Port Phillip Amendment C107 · Port Phillip Amendment C107 Expert Urban Design Evidence 2 Bowen Crescent, Melbourne Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates [13] The land use direction

Port Phillip Amendment C107

Expert Urban Design Evidence

In relation to 2 Bowen Crescent

Mark Sheppard November 2014

Instructed by Minter Ellison

On behalf of Wuzhong International (Aust) Pty Ltd

Date of site inspection(s)

17 November 2014

Port Phillip Amendment C107 Expert Urban Design Evidence 2 Bowen Crescent, Melbourne Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 3

2.0 Strategic Context .................................................................................................................................................... 4

3.0 2 Bowen Crescent ................................................................................................................................................... 8

4.0 DDO26: General Design Objectives and Requirements ........................................................................................ 11

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 11

4.2 Street Wall/ Podium Level .............................................................................................................................. 11

4.3 Active Frontages ............................................................................................................................................ 12

4.4 Tower Design and Internal Amenity ............................................................................................................... 12

4.5 Pedestrian Permeability ................................................................................................................................. 14

5.0 DDO26: Sub-Precinct Requirements ..................................................................................................................... 15

5.1 Front setback ................................................................................................................................................. 15

5.2 Street wall height ........................................................................................................................................... 15

5.3 Maximum building height .............................................................................................................................. 18

5.4 Mandatory height limit .................................................................................................................................. 19

5.5 Side and rear setback requirements .............................................................................................................. 21

6.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................ 26

Appendix A: Summary of Evidence & Personal Details ............................................................................................... 27

7.0 Appendix B: The Shrine Vista and Overshadowing Analysis ................................................................................. 30

Contents

Expert Urban Design Evidence Port Phillip Amendment C107 Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates 2 Bowen Crescent, Melbourne

3

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

[2] In October 2014, I was engaged by Wuzhong International (Aust) Pty Ltd to provide an independent urban design assessment of Amendment C107 as it relates to 2 Bowen Crescent, Melbourne. I have focused on proposed DDO26 as it contains the key urban design elements of the Amendment.

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

Section 2—The Strategic Context for the development of 2 Bowen Crescent

Section 3—A description of 2 Bowen Crescent and its interfaces

Section 4—An assessment of the General Design Objectives and Requirements of DDO26 that relate to 2 Bowen Crescent

Section 5—An assessment of the Sub-Precinct Requirements of DDO26 that relate to 2 Bowen Crescent

Section 6—Conclusion and Recommendations

1.0 Introduction


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

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

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

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

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

[9] The strategic context for the subject site is set at a State level through State Planning Policies and Plan Melbourne and at a local level by the Port Phillip Planning Scheme and the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

[10] Within Plan Melbourne, Map 10 identifies the St Kilda Road Precinct as an area designated to support the expanding city and identifies the importance of this area for commercial and residential activity.

2.0 Strategic Context


5

St Kilda Road Precinct (red outline), as shown in Map 10 of Plan Melbourne.

[11] There is extensive State Policy requiring new development to respect the character of the surrounding area (for example, see Clauses 15 and 16). However, this policy must be considered alongside other policy supporting urban consolidation and increased housing diversity in well-serviced locations such as the DDO area (for example, see Clause 11 and 16).

Port Phillip Planning Scheme

[12] Clause 21.01 seeks to maintain the role of St Kilda Road as the ‘City’s premier commercial strip’. At Clause 21.02 the St Kilda Road area is defined as the ‘St Kilda Road Employment Area – Commercial Node’.


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

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

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

Melbourne Planning Scheme

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

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

Amendment C107

[18] The general design objectives for the St Kilda Road North Precinct are set out within the proposed new schedule to the Design and Development


7

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

Summary

[19] In summary, the St Kilda Road North Precinct has a highly important strategic role in supporting the expanded CBD through high-density commercial and residential development. However, it is also critical that its highly-valued character elements are maintained and reinforced, and that the setting of the Shrine is protected.


[20] 2 Bowen Crescent is located mid-block between St Kilda Road and Kings Way, fronting the northern side of Bowen Crescent. The site also has a rear interface with Bowen Lane.

[21] The site is zoned Commercial 1 Zone. It is presently occupied by a six level commercial car park, accessed primarily from Bowen Crescent with a secondary access from Bowen Lane.

