Panel Hearing for Amendment C245 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme Queen … · 2016. 7. 4. · planning and urban design assessment of Amendment C245 (Am C245) to the Melbourne Planning

i

Panel Hearing for Amendment C245 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme Queen Victoria Market Planning and Urban Design Evidence Prepared by C A Heggen, BTRP FPIA Instructed by Ashurst Lawyers April 2016

ii

© Message Consultants Australia Pty Ltd 2016 | 15098 Panel Hearing for Amendment C245 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme

Contents

1 Preamble 1 1.1 Instructions 1 1.2 Amendment C245 Background 1 1.3 Consultation and Submissions 1 1.4 Summary of Assessment 2

2 Assessment 3 2.1 What is the physical and strategic policy context of the QVM precinct? 3 2.2 What is the strategic vision and key directions for the market and its surrounds? 6 2.3 Does AmC245 establish a sound framework to manage change in the precinct? 8

3 Conclusion 18

Appendix A: Existing Planning Controls and Policies 19 Appendix B: Amendment C245 Proposed Planning Controls and Policies 21 Appendix C: 3D Modelling parameters 23 Appendix D: 3D Shadow Modelling 24 Appendix E: Small lots development potential study 30 Appendix F: Plot ratio scenario testing 31 Appendix G: Existing DDO14 3D model 35 Appendix H: Design and Development Overlay Schedule 10 – Central City built form controls 36 Appendix I: Witness statement 38

1


1 Preamble 1.1 Instructions I have been requested by Ashurst on behalf of Melbourne City Council to prepare a town planning and urban design assessment of Amendment C245 (Am C245) to the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

1.2 Amendment C245 Background Am C245 relates to land affected by the existing DDO14 including the Queen Victoria Market (QVM) and seeks to implement a revised framework of planning controls. Am C245 has its policy genesis in Plan Melbourne 2014 where Initiative 4.2.3 at page 119 notes that; the implementation of “… planning provisions that allow for the strategic redevelopment of the Queen Victoria Market and immediate surrounding area that provides for a low scale market that fits within a backdrop to the south and south east of higher density development, with appropriate building spacing, commercial and employment opportunities, community infrastructure and community facilities.”

The revised planning framework as envisaged by Am C245 is intended to deliver the vision for the future of the market area established in the Queen Victoria Market Precinct Renewal Master Plan (the QVM Master Plan) which was adopted by Council in July 2015, and to manage built form in the area around the market.

At the heart of the QVM Master Plan is the vision to: …create a world-class ‘market of markets’ and surrounding precinct while celebrating the heritage of the site, page 3.

The vision is to be achieved through a combination of physical improvements, strategic investment in the market and surrounding public realm and redevelopment of key sites in the surrounding area.

The area affected by Am C245 is wider than that covered by the QVM Master Plan and is shown at Figure 1.

The Am C245 area replicates the boundaries of the existing Design and Development Overlay Schedule 14 (DDO14) control and comprises: ■ The QVM itself, together with the at-grade

public car park to the south and the market stores along Franklin Street.

■ Land south of the market stores along Franklin Street and extending to A’Beckett Street which includes the area identified in the QVM Master Plan for the proposed re-alignment of Franklin Street.

■ Land to the east of the market bounded generally by Victoria Street to the north, Elizabeth Street to the east and A’Beckett Street to the south together with a triangular parcel east of Elizabeth Street between Victoria and Therry Streets.

Amendment C245 proposes a combination of strategic rezoning of land, overlay changes and amendments to local policy provisions.

More specifically, the following changes are envisaged: ■ Rezone the majority of the QVM land and

Queen Street extension that is currently zoned Capital City Zone (CCZ1) to Public Use Zone (PUZ7), rezone the Queen Victoria Market car park, currently zoned Capital City Zone (CCZ1), to Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ);

■ Apply a new Schedule to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO11), which incorporates a vision and design requirements for development of land, including Council owned land, adjacent to the QVM;

■ Delete existing Schedule 14 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO14) from the QVM and surrounding land to which the new DPO11 will apply;

■ Introduce revised built form controls for new development over the remainder of the area covered by the existing DDO14;

■ Amend the Built Environment and Heritage within the Hoddle Grid Policy (Clause 21.12), to delete an existing policy statement relating to the existing DDO14; and

■ Amend the existing Clause 22.02 Sunlight to Public Spaces to include a provision that development should not overshadow Flagstaff Gardens between 11am and 2pm on 21 June.

1.3 Consultation and Submissions Extensive consultation was carried out by Council to inform the preparation of the QVM Master Plan. This program involved a range of stakeholders including market traders and surrounding land owners and occupiers.

Following the adoption of the QVM Master Plan, Am C245 was prepared and placed on formal exhibition between 29 October and 4 December 2015.

A total of 156 submissions (and an additional 2 late submissions) were received by Council and included submissions in support of the

Figure 1: Am C245, DPO11 and QVM Master Plan extent

2


amendments as well as those raising concerns about particular issues.

The issues raised were described in detail in the Council’s management response which was attached to the report to Council’s Future Melbourne Committee meeting on 8 March 2016. In summary, the principal issues raised relate to: ■ The proposed controls restricting development

potential on privately owned sites around the QVM;

■ Built form and density, including the removal of height restrictions, potential for the development of towers, and the nature of podium and setback controls;

■ Lack of consideration to the potential for site consolidation;

■ Amenity impacts arising from the revised built form controls;

■ Concerns regarding the application of new zones;

■ The nature of the proposed public open space and visitor centre;

■ Car parking and traffic issues, including the realignment of Franklin Street;

■ Suggestions regarding public transport measures to support the market redevelopment;

■ Concerns regarding the impacts on heritage assets of the market and its setting;

■ Public realm improvements that are required; ■ Concerns regarding procedural issues relating

to the consultation process, the vision for the market area and the process for approval of the Development Plan and future permit applications; and

■ Governance and decision making responsibilities.

I have had regard to these issues where relevant to my town planning and urban design assessment of the Am C245.

I note that no changes were made to the Am C245 following exhibition and Council’s resolution to request the Minister for Planning to appoint an Independent Panel.

1.4 Summary of Assessment QVM is one of Melbourne’s iconic historic landmarks, a major tourist attraction and a retail destination for residents from across the city.

The market sits in a strategically important location on the north-western edge of the Central City where the Hoddle Grid interfaces with the lower scale North and West Melbourne and the emerging mid-rise City North urban renewal area.

The market is a significant focus for trade and commerce which has served customers for more than 120 years. Through that time the market has evolved to meet the demands of a growing and changing city.

The planned investment in, and reinvigoration of, the market and its surrounds envisaged in the adopted QVM Master Plan represents a significant next step in its evolution.

The initiatives in the QVM Master Plan seek to ensure that the market meets contemporary standards, provides improved safety and amenity for visitors and traders and delivers a high quality market experience.

The revised suite of planning controls and the policy changes espoused in Am C245 are intended to provide an updated planning framework that supports and guides the renewal of the QVM.

In undertaking my assessment of Am C245 I have considered the following key issues; ■ The place of the QVM within the city context

and the dynamics of change in the surrounding areas;

■ The strategic vision as described in the QVM Master Plan; and

■ Whether the revised framework of planning controls and policy provide a sound basis for future decision making on matters of land use and built form.

In considering the revised planning framework, I have turned my mind in particular to; ■ Whether the proposed program of rezoning

facilitates the vision for the QVM and its environs?

■ Whether the precinct boundaries are appropriate in describing the area of influence for built form around the market?

■ Whether the proposed application of DPO and DDO controls are a logical approach to managing land use built form and urban design?

■ Whether the structure and drafting of the proposed controls will foster desirable built form outcomes?

My principal conclusions following my assessment are that: ■ The suite of Zone and Overlay controls

envisaged by Am C245 are the appropriate statutory tools to select and apply from the Victorian Planning Provisions toolbox. Moreover the form and content of these controls, subject to some refinement, will deliver the Vision for the QVM and its environs as described in the QVM Master Plan.

■ The new Public Use Zone Schedule 7 (PUZ7) and the proposed Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) better reflect the land use intension and objectives of the QVM Master Plan.

■ The DPO is the appropriate statutory tool to apply in this instance where there will be the reshaping of and investment in public infrastructure and works undertaken in the public domain as well as the management of use and development.

■ The DDO is the appropriate statutory tool to manage built form outcomes, however analysis

of emerging city dynamics confirms that most of the area outside of the DPO11 boundary has a greater contextual relationship with central city development. The relationship of most of the DDO14 area will be further decoupled from the QVM itself once the DPO11 program of works is delivered.

