MARY OF SUBMISSIONS AMENDMENT C107 – ST KILDA ROAD …1).pdf · SUM • MARY OF SUBMISSIONS AMENDMENT C107 – ST KILDA ROAD NOTH PRECINCT . This document provides a summary of

SUM MARY OF SUBMISSIONS AMENDMENT C107 – ST KILDA ROAD NOTH PRECINCT

This document provides a summary of the submissions received to Amendment C107 and the draft St Kilda Road Precinct Plan. It is divided into two parts:

• Part 1 – Overview - provides an overview of the exhibition process and submissions received. • Part 2 – Summary of individual submissions.

PART 1 – OVERVIEW

SUMMARY OF EXHIBITION

• The amendment and draft Precinct Plan were on exhibition for one month from 7 August to 8 September 2014.

• Letters notifying of exhibition the amendment and draft Precinct Plan were sent to:

- 13,589 property owners and occupiers within the Precinct

- 5,426 property owners and occupiers outside of the precinct in South Melbourne (City of Port Phillip), Southbank and South Yarra (City of Melbourne) and Windsor (City of Stonnington).

• A notice appeared in the Port Phillip Leader on 5 August 2014 and in the Government Gazette on 7 August 2014.

• An interactive map, comments form, fact sheets, draft schedules and other background information was provided on Council’s website.

• Information was made available in Council ASSIST Service Centres and libraries.

• Letters were sent to key Government Departments and Ministers, infrastructure providers, neighbouring councils and interested persons.

• A drop-in information session was held at the St Kilda Town Hall.

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED

• A total of 216 submissions were received. 148 submissions were received during the exhibition period with 68 received after the closing date:

- 187 submissions have been received representing residents interests - 26 submissions have been received representing development interests - 3 submissions have been received from government agencies/departments.

• Submissions were received from the following sub-precincts:

SUB-PRECINCT NUMBER OF SUBMISSIONS*

PROPORTION OF TOTAL SUBMISSIONS

Sub-Precinct 1 – Edge of Shrine Memorial Gardens 13 6.0%

Sub-Precinct 2 – Northwest Corner 12 5.5%

Sub-Precinct 3 – Albert Road South 10 4.6%

Sub -Precinct 4 – Albert Road North and Bowen Crescent 6 2.8%

Sub-Precinct 5 – St Kilda Road South of Kings Way 164 75.9%

Sub-Precinct 6 – Queens Road 1 0.5%

Outside of the St Kilda Road North Precinct 3 1.4%

Government / statutory bodies 3 1.4%

Not stated 4 1.9%

TOTAL 216 100%

*Note: The content of some submissions related to the adjoining sub-precinct, in particular:

- Submissions from residents/landowners in Sub-Precinct 1 commenting on Sub-Precinct 2, primarily regarding heights, overdevelopment, traffic and impacts on amenity. - Submissions from residents/landowners in Sub-Precinct 5 commenting on Sub-Precinct 6, primarily regarding heights, traffic, impacts on amenity and the potential for loss

of views.

PART 2 – SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL SUBMISSIONS

This table outlines the detailed comments received by submission.

SUB NO

SUBMITTER ADDRESS AND SUB-PRECINCT

SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED

1 Not stated Submission with concerns: Public realm: St Kilda Road boulevard: • St Kilda Road should be enhanced as a ‘world class boulevard’. • The wide open space, main carriageways and service roads, tree-lined verges and iconic Barracks and Shrine have made the boulevard special. However

the nature strips let it down and do not add to the look and feel. • Noted declining standards, appearance and aesthetics four years ago and nothing has been done. Just planning, bureaucracy and red tape. • Need similar processes to Singapore, Shanghai or Hong Kong where things are completed. • Council / City of Melbourne needs to take control and adopt a cohesive approach to getting things done. Outside the Precinct: • Area at the corner of Spencer / Clarendon Streets and Normanby Road (in the City of Melbourne) adjacent to the Old Teahouse and Crown Casino.

Close to tramcar restaurant and should be enhanced • Perfect location for a small gardened area.

2 350 St Kilda Road St James Apartments Sub-Precinct 1a,c

Submission with concerns: Building heights: • Proposals for overcrowding will create the slums of next decade. • A building height of 18m (5 storeys) would create a Paris environment between Kings Way and St Kilda Road.

3

632 St Kilda Road The Boulevard Owners Corporation Committee of Management Sub-Precinct 5b

Submission with concerns (and support for some elements): • Represents 463 residents. 75% of occupants are owner occupiers. • Submission includes a marked up copy of DDO26 reflecting the points below. • Density should be spread across the municipality as Port Phillip is an inner area with access to public transport. New residential zones should provide

adequate flexibility rather than concentrating development along St Kilda Road and locking down other areas. (No strategic / rational basis for the new residential zones. Did not go through full amendment process with review by an independent planning panel.)

SUB NO



Building heights: • St Kilda Road (south of High Street) - Concerns about doubling of existing heights from 24m to 60m on St Kilda Road south of High Street. This area

should remain 24m or lower due to the proximity of lower scale residential areas in Windsor as St Kilda Road narrows to the Junction. • St Kilda Road (between Union Street and Queens Road) - 60m height between Union Street and Queens Road will allow blocking of sunlight to the highly

valued and used common open space on 632 St Kilda Road. Should include a requirement that there is no further overshadowing of existing open space or common areas at the winter solstice.

• Proposed increase for DD04-3 (St Kilda Road, western side and Queens Road south of Union) from 45m to 60m is not in line with existing or preferred character or built form. Should be capped at 5 storeys or 18m with any towers located as far north on sites and more of the density directed to the Domain Interchange (where a metro station is proposed) or Fishermans Bend. The Precinct already accommodates10,000 people and 20,000 workers.

• Punt Road: - Punt Road Study is needed to justify why heights of over 24m (as shown in the existing DDO) are needed. Managed by three Councils and the

approach should be co-ordinated. Close to Windsor and should be treated more sensitively. - Provide a lower built form south of Raleigh Street. Will help to preserve the boulevard effect on St Kilda Road and help delineate the Junction.

• St Kilda Road (south of High Street) – proposed increase in height from 45m to 60m is not in-line with existing character and preferred built form. Heights should be capped at 45m with higher buildings directed towards the Domain. Should be a new sub-precinct which differs from the area north of High Street with lower built form until the Junction where existing buildings mark this point.

• St Kilda Road (between Union and Henry Streets) - Lower building heights should apply to prevent overshadowing by new towers of properties to the east of Punt Road (ie impacts on private open space, access to daylight and impacts of visual bulk which will cause the loss of sky views from existing small living spaces.

• 60m height should only apply to 636, 635 and 632 St Kilda Road. Former Cadbury Building is already an established landmark for this area. • Between Union Street, Queens Road and St Kilda Road - A 60m building height should not apply. Properties are in a Heritage Overlay. Not realistic and

leads to a competing policies ie height vs heritage. A height of 12m is recommended. • Allow a new variation in mandatory maximum heights to allow for buildings and works which create a new common area or communal open space on the

rooftop. Provides more flexibility for existing buildings to provide open space for vertical communities. Podiums: • South of High Street - Podiums must apply along side streets in addition to landscape setbacks for any buildings south of High Street to improve the

relationship between built form and pedestrians. • 636 St Kilda Road (former Cadbury Building) - New podium should be required in addition to a landscaped setback for the southern and eastern

boundary. Setbacks: • Support the 13.7m setback to St Kilda Road – but extend to Queens Road near the Junction at 636 St Kilda Road to ensure greater landscaping when

viewed from Queens Road and Albert Park. • Map for Sub-Precinct 5 does not show 6m landscape setback in the legend. • Support mandatory setbacks as a minimum requirement as some buildings may seek to set further back. This does not allow for design flexibility. If the

intention is to provide for a regularity of building setbacks, then a permit should be triggered to allow for greater setbacks to enable flexibility upon discretion / urban design considerations.

• There should be mandatory landscape requirements.

SUB NO



• Apply a new landscaped street setback along Queens Lane, north until Union Street. Preferred character, partially existing with opportunity to reinforce if 81 Queens Road redevelops.

• 636 St Kilda Road (former Cadbury Building) - Increase the landscape setback to 13.7m for the southern boundary. • Setbacks along Punt Road at 4.5m are inconsistent with the general character of directly adjoining buildings (eg 104 Punt Road with a setback of 11.6m and

Wesley with 9.3m) Public realm: • Support landscaping of the road reserve on Queens Road between Union Street and the Junction. • Lobby VicRoads to plant trees on the median strip and improve the appearance. Will help to reduce noise impacts and create a more attractive public

realm. Council should co-fund this project and request a bid in next year’s budget. • Encourage activation and improved treatment of Queens Lane (rather than allowing buildings to turn their back on the street.) • Preserve solar access during winter to established / existing open space (on public or private land). External Amenity: • New buildings should not overshadow Union Street at the winter solstice (a key pedestrian and cycle link between Chapel Street and the Albert Park

Lake). Preservation of solar access and improved amenity is fundamental for this link. • Protect small open spaces such as plazas, forecourts etc (eg 635-643 St Kilda Road). • Support the protection of solar access to Wesley College Junior School – provided this is a mandatory requirement which cannot be varied by a planning

permit. Sunlight especially in the morning when the UV index is low is important to the amenity of the area. Hours of assessing the shadow should be increased from 10am and 3pm at the winter solstice (replacing 11am and 2pm).

Open space: • Include the road reserve between Peel Street, Punt Road and St Kilda Road as Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) to ensure the land remains as

road reserve and open space. Traffic and public transport: • If such densities are proposed then a train line and stop must be provided at the Junction in the short term. (This is not part of the Government’s current

transport strategy.)

4 Outside the St Kilda Road North Precinct Cobden Street – between Kings Way and Stead Street, South Melbourne

Submission with concerns:

• Support the concept of transition from taller buildings of St Kilda Road to heritage houses in South Melbourne (west of Kings Way). • However the proposed transition in heights is not enough to have any impact. • Heights along the western side of Kings Way are no more than 6 storeys ie 18m (with the majority only 2 storeys). Directly opposite on the eastern side

of Kings Way, heights of 45m with an 18m podium are proposed. This is not acceptable and does not achieve a transition. • The transition in Sub-Precinct 2 should be more gradual ie similar to the transition proposed for Palmerston Crescent in Sub-Precinct 3effectively having

the 18m podium, then graduating to a 30m building for the next 30m and then 45m. • A revised 15m, 30m and 45m heights on Kings Way (in Sub-Precinct 2)would help to maintain neighbourhood amenity, reduce overshadowing, minimise

privacy issues (ie a 45m tower looking into a 2 storey terrace) and will blend old and new neighbourhoods together in a cohesive, harmonious way.

SUB NO



5 368 St Kilda Road Royal Domain Tower Sub-Precinct 1a,c

Submission of support (some elements of concern): • Support the amendment but subject to the following reservations: Building heights: • Sub-Precinct 2: 45m height is too high. Will lead to more and more people being crammed into the neighbourhood, creating traffic chaos, wind tunnels,

shadowing of buildings and poor amenity eg sunlight. • Maximum height for this Sub-Precinct should be 30m. Parking • Development should provide adequate on-site parking. • A minimum of one space per apartment should be provided. • Current approach allowing reduced parking is misguided – false belief that people will use public transport, bikes or ‘green vehicles’. Traffic and public transport: • Public transport along St Kilda Road is already overcrowded. Riding a bike is not safe for the cyclist or pedestrians who have to cross bike lanes. Car share

vehicles are not highly used. Internal amenity: • There should be a limit to the size of an apartment. Suggest 10 square metres (sic) ie 10 squares or 80 sq metres. Many current developments can only be

described as dog boxes or slums of the future.

6 368 St Kilda Road Royal Domain Tower Sub-Precinct 1a ,c

Submission with concerns: Building heights: • Sub-Precinct 2: Height limit of 45m is too high. Area is already too congested. High buildings will result in an increase in population, traffic,

overshadowing, loss of natural light and most of all loss of the “South Melbourne’ feel. • Height should be no more than 30m.

Internal amenity: • Apartments should have a minimum size of 9 squares. • Recent developments are as small as 4 squares (the size of a hotel room) with bedrooms with no windows. • These apartments will become slums and the neighbourhood will deteriorate over time. Will be a glut of tiny flats as the population will be older and

move to the suburbs.

Public realm:

• Should be a requirement for landscaping along Dorcas, Banks, Wells and Park Streets.

SUB NO



Parking, • Every apartment should have at least one car parking space. • Difficult to park during the day and in the evenings.

Traffic and public transport:

• Public transport is overcrowded especially at peak hours.


Submission with concerns: Building heights: • Sub-Precinct 2: Building height should be 30m not 45m. • Precinct is becoming overcrowded with traffic and is a wind tunnel. Internal amenity: • Size of apartments should be regulated. Parking: • At least one parking space per apartment should be required.

8 Not stated

Submission with concerns: Building heights: • Heights around Domain Station should be maximised. Plan does not do this. Should be 30 storeys with setbacks. Setbacks: • Kings Way, Park Street and Albert Road: Should be sufficient setbacks to allow the planting of large canopy trees. Will help to hide development. • All landscaped setbacks should require canopy tree planting. Canopy trees should be London planes. • Planting should over-ride the costs of undergrounding services. Valuable investment made to public land. • Council should also ensure that canopy tree planting is provided on the opposite side of the road such as Kings Way (ie controls are mirrored.) Active frontages:

• Ground floor and below ground floor retail in the vicinity of the Domain Station should be encouraged. Parking, • Car parking provided by private operators should also cater to electric cars. Traffic and public transport: • Location of the Domain Station should be identified to reduce officers time and waste of rates in preparing plans that are largely hypothetical. • Commercially supplied electric bowsers should be provided in the precinct by Council (as part of their responsibility).

SUB NO



9 Outside St Kilda Road North Precinct (Cobden Street – between Kings Way and Stead Street)


• See Submission 4.

