Save Dimmeys. Swan St Structure Draft Attachment 2 - Summary of Submissions

8/4/2019 Save Dimmeys. Swan St Structure Draft Attachment 2 - Summary of Submissions

1/52

Page 1 of 52

ATTACHMENT 2SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS Draft Swan Street Structure PlanAugust 2011

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers Response1 Resident Mary Street

RichmondAgainst installation of bicycle lane in Mary Street as parking isalready an issue and there are designated bike lanes onCoppin Street.Bikes already use Mary Street in both directions withoutincident so no need to make changes.Wants proper resident consultation before any action is takenunder the Structure Plan.

Mary Street is shown as having a bicycle focuswith the aim being to improve safety for cyclistsand strengthen the connection to the Capital CityTrail.Council has no intention of installing a two-way onroad bicycle lane in Mary Street or of removing onstreet car parking spaces.

The plan does not detail specific actions. Furtherinvestigation on how particular strategies might beachieved would be undertaken as part of theimplementation stage along with communityconsultation.

Information has since been distributed to residentsof Mary Street between Swan St & Bridge Rd by

Council officers to provide reassurance thatCouncil is not removing car parking and installinga 2-way bicycle lane.

Recommended Change:Delete bicycle focus on Mary Street and apply astrengthened bicycle focus along Coppin Streetfrom Alan Bain Reserve to the northern edge ofthe Study Area.

2 Resident Mary StreetRichmond

Supports the idea of the structure plan to shape the future ofthe area. Has noticed an increase in traffic, lack of parking anda feeling of overcrowding without enough Council support.

Concerned about the bike focus on Mary Street due to loss ofparking and conflict with bikes travelling the wrong way downthe one way street. Important to continue to protect theresidents from rat-runners and to acknowledge their right toown and park a car near their house. Coppin Street would bea viable alternative for bikes.Would like to see increased green space as high density livingreduces gardens and trees. Increased green space should begiven priority over other public space uses.

See response to 1.

The plan includes enhanced street greening on

nominated streets as reflected in the PublicSpaces Action Plan

Recommended Change:See Submission 1.


2/52

Page 2 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers Response3 Resident Gwynne Street Objects to whole Cremorne area being designated for 5-6

storeys. Need to protect the residential area south of BalmainStreet and views to the Nylex sign and city. 5-6 storeysappropriate for area adjacent to both sides of the South Yarrarailway line, and east of the railway line to Church Street.Remaining area should be 2-3 storeys.

Need to widen the footpaths in Cremorne to allow forincreased pedestrian use by narrowing the road or transfer ofland when developments occur. Need bicycle lanes on theroad and developments should not be provided additional onsite car parking.

Supports the proposal for additional public open space inCremorne but suggests that it should be moved closer to

Balmain Street. Paved area at 35-41 Balmain Street andproperty at 45 Balmain Street should be converted to areserve.

Need to protect residential areas in Cremorne from industrialtraffic movements to reduce noise, amenity and safetyimpacts. Particular concerns around the Rosella complex.

The Cremorne area includes preferred heights thatvary from 7-10 storeys at the Maltings site, 2-3storeys in existing residential areas and an areadesignated as 4 storeys to the west of ChurchStreet and bordering the Bryant & May site. Thepreferred heights act as a guide. Any futuredevelopment proposal would have to be assessedagainst the context of the site, and considered

against relevant local and State planning policy.

Active forms of transport are promoted in the Planas reflected in Figure 12, Access & MovementAction Plan. A pedestrian focus and priority areaare included in the Cremorne area. Car parkingassociated with future development would beconsidered under the provisions of the YarraPlanning Scheme and is not dealt with in detail inthe structure plan.

Opportunities for new public open space inCremorne are consistent with opportunities shown

in the Cremorne & Church Street Urban DesignFramework. Conversion of existing properties fornew public open space would require furtherinvestigation.

The exploration of opportunities to manage trafficflows in a more efficient and safer manner isincluded as Strategy 1.5 under Access &Movement.

4 Resident Mitchell StreetRichmond

Identifies a long list of issues for cyclists along Swan Streetand made very specific suggestions as to how these issuescould be addressed and the conditions improved for cyclists.

The Structure Plan does not deal with issues atthis level of detail but the comments received haveforwarded to Councils Strategic Transport Unit for

consideration and action.5 Resident Supports the overall direction of the Plan, particularly the

initiatives around access to fresh produce.Would also like to see easier access to the Yarra and saferways to cross Punt Road between Swan Street and the river.

Improved cycling and pedestrian connectivity withthe River have been included as a consideration inthe Plan. (Strategy 3.1 under Access & Movement)Strategy 3.4 under Access and Movement is toinvestigated a new pedestrian crossing pointacross Punt Road at Blanche Street which befurther investigated at the implementation stage.


3/52

Page 3 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers ResponseWould also like space for community gardens. In June 2011, Council adopted guidelines to help

identify and manage new opportunities for differentkinds of urban agriculture activities. To encouragea collaborative approach, Council will employ aCommunity Gardens Facilitator who will beresponsible for liaising with residents and groupswishing to establish Urban Agriculture projects.

6 Resident Brighton StreetRichmond

Richmond Station and corner of Punt Rd and Swan Street isthe biggest area requiring improvement. Intersection andcorner need to be improved v isually.Shops down western end are poor with high turnover.Punt Road from the river to Swan Street should be developedinto business and office buildings as it s too busy forresidential. Development of office buildings would improve thestreetscape and bring in commercial revenue.

Strategies 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 2.2, 2.5 under PublicSpaces address the issue raised.

The plan denotes the area fronting Punt Road(Punt Road edge) and extending from Swan Streetto the river as being mixed commercial with aresidential component. Built form objectivesincluded as part of Precinct 6 respond to amenity& safety concerns.

7 Resident Specific concerns about the fonts and layout of the fact sheet. Noted. Councils Communications Unit hasresponded to this matter

8 Business Balmain StreetCremorne

Supportive of the objectives.Current zoning is preventing significant investment in theCremorne area. Inability to have mixed use and high rise (10storeys) Commercially unviable to redevelop land. Proposed5-6 storeys would result in the area remaining underutilisedand reduce potential local employment and incrementalresidential properties in a well serviced area. More height isrequired as a trade off to rejuvenate Cremorne.

Need for parking, respect for heritage overlays, access issuesand the need for contamination work means redevelopmentpotential should be set by the tallest building in the area (ERAbuilding at 10+ storeys). Multi-purpose zoning would facilitatethe right balance and fit with the strategic intent of thestructure plan.

The Land Use framework plan shows an area tothe west of Church Street as being suitable forland uses that include an office focus with aresidential component in recognition that strategicredevelopment sites are likely to be identified inthis locale into the future given the size of the sitesand decline in manufacturing in this area.