■ The form and context of the DPO11 and DDO14 is generally acceptable however the detailed management of built form outcomes as expressed in both Overlay controls should be refined and simplified in accordance with the recommendations in Section 2.3.5 of this evidence statement. These recommendations include the introduction of a plot ratio control in association with boundary setbacks to manage development scale, intensity and to influence building height.

■ The administration of DPO11 should be clarified so that the Minister for Planning is nominated as the responsible authority for the approval of the Development Plan and subsequent Planning Permit Applications.

My detailed assessment is set out in the remainder of this report. Further background is included in the following appendices:

Appendix A – Existing Planning Controls and Policies

Appendix B – Proposed Amendment C245 Planning Controls

Appendix C – 3D Modelling parameters

Appendix D - Shadow Modelling

Appendix E - Small lots development potential study

Appendix F - Plot ratio scenario testing

Appendix G – Existing DDO14 3D model

Appendix H – Design and Development Overlay Schedule 10 – Central City built form controls

Appendix I- Witness statement

3


2 Assessment

2.1 What is the physical and strategic policy context of the QVM precinct? The QVM area which is the subject of Am C245 is located at the north-western fringe of the Melbourne CBD between the Hoddle Grid and the inner areas of North and West Melbourne. It comprises the QVM itself as well as surrounding land to the south and east. Land surrounding the market to the north and west is not included in the Am C245 area (see Figure 1).

The area subject to Am C245 sits between the rapidly evolving central city and higher built form to the south and east, and the lower-rise areas to the north and west across Victoria Street and Peel Street (see Figure 2).

The market itself is highly valued as a visitor attraction and a heritage asset of State significance.

The QVM comprises a substantial area of land at the north-western periphery of the traditional city grid, which is differentiated from surrounding land use areas as a result of its unique function and activities.

The functions and activities of the market make it a focus for high activity at times when the market is open. It is at these times that the market operates as an important retail and tourist hub for the city and one which draws visitors from far and wide. Conversely, on days when the market is closed it becomes a large inactive expanse on the north western edge of the city with little to attract visitors.

The market precinct is also distinguished from surrounding areas by its built form, which comprises low-slung heritage market sheds and associated market buildings and hard paved open spaces, with low scaled commercial buildings around its periphery. The form and arrangement of buildings and spaces contributes to a unique sense of place within the market and its

immediate surrounds, which is distinct from the wider central city and the neighbouring suburbs. However, the surrounding city context is changing as a result of substantial growth around the northern fringe of the CBD and the changing form of the State’s Capital city itself.

This is a context in which significant changes are taking place which are reshaping and expanding the central city area.

The background to this change is the significant population growth occurring within the City of Melbourne. Recent figures1 show that between 2008 and 2013 the municipality’s residential population increased by almost 30% (around 26,500 people) to an estimated 116,447 people. This substantial growth is forecast to continue alongside a rapid increase in the daily visitor population from around 800,000 workers, students and visitors in 2011 to around 1.1 million by 20302 (source: City North Structure Plan 2012).

The strategic response to these growth pressures at both the state and local level is to plan for an expanded central city, with the ambition in Plan Melbourne for central Melbourne to become Australia’s largest commercial and residential centre by 2040.

The physical expansion of the central city is envisaged on a number of fronts, including the urban renewal areas of Southbank and Fisherman’s Bend to the south and south-west, Docklands to the west and, most relevantly to this matter, the more recently designated urban renewal area of City North. The Capital City Zone (or the similar Docklands Zone) has been expanded into these areas to facilitate a mix of central city activities, as shown at Figure 3.

1 Source: Trends and Melbourne, City of Melbourne September 2014

2 Source: City North Structure Plan 2012

The evolution of built form controls in the form of DDOs is also guiding mid and high rise development to these renewal areas, whilst generally maintaining the lower built form scale of established suburbs around the Hoddle Grid. This DDO regime is illustrated on the consolidated DDO map at Figure 4.

The market precinct therefore sits between the established and intensifying higher built form of the central city to the south and east and the emerging mid-rise focus of City North, and is flanked by the low rise areas of West and North Melbourne as well as the significant open space of Flagstaff Gardens to the west. This context is illustrated at Figures 5 and 6.

City North extends north from Victoria Street opposite the market along Elizabeth Street, Royal Parade and Flemington Road. As referenced in Clause 21.14 and the adopted City North Structure Plan 2012, the planned renewal in this area is centred on the university, and health and research institutions around the northern edge of the city with associated growth in the residential population.

Substantial residential development has already taken place in City North with many more apartments currently in construction or planned. The QVM Master Plan estimates that of the planned new households, if each resulted in one visit per week, this would amount to 600,000 additional visits to the market each year.

Figure 2: Oblique aerial view looking south across QVM Precinct (Source: Nearmap 21.4.16)

4


Figure 3: Consolidated zone map

5


Figure 4: Consolidated DDO map

6


The vision for City North was implemented through Am C196 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme which was gazetted in October 2015 and: ■ Rezoned much of the area to the Capital City

Zone (CCZ5) to encourage a mix of central city uses; and

■ Applied new built form controls which envisage a mid-rise built form with a range of heights of up to 60m.

The emergence of City North as an area of intensification and mid-rise built form, together with the northward march of substantial tower CBD development along Elizabeth Street have begun to change the strategic role of the QVM precinct from a place of transition between the central city and lower scale North and West Melbourne, to one that is integral to the central city.

These city-shaping forces are set to continue into the longer term and the ongoing intensification of the surrounding areas to the north and south will have a profound influence on the future of the QVM precinct. In particular: ■ The increased local population will expand the

customer base of the market itself and place additional pressure on its facilities and open spaces, further strengthening the need for investment and renewal;

■ The significant take up of high density apartment living in the surrounding area will make the provision of additional accessible and high quality public open space increasingly important; and

■ The changing nature of built form in the area and the advance of very tall towers toward the south east market edge places the market precinct in a physical context in which the protection of those elements that are critical to the market’s unique sense of place becomes increasingly important.

The vision set out in the adopted QVM Master Plan and the planning framework envisaged in Am C245 represent Council’s strategic response to these influences.

In broad terms, I consider these initiatives to be sound and considered responses to the forces acting upon the QVM precinct.

In the following section of my evidence (Section 2.2) I have summarised what I consider to be the key elements of the strategic vision for the precinct, before turning to the specific changes proposed to the planning framework for the area in Section 2.3.

2.2 What is the strategic vision and key directions for the market and its surrounds? Council’s vision for the market area is articulated in the adopted QVM Master Plan and calls for the renewal of the market and surrounding area with the aim of creating a world class market of markets while celebrating the area’s heritage.

Three key strategic directions are set out in the QVM Master Plan to guide the delivery of this vision: 1. A market of markets – which supports and

encourages sustainable market trading through upgrading facilities, moving towards seven day a week opening and introducing new markets to attract new customers and encourage longer visits.

2. A Melbourne experience – which promotes the precinct as ‘a place to discover’, with enhanced street life where heritage is celebrated and local produce is promoted.

3. A community meeting place - which promotes the precinct as a place for communities to meet through the creation of shared experiences that promote interaction and an improved pedestrian focussed public realm (refer page 14).

Figure 6: Central city built form context

Figure 5: Central city expansion in relation to the market precinct (red outline) and Am C245 area (yellow outline)

7


Delivery of the overall vision will involve substantial investment in the precinct (a figure of up to $250 million is noted in the QVM Master Plan, page 3) over the coming years to deliver a range of initiatives which can be summarised as: ■ Investment in renewal of the market’s heritage

buildings and sheds; ■ Improved facilities for market traders including

the creation of dedicated back of house areas; ■ Enhanced customer amenities and facilities

including improved accessibility; ■ Creation of a major new public open space on

the site of the existing at grade car park south of the market;

■ Creation of a new Victoria Visitor Centre and associated community facilities along the eastern side of the new public space fronting Queen Street (Queens Corner Building);

■ Redevelopment of the substantial Munro Site recently acquired by the City of Melbourne, for a mix of uses;

■ The re-alignment of Franklin Street to the north of the existing market store buildings in line with the formal agreement between Council and the State Government and the resultant creation of a substantial development parcel to the south of the new Franklin Street alignment;

■ The replacement of the existing 720 at grade car spaces within the precinct (on Council-owned land) in line with this agreement; and

■ The delivery of an enhanced public realm including improvements to the north-south Queen Street spine, Therry Street and at the market’s interfaces to surrounding areas.

The plan at Figure 7 shows the key features of the QVM Master Plan vision overlaid on the proposed planning controls to be applied under Am C245.

The project planning framework within the QVM Master Plan divides the market precinct into four quarters. These precincts are defined and are

linked to each other by the Market Cross of public spaces within the heart of the precinct, comprising Queen Street, Therry Street and the east-west connection through the market (Figure 8).