10 454 St Kilda Road Balencea Sub-Precinct 5a

Submission with concerns: Parking, traffic and public transport: • Concerns around traffic impact on Queens Lane that could arise from permitting higher buildings. This plus the potential for higher buildings on Queens

Road will add to existing traffic loads. • Increased densities in Queens Road would lead to more traffic using Queens Lane as it would be difficult for traffic to use Queens Road (ie: enter the

traffic flow in either direction.) • In Queens Lane, some blocks are one-way (eg between Arthur and Leopold Streets – one way in a northerly direction) while others are two-way. Have

been confronted with drivers travelling the wrong way (eg entering Queens Lane from Arthur Street or exiting Queens Lane at Leopold Street). • Drivers have not realised the Leopold / Arthur block is one way. • Exiting Queens Lane legally into Arthur Street is complicated by parking in Arthur Street which effectively blocks driver’s sight lines in either direction.


Submission with concerns: • Strongly encourage Council to reconsider proceeding with proposed amendments to DDO3 and 4 – negative outcomes far outweigh the positives. Building heights: • Large towers of up to 45m filled with many tiny apartments and without car parking will lay down the blueprint for a slum. • A maximum height of 30-35m should be the limit. 45m is too high and will add to congestion in the area. Services and facilities: • Public amenities are inadequate for such increases in population. Amenity: • Taller buildings will create wind tunnels and overshadowing and decrease natural light to buildings. • A minimum apartment size of 10-12 squares should be seriously considered. Parking, traffic and public transport: • Adequate on-site parking should be provided. • Public transport on St Kilda Road is good (off peak). However outside of this area, public transport is inadequate.

SUB NO




Submission with concerns: Building heights: • Already an overlay in place of 37.5m above sea level (Source: May 1999 State Library) • People want the city to be like New York. In Manhattan on the Upper East Side the main large streets have tall buildings but the smaller cross streets have

5 storey brownstones. Missed the boat in Melbourne with too many high-rise. • Buildings represent developers trying to increase their profits. • This will result in the slums of the future. Mandatory controls: • Council and the Victorian Government need to come up with clear and precise building regulations. Means that residents do not have to constantly go to

VCAT or outlay money to oppose a development. Internal amenity: • Some studios do not have direct light and air. • Apartments are less than 4 squares in size. (Questions whether banks lend for apartments that small.) External amenity: • Neighbourhood will no longer be a liveable place to live. Need to provide a good place to live – allow sunlight to streets, reduce wind, consider

streetscapes, plant trees, provide bins, parks and open space and amenities. • Setback low scale buildings interspersed with open space to create a safe comfortable place to live. • Wind tunnel along Park Street from Wells to St Kilda Road. • Commercial premises: Need to ensure that bins are closed to reduce the spread of rats and crows (eg: behind shops in Wells and Banks Streets). Traffic and public transport: • Traffic has become increasingly jammed over the last 15 years. • Developers should provide more comprehensive information about traffic and parking than they do for suburban development. • Need to consider the impacts of cars on the roads going towards Kings Way and St Kilda Road. • Need clearways in the morning and evening on Park Street between St Kilda Road and Kings Way. • Sturt Street is a further problem, especially where Dorcas and Coventry Streets enter it and at peak times. Problems created by cars trying to get onto

Kings Way and other cars going over Kings Way to Dorcas Street cause long queues. In Sturt Street, two lanes of traffic are forced into one as there are no clear ways.

• Park Street is ‘bumper to bumper’ with cars in both directions with cars coming out of Wells Street and Palmerston Crescent. • No thought has been given to traffic issues in the future. • Not easy to get public transport as an alternative. Eg: cannot take a tram to Ferrars Street in South Melbourne.

SUB NO



Parking: • No parking for people visiting the grocery shops, restaurants and businesses. • Difficulty in accessing parking in one new building means that people are parking on the street. • Private parking in Wells, Banks and Palmerston Crescent but this closes at 7pm. Community Services and facilities: • More and more children in the neighbourhood but no playgrounds, kindergartens or pre-schools. • Area is a mix of people – not just single people or students. Infrastructure: • Infrastructure is up to 100 years old. • In the past, key roads have been flooded and shut (eg: Kings Way between Sturt and Albert Streets). • Drains have not been upgraded. • Increases to capacity are required to cope. Problem will be worse as a result of increased storm events.

13 231 Kings Way

Sub-Precinct 2

Submission with concerns: Summary: • Site on southern corner of Kings Way and Banks Street. • Large strategic redevelopment site that is well placed in relation to employment, public transport and amenities. There no justifications for mandatory

controls that could potentially limit development opportunities on the site. Lends itself to high density housing opportunities including affordable housing which would be limited by mandatory controls.

• Consider the New Residential Zones will limit residential opportunities in other areas – follows that in strategically located precincts, opportunities should not be limited.

Mandatory provisions: • Does not consider there should be mandatory building height provisions (ie: 45m and 18m podium) or setback provisions (ie 3m landscape setback). • No justification for mandatory controls. Does not meet Practice Note 59 – The role of Mandatory provisions in Planning Schemes. • Practice Note states that mandatory provisions should be the exception. VPPs are based on principle that there should be discretion for most

developments. They will only be considered in circumstances where it can be clearly demonstrated that discretionary provisions are insufficient to achieved desired outcomes.

• Any potential benefits of mandatory provisions do not outweigh the lost opportunity and flexibility. • There are no planning sensitivities such as heritage or overshadowing of public open space to provide justification for mandatory provisions. • Mandatory controls are not justified given the site is:

- In a strategic location that is well-located in terms of employment, public transport, the CBD and open space. - On a major arterial that forms part of the Principal Public Transport Network - Large in size (4,000sqm+) with two road frontages - In an area of built form change (on Map 8 of the Precinct Plan).

SUB NO



14 576 St Kilda Road YVE Sub-Precinct 5b

Submission with concerns: Building heights: • Concerned about height limits. Precinct is proposed to increase from 30m discretionary to 40m mandatory height. • 30m is frequently supported by Council and VCAT. • Certainty provided by a mandatory height is commendable but the precinct could become untenable from a residential living point of view if heights are

increased. Traffic: • Current building density in the area is already very high giving rise to traffic problems are getting worse every year. • Queens Lane is difficult to navigate due to the number of private vehicles and delivery truck and other service vehicles. • Often have to queue to make a hazardous turn into Lorne or Beatrice Streets. • Potential redevelopment of the Queens Road side of Queens Lane on The Pullman Hotel site and the 3 storey buildings at 58-60 Queens Road is alarming. Amenity: • Will also be a daylight issue? Residents on lower floors will be living in shade during the day. Area is predominately residential and not commercial. Views: • Concerned with the loss of views from own property if a 40m building is permitted on 58-60 Queens Road. Property values: • Values will fall as a result of increased densities of development.

15 350 St Kilda Road St James Apartments Sub-Precinct 1a, c

Submission with concerns: • Property located on boundary of Port Phillip and Melbourne. Both Councils have been involved in higher density housing. The Councils should think

beyond their boundaries and take a wider view of their neighbourhood.

Building heights: • Plan does not propose to change any of the height limits. Was told the height is ‘standard.’ • Development on the south-west corner of Dorcas and Wells Street and also facing Banks Street (8 towers) are much lower (ie 10-12 storeys). Not

standard for residents of 350 St Kilda Road. • Want to see lower heights extended to the under-developed area at the south-east corner of Dorcas and Wells Streets. • Height is a maximum and developers can choose to build at a lower height – however developers will maximise development. • Review all building sites (at the same heights) and consider if some should be constrained to a lower height to preserve community amenity.

SUB NO



Traffic: • Concerned that significant development is underway in the City of Melbourne (eg: 774 units on the north side of Dorcas Street and north of the Port

Phillip area). Given this, development in Port Phillip part of St Kilda Road North and the intensity proposed in the amendment , insufficient consideration has been given to traffic volumes and congestion and pedestrian safety in this neighbourhood.

• Traffic turning out of Dorcas Street and Bank Street into Wells Street together with the residential and commercial car parks opening onto Wells Street makes access to Park Street already difficult.

• Despite the relocation of the tram stop from Park Street/St Kilda Road to the Domain Interchange congestion is a concern. • Requests a review of the currency and relevance of traffic studies for this neighbourhood (including the City of Melbourne) and overlay the estimated

traffic volumes from new developments, to determine how traffic flows can be improved. • Pedestrian safety should be addressed within the plan – the current facilities are unsafe and inadequate. No pedestrian crossings on Wells Street and Park

Street. • Lights on Kings Way at Sturt Street and Park Street (direct route to the South Melbourne Market) are too quick to allow pedestrians to cross.

Internal amenity: • Understand proposed 9m separation distance is standard. • May be appropriate for commercial / office developments (where daylight is not as important) or low rise residential developments (where privacy can be

achieved through trees, fencing and access to the sky can be achieved) however in developments of 20 storeys plus – access to daylight will be lost. • Privacy is also diminished through glass walls, (need curtains and blinds which diminish access to daylight.) • The development in Banks Streets (8 towers) use swimming pools and tennis courts to separate buildings. Given site sizes this pattern of development is

unlikely to be repeated. • Look at the cumulative impacts of daylight and privacy of intensive high rise development. 9m seems insufficient.

16 350 St Kilda Road St James Apartments Sub-Precinct 1a, c

Submission with concerns: • Precinct an iconic part of Melbourne - in the vicinity of the Shrine, Botanic Gardens, Government House, Art Gallery and Hamer Hall – attracts many

visitors. Will not be enhanced by a further escalation of high rise buildings. Traffic: • Traffic congestion in the area is already creating long delays and increasing safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists.

Amenity: • Proliferation of high density living, leading to wind tunnels and loss of natural light.

Public transport: • Inadequate public transport, dangerously overloaded at peak hour and long waiting times.

SUB NO



17 368 St Kilda Road Royal Domain Tower Sub-Precinct 1a, c

Submission with concerns: • Strongest possible objection to the amendment.

Building heights: • Retain the height of 36m for the area bound by Kings Way, St Kilda Road, Park Street and Dorcas Street. • Limiting the height of further towers north of Park Street along St Kilda Road and Albert Road to no more than 45m.

Internal amenity • Apartments should have a minimum internal size of 5.5 squares for a 1 bedroom apartment and 7.25 squares for a 2 bedroom apartment. All

developments must have minimum numbers of each category. Should not create a city of dog boxes.

Traffic: • Allowing more developments of 60m is not desirable – increased development will bring hundreds if not thousands of new residents and more traffic

congestion. • Traffic congestion has become increasingly serious. • Development will turn current traffic situation into chaos and impede the ability of residents to access their building. • Traffic is slowed to a crawl along Park Street (between St Kilda Road and Kings Way) at peak times and at various times during the weekend. • Queuing is occurring along St Kilda Road into Park Street. • Park Street has become an alternative route to access the West Gate Bridge and CBD. • Difficult for vehicles heading south along Wells Street to turn into Park Street. Vehicles often banked up. • Traffic also poses a risk to pedestrians trying to cross on Wells Street. Someone will be seriously injured or killed.

Public transport: • Inadequate provision of parking is based on the assumption that more people will use public transport. • Cities such as London, Moscow, Paris and Beijing where high rise developments exist without ample parking have the benefit of an efficient city-wide

underground rail system. No sign of an extensive metro system (in Melbourne). • Not all people will choose to get to work by public transport or will not use it on the weekend for social activities. • Majority of people want to own cars. • New developments must include at least 1car parking space per apartment. • New development should also be limited as a means of addressing existing traffic congestion problems.

18 Melbourne Water Infrastructure: • Melbourne Water has a main drain in the vicinity of Arthur Street, St Kilda Road and Union Street. • The Special Building Overlay applies and any new development application is to be referred to Melbourne Water.

SUB NO



19 5 Thomson Street Sub-Precinct 3e

Submission with concerns: Building heights: • Raising the building heights from 18m to 30m in the zone across the road will impact on property values by decreasing natural light and impair the view of

the city skyline. Height: • 30m development will convert a quiet street with predominantly business activity to a higher activity zone. • Unclear why heights are 18m in Sub-Precinct 3f (where there is no residential development) and residential properties at 5 Thomson and 78 Eastern Road

can build to 30m? • A limit of 18m should apply to the entire street. (Would allow commercial premises at Moray Street end to convert to residential apartments.) • Questionable to amend one small section of the block bound by Thomson/ Raglan/Eastern – particularly as current developments on the southern side of

Thomason Street is unlikely to be redeveloped in the near future. • Appears the amendment seeks to encourage residential development on the northern side of Thomson Street.

Traffic: • Higher density development (like the development occurring on the corner of Palmerston Crescent and Eastern Road) will bring more people and traffic

to the area. Property values: • Raising the building heights from 18m to 30m in the zone across the road will impact on property values by impairing the view of the city skyline. • Acquired the property on the basis that there was a height restriction across the road. Will affect resale value.

20 78 Eastern Road Sub-Precinct 3e

Submission with concerns: • Strongly disputing the amendment. Property values: • Currently surrounded by high buildings. More will affect property prices. Amenity: • Higher rise development will affect the health of existing residents by limiting access to sunlight.

21 33 Park Street

Sub-Precinct 2

Submission with concerns: Summary: • Strongly opposes the introduction of mandatory built form controls – particularly the side and rear setbacks. • Large strategic redevelopment site that is well placed in relation to employment, public transport and amenities. There no justifications for mandatory

controls that could potentially limit development opportunities on the site.