Parking is considered under relevant PlanningScheme provisions in relation to individualdevelopment applications. Heritage controls applyover parts of the study area and the importantcontribution of existing heritage fabric isacknowledged in the Plan.Any changes to existing zoning would beconsidered at the implementation stage.

9 Resident/Business Tennyson StreetRichmond

Plan recognises the significance and pivotal importance ofRichmond Station but this is not matched in the ideaspresented. Also does not address the magnitude of thechallenges but also the upside of the redevelopment, which

The Land Use Framework Plan identifies theRichmond Station as a key revitalisation area inwhich underutilised land would be developed;active ground floor uses encouraged to provide


4/52

Page 4 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers Responsewould need to address the Punt Road traffic issues andconnectivity to the MCG.The precinct has had very poor quality design andconstruction of residential and office buildings in recent years.

Better management of anti-social behaviour is required toimprove the amenity of the area, particularly drunken and

violent behaviour, broken bottles and rubbish on the street.

Encourages the greening of streets. Would like to see theretaining wall at Stewart Street greened with a creeper topreclude graffiti and cool the surface in summer.

Need to ensure the railway uses conf irm with EPA noiseregulations.

Endorse the idea of the arts trail but would like it extended torecognise the established galleries north of Swan Streetincluding on Tennyson Street, Tanner Street, Punt Road andChurch Street.

vibrancy and vitality; a range of activitiesencouraged that support the use of an activetransit node; and safe, active and convenient entryand exit provided. Detailed design is not an issuewhich is addressed in a structure plan.

Strategy 3.3 under Land Use relates to the issueof management of late night venues.

The Plan includes enhanced street greening onnominated streets.

Noise associated with the railway is outsideCouncilsjurisdiction.

Recommended Change: That the arts trail beextended to include the existing galleries onTennyson Street, Tanner Street, Punt Road andChurch Street.

10 Resident Punt RoadCremorne

Richmond Station revitalisation requires a more detailed studyby Council to be presented to the State Government, toimprove transition between modes and allow for futureexpansion as required. Feasibility of podium level with air-rights sold to private developers or traded for their nearby landshould be investigated.Supports objectives around local independent retailers andaccess to fresh food but sceptical about how Council canachieve this. Should consider options such as reduced ratesfor greengrocers etcWants night time activity supported and managed, doesntwant existing venues restricted due to new residents

complaining.

Encourage Council to look at ways to implement a socialhousing requirement in new large developments to betterintegrate it in high density areas and locations with goodaccess to services. Large developments are suitable due totheir communal areas such as roof gardens etc

Opportunities for signature buildings should be encouraged

Council continues to advocate where possible forimproved connectivity between different modes ofpublic transport.

Noted. Rate reductions are outside the scope of astructure plan


Objective 5 under the Land Use themeencourages a diversity of living opportunities inrelation to housing.

The Plan does not include this level of detail whichis more appropriately considered atimplementation stage.


5/52

Page 5 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers Responsebut further identification of what is considered suitable for asignature or gateway building needs to be done to ensure thedesign is of a high standard.

Punt Road should have smaller style developments ratherthan large mass blocks to better activate the street. Thereforea higher built form should be encouraged for smaller styledevelopments.

Height limits should be increased along Punt Road, ChurchStreet (south of Swan Street) and along the railway lines asthis will not impact on current heritage areas and will provide abetter edge.

Council should go further with the Maltings precinct as it isappropriate for large scale development. It should also providepedestrian and cyclist links to the river and encourage an artsprecinct with public squares. 15-20 storeys would beappropriate if 60-80% of the ground floors were public spaces

managed or owned by Council.

An additional fee on large buildings should be initiated to havemore funds for implementing public spaces outlined in thestructure plan.Encourage Council to go further with the access andmovement ideas such as limiting vehicle flow throughdedicated vehicular routes, with other streets restricted to localresidents/employees only and traffic islands to allow onlypedestrian and cyclist traffic.Reductions in car parking requirements for new developmentsshould be encouraged, with new residents ineligible for onstreet parking permits.

Massing of buildings would be considered at thepermit application stage. The Plan specifies 5-6storeys along Punt Road frontage, transitioning to2-3 storeys at rear.This is to support a reinvigorated precinct

comprising medium scale, well-designeddevelopment designed to support mixedcommercial and residential uses that wouldenhance pedestrian amenity at street level andensure development transitions in scale toadjoining residential areas fronting WellingtonStreet to protect amenity.

The Maltings precinct is covered by an existingComprehensive Development Zone that specifiesthe height of any future development on the site.

Outside scope of Structure Plan

Active forms of transport are encouraged underAccess and Movement in the Structure Plan.Strategy 1.5 is to explore opportunities to managetraffic flows in a more efficient and safer way whichwould occur at the implementation stage.


Believes a bicycle lane on Mary Street would impact on theamenity and would prefer it to occur on Coppin Street. Wouldlike this to be discussed as part of a LATM process.Would like Mary Street closed adjacent to the primary schoolto stop the vehicles rat running at the corner of Church andSwan Street and improve the safety of the students.

See response to 1.

Strategy 1.5 under Access and Movement is toexplore opportunities to manage traffic flows in amore efficient and safer way which would occur atthe implementation stage.


6/52

Page 6 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers Response12 Resident Rowena Parade

RichmondWould like the functionality retained and enhanced ofpedestrian links north of Richmond Station and Tanner Street.

AKM chimney is an existing significant landmark and shouldbe identified as such in the Plan, as should the Pelaco sign.

Residential interface in the area north of Richmond Stationand south of Tanner Street should be treated more sensitively,with a 4 storey height limit. More developments at a similarheight to the AKM building will overcrowd the area andcontrast too much from the low-rise residential area on thenorth side of Tanner Street.Would be more practical to have the new signature building onthe south-east corner of Punt and Swan with undergroundlinks to the station. The north east corner should be enhancedas a green, civic space and used for a farmers market. Anydevelopment incorporating Richmond Station should be lowrise given the engineering and logistic challenges it willinvolve.

Pedestrian link between northern exit of Richmond Station andTanner Street should be provided with greening and public art.Rowena Parade should have enhanced street greening as i t isa major pedestrian link to and from the MCG and Yarra Park.It should also be upgraded as a pedestrian link but not at theexpense of on street parking. Similarly, supports bicycle focusas long as on street parking, speed humps and trees areretained.Consider a cycle route along Richmond Terrace as traffic iscalm.

If a pedestrian priority zone is created along Swan Street near

Richmond Station ensure traffic is not inadvertently pushedonto Rowena Parade as it is the only access into the area fortraffic heading north.

The objectives and strategies under Access andMovement support improvements to connectivity,accessibility and efficiency.

Significant landmarks are identified in accordancewith Councils Local Planning Policy 22.03 andinclude the Pelaco sign.

