PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C107 For JD ... · B. Arch. (Hons. Melb), B.A. (Fine Arts Melb.), P.D.M. (Melb.), LFRAIA, FVEPLA, Architect Our ref: 14127 McGauran Giannini

Robert McGauran B ARCH (HONS) LFRAIA BA (FINE ARTS) | Eli Giannini M ARCH LFRAIA | MK Soon B ARCH (HONS) FRAIA | Chris Jones B ARCH RAIA | Cameron Lacy B ARCH (HONS) | Joshua Wheeler B ARCH (HONS) BBSC

DIRECTORS

URBAN DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURAL STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C107

For

JD INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD | CENTURY LEGEND PTY LTD

November 2014 Prepared by Robert McGauran B. Arch. (Hons. Melb), B.A. (Fine Arts Melb.), P.D.M. (Melb.), LFRAIA, FVEPLA, Architect Our ref: 14127

McGauran Giannini Soon Pty Ltd

ABN 13 006 488 302

10-22 Manton Lane

Melbourne 3000 Australia

Telephone 61 3 9670 1800

Facsimile 61 3 9670 1808

Email: [email protected]

Architecture Planning Interior Design

Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

MGS Architects

2

1. BACKGROUND

1.1. I have been asked to comment on the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment

C107 (the amendment) to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme with regard to the

appropriateness of the amendment in relation to its context and principles of good

urban design and architecture.

2. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT – THE CONTEXT

2.1. The St. Kilda Road and Queens Road/Kings Way corridor has, with the Southbank

area, been the subject of major change from the early 1990’s until the present,

becoming a mecca for entertainment along the Yarra River’s edge, commerce along

the Kings Way interface and apartment style living for much of the hinterland and

Queens Road and St Kilda Road interfaces.

2.2. The arts presence that had existed has been further expanded and consolidated

with the development of ACCA, MTC, ABC, the Australian Ballet School, the VCA

Secondary College (in Miles Street) and the Recital Hall along the Sturt Street spine.

2.3. The Princess Bridge and Queensbridge Street crossings have been complimented

by additional pedestrian bridges linking the city with Southbank. The St Kilda Road

and south river edge spines are now a focus of commuter and recreational cycling

access and activity.

2.4. A large residential community has been established with over 15,000 people now

calling either Southbank or South Wharf home, with a 35% growth in this precinct

population in the past 6 years. In Southbank alone this resident population is

anticipated to substantially increase to over 70,000 with an additional worker

population of 56,000.

2.5. Within the C107 area we have also seen major transformation occur but in this

instance the evolution has been one that has set the scene for Southbank as, unlike

the neighbouring precinct, it has long been seen as a place to live and work.


MGS Architects

3

2.6. Initially the St Kilda and Queens Road corridors were seen largely as a residential

address in the 19th century with the adjacent lower lying land reclaimed and

primarily dedicated to recreation and industrial purposes with the formalising of the

Albert Park Reserve providing an address with St Kilda Road for the new residential

neighbourhood.

2.7. To this context of major change of areas along Queens Road, St Kilda Road and the

upper end of Albert Road that have traditions of providing a sampler of the

commercial and higher density residential development trends able to be delivered

by the private sector at that time. Evolution has been progressive as can be seen

from the attached images with homes interspersed with hotels, office buildings and

apartments forming a new skyline and later higher levels of infill and transformation.

Image showing the former BP House under construction in a primarily low scale context


MGS Architects

4

1970’s image showing more development in the corridor with the former Prince Henry’s Hospital in

the foreground

2.8. Progressively the port and inner urban industrial activities that lined the river and the

western and part eastern side of Kings Way and hinterland off the St Kilda Road

Ridge have been replaced with higher density urban renewal including the extensive

Southbank renewal project, the hinterland higher density development, regional

freeway infrastructure, and centres of commerce and higher density housing.

These changes have made significant contributions to Melbourne’s transformation.

2.9. Many of the projects have been acknowledged with awards including in the last

decade Yve, Melburnian and Balencea Apartments and in earlier times, the Stanhill

and Newburn Flats by Frederick Romberg in the 1930’s and 1940’s. Many too, have

been seen to push the boundaries of acceptable scale and aesthetic convention but

ironically each sits comfortably in its constantly changing context. Page 90 and 91

of the Site Survey and Analysis report in the “Review of Design and Development

Overlay 3 and 4, 2013” (Planisphere Report) document the wide variance in both

setbacks and heights.

2.9.1. Generally speaking there is a greater coherence to setbacks within the St

Kilda Road frontage properties.

2.9.2. In Queens Road setbacks are typically 15 metres at the northern end of the

precinct with significant exceptions and variances [particularly south of Lorne

Street].