SUB NO



• Lends itself to high density housing opportunities including affordable housing which would be limited by mandatory controls: • Consider the New Residential Zones will limit residential opportunities in other areas – follows that in strategically located precincts, opportunities should

not be limited. • Site is the subject of a current planning application for an 11 storey mixed use development. Mandatory controls: • Considerable conflict between overarching objective for substantial redevelopment of the precinct and reinforcing the ‘fine grain pattern of the sub-

precinct’. • Many sites are undevelopable because of the mandatory controls. • Mandatory controls are not appropriate for the site based on Practice Note 59 - The role of Mandatory provisions in Planning Schemes. • Practice Notes states that mandatory provisions should be the exception. VPPs are based on the principle that there should be discretion for most


• Mandatory controls were considered in Melbourne Amendment C171 which applied to Southbank. The Panel considering the amendment took the view point that: - An attempt to micromanage development and make it a formulaic exercise. - Lead to a bland inner city experience and will stifle innovation. - Amendment authorisation letter states that the State Government did not support mandatory controls. - Mandatory controls are typically found in areas of consistently high heritage value, strong and consistent character or sensitive environmental

outcomes. • Mandatory controls are inappropriate tool for achieving the built form outcomes:

- Any potential benefits do not outweigh the lost opportunity and flexibility. - No planning sensitivities such as heritage or overshadowing of public open space. - In a strategic location that is well-located in terms of employment, public transport, the CBD and open space. - Fine grain nature of sites mean than many will be undevelopable. - Only one sensitive interface which can be addressed (see planning permit application). - In an area of built form change (Map 8 of the Precinct Plan).

22 582 St Kilda Road Aurora Sub-Precinct 5b

Submission with concerns: Building heights: • Increased height to 40m is a retrograde step. Overshadowing: • Would increase shadows across Albert Park and the golf course particularly in winter. • In Gold Coast, towers overshadow the beach – why repeat this mistake? • Council would not support 50 storey developments along Jacka Boulevard, Marine or Beaconsfield Parade overshadowing the beach.

SUB NO



Traffic: • Development of this scale would cause further stress on Queens Lane as these buildings would exit onto it. • Traffic hazards to cars and pedestrians. Amenity: • Loss of amenity and value. • Concerns about the wind tunnel effects.

23 368 St Kilda Road Royal Domain Tower Sub-Precinct 1a, c

Submission with concerns: Building heights: • Object to the increase in height from 60m to 70m AHD in Sub-Precinct 1c. External amenity: • Proposed height is inconsistent with the design objective of ‘minimising adverse amenity impacts upon streets and public places in the area as a result of

overshadowing, wind tunnelling or visual bulk within the context of a medium or higher rise built form.’ • Proposed height would increase wind tunnelling, street shadowing and visual bulk along Park Street. • Proposed increase in height is not consistent with the landscape setting. • Park Street and Wells Streets are not pedestrian friendly environments. • Creation of a hostile pedestrian environment leads to less pedestrians – streets become unattractive and unsafe for residents. (Not consistent with DDO

objective.) • Less likely to attract retail, cafes and restaurants – which would add to the amenity of the area. Traffic: • Increase in height will increase the number of occupants and therefore traffic in Wells and Park Street. • Both streets are already heavily used. Intersection is heavily congested and hard to navigate at peak hours. • Parking is already a problem for visitors, trades people and deliveries. This will be exacerbated. • Increased traffic makes the area less pedestrian friendly.

24-80

576 St Kilda Road Yve Apartments Sub-Precinct 5b

Submissions with concerns: • Vehemently object to the proposal. Building height: • Objects to proposed increase from 30m to 40m.

SUB NO



Amenity: Objects to future development at that scale as it would cause: • Blocking natural light. • Overshadowing of buildings. • Loss of amenity. • Significant increase of wind tunnel effect. • Increased noise. Views: • Blocking of views to Albert Park and Port Phillip Bay. Traffic and parking: • Traffic congestion in Queens Lane. • Traffic hazards in Queens Lane to both pedestrians and cars. Property values: • Loss of property values.

81 39 Park Street Sub-Precinct 2

Submission with concerns: • Support the vision to encourage higher density development in Sub-Precinct 2 - Northwest Corner, however object to the following: Building heights: • Object to the overly restrictive 45m height limit. • Does not adequately consider the strategic importance of the precinct. • Inconsistent with the Review of DDO3 and 4 (Planisphere, November 2013) which provided for taller, discretionary heights ie 60m in this area.

Mandatory controls: • Inconsistent with Practice Note 59 – The role of Mandatory provisions in planning schemes. • Desired outcomes should be implemented using a performance-based approach.

82 1 Albert Road The Domain Sub-Precinct 4b On behalf of the Owners Corporation

Submission with concerns: • Concerns about aspects of the planning framework. Of most concern is the future degradation of residential amenity should the amendment proceed in its

current form. Major issues are: - The size mass and proximity of future redevelopment of property adjacent to the Domain. - Consequential negative impacts that will result unless appropriate building separation standards are incorporated.

• 22 storey (63m) apartment building formerly known as BP House is in HO31. 105 apartments

SUB NO



Summary: • DDO26 does not include requirements for design quality and internal amenity included in the existing DDO (DDO4). • The level of population growth and new development could be accommodated and not erode the valued built form and amenity attributes of the precinct,

however, proposed DDO provisions will not achieve urban design and architectural excellence and a high degree of internal amenity for occupants: - Proposed tower separation distances do not provide for desirable built form outcomes with the precinct or provide for an adequate level of internal

amenity. - Controls do not adequately recognise the valued characteristics of the existing built form which contribute to its role as a boulevard of national

significance. - Absence of a uniform code for higher density residential development – mean the proposed controls are likely to facilitate outcomes that are

inconsistent with best practice in apartment design. - Controls ignore the fundamental considerations of liveability.

Internal amenity: • 9m separation from another building / 4.5m from a side/rear boundary is not adequate to ensure an adequate level of internal amenity. • Buildings could be 4.5m from a boundary with no requirement to consider the location of windows or balconies. • Proposed controls will not reduce wind tunnelling effects or loss of light. • Will not provide an adequate level of internal amenity and would not meet the design objectives and General Requirements of the DDO. • Will not result in ‘urban design and architectural excellence’. • A key objective of the precinct is to ‘reinforce a sense of symmetry and consistency in the streetscape of St Kilda Road and Queens Road through regularity of

building heights, spacing and frontage setbacks’. Proposed separation would erode the sense of symmetry and consistency in the streetscape in relation to building spacing.

• Proposed controls treat all sites as equal irrespective of lot size or frontage width. A podium tower can be realised on all sites (noting differences in building heights).

• Controls allow development deep into a lot. This erodes the potential for view sharing and increases the number of apartments oriented towards side boundaries. Can lead to the temporary borrowing of amenity over future development sites.

• Controls are more like suburban planning controls (ie more appropriate to 3 storey residential buildings than high scale development on a boulevard of national significance.

• Controls need to be consistent with industry best practice such as Moreland’s proposed Design Code for Higher Density Development. Code sets out separation distances according to outlook and height. In the Code, the separation distance increases with building height. Separation distance also depends on whether it is a primary or secondary outlook. Code is designed to maximum the amount of daylight into dwellings, provide a reasonable outlook for dwellings, reduce overlooking, reduce noise disturbances, provide opportunities for natural ventilation and ensure adjoining sites can gain adequate daylight and a reasonable outlook.

• Southbank DDO includes the following separation distances: - Towers should be a minimum of 20m from an adjoining tower. This should not be varied unless the majority of the built form outcomes are met;

there is inequitable tower setback on a neighbouring site. The minimum setback should be 10 metres. - Towers above a podium should be a minimum of 10 metres from the front, side and rear boundaries.

• Panel considering the Southbank Amendment C171 did not support the use of borrowed light. The Panel highlighted that there is no over-riding guidelines on what is an acceptable amount to borrow. Issue has bounced from planning to building and vice versa. Panel urged relevant authorities to address this issue.

SUB NO



• C171 Panel commented that by providing a meaningful separation, a raft of amenity concerns will be met and the resultant variety of heights begins to enliven the skyline.

• Use intermediate controls on smaller lots which provide for tower separation between individual sites but also across a number of sites to avoid continuous wall to wall towers.

Tower width and depth: • 35m by 35m floor plate coupled with 4.5m setbacks and lack of a reference in the DDO to the location of windows and balconies will also not provide for

adequate internal amenity. • C171 proposed a 35m by 35m building footprint. Panel noted a study by Toronto which encouraged the use of smaller building footprints to facilitate

amenity outcomes. Panel strongly endorsed Toronto’s view. Considered the dimensions too big. • Should not be included in Amendment C107. • Building floor plate size should be based on achieving a desirable level of natural daylight (eg the Moreland Code.) • Limit the physical mass of the tower where sufficient side and rear setbacks cannot be achieved. Building heights: • Existing built form of taller buildings on the main roads and lower scale buildings on the lesser roads and laneways will be undermined. • Stepping down between the maximum height on St Kilda Road and Queens Road to maintain the corridor and provide a graduation to the park to mitigate

shadows. This would ensure that the primary boulevard of St Kilda Road is evident when viewed from a distance. • Propose higher built form along the edges of the precinct along St Kilda Road and Albert Road with lower built forms to the rear.

83 166 Albert Road Sub-Precinct 3d

Submission with concerns: • Proposed development controls will restrict the development potential of the site. • Drafting leads to uncertainty over development of the site. Corner sites: • Seek clarification on the mandatory controls for corner sites. • Clause 2.0 which addresses corner sites is open for interpretation. • Wording suggests that podium heights and setbacks are excluded on these sites. However a number of other controls apply – not clear which provisions

are being referred to in Clause 2.0 (eg: 3m landscape setback, side and rear setbacks, 9m setback from other towers, overall height, podium height etc.) Needs clarification.

84 350 St Kilda Road St James Building Sub-Precinct 1a, c

Submission with concerns: • Two major concerns with regard to new apartments planned in the immediate vicinity: Traffic: • Traffic volumes, road congestion and pedestrian safety would be severely affected by the intensity of development.

SUB NO



• Planning provision of 0.7 car spaces per apartment will mean that several hundred extra cars will be garaged and driven. • Difficult for traffic turning from Wells Street into Park Street. Park Street is often gridlocked during rush hour. Traffic banks back to Dorcas Street. Can

take many minutes to turn into Park Street. • More cars will exacerbate this problem and create unacceptable congestion and safety issues. Internal amenity: • Buildings of 20 storeys plus with 9m building separation will compromise access to daylight and privacy. • To ensure privacy it will be necessary to have curtains drawn – reducing daylight. • Seeks an increase the minimum distance between buildings.

85 50 Park Street

Sub-Precinct 2

Submission with concerns: • Do not oppose the general theme of the amendment but strenuously oppose any mandatory development controls - unnecessary, unfair and inequitable. Mandatory controls: • Adversely impacted by mandatory front and side setbacks. Will preclude development above the podium. • Requirements are contrary to the objectives for the sub-precinct (ie: as an opportunity for development and change as a higher density residential and

mixed use enclave, based around lively pedestrian focussed streets). • Requirements (such as side and rear setbacks) will preclude any development above podium level. Will make many sites unfeasible. • Prevent landowners from contributing to the objectives of the precinct and broader planning objectives for metropolitan Melbourne. • Contrary to Objective 1a of s4 of the Planning and Environment Act as Amendment C107 does not provide for the fair use and development of the

smaller sites in Sub-precinct 2. • Contrary to the objective of achieving ‘urban design and architectural excellence’ • Will create inequitable development rights. • 5m side setback is not appropriate in a precinct which has varied and inconsistent lot sizes. Will have the effect of rendering many smaller sites

undevelopable; imposing significantly on neighbouring large sites which will then be unnecessary. A site responsive approach is necessary. • Will necessitate the consolidation of a number of sites which may not be achievable. • Provides landowners of larger sites with an economic advantage over small sites. • Lead to inefficient use of prime land. • Will result in the varying scale and quality of existing buildings being enhanced eg 52 and 88 Park Street. Both have lesser front and side setbacks than

DDO26. • Controls must be able to be varied to provide a contextual and site responsive outcome. Schedule should be amended to include a performance based

assessment to determine appropriate side and front setbacks.

SUB NO



86 619 St Kilda Road Sub-Precinct 5c

Submission with concerns: • A planning permit was issued for site (PP1266/2013). Allows a nine storey building to be used as an aged care facility. C107 was considered when assessing

the application. • Support the proposed planning amendment at a high level. Facilitates a co-ordinated approach to delivering high level visions set out in the St Kilda North

Precinct Plan. • While a permit has been granted, changes are required to provide greater flexibility in the future. • Seeking review of the following key elements:

- Proposed mandatory built form controls - Tower width and depth - Overshadowing requirements to Wesley College.

Mandatory controls: • Seeking discretionary built form controls in place of mandatory controls. • Controls as proposed do not support Council’s strategic aspirations for the area where the built form will evolve and change over time. • Punt Road provides a robust interface to the subject site. In this context, a building could exceed 40m in height. • The subject site is 9,000sqm plus which could accommodate a building with a bigger building footprint than 35m by 35m. It is considered a strategic

redevelopment site because of its size (9,000sqm+). • No strategic justification for the mandatory heights. • Building heights at 60m should not be restricted. • Does not meet Practice Note 59 – The Role of Mandatory Provisions in Planning Schemes. • Practice Notes states that mandatory provisions should be the exception. VPPs are based on the principle that there should be discretion for most


• Mandatory controls were considered in Melbourne Amendment C171 which applied to Southbank. The Panel considering the amendment considered: - An attempt to micromanage development and make it a formulaic exercise. - Lead to a bland inner city experience and will stifle innovation. - Amendment authorisation letter states that the State Government did not support mandatory controls. - Typically found in areas of consistently high heritage value, strong and consistent character or sensitive environmental outcomes.

Tower depth and width: • No strategic justification or evidence for the proposed maximum tower width and depth controls. • Planning permit issued for the site shows an example of where this requirement can be exceeded and still achieve access to daylight, reduced visual bulk

and maintaining sightlines between buildings. • A specified width and depth should not be included where built form is only to a height of 40-60m. Solar access to Wesley College: • Protection from any overshadowing at the winter solstice is unreasonable. • Would not enable Council’s objectives about higher order development to be met.

SUB NO



• Not warranted for private property. These sorts of controls usually only apply to public spaces such as the State Library forecourt. • Should not set the parameters for developments. DDO requires consideration of overshadowing in the decision guidelines.

87 601 St Kilda Road Sub-Precinct 5c


• Lodged a planning permit application for the site (PP 855/2013). Proposes the comprehensive redevelopment of the site for 3 residential buildings, 2 buildings are proposed to be 61m in height. Buildings would be prohibited under C107.