Site Context Aerial, with the subject site shown in red outline

[22] The site is approximately 62m deep and 28m wide, with a total area of approximately 1800m2.

[23] Bowen Crescent is a short street with a varied built form character. Along the northern side, the existing building range in height from 6 to 14 storeys and also range in use from commercial office and car parks to

3.0 2 Bowen Crescent


9

residential buildings. The southern side is edged by the 17 storey Victoria Police Headquarters building at 412 St Kilda Road and Bowen Crescent Reserve.

[24] To the north-east, 2 Bowen Crescent abuts the side of a 6 storey (approximately 21m) high office building at 1 Bowen Crescent and the rear of a 24 storey high office building at 390 St Kilda Road.

The 6 storey office building to the north-east, a 2 Bowen Crescent

[25] To the north-west, across Bowen Lane, is the rear surface car park of 31 Albert Road.


The rear surface car park, to the north-west, across Bowen Lane at 31 Albert Road

[26] To the south-west 2 Bowen Crescent abuts the side of an 11 storey (approximately 39m) high office building at 3 Bowen Crescent.

The 11 storey office building to the south-west, at 3 Bowen Crescent


11

4.1 Introduction [27] The proposed DDO contains area-wide and Sub-Precinct-specific Design

Objectives at Clause 1.0. These are generally appropriate from an urban design perspective insofar as they relate to 2 Bowen Crescent, except in relation to the reference to ‘human scale’, discussed further below.

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

4.2 Street Wall/ Podium Level [29] The sub-precinct objectives and the first Street Wall/ Podium Level

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

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

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

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

4.0 DDO26: General Design Objectives and Requirements


[32] The same requirement calls for the design of podiums to provide access to sunlight and sky views. It is not clear how the design of podiums can achieve this. Access to sunlight and sky views is primarily determined by the height and setback of tower forms, which are dealt with on a sub-precinct by sub-precinct basis.

[33] The 4th street wall/podium level requirement appears to prohibit car parking in the podium. Whilst it is good practice to avoid parking at the front of the podium, there is no particular reason why it should be prohibited provided it is ‘sleeved’ by regularly inhabited accommodation (e.g. apartments or office space) at the street edge. I note that the second last Vehicular Access and Car Parking requirement contemplates ‘sleeved’ above-ground parking and the draft St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan June 2014 refers to a requirement that “any car parking in the podium level is sleeved with active uses such as offices” (page 56).

4.3 Active Frontages [34] The last Active Frontages requirement calls for development along

laneways to incorporate lighting, entry doors, habitable rooms with windows, low fences and display windows. However, many laneways are purely utilitarian links for vehicle access and loading. Such laneways do not perform a pedestrian function, and are not likely to in the future. Bowen Lane is a good example of this. For example, I note that a general Building Services requirement encourages the provision of loading facilities at the rear of buildings and a Vehicular Access and Car Parking requirement encourages vehicle access points to be located on lanes (for good reason).

[35] Therefore, I consider that there should be distinction between lanes that are purely for vehicle access and those that are for pedestrians, and this requirement should only be applied to the latter. Pedestrian lanes are those that provide a useful connection and have a reasonable prospect of being made safe and inviting through active frontages.

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

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

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

Reduce their perceived visual bulk.

Maintain sightlines between buildings.


13

[37] Given the width of this part of Bowen Crescent, I do not consider that a tower width and depth control is needed to ensure adequate daylight or sense of openness in the street. Tower separation and side and rear setback controls to ensure adequate internal amenity are found within each sub-precinct. I discuss these in section 5.

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

Aerial photo with approximate lengths of taller buildings near 2 Bowen Crescent (shown in red outline)

[39] Therefore, I do not consider this requirement to be warranted.


4.5 Pedestrian Permeability [40] The second Pedestrian Permeability requirement seeks the enhancement

of existing links/ laneways through active frontages. As noted above, some lanes do not have a pedestrian purpose. Therefore, there is no need for this requirement to apply to those lanes.


15

5.1 Front setback [41] The DDO contains a mandatory 3m landscaped front setback from Bowen

Crescent. The purpose of this setback appears to be to maintain the existing character. A 3m setback is a feature of Bowen Crescent (although it is not consistently landscaped and occasionally has structures within it)

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

[43] Therefore, I support this requirement.

5.2 Street wall height [44] The proposed DDO contains a mandatory minimum building height of 18m

and a mandatory maximum building height of 30m within 8m of Bowen Crescent.