The division into four quarters reflects: ■ Varied building types and character ■ Different market trading models ■ Different types of goods being sold.

The QVM Master Plan then sets out the vision, priorities and key improvements planned for each quarter, comprising: ■ Quarter 1 – shopfront trading in market halls

and street oriented terraces; ■ Quarter 2 – fixed trading stalls in open sheds,

sheltered in a structured perimeter to surrounding streets;

■ Quarter 3 Changing (daily, weekly, seasonally) markets and events in open-air sheds and plaza; and

■ Quarter 4 – Mixed use development, fine grained retail, hospitality and facilities complimentary to the QVM.

This division breaks the overall renewal project down into a series of elements that, whilst linked, can be delivered with a degree of independence. The adopted QVM Master Plan states:

“The intent is to co-ordinate a suite of projects that can be developed with a degree of independence from each other, which also complement each other and contribute to the precincts as a whole. It also enables targeted consultation and stakeholder input, in depth investigations, exploration of options, and detailed resolution of proposals that can be delivered in stages.” (QVM Master Plan, page 17)

Overall, the QVM Master Plan articulates a comprehensive vision for the market and its immediate environs and provides direction for investment and improvement.

A review of development controls within the renewal precinct and extending into the wider area is identified as important within the QVM Master Plan (introduction, page 4). In part this is about facilitating the vision and protecting valued elements of the market, but it also reflects recognition of the changing city context, the area’s increasing integration into the central city and that existing controls over built form have become dated.

In the following section, I consider whether the Am C245 establishes a sound framework to manage development within the market and environs, and to facilitate the QVM Master Plan vision for positive change and renewal.

Figure 7: Master Plan initiatives and proposed planning controls

Figure 8: Master Plan quarters and Market Cross

8


2.3 Does AmC245 establish a sound framework to manage change in the precinct? The Am C254 area reflects the boundaries of the existing DDO14 – Queen Victoria Market Area. Am C245 extends beyond the immediate market precinct covered by the QVM Master Plan to include adjoining areas to the south and east.

Am C245 proposes the following modifications to the planning framework for the market precinct: ■ Changes in the application of zones over the

market (PUZ7) and proposed public space (PPRZ);

■ The removal of the existing DDO14 control from the market precinct and its replacement with a Development Plan Overlay (DPO11) covering the proposed major public space and land around the south and east of the market;

■ A revised DD014 schedule in the balance of the amendment area with an updated set of built form controls; and

■ Consequential changes to the LPPF to reflect the built form ambitions for the area.

These elements are considered turn below.

2.3.1 Zone changes The whole of the amendment area is currently within the Capital City Zone (CCZ1), which has the purpose to provide for a range of financial, legal, administrative, cultural, recreational, tourist, entertainment and other uses that complement the capital city function of the locality.

The amendment applies the Public Use Zone (PUZ 7 – other public use) to the market itself and the northern end of Queen Street in recognition of the long-standing use of the market for public purposes. It reflects the unique status of the market as a public amenity which fulfils more than a simple retail function.

The PUZ has as its purposes; ■ To recognise public land use for public utility

and community services and facilities. ■ To provide for associated uses that are

consistent with the intent of the public land reservation or purpose.

The application of this zone will continue to facilitate the existing use of the land as a market and future development of the land for market and associated activities in line with the adopted QVM Master Plan and the objectives of the public land manager namely the City of Melbourne.

Whilst it could be argued that the QVM Master Plan activities and development can be achieved with the current zoning, I consider it appropriate to embed the public nature and civic importance of the market into the Planning Scheme and to differentiate it from surrounding areas within the land use/zoning framework.

The proposed application of the Public Park and

Recreation Zone to land to the south of the main market building, between Peel Street and Queen Street is to implement the QVM Master Plan’s proposal to relocate the existing market car park and use the land as a new public open space.

The relevant purposes of the PPRZ are: ■ To recognise areas for public recreation and

open space. ■ To protect and conserve areas of significance

where appropriate. ■ To provide for commercial uses where

appropriate.

The application of this zone will assist in facilitating the provision of the new public space and provide long term protection to it, by ensuring that only use and development associated with the public use of the land can be contemplated. In my view this is an appropriate planning response to ensure the provision and retention of a significant public space in an area of substantial population growth and one which will enhance the

amenity and attractiveness of the market area and its heritage significance.

The Capital City Zone – Schedule 1 will continue to apply to the balance of the amendment area, to the south and east of the market. This approach reflects the growing integration of this area into the wider capital city.

2.3.2 Overlay changes The proposed changes in the application of overlays involve: ■ the deletion of the existing DDO14 control; ■ the application of DPO11 to the south and

eastern surrounds of the market in the area covered by the QVM Master Plan; and

■ the application of a revised DD014 control in the remainder of the area south and east of the DPO.

The spatial application of these controls is shown at Figure 9.

The proposed DPO is primarily concerned with facilitating the delivery of the QVM Master Plan

and managing built form on land which is within Council’s existing or future ownership (following transfer from the State Government), with the exception of some privately owned sites on the south east corner of Queen Street and Franklin Street.

The amended DDO14 control seeks to manage built form outcomes in the wider market context in line with the extent of the existing DDO14.

In considering the suitability of the proposed controls, it is important in my view to consider the following: ■ What are the key physical influences on the

market precinct? ■ How this physical context is experienced now

and how is it changing?

Considering these questions is important in understanding the area of influence of the market precinct, which in turn informs consideration of the boundaries and nature of the proposed controls.

Figure 9: Proposed zone and overlay application (source: Am C245 Explanatory Report)

9


What are the key physical influences on the market precinct? The existing physical influences on the market precinct stem from its location at the north-west edge of the CBD and its position within the surrounding road alignment pattern where the angled Hoddle Grid meets the north-south oriented grid to the north and west.

This street pattern defines clear boulevard edges along Peel Street to the west and Victoria Street to the north which provide a sense of separation between the market and the existing comparatively low scaled built environment beyond. In contrast, the relationship with the central city context to the south and east is made up of a series of smaller streets and blocks which provide a less formal permeable edge to the market.

As a result, the experience of surrounding built form is quite different along the north and west as opposed to the south and east interfaces where: ■ Across Peel and Victoria Streets, a consistent

alignment of low-mid-rise buildings surrounds the market, with occasional slightly taller buildings visible behind, which then opens up at the south-west corner of the market to Flagstaff Gardens;

■ To the south and east, a more complex layering of built form is apparent in a non-linear alignment to the market. A broad pattern can be discerned in views out from the market area of mid-rise buildings of varied height and form defining the foreground market interface with substantially taller central city towers clearly visible beyond forming a high rise backdrop, particularly to the east. Buildings directly facing the market along Queen and Therry Streets are low and relate to the scale of the market buildings.

These influences are illustrated at Figure 10 and the photographs at Figure 11 and 12.

Figure 10: Key built form influences on the QVM Precinct

10


(ii) How are these physical influences experienced and how are they changing? These influences combine to provide the market environs, which comprise low rise built form and open spaces, with its particular sense of place - one which is clearly distinct from both the neighbouring suburbs and the central city.

However, this is not a static context, but rather one in which the emergence of City North as an urban renewal area and the onward advance of taller towers in the central city towards the market is changing the relationship of the market precinct with the wider city.

The current review of central city built form controls following the introduction of interim controls last year (under Am C262 and permanent controls under Am C270) means that there is some uncertainty about the kind of built form outcomes that will occur beyond the Am C245 area in the future. However, the increasing height of buildings in the market south east backdrop can be expected to continue.

The changing context is on the one hand increasing the prominence of surrounding built form, particularly to the south and east, while also having the effect of increasing the sense of distinction between the low scaled place of the market and the intensification of the wider city.

This dynamic then leads to the question of; what defines the area of influence on and of the market, where future development has the potential to directly affect or detract from the sense of place of the market?

The low and mid-rise areas to the north and west of QVM and the existing DDO14 were considered in Am C196 (City North). Given the City North area is separated from the Am C245 area by Victoria Street to the north and Peel Street to the west, I have not revisited their built form and land use futures other than to refer to the consolidated zone and overlay maps at Figures 3 and 4 of this

Figure 11: Photograph showing view across at-grade car park with City backdrop behind

Figure 12: Photograph showing built form edge along Victoria Street

11


report. The low and mid-rise heights to the north and west of the QVM will be retained by virtue of DDO31 (which has a mandatory maximum building height of 14m and which references QVM) and DDO61 A1 (which has a discretionary 24m building height) and DDO61 A4.1 (which has a discretionary 40m building height) both of which refer to the QVM.