• Summary: - Use of mandatory building height and setback controls are not strategically justified. - Content of the DDO should be reviewed and simplified. (DDO has been drafted as a ‘catch all’ for planning policy. Also contains errors.)

DDO design objectives: • Objectives on Pages 1 and 2 could be simplified to “General”, “Shrine Setting” and “Sub-Precinct” objectives. • High degree of repetition in the first four pages. • Should provide an overview of over-arching matters and then objectives for each sub-precinct. • Some objectives dealing with land use and landscaping would be better included in the MSS (in Clause 21.06-7 St Kilda Road North Precinct) or within Clause

22.06 – Design for non-residential development and multi-unit residential development. This could also include some of the objectives under: City Beautiful, Landscape, Streets for people etc.

Corner sites:

• Not clear how the proposed 18m podium height to the side street works. The podium requirement is shown along the High Street frontage. • Exemption in Clause 2.0 states that the podium does not need to be expressed to the St Kilda Road frontage. • 18m podium cannot be easily integrated into the building form fronting St Kilda Road which expressly discourages a podium. Likely to result in a clumsy

built form outcome. Further complicated by 4.5m setback for a side boundary. • Requirement should be discretionary to enable a creative design solution.

Landscaped setback:

• Not clear in the DDO text that the 13.7m landscaped setback applies to the eastern side of St Kilda Road as well as the western side. This should be specified.

Mandatory controls: • Inadequate justification for a mandatory height limit. • Objective is to reinforce a consistent scale along St Kilda Road; however the existing building heights are not homogenous. • Does not appropriately respond to the metropolitan significance of the precinct. • Fails to acknowledge the Precinct’s identification as part of the expanded central city in Plan Melbourne. • VPPs are fundamentally a performance-based planning framework. • Mandatory controls should only be applied in exceptional circumstances.

SUB NO



• Discretionary height limit will ensure the proposed development for the site reinforces both prevailing and emerging scale of the surrounding area and recognises the corner location.

• Clause 2.0 – Buildings and Works states that a permit cannot be granted to vary any mandatory requirements. However there are a number of exemptions to this. Why Sub-Precinct 5c is not included in the exception to mandatory provisions? Discretionary requirements would reduce the need for this.

General requirements : • Significant repetition. Content could be relocated to local planning policy at Clause 21 or 22. • Sub-Precinct controls should be in Clause 4.0 as they are not general requirements.

Application requirements: • Requirement for a shadow diagram for ‘daylight hours’ at the Equinox is not in line with accepted industry standards (eg for 3 hours between 11am and

2pm or 5 hours between 10am and 3pm). • Unclear why this information is required. • Requirement for plans or models showing the proposed development in the context of the Shrine and its setting are not relevant to all precincts. Repeats

the requirements of the Shrine Vista Overlay (DDO13). Decision guidelines: • Not clear which design guidelines are referred to in terms of overshadowing impacts.

88 582 St Kilda Road Aurora Apartments Sub-Precinct 5b

Submission with concerns: • Vehemently object to the proposal. Building heights: • Does not support increase from 30m to 40m – specifically between Lorne and Beatrice Streets. • Increase in height significantly decreases amenity to existing buildings. Questions whether Council want to create another Southbank with a lack of

sunlight, wind tunnel and no outlook other than overlooking windows and no privacy. • Review of DDO3 & 4 (Planisphere Report) quotes a 45m height in one section and 40m elsewhere – undermines confidence in the report. • Current 30m height has not been breached on Queens Road between Beatrice and Lorne streets. • In several previous reviews of DDO4 – the recommended 30m height was always considered and retained. This should have been made mandatory. • Aurora Apartments at 582 St Kilda are at a narrow point between Albert Lake and Queens Road and a 30m height would provide a more gradual step to

St Kilda Road. 40m is too steep. Traffic: • Traffic congestion in Queens Lane. • Traffic hazards in Queens Lane to cars and pedestrians.

SUB NO



Amenity: • ‘Principal 5’ of the Planisphere Report states that “the design of higher density environment requires the consideration of a number of specific issues. This relates to

the amenity of internal environments particular the quality of residential spaces and the impact that the new development might have upon adjoining buildings or neighbourhood.”

• Concerns with: - Blocking of natural light. - Overshadowing of buildings - Loss of amenity and value. - Significant increase of the wind tunnel. - Increased noise.

• High quality buildings such as Aurora generally contain large apartments and are generally occupied by owner occupiers. • Many owners may sell up if significant amenity is lost and sell at significantly diminished prices. Ultimately contributing to making the area a ghetto with

owner occupiers in show box sized apartments. Views: • Blocking of views of Albert Park and Port Phillip Bay. • 40m height removes views to the west and outlook from apartments. It was not unreasonable to expect that the 30m height would remain in place.

89 582 St Kilda Road

Aurora Apartments Sub-Precinct 5b

Submission with concerns: • See Submission 88.

90 Outside the St Kilda Road North Precinct Peel Street (between Punt Road and Upton Road), Windsor

Submission with concerns: Object to the proposal for the following reasons: • Definitive heights and setbacks should be listed (ie actual dimensions / restrictions). • A complete parking and amenities scheme should be developed by external body and not developers. • A board of planners and architects should develop a scheme for the area which achieves and appropriate design / feel for the area. • An external design board should be set up to review designs. • A ‘Green Plan’ should be required with any development eg 25% of any development should be green ie new trees, existing mature trees. • Should also include water recycling and solar panels.

SUB NO



91 100 Park Street Sub-Precinct 2

Submission with concerns: • Council should support the recommendations of Review of DDO3 & 4 (by Planisphere) and increase the permissible height of development from 45 to

60m. • Site on the corner of Kings Way and Park Street. • Has a current permit for a showroom/office and 48 apartments (PP0231/2012). Permit complies with the interim controls of 35m.

Building height: • Building height should be 60m and not 45m. This is based on the Review of DDO3 and 4 and supported by urban design advice provided by David Lock

Associates. Planisphere recommended 60m as the area was changing and will continue to evolve. • Objectives for the sub-precinct can still be achieved with a 60m height limit. • Site is not located in a precinct that will impact on the Shrine of Remembrance.

Setbacks: • Mandatory setbacks to the street and side boundaries are overly prescriptive and inhibit the ability to undertake innovative design. • Level of prescription is not needed to achieve a vibrant inner urban residential and mixed use environment.

92 78 Eastern Road Sub-Precinct 3e

Submission with concerns: • Oppose any height increases around Eastern Road. Traffic: • Narrow streets and one way street will contribute to traffic problems and are not made for medium to high density traffic. Parking: • An excessive amount of traffic will further restrict parking spaces. With increased volumes of residents (eg from the development in Regent Street), there

is already limited parking. Increased apartments will only exacerbate the issue. Access to sunlight: • Any increase in height in Thomson Street is going to reduce the amount of sunlight to properties at the intersection of Thomson Street and Eastern Road.

Unnecessary and unacceptable. Privacy: • Narrow road means that neighbouring properties can already see into the office across the road. Conversion to residential will lead to on-going privacy

issues.

SUB NO



Notification of the amendment: • Notice was sent to the Body Corporate, who act on behalf of its owners – can only cannot pass on information. • Information was not sent to all home owners in the building. • True public opinion cannot be sought when 80% of key stakeholders did not know about their ability to contest the changes. • Will be seeking legal advice to ensure that Council has taken all necessary steps and is not just pushing through the amendment.

93 60-70 Park Street Sub-Precinct 2


• Applauds Council for its review but has concerns about the composition and mechanics of the DDO. • Located on northern side of Park Street between Kings Way and Wells. Summary:

• Use of mandatory building height and setback controls in an area designated for substantial renewal are not strategically justified. • Questions the strategic basis for 45m height limit. • Content of the DDO should be reviewed and simplified. (DDO has been drafted as a ‘catch all’ for planning policy. Also contains errors.)

DDO design objectives: • Objectives on Pages 1 and 2 could be simplified to “General”, “Shrine Setting” and “Sub-Precinct” objectives. • High degree of repetition in the first four pages. • Should provide an overview of over-arching matters and then objectives for each sub-precinct. • Some objectives dealing with land use and landscaping would be better included in the MSS (in Clause 21.06-7 St Kilda Road North Precinct) or within

Clause 22.06 – Design for non-residential development and multi-unit residential development. This could also include some of the objectives under: City Beautiful, Landscape, Streets for people etc.

Mandatory heights: • No strategic justification for 45m mandatory height. • Use of mandatory heights and setbacks in areas designed for significant renewal is not justified. • Existing pattern of height in this area is not homogenous. • On the doorstep of the CBD with ideal access to sustainable transport alternatives and an identified capacity to accommodate substantial change. • Does not appropriately respond to the metropolitan significance of the precinct. • Fails to acknowledge the site’s identification of part of the expanded central city in Plan Melbourne. • Mandatory controls were considered in Melbourne Amendment C171 which applied to Southbank – identified as an area to accommodate substantial

future population and significant change. • The Panel critiqued built form typology and a reliance on a formulaic approach:

- No evidence that tower podium is the best built form outcome to achieve the objectives of the structure plan. - Formulaic approach will preclude some excellent design examples. - One size fits all approach does not sit comfortably in an area like Southbank – different road layout, lot sizes, irregular shaped lots. - No real evidence that the performance based approach has not worked.

SUB NO



• Notes that the Minister has recently adopted the use of mandatory building height limits for parts of the precinct to protect the setting of the Shrine. But do not consider this a justification for the use of mandatory setback controls in the precinct.

Buildings and works: • Clause 2.0 – Buildings and Works states that a permit cannot be granted to vary any mandatory requirements. However there are a number of

exemptions to this. Discretionary requirements are preferred and would negate the need for this.

General requirements : • Significant repetition. Content could be relocated to local planning policy at Clause 21 or 22. • Sub-Precinct controls should be in Clause 4.0 as they are not ‘General Requirements’.



the requirements of the Shrine Vista Overlay. Decision guidelines: • Not clear which design guidelines are referred to in terms of overshadowing impacts.

94 5 Thomson Street Sub-Precinct 3e

Submission with concerns: Property values: • Recently purchased and renovated the property. • Concerned that raising the height limit of buildings on the other side of Thomson Street will block views of the city (reason for purchasing the property). Privacy: • Offices across the road have views into the submitter’s apartment. Increased heights will enable more overlooking of living and bedroom spaces (including

children’s rooms). Access to sunlight: • Natural light may be blocked.

95 11-17 Dorcas Street

Sub-Precinct 1c

Submission with concerns: • Request that area affected by 70m AHD mandatory height with an 18m podium to a depth of 5m should be amended to allow a 98m AHD and a 3 metre

setback for more flexible building heights. • Site on south side of Dorcas Street and Middleton Lane. 1,000sqm site.

SUB NO



Building heights: • Height should be amended to allow a 98m AHD and a 3 metre setback for more flexible building heights. • Scale and form of the building is critical in respecting the sensitivity of the Shrine. Character of the area is different to the Domain with a low rise street-

wall and taller buildings behind. • Height does not take account of existing built form in the immediate area, the siting and orientation of the site and its relationship to the Shrine. • There are a number of existing apartment buildings which already exceed this height (eg at 368 St Kilda Road 158m AHD, 388 St Kilda Road – 115 AHD.) • Site is located at a clear transition point between higher built forms from Park Street to the south stepping down towards Coventry Street to the north. • Agree that the controls should protect important vistas / views and a sense of place of the Shrine but disagree with the Study’s disregard of the existing

developments. • Study did not provide any modelling for the view to the west. • 98m AHD provides a transition from the 115m AHD apartment to its south and the 73m AHD apartment to its north. • 98m AHD responds to key issues raised in the Study. It is lower than the Cenotaph and is subservient to the Shrine. Setbacks: • 5m setback above the 18m podium is inappropriate considering the surrounding context and setbacks along Dorcas Street. • Shrine Study does not elaborate on increased mandatory setback along Dorcas Street. • None of the other buildings along Dorcas Street have a pronounced stepped podium form. • No justification including viewlines that would justify the need for an increased setback. • Will constrain design options and a site responsive design.

96 Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure

Traffic and Public transport:

• Map 6 – Transport and Access Map – in St Kilda North Precinct Plan needs to be amended to include a proposed commuter bike path and a proposed separated bike path along Dorcas Street to align with the Principal Bicycle Network and Plan Melbourne Map 21.

• Public Transport Victoria and VicRoads have no objection to the amendment.

97 390 St Kilda Road Adaps House Sub-Precinct 4d

Submission in support: • Support the amendment specifically the mandatory controls. Building height: • A mandatory height of 65m AHD applies. • Building is one of the tallest and exceeds the mandatory height but submitter supports the vision of the Council as it seeks to protect the boulevard and

setting of the Shrine. • Consider the controls paramount to protect the character of the area and amenity of public spaces. • Sub-Precinct 4 is relatively prominent due to the bend in St Kilda Road. • Further large buildings will create a dominant built form in the backdrop of the Shrine taking away from its importance. • Height of 65m provides a transition between existing development on St Kilda Road, Shrine, Bowen Crescent Reserve and Albert Park.

SUB NO



• Will allow for new development at increased densities whilst providing an appropriate transition in height. • Would support lesser heights but understand the substantial work behind Amendment C140 in establishing the heights. Mandatory controls: • Support mandatory controls – give certainty. • Would object is discretionary controls are proposed or if higher mandatory heights are proposed. Amenity impacts: • Bowen Crescent is narrow. Concerned about impacts of increased height on wind tunnelling and amenity of public spaces, including overshadowing of

footpaths and Bowen Crescent Reserve which is locally significant. 98 200-204 Wells Street

Sub-Precinct 2

Submission with concerns: • Support the overall thrust of the rationale and approach behind the Precinct Plan but consider the built form controls overly restrictive and will fetter

development. Oppose mandatory controls. • Site on north-west corner of Park and Wells Street (1,500sqm in size). • Planning permit (2010/608) was issued in May 2011 allowing redevelopment with convenience restaurant, shops and dwellings in a 12 storey building.