[45] The DDO also contains a mandatory maximum building height of 11m within 5m of Bowen Lane. However, as mentioned above, Bowen Lane is a purely utilitarian link for vehicle access and loading, and does not perform a pedestrian function, nor is it likely to in the future. Further, the existing character is defined by buildings much higher than 11m built to the lane boundary, as shown overleaf.

[46] Therefore, I do not consider that there is a need for a podium height control along Bowen Lane.

5.0 DDO26: Sub-Precinct 4d Requirements


Photo of Bowen Lane looking towards St Kilda Road

[47] The draft St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan June 2014 indicates that “Strong podium/setback controls will create human scale proportions, with the tower recessive behind the podium. To reinforce the pedestrian scale, a mandatory podium height of 18 metres (equivalent to 5 storeys) will be applied ...”. A similar rationale for the maximum podium height is found in the sub-precinct-specific objective that “podium heights create and reinforce human scale at street level”. However, as noted above, human scale has nothing to do with the height of a building.

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

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

Respecting a heritage streetscape

Establishing a cohesive new built form character

Establishing a new public realm character based on a particular level of solar access, daylight access and sense of openness (when combined with control over the overall height and upper level setbacks)

[49] The prevailing street wall height in Bowen Crescent is highly varied, ranging from 6 to 12 storeys. There is also a 14-storey sheer building façade on the part of Queens Road facing Bowen Crescent.


17

Photos depicting existing streetscape along northern side of Bowen Crescent

[50] Therefore, the proposed maximum street wall height of 18-30m is not warranted in order to ensure development ‘fits’ the existing character.

[51] There are no heritage places abutting the subject land. The only heritage place in the vicinity of the subject land is Bowen Reserve.

[52] Given that there are two substantial buildings on this side of Bowen Crescent that are 12 storeys high, the best way to achieve a cohesive built form or public realm character would be to require new development to incorporate a podium that matches their height.

[53] Given the width of Bowen Crescent Reserve, a podium height of 12 storeys would maintain a reasonable level of daylight and sense of openness.

[54] In places where the rationale for a maximum street wall height is to ensure good ‘fit’ with a highly valued and consistent existing built form character, or respect for heritage values, or to avoid overshadowing an important part of the public realm, a mandatory control may be justified. However, that is not the case here. Given the varied and unvalued existing built form character, the only rationale for a maximum street wall height is to establish a cohesive new built form or public realm character. Given the varied circumstances of the properties along Bowen Crescent, this will not be absolutely consistent, ‘hedge cutter’ style, but will inevitably involve varied street wall heights. Further, solar access to Bowen Reserve is ensured through a separate control. Therefore, there is no need for the maximum street wall height to be mandatory.


[55] Therefore, I recommend that the proposed mandatory 18-30m street wall height be increased to 40m and made discretionary. Exceedances should not be approved unless they continue to meet the objectives of the DDO and offer a net community benefit.

5.3 Maximum building height [56] The proposed DDO contains a mandatory maximum building height of

65m AHD (beyond 13m from the street). This is roughly equivalent to a height of 57.5m above ground level.

[57] One important reason for limiting building height in this precinct is to protect the setting, views and solar access of the Shrine of Remembrance. I understand that the proposed maximum height in the DDO was changed from 75m to 65m AHD to reflect the findings of The Shrine of Remembrance—Managing the significance of the Shrine, July 2013 (which was implemented by Amendment C140).

[58] The drawings contained at Appendix B illustrate that, due to the height of the existing buildings at 1 Albert Road (86.8m AHD) and 390 St Kilda Road (99.5m AHD), a new building of up to 100m AHD on the subject land would be screened from view from the Shrine by those existing buildings. They also show that such a development would be well below the Shrine Vista control.

[59] I understand that further Shrine Vista testing is being undertaken, and will be available for the hearing.

[60] In any event, DDO13 provides protection of the Shrine Vista. Therefore, there is no need for proposed DDO26 to address this objective.