To the south and east, the picture is evolving. As a current snapshot, a review of matters such as the location of Heritage Overlays, existing and proposed taller buildings and the lot pattern has assisted in defining the market environs where management of built form has a direct relationship with the market as at April 2016. The market environs with a direct relationship to the QVM includes some substantial buildings which have an immediate interface to the market but which are unlikely to be developed in the foreseeable future for example Melbourne Terrace and Brady Vision apartments. The Am C245 area outside the market environs with a direct relationship to the QVM connects more closely to the central city context and ultimately the review of Central City controls that flows from Am C262.

The Heritage Overlay pattern is shown at Figure 13 whilst Figure 14, overleaf depicts the market environs and backdrop area in relation to the key initiatives and development sites in the QVM Master Plan. The blue line on Figure 14 separates that area of Am C245 where the built form as at April 2016 has a direct interface with the QVM from that area of Am C245 where built form relates more closely to the Capital City.

This spatial relationship will change over time as approved development within the Am C245 area is constructed (386 William Street) and the building program in DPO11 is delivered. When the DPO11 projects are completed then the direct visual connection between the QVM with that area

depicted in Figure 14 as being within the market environs, will be significantly reduced.

In concise terms it is recommended that; ■ The Am C245 backdrop area (blue hatched

area) could be affected by either the exhibited DDO14 control or the alternative recommended in Section 2.3.5 of this report until the Central City Am C270 is finalised. At which time Am C270 controls should apply, and

■ The Am C245 market environs area (the yellow stippled area outside DPO11) should be affected by the exhibited DDO14 with revised provisions as recommended in Section 2.3.5 of this report either permanently or until such time as DPO11 projects are delivered. At which point the DDO14 controls applying to the following properties should be reviewed; Melbourne Terraces, 400 Queen Street, and 489 and 501 Elizabeth Street.

An assessment should then be made about the nature of future controls affecting the above properties after the DPO11 projects are constructed.

2.3.3 Need for updated controls In considering the suitability of the proposed controls, it is important to understand the intent and effect of the existing DDO14 and compare it with the new DP011 and revised DD014.

(i) Existing DDO14 The existing DDO14 applies a range of building height precincts across the area to which the DDO applies. The heights are expressed as preferred maximum heights that can be exceeded provided a proposal demonstrates how it meets specified built form outcomes.

In essence the existing DDO14 has the following relevant attributes: ■ A permit is trigged for all buildings and works; ■ A permit application for buildings and works is

exempt from third party notice and review rights;

■ Design objectives are established; ■ Discretionary maximum building heights are

nominated with built form outcomes described.

The existing DDO14 does not express: ■ Street wall/podium heights; ■ Setbacks above the street wall; ■ Tower separation dimensions; ■ Quantitative assessment criteria such as

shadow or wind impacts, street frontage activation widths, mid-block pedestrian connections or noise benchmarks for buildings to be occupied by a residential use.

A 3D model of the existing DDO14 building height precincts has been prepared and included as Appendix G. In addition those existing and approved buildings within DDO14 that already exceed the preferred building heights have been included. What this investigation reveals is that the preferred building height regime has already shifted and moved upwards on a number of DDO14 sites.

Moreover, the issue raised by the structure and content of the existing DDO14 tool is that the provisions are no longer relevant to managing the market and its environs in the 21st Century given the nature and pace of change that has occurred in the capital city and the private sector response to population growth in the north west sector beyond the Hoddle Grid.

A visual impact assessment of the existing and approved towers to the south and east of the DDO14 boundaries as well as the existing and approved buildings within the DDO14 area that already exceed the preferred building height regime are depicted in Figures 10 and 14. This

analysis suggests that the role and function of the area to which DDO14 applies as a scale transition from the low rise market edges to the medium and high rise towers in the CBD is out of date.

The existing DDO14 design objectives and provisions are inadequate to manage built form outcomes and advancing pressure for more intense development in the market environs or to facilitate the QVM Master Plan vision for the area.

(ii) Proposed DPO11 The proposed DPO specifies both use and development control over private and publicly owned land.

The proposed DPO11 is structured so that: ■ A Development Plan must be prepared that is

generally in accordance with the QVM Framework Plan at Figure 1 of the DPO11 control and must be consistent with the Vision for the area that is described under a number of dot points at Clause 3.0 of the DPO11 provisions.

■ Any permit issued must be consistent with the QVM Framework Plan at Figure 1 and the Vision in Clause 3.0 of the DPO11 provisions and must achieve all of the design requirements described under a number of dot points.

■ These design requirements are variously described as must (mandatory) and should (discretionary) provisions including: Shadow impacts on the proposed new public

space and Flagstaff Gardens; Street wall/podium heights; Front setbacks above street wall/podium

heights; Side and rear setbacks above street

wall/podium heights; Tower separation dimensions; Quantitative assessment criteria;

Wind exposure conditions; Residential use dB standard;

12


Figure 13: Heritage Overlays within the AM C245 area Figure 14: Key development sites in relation to market environs and central city influences

13


Mid block pedestrian connections. Street frontage activation widths

■ The Framework Plan at Figure 1 (reproduced at Figure 16) depicts the area to which DPO11 provisions apply and nominates: Street wall/podium heights to identified land

parcels A, B , C and D Proposed mid-block pedestrian links Proposed public open space and the new

Franklin Street alignment ■ The Responsible Authority for preparing and

approving the Development Plan will be the City of Melbourne.

■ The Responsible Authority for considering any permit applications will be the City of Melbourne or, for development exceeding 25,000sqm, the Minister for Planning – or VCAT in place of either.

■ The head provision of the Development Plan Overlay control (Clause 43.04) allows for a permit application that is generally in accordance with a Development Plan to be exempt from third party notice and review rights.

In addition the range of requirements affecting the private realm, Clause 3.0 of DDO11 sets down requirements for a Development Plan that apply to the public domain and include: ■ The relocation of the existing 720 car parking

spaces associated with the market to be relocated to Parcels A and/or D on Figure 1.

■ A road management plan which provides details of the alignment, design and finish of new public roads

■ A new community facility in Land Parcel C – the Queen’s Corner building.

(ii) Proposed DDO14 The proposed DDO14 applies to the balance of the Am C245 area outside of the QVM itself and the DPO11 boundaries.

The proposed DDO14 establishes a similar regime of development control including quantitative and qualitative assessment criteria as that of DPO11, although the proposed DDO14 has a different structure to that of DPO11.

The proposed DDO14 has the following relevant attributes: ■ A permit is triggered for all buildings and works ■ A permit application is exempt from third party

notice and review rights. ■ Design objectives are established that vary

from the design objectives of the existing DD014

■ Built Form requirements for street wall/podium heights, setbacks and tower separation dimensions are contained in a tabular arrangement within Table 1 nominating preferred (discretionary) provisions and Table 2 (mandatory) provisions.

■ The other quantitative assessment criteria are the same as those specified in DPO11, comprising: Wind exposure conditions Residential use dB standard Street frontage activation widths Mid block pedestrian connections

■ Shadow tests are similar to those in DPO11 save that the test for Flagstaff Gardens in the proposed DDO14 refers to 21 September, rather than the 22 June referred to in the DPO11 provisions.

In broad terms I consider the structure and content of the proposed controls reflects the evolution and increased sophistication of such overlays over recent years. The following sub-sections of my evidence describe in more detail how the controls seek to manage built form outcomes and the issues that flow from a detailed analysis of their content.

2.3.4 How do the proposed DPO and DDO controls seek to manage development in this context? There is much that is common between the proposed DPO and DDO controls.

Both controls seek to manage built form outcomes however the DPO also addresses the reshaping of public infrastructure and works in the public realm as well as land use matters in relation to activation at the ground level of buildings and the need for replacement of 720 existing publically accessible car parking spaces within the precinct. Importantly the DPO requires that a new community facility be developed parcel C that may include amongst other things a Victoria visitor centre,

As well the DPO requires that where dwellings are proposed on land owned or controlled by the City of Melbourne, that the provision of affordable housing be considered.

I consider that the opportunity presented by the stakeholder involvement of a municipal authority such as the City of Melbourne is an opportunity to have greater influence and over, the provision of such things as community facilities and affordable housing.

(i) Administration The administration of the DPO provisions should involve greater transparency. Given Melbourne City Council is both the planning authority and the major land owner with the DPO, formalising

Figure 16: QVM Precinct Framework Plan at Figure 1 in DPO11

14


the administrative provisions of the DPO warrants further consideration. I consider that the Minister for Planning should be nominated as the responsible authority for approval of the Development Plan and for subsequent planning permit applications.