2.9.3. In Kings Way setbacks are typically zero.


MGS Architects

5

2.10 The breaches in heights of the current DDO control are even more striking.

2.10.1 In Albert Road South the vast majority of properties exceed the

DDO height. In the northwest precinct more than 50% of

development north of Park Street similarly exceeds the existing

DDO.

2.10.2 In Queens Road south of Albert Reserve more than half of the

frontage to the lake has been built at heights 10-60%+ the

preferred heights with more than 75% of the balance of the sites

identified as having medium or high redevelopment potential with

development to either side of St Kilda Road similarly

characterised by a substantial diversity of scale that simply

confirm what is obvious from a visual inspection of the precinct.

That is that built form is highly variable.

View from Lakeside Drive looking east showing the high degree of variance in

built form, footprint and design approach.

2.11. In the Planisphere report the conclusion is that Precinct 6 Queens Road could see

significant level of growth achieved through incremental increase in building height

throughout the precinct. Similar findings are seen for Albert Road north and Bowen

Crescent with significant capacity for growth in the Northwest Corner. More

incremental change is envisaged in the Albert Road south precinct presumably due

to the limited number of available remaining sites.

2.11.1. That being said recent project approvals in Palmerston Crescent exceed the

nominated development height by almost one residential floor.


MGS Architects

6

2.11.2. Whilst this analysis in the report is useful it is disappointing that ownership of

adjoining lots has not been considered in a number of instances. Sites such

as the composite ownerships of Australian Unity of its headquarters in Albert

Road and adjoining two sites are not considered in composite form. Although

the smaller lots are identified as having high potential for change the 1970’s

building is not. This despite the owner having a track record in recent years of

development of medium rise housing for ageing in place supported by

diversified aged care support services.

2.11.3. With its outlook and amenity to Albert Road and its location within a high

socio economic area I am advised this site will be the subject of a detailed

feasibility study for this purpose. In these circumstances it makes little sense

to have differing controls over the three sites and even less sense not to be

encouraging such a use in this location.

2.12. Elsewhere the conversion of 40 Albert Road won Architectural awards for

sustainability, 42-50 Albert Road (29 storeys and 45% breach) was awarded the City

of Port Phillip urban design award for best new building greater than 6 storeys in

2014 and 34-38 Albert Road a similarly tall building of approximately 92m was

shortlisted for awards in this year’s AIA awards. To the west of Kings Way, City

Edge built a 5 level development in direct juxtaposition with a fine grain 19th Century

neighbourhood and the design merits were acknowledged with professional

awards.

2.13. This is clear acknowledgement I think that this is an area where heights

substantially greater than that envisaged in the amendment have both been

successfully realised and moreover have been peer reviewed after completion and

deemed to be successful.

2.14. These projects have each responded to both the opportunity offered by the

changing needs of a rapidly changing urban context and relatively few abutting

constraints. Councils own infrastructure reports accompanying their review of the

precinct also confirm that unlike other areas of the municipality such as Fisherman’s

Bend, this precinct does not suffer from any substantial constraining forces. Hence

historically these areas have always been defined as go-to locations but within a

context of continuing to seek to fit-in to a future character that envisages a highly

urbanised context. This program has been supported by a robust planning scheme

that has supported this urban transformation.


MGS Architects

7

2.15. More recently formerly secondary light industrial and hinterland secondary office to

the north of this ratcheted up successful Albert Road zone has been identified as an

opportunity for transformation, notably the area between Dorcas Street and Albert

Road, with the review by Planisphere identifying potential for development of 60

metres or more. I support this assessment of significant opportunities for

transformation.

2.16. The combination of the proposed Park Street tram corridor and the proposed

Domain Metro Station cumulatively place these areas in the environs of this hub as

some of the best connected areas to regional open space, jobs and services in all of

Melbourne.


MGS Architects

8

2.17. In Kings Way and around Albert Road to its east and west substantial change has

also occurred with the higher density character of Queens Road and St Kilda Road

wrapping down Albert Road and back along Kings Way with new development

commencing in the 1970’s and seeing more recent manifestations.

2.18. To the western side of Kings Way, change has also occurred historically as a result

of road widening and urban renewal. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s the skyline

and streetscape pattern attributes were transformed with the construction of the

Australian Unity development and City Edge apartment developments, whilst to the

north later corporate built form and main road fuel service and CityLink and Casino

access arrangements transformed street engagement patterns. New development

more recently has seen large mixed use development in immediate juxtaposition

with this lower scale area.


MGS Architects

9

2.19. Whilst the area west of Kings Way has two pockets of finer grain 19th Century

terrace housing form north and south of the City Edge apartments, this lower scale

built form is largely buffered from direct interfaces with the exception of two terrace

house properties, one of which has been converted to a restaurant. In both

instances these properties present as sideages to the larger road.