The Land Use Framework Plan identifies theRichmond Station as a key revitalisation area inwhich underutilised land would be developed;active ground floor uses encouraged to providevibrancy and vitality; a range of activitiesencouraged that support the use of an activetransit node; and safe, active and convenient entryand exit provided. Detailed design is not an issuewhich is addressed in a structure plan.

Enhanced street greening and improvedpedestrian links included in Plan under PublicSpaces & Access & Movement. Rowena Parade isidentified under the Access & Movement theme ashaving a bicycle focus.

Strategy 1.5 under Access and Movement is to

explore opportunities to manage traffic flows in amore efficient and safer way which would occur atthe implementation stage.

13 Resident Mary Street Pleased about the proposal to develop Mary Street as a 2-waybicycle lane.There has been an increase in traffic and more motorists areusing local streets to avoid congestion and sharing the road is

See response to 1.


7/52

Page 7 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers Responsegetting increasingly dangerous. A bike path on Mary Streetwould provide a safe route and connect to important bikepaths at the Yarra and Church Street and Bridge Road.


5-7 storeys fronting Church Street is appropriate as long asthe buildings step down to 2-3 storeys at the rear where theymeet the sensitive interface with properties fronting BrightonStreet.

Parking is a matter of concern due to the narrowness of thestreets and the congestion on streets linking Brighton andChurch Streets. This results in damage to cars, particularlymirrors. The use of buildings for commercial and retail spaceswill aggravate this as we cannot rely on people using publictransport or cycling if enough parking is not provided on site.

Figure 9: Built form, designates the interface of thecommercial properties on Church Street with theresidential properties on Church Street as asensitive edge requiring appropriate built form

treatment in accordance with relevant LocalPolicies.

Parking will be considered in relation to theimplementation of those strategies in the Planwhich relate to improving the design andmanagement of the movement network toenhance connectivity, accessibility and efficiency.Detailed consideration of parking provision at theplanning application stage.

15 Resident Tanner StreetRichmond

Concerned about the discussion on Richmond Station and theDimmeys redevelopment reported in the media.

Wants a height restriction of 5 storeys and would hate to seethe multi-storey developments on Church Street near theYarra come into Swan Street as they would destroy the area.

The role of a structure plan is to identify andmanage areas of changes. There are some

locations within the study area where height inexcess of 5 storeys is considered appropriatehaving regard to such matters as access to publictransport, existing character, size of land holdingsand lack of heritage significance. These includeRichmond Station Precinct, East RichmondStation, Burnley Station, south side of Swan Streetfrom Richmond Station Precinct to Burnley St reet,Burnley Street Village and South Cremorne.


Opposed to the introduction of a bike lane in Mary Street as itwould halve the amount of parking and it is already sometimesdifficult to find a parking space close to home.Mary Street is a residential street and the one-way rule workswell to reduce traffic. The creation of a two-way bike pathwould be dangerous and is better suited to Coppin Streetwhich already has a two-way bike path.Opposed to any more trees being planted in Mary Street astheir roots damage houses, pipes and footpaths.

See response to 1.


Opposed to the restructure of Mary Street as it is already astruggle with car parking and would cause more problems.

See response to 1.


8/52

Page 8 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers Response


Object to a bike lane in Mary Street as it is already difficult tofind parking and it is a narrow street that experiencessignificant traffic.

See response to 1.


Understands why Mary Street was chosen to have a bikefocus but as a resident opposes it due to the difficulty offinding parking and difficult pedestrian access due to the

footpath widths so increased bicycle activity and loss ofparking would make this worse.More suitable route starting from the river would be up MaryStreet until the join between the Alan Bain reserve andBarkley Gardens, to Coppin Street.

See response to 1.


Opposed to the bike path down Mary Street as it wouldremove parking which is already hard to find.Believes the idea of a bike path is a good one; however itwould be better suited to Coppin Street as it is wider and hasa median strip, which could be removed to allow for a bikepath. Current parking on Coppin Street could be changed from

parallel to 45 or 90 degree parking which would allow theother side of the street to be used as a bicycle thoroughfare.Southern end of Coppin Street provides a boundary to BarklyGardens so it is just as easily linked to the bike trail along theYarra River. The northern end is equally as well suited as itcontinues across Bridge Road and widens to incorporate alarger median strip in the section to Highett Street.The asphalt surface of Coppin Street is in need of repairs orreplacement due to the tree roots from the median stripplanting so the redevelopment to include bicycle lanes couldoccur simultaneously.As Mary Street is a one way street at both ends, withoutallowing bikes to travel the wrong way down the street, it is not

feasible to simply increase way finding signage for example.The only way to legally make Mary Street a bicyclethoroughfare, other than swapping half the street for dedicatedbike lanes, would be to turn it into a two-way street sharedbetween cars and bicycles and there is less room to do that,even with the removal of parking. Mary Street simply isnt wideenough to accommodate the proposal.

See response to 1.


9/52

Page 9 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers Response21 Resident Canterbury

Street RichmondOverall supportive of the Plan and believes it should producesignificant positive effects for the area.Believe the idea of street plantings should be extended to sidestreets, not just main roads, as they will also be affected byhigher-density developments.As older houses with gardens are converted into townhousesand apartment buildings the area needs additional streetplantings to improve the aesthetics and air quality. Including

this in the Plan will make a significant difference over the longterm.Specific suggestions to Canterbury Street, which could bereplicated elsewhere, include planting in the grass on streetcorners and roundabouts, and it should be implemented nowin anticipation for the higher density development taking place.Every new development should also be required toincorporate trees in the street frontage which are visible fromthe street.

Noted. Opportunities for enhanced and newpublic/civic spaces are identified in the Plan underPublic Spaces and specific details of the locationof plantings would be considered at theimplementation stage.

22 Resident Mary Street Opposed to the bike lane in Mary Street See response to 1.

23 Resident Stawell Street

Richmond

Clarification sought on a number of elements of the structure

plan

Response provided to questions of clarification.

24 Resident Clifton StreetRichmond

Retention of village atmosphere important.Need to ensure congestion isnt worsened through lack ofparking spaces in new developments.

Noted. Car parking provision would be consideredas part of individual planning permit application


Concerned about the proposal to turn Mary Street into abicycle friendly thoroughfare as they will lose 90 car spaceswhich are required for residents. This will have a flow-on effecton nearby streets and will impact on house prices. As its anarrow street they are concerned about safety of cyclists andresidents.Coppin Street already has bike lanes so the Mary Streetproposal is superfluous to cyclists.

See response to 1.

26 Resident Powlett StreetEast Melbourne

Current amenity of the area is poor due to graffiti and tagging,and Council needs to improve its graffiti removal whilstdeveloping supported youth graffiti programs.Footpath trading is creating OH&S risks and visually detractsfrom the area.Derelict buildings encourage squatters and pose health andsafety risks, with vacant scaffolding acting as a canvas foradvertising posters.

Outside scope of Structure Plan

Footpath trading is managed under CouncilsFootpath Trading Policy.