Approved shortly after the introduction of the interim height controls. • Will not act on the permit until current amendment process is complete. Building heights: • Land should be included in 60m discretionary height limit with additional design guidance if this height is exceeded. • Overly restrictive. • Controls fail to achieve a stepping down in built form from St Kilda Road to Kings Way and enforce specific setbacks to achieve a tower podium outcome. • Amendment provides for an increase to the current height of 35m. Envisaged as a temporary measure until a more rigorous assessment of the area had

been conducted. Assessment has now been done. • Planisphere Report identified that the sub-precinct was suitable for increased building scale up to 60m or higher. The height would accommodate

substantial residential / mixed use development. Found that buildings higher than 60m could potentially be achieved subject to meeting all other design, solar access and amenity requirements.

• Planisphere Report also considered that it was not realistic to require a transitional building form between the two sides of Kings Way – as it forms a distinct edge partly due to width and traffic volume. Different role and character to the other side of Kings Way.

• 60m acknowledges the heights recommended by the Southbank Structure Plan for the north side of Dorcas Street which proposed increased heights from 28-32m to 40 and 60m.

• Surrounding area has a mixed character and a number of buildings that exceed the height limits (eg Royal Domain, 52 Park Street) • Question the lowering of the height to 45m. No explanation for this. • Support policies and strategies for the sub-precinct but do not think they will be realised by the controls. • Site is appropriate for higher density development – proximity to parkland, St Kilda Road interchange and transport network and wide range of services. • Applies a ‘de facto’ mandatory control by requiring existing solar access to the southern footpaths of Bank and Park Streets be maintained.

SUB NO



Mandatory controls: • Applies a number of mandatory height limits – heights, setbacks, podiums and tower separation. • Mandatory controls have been considered by a number of Panels including the Panel considering Amendment C171 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

Amendment related to Southbank. • Panel found:

- Mandatory controls are the exception – should only be applied in exceptional circumstances. VPPs anticipate discretion for most developments – with applications tested against design objectives and built form performance outcomes.

- Mandatory controls are typically found in areas of consistently high heritage value, strong and consistent character or in sensitive environmental locations.

• Consider area close to the Shrine as an exceptional circumstance where mandatory controls are warranted. Note that the Shrine Study identified that the subject site and areas to the west of St Kilda Road are capable of accommodating buildings ranging in height from 70m to 150m AHD.

• A more sophisticated set of planning controls are required: - Ensure views to the Shrine are protected - While providing for lower discretionary controls for new buildings which do not impact on these views.

• DDO26 should include both mandatory and discretionary controls.

99-125

576 St Kilda Road Sub-Precinct 5b

Submission with concerns: • See Submission 24-80.

126 13-21 Palmerston Street Sub-Precinct 2

Submission with concerns: • Objects to the current form of the proposed amendment. Requires significant work and should be re-exhibited. St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan: • Plan is inappropriate, obsolete and inconsistent with parts of the amendment. • Gives no consideration to the Shrine Study despite this document being a reference document to the amendment, the plan considering the Shrine of

Remembrance but not the most recent Study, DDO26 being amended due to the Minister’s authorisation and the Shrine Study – rendering the Precinct Plan inconsistent.

• Shrine Study must be considered as part of the Precinct Plan before an amendment progresses. Building height: • No justification for 45m building height. • Not based on any detailed modelling. • Area contains a mix of different sized sites with different opportunities and constraints – one size does not fit all.

SUB NO



Mandatory controls: • DDO seeks to achieve urban design and architectural excellence yet provides minimum flexibility. • Approach is not supported by Practice Note 59 - The Role of Mandatory Provisions in the Planning Scheme. Changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement: • Not appropriate to include the Precinct Plan’s finding in the MSS or as an Incorporated Document.

127 28 Albert Road

Sub-Precinct 4a

Submission with concerns: • Objects to the current form of the proposed amendment. Requires significant work and should be re-exhibited. St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan: • Plan is inappropriate, obsolete and inconsistent with parts of the amendment. • Gives no consideration to the Shrine Study despite this document being a Reference Document to the amendment, the plan considering the Shrine of

Remembrance but not the most recent Study, DDO26 being amended due to the Minister’s authorisation and the Shrine Study – rendering the Precinct Plan inconsistent.

• Shrine Study must be considered as part of the Precinct Plan before an amendment progresses. Building height: • Maximum height for the sub-precinct in the Precinct Plan is inconsistent with DDO26. • Heights and setbacks are not based on any detailed modelling. • Area contains a mix of different sized sites with different opportunities and constraints – one size does not fit all. Mandatory controls: • DDO seeks to achieve urban design and architectural excellence yet provides minimum flexibility. • Approach is not supported by Practice Note 59 - The Role of Mandatory Provisions in the Planning Scheme. Changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement: • Not appropriate to include the Precinct Plan’s finding in the MSS or as an incorporated document.

128 Stonnginton City Council

Submission in support: • Supports the proposed amendment but is seeking some changes to the DDO. Building heights: • Heights appear largely appropriate and are consistent with the recently introduced heights protecting the Shrine Vista. • Proposed building height on Punt Road (40m – approximately 13 storeys) is a complementary scale to the width of the road and provides a transitional

scale to the lower built form on the eastern side of Punt Road in Stonnginton.

SUB NO



Landscaped setbacks: • 4.5m setback along Punt Road is supported. Will soften the built form frontages on Punt Road and side streets. Vehicle movements and car parks: • DDO requires that vehicle ingress and egress and loading facilities and services should not be located on frontages along St Kilda Road. • Recommends that the DDO be broadened to include a requirement for Punt Road so that vehicle movement be encouraged from side streets and

laneways. • Car parks above ground should not be encouraged or visible on the Punt Road frontage.

129 41-49 Bank Street Sub-Precinct 2

Submission with concerns: • Object to the proposed plan especially the mandatory controls. • Generally supportive of the broader objectives and Strategic directions in the Precinct Plan but consider the built form controls overly restrictive. Summary: • Mandatory setbacks and height controls are overly prescriptive. • Fail to acknowledge the site’s location and context of taller buildings. • Site is close to parkland, St Kilda Road interchange and transport network and a wide range of services and is appropriate for higher density development. Building height: • Planning permit (2009/808) was issued in June 2010 allowing redevelopment with convenience restaurant, residential hotel and dwellings in a 16 storey

building. Expires in 2016. • Height of the building in the permit exceeds the mandatory height control (ie 46.6m approved vs 45m proposed control). • Other buildings extend above the height (opposite 38 Bank Street and 52 Park Street). Additionally, taller buildings in the vicinity include

Royal Domain Tower at 42 storeys and 16 storey building at 380 St Kilda Road. • Site is in an area that is identified for housing growth. • Question the need to transition the built form from St Kilda Road to Kings Way in the manner proposed. Mandatory controls: • Should include discretionary controls with a requirement that certain built form objectives must be met (eg impacts on views to and from the Shrine.) • Consider area close to the Shrine as an exceptional circumstance where mandatory controls are warranted. Note that the Shrine Study identified that the

subject site and areas to the west of St Kilda Road are capable of accommodating buildings ranging in height from 70m to 150m AHD. • A more sophisticated set of planning controls are required:

- Ensure views to the Shrine are protected - While providing for lower discretionary controls for new buildings which do not impact on these views.

• DDO26 should include both mandatory and discretionary controls.

SUB NO



130 335 Moray Street Sub-Precinct 3f

Position not stated: Impacts of the amendment process: • Planning application lodged for the site. Awaiting a VCAT hearing. • Design would exceed mandatory height by just over a metre. • Substantial costs have already been incurred – how does the amendment impact on the hearing?

131 Not stated

Submission with concerns: • Amendment should have been stopped at Albert Road as the area between Albert Road and Dorcas Street is a different area which includes mainly

apartments and smaller dwellings and single storey commercial premises. Amenity: • The amenity has declined in the last 8 years. Now the traffic and amenity is being destroyed by traffic, no open areas, wind tunnels. • Wish to maintain the area as a good place to live. • Precinct will become totally unliveable and any amenity which is currently enjoyed will be destroyed unless over development is curbed. • There needs to be:

- strict mandatory controls over height and mass - a transition of height from St Kilda Road to Kings Way - mandatory mix of one, two and three bedroom apartments - mandatory minimum size (area) of apartments and private balconies - prohibition of “borrowed light” - mandatory requirements for set-backs from boundaries.

• A dominance of one bedroom apartments or studios which rely upon borrowed light while maximizing profits for developers will result in low socio-economic strata of transient residents.

• Developments must be sympathetic to surrounding areas and not huge high rise developments of unreasonable mass which deny solar access to adjoining occupiers.

• Solar access must be preserved by a mandatory separation of towers. • Higher density was contemplated by the existing DDO’s and until unrealistic “discretions” were permitted by the Planning Authority and VCAT, massive

overdevelopment was avoided. • Urban design and public realm requirements must ensure the design of a new development is of a high quality and enhances the amenity, comfort, safety

and visual amenity of the public realm. Urban design objectives also require a development to enhance the visual and streetscape amenity of the area and to enhance neighbourhood character.

• Future development must take into account of existing developments and the possible re-development of all other sites in the Precinct and it is • unacceptable to overshadow office or other buildings who are entitled to proper solar access.

SUB NO



Mandatory controls: • The 36m height proposed in DDO 3-5 and DDO 3-8 and the 20 storey, 60m height in DDO 4-1 and DDO 3-7 clearly fit the definition of sustainable high

density development. Higher density does not mean overdevelopment which causes loss of amenity. • Permitting developments to exceed these height limits, the dispensation of other town planning controls, provides developers with an unreasonable

opportunity to overdevelop particular sites and also to substantially restrict properly controlled development of other development sites in the Precinct. • Both existing and future occupiers of developments should be protected against overdevelopment. • Need to maintain a scaling down of building away from the St Kilda Road edge and preserve the existing vistas of the Shrine of Remembrance. • Set-backs should be mandatory and development should not be permitted to title boundaries. • Sites should be of a mandatory minimum size and developers should be required to acquire abutting sites if a site does not meet minimum size. • Any discretion must have an upper limit e.g. 15%. In a recent application in the Precinct (prevented by interim mandatory height controls), the

development was 254% over the height limit provided by the planning scheme. Housing diversity: • Must be housing diversity. High number of one bedroom apartments and studio apartments does not constitute housing diversity. • Developers often provide a “spare room”. This is largely used as a second bedroom without direct light or ventilation. This is contrary to proper planning

guidelines. Traffic: • Traffic gridlock occurs in peak hours and at other times of the day in Park Street, Wells Street and Albert Road. • Park Street and Albert Road not only cater for local traffic, but are through roads. • Difficult for residents of The Hallmark, Royal Domain Tower and St James Apartments to access Park Street, especially in peak hours. • Traffic surveys must be based on valid evidence. • Much of the traffic from the south and east will access Palmerston Crescent, Park Street and the Wells intersection from Kings Way, a major arterial road. • Not possible to create more roads. Current traffic from Domain Road and St Kilda Road cannot be diverted - nowhere to send it. • Traffic from the eastern suburbs use City Road, Park Street and Albert Road – cannot travel through the CBD or use any access south of the CBD. • Traffic surveys ignore traffic generated by approved developments or developments with permits pending and do not calculate projected traffic impacts

when all the potential sites are developed. • Prescribe minimum requirements for inclusion in a traffic report including the times, days and location at which traffic surveys are to be conducted. Parking: • Earlier developments in the Precinct provided off-street parking for residents and visitors and do not create extra pressure on on-street parking. • Parking is now generally fully utilised during the day. • May be further limited by the necessity to have clearways in Park Street and Albert Road. • High rise developments (particularly one bedroom and studio apartments with no off-street parking or visitor parking) will put significant pressure on

minimal on-street parking (now subject to time restrictions). • Some residents can cycle or walk to the CBD, however work outside the CBD and in areas cannot walk, cycle or use public transport. • Retirees, who make up a large proportion of residents in the Precinct, also generally have cars for travel to destinations other than the CBD.

SUB NO



• Planning Scheme seeks to ensure an adequate supply of car parking to ensure residential amenity are protected from the ‘effects of road congestion created by on-street parking.’

• The planning scheme should specify mandatory minimum provision of car parks. • A minimum number of visitor car parks, which cannot be reduced, should also be required to alleviate congestion. • Lack of on-site car parking reduces the amenity of the area. • Extra traffic should be restricted by controlling the size of developments. Public transport: • Appears that a number of tram routes serve the Precinct, but they are overcrowded and difficult to use in peak hours and at many other times of the day,

in both directions. • Major developments should not be approved until adequate public transport is provided. • Refer applications to the Director of Public Transport who must address how overcrowding will be alleviated. Also should require provision of tram stops

which will serve the elderly and disabled. No development should be permitted until there is a binding commitment to rectify these deficiencies. Open space and landscaping: • Include a mandatory minimum area for private balconies. (Balconies should not be included in assessing public open space requirements or the size of

apartments and shrubs, pot plants and artificial grass, etc must not be able to be counted as satisfying landscaping requirements.) • Each new development in the Precinct should not be considered in isolation. • 5% open space contribution (land or cash contribution) should not be able to waived. • Landscaping should be a distinctive feature of the Precinct. Should not be traded off by the provision of private balconies. Loading and waste storage facilities: • Loading dock should be a mandatory requirement to enable access for removalists who will be regularly required to service large numbers of tenancies.

There are minimal on-street loading facilities. Storage of construction materials: • Application must outline how delivery of construction materials is to be achieved and where the materials will be stored during construction to ensure

vehicles and pedestrians on abutting roads are not unreasonably impeded. Podium levels and architectural treatments: • Podiums should not be constructed to the boundaries of sites and must have mandatory setbacks prescribed in the planning scheme. • Developers should specify proposed architectural treatments in planning applications and it should not be left to planning officers to subsequently approve

architectural treatments. • Built form and architectural treatment should not be used to justify massive overdevelopment. • Developments must respect the surrounding built form context. Infrastructure: • Provision of infrastructure or a financial contribution towards the cost of infrastructure needed to support further development must be a specified

requirement in the Planning Scheme.