2.20. At the gateway to St Kilda Road development has also changed. At one time St

Kilda Road scaled down to the St Kilda Junction but this is no longer the case.

Developments such as the Cadbury Schweppes Building and rival gateway

residential tower opposite have now been joined by new residential developments

south of Dandenong /Queens Road and continuing with larger development up the

St Kilda Road Hill.

New residential building under construction by JCB and Case developments at the St Kilda Junction.


MGS Architects

10

3. PROPOSED AMENDMENT – THE PROPOSAL

3.1. Notably, the Amendment proposes to implement the objectives, strategic directions

and built form outcomes of the draft St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan of 2013

through the introduction of a new schedule to the Design and Development Overlay

DDO26 and updating of the Local Planning Policy Framework.

Inserting a new Schedule 26 to Clause 43.02 the Design and Development

Overlay which specifies design objectives and design requirements including

mandatory heights and setbacks for the overall St Kilda Road North Precinct

and for individual sub precincts.

The deletion of the existing Schedules 3 and 4 to the Design and

Development Overlay that apply to the St Kilda Road North Precinct and

modification of the Port Phillip Planning Maps Nos 3DD0, Map No 4DDO and

Map No 6DDO to reflect the above.

To modify Local Planning Policy Framework at Clauses 21.06-7 St Kilda Road

and Queens Road and Clause 21.04-5 Public Open Space and Foreshore to

reflect the vision and strategic direction for the draft St Kilda Road North

Precinct Plan.

To include the draft St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan 2013 as a reference

document to the Planning Scheme at Clauses 21.07 and Clause 43.02

(Schedule 26) and modify Clause 66.06 Notice of Permit Applications under

Local Provisions to update the requirement to give notice.

3.2. The Amendment affects development south of Dorcas Street, west of St Kilda Road

as far as High Street, and then south of High Street to near Punt Road and east of

Punt Road down to the St Kilda Junction. With a second leg spanning to its

western boundary, it is bordered by Queens Road as far as Albert Road and then

covers the area between the north side of Albert Road and the south side of

Palmerston Crescent to the eastern side of Moray Street.

3.3. In its explanation for the proposed amendment Council notes that the planning

policies, notably the DDO’s covering this area were developed over 20 years ago

and included discretionary and mandatory height limits and that over this time the

precinct has evolved from predominantly commercial one to one which is

experiencing increased amounts of residential apartments.

3.4. In this context it explains there are many instances where the discretionary

preferred heights have been exceeded by proposed and as built development.


MGS Architects

11

3.5. It claims that the intention of the proposal is to ensure high quality development

that respects the Shrine of Remembrance setting, reinforces the well-established

street layout landscape identity of the precinct, maintains residential amenity, and

contributes to an inviting and activated environment for pedestrians at street level.

3.6. The amendment is claimed to align with:

3.6.1. Direction 2.1 – Plan for expected housing needs

3.6.2. Direction 4.6 – Create more great places through Melbourne and;

3.6.3. Direction 4.8 – Achieve and promote design excellence, and;

3.6.4. That it complies with Ministerial Direction 11 – Strategic Assessment of

Direct Amendments.

3.7. Relevant planning policy framework clauses to consider include the following:

3.7.1. Clause 11.02-1 – Supply of Urban Land

3.7.2. Clause 11.04-1 – Delivering jobs and investment

3.7.3. Clause 11.04-2 – Housing choice and affordability

3.7.4. Clause 11.04-4 – Liveable communities and neighbourhoods

3.7.5. Clause 15.01 – Urban Design

3.7.6. Clause 15.01-2 – Urban Design Principles

3.7.7. Clause 15.01-5 – Cultural Identity and Neighbourhood Character

3.7.8. Clause 15.03-1 – Urban Conservation

3.7.9. Clause 16.01-2 – Location of residential development

3.7.10. Clause 16.01-4 – Housing Diversity

3.7.11. Clause 21.01 – Municipal Strategic Statement

3.7.12. Clause 21.05-2 – Urban Structure and Character

3.7.13. Clause 21.06-7 - St Kilda Road North Precinct

3.8. Schedule 4

3.8.1. As noted earlier the existing Schedule 4 to the Design and Development

Overlay encourages the stepping down in built form between the Melbourne

Central Activities District and St Kilda Junction and between St Kilda Road

and Queens Road.

3.8.2. The high tower scale of the CBD and perhaps more typical 20 storey

approximate scale of the Junction referenced earlier retains the relative

difference between the two bookends north and south. However the

intermediate could not be said to be scaling down from the 100 and 160

metre scale of Southbank towards the 70 metre scale of St Kilda Junction,


MGS Architects

12

with the DDO establishing a scale lower than the southern extremity of the

precinct.