10/52

Page 10 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers ResponseVandalism and alcohol related crime and violence needs to beaddressed by Council, law enforcement and hoteliers.Initiatives to move patrons out of the area after visiting theentertainment venues are important. Varying the late-nightentertainment available will also attract a different type ofconsumer and boost the economic sustainability of the area.Street drinking and begging needs to be addressed.

Building of social capital has been neglected in the draft andCouncil needs to provide opportunities for communitymembers to meet formally and informally to enhance socialcapital.

Objective 3 under the Land Use responds to nighttime activity.

Enhanced public and civic spaces are encouragedin the Structure Plan.

27 Resident Park Grove,Richmond

Query about land use proposed around Park Grove andBendigo Street, and whether Burnley Park has any changesproposed.Wanted clarification around status of Channel 9redevelopment.

Clarification provided in email response.

28 PlanningConsultant

On behalf of:Church StreetCremorne

Believe there are inconsistencies between the land use andbuilt form plans with regards to residential/mixed use or justoffice on the subject site. Therefore they are uncertain as to

the intended land use for the site.

Believes opportunity exists for residential development at ahigher density that does not impact upon existing residentialdwellings, and therefore the site should be considered forresidential and mixed use land uses.Would support higher building heights in the Cremorne SouthOffice Area as the existing buildings are six stories so wouldlike flexibility to increase the height of the current building.Population growth in Melbourne means that areas such asRichmond and Cremorne need to take full advantage of theirlocation and existing infrastructure.

A broader application of increased height to cater for higherdensity development, mixed use development and commercialdevelopment will enhance the activity centre, specifically theCremorne South Office Area, along similar lines to the 7-10storeys of the Maltings Precinct.Supports the introduction of public urban art in the area, andimproved pedestrian and cyclist linkages.

Inconsistencies between plans noted.Recommended changes: Amend plans to ensureconsistency. Land use plan designates this area

with having an office focus with a residentialcomponent.

The role of a structure plan is to identify andmanage areas of change. There are somelocations within the study area where greaterheight is considered appropriate having regard tosuch matters as access to public transport,existing character, size of land holdings and lackof heritage significance. These include RichmondStation Precinct, East Richmond Station, BurnleyStation, south side of Swan Street from RichmondStation Precinct to Burnley Street, Burnley Street

Village and South Cremorne.

Noted.


11/52

Page 11 of 52


RichmondObject to the proposed bicycle lane in Mary Street as thecurrent split one way traffic system is successfully catering forresidents. Dont want to see the one way system changed, orany parking removed to allow for a bike lane.Due to the quietness of the bicycles there is the potential forinjury to people who are not aware of the bicycle traffic.Already adequate bicycle lanes on all the major roads whichcan cater for current and future bicycle traffic.

If it was to be deemed essential to create another bicycle pathCharles Street would be more suitable as it is wider.

See response to 1.


On behalf of:Stewart Street,Richmond

Current level of pedestrian amenity in the area is poor and thecurrent park near the intersection of Stewart and WangarattaStreets is small and poor.

Supportive of the overall vision for the area but believes theboundary of the Richmond Station Revitalisation Area needsto be clarified and should include their subject site.Proposed heights do not respond appropriately to the strategicopportunities presented by the Richmond StationRevitalisation Area and should be significantly higher - at least

12-15 storeys on land with frontage to Stewart Street, and 7-10 storeys for the remainder of the land in the RevitalisationArea.No justification is apparent for the reduction in heightsbetween the draft put forward at the Planning Environmentand Infrastructure Committee and the draft on exhibition.The proposed heights prevent viable development and thereneeds to be included an analysis of the impact of height limitsof development feasibility, construction costs and housingaffordability.

Pocket park needs to be better taken advantage of through

the closure of the one way street north of the park to providean expanded and improved public square, improvedconnection and better pedestrian safety.

Opportunities to improve public space in thisvicinity are shown in Figure 10, Public SpacesAction Plan.

The precise extent of the area would be clarifies atthe implementation stage. The Land UseFramework Plan identifies the Richmond Stationas a key revitalisation area in which underutilisedland would be developed; active ground f loor usesencouraged to provide vibrancy and vitality; a

range of activities encouraged that support the useof an active transit node; and safe, active andconvenient entry and exit provided. . It isconsidered to be an area where greater heightwould be appropriate having regard to suchmatters as access to public transport, existingcharacter, size of land holdings and lack ofheritage significance.Recommended Change: Thatthe nominatedmaximum height for the Richmond Station Precinctbe changed to 7-10 storeys.

Addressed under Theme 3, Public Spaces.


Land Use plan needs to be altered as the line for LargeFormat Retail with Residential Component currently goesthrough their backyard, as does the built form precinct (Figure8).Further detail is required as to what appropriate treatments of

The details of specific planning controls toimplement the recommendation so the Plan wouldbe considered at the implementation stage. TheCremorne and Church Street Urban DesignFramework already provides some insight into the


12/52

Page 12 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers Responsea sensitive edge would mean in an area where 5-6 stories isthe preferred maximum height. Believe that setback heightsand distances should protect residential zones from shadowsand overview, particularly those with heritage overlays. Wouldlike the relevant Local Policy included in the document.Controls around setbacks to reduce visual impact need to bedefined.

issues relevant to managing the interface withexisting residential areas.


Opposed to the creation of a bike lane in Mary Street as it is anarrow street and parking is required on both sides for theresidents use. Removal of parking for a bike lane would makeparking impossible. The best interests of residents shouldoutweigh transient bike riders.Currently bike riders use the road in both directions and takeresponsibility for their own safety and this is a satisfactory useof the thoroughfare.Find it difficult to understand how it could ever have beenproposed as Coppin Street and Church Street have bikepaths.

See response to 1.

33 Resident Margaret Street

Richmond

Area around Richmond Station (Botherambo, Tanner and

Margaret Streets and Stewart Place) will benefit f rom sensibleredevelopment that pays attention to the amenity of existingresidents. Outlook, noise and light are three importantconsiderations. Designated as 5-6 storeys but this may impacton outlook and lighting that are currently enjoyed so needsscrutiny.Noise from amplifications and announcements at the station isworse than the trains, so any redevelopment that addressesthis would be welcomed.Concerned about amenity of the area diminishing if moredrinking venues and clubs were introduced. Alcohol fuelledantisocial behaviour is already an issue. Any increase inentertainment venues should be on the south side of the

station and fronting Swan Street.Underutilised land should only be developed if there is off-street car parking and no permits are issued for on-street carparking as otherwise we will be headed for gridlock and areduction in amenity and safety

These matters would be considered at both the

implementation stage and when applications forplanning permits are considered.

Noise associated with the railway system isoutside the scope of the Plan.

This matter is addressed under Land Use,Objective 3.

Car parking provision is considered at the planningpermit application stage and Councils parkingpermit policy does not support parking permits forresidents of new developments.