SUB NO



• No future development should be approved until the Planning Authority has provided an impact statement for future development in the Precinct which includes an estimate of cost of the future infrastructure and a formula for each new development to contribute to that cost.

• This should extend not only to provision of roads, power, drainage and water, but for the cost of pre-school centres and primary schools in the Municipality, which are now sadly lacking.

132 20 Queens Road Sub-Precinct 6b

Submission with concerns: • Strongly objects to the introduction of mandatory controls. • Current planning permit application for an 18 storey apartment building (P0640/2014). Mandatory controls: • Unnecessary and blunt tool. • Existing discretionary controls have served the area well. • Update to objectives and design outcomes may be necessary however it is not necessary to make controls mandatory to achieve the objectives. • Practice Note 59 – The role of mandatory provisions in planning schemes and various panel hearings have addressed the issue. PN59 states that:

- Performance-based planning system is able to accommodate variation - Mandatory provisions should be the exception. - Circumstances where they may be appropriate are areas of high heritage value, strong and consistent character themes or sensitive environmental

locations such as along the coast. • Independent planning panel considering Melbourne Planning Scheme C20 stated:

- Objective based strategic decision making is a fundamental tenet of the VPPs. - Over reliance on the mandatory requirements undermines it. - Mandatory control is appropriate where it can be established that in the vast majority of cases an application is not in accordance with the building

requirements would be contrary to the design objectives. - Or in the majority of cases buildings not in accordance with building height or other requirements would detract from the essential character of the

area or other built form outcome. • Conclusion reached by a number of other panels considering mandatory controls was that the appropriate means of expressing a requirement in the

planning scheme is as a discretionary provision with mandatory controls only being applied where specific circumstances warrant it. • Existing DDO provides a performance based approach to height. Incorporates a preferred height limit supported by design objectives and outcomes. • In some instances, constraints such as heritage or the size of the allotment may well constrain the building to a lower height. • One size does not fit all. • Proposed development will meet the design objectives for the sub-precinct. • Queens Road is not a sensitive coastal location and while there is some degree of consistency in built form it is not so consistent as to warrant mandatory

controls. • Discretionary heights would be appropriate with some fine tuning and the introduction of some additional design outcomes. • Proposed controls did not take a fresh look at the precinct. Have taken the existing suite of controls and made them mandatory. No confidence that a full

and open review has occurred.

SUB NO



• Queens Road does not meet the criteria outlined in Amendment C20 or Practice Note 59: - No evidence that the majority of cases not in accordance with the building requirements would not meet the design objectives. A building of greater

than 40m could still meet the objectives. - Not been identified that in the vast majority of cases buildings not in accordance with the proposed heights and setbacks would detract from the

essential character of the precinct or the built form outcomes the design objectives are seeking to achieve. • Should be reworded to remove ‘must’ and replace with ‘should’.

133 1-13 Cobden Street Sub-Precinct 2

Submission with concerns: • Opposes mandatory controls. Not justified as it will result in a highly prescriptive built form. • 1,800sqm site. No viewlines to the Shrine. Area has a diverse mix of buildings and character. Mandatory Controls: • Council must consider Practice Note 59 - The role of mandatory provisions in the planning scheme. • It states:

- A performance-based planning system is able to accommodate variation, innovation, unforeseen uses and development or circumstances peculiar to a particular application.

- Mandatory provisions in the VPPs are the exception. - There are circumstances where mandatory provisions will provide certainty and ensure a preferable and efficient outcome – these circumstances

cannot be common practice. They may include appropriate are areas of high heritage value, strong and consistent character themes or sensitive environmental locations such as along the coast.

• Agree that the area directly surrounding the Shrine of Remembrance is an area where mandatory controls could be justified. • Mandatory controls could also be justified along the edges of Dorcas and Banks Streets to ensure the vista to the Shrine is not lost. • Sub-Precinct 2 and the subject site are not suitable for mandatory controls:

- Site is located where additional height could be achieved without having any impact on views to the Shrine of Remembrance - Not located in an area with strong consistent character. - Not located in an area of environmental significance or sensitivity. - Not covered by a Heritage Overlay.

• Mandatory controls would unnecessarily limit the evolution of the precinct. • Planisphere Review of DDO3 and 4 found that the sub-precinct was suitable for increased building scale up to 60m or higher with podiums of 35m to

Kings Way. Planisphere Report and DDO26 both identify that area presents considerable opportunity for development and change. • Discretionary height limit would allow for consideration of existing built form, neighbourhood character and individual site context. • One key objective that appears to have driven the decision to apply mandatory heights is the desire to achieve a transition in heights between St Kilda

Road and Kings Way. • Will limit development to one outcome. • Site is a large strategic redevelopment ‘island’ site and has no sensitive interfaces • Unlikely to allow for ‘urban design and architectural excellence’ sought by the DDO. • Evidence of existing and approved developments exceeding the 45m height limit (eg 52 Park Street – 47m; 38 Bank Street – 58m; 200-204 Wells Street –

64m.

SUB NO



• Objectives and General requirements of the DDO can be met without the reliance on mandatory controls. • Mandatory controls will not change the requirement for a planning permit. • Likely to limit the ability to ‘enhance the role of Kings Way as an important commercial precinct and gateway to the municipality and central city area by improving

the quality of the built form and landscaping.’ • Map 8 in the Precinct Plan shows the area as an area of built form change.

134 74-75 Eastern Road Sub-Precinct 3e

Submission with concerns: • Support Council’s decision to review the built form controls and Council’s vision to encourage higher density development in the Precinct. But object to

the mandatory controls. Mandatory controls: • Strategic outcomes for the precinct should be implemented through a performance based approach. • Mandatory controls are inappropriate having regard to Practice Note 59 – The role of mandatory provisions in the planning scheme. Building heights and setbacks: • The proposed heights and setbacks do not allow discretion for alternate outcomes to be realised that might be appropriate in a merits based approach.

135 412 St Kilda Road Sub-Precinct 4e


Summary:

• Use of mandatory building height and setback controls in an area designated for significant urban renewal are not strategically justified. • Content of the DDO should be reviewed and simplified. (DDO has been drafted as a ‘catch all’ for planning policy. Also contains errors.)

DDO design objectives: • Objectives on Pages 1 and 2 could be simplified to “General”, “Shrine Setting” and “Sub-Precinct” objectives. • High degree of repetition in the first four pages. • Would provide an overview of over-arching matters and then objectives for each sub-precinct. • Some objectives dealing with land use and landscaping would be better included in the MSS (in Clause 21.06-7 St Kilda Road North Precinct) or within Clause

22.06 – Design for non-residential development and multi-unit residential development. This could also include some of the objectives under: City Beautiful, Landscape, Streets for people etc.

Building heights: • Mandatory maximum height of 65m AHD introduced as part of Amendment C140. Replaces a discretionary 60m height. • C107 continues the application of the mandatory maximum height – has serious implications for the site. • Use of AHD fails to properly recognise that St Kilda Road’s level above AHD is approximately 10m. This effectively reduces building heights to a maximum

of 55m above the St Kilda Road street level. This is considerably lower than the height of other existing buildings fronting St Kilda Road in this sub-precinct. Would make almost all the buildings unlawful.

SUB NO



• Unintended consequence of the amendment. • Incongruous with the objectives of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 which promotes proper and orderly planning of an area. • New built form controls which guide future development do not recognise the character and overall height of existing buildings does not reflect the

forward thinking role of strategic planning or VPPs. • No evidence that 65mAHD is needed to protect the Shrine. C140 Explanatory Report outlines that the need for the amendment was to protect the

backdrop and setting of the Shrine. No explanation of why buildings up to 65m AHD could achieve this. • Note that the Shrine Vista control applies and specifically protects the vista and setting from unwanted intrusions. • C107 should seek to rectify mandatory maximum building height applied as part of C140. • C107 should be amended to include a discretionary maximum height of 85m AHD. • Height is consistent with 1 Domain Road and further reflects heights to the south (with one exception). • Would be consistent with the consultation draft of the St Kilda Road Precinct Plan which contemplated buildings of up to 75m above natural ground level

(equivalent to 85m AHD). • This outcome was a more properly considered, objective and strategically sound process than C140. Introduced with no consultation or a panel. • Raising the maximum building height would remove an effective prohibition on future refurbishment of existing buildings that already exceed the

mandatory height. • This prohibition will remove any incentive (or lawful ability) for landowners to improve and enhance the appearance of existing buildings which exceed the

maximum heights. Incongruous with amendment which is primarily aimed at facilitating development of the St Kilda Road boulevard. Mandatory controls: • Existing building does not comply with proposed requirements ie 65m AHD and 11m high podium to Queens Lane. • Does not appropriately respond to the metropolitan significance of the precinct. • Fails to acknowledge the precinct’s identification as part of the expanded central city in Plan Melbourne. • VPPs are fundamentally a performance based planning framework. • Mandatory controls should only be applied in exceptional circumstances. • Mandatory controls were considered in Melbourne Amendment C171 which applied to Southbank – identified as an area to accommodate substantial

future population and significant change. • The Panel critiqued built form typology and a reliance on a formulaic approach:

- No evidence that tower podium is the best built form outcome to achieve the objectives of the structure plan. - Formulaic approach will preclude some excellent design examples. - One size fits all approach does not sit comfortably in an area like Southbank – different road layout, lot sizes, irregular shaped lots. - No real evidence that the performance based approach has not worked.

• Notes that the Minister has recently adopted the use of mandatory building height limits for parts of the precinct to protect the setting of the Shrine. But do not consider this justification for the use of mandatory setback controls as well.

• In the case of this site, the Shrine Vista Overlay applies. • A discretionary rather than mandatory height limit will ensure that the proposed development reinforces both the prevailing and emerging scale of the

surrounding area and the significance of the corner location and proximity to the Shrine.

SUB NO



Setbacks: • C107 removes the following exemption from DDO4 – Minor buildings and works such as verandahs, architectural features, balconies, shelters, sunshades, art

works, street furniture, fences and also basements which do not project above ground level, may be constructed with the setback areas specified in the relevant table to this schedule.

• This exemption should be maintained in DDO26 – ensures flexibility. • Critical where existing buildings are being refurbished. Encroachments can make a positive urban design contribution without compromising the effect and

benefits of the street setback at ground level. Buildings and works: • Clause 2.0 – Buildings and Works states that a permit cannot be granted to vary any mandatory requirements. However there are a number of

exemptions to this. Discretionary requirements would reduce the need for this. • Reconstructed and replacement buildings which provides for a replace building to exceed the building height or setback requirements. The clause is a

translation of a clause from DDO4 but needs review: - First dot point should be reviewed as it is unclear, unmeasurable and imprecise. A replacement building should not have to exceed the standards

expected of a new building.

General requirements : • Significant repetition. Content could be relocated to local planning policy at Clause 21 or 22. • Sub-Precinct controls should be in Clause 4.0 as they are not general requirements.



the requirements of the Shrine Vista Overlay. Decision guidelines: • Not clear which design guidelines are referred to in terms of overshadowing impacts.

136 450 St Kilda Road Sub-Precinct 5a

Submission with concerns: • Opposes the introduction of mandatory built form controls especially side and rear setbacks. Will result in overly prescriptive built form outcome. • Site is in a strategic location that is well-located in terms of employment, public transport, the CBD and open space. Subject site and broader precinct are

considered a strategic redevelopment precinct. No justification for mandatory controls.

SUB NO



Mandatory controls: • Does not meet Practice Note 59 – The role of Mandatory provisions in Planning Schemes. • Practice Notes states that mandatory provisions should be the exception. VPPs are based on principle that there should be discretion for most


• Mandatory controls were considered in Melbourne Amendment C171 which applied to Southbank. The Panel considering the amendment considered: - An attempt to micromanage development and make it a formulaic exercise. - Lead to a bland inner city experience and will stifle innovation. - Amendment authorisation letter states that the State Government did not support mandatory controls.

• Mandatory controls do not allow site specific design or a design response to individual interfaces. • Any potential benefits do not outweigh the lost opportunity and flexibility.


Sub-Precinct 5a

Submission with concerns: • Opposes the introduction of a 65mAHD mandatory height control and setback controls. Seeks discretionary controls in relation to heights and setbacks. • Site’s location and size present a unique opportunity for a landmark gateway development which can be achieved while adhering the Shrine Vista controls. Building heights: • Height controls for the site have varied from:

- a discretionary height of 60m above ground level or 69m AHD (before Ministerial Amendment C140 – in May 2014) - a mandatory height control of 65m AHD ie 55m above ground level.

• Discretionary controls were in place for 20 years and have served to protect the significance of the Shrine, boulevard appearance of St Kilda Road, stepping down of built form from the city to the junction, significant open space and resident amenity.

• Responsible authority had the ability to consider a permit to exceed the preferred maximum heights if the development met all the design objectives and outcomes.

• Mandatory height was introduced via Ministerial Amendment C140 implementing The Shrine of Remembrance – Managing the significance of the Shrine commissioned by the Trustees.

• No opportunity for public review or input. • Unfortunate that C140 was introduced after the exhibition of the St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan – height controls for this sub-precinct differ in the

precinct plan from Amendment C107. • Precinct Plan sought to apply a consistent 60m height along the length of St Kilda Road (to reinforce the consistent and symmetrical heights on both sides

of the road.) • Site does not conform to this distinct character due to its location on the St Kilda Road axis. It does not have a counterbalance of built form across the

road. It is a gateway site at the junction of St Kilda Road, Kings Way and Toorak Road. • Site is a substantial size at 4,500 sqm and does not conform to typical subdivision pattern. • Site is able to accommodate buildings taller than 65m AHD whilst still comfortably complying with the requirements of the Shrine Vista control.