I note that there is a further level of procedural transparency provided by the Heritage Overlay controls where the Executive Director of Heritage Victoria will be the permit issuing authority on heritage matters for buildings and works to the QVM itself, the development of the new public park and the market stores. I note that the new Queen’s Corner building is to be constructed in the Queen Street road reserve and accordingly will be located outside of the Heritage Registered land. The Executive Director of Heritage Victoria will therefore not be the permit issuing authority for the Queen’s Corner building. I consider that the Minister for Planning should be the responsible authority for the development approvals for this building.

(ii) Built form The approach to managing built form in both controls comprises:

Podium heights: ■ Mandatory maximum podium heights of 40m

except fronting Therry and Queen Streets north of Franklin Street where maximum of 20m applies.

■ Discretionary preferred minimum podium heights of 20m except fronting Therry and Queen Streets north of Franklin Street where minimum of 10m applies.

Tower setbacks: ■ Mandatory minimum tower setbacks of 10m

from street frontages other than the former Franklin Street alignment where the minimum is 6m.

■ Mandatory minimum side and rear tower setbacks of 10m from side and rear boundaries

in the DPO and the same as a discretionary requirement in the DDO.

Tower separation: ■ Mandatory minimum separation of 10m from an

existing or likely future tower on an adjoining lot.

■ Discretionary preferred tower separation of a minimum of 24m from an existing or likely future tower on adjoining sites.

Building Height: ■ No overall maximum building heights are

nominated. ■ Building height is to be managed by:

Discretionary shadow requirements which seek to protect the proposed public open space from shadow between 11am and 2.00pm on 21 June and Flagstaff Gardens from shadow between 11am and 2pm on 21 September (DDO control) and 21 June (DPO control).

The qualitative Development Plan requirements within the DPO11 and the design objectives of DDO14.

In addition to specific built form requirements, both controls contain a range of objectives, requirements and built form outcomes which cover a range of matters such as active frontages, protection of the public realm from wind and shadow and the effects of tall buildings on the pedestrian entrance.

The overall approach to managing built form derives from the Jones & Whitehead Built Form Review and Recommendations (April 2015). In broad terms this review concluded that the existing DDO14 controls are out of date and that the management of overall building height in the wider area around the market is of lesser importance than the scale of street walls and podiums directly at the edges of the market itself.

In my view, the proposed controls establish a logical framework for managing built form within the precinct. However, there are a number of issues which are revealed in a detailed analysis of the controls where further refinement would be beneficial as set out below.

2.3.5 Issues that flow from the proposed DPO and DDO There are a number of issues that flow from a review of the built form controls, including some that are common to both the DPO and DDO and some specific to the each control as summarised in the commentary that follows:

My analysis has been informed by 3D modelling of the building envelopes that the controls could potentially allow which has been undertaken by my office using the City of Melbourne’s 3D model as a base.

(i) Building height and shadow to public spaces: The 3D modelling indicates that shadowing from potential tower forms on the Munro site and sites along Queen Street north of Franklin Street onto the proposed new public open space is not a constraint on building height, given the angle of the sun between 11am and 2pm on 21 June. Images from the shadow modelling are included at Appendix D.

The proposed DPO control does not, therefore, set any upper limit on building height on this development site, which raises the possibility of a very tall tower (or towers) at this direct interface with the market, set back only 10m from the street edge.

Whilst the changing central city context of the market and the advancing front of taller buildings towards the market is an established movement, and one which can accentuate the separateness and distinct sense of place of the market, it is nevertheless undesirable that there should be no

indication of the preferred scale or intensity of development above the relatively low podium/street edge of 10m-20m, immediately at the market edge.

Accordingly the approach to building scale and intensity should in my view be seen in the context of the wider central city (interim) DDO10 controls which establish a regime of plot ratio to manage the overall intensity of development.

As a test, the DDO10 plot ratio of 1:24 has been applied to the Munro Site in the 3D model to indicate the building height that could result from this control – either with a single tower or two towers, above the mandatory maximum podium height and applying the mandatory minimum setbacks. This plot ratio exercise shows that, whilst there would be numerous ways in which a designer could seek to meet a plot ratio requirement, the overall effect of such a control would temper the overall intensity of development on this site in a manner consistent with the central city beyond.

The 3D modelling has also been undertaken to explore the shadow effects on Flagstaff Gardens of potential tower forms above the mandatory 40m high podium to the rear of the Franklin Street stores.

This modelling shows that there would be some restriction on height on this site, particularly at its western end, in relation to the shadow requirements for 22 September, but the effect is less onerous than if the 21 June test is applied. The 21 June test is referred to in DD014 (and the proposed revisions to Clause 22.02).

15


In this regard, it is not clear why a winter Solstice test is applied in DD014 but that DPO11 refers to September equinox impacts on Flagstaff Gardens. In my view, it is appropriate for the control to consider the impacts in the middle of the day at the winter Solstice, but with discretion for an assessment to be made about the impact of any shadow, including which parts of the gardens are affected.

For the Franklin Street site, there is an opportunity to shape a relatively tall building so its shadows fall within the shadows cast by existing buildings and (potentially) the approved building at 386-412 William Street. However, the 21 June shadow requirement would still allow for tall structures towards the eastern end of the site up to 159m if the solstice building envelope is applied or higher if an equinox building envelope is used.

The application of a 1:24 plot ratio to this site, may or may not reduce the potential building height depending on how towers are configured (ie. broader and lower or narrower and taller).

As with the Munro site, I consider that some tempering of the overall development intensity is warranted here in line with the central city built form controls.

(ii) Mandatory podium heights and front tower setbacks: The mandatory podium heights in the DPO and DDO are in my view generally sound in that they establish a lower street wall of 10m-20m at the immediate interface with the market in line with heritage advice from Mr Lovell. Away from the direct market interface controls allow podiums of up to 40m, consistent with the approach elsewhere in the central city in DD010.

However, the prospect of a 40m high podium along the northern side of the retained former Franklin Street (Little Franklin Street) appears excessive given the relatively narrow width (10m approximately) of this street 20m street wall height

could step up to 40m at corner intersections

Above podiums, the proposed tower setback of 10m is consistent with the heritage advice as regards buildings at the market interface, although I understand that Mr Lovell’s view is that this front setback need not be mandatory for heritage reasons. Nevertheless, I consider that there is a sound urban design rationale to mandate generous tower setbacks at the edge of the intimate public spaces of Therry Street and Queen Street (North) around the market, see Figures 17 – 20 inclusive.

Away from these immediate interface edges to the market and proposed public open space, where particular heritage sensitivities exist, it is not clear why a mandatory front tower setback requirement, which is double that which apply on sites elsewhere in the central city in DDO10, is warranted. In my view, for sites without a direct interface to the market, tower setbacks should be consistent with those elsewhere in the central city.

In addition, the DPO control does not provide guidance (or discretion) as to how podium heights are to be managed on corner sites where different podium heights apply in each street.

A particular example of this is the site at the north-east corner of Queen Street and Franklin Street (No 422 Queen Street) where the 40m maximum and 20m maximum podium heights meet. In this location I consider there is a sound urban design basis for continuing the 40m Franklin podium control around into Queen Street as far as the laneway. This would allow a building of a scale comparable to the Melbourne Terraces building south of Franklin Street to mark the intersection and approach to the market and new public open space.

(iii) Tower separation and side and rear tower setbacks:

The proposed mandatory tower setback requirement of 10m from all sides does not, in my

view, allow sufficient flexibility for a design response to the particular characteristics of a site or the configuration of a neighbouring property.

Side and rear tower setbacks in areas of higher built form are generally required in order to achieve tower separation to achieve a range of objectives including: ■ Achieving equitable access to sunlight, daylight

and outlook between buildings; ■ Allowing sunlight to penetrate between

buildings to street level; and ■ Providing visual breaks between upper level

forms.

Consideration of matters of amenity and the equitable sharing of development opportunities between sites are generally not specific to the precinct in which they are located ie those issues are not place specific. This issue raises the question then about whether there is something specific to the QVM area which requires a different approach to side and rear setbacks compared to that which applies elsewhere in central city (interim DDO10 control).

In my view, the relationship of potential development sites around the market to the existing and proposed public spaces and their orientation does not in itself warrant a different approach to tower separation than in DDO10 for reasons of sunlight access or to relieve the visual impact of taller buildings when viewed at street level.

In this context, I consider that the DDO10 approach, which in effect establishes a mandatory separation of 10m which then increases where buildings exceed 100m in height, is to be preferred over the proposed Am C245 controls.

This approach also provides greater scope for development of small lots, particularly where they have a laneway abuttal.

For instance, the mandatory nature of the

proposed side and rear setback requirements would curtail the opportunity for tower development on small lots in the DPO area, such as those on the north side of Franklin Street and east side of Queen Street, even if site consolidation takes place. A study of potential development options for these sites is included at Appendix E.