[61] The DDO also contains a mandatory requirement that development must not result in additional overshadowing of Bowen Crescent Reserve between 10am and 2pm at the equinox, and of Mac Robertson Girls’ High School and Albert Park at the winter solstice between 11am and 2pm. I support the principle of protecting solar access to Bowen Crescent Reserve at the equinox, as it is an important open space for this higher-density precinct. However, I do not consider it necessary to protect winter sun to the northern edge of the School or Albert Park. This edge of the school and park do not appear to be well-used areas of open space. The adjacent heavily-trafficked Kings Way makes them unappealing and they are already partly overshadowed by large trees. Therefore, I recommend the deletion of the winter solstice solar access requirement.

[62] In any event, as shown in Appendix B, a new building on the subject land reaching a height of 75m AHD would cast virtually no equinox shadow on


19

Bowen Crescent Reserve or winter shadow on MacRobertson Girls’ High School.

[63] In summary, the proposed maximum height limit is not justified by the objectives set out in the DDO. Other reasons why building height might be limited include:

To reinforce an existing, valued built form character

To reinforce the urban structure—e.g. taller buildings to emphasise activity centres, public transport nodes, main roads or major intersections

To establish a cohesive new built form character

To establish an inviting new public realm character

[64] There is no consistent building height in Bowen Crescent that might warrant an overall height control in order to reinforce the existing character—although the podium height could be used to achieve this, as noted above.

[65] In relation to urban structure, Bowen Crescent is not an important thoroughfare. However, given the strategic importance of the DDO area to achieving metropolitan growth objectives, I do not consider that this provides sufficient justification to limit building height below the Shrine vista and solar access requirements.

[66] Given the variable site characteristics in this precinct, it is highly unlikely that a mandatory maximum building height would result in consistent building heights. The proposed street wall height control is much more likely to achieve some uniformity.

[67] In summary, I do not consider that there is a basis for limiting building height in Sub-Precinct 4d other than to protect the Shrine Vista, which is dealt with by DDO13, or to maintain equinox solar access to Bowen Crescent Reserve. Therefore, I recommend that the proposed mandatory maximum height of 65m AHD be deleted. If the Panel considers that a discretionary maximum height is needed to be consistent with the rest of the DDO, a figure of 100m AHD would be appropriate to allow development of each property to be optimised within the constraints of DDO13 and the Bowen Crescent Reserve solar access control.

5.4 Mandatory height limit [68] The draft St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan June 2014 offers one sentence

to explain why mandatory controls are proposed for maximum building and podium heights, front and tower setbacks and spacing between


towers. It states that this is to “provide planning certainty in decision making and to protect key character elements”.

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

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

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

Is the mandatory provision strategically supported?

Is the mandatory provision appropriate to the majority of proposals?

Does the mandatory provision provide for the preferred outcome?

Will the majority of proposals not in accordance with the mandatory provision be clearly unacceptable?

Will the mandatory provision reduce administrative costs?

[72] In general, there is clear strategic support across the DDO area for the use of height controls to achieve preferred outcomes. However, the lack of sensitivity of this particular sub-precinct (other than its northern end in relation to the Shrine Vista) means that such strategic support is less clear in this instance.

[73] The proposed maximum height of 65m AHD would not be appropriate to the majority of proposals, and would not provide for the preferred outcome. It is not at all clear that the majority of proposals not in accordance with the proposed maximum height would be clearly unacceptable. As explained above, development up to 75m AHD on 2 Bowen Crescent would have little shadow impact on Bowen Crescent Reserve and development up to 100m AHD would have no impact on the Shrine Vista.

[74] Further, it is unlikely that mandatory controls would notably reduce administrative costs, given that the DDO also includes both general and


21

sub-precinct specific discretionary provisions that any development proposal would be need to be assessed against.

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

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

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

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

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

Helicopter and aeroplane flight paths and other aeronautical needs.

[76] I note that Plan Melbourne provides for mandatory height controls in neighbourhood centres and sensitive CBD locations.

[77] I consider that the sensitive setting of the Shrine represents an exceptional circumstance that warrants a mandatory control in this sub-precinct. However, this is already provided by DDO13. Therefore, there is no need for DDO26 to address this issue.

[78] In summary, I do not consider a mandatory height control to be warranted in this sub-precinct.

5.5 Upper level setback requirements [79] The DDO effectively contains a mandatory setback beyond each street

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

[80] In general, I consider that 5m is an appropriate setback requirement in wider streets given the proposed scale of the podium and tower. However, there are a number of ways of distinguishing a podium and its tower and managing the impacts of a tower on the public realm, including narrowing the width of the tower, varying its form (e.g. an elliptical or raking tower form will assist in distinguishing it from a rectilinear podium)


and architectural expression. It is conceivable that a slightly lesser setback could still achieve a clear distinction when allied with other measures, and also manage impacts on public realm amenity. Lesser setbacks may be necessary to enable narrower sites to be developed above podium height. Therefore, I recommend that the tower setback requirement be discretionary to allow the flexibility for alternative design solutions.