SUB NO



Setbacks: • Setbacks which were discretionary (though strict requirements were applied) - now mandatory. • Amendment C140 made no change to setbacks. Mandatory controls: • Modify DDO26 to apply discretionary controls in relation to building heights and setbacks. • Does not meet Practice Note 59 – The role of Mandatory provisions in Planning Schemes. • Practice Notes states that mandatory provisions should be the exception. VPPs are based on principle that there should be discretion for most


• Mandatory controls were considered in Melbourne Amendment C171 which applied to Southbank. The Panel considering the amendment considered: - An attempt to micromanage development and make it a formulaic exercise. - Lead to a bland inner city experience and will stifle innovation.

• Mandatory built form provisions are inappropriate for the following reasons: - Site’s location and unique setting on the axis of St Kilda Road, Kings Way and Toorak road – presents an opportunity for a landmark development. - Will not allow for site specific design development or a design response to interfaces. - Any potential benefits do not outweigh the lost opportunity and flexibility. - Not relevant because the absence of built form on the opposite side of St Kilda Road. - No planning sensitivities such as heritage or overshadowing. - Site is in a strategic location that is well-located in terms of employment, public transport, the CBD and open space.

138 2-14 Albert Road The Hallmark Sub-Precinct 4a

Submission with concerns: • The submitter notes that he has provided a copy of his submission to the Royal Domain Towers to incorporate in their submission (Submission141). (It is

noted that The Royal Domain Towers submission acknowledges the use of information provided by the submitter.) • Interest is principally in Sub-Precinct 2 – North-West Corner and Sub-Precinct 4 – Albert Road North and Bowen Crescent but the majority of points

apply across the Precinct. • Acknowledged that high density development is a strategic objective for the State and the Council but the scale and density of development must preserve

the amenity of the Precinct which can only be achieved by providing mandatory control of design outcomes. Summary of submission: • It is submitted that amenity of the area can only be preserved by strict mandatory controls and absence of discretions over height, including:

- Housing diversity achieved through a required mix of apartments with a minimum size. - Transition in the height of buildings from St Kilda Road to the lower buildings on the southern and western side of Kings Way. - Prescribed setbacks from title boundaries and provision of podium levels and minimum separation of towers to preserve solar access to all

apartments and preserve privacy and avoid overshadowing. - Minimum provision of parking spaces for residents and visitors in all developments. - Minimum area for private balconies provided for each apartment. - Provision of a minimum area of public open space (excluding private balconies).

SUB NO



- Provision of landscaping which enhances the visual and streetscape amenity of the development and the public realm (excluding any trees shrubs or pot plants on private balconies).

- Provision of infrastructure or contribution towards infrastructure. - Provision of proper access to all developments with minimum requirements for evidence based traffic surveys. - Provision of loading docks, a waste storage room and minimum requirements for removal of waste. - Give proper notice on owners and residents of properties within a 100m of development. - Architectural treatments to be outlined in planning application and not left until later. - Consideration of current and future development in planning applications by planners. - Time limits for applications which take account of the size of the development. - Preserve sightlines to the Shrine. - Mandatory height controls should not exceed a maximum of 60 metres throughout the Precinct and while those in Sub‐Precinct 2 should not exceed

35 metres, however will accept that the 45 metre height control proposed is an acceptable compromise and must be mandatory. Amenity: • A primary objective of urban design policy is to “promote urban design to make the environment more liveable and attractive”. • Higher density was contemplated by the existing DDO’s and until unrealistic “discretions” were permitted by the Planning Authority and VCAT, massive

overdevelopment was avoided. • Precincts will become totally unliveable and any amenity which is currently enjoyed will be destroyed unless overdevelopment is curbed and there are

strict mandatory controls over height and mass, a transition of height from St Kilda Road to Kings Way, mandatory mix of one, two and three bedroom apartments, mandatory minimum size (area) of apartments and private balconies and prohibition of “borrowed light”, mandatory provision of on-site parking for each resident and visitors, minimum mandatory requirements for setbacks from boundaries.

• Urban design and public realm requirements must ensure the design of a new development is of a high quality and enhances the amenity, comfort, safety and visual amenity of the public realm.

• Urban Design objectives also require a development to enhance the visual and streetscape amenity of the area and to enhance neighbourhood character. • Future development must take into account of existing developments and the possible re-development of all other sites in the Precinct. • Developments must not deny solar access to adjoining occupiers and not overshadow offices or other buildings that are entitled to proper solar access. • Dominance of one bedroom apartments or studios which rely upon borrowed light while maximizing profits for developers will result in low socio

economic strata of transient residents. Mandatory controls: • The 36m height in DDO 3-5 and DDO 3-8 and the 20 storey / 60m height in DDO 4-1 and DDO 3-7 clearly fit the definition of sustainable high density

development. Higher density does not mean overdevelopment which causes loss of amenity. • In Sub-Precinct 4 – support proposed heights subject to sensible restrictions to preserve solar access, minimum apartment size, parking spaces for each

apartment and adequate infrastructure. • In Sub-Precinct 2 – would prefer a mandatory height limit of 35m but would compromise and support 45m subject to sensible restrictions as above. • Permitting developments to exceed these height limits, the dispensation of other town planning controls, provides developers with an unreasonable

opportunity to overdevelop sites and also to substantially restrict the development of other sites in the Precinct. • Both existing and future occupiers of developments should be protected against overdevelopment. • Solar access must be preserved by a mandatory separation of towers.

SUB NO



• Need to maintain a scaling down of building for away from the St Kilda Road edge and preserve the existing vistas of the Shrine of Remembrance. • Setbacks should be mandatory and development should not be permitted to title boundaries. • Sites should be of a mandatory minimum size and developers should be required to acquire abutting sites if a site does not meet minimum size. • Any discretion must have an upper limit e.g. 15%. In a recent application in the Precinct (prevented by interim mandatory height controls), the

development was 254% over the height limit provided by the planning scheme. Housing diversity: • Must be housing diversity. High number of one bedroom apartments and studio apartments does not constitute housing diversity. • Developers often provide a “spare room”. This is largely used as a second bedroom without direct light or ventilation. This is contrary to proper planning

guidelines. Traffic: • Traffic gridlock occurs in peak hours and at other times of the day in Park Street, Wells Street and Albert Road. • Park Street and Albert Road not only caters for local traffic, but are through roads. • Difficult for residents of The Hallmark, Royal Domain Tower and St James Apartments to access Park Street, especially in peak hours. • Traffic surveys must be based on valid evidence. • Much of the traffic from the south and east will access Palmerston Crescent, Park Street and the Wells intersection from Kings Way, a major arterial road. • Not possible to create more roads. Current traffic from Domain Road and St Kilda Road cannot be diverted - nowhere to send it. • Traffic from the eastern suburbs use City Road, Park Street and Albert Road – cannot travel through the CBD or use any access south of the CBD. • Traffic surveys ignore traffic generated by approved developments or developments with permits pending and do not calculate projected traffic impacts

when all the potential sites are developed. • Prescribe minimum requirements for inclusion in a traffic report including the times, days and location at which traffic surveys are to be conducted. Parking: • Earlier developments in the Precinct provided off-street parking for residents and visitors and do not create extra pressure on on-street parking. • Parking is now generally fully utilised during the day. • May be further limited by the necessity to have clearways in Park Street and Albert Road. • High rise developments (particularly one bedroom and studio apartments with no off-street parking or visitor parking) will put significant pressure on

minimal on-street parking (now subject to time restrictions). • Some residents can cycle or walk to the CBD, however work outside the CBD and in areas cannot walk, cycle or use public transport. • Retirees, who make up a large proportion of residents in the Precinct, also generally have cars for travel to destinations other than the CBD. • Planning Scheme seeks to ensure an adequate supply of car parking to ensure residential amenity are protected from the ‘effects of road congestion

created by on-street parking.’ • The planning scheme should specify mandatory minimum provision of car parks. • A minimum number of visitor car parks, which cannot be reduced, should also be required to alleviate congestion. • Lack of on-site car parking reduces the amenity of the area. • Extra traffic should be restricted by controlling the size of developments.

SUB NO



Public transport: • A number of tram routes serve the Precinct, but they are overcrowded and difficult to use in peak hours and at many other times of the day, in both

directions. • Major developments should not be approved until adequate public transport is provided. • Refer applications to the Director of Public Transport who must address how overcrowding will be alleviated. Also should require provision of tram stops

which will serve the elderly and disabled. No development should be permitted until there is a binding commitment to rectify these deficiencies. Bike lanes: • Removal of a traffic lane for a bike lane on St Kilda Road has increased a bus ride (from Park Street along St Kilda Road, across Queens Bridge and up

Queen Street to Bourke Street) in peak periods from 15 minutes to 45 minutes. • Avoid the removal of traffic lanes and parking along St Kilda Road to ensure traffic congestion is not increased. Open space and landscaping: • Include a mandatory minimum area for private balconies. (Balconies should not be included in assessing public open space requirements or the size of

apartments and shrubs, pot plants and artificial grass, etc must not be able to be counted as satisfying landscaping requirements.) • Each new development in the Precinct should not be considered in isolation. • 5% open space contribution (land or cash contribution) should not be able to waived. • Landscaping should be a distinctive feature of the Precinct. Should not be traded off by the provision of private balconies. Loading and waste storage facilities: • Loading dock should be a mandatory requirement to enable access for removalists who will be regularly required to service large numbers of tenancies.

For developments of 12 or more storeys. There are minimal on-street loading facilities. Storage of construction materials: • Application must outline how delivery of construction materials is to be achieved and where the materials will be stored during construction to ensure

vehicles and pedestrians on abutting roads are not unreasonably impeded. Podium levels and architectural treatments: • Podiums should not be constructed to the boundaries of sites and must have mandatory setbacks prescribed in the planning scheme. • Developers should specify proposed architectural treatments in planning applications and it should not be left to planning officers to subsequently approve

architectural treatments. • Built form and architectural treatment should not be used to justify massive overdevelopment. • Developments must respect the surrounding built form context. Infrastructure: • Provision of infrastructure or a financial contribution towards the cost of infrastructure needed to support further development must be a specified

requirement in the Planning Scheme.

SUB NO



• No future development should be approved until the Planning Authority has provided an impact statement for future development in the Precinct which includes an estimate of cost of the future infrastructure and a formula for each new development to contribute to that cost.

• This should extend not only to provision of roads, power, drainage and water, but for the cost of pre-school centres and primary schools in the Municipality, which are now sadly lacking.

Sightlines to the Shrine of Remembrance: • Strongly support provisions in the Planning Scheme which restrict heights and limit any development to avoid impeding the existing sight lines to the Shrine

of Remembrance area.

Consideration of planning applications: • Size of a development should determine the time period for planning officers to assess a development and provide appropriate conditions. • The same time limits apply to applications for a single storey domestic house or 20 storey multi apartment developments. • The Responsible Authority must give residents and owners in the vicinity of a proposed development adequate notice of a proposed development. • In the case of a multi‐tenanted apartment building, Owner’s Corporation, who must be obligated to notify owners and tenants should be notified. Restrictions on Potential Development: • The Housing Strategy (2007) aspires to provide 16,300 new dwellings in the municipality of Port Phillip by 2030 with 11,150 of those developed in

strategic growth areas. • Approximately 700 of these have already been approved in the St Kilda Road North Precinct. • Council should have figures of the potential number of apartments and occupants of apartments and offices in the Precinct, so that when the Precinct is

fully developed, it will not be unreasonably choked and have no amenity or liveability. • It is not reasonable that this Precinct should bear an unreasonable proportion of new developments in the municipality.


Sub-Precinct 5c

Submission with concerns: • Generally supportive of the introduction of a new DDO26 control which offers a revised set of height controls subject to some modifications which

include; the removal of mandatory podium and setback requirements; and retaining a ‘discretionary’ maximum building height limit as part of the proposed DDO26 (5C).

• Site on northern corner of St Kilda Road and Raleigh Street (1,040sqm) – currently a 5 storey office building. Surrounded by 5-13 storey development. Building heights: • DDO controls provide a balanced approach for height transition within the St Kilda Road North Precinct. • Height of 60m for properties fronting St Kilda Road for Sub-Precinct 5c is a prudent height allowance for both the subject site and its respective assembly

of properties. • Support the proposal to increase height from 24m to 60m. • The site is significantly undeveloped in its current form. The opportunity to deliver a higher density commercial or residential development in place of the

existing low scale building at some point in the future is welcomed. • The land possesses a number of key attributes of a ‘strategic redevelopment site’ (i.e. size, corner site location, lack of sensitive interfaces, and commercial

SUB NO



zoning). • Development up to revised heights would complement the established context along the western side, and improve the built form structure and

symmetry of the St Kilda Road boulevard. Setbacks: • The new DDO26 control seeks to introduce ‘mandatory’ built form controls. • Applying the controls in DDO26 ie a 9.5m setback from the Raleigh Street frontage and a 4.5m setback from the northern boundary would result in a

resultant tower footprint of approximately 14m in width. • Any future development on the site should be able to reflect the existing building footprint without adversely impacting neighbouring properties or the

streetscape character. The site is irregular in shape and on a corner and thus does not hold the same characteristics as other more traditional sized rectangular lots along St Kilda Road.

• Corner sites present an opportunity to deliver a higher density outcome in line with the proposed height under the DDO however a mandatory setback regime will not allow the development to reach this potential.

Mandatory controls: • Mandatory height, podium and setback provisions should be abandoned and replaced with provisions which engender a design response based on careful

analysis of the site’s location and its surrounding context. • There needs to be discretion in the formulation of design controls to achieve site responsive outcomes. Applying a rigid template fetters the opportunity

to explore creative and innovative design solutions which is inconsistent with the broader strategic objectives of the Structure Plan and would be counterproductive in the regeneration of the precinct.


Sub-Precinct 5b

Submission with concerns: Building heights: • Concerned about the site now occupied by the Pullman Hotel (in Sub-Precinct 6b). • Any change to the height of this building will affect the amount of daylight/sunlight that is currently enjoyed. • Request the height is maintained at 30 metres. • Support height restrictions on buildings that would affect or overshadow the Shrine of Remembrance.


Royal Domain Building Owners Corporation Committee Sub-Precinct 1a,c

Submission with concerns: • See Submission 138.