However, if the DDO10 side and rear setback approach were applied, these sites could take advantage of their abuttals to service laneways and achieve a more viable tower floorplate.

16


Figure 17: Looking east along Therry Street Figure 19: Munro corner – Therry Street/Queen Street south looking south east

Figure 18: Looking west along Therry Street Figure 20: Queen Street south, looking south

17


2.3.5 Recommendations The following recommendations are made in order to address the issues identified:

DPO11 Recommendations Reasons

Administration

1. The Minister for Planning should be the responsible authority for approval of Development Plan and planning permits 1. Improved decision making and governance because the City of Melbourne is a major land owner

2. Improve clarity of should and must provisions; for example: a) Development Plan must be generally in accordance with the QVM Precinct Framework Plan 2015 Figure 1 b) Redraft Design Guidelines and Requirements for Permits into a table with Preferred Provisions and Built Form Outcomes to guide discretion c) Separately specify mandatory requirements.

2. Improved administration and statutory clarity of interpretation of controls

Shadow impact

3. Change shadow impact test on Flagstaff Garden from “should not cast any additional shadows between 11am to 2pm on 22 September” to “should not cast any additional shadows between 11am to 2pm 21st of June.”

3. Consistency in shadows test between DDO14 and DPO11

Building height and setback

4. Manage potential building height by introducing: a) Discretionary plot ratio consistent with Central City provisions b) Mandatory side and rear setbacks above street wall / podium height consistent with Central City provisions (ie 5m of 5m from centre of a laneway) c) Mandatory 10m setback above street wall / podium height on south side Therry Street and east side Queen Street to north side of laneway d) Mandatory 10m setback behind northern masonry facades of market sheds e) All other front setbacks to be mandatory 5m

4. Consistency in built form controls with Central City provisions. Introducing building shaping tests including plot ratio, tower separation etc and improved street level interface with QVM.

Other changes

5. Increase street wall / podium height on south east corner of Franklin Street (i.e. 422 Queen Street) from 20m to 40m 6. Alter QVM Precinct Framework Plan 2015 Figure 1 to show setback building line behind the market stores on the south west corner of Queen Street and New

Franklin Street 7. Reduce street wall / podium height on the north side of Little Franklin Street from 40m to 20m inboard of corner intersections which Queen Street and William

Street

5. Urban design response to Melbourne Terraces opposite 6. Intersection of 40m podium with the market stores is blunt and overwhelms the

heritage building and street environment. Peel back new building potential from east of market stores and allow for the creations of market entry pedestrian ‘refuge’ area

7. Improved street level interface with 10m wide Little Franklin Street

DDO14 Recommendations

8. Redraft to remove repetition of Table 1 Preferred and Table 2 Mandatory Built Form Outcomes 9. Improved administration and statutory clarity of interpretation of controls

9. Extent of DDO14 a) Option 1 – Retain mapped extent of DDO14 area with recommended changes (see 4a, 4b and 4e) b) Option 2 – Contract mapped extent of DDO14 area with recommended changes and consolidate balance of the area into DDO10 and apply DDO10

provisions (see Figure 21, overleaf)

10. Spatial relationship of most of DDO14 area is now with the Central City and is disconnected from QVM.

Table 1

18


2.3.6 Policy changes Am C245 proposes changes to the LPPF to; ■ Amend the Built Environment and Heritage

within the Hoddle Grid Policy (Clause 21.12), to delete an existing policy statement relating to the existing DDO14 and removing reference to a transitional scale in the area bounded by Latrobe, Victoria and Elizabeth/Peel Streets between the Hoddle Grid and lower scale areas of Carlton and North Melbourne. This initiative is supported by the analysis at Section 2.3.3 of this report regarding the changes made and the context of the market environs on the north west city fringe, and

■ Amend the existing Clause 22.02 Sunlight to Public Spaces to include a provision that development should not overshadow Flagstaff Gardens between 11am and 2pm on 21 June.

These changes and seek to ensure consistency between the revised planning controls and local policy requirements. I note that the reference in the proposed Clause 22.02 to shadow at the winter Solstice (21 June) should be reflected in the shadow requirements in DPO11, rather than 22 September.

3 Conclusion Queen Victoria Market is one of Melbourne’s iconic historic landmarks, a major tourist attraction and a retail destination for residents from across the city.

The delivery of the QVM Master Plan Vision is critical to ensure the market’s on going sustainability on the north western edge of a rapidly changing Central City. The investment in and reinvigoration of the market and its surrounds envisaged in the QVM Master Plan represents the next step in its evolution.

Am C245 has been developed to deliver the QVM Master Plan outcomes and its form and content, subject to the recommendations in Section 2.3.5 of this report, will provide the statutory and policy framework to allow its realisation.

C A Heggen

BTRP FPIA

Figure 21: Recommendation 9b)

19


Appendix A: Existing Planning Controls and Policies

The Am C245 area is affected by the following provisions of the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

A1 Existing Zone and Overlay Controls Zoning The area affected by Am C245 is currently located within the Capital City Zone Schedule 1 (CCZ1). A zone map is included at Figure A1.

Pursuant to Clause 37.04 the purposes of the CCZ1 are: ■ To implement the State Planning Policy

Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

■ To enhance the role of Melbourne’s central city as the capital of Victoria and as an area of national and international importance.

■ To recognise or provide for the use and development of land for specific purposes as identified in a schedule to this zone.

■ To create through good urban design an attractive, pleasurable, safe and stimulating environment.

Schedule 1 relates to land outside the retail core of the City and has the purpose to provide for a range of financial, legal, administrative, cultural, recreational, tourist, entertainment and other uses that complement the capital city function of the locality.

The schedule includes a range of specific prohibitions, permit requirements and decision guidelines and incorporates at Section 7.0 the interim controls introduced under Amendment C262 which have effect until 4 Sept 2016.

Overlays The following overlay controls affect various parts of the C245 area: ■ Design and Development Overlay -

Schedules 1, 4, 14 and 58 ■ Heritage Overlays - HO7, HO496, HO735,

HO993HO1025, HO1022, HO1043, HO1148, HO1125, HO1153 HO1154, HO1155, HO1157, HO1158, HO1160, HO1161 (see Figure A2).

DDO14 affects the majority of the Am C245 area as shown at Figure A3. It has the following purposes: ■ To ensure that any development within the

Queen Victoria Market is consistent with its Victorian character and low-scale.

■ To ensure that development around the Market edges and within close proximity to the Market provides an appropriate scale transition from the low scale Market buildings towards the medium and high rise towers in the Central Business District.

■ To ensure that any development in close proximity to the Queen Victoria Market is compatible with the scale and character of the Market, surrounding residential developments and adjacent precincts.

This Schedule includes a table of discretionary maximum building heights for various sub-precincts around the market. Section 2.0 Buildings and Works states that:

“An application to exceed the Maximum Building Height must demonstrate how the development will continue to achieve the Design Objectives and Built Form Outcomes of this schedule and any local planning policy requirements.”

Figure A2: Heritage Overlay map

Figure A1: Zone map

Figure A3: DDO14 map

20


Appendix A: Existing Planning Controls and Policies continued

A2 Planning Policy Context The following SPPF and LPPF provisions are relevant in considering Amendment C120.

SPPF provisions Clause 9 Plan Melbourne ■ Clause 9.01 Plan Melbourne interpretation

Clause 11 Settlement ■ Clause 11.01 Activity centres ■ Clause 11.01-1 Activity centre network ■ Clause 11.01-2 Activity centre planning ■ Clause 11.02 Urban growth ■ Clause 11.02-1 Supply of urban land ■ Clause 11.04 Metropolitan Melbourne ■ Clause 11.04-1 Delivering jobs and

investment ■ Clause 11.04-2 Housing choice and

affordability ■ Clause 11.04-4 Liveable communities and

neighbourhoods

Clause 15 Built environment and heritage ■ Clause 15.01 Urban environment ■ Clause 15.01-1 Urban design ■ Clause 15.01-2 Urban design principles ■ Clause 15.01-3 Neighbourhood and

subdivision design ■ Clause 15.01-4 Design for safety ■ Clause 15.01-5 Cultural identity and

neighbourhood character ■ Clause 15.02 Sustainability ■ Clause 15.02-1 Energy and resource

efficiency ■ Clause 15.03 Heritage ■ Clause 15.03-1 Heritage conservation ■ Clause 15.03-2 Aboriginal cultural heritage

Clause 16 Housing ■ Clause 16.01 Residential development ■ Clause 16.01-1 Integrated housing

■ Clause 16.01-2 Location of the residential development

■ Clause 16.01-3 Strategic redevelopment sites

■ Clause 16.01-4 Housing diversity ■ Clause 16.01-5 Housing affordability

Clause 17 Economic development

■ Clause 17.01 Commercial ■ Clause 17.01-1 Business ■ Clause 17.03 Tourism ■ Clause 17.03-1 Facilitating Tourism ■ Clause 17.03-2 Tourism in Metropolitan

Melbourne

Clause 18 Transport ■ Clause 18.01 Integrated transport ■ Clause 18.01-1 Land use and transport

planning ■ Clause 18.02 Movement networks ■ Clause 18.02-1 Sustainable personal

transport ■ Clause 18.02-2 Cycling ■ Clause 18.02-4 Management of the road

system ■ Clause 18.02-5 Car parking

Clause 19 Infrastructure ■ Clause 19.02 Community infrastructure ■ Clause 19.02-3 Cultural facilities

LPPF – Municipal Strategic Statement The following directions within the City of Melbourne MSS are relevant to the consideration of this proposal: ■ Clause 21.02 – Municipal Profile which

summarises the City’s historical context and current strengths and challenges.