Opposed to the bike lane in Mary Street as parking is alreadydifficult and if two bike lanes are implemented plus traffic therewill not be room for any parking.

See response to 1.


13/52

Page 13 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers ResponseAs they pay car registration they should be able to have peaceof mind with parking and easy access to and from work.Bicycle riders dont pay registration and probably dont live inthe vicinity, rather are just using it as a thoroughfare.The bike path along the Yarra River is a sufficient alternative.The speed of some cyclists would create a safety hazard forpedestrians, particularly the elderly and children.

35 ResidentMary StreetRichmond

Opposed to a bike lane in Mary Street as it is too narrow,parking is already limited and the addition of a bike lane wouldcreate a safety hazard for cyclists, pedestrians and drivers. Abike lane would also interfere with street greening.

See response to 1.


Concerned over the restriction of residents car parking onMary Street and the safety of residents. Parking is in greatdemand and if a bike lane was built the available parkingwould be reduced which would have a flow on effect tosurrounding streets. Proposed two-way bike lane would resultin an increase in drivers travelling the wrong way down thestreet and put the residents at risk.Cyclists are already well catered for in the area on other

streets, particularly Coppin Street.

See response to 1.


Opposed to the bike path in Mary Street as it is a narrowstreet and residents require the off street parking, which isalready in short supply. Bike riders currently use Mary Streetin both directions and take responsibility for their own safetyand this is working well.Coppin Street and Church Street already have bike lanes.

See response to 1.


Mary Street is a narrow, double-headed one way street withresidences on both sides. Opposed to the removal of parkingto allow for a bike lane as most properties do not have off-street parking. Coppin Street would be a better alternative as it

already has bicycle lanes and traffic lights to cross SwanStreet.

See response to 1.


Objects to the use of Mary Street for a bike path as it wouldreduce parking for local residents. Cyclists already use thestreet in both directions so there is no requirement to changeanything.Coppin Street is a better alternative due to existinginfrastructure including traffic lights at Swan Street. It would

See response to 1.


14/52

Page 14 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers Responsenot warrant the expense to create a new bike path with one onCoppin Street already.


Object to the creation of a bike path on Mary Street as it is anarrow street and parking is already an issue. Removal ofparking would have a detrimental impact on the residents ofMary Street and surrounding streets. Coppin Street would bethe preferred option.

See response to 1.

41 Resident Mary Street Supportive of many principles and proposals in the StructurePlan, but concerned over three aspects:1) lack of information about how the Plan will align with thenew State Governments metropolitan planning and transportplans. Similarly, there is no information regarding how thePlan aligns with other government agencies such as VicRoadsand other transport bodies, and how it will address congestionand demand on transport in the area.

2) potential for excessive intensive development on the northside of the railway at Richmond Station and the impact this willhave on the amenity of residents in the area if buildings are

allowed to go to 10 storeys.

3) lack of detail around the bicycle focus improvements inMary Street and the impact this may have on parking in thearea, and the amenity and safety of residents. Other streetswould provide better opportunities for connectivity, particularlyCoppin Street.

Believe Council should wait for the new state governmentsmetropolitan and transport plan to ensure the Swan StreetStructure Plan responds to and aligns with these plans as this

would maximise the ability to gain funding and implement thestructure plan. This would also allow Council to do more publicengagement and consultation on the structure plan.

Section 1.3 describes the policy basis of the Plan.Matters pertaining to Access and Movement areconsidered under Theme 4.

Richmond Station is identified as an areaappropriate for revitalisation and this is consistentwith State Planning Policy directions. The Plan

identifies a sensitive edge to the north which wouldneed to be managed in accordance with existingrelevant local policies.

See response to 1.

Council is committed to proactively planning forand managing growth and change in the areairrespective of State policy development.


Do not support the bicycle proposal in Mary Street as theremoval of parking would create more congestion and make itdifficult for residents to park in their own street. Bicycle lane onCoppin Street is sufficient as it has traffic lights and canprovide a safe route for cyclists. Would prefer to see money

See response to 1.


15/52

Page 15 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers Responsespent on upgrading this existing infrastructure rather thancreating a new route.

43 Resident Docker StreetRichmond

Doesnt support the proposed height for developments as theyare inappropriate and destroy the amenity, skyline andstreetscapes. Believes three storeys should be the limit acrossthe whole area, and a referendum of residents should be heldto establish everyones views.

Also concerned about traffic management as congestion isgetting worse through bottlenecks at intersections, installationof median strips which reduce the number of lanes and trafficlights too close together.

Parking meters are too expensive and do not encourage retail.

Encouraging office and residential uses above shops and nearentertainment venues is good as long as the existing venuesare protected from complaints about noise and people traffic.

Hopes the Plan does not result in rate increases, if anythingcouncil should be trying to reduce rates.

The application of blanket mandatory heights isnot permissible under the current State planningprovisions. Background research and analysisidentified variances in built form and land usesacross the study area and supports the

identification of locations or precincts where furtherintensification is appropriate.


This issue is not within the scope of the structureplan.

Issues associated with entertainment uses areaddressed under Theme 1, Land Use.

Rate increases are outside the scope of the Plan.

44 Resident Query on timelines for the structure plan. Response provided.


Object to the proposal of a bike thoroughfare in Mary Street See response to 1.





48 Resident Mary Street

Richmond



Concerned about the proposed bicycle priority focus in MaryStreet and the impact it will have on available parking in bothMary Street and surrounding streets.

See response to 1.

50 Resident Petition Mary StreetResidents

Opposed to increased priority being given to cyclists in MaryStreet as it will make it extremely difficult to park near theirhomes. Parking is already in demand so if it becomes limited

See response to 1.


16/52

Page 16 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers Responseto one side of the road it would deny half the residents theability to park near their homes. This would reduce theirquality of life, the security of their cars and their sense ofwellbeing.Cyclists should be utilising Coppin Street as it is safer and hastraffic lights at Swan Street.

51 Resident Kelso Street

Cremorne

Thinks the draft is doing a great job.

Understands that the north side of Swan Street needs to be 4storeys for overshadowing reasons, but would like greaterheight on the southern side. Cremorne and Richmond Stationshould also have higher height limits, between 10-15 storeysdue to the proximity to the city, public transport and bike pathsand services.Traffic will always remain a problem, but that will just makeother forms of transport more attractive. Its more sustainableto have development here than on the fringe. Allowing morehousing in Cremorne will reduce the pressure on existingheritage areas, and therefore they can have lower heightcontrols in these areas.Structure plan should focus on good design outcomes rather

than heights as active interfaces and interesting architectureare of most importance.

Noted.

The role of a structure plan is to identify andmanage areas of change. It is agreed that thereare some locations within the study area wheregreater height would be appropriate having regardto such matters as access to public transport,existing character, size of land holdings and lackof heritage significance. These include RichmondStation Precinct, East Richmond Station, BurnleyStation, south side of Swan Street from RichmondStation Precinct to Burnley Street, Burnley StreetVillage and South Cremorne.Recommended Change: Increased preferredmaximum heights in nominated areas as shown in

Attachment 3.