3.8.3. The existing DDO promotes the provision of a landscape setting particularly

in the Queens Road and St Kilda Road Boulevards and verticality in the tower

expression through spacing between developments. Amenity is protected

through a goal to ensure that adjoining public open space impacts arising

from overshadowing, bulk and wind effects is minimised.

3.8.4. Development outcomes are sought that respond to established landscape

setback character and mature plantings, the continued provision of a green

edge to Queens Road.

3.8.5. Additionally the overlay seeks to develop building designs that deliver

parapets and roofs that ensure interest and variety in particular when seen

from the aspect of Albert Park Reserve.

3.8.6. The provision of vehicular access is sought from Queens Lane and abutment

to heritage places seeks development that is sympathetic in form and scale.

3.8.7. In my view each of these aspirations is sound. I will talk to the particular

provisions of the proposed amendment later in this section where I have

concerns.

3.9. Cl 21.06 Neighbourhoods

3.9.1. Clause 21.06-7 replaces the St Kilda Road and Queens Road Section with a

new descriptor St Kilda Road North Precinct, acknowledging the extension

west down Albert Road and north into Kings Way. This change is soundly

based reflecting the coalescence of preferred future character for these

extended zones with the core areas previously within the scheme.

3.9.2. The key challenges section removes the concerns regarding poorly designed

new development, perhaps acknowledging that recent development

outcomes have typically been of a high standard. It adds the provision of the

Park Street tram extension and the improvement of the Public Realm in Kings

Way and Queens Way. I suspect the latter is an error as Queens Way is the

area dividing the St Kilda Junction and St Kilda Road precinct east of Punt

Road and suggest the reference to Way should be replaced with Road.

3.9.3. Within the Vision section there are some grammatical issues that require

inclusions and amendment.

3.9.3.1. The third dot point should be amended to include either

precinct or environment after office in the first line.


MGS Architects

13

3.9.3.2. Otherwise I am supportive of the vision for the precinct.

3.9.3.3. The strategies define six sub-precincts, the mapping of which I

think in some instances needs to be questioned and suggests

that in some an existing built form character needs to be

maintained and strengthened an assertion again that I think

needs further interrogation.

3.10. Sub Precinct 6 Queens Road (refer DDO26-6)

3.10.1. The proposed strategies for this precinct have been changed from the

existing provisions.

3.10.2. Of considerable concern is the removal of the strategic support for this area

to be a “preferred location for housing growth subject to heritage and

amenity concerns.” This despite the conclusion of the consultant that there

were substantial opportunities for urban transformation in this area of the

municipality. Hence the decision to remove this objective is one of choice

rather than constraint. In my view this not consistent with good strategic

planning, the history of the precinct or the existing built form of the precinct.


MGS Architects

14

3.10.2.1. This is an area historically characterised by urban

intensification and it is apparent that there is strong strategic

and contextual support for it to continue to do so. For

example despite the consultants identifying that the majority

of recently built development exceeding the preferred

building height, there is no suggestion that this has resulted

in a poor outcome in either design quality or impacts on the

adjoin green space suggesting that the performance-based

responses long forming part of the scheme have been

effective in their application and outcome.

3.10.2.2. With so much of the municipality capped in its potential by

existing heritage controls and by more constrained proposed

residential zone provisions and ongoing uncertainty about the

timetable and amenity able to be delivered in the Fishermen’s

Bend precinct, I am not supportive of the removal of the

words that specifically support this previously go-go area as a

continuing preferred location for housing growth subject to

heritage and amenity concerns.

3.10.2.3. The area is one that for the past 80 years has been associated

with higher density built form, and it sits in a location where it

can reasonably be anticipated that substantial enhancements

to an already rich availability of public transport and schools

will soon be realised with both sides of politics proposing

new schools in the Albert Park reserve or nearby areas.

3.10.2.4. Furthermore in the analysis undertaken by Planisphere in their

background report there have been a considerable number of

sites identified that could be developed in the future.

3.10.2.5. For these reasons the ambition of this area to continue to

provide for higher density residential growth should remain a

core ambition of the in the scheme.

3.10.3. The proposed amendment introduces a need for podiums to both the

Queens Road and Queens Lane frontages further reducing development

potential when compared with a number of the recent and historic interface

approaches to these areas and when considered additionally in the context

of council also wanting substantial landscape setbacks to the Park interface


MGS Architects

15

and from neighbours. The requirement sets up a typology for this interface

which is not presently well represented and which in my view sits at odds

with the needs of the precinct.