■ Clause 21.03 – Vision sets out the vision derived from Future Melbourne 2008 for a ‘bold inspirational and sustainable city’.

■ Clause 21.04 – Settlement sets out the approach to managing growth based on five types of areas being: the Hoddle Grid; Urban Renewal Areas; Proposed Urban Renewal Areas; Potential Urban Renewal Areas; and Stable Residential Areas.

■ Clause 21.06 – Built Environment and

Heritage which highlights the importance of Melbourne’s urban structure to its character and identifies the Queen Victoria Market as a key landmark.

■ Clause 21.07 – Housing highlights the importance of accommodating a range of dwelling types while preserving valued characteristics and amenity.

■ Clause 21.08 – Economic Development highlights the importance of retailing and business to the Central City.

■ Clause 21.09 – Transport emphasises the importance of efficient transport and walkable streets to the success of the city.

■ Clause 21.10 – Infrastructure states that the ongoing growth of the City will need matching infrastructure including open space and community facilities.

■ Clause 21.12 – Hoddle Grid contains specific directions for the Hoddle Grid relating to housing; economic development; built environment and heritage; and transport.

■ Clause 21.14 – Proposed Urban Renewal Areas identifies the City North Precinct (north of Victoria Street) as an area in which change is already underway.

LPPF – Local Policies The following local policies are of particular relevance to this matter: ■ Clause 22.01 – Urban Design within the

Capital City Zone applies to land in the CCZ1 and sets out policy for the design of

building and their relationship with streets and public spaces.

■ Clause 22.02 – Sunlight to Public Spaces seeks to ensure that new buildings allow sunlight to reach the public realm and avoid overshadowing that would diminish pedestrian enjoyment of important spaces.

■ Clause 22.04 – Heritage Places within the Capital City Zone sets out policy for the protection of heritage assets and includes a Statement of Significance for the Queen Victoria Market precinct.

A3 Other Relevant Policy and Guidance The following policy and guidance documents are also relevant: ■ The Metropolitan Strategy – Plan

Melbourne is identified as policy guidance at Clause 9.01 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

■ The State Government’s Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development are identified as policy guidelines at Clauses 11.01 and 15.01.

■ Clause 11.04 nominates The Victorian Transport Plan (Department of Transport, 2008) as a reference document.

■ Clause 11.04-2 and 18.01-1 identify ‘Activity Centres and Principal Public Transport Network Plan (2010)’ as a reference document.

■ Clause 16.01-1 nominates The Victorian Integrated Housing Strategy (State Government of Victoria, 2010)’ as policy guidelines.

■ Clause 18.01-1 identifies The Victorian Transport Plan (Department of Transport, 2008) as policy guidelines.

■ Clauses 18.01-1 and18.02-2 nominate the Victorian Cycling Strategy (State Government of Victoria, 2009) as policy guidelines.

■ Clause 18.01-1 and Clause 18.02-3 identify Public Transport Guidelines for Land Use and Development (Department of Transport, 2008) as policy guidelines.

■ Clause 18.02-2 nominates Guide to Road Design, Part 6A: Pedestrian and Cycle Paths as a reference document

21


Appendix B: Amendment C245 Proposed Planning Controls and Policies

B1 The Amendment Am C245 proposes a rezoning of land, the application of new overlays and changes to the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) as summarised below.

Proposed Zone Controls The amendment proposes the rezoning of two parcels of land within the amendment areas as follows: ■ Rezone the majority of the Queen Victoria

Market land and Queen Street extension that is currently zoned Capital City Zone (CCZ1) to be Public Use Zone (PUZ7); and

■ Rezone the Queen Victoria Market car park, currently zoned Capital City Zone (CCZ1), to Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ).

The proposed zone map is shown at Figure B1.

Public Use Zone

Pursuant to Clause 36.01, the purposes of the PUZ are: ■ To implement the State Planning Policy


■ To recognise public land use for public utility and community services and facilities.

■ To provide for associated uses that are consistent with the intent of the public land reservation or purpose.

Pursuant to the table of uses at 36.01-1 table of uses any use other than those listed is a Section 1 permit not required use provided it is for the purpose described in the Table to Clause 36.01-6 which corresponds to the notation on the planning scheme map. The

use must be carried out by or on behalf of the public land manager.

Pursuant to the table of public uses at Clause 36.01-6, PUZ7 is defined as the general category ‘other public use’.

Pursuant to Clause 36.01-3, an application for a permit by a person other than the relevant public land manager must be accompanied by the written consent of the public land manager, indicating that the public land manager consents generally or conditionally either: ■ To the application for permit being made. ■ To the application for permit being made

and to the proposed use or development.

Public Park and Recreation Zone

Pursuant to Clause 36.02 the purposes of the PPRZ are: ■ To implement the State Planning Policy


■ To recognise areas for public recreation and open space.

■ To protect and conserve areas of significance where appropriate.

■ To provide for commercial uses where appropriate.

Pursuant to the table uses at Clause 36.02-1 a use other than those listed as prohibited in Section 3 is a section 1 permit not required use if the following conditions are met: ■ A use conducted by or on behalf of a public

land manager or Parks Victoria under the relevant provisions of the Local Government Act 1989, the Reference Areas Act 1978, the National Parks Act 1975, the Fisheries Act 1995, the Wildlife

Act 1975, the Forest Act 1958, the Water Industry Act 1994, the Water Act 1989, the Marine Act 1988, the Port of Melbourne Authority Act 1958, or the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978.

■ A use specified in an Incorporated Plan in a schedule to this zone.

A permit is generally required to construct a building or carry out works except for specific park related purposes or works carried out by a public land manager under the Acts mentioned above.

Pursuant to Clause 36.02-3 an application for a permit by a person other than the relevant public land manager must be accompanied by the written consent of the public land manager, indicating that the public land manager consents generally or conditionally either: ■ To the application for permit being made. ■ To the application for permit being made

and to the proposed use or development.

Proposed Overlay Controls The amendment proposes the following overlay changes: ■ Apply a new Schedule to the Development

Plan Overlay (DPO11), which incorporates a vision and design requirements for development of land, including Council owned land, adjacent to the Queen Victoria Market

■ Delete existing Schedule 14 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO14) from the Queen Victoria Market and land to which DPO11 applies

■ Introduce revised DDO schedule over the remainder of the area covered by the existing DDO14

The changes are shown on the Overlay maps at Figures B2 and B3 overleaf.

Proposed DPO control The proposed DPO11 control applies to the area south of the market itself including the at-grade car park, Franklin Street and Queen street and land east of Queen Street and South of Therry Street.

Pursuant to Section 1.0, a permit may be granted to use or subdivide land, construct a building or construct or carry out works before a development plan has been prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority provided the Responsible Authority is satisfied that the grant of a permit will not prejudice the future use or development of the land in an integrated manner.

The Schedule contains a range of mandatory and discretionary requirements for permits, which are discussed in detail in the main body of this report. Similarly a range of specific development plan requirement are set out which require the development plan align with the stated vision and include specified information and assessments.

Pursuant to the head DPO control at Clause 43.04-2 An application under any provision of this scheme which is generally in accordance with the development plan is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Act.

Figure B1: Proposed zones

22


Appendix B: Amendment C245 Proposed Planning Controls and Policies continued

DDO14 changes The amendment proposes a contracted DDO14 area which affects the area south and east of the proposed DPO control.

The revised Schedule 14 contains the following design objectives: ■ To ensure that development is suitable to

its site context. ■ To ensure the height of new buildings does

not overwhelm the public domain. ■ To allow daylight and sunlight to penetrate

to the street and lower building levels. ■ To ensure development supports high

levels of pedestrian amenity including daylight, sky views, sunlight and protection from wind impacts.