(The Royal Domain Tower Owners Corporation note that they have chosen to support and endorse Submission #138. The Owners Corporation notes that the author of Submission 138 prepared it after consultation with residents of The Domain, Royal Domain Tower and St James Building and has allowed them to use it.)

SUB NO



142 114-130 Albert Road Sub-Precinct 3b

Submission with concerns: • Generally supportive of the introduction of a new DDO26 control which offers a revised set of height controls but seeking inclusion of 114-130 Albert

Road in Sub-Precinct 3a (60m) rather than in Sub-Precinct 3b (45m). Summary: • Request the sub-Precinct 3a applies to all three properties – noting that the existing commercial building at 114 Albert Road is 59-60m. • 60m height limit will meet the key design objectives for the Precinct ie a stepped down built form along albert Road and Palmerston Crescent. • 60m is consistent with the Planisphere Report. • Strongly objects to mandatory controls – as this creates a rigid template and fetters innovative design solutions. • Will fetter the future development of 126-130 Albert Road should the existing building at 114 Albert Road be retained. • A built form analysis was undertaken to justify the overshadowing controls on MacRobertson Girls High School and Albert Park. Building heights: • Northern side of Kings Way an 85m height applies descending to 60m. • Support the proposed transition but note that the existing built form of land in this area is significantly lower than the desired revised height limit. • Sites are located midblock between Kings Way and Stead Street. In Sub-Precinct 3b where a 45m height limit applies. • Request that Sub-Precinct 3a is extended to include 114-130 Albert Road. (Seeking the inclusion of all three landholdings within one sub-precinct.) • Existing commercial building on the site at 114 Albert Road is 59m-60m in height. • A 60m height limit would be a more consistent control reflective of the existing built form. • A 60m height limit is consistent with the technical background report prepared by Planisphere (Review of Design and Development Overlay 3 & 4). The

report and relevant elevation shows the 60m building included in the 60m area. • Would maintain a robust descending transition and meet the objectives of the DDO. • Should include all holdings in the 60m area: The narrow width of the two land parcels at 126-130 Albert Road would make it difficult even to achieve the

current proposed height limit of 45m. • Any future redevelopment of these sites would more than likely result in a lot consolidation allowing a future higher density development outcome to

reach the desired height allowance. • A 60m height limit for all three sites will meet the key design objectives outlined within the St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan (Albert Road South) which

seek to “achieve a stepped down built form along Albert Road and Palmerston Crescent. Building heights along Albert Road will gradually step in height from the higher scale buildings (punctuation mark) at the Domain to the two storey heritage buildings on Moray Street” and “to create an effective transition from the higher scale buildings in the adjoining Sub-precincts to the north and east”

• Acknowledge that DDO does allow a permit to replace buildings or works existing on the approval date but which does not meet the height or setback requirements. However to avoid ambiguity a more consistent height limit should be applied to all the properties.

Mandatory controls: • Strongly objects to ‘mandatory’ built form controls as this creates a rigid template and fetters the opportunity to explore creative and innovative design

solutions. • Mandatory tower and podium heights and side setbacks should be abandoned. Needs to be discretion.

SUB NO



• Would be counter-productive to the regeneration of the Precinct. • Mandatory tower and side setback requirements would result in significant implications for future development of two sites at 126-130 Albert Road. • Width of these sites is 20m (collectively) and applying a 9m setback from the existing tower at 114 Albert Road and 4.5m setback from the south-western

property boundary leaves in the order of 7-8m on the subject site for any future development. • 45m height limit has no purpose if site is unreasonably constrained by the setback controls. Overshadowing of MacRobertson Girls High and Albert Park: • Seeks greater clarification on requirement for no additional overshadowing to MacRobertson Girls School and Albert Park (at the June solstice). • Has an overshadowing / built form analysis been undertaken to support or validate this.

143 75-77 Palmerston Crescent Sub-Precinct 3c

Submission with concerns: • Support Council’s decision to review the built form controls and Council’s vision to encourage higher density development in the Precinct. But object to

the mandatory controls. Mandatory controls: • Strategic outcomes for the precinct should be implemented through a performance based approach. • Mandatory controls are inappropriate having regard to Practice Note 59 – The role of mandatory provisions in the planning scheme. Building heights and setbacks: • The proposed setback requirements are more restrictive than current provisions. Specifically 15m in height within 20m of Palmerston Crescent. • Was in DDO3-1 –with a requirement of 3m setback with 30m building height. • Restrictions are at odds with the Commercial Zone - that seeks to optimise the use and development of sites. • Built form controls are contrary to a recent planning permit issued (PP0988/2013).

144 Not stated

Submission with concerns: • Council has missed the boat – development has already occurred in the precinct and the height limits have been exceeded. • Sub-Precinct 3 - Development has been rife in the Albert Road / Moray Street area. Not sure why it has been included. • No rules in place in this area – buildings are badly designed, apartments are small, there is insufficient parking and parking rules are being consistently

broken with people accessing parking permits. • People with money and resources have moved to St Kilda West, Middle Park and Albert Park – with heritage overlays. However this makes these the

most expensive areas in Melbourne. • Also need to consider struggle in Fishermans Bend with massive development as evidenced by Docklands. • Planning Minister makes the final decision and no consultation occurs. Council plays a marginal role and lacks the vision. • Documentation talks about ‘high quality new development’, maintaining residential amenity and an inviting activated street environment but these are all

just words with no relation to the facts. • Sun hardly hits the streets, buildings lack quality, traffic is excessive and there are no facilities except coffee shops which are not open on the weekend. • Consultation is tokenistic and meaningless.

SUB NO



145 19-37Punt Road Windsor Sub-Precinct 5c

Submission with concerns: • Objects to C107 on the ground that the changes are inappropriate for the area and it will cause economic harm to the submitter.

146 63 Dorcas Street Sub-Precinct 2

Submission with concerns: • Concerns about the possible height of new structures built near our location. • Concerns about loss of views and loss of property value. • Would like heights limited so the surrounding environment remains at the current standard.

147 65 Palmerston Crescent Sub-Precinct 3c (Late submission)

Submissions with concerns: Building heights and setbacks: • Objects to the proposed building height and setback requirements. Specifically, objects to the proposed controls being more restrictive on development

than the existing controls for their site. The more restrictive built form provisions are at odds with the introduction of the Commercial 1 Zone to Precinct 3 and other policy provisions that seek to optimise development potential of sites within these areas.

Mandatory controls: • Supports Council’s decision to review the built form controls within the St Kilda Road North Precinct and support Council’s vision to encourage higher

density development within the precinct. • Objects to mandatory built form controls and instead support a performance based approach. Further, consider that mandatory controls are

inappropriate having regard to the State Government’s Practice Note 59 (The role of mandatory provisions in the planning scheme, September 2010).

148 2 Bowen Crescent Sub-Precinct 4d (Late submission)

Submission with concerns: Mandatory controls: • Opposes mandatory built form controls as part of Amendment C107 on the basis that the mandatory controls will result in overly prescriptive built form

outcome and are not appropriately justified in this location. • The site is not located in an area which can be considered to be ‘exceptional circumstances’ or meets the relevant tests for applying mandatory controls.

- Additional height could be achieved without any impacts on the Shrine. - Not in an environmentally sensitive area or in a Heritage Overlay. - Inconsistencies between the exhibited DDO height and the Precinct Plan (due to Ministerial Amendment C140). This suggests the area could

accommodate higher heights. - Higher heights have been applied to 1-29 Albert Road as well as along Albert Road between St Kilda Road and Kings Way. - The same objectives apply across the sub-precinct – yet different heights apply. Cannot be argued that mandatory heights are not needed to achieve

the objectives. - There are existing buildings which exceed the height control. - Mandatory front setbacks, in particular from Bowen Crescent, are inconsistent with the existing character.

SUB NO



- Building’s acceptability should be based on overshadowing, overlooking and its contribution to the public realm. • Also note that developments must comply with the Shrine Vista Control (DDO13 which is not part of this amendment). • Consider the controls would limit the ability to ‘ensure built form creates a focal point within the wider the St Kilda Road Precinct through the development of

higher scale and quality buildings where Albert Toad, St Kilda Road and Domain Road meet…’ Objective of Sub-Precinct 4. • The subject site is considered a strategic development site and in a precinct which is identified for growth. • Mandatory podium and upper level setback controls will lead to a monotonous built form. • Mandatory controls do not allow for site specific design.

149-212

582 St Kilda Road - Aurora Sub-Precinct 5b (Late submissions)

Submission with concerns: • Submission expresses concerns about the increase in height in Sub-Precinct 6 (to their west) from 30m to 40m. • Submitters expressed specific concerns about:

- Unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of their properties - Blocking of natural light and views of Albert Park and Port Phillip Bay - Overshadowing of buildings - Traffic congestion in Queens Lane - Traffic hazards in Queens Lane to both pedestrian and cars - Loss of amenity and value - Significant increase of the wind tunnel - Increased noise.


Aurora Sub-Precinct 5b On behalf of the Owners Corporation (Late submission)

Submission with concerns: Traffic: • Amendment lacks strategic justification because it fails to deliver a safe and efficient road network. • P36 of the Ratio Report – shows that the Lorne Street and Queens Lane intersection has little or no capacity to handle additional vehicular traffic. • Not possible to signalise this intersection given the proximity to signalised intersections at Queens Road and St Kilda Road. • Technical findings do not support the maximum building heights proposed for the Beatrice Street / Lorne Street block. Will significantly increase the

number of cars along Queens Lane and worsen an already unacceptable congested situation. • Already congested situation is characterised by:

- On-street parking which is necessary for visitors - Carriageway width of 10m – means that with on-street parking, cars cannot pass one another. - Lane is used for loading and unloading – regularly stops the flow of vehicles.

• Lane is at capacity – cannot accommodate further development let alone a significant increase in density. • Council should not support the new maximum heights of 60m and 40m – existing heights should remain and made mandatory. • If this is not supported by Council, a Parking Overlay should be prepared to introduce significantly reduced parking ratios. (Eg Parking Overlays applied in

the CBD.) Overlay should be based on a comprehensive analysis of the existing traffic conditions and the heights proposed in C107. • Application requirements: Include a requirement for cumulative traffic assessment to be prepared for each development. Should be peer reviewed by an

independent consultant decided by the Council and paid for by the developer. Proposed development must not worsen traffic conditions.

SUB NO



Building heights: • Current planning scheme prescribes a preferred height limit of 45m (approximately 15 storeys) for properties fronting St Kilda Road stepping down to

Albert Park with a height of 30m (approximately 10 storeys) on Queens Road. • C107 increases these heights to 60m (approximately 20 storeys) (including 582 St Kilda Road) and 40m (approximately 14 storeys) respectively. • Large proportion of building stock fronting St Kilda Road (including 582 St Kilda Road) is relatively new and unlikely to be demolished in the future.

Greater opportunities for redevelopment on the western side of Queens Lane (fronting Queens Road). • New height limit has the potential to remove existing views enjoyed by residents of buildings fronting St Kilda Road. • Clause 3.0 - General Requirements: Add the following to ‘Tower Design and Internal Amenity’:

- Tower forms (above podiums) should not exceed a maximum width and depth of 35 metres to and must be appropriately sites to ensure: - Ensure that daylight penetrates through to parts of the building and streets and adjoining buildings - Reduce their perceived visual bulk - Maintain sightlines between buildings - The reasonable safeguarding of views enjoyed by residents in buildings in existing buildings at the date this amendment comes into operation.”

214 50 Park Street

Sub-Precinct 2 (Late submission)

Submission with concerns: Mandatory controls: • Strongly opposed to the adoption of the amendment. • Would exclude all small sites in the area and make them totally undevelopable – discriminating and unfair. • Seeking to redevelop the existing restaurant – which is unviable. • Site is 7.2m wide. To impose a 4.5m side setback and 5m front setback would prevent any reasonable development. • Recently erected 18 storey apartment on wider block at 52 Park Street has less than 1.5m setback to the boundary and has balconies facing the site. • 52 Park Street was approved with only a 1.2m setback to Park Street –with some balconies built to the boundary. Gives the impression of no setback. • Nonsensical and bad planning if neighbouring property is required to be setback 5m. Significant loss of development area and also will not achieve the

desired outcomes. • Controls should allow a minimum 2.5m setback to Park Street and zero side setbacks in response the planning, strategic and physical context of each site. • Controls should be discretionary and not mandatory. • Mandatory controls totally dismiss equitable rights and ‘goes against the fundamental spirit of Australian fairness to all’. Gives preference to large land

owners and discriminates against owners of smaller sites which prevail in this location. • Proposed to Councillors and suggested by VCAT that smaller sites should be consolidated with their larger neighbours. This is wishful thinking – unlikely

to occur. Smaller landowners will be forced to sell to larger landowners as they are unable to develop themselves. • Approached neighbour to buy the property or sell their own – did not occur. • Any potential seller of a large site would require a price premium if C107 is brought in or if an adjoining larger site owner is approached to buy a smaller

site, they would require a huge discount as each owner has differing investment objectives or is prepared to take advantage where they can. • Discriminates as inflates the price of larger sites and deflates the value of smaller sites.

SUB NO



215 and 216

576 St Kilda Road Yve Apartments Sub-Precinct 5b

Submissions with concerns: • Vehemently object to the proposal. Building height: • Objects to proposed increase from 30m to 40m. Amenity: Objects to future development at that scale as it would cause: • Blocking natural light. • Overshadowing of buildings. • Loss of amenity. • Significant increase of wind tunnel effect. • Increased noise. Views: • Blocking of views to Albert Park and Port Phillip Bay. Traffic and parking: • Traffic congestion in Queens Lane. • Traffic hazards in Queens Lane to both pedestrians and cars. Property values: • Loss of property values.

Documents

MARY OF SUBMISSIONS AMENDMENT C107 – ST KILDA ROAD …1).pdf · SUM • MARY OF SUBMISSIONS AMENDMENT C107 – ST KILDA ROAD NOTH PRECINCT . This document provides a summary of