3.10.4. This podium typology is at odds with much of the existing character of built

form at this interface and in my view is unnecessary if as exists at present

landscape setbacks are provided in the forecourt zone separating the street

from the park. It is not apparent where these proposed podiums are to be

perceived from and to what purpose.

3.10.4.1. Typically a podium form is sought where there is a need to

preserve a human scale at a pedestrian level, where there are

significant concerns about environmental amenity at street

level that a podium might overcome, or a historic street wall

scale. These do not apply nor is a predominant scale either of

prevailing existing 30 metre form that warrants this approach

as the Planisphere work demonstrates. In this instance none

of these attributes exist in the interface with Albert Park and

the proposed 30m podium is both unhelpful as a design tool

and likely to dumb down design responses in this instance.

3.10.4.2. Hence the reference to podium form to Queens Road should

in my view be deleted.

3.10.5. Similarly I would reject the assertion that Queens Road is a ‘lower rise’ area.

In fact what we see in this corridor is evidence of built form that shifts back

and forth between Queens Road in a manner that talks of the two being

interchangeable and the whole being a high density high rise environment.

This is confirmed by the height analysis and the attached images. The

images depicted below taken moving down the road from north to south

demonstrate that high rise form without podiums is an attribute of this

interface that predominates.


MGS Architects

16

Views travelling down Queens Road from Albert Road


MGS Architects

17

3.10.6. Whilst I would not support the notion of unfettered development height

potential on the land to Queens Road the proposition to impose a mandatory

height limit is not supported. The heights and setbacks as acknowledged by

the analysis undertaken in the background reports do not point to an

established cohesive scale that warrants a blunt instrument such as that

proposed. In contrast there is a strong case to support provisions that

protect the adjacent park reserve from unreasonable overshadowing.

3.10.7. There is however I think a need for new built form to respond to the scale of

higher density housing in the precinct. This may enable developments to

vary considerably according to their location, the size of sites and

neighbouring development and the scale of background development in St

Kilda Road and side streets.

3.10.8. Similarly the imposition of mandatory heights below that which already

exists in a number of instances has not been supported by any

demonstration that the approved proposals have resulted in poor outcomes.

As previously noted the reverse could be argued for more recent

developments such as Balencea and Yve where taller built form has also

received awards. As an Architect, performance based controls allow for

innovation and high quality outcomes as opposed to a ‘cookie cutter’

response.

3.10.9. Likewise the objective of picturesque and varied roof lines is at odds with

this blunt mandatory height regime, which as occurred in Sydney, is likely

to lead to a goal of filling the development envelopes and a constrained and

consistent skyline contrary to the broader vision.

3.10.10. Recommendation:

Amend the strategy as follows:

The Queens Road sub-precinct is a distinct high density, predominantly

residential area that forms the edge to Albert Park. New development

creates the backdrop to the eastern side of Queens Road with a forecourt

setback that facilitates provision of canopy forecourt trees to compliment

the character of the adjacent park reserve and boulevard.

3.11. Queens Lane

A visit to Queens Lane also provides a very varied design response with a high

proportion of buildings built in close proximity to the lane presumably in response to the


MGS Architects

18

statutory goals of maintaining expansive landscaped setbacks to the boulevards with

which they adjoin to either the east or west.

The highly varied edge to Queens Lane from south to north


MGS Architects

19

3.11.1. Curiously in my view the proposed amendment requires all

development fronting Queens Lane to mandatorily be built to the

Queens Lane Boundary and within 5m of the street frontage not to

exceed 11m in height.

3.11.2. At best from my inspections this is an aspiration for an outcome well

after the horse has bolted.

3.11.3. A mandatory system should only be put in place in my view where

there is a strong prevailing existing character and value identifiable in

the precinct.

3.11.4. Typical examples have included the street wall scale of many of our

19th century activity centres.

3.11.5. This is simply not the case in this instance. Its purpose is also

unclear. Queens Lane is a highly contested space serving now and in

the future as both the primary vehicle entry to most developments

fronting the two boulevards and also in many instances as a primary

pedestrian entry offering convenient access to the St Kilda Road

active transit corridor.

3.11.6. The road zone itself is narrow and the footpath zones are highly

constrained and contain frequent crossovers. The limited width of the

footpath precludes any possibility of protective canopies beyond the

lot boundary into the road reserve in most instances. In some recent

examples developments have responded to this constrained service

road public realm by setting back from the street to create porte

cochere and more generous weather protected pedestrian plaza

thresholds at ground level. This approach has in my view delivered

acceptable outcomes. If applied to the balance of undeveloped sites

in the corridor I am of the view that the outcome would not have any

appreciable benefit for pedestrians or streetscapes with the outcome

being a continued somewhat random and site specific response to

the public realm. Opportunity for an address off street to drop off or

pick up guests would be typically limited to basement garage areas

with the building presenting a garage door and building entry door

arrangement to the street. Activation of the street would be difficult

owing to the limited footpath width and the highly varied and often

service nature of development opposite.


