and Queen Street be lowered to (a discretionary) 20m, except at the ends of the block, where the greater enclosure of a 40m podium is offset by the openness of the wider street beyond.


19

Recommended discretionary maximum 20m podium height along former Franklin Street

[48] The DPO also contains (discretionary) minimum podium height requirements of half the maximum podium height requirements. I support these provisions, to ensure good spatial definition of the streets in this area which are generally 20m or 30m wide.

[49] The DPO contains a series of further design requirements for podiums. I support these provisions, which seek to ensure that development respects the existing character and contributes to a comfortable and high quality visual and social experience in the public realm.


20

Tower front setbacks

[50] The DPO contains a mandatory 10m tower setback from the front boundary, except fronting the former Franklin Street, where a 6m setback is required.

[51] In the case of Therry Street, Queen Street north of Franklin Street and New Franklin Street, I understand that the basis for a 10m setback requirement relates to heritage values. I defer to Mr Lovell in this respect. From an urban design perspective, a 10m setback will ensure a clear distinction between the podium and tower, although it will not make a notable difference in terms of the visual recessiveness of the towers given their potential height.

[52] However, I understand that Mr Lovell does not support a mandatory tower setback requirement at these street frontages. From an urban design perspective I do not support a mandatory 10m setback requirement either, because I consider that there are design responses (such as curved tower footprints) which may be acceptable despite encroaching slightly within the 10m setback.

[53] Elsewhere, it is difficult to understand why a 10m setback is required. I note that the interim provisions of DDO10 include a mandatory 5m tower setback. I consider this to be sufficient to ensure a clear distinction between podium and tower and, as noted above, an increased tower setback to 10m will do little to increase the visual recessiveness of the towers given their potential height. I see no reason to treat this aspect of towers in these streets differently to those in the Central City.

[54] Therefore, I recommend that the front tower setbacks be reduced to 5m (including on the north side of the former Franklin Street) except where they front streets opposite the Market. Given the generous dimensions of most of the affected properties, I consider that a mandatory tower setback is appropriate. However, should the permanent front tower setback control in the rest of the Central City be made discretionary through Amendment C270, I consider that the DPO should follow suit.

Tower side and rear setbacks, and separation

[55] The DPO contains a mandatory 10m side and rear setback requirement for towers, along with mandatory 10m and discretionary 24m tower separation requirements.

[56] I support the inclusion of requirements in relation to tower separation and side and rear setbacks. Tower separation is important for internal amenity, equitable development and public realm amenity reasons.


21

However, I do not support the proposed mandatory minimum 10m tower setback and separation requirements. Whilst I consider that this is an appropriate minimum separation where apartments directly face each other—to avoid the need for privacy screening, ensure a reasonable level of daylight and provide a sense of outlook—it is not necessary for internal amenity reasons where other design responses are adopted such as orienting apartments away from each other. Critically, the DPO area contains a number of narrow lots, which would be precluded from development above podium height by this provision due to the inability to provide 10m side setbacks. I do not consider this to be an appropriate outcome in an area where higher density development is generally sought and where there are alternative solutions that can achieve the desired outcomes.

[57] By way of example, the narrow properties fronting Queen Street immediately south of the ‘Munro site’ are approximately 8-12m wide. Under the proposed controls, they have no capacity for development above podium height. However, they could easily be developed with apartments facing east and west, and blank walls on their shared northern and southern boundaries. Provided their upper forms have appropriate rear setbacks, this would avoid the need for privacy screening, ensure a reasonable level of daylight and provide a sense of outlook. Given that the combined upper form would not exceed approximately 30m in width, it would not impact the public realm any more than a single tower on a larger site.


22

Indicative tower floor plan at 422-446 Queen Street and 132-142 Franklin Street

[58] On the other hand, I do not consider that a 10m separation is sufficient for buildings of 100m or more in height. The shadow analysis undertaken by Ms Heggen indicates that buildings of 200m in height and more may be possible in the DPO area east of Queen Street, under the proposed controls. At these heights (and even at 100m, if my recommendation in relation to building height is adopted), I consider that a tower separation of more than 10m is necessary to ensure adequate access to daylight and to avoid a sense of being ‘crowded in’ in lower level apartments facing an


23

adjacent tower. I also consider that greater separation is needed to provide good daylight in abutting streets and relief in the built form along a street or open space.