[81] The proposed DDO contains a mandatory side and rear setback requirement above the podium of 4.5m and a mandatory minimum tower separation of 9m. It is not clear whether these requirements apply to the lower levels of a tower where an applicant chooses a podium height that is below the mandatory maximum.

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

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

[84] However, the 9m separation cannot always be shared equally between adjoining developments. Where two properties of unequal width abut each other, it may be inequitable for them to provide the same contribution to the 9m separation. This is particularly the case when the narrower property is less than approximately 25m wide, when a requirement for 4.5m setback from each side would probably render it undevelopable.


23

Diagram showing side setback proportional to lot width

[85] There are other variables that need to be taken into account too. For example, where one property is only developed to podium height or lower, and is strata-titled or has heritage values to the extent that it is unlikely to be redeveloped, it is unnecessary to limit the development of its neighbours in order to provide a 9m separation between towers.

[86] Also, there is less need for separation where apartments or office spaces do not face directly towards the adjoining property but instead are arranged so that secondary rooms face the common boundary. Indeed, where they can be arranged so that there are no rooms facing the boundary, there is no need for separation at all to achieve good internal amenity. Where lots have a width of around 25m or less, the only way in which they can be economically developed above podium height is if they are built to one or both side boundaries, with all accommodation facing the street and the rear. In such a situation, 2-3 narrow lots built in this way have the same impact on the amenity of the street as the development of one wider lot.


Less separation is needed where apartments do not face the adjoining property

Matching impacts on public realm amenity of development on a wider lot and 3 narrower lots

[87] I note that in the Melbourne Planning Scheme, provision is made for lesser side and rear setbacks where accommodation in adjoining buildings does not directly face each other. I consider that such flexibility is appropriate in this Sub-Precinct where there are some narrower lots whose development above podium height might be prevented by the proposed mandatory control. Given that there is an alternative design response which would enable them to contribute to urban growth while still


25

ensuring good internal and public realm amenity, I consider that the tower separation and side and rear setback requirements should be discretionary. The alternative outcome is that narrower properties cannot be developed above podium level unless they can be consolidated with neighbouring properties. I do not consider that this is an acceptable outcome in a precinct of such strategic importance to metropolitan growth objectives.

[88] In the event that the side and rear setback control is made discretionary, the DDO should contain guidance about the circumstances in which lesser setbacks may be acceptable.

[89] At the same time, I consider that the side and rear setback requirements should apply to any regularly-inhabited accommodation, not be limited to floors above the podium.


[90] In conclusion, I have reviewed the proposed Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme insofar as it affects 2 Bowen Crescent, and make the following recommendations:

Delete the General Requirement in relation to ‘human scale’ or amend it as suggested in paragraph 31.

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

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

Delete the General Requirements for active frontages in relation to service lanes such as Bowen Lane.

Increase the maximum podium height on Bowen Crescent to 40m, and make it discretionary.

Delete the maximum podium height from Bowen Lane.

Delete the maximum building height of 65m AHD, or amend it to 100m AHD and make it discretionary.

Delete the Mac Robertson Girls’ High School and Albert Park June solstice solar access requirement.

Make all upper level setback requirements discretionary.

Apply side and rear setback requirements to all regularly inhabited above-ground levels.

6.0 Conclusion


27

Name and Address

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

Qualifications

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

Corporate Member of the Planning Institute of Australia, 2008

MA Urban Design, Oxford Brookes University, UK, 1992

Diploma Urban Design, Oxford Brookes University, UK, 1992

Bachelor of Architecture, University of Auckland, NZ, 1990

Professional experience

Director, David Lock Associates (Australia), 1997 to present

Urban Designer - Associate, David Lock Associates, UK, 1993 – 1997

Architectural Assistant, Sipson Gray Associates, London, UK, 1990 – 1993

Architectural Assistant, Kirkcaldy Associates, Auckland, NZ, 1988 – 1990

Area of Expertise

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

Expertise to prepare this report

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

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

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

Appendix A: Summary of Evidence & Personal Details


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

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

Other significant contributors

I was assisted in the preparation of this report by Alastair Campbell of David Lock Associates.