Opposed to the proposed bike path in Mary Street as theremoval of 100 car parking spaces will result in congestion inthe neighbouring streets and the devaluing of their properties.

See response to 1.

53 Resident Abinger StreetRichmond

Concerned about the possible reduction in parking in MaryStreet. On street parking in Zone 7 is already congested andlimited so to remove more for a bike path would be illogical.Cant imagine the path would be heavily used anyway.Would like to see statistics on cyclist injuries heading North-South to justify the need to improve the bike paths, and as to

why Mary Street has been chosen over Coppin Street.

See response to 1.


Would like further clarification as to what is proposed in MaryStreet as if parking is to be removed then residents shouldhave been better consulted with.

See response to 1.


Supportive of a number of initiatives in the structure planincluding the upgrade of the railway overpass, introduction oftaxi ranks and works to improve the East Richmond Station

See response to 1.


17/52

Page 17 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers Responseprecinct.Not supportive of the proposed bike path in Mary Street asincreased bicycle traffic and reduced parking provision wouldresult in accidents.Would like Coppin Street used for cycle traffic instead as it iswider and would better accommodate a bike path, which coulddogleg around the Barkley Gardens to meet the Yarra Trail.

56 Resident Mary StreetRichmond Concerned about the how the proposed bicycle focus for MaryStreet would be implemented. The street is too narrow for atwo way bike path unless parking was removed, which wouldnot be supported by the residents. It would also potentiallyimpact on access for large vehicles (delivery trucks,emergency vehicles, construction vehicles etc) in the street.The narrowness of the footpaths would result in the bike lanebeing in close proximity to the front of houses, and thereforecould create conflict between pedestrians and cyclists.Council should assess shared access bicycle lanes in otherareas to determine their safety for cyclists, pedestrians andvehicles.

See response to 1.

57 Resident Sidwell StreetEast St Kilda

Railway overpass is an eyesore and provides a goodopportunity to be upgraded as it is a unique entryway andcould be used as for a garden setting. Included a draft designfor the overpass.

Proposed gateway design noted.


Opposed to the bike lane in Mary Street and the removal ofhalf the on street parking. This will impact on Mary Street andthe surrounding streets. It will also create safety issues due tothe speed cyclists travel at. Children and the elderly will be putat risk if bikes are able to travel in both directions.There is already a bike lane on Coppin Street so buildinganother one would be a waste of money.Disappointed in the lack of communication and transparency

around the proposal.

See response to 1.

59 Resident Elm GroveRichmond

Supportive of bike paths in general, but does not believe MaryStreet is the right location as the area is already under stressfor car traffic and parking. Coppin Street would be moresuitable.

See response to 1.


Believes it is unrealistic to use Mary Street as a bike route.There is already a shortage of on street parking due to the

See response to 1.


18/52

Page 18 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers Responsestreet also being used by visitors to Swan Street and thesporting precinct and the parking restrictions are rarelyenforced by inspectors.Would like to recommend the drainage to be improved in MaryStreet with kerb outstands converted into rain gardens. Couldalso consider making the east side of Mary Street from WallStreet to Swan Street, and the west side from Wall Street toBridge Road permit only parking.

61 Resident On behalf of:Mary StreetAged CareFacility

Concerned about the introduction of a bike lane in Mary Streetas it would cause safety issues due to the speed the bikestravel and the volume and frequency of bikes in the narrowstreet. Bikes should instead use Coppin StreetIt would also limit the parking available for their families whenthey come and visit.

See response to 1.


Opposed to the bike lane in Mary Street as it appears theimpact of the proposal has not been fully considered and therationale is solely driven by cyclists. The impact on parking forresidents would be significant on the wider area as it isalready limited. There are already bike paths in the area, such

as on Church Street.

See response to 1.

63 Resident/BodyCorporation

Tanner St,Margaret St &Stewart StRichmond

Caution against increased activity in the area bounded byStewart Street, Tanner Street, Wangaratta Street and PuntRoad.The development of Richmond Station should be finalisedbefore any other strategies are considered, and the impact ofthe sporting precinct on Swan Street cannot be over-emphasized.Commercial intrusion in Stewart Street should not be allowed.

Proposed development of Richmond Station isunder consideration by the State Government andit is not realistic to wait on that beforeimplementing the structure plan.

Stewart Street is already included in a Mixed UseZone where some forms of commercialdevelopment are already permissible.


Harcourt Parade,Cremorne

The designation of the subject site as within an area of artsand local creative industries should be removed as it is notconsistent with Amendment C130 which is currently proposedfor the site.

Noted. The proposal under consideration as partof C130 is not inconsistent with the arts focus.Council has now resolved not to support thatamendment to the Yarra Planning Scheme.


Concerned about the proposed bicycle throughway in MaryStreet as it is currently a quiet, one way street.Plan is unclear as to whether bicycle traffic would be one ortwo ways, and what this would mean in terms of on street

See response to 1.


19/52

Page 19 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers Responseparking.Coppin Street would be a better alternative, and access to theYarra trail could be made through the Alan Bain Reserve.


Concerned about the proposed changes to Mary Street asturning it into a bicycle thoroughfare will cause major parkingproblems, which is already at a premium.Bicycle use should be encouraged in the area, and Coppin

Street would be better suited to this kind of facility as it alreadyhas traffic lights at Swan Street and Bridge Road, and is awider street.

See response to 1.

67 Resident Malleson StreetRichmond

Opposed to changes in Mary Street that would alter trafficflows and make it more bike friendly. Removing parkingspaces will be problematic and difficult to enforce. Having carsparked on both sides provides a natural barrier and makes thestreet safer for children as it reduces the speed of cars.Allowing bikes to travel in both directions would encouragedrivers to do the same thing.Would not like to see the kerbside planting removed to allowfor a bike lane.

There is no need to make Mary Street bike friendly withCoppin Street so close by.

See response to 1.

68 Resident Charles StreetRichmond

Opposed to turning Mary Street into a bicycle friendlythoroughfare. The street is very narrow which could causeaccidents with cyclists and allowing cyclists to travel in bothdirections may confuse drivers. The removal of parking willcreate congestion problems in the area and cause families towalk long distances to their cars.There are already enough cycle paths in Richmond so there isno need for an additional one. Coppin Street should beupgraded instead.

See response to 1.


Object to the proposed changes to parking in Mary Street as itis already difficult to find parking in the area, particularly as itis not policed by parking inspectors.Mary Street is a quiet street so there is no reason why bikesshouldnt be able to travel in both directions without changingthe parking situation.

See response to 1.


Opposed to the removal of parking in Mary Street as theyalready experience increasing difficulty finding parking in the

See response to 1.