[59] The issue of tower separation has been considered in a number of recent Amendments. The Panel which considered Amendment C171 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme (Southbank), determined that the preferred separation between towers (ranging up to 160m in height) should be 20m, but allowed lesser separations in appropriate circumstances.

[60] In Stonnington C172 (Chapel St Activity Centre), the Panel recognised the importance of ensuring both equitable development opportunities and the ability to develop narrow properties above podium height. It supported the inclusion of a discretionary requirement for 4.5m side and rear setbacks up to 8 storeys, with increased setbacks above, allied with guidelines to guide that discretion. In particular, the Panel supported guidelines which seek to ensure good internal amenity and future development potential on neighbouring properties are maintained, and which recognise the circumstances in which a lesser setback may be appropriate such as where sites adjoin lower buildings that are unlikely to be redeveloped or where narrow properties adjoin much wider properties.

[61] Notably, these recommendations were made in the context of an area of much lower buildings than are contemplated by this Amendment.

[62] The Panel which considered Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme (St Kilda Road North Precinct) supported a 9m tower separation. It recommended that this requirement be discretionary in areas of narrow properties, to facilitate their above-podium development. Although the Amendment allows for buildings up to 60m in height in places, it is notable that these buildings are in single rows, surrounded by wide road reserves (e.g. St Kilda Road), lower-rise buildings and parkland. Therefore, although the gaps between them are only 9m wide, they will not be ‘closed’ by towers on adjacent properties.

[63] The Fishermans Bend Strategic Framework Plan seeks 10m tower setbacks and 20m tower separations above a height of 40m.

[64] In summary, a building separation of 9-10m is commonly accepted in buildings up to approximately 8 storeys, or higher in circumstances where there is a single row of towers. For taller towers, a separation of approximately 20m is preferred. I consider that this is an appropriate reflection of the increased impact that increased building height has on adjoining apartments and the public realm.


24

[65] I note that the side and rear setback requirement in DDO10 increases with height above 100m. It requires setbacks of 5% of the total height of the building once buildings exceed 100m in height. This would result in a 10m setback or 20m separation for buildings of 200m in height. However, it is not certain what form the permanent version of this DDO will take.

[66] Taking all of the above into account, I recommend that the side and rear tower setback and tower separation controls be amended to:

enable above-podium development of narrow properties, through a discretionary requirement allied with clear guidelines about the circumstances in which a lesser setback or separation may be acceptable; and

relate the setback and separation requirements to building height, including a separation of approximately 20m at a height of 100m.

Weather protection

[67] The DPO includes wind requirements. I consider this to be appropriate given the high level of pedestrian activity in the Market area.

[68] The DPO seeks a publicly accessible pedestrian link at least every 100m. This is an appropriate expectation for an area with a high level of pedestrian activity and consistent with controls elsewhere in the Central City such as City North (DDO61).

[69] The DPO seeks continuous weather protection and active frontages to footpaths, and discourages vehicle access to key streets where alternatives are available. I support these requirements as key elements of an inviting public realm. However, I note that DDO1, which requires active frontages, already applies to Therry Street and Queen Street north of Franklin Street. In order to avoid duplication and potential ambiguity where the provisions do not precisely align, I recommend that the active frontage requirement be deleted from the DPO and DDO1 be amended to extend to the additional streets sought to have active frontages by the DPO.

4.3 Development plan requirements [70] The DPO requires a development plan to include (among other things):

Elevations,

Building materials and treatments,

A wind effects assessment,

ESD and WSUD assessments,

An acoustic assessment.


25

[71] I consider that these items are unnecessary in a development plan, because they do not need to be coordinated across the whole development plan area. Further, it is difficult to understand how they can be provided without detailed building designs. I consider that they are best required as part of a permit application.


26

[72] My instructions in relation to proposed DDO14 are simply to review the extent of the DDO and express an opinion about whether it has any particular qualities that require it to be treated differently to the balance of the Hoddle Grid and the controls that will apply following Amendment C270.