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

Instructions which define the scope of this report

I am engaged by Wuzhong International (Aust) Pty Ltd.

I have received verbal and written instructions from Minter Ellison including various documents relating to the proposal.

Facts, matters and assumptions relied upon

Inspection of the subject site and surrounding area; and

Review of planning controls and policies affecting the area.

Documents taken into account

Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107 documentation;

The Port Phillip Planning Scheme and Reference documents;

Shrine Vista and Overshadowing Analysis undertaken by Plus Architecture; and

Various correspondences relating to the proposed Amendment.

Summary of opinions

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

Provisional Opinions

There are no provisional opinions in this report.

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


29

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

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

Mark Sheppard


7.0 Appendix B: Shrine Vista and Overshadowing Analysis

2 Bowen Crescent, MelbournePRELIMINARY HEIGHT STUDY

JOB NO. DATE.

11806 20/11/2014

DD026 C107 AMENDMENT

3m LANDSCAPE SETBACK ON BOWEN CRESCENT

65m AHD HEIGHT CONTROL (7.5m AHD + 57.5m)

18-30m PODIUM ON BOWEN CRESCENT (5m DEPTH +3m)

11m PODIUM ON BOWEN LANE (5m DEPTH)

SCHEDULE 26 TO THE DDO -"DEVELOPMENT MUST NOT RESULT IN ANY ADDITIONALOVERSHADOWING OF...BOWEN CRESCENT RESERVE AT THEEQUINOX BETWEEN 10AM AND 2PM"

"TO PROTECT THE SHRINE OF REMEMBRANCE AS ASIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL LANDMARK ANDPLACE OF REVERENCE BY -

MAINTAINING THE SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN ITSSETTING..."

AND

"...PRESERVING IMPORTANT VIEWS AND VISTAS TO AND FROMTHE SHRINE"

PROJECT JOB NUMBER DATE DRAWING NORTH SCALE

11806 0m2050100 10CONTEXT PLAN20/11/2014WuZhong International Pty Ltd2 Bowen Crescent, Melbourne

SHR

INE

VIST

A SE

CTI

ON

SHR

INE

VIST

A SE

CTI

ON

4

3

2

1

BO

WE

N

CR

ES

CE

NT

BO

WE

N

LA

NE

AL

BE

RT

RO

AD

S T K I L D A R O A D

21 STOREY

31

1

35

39

4 STOREY

20 STOREY

2 STOREY

24 STOREY

6 STOREY (21m)390

402

1

9 STOREY

11 STOREY (39m)

PA

RK

S

TDO

RC

AS

S

T

PR

I NC

ES

S H

I GH

WA

Y

Q U E E N S L N

DO

MA

IN

R

D

BR

OM

BY

S

T

SOUTHERN FORECOURTNORTHERN FORECOURT

MAC ROBERTSON

GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL

SHRINE OF REMEMBRANCE

BOWEN RESERVEPROSPECT SECTION APROSPECT SECTION A

PROSPECT SECTION B

PROSPECT SECTION BPROSPECTVIEW

TOW

ARD

SC

BDTO

WAR

DS

ST KILDA

PROJECT JOB NUMBER DATE DRAWING SCALE

11806 0m2050100 10PROSPECT VIEW SECTION A20/11/2014WuZhong International Pty Ltd2 Bowen Crescent, Melbourne

65.00 AHD

100.00 AHD86.80 AHD

99.50 AHD

1 A

LBER

T R

D

390

ST K

ILD

A R

D


2 B

OW

EN C

RE

POTE

NTI

AL

ENVE

LOPE

OB

SCU

RED

FR

OM

SHR

INE

VIEW

POIN

T

PROSPECT VIEW

LINE OF SIGHT

28.70 AHD

2 B

OW

EN C

RE

POTE

NTI

AL

ENVE

LOPE


P R O S P E C T V I E W S E C T I O N A

P R O S P E C T V I E W S E C T I O N A

PROJECT JOB NUMBER DATE DRAWING SCALE

11806 0m2050100 10PROSPECT VIEWSECTION B20/11/2014WuZhong International Pty Ltd2 Bowen Crescent, Melbourne