20/52

Page 20 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers Responsearea.


Object to the proposed bike lane in Mary Street as it willimpact on the safety and utility of the area.Having a two-way bike lane will cause conflict with cars andthere are no traffic lights at the intersection of Mary Street andSwan Street. The silence and speed of bikes will also cause asafety hazard, particularly for older people.

The reduction in car parking spaces to accommodate the bikelane will impact on the residents of the area.Coppin Street already has a bike lane and has traffic lights atSwan Street so should be utili sed instead.

See response to 1.


Proposal to remove parking on Mary Street to introduce a bikelane is unacceptable as the availability of on-street parking iscritical for residents. The Plan needs further clarification tooutline whether parking is to be removed, or if Mary Street willonly include way finding signage.Council should amend the Plan by removing Mary Street asthe nominated bicycle link and replacing it with Coppin Street.

See response to 1.


Received an anonymous letter about the proposal to removeparking in Mary Street and introduce a bicycle lane. Wantedclarification as to whether this was the case, as the map withinthe structure plan did not verify this claim. However, if it isproposed to remove parking for a bike lane then he wouldobject.

See response to 1.


Object to the proposal to turn Mary Street into a bicyclethoroughfare as it will drastically impact on the street. It is anarrow, one-way street and the residents need to haveparking on both sides. If this is removed then it will impact onthe residents of surrounding streets.

See response to 1.

75 Resident Balmain StreetCremorne

The Plan includes enhancing pedestrian access alongBalmain Street to connect the TAFE with Swan Street,however two issues need consideration. The street is heavilyutilised by cars, often at excessive speed between GreenStreet and Church Street, and the footpath under the railwayunderpass is narrow on both sides. Traffic calming is requiredon Green Street and the underpass could be better lit, andwith traffic calming measures.



21/52

Page 21 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers Response76 Planning

ConsultantOn behalf of amultiple landholder

The built form parameters will severely restrict viabledevelopment opportunities and therefore inhibit the provisionof more housing choice and the creation of local jobs, andtherefore not deliver on the additional floor space forecast foroffice, retail and restaurant sectors. Therefore, if the scale ofbuilt form remains as is proposed then the stated objectives ofthe structure plan will not be able to be achieved.The lack of identified strategic redevelopment sites in the area

is not reflective of the actual conditions in the area as thereare many sites that could be classified as underutilised,including along Church Street south of Swan Street and largerlandholdings in Cremorne. However even those sitesdesignated as underutilised still have proposed heights of 4-6storeys and therefore will have limited floor space.The key revitalisation areas around Richmond Station andEast Richmond Station includes land covered by heritagecontrols, and therefore the scale of development will be morelimited than on other less constrained land, which thereforewill not ensure height limits of 4-6 storeys are approved.As Swan Street is a Major Activity Centre the terminology oflow, mid rise and higher built form and the associated

preferred maximum height limits do not equate. The only siteidentified for higher built form is the Maltings Precinct, whichalready has approvals for development, despite there beingmany other sites that would be appropriate for a scale of thisnature and possibly higher. Therefore the building heights inthe draft would qualify as low-rise and these heights will dolittle to encourage redevelopment and hinder the achievementof several of the objectives of the Plan.There are inconsistencies between the strategies whichpromote further intensification etc and the heights proposed.The structure plan should have identified precincts with limitedconstraints and recommended built form outcomes thatencourage significant development.

The heights proposed in precincts 7, 8 and 9 do not make itworthwhile, from a financial perspective, to redevelop the land.Therefore the structure plan lacks credibility in terms of landprice and building and development costs in the area. This willlimit the potential for change to upgrade, enhance andrevitalise the study area.Council needs to indicate what zones it may consider in theCremorne area to accompany the land use framework plan.

The role of a structure plan is to identify andmanage areas of change. It is agreed that thereare some locations within the study area wheregreater height would be appropriate having regardto such matters as access to public transport,existing character, size of land holdings and lackof heritage significance. These include RichmondStation Precinct, East Richmond Station, Burnley

Station, south side of Swan Street from RichmondStation Precinct to Burnley Street, Burnley StreetVillage and South Cremorne.

The identification of future strategic redevelopmentsites will be considered as part of theimplementation plan.

Recommended Change:

Increase preferred maximum heights innominated areas as shown in Attachment 3.

Revise Plan to ensure consistency.

Noted. Economic analysis of development costsnot considered within the scope of the Plan.

Specific zones will be considered at theimplementation stage.


22/52

Page 22 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers Response77 Resident Elm Grove,

RichmondOpposed to the proposed bike lane in Mary Street as it isalready a struggle to find parking and the bike lane will onlyadd congestion as Mary Street residents will have to lookelsewhere for parking.

See response to 1.

78 Resident/Business Hill StreetCremorne

Pleased Council is addressing plans for the development ofthe area.Concerned that their property is not included in the area

planned for office focus with residential component as theyare near existing residences and would like to redevelop theirwarehouse to include artist studios, apartments and galleries.Believe that this is closely aligned with the Plan except thattheir property is a short distance from the proposed art routeand the zone where residential would be permitted. Theybelieve Hill Street is a perfect location for developments with amix of retail at ground level with 4-5 storeys ofresidential/home office/studios above, which would contributeto the vibrancy of the local community.Concerned that large developers will turn the area into asterile location by obtaining permits through VCAT whichvastly exceed the preferred heights for the area.

Concerned about how the Plan is going to be implementedand how they can start to realise the objectives of the Plan.Would like to see the structure plan used as a guide to ensuredevelopment is taking the general direction agreed on but notas a rigid set of regulations whereby streets adjacent to thoseintended to be part of the arts precinct cannot also beconsidered.

Area designated as office focus with residentialcomponent requires further detailed analysis atimplementation stage to identify individual sites

that may be potential strategic redevelopmentsites. Broad rezoning of this precinct is not underconsideration.

Noted. That is a matter which would be consideredat the implementation stage.


Concerned about the proposed green link in Mary Street asthe only feasible way to implement it would be the removal ofparking on one or both sides of the street to turn it into bikelanes. This will reduce parking for residents of Mary Streetand the surrounds and have a significant impact on their

amenity and the value of their homes.Encouraging the use of Mary Street as a thoroughfare willincrease the flow of people and therefore noise pollution andreduce the enjoyment of their homes.There are already delays turning out of Mary Street into SwanStreet and encouraging pedestrians and cyclists to use thestreet will make this worse. It would also be unsafe.Coppin Street already has a bike lane so it would beunnecessary to make Mary Street a green link also.

See response to 1.


23/52

Page 23 of 52


80 Resident Francis StreetRichmond

Concerned about the proposed bicycle focus in Mary Street asthe installation of a two-way bike path would require theremoval of approximately 100 car parking spaces. It is alreadydifficult to find a parking space, particularly close to BridgeRoad or Swan Street. The removal of parking would forceMary Street residents to park on surrounding streets which arealready overcrowded.