[73] Subject to the inclusion of 501-503 Elizabeth Street within the DPO rather than the DDO, as discussed above, I consider that it is appropriate to treat the DDO land in the same way as the main part of the Hoddle Grid. Plan Melbourne identifies the Queen Victoria Market precinct as part of the Expanded Central City and State policy supports the concentration of commercial activity and higher density housing in well-serviced locations such as this. Local policy identifies the precinct as part of the Hoddle Grid, where significant growth is encouraged.

[74] In this context, I note that the last design objective seeks “to ensure that the scale and design of new buildings does not adversely affect the significance of the Queen Victoria Market as a historic and cultural landmark”. Provided my recommendation regarding the southwest corner of Therry Street and Elizabeth Street is adopted, the land proposed to remain affected by DDO14 is largely separated from Queen Victoria Market by a distance of at least 50m, and the intervening land is contemplated to be developed for buildings of considerable height. In these circumstances, the last objective will become redundant because development in the DDO area would be unable to adversely affect the significance of the Market.

[75] Certainly, at a maximum height of 40m, the podiums of new development in the DDO area will not have any direct impact on the heritage or cultural values of the Queen Victoria Market. Further, the DDO does not propose any control over the height of buildings other than to preserve sunlight to proposed new public open space and Flagstaff Gardens. So it is difficult to see the relationship between the proposed controls and the last objective. On this basis, I recommend that it be deleted.

[76] For the same reason, I recommend that reference to the Market be deleted from the 5th Built Form Outcome in each of the tables, while retaining a general reference to heritage buildings.

[77] I note that many of my comments about the proposed built form and design provisions in the DPO—particularly those relating to podium height and tower setbacks—would also apply to land within the DDO area.

[78] I also note that Table 2 repeats all the Built Form Outcomes in Table 1. This seems unnecessary since the provisions in Table 1 apply to all development and the requirements in Table 2 are proposed to be

5.0 DDO14


27

mandatory (unlike the Built Form Outcomes) so no guidance for discretion is needed. Therefore, I recommend that the Built Form Outcomes column in Table 2 be deleted.


28

[79] In summary, I consider that the overall intent of the Amendment, the Framework Plan contained within the proposed DPO schedule and many of the proposed DPO requirements are sound.

[80] However, I recommend that:

501-503 Elizabeth Street be included within the DPO rather than the DDO;

the last design objective within the DDO be deleted;

the 5th Built Form Outcome within each Table of the DDO be deleted;

the construction of the DPO schedule be reviewed to ensure clarity in relation to which provisions are mandatory and which are discretionary;

the solar access requirement for Flagstaff Gardens in the DPO be amended to the winter solstice;

the ‘amenity provision’ be added to the Flagstaff Gardens overshadowing requirement in the DPO;

a 100m discretionary maximum height be introduced to the DPO except on 93-141 Therry Street, 501-503 Elizabeth Street if my recommendation about the DPO/DDO boundary is adopted, and the part of parcel D east of the ‘sheds’;

the maximum podium height requirements in the DPO (and DDO) be discretionary, except for Therry Street and Queen Street north of Franklin Street, unless a mandatory maximum 40m podium height requirement is retained permanently in the Central City through Amendment C270;

the maximum podium height on Franklin Street between William Street and Queen Street in the DPO be lowered to (a discretionary) 20m, except at the ends of the block;

the front tower setbacks in the DPO (and DDO) be reduced to 5m (mandatory), except where they front streets opposite the Market;

the front tower setback requirements in the DPO (and DDO) be made discretionary if the permanent front tower setback control in the rest of the Central City is made discretionary through Amendment C270;

the side and rear tower setback and tower separation controls in the DPO (and DDO) be amended to:

6.0 Conclusion


29

enable above-podium development of narrow properties, through a discretionary requirement allied with clear guidelines about the circumstances in which a lesser setback or separation may be acceptable; and

relate the setback and separation requirements to building height, including a separation of approximately 20m at a height of 100m;

the active frontage requirement be deleted from the DPO and DDO1 be amended to extend to the additional streets sought to have active frontages by the DPO;

the requirement in the DPO for a development plan to include elevations, building materials and treatments, a wind effects assessment, ESD and WSUD assessments, and an acoustic assessment be deleted and instead required as part of a permit application; and

the Built Form Outcomes be deleted from Table 2 in the DDO.