MGS Architects

20

3.11.7. A far better objective in my view would be to support the investment

of interfaces with Queens Lane with a high level of residential

address ambition. Generously scaled entries should be provided for

access to buildings and the quality of lighting pavement treatments

and finishes should provide a visually engaging and strong sense of

address to Queens Lane as well as Queens Road and St Kilda Road

recognising the nature of key destinations both east and west of

sites.

3.11.8. I am unlike council not overly concerned in relation to the presence of

built form at higher levels close to the street and site than currently

envisaged. This has been successfully managed within Melbourne’s

central city lanes where heights have been at or exceeding 40m with

zero setbacks. The objectives should be to foster a high level of

engagement with the street and a heightened level of investment in

the manner in which the building program and built form engage with

the public realm. The controls should be discretionary. There should

be no need for mandatory controls.

3.11.9. The project proposed at 20-22 Queens Road represents one such

variant to the preferred approach to this interface with two crossovers

providing a porte cochere undercover entry and a generous arrival

zone for residents too as a shared zone along with landscape

contribution midblock to the Queens Lane interface. Main public

lobbies are indented but clearly visible from the street providing an

explicit window to the street and dividend for the public realm that a

continuous street wall would not in my view have achieved.

3.12. Side setbacks

3.12.1. The mandatory provision of side setbacks is also in my view

unwarranted in this precinct as it is elsewhere in the precinct. This is

because as observed in the Planisphere report, a substantial number

of developments are already built and performance criteria and

appropriate design responses to the neighbouring abutments will

ensure these issues are addressed if the aspiration for shared

amenity and equitable development potential is embedded in

performance criteria. In some instances it could be reasonably


MGS Architects

21

envisaged that opportunities to build closer to or further from

boundaries will deliver better outcomes for light view and project

design quality than a more uniform box. The Yve development is an

example of a built form with a more plastic curvilinear footprint where

such an approach has occurred and where the building has

diminished in its footprint towards its top also providing more space

between it and adjoining development and a more compelling skyline

outcome and sculptural form than would have been achieved with the

blunt envelope tools notated in the proposed amendment.

3.12.2. Hence I would recommend that performance criteria should be put in

place for abutments between development rather than mandatory

provisions.

3.13. Setbacks to Queens Road

3.13.1. The setback requirement for 15m to Queens Road should similarly in

my view have some scope for modest variation to enable a better

design solution. If for example the development abuts an adjoining

development with a lesser setback and if the design response

demonstrates an ability to accommodate the necessary green canopy

tree forecourt buffer to the park successfully, some modest variation

should be able to be considered provided the outcome does not

result in unreasonable overshadowing of the adjoining parklands.


MGS Architects

22

3.13.2. This is particularly necessary in my view in the southern half of the

precinct where there is a high incidence of existing older

development some of considerable scale with very modest setback

from the Queens Road boundary. Logically it would be desirable to

replace these underdeveloped or poorly developed sites with better

design outcomes placed within a landscaped setting. In my

experience if the design controls are not established with a

knowledge of the threshold point for redevelopment viability of which

increased development potential over and above existing floor area is

typically a consideration, then desired change is unlikely to occur. I

am concerned that a mandated provision will in a number of

instances curtail the likelihood of positive change in this precinct.

4. CONCLUSION

For these reasons I am of the view that the amendment requires substantial redrafting.

4.1. In my view the amendment should acknowledge the reasonably anticipated

provision of the Melbourne Metro in one or another form both with a station within

the precinct and the strategic significance that that initiative would have for greater

connections to a larger catchment of Melbourne. The amendment also needs to

acknowledge that the precinct is an area with substantial opportunity for

intensification, but also one with a long and continuing history of substantial

change.

4.2. This character should be matched with performance criteria and preferred

maximum heights rather than mandatory provisions other than in the environs of the

Shrine where height limits have an underlying science and the asset being

protected warrants these provisions.

4.3. Elsewhere opportunities should be informed by principles of responding to

prevailing built form rhythms of scale that may allow some flex upwards in some

instances within a modest range of 15-20% as has typically occurred subject to

offsite impacts, suitable amenity and development outcomes and broader urban

legibility being achieved.

4.4. The proposition that there are views or sensitivities from within Albert Park or South

Melbourne that warrant both curtailment and prescription of built form to the extent

envisaged has not in my view been substantiated by either the background work or


MGS Architects

23

the physical or strategic assessment of the precinct. In each instance this has only

confirmed the highly eclectic and individualistic nature of much of the precinct.