■ To ensure that new buildings respect the amenity and future development potential of adjacent sites and allow for an equitable spread of development potential on these sites.

■ To ensure that development provides a high level of amenity for building occupants.

■ To ensure that the scale and design of new buildings does not adversely affect the significance of the Queen Victoria Market as a historic and cultural landmark.

The control contains a range of discretionary and mandatory built form requirements in Tables 1 and 2, which are generally consistent with those set out in DPO11 as discussed in the main body of this report. Mandatory requirements are those relating to maximum podium height, tower setbacks and minimal tower separation distances.

Pursuant to Section 4.0 of the Schedule an application to construct a building or construct or carry out works is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d),

the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review of rights of Section 82(1) of the Act.

LPPF changes The amendment proposes some minor changes to local policy provisions to reference the new controls and vision for the QVM precinct. More specifically, the following are proposed: ■ Amend the Built Environment and Heritage

within the Hoddle Grid Policy (Clause 21.12),

■ to delete an existing policy statement relating to the existing DDO14

■ Amend the existing clause 22.02 Sunlight to Public Spaces to include a provision that development should not overshadow Flagstaff Gardens between 11am and 2pm on 21 June.

Figure B2: Proposed DPO application

Figure B3 Area to be removed (dark purple) and area to be retained within revised DDO14 (light purple)

23


Appendix C: 3D Modelling parameters

The 3D Model used to inform analysis of the proposed controls has been prepared using the SketchUp software package. The base model was provided to Message Consultants by Melbourne City Council’s GIS team on 4 April 2016. The base model represents a snapshot in time and included building under construction and terrain mapping of the Am C245 area and surrounding land.

Message Consultants modified the MCC 3D model by importing: ■ Approved towers that have not yet been

constructed ■ Aerial photography as an underlying base

image, which has been applied over the terrain information of the base model

■ An extension to the Flagstaff Gardens by way of stitching on to the base aerial photograph, in order to depict the extent of the perimeter of the gardens, but has not been applied over a terrain base.

Over this base model, SketchUp has been used to model the potential building ‘envelopes’ that the proposed controls could allow by adopting the maximum mandatory podium height, the minimum mandatory tower setbacks and the minimum tower separation dimensions. The modelling does not depict the architectural expression or the finessed form of buildings which could sit within the developable envelopes and their possible mass and height in relation to existing and proposed buildings. All heights are standardised to AHD.

24


Appendix D: 3D Shadow Modelling

Figure D1: Existing conditions shadow at September equinox

25


Appendix D: 3D Shadow Modelling continued

Figure D2: Existing conditions shadow at winter Solstice

26



Figure D3: Existing conditions and approved buildings shadows at September equinox

27



Figure D4: Existing conditions and approved buildings shadows at winter Solstice

28



Figure D5: Existing conditions, approved buildings and maximum DP011 shadows at September equinox

29



Figure D6: Existing conditions, approved buildings and maximum DP011 shadows at winter Solstice

30


Appendix E: Small lots development potential study

Analysis has been carried out to explore the development potential of small lots located within the DPO11 area based on the mandatory requirements in the exhibited control and to consider whether the application of the central city DDO10 side and rear setback requirements would provide a more viable development scenario in the event that sites were consolidated.

The diagram opposite demonstrates that: ■ The individual lots in this area are small

and have a configuration that does not lend itself to taller building forms on an individual basis, as they are either narrow (in the case of the lots fronting Queen Street) or having a limited depth (lots with abuttal to Franklin Street), as shown at Figure E1.

■ The application of the proposed DPO11 mandatory 10m street setback above the 20m maximum podium to Queen Street and 40m maximum podium to Franklin Street limits the scope for any development above podium height on individual lots (Figure E2).

■ If lots are consolidated into two parcels, one to the north and one to the south of the east-west laneway, the application of the mandatory 10m side and rear setbacks would result in a very limited potential tower floorplate of approximately 120sqm on the Queen Street site and no potential for a tower above the podium on the Franklin Street site (Figure E3).

■ If the DDO10 side and rear setback approach (a minimum of 5m from side and rear boundaries or 5m from the centre line of a laneway, for buildings up to 100m in height) is applied to the consolidated sites and the 10m front setback is retained, a tower floorplate of approximately 440sqm can be achieved on the Queen Street site.

However, only a very limited tower developable strip would be available on the Franklin Street site above the podium, one which is unlikely to be a viable development prospect (Figure E4).

This analysis indicates that the application of the DDO10 side and rear setback approach provides greater flexibility for small sites, particularly where there are laneway abuttals. However, even if this approach was adopted there will be lots, particularly those with a very limited depth, where there would still be no real scope to develop above the mandatory maximum podium height.

Figure E3

Figure E1 Figure E2

Figure E4

31


Appendix F: Plot ratio scenario testing

32


Appendix F: Plot ratio scenario testing continued

33



34



35


Appendix G: Existing DDO14 3D model

36


Appendix H: Design and Development Overlay Schedule 10 – Central City built form controls

37


Appendix H: Design and Development Overlay Schedule 10 – Central City built form controls continued

38


Appendix I: Witness statement

Name and Address Catherine Anne Heggen Message Consultants Australia Pty Ltd 2/398 Smith Street, Collingwood 3066

Qualifications ■ Bachelor of Town and Regional Planning,

Melbourne University 1982 ■ Fellow, Planning Institute of Australia ■ Fellow, Victorian Planning and

Environmental Law Association

Professional experience ■ Current Position: Director, Message

Consultants Australia Pty Ltd ■ 1985 – Current: Town Planning Consultant ■ 1982 – 1985: Town Planner in local

government and regional authorities (Australia & overseas)

Professional appointments ■ 1996 – 2002: Member, Victoria’s Heritage

Council ■ 1998 – 2002: Chair, Victoria’s Heritage

Council ■ 1998 – 2002: Trustee, Melbourne Heritage

Restoration Fund ■ 2001 & 2002: Jury Member, Stonnington

Urban Design Awards ■ 2001: Jury Member, Australian Institute of

Landscape Architects (Vic Chapter) Awards ■ 2003: Jury Member, Planning Institute of

Australia (Vic Division) Awards ■ 2004 – 2011: Member, Expert Advisory

Committee to the Building and Estates Committee – University of Melbourne

■ 2005 – ongoing: Member, Building Committee – Queen Victoria Women’s Centre

■ 2011 Member, Ministerial Advisory Committee on Planning System Reform

Areas of expertise ■ Extensive urban design advice to architects

and project managers involved in medium and high density housing and other built form projects.

■ Strategic and statutory planning advice to commercial and institutional clients as well as government and alpine management authorities on a range of residential, environmental, tourism, cultural heritage and urban character issues.

■ Consulting advice to a wide range of private sector and government clients addressing the management of urban development and rural land use.

■ Project planning and coordination of Institutional Master Plans.

■ Experience in the preparation of environmental management plans and Environment Effects Statements for extractive industry.

■ Preparation and presentation of evidence before VCAT, and various government appointed independent panels and advisory committees.

Expertise to prepare this report ■ Professional qualifications and expertise in

urban design and town planning, including: ■ Urban design and building form impact

assessment. ■ Ongoing involvement in a range of

residential, mixed use, institutional, commercial and extractive industry development proposals.

■ Ongoing involvement in cultural heritage, urban character and visual and landscape impact issues.

■ Experience in new community development, greenfield subdivision projects and institutional Master Plans.

■ Specialist experience in medium and high density housing issues.

Introduction I have been requested by Ashurst on behalf of the City of Melbourne to provide my expert opinion with regard to the merits of the proposed planning controls foreshadowed in Amendment C245 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

Investigations and research In preparing this evidence I have: ■ Inspected the area subject of Amendment

C245. ■ Reviewed the adopted QVM, exhibited

Amendment and background studies. ■ Reviewed the Council officer’s report,

summary of submissions to Council’s Future Melbourne Committee meeting on 8 March 2016.

■ Reviewed the existing planning controls and policy that applies to the Am C245 area.

I confirm that my instructions are to: ■ Review the vision for the area in the market

area set out in the QVM Precinct Renewal Masterplan 2015 in light of the strategic context.

■ Consider AmC245 establishes a sound planning framework for the delivery of this vision and the long term protection of the market.

Summary of opinions My conclusions are summarised in the preamble and conclusion of this report.

Declaration I declare that I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and that no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel. I prepared this report with assistance from Mathew Furness, Senior Planner and Gokhan Karpat, Senior Urban Designer at Message Consultants Australia Pty Ltd.

C A Heggen

BTRP FPIA

Documents

Panel Hearing for Amendment C245 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme Queen … · 2016. 7. 4. · planning and urban design assessment of Amendment C245 (Am C245) to the Melbourne Planning