86.56 AHD99.50 AHD

65.00 AHD

100.00 AHD

28.70

1 A

LBER

T R

D

390

ST K

ILD

A R

D

SHRINE OFREMEMBRANCE

2 B

OW

EN C

RE

POTE

NTI

AL

ENVE

LOPE

OB

SCU

RED

FR

OM

SHR

INE

VIEW

POIN

T

PROSPECT VIEW

LINE OF SIGHT

2 B

OW

EN C

RE

POTE

NTI

AL

ENVE

LOPE


P R O S P E C T V I E W S E C T I O N B

P R O S P E C T V I E W S E C T I O N B

PROJECT JOB NUMBER DATE DRAWING NORTH

11806 SHRINE VISTA COMPUTATION20/11/2014WuZhong International Pty Ltd2 Bowen Crescent, Melbourne

CORNER OF SWANSTON & LATROBEAHD +22.000

BASE OF SHRINEAHD +27.000

PROJECTEDBASE OF SHRINE

27.385

PROJECTEDBASE OF SHRINE

27.385BASE OF SHRINE

AHD +27.000

CORNER OF SWANSTON & LATROBEAHD +22.000

Shrine Vista Computations Engineering Manual June 1986 (DDO17)REFERENCED IN "THE SHRINE OF REMEMBRANCE - MANAGING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SHRINE"

Shrine Vista ComputationPLAN PROJECTION FROM CORNER OF SWANSTON AND LA TROBETO THE SHRINE OF REMEMBRANCE

Shrine Vista ComputationSECTIONALPROJECTION FROM CORNER OF SWANSTON AND LA TROBETO THE SHRINE OF REMEMBRANCE

A B C

A B C

PROJECT JOB NUMBER DATE DRAWING NORTH

11806 VISTA SECTION20/11/2014WuZhong International Pty Ltd2 Bowen Crescent, Melbourne

27.00 AHD

APPROX. 99.50 AH

APPROX 86.80 AHD

100.00 AHD100.00

1 A

LBER

T R

D

390

ST K

ILD

A R

D

402

ST K

ILD

A R

D

2 B

OW

EN C

RE

I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f V i s t aC o m p u t a t i o n s

f r o m E - 0 2 3SUBJECT SITE

SHR

INE

VIST

A SE

CTI

ON

DO

MA

IN

R

D

SOUTHERN FORECOURTNORTHERN FORECOURT


LINE OF Shrine Vista Computations Engineering Manual June 1986 (DDO17)"

SHRINE VISTA COMPUTATION SECTION1:1000 @A3

SHRINE VISTA COMPUTATION PLAN1:2000 @A3


11806 0m2050100 10SHADOW ANALYSIS 10AM31/10/2014WuZhong International Pty Ltd2 Bowen Crescent, Melbourne

Proposed June 21 Shadow Study 10am 1:2000Existing June 21 Shadow Study 10am 1:2000

ALBERT PARKMAC ROBERTSONGIRLS HIGH SCHOOL

BO

WE

N

LA

NE

BO

WE

N

CR

ES

CE

NT

BOWENRESERV

E

4

3

2

1


BO

WE

N

LA

NE

BO

WE

N

CR

ES

CE

NT

BOWENRESERV

E

4

3

2

1

65.00 AHD

75.00 AHD

85.00 AHD

100.00 AHD

QU

EE

NS

LA

NE

QU

EE

NS

LA

NE

P R I N C E S S H I G H W A YP R I N C E S S H I G H W A Y

S T K I L D A R O A D S T K I L D A R O A D

11

31

1

35

390 402

31

1

35

390 402



Proposed June 21 Shadow Study 11am 1:2000Existing June 21 Shadow Study 11am 1:2000


BO

WE

N

LA

NE

BO

WE

N

CR

ES

CE

NT

BOWENRESERVE

4

3

2

1


BO

WE

N

LA

NE

BO

WE

N

CR

ES

CE

NT

BOWENRESERVE

4

3

2

1

100.00 AHD

85.00 AHD

75.00 AHD

65.00 AHD

QU

EE

NS

LA

NE

QU

EE

NS

LA

NE



11

31

1

35

390 402

31

1

35

390 402


11806 0m2050100 10SHADOW ANALYSIS 12PM31/10/2014WuZhong International Pty Ltd2 Bowen Crescent, Melbourne

Proposed June 21 Shadow Study 12pm 1:2000Existing June 21 Shadow Study 12pm 1:2000