30

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-five 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. I am the author of Essentials of Urban Design (CSIRO Publishing, 2015).

Expertise to prepare this report

I have been involved in the design and assessment of numerous activity centre and urban infill projects and planning scheme amendments 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;

Appendix A: Summary of Evidence & Personal Details


31

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;

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

Numerous independent urban design assessments of planning scheme amendments to inform Planning Panels.

Other significant contributors

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

Instructions which define the scope of this report

I have been requested to give expert evidence in relation to the urban design aspects of proposed DPO11, and the appropriateness of DDO14 adopting the provisions of the emerging Central City controls.

I am engaged by Ashurst Australia on behalf of the City of Melbourne.

I have received written instructions from Ashurst.

Facts, matters and assumptions relied upon

Inspection of the subject land and surrounding area; and

Review of planning controls and policies affecting the area.

Documents taken into account

Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C245 documentation;

Melbourne Planning Scheme and reference documents;

Queen Victoria Market Precinct Renewal – Built Form Review and Recommendations prepared by Jones & Whitehead Pty Ltd and dated 22 April 2015;

Melbourne CBD North Edge Traffic Study prepared by Movendo and dated April 2015;

Queen Market Renewal – Precinct Built Form Controls – Review of Heritage issues prepared by Lovell Chen and dated April 2015;


32

Report to the Future Melbourne (Planning Committee) dated 12May 2015;

Therry, Elizabeth, Franklin and Queen: Block Plan prepared by the City of Melbourne;

Queen Victoria Market Precinct Renewal Master Plan;

Submissions and response to submissions; and

Various correspondences relating to the proposed Amendment.

Summary of opinions

Refer to the conclusion of this statement (section 6).

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.

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.

Mark Sheppard


33

Appendix B: Building and Podium Heights surrounding Queen Victoria Market

A

226m

B

241m

C

218m

D

202m

N

90m145m

Q

57m120m

A16

7m

A17

10m

A3

40m

A1

40m

A2

15m

E

90m

O

154m

F

95m

G

88m

H

87m

I

27m

J

82mK

80m

L

92m

P

115m

R

66m

M

103m

A18

20m

A19

30m

A20

60m

A17

10mA15

12m

La Trobe Street

A’Beckett StreetFranklin Street

Elizabeth Street

William

Street

Peel

Str

eet

Que

en S

tree

t

Victoria Street Swanston Street

La Trobe Street

A’Beckett StreetFranklin Street

Elizabeth Street

William

Street

Peel

Str

eet

Que

en S

tree

t

Victoria Street Swanston Street

Label Address Overall height

Podium height

Front tower setback

A 496-504 Elizabeth Street 226m 38.4m 0.5mB 452-472 Elizabeth Street 241m 41.4m 0mC 442-450 Elizabeth Street 218m 33.9m 0mD 202m 24.2m 6.5mE 312-318 La Trobe Street 90m N/A 0mF

316-322 Queen Street 154m 13.1m 2.7m

G378-392 La Trobe Street 95m 16m 0m

H88m N/A 0m

I28 Wills Street 87m 34.7m 1.7m

J27m N/A 0m

K206-216 A’Becket Street 82m N/A 0m

L80m N/A 0m

M25 Wills Street 92m N/A

N/A N/A

0m

N

17-23 Wills Street 115m 8m 3.8m386-412 William Street 57m and

120m354-360 William Street 66m 1 storey No data

O

330-352 William Street 103m 14.3m 4m

PQ

R

151-165 Franklin Street 90m and 145m

30m 6m

JOB :

CODE :

DATE :

SCALE :

LEVEL 2, 166 ALBERT ROADSOUTH MELBOURNE VIC 3205t 03 9682 8568 f 03 9682 1221www.dlaaust.com

MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C245

MLB006

28 APRIL 2016

NTS

BUILDING AND PODIUM HEIGHTS SURROUNDING QUEEN VICTORIA MARKET

LEGEND

PLANNING CONTEXT

QUEEN VICTORIA MARKET PRECINCT BOUNDARY

DDO14 PREFERRED MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS

DDOO2 MANDATORY MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS

PHYSICAL CONTEXT

EXISTING AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENTS

APPROVED DEVEOPMENTS

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

MAXIMUM HEIGHTC

218m


34

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/