4.5. In some instances, particularly within the North West Precinct, the Queens Road

and St Kilda Road corridors, the substantial opportunity for intensification has been

undermined by the prescribed nature of capacity set out in the amendment.

Morevover, these proposed constraints have in my view failed to acknowledge the

changing nature of the city as it is developing to both the Southbank extension of

the CDZ and the St Kilda Junction gateway.

4.6. A more satisfactory outcome would be one that continues to seek response to the

key values that underpin the precinct. These include:

4.6.1. Equitable but not necessarily equal (as site capacity varies)

development and amenity goals between adjoining sites.

4.6.2. Design responses that support the curvilinear nature of key precinct

boulevards.

4.6.3. A landscaped buffer and protection of amenity of key public spaces

and continued support for a canopy tree and forecourt setback zone

east of Queens Road and down St Kilda Road.

4.6.4. Sensitive responses to adjoining heritage and scaling down of

development west of Kings Way to hinterland and southerly low

scale heritage neighbourhoods

4.6.5. Promotion of activated and engaged street level land uses to the NW

precinct areas

4.6.6. Enhancement of the amenity and scale of shared spaces in Queens

Lane.

4.6.7. The provision of preferred heights for each precinct with the

requirements for podiums to new development on Kings Way,

Queens Lane and Queens Road deleted and amended elsewhere to

be a preferred outcome.


MGS Architects

24

5. DOCUMENTS FORMING THE BASIS OF THE REPORT

A number of documents were referred to in the preparation of this report, which are listed

below:

5.1. Site and Title Particulars

5.2. Current Port Phillip Planning Scheme Controls

5.3. Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme Exhibition Material

5.4. Supporting Amendment Documentation

5.5. Public Notice

5.6. Explanatory Report

5.7. Instruction Sheet

5.8. Changes to the Planning Scheme

5.9. Clause 21.04 - Land Use

5.10. Clause 21.06 – Neighbourhoods

5.11. Clause 21.07 – Incorporated Documents

5.12. Schedule 26 to the Design and Development Overlay (DD026)

5.13. Schedule to Clause 66.06

5.14. Changes to the Planning Scheme Maps

5.15. Maps 3, 4 and 6 DDO – areas to be deleted from Design and Development Overlay

Schedule 3 and 4

5.16. Maps 3, 4 and 6 DDO – areas to be included in Design and Development Overlay

Schedule 26

5.17. Reference Document

5.18. Draft St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan 2013 Part 1, Part 2

5.19. Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme – other

5.20. Summary document and notice from Council to Ratio dated 6 August 2014

5.21. Ratio Submission in response to Amendment C107 dated 8 September 2014

5.22. Consideration of Submissions by Council

5.23. Planisphere review of Schedules 3 and 4 to the DDO

5.24. Council Agenda dated 23 September 2014 and Attachment 1

5.25. Council summary of submission

5.26. Planning Permit Application No P0640/2014

5.27. Emails from Council providing pre-application advice and comments to Ratio and

Rothe Lowman dated 18 and 19 June 2014

5.28. Ratio letter to Council dated 28 July 2014 lodging amended application documents:

5.29. Letter from Helier McFarland Surveyors


MGS Architects

25

5.30. Plan of Survey

5.31. Existing Conditions Plan

5.32. Ratio Town Planning Report

5.33. Council requests for further information dated 31 July 2013 and 5 August 2014

5.34. Ratio response to Council RFI (Selected Planning Permit Application material)

5.35. Letter from Ratio to Council dated 18 August 2014

5.36. Landscape plan prepared by Tract

5.37. Urban Context and Design Response prepared by David Lock Associates dated July

2014

5.38. Architectural statement

5.39. Urban Context and Site Analysis

5.40. Design Evolution and Response

5.41. Design Proposal

5.42. Shadow Analysis

5.43. Drawings

6. STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE

6.1. My name is Robert Alan McGauran. I have been a director of McGauran Giannini

Soon Pty Ltd Architects, Urban Planners and Interior Designers since 1985 and

practice at 10-22 Manton Lane Melbourne.

6.2. Qualifications

6.3. I have an Honours degree in Architecture from the University of Melbourne, a

Bachelor of Arts majoring in Architectural History from the University of Melbourne

and a Postgraduate Diploma in Business Management from the University of

Melbourne Business School.

6.4. Professional Roles Architecture

Within the architectural profession, I have held a range of senior roles arising from

peer nomination including:

6.4.1. Chairperson of the Architects Registration Board of Victoria

6.4.2. Vice-President of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects

6.4.3. Chapter and National Councillor of the Royal Australian Institute of

Architects

6.4.4. Leadership and membership of accreditation panels for the

Architectural programs at RMIT, UOM, UOQ and Deakin University.