BO

WE

N

LA

NE

BO

WE

N

CR

ES

CE

NT

BOWENRESERVE

4

3

2

1


BO

WE

N

LA

NE

BO

WE

N

CR

ES

CE

NT

BOWENRESERVE

4

3

2

1

65.00 AHD

75.00 AHD

85.00 AHD

100.00 AHD

QU

EE

NS

LA

NE

QU

EE

NS

LA

NE



11

31

1

35

390 402

31

1

35

390 402




100.00 AHD

85.00 AHD

75.00 AHD

65.00 AHD


BO

WE

N

LA

NE

BO

WE

N

CR

ES

CE

NT

BOWENRESERVE

4

3

2

1


BO

WE

N

LA

NE

BO

WE

N

CR

ES

CE

NT

BOWENRESERVE

4

3

2

1

1

QU

EE

NS

LA

NE

QU

EE

NS

LA

NE



11

31

1

35

390 402

31

1

35

390 402





BO

WE

N

LA

NE

BO

WE

N

CR

ES

CE

NT

BOWENRESERVE

4

3

2

1


BO

WE

N

LA

NE

BO

WE

N

CR

ES

CE

NT

BOWENRESERVE

4

3

2

1

75.00 AHD

65.00 AHD

85.00 AHD

95.00 AHD

QU

EE

NS

LA

NE

QU

EE

NS

LA

NE

100.00 AHD



11

31

1

35

390 402

31

1

35

390 402



Proposed September 22 Shadow Study 10am 1:2000Existing September 22 Shadow Study 10am 1:2000


BO

WE

N

LA

NE

BO

WE

N

CR

ES

CE

NT

BOWENRESERVE

4

3

2

1


BO

WE

N

LA

NE

BO

WE

N

CR

ES

CE

NT

BOWENRESERVE

4

3

2

1

100.00 AHD

65.00 AHD

85.00 AHD

75.00 AHD QU

EE

NS

LA

NE

QU

EE

NS

LA

NE



11

31

1

35

390 402

31

1

35

390 402



Proposed September 22 Shadow Study 11am 1:2000Existing September 22 Shadow Study 11am 1:2000


BO

WE

N

LA

NE

BO

WE

N

CR

ES

CE

NT

BOWENRESERVE

4

3

2

1


BO

WE

N

LA

NE

BO

WE

N

CR

ES

CE

NT

BOWENRESERVE

4

3

2

1

65.00 AHD

100.00 AHD

75.00 AHD85.00 AHD

QU

EE

NS

LA

NE

QU

EE

NS

LA

NE



11

31

1

35

390 402

31

1

35

390 402



Proposed September 22 Shadow Study 12pm 1:2000Existing September 22 Shadow Study 12pm 1:2000


BO

WE

N

LA

NE

BO

WE

N

CR

ES

CE

NT

BOWENRESERVE

4

3

2

1


BO

WE

N

LA

NE

BO

WE

N

CR

ES

CE

NT

BOWENRESERVE

4

3

2

1

65.00 AHD

100.00 AHD

75.00 AHD85.00 AHD

QU

EE

NS

LA

NE

QU

EE

NS

LA

NE

QU

EE

NS

LA

NE



11

31

1

35

390 402

31

1

35

390 402





BO

WE

N

LA

NE

BOWENRESERVE

4

3

2

1

P R I N C E S S H I G H W A Y


BO

WE

N

LA

NE

BOWENRESERVE

4

3

2

1

P R I N C E S S H I G H W A Y

QU

EE

NS

LA

NE

QU

EE

NS

LA

NE

65.00 AHD

100.00 AHD

75.00 AHD85.00 AHD


BO

WE

N

CR

ES

CE

NT

BO

WE

N

CR

ES

CE

NT

11

31

1

35

390 402

31

1

35

390 402





BO

WE

N

LA

NE

BO

WE

N

CR

ES

CE

NT

BOWENRESERVE

4

3

2

1

1


BO

WE

N

LA

NE

BO

WE

N

CR

ES

CE

NT

BOWENRESERVE

4

3

2

1

1

65.00 AHD75.00 AHD85.00 AHD100.00 AHD

QU

EE

NS

LA

NE

QU

EE

NS

LA

NE



31

1

35

390 402

31

1

35

390 402


31

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

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

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.dlaaust.com/