6.4.5. Jury membership and leadership of Awards Panels for the RAIA


MGS Architects

26

6.4.6. Victorian Convenor of the Residential Working Group for the RAIA,

6.4.7. Awarded a Life Fellowship to the RAIA in 1999 for contributions to the

Profession

6.5. My areas of expertise are in Architecture and Urban Planning.

6.6. I have been director in charge of a number of projects that have won professional

design, development and industry awards including luxury residential, heritage,

education, affordable housing, and environmental design, commercial, retail and

industrial developments.

6.7. Professional Affiliations –Education, Urban Design and Planning

6.7.1. I am a member of the PIA (Urban Design)

6.7.2. I was awarded Fellowship of VPELA in 2010.

6.7.3. In 2010 I was appointed the University Architect for Monash

University.

6.7.4. From 2003-2010, I sat on the Building and Estates for the University

of Melbourne

6.7.5. I have been a Board member of Melbourne Affordable Housing and

then Housing Choices Australia.

6.7.6. In urban design, I have held positions on the Priority Development

Panel for the Minister of Planning

6.7.7. I have chaired the Sullivans Cove Design Panel for the State

Government of Tasmania from 2008-2011.

6.7.8. I am University Architect for Monash University and have lead the

development of comprehensive masterplans for each of their major

campuses at Clayton, Caulfield Berwick and Gippsland.

6.7.9. Member of the Standing Advisory Committee on Local Variations to

the Good Design Guide (most recently reviewing density, car parking,

visual bulk, overshadowing and overlooking techniques).

6.7.10. Sessional panel member for Planning Panels Victoria reviewing

amongst other projects the C11 Urban Villages and C14 Phoenix

Precinct in Glen Eira.

6.7.11. Ministerial Advisory Panel appointed by the Minister for the

Commonwealth Games to review the proposed Pedestrian Bridge

Link to the MCG.


MGS Architects

27

6.8. Commencing last year with the University of Melbourne, Monash University, DPCD,

the City of Moreland and the City of Darebin, I am participating an Australian

Research Council funded research project into transit oriented development

intensification of Melbourne’s transport corridors

6.9. I have assisted in the evaluation of potential for the

Arden Metro Precinct for DPCD and the City of

Melbourne and had previously assisted DPCD and

the City of Melbourne in the development of the

Southbank Future Plan and notably the Sturt Street

spine in 2005.

6.10. Earlier in 2010 I was invited to represent the design professions in the DAVOS

summit in the theme area – Inclusive Cities, lead by the Prime Minister.

6.11. I have prepared Urban Design Frameworks and Structure Plans for key precincts

including the Cremorne precinct and Victoria Gardens precinct in the City of Yarra,

the Toorak Village and Chapel Vision Structure Plans in the City of Stonnington, and

the Megamile Structure Plan and Tally Ho Structure Plan in Whitehorse.

6.12. I have also been on the DPCD Expert Panel for Activity Centres and acted as

consultant on urban design matters and in particular major projects to Local

Councils including City of Port Phillip, Hobsons Bay City Council, City of Banyule,

City of Whitehorse, City of Kingston, City of Moonee Valley and the City of Yarra.

6.13. Within the City of Port Phillip I have been involved in both private and public sector

projects.

6.14. For the Private Sector these have included:

6.14.1. Project Director-Mixed-use development -181 Bay Street Port

Melbourne

6.14.2. Private Housing developments Dickens St. St. Kilda, Deakin St West

St Kilda, 452 St Kilda Road Melbourne.

6.15. For the Government Sector these have included

6.15.1. Redevelopment of the Aquatic Drive boating precinct at Albert Park

for Parks Victoria (Winner RAIA Award 1996)

6.15.2. New Boarding House Woodstock St Kilda for City of Port Phillip

6.15.3. Urban Design Guidelines for the Balaclava Station Precinct for City of

Port Phillip

6.15.4. Architectural Adviser to council- Oasis Residential development

designed by Williams Boag Architects


MGS Architects

28

6.15.5. Expert Witness advise to tribunals on the Esplanade Hotel and 142-

150 Beaconsfield Parade and 220 Barkly St St. Kilda

6.15.6. Feasibility for Redevelopment of Balaclava Station for DSE and City of

Port Phillip

6.16. I live in the City of Port Phillip, have visited the site and am familiar with the area.

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.

Prepared By

ROBERT MCGAURAN

B. ARCH. (HONS. MELB), B.A. (FINE ARTS MELB.), P.D.M. (MELB.), LFRAIA, ARCHITECT

Dated

November 2014