The construction of more speed humps in Mary Street wouldslow down motorists and would make conditions safer forcyclists travelling in either direction.

See response to 1.


Concerned about the safety of bike riders and drivers if MaryStreet gets the proposed bike lane as the street is narrow.Cyclists currently ride without helmets and lights, on thefootpath as the street is narrow and the wrong way down thestreet and this will only get worse.

See response to 1.

82 Business Bridge Road,Richmond

Seeking clarification about the proposal for Mary Street andwhether parking is to be removed. If so this would causefrustration for residents on Mary Street and side streets as

there would be increased pressure and competition for carparking spaces.

See response to 1.

83 Resident Mary Street Note that there are great ideas and focuses in the Plan thatwould benefit Richmond.Concern about the bike priority route for Mary Street andwhether it would require the removal of existing street parking.Would object to any lessening of parking as a reduction wouldimpact the street and its residents.

See response to 1.


On behalf of:Swan StreetRichmond

Supportive of the overall objectives of the structure planhowever concerned about the preferred maximum buildingheight identified for the site.

Have strong reservations about the preferred maximumbuilding heights for the three t rain stations as they areinconsistent with State and local planning policies whichencourage higher density development on lands which arewell served by public transport. The proposed heights do notfail to respond to the development potential of the land nor dothey achieve the policy aims around integration of transportand land use. This will limit the ability of the activity centre tobecome a focal point for housing, transport and economic

Noted.

The role of a structure plan is to identify andmanage areas of change. It is agreed that thereare some locations within the study area wheregreater height would be appropriate having regardto such matters as access to public transport,existing character, size of land holdings and lackof heritage significance. These include RichmondStation Precinct, East Richmond Station, BurnleyStation, south side of Swan Street from Richmond


24/52

Page 24 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers Responseactivities as envisaged. These heights should be replaced withan approach based on the context of the site, its ability toabsorb additional height, the merit of the design proposed andits ability to contribute positively to the character of the area.Support Councils commitment to providing a signaturebuilding on or adjacent to each of the train stations, butconsider it would be better suited to land surrounding therailway stations instead. With regards to Burnley Station, it has

constraints which limit its potential to develop a signaturebuilding, including the limited development area, poorpedestrian environment, location away from Swan Street, theimpact on residents to the south and the cost of developing onthe station.Believe their site provides an opportunity for a signaturebuilding as it is accessible from all forms of public transportand provides pedestrian connectivity, is a large site, hasexposure to both Swan Street and Burnley Street and wouldprovide a recognisable reference point for Burnley Station,whilst connecting the station back with Swan Street. It is alsoremoved from any sensitive interfaces. Developing this site asthe signature building would be consistent with many of the

objectives of the structure plan and therefore the proposedsignature building should be allocated to this site.Council should support an increased building height anddensity on the subject site in order to encourage adevelopment outcome which is able to achieve the objectivesof Council for the area. The viability of providing a high qualitybuilt form solution for the site is directly influenced by the sitespotential yield, and 5-6 storeys would not achieve this.

Station Precinct to Burnley Street, Burnley StreetVillage and South Cremorne.

The identification of future strategic redevelopmentsites will be considered as part of theimplementation plan.

Recommended Change:Increase preferred maximum heights in nominatedareas as shown in Attachment 3.

The Plan identifies the Burnley Station as anopportunity for a new signature building.

85 Resident On behalf of:Golden SquareResidents Group

Swan Street is virtually two storey with the occasional threestorey building the entire length and it has had this low scalefaade for more than a century. We should be protecting thestrip at this scale, not developing it up to four stories.

There is a row of cottages on the corner of Burnley and SwanStreets that are included in the key revitalisation area thatshould not be given over to high rise, and high densitydevelopment.

Swan Street does not reflect a consistent builtform pattern. There are variances in built form andland uses along the length of Swan Street thatrequire more detailed consideration with respect to

future development opportunities.

The annotation in relation to revitalisation needs tobe read in conjunction with the Built FormFramework Plan which does not identify majorchange to built form in the area described.

86 Resident Disapproves of the proposed Mary Street bicycle friendlythoroughfare as it will significantly reduce parking spaces

See response to 1.


25/52

Page 25 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers Responsewhich are already difficult to find, particularly when there is anevent at the MCG. It would also devalue the properties.


Believes people in the wider area will be disadvantaged ifparking is removed for a bike lane in Mary Street as it isalready hard to find parking spaces.Would like both sides of Charles Street to be made permit onlyparking (currently one side is permit and the other is 2 hours).

See response to 1.

88 Resident Francis StreetRichmond

Concerned about the proposed bike path in Mary Street ascannot see how it could be implemented without the removalof parking and garden beds.The idea of a bike lane is good, but not along Mary Street.

See response to 1.


Concerned about the conversion of Mary Street into a cyclepath. It is already difficult to find a park so losing half theparking spaces would have huge implications.

See response to 1.


In favour of a bike focus for Mary Street. Would like itimplemented to retain the one-way flow for cars, retain theparking install signs saying one way, bicycles excepted and

bicycles have priority, install additional speed humps andpaint a green strip on the east side of the street that is one-way north and on the west half of the street that is one-waysouth to support bicycle priority flow.Could also consider implementing short sections withoutparking with a centre median strip to allow cars to pull overand allow oncoming bicycle traffic to pass through.

See response to 1.


Against a new cycle lane down Mary Street due to the loss ofparking and the problems this would cause.Would prefer cyclists to continue to use Coppin Street.

See response to 1.

92 Resident Mary Street

Richmond

Believes the idea of developing a bike path in Mary Street is a

waste of money as there are no real issues with the currentsystem, except that it is dangerous to cross Swan Street andBridge Road from Mary Street as there are no traffic lights.Better to improve the existing bike lane on Coppin Street as italready has traffic lights. Large trucks should be banned fromusing the street.Parking on Mary Street is already at capacity and adding abike lane will only add further pressure.

See response to 1.


26/52

Page 26 of 52


RichmondWould not object to improved bicycle signage, but wouldobject to the removal of parking or trees, the introduction of atwo-way path/priority for bikes or bicycle traffic lights at anyintersections.Coppin Street already has a bike lane and traffic lights andshould be the focus for cyclists wishing to get onto the CapitalCity Trail.

See response to 1.

94 Resident Mary StreetRichmond Unclear as to how the Plan will impact on Mary Street, but hasbeen told it will drastically reduce parking spaces. Would notsupport the loss of parking spaces but is all for bicycle lanes,improved lighting etc. Would like to see if there is a moresuitable street, such as Coppin Street, or if the bike lane couldbe implemented without the loss of parking.

See response to 1.


Strongly objects to turning Mary Street into a bicycle friendlythoroughfare.

See response to 1.


Opposed to a bike lane in Mary Street as it will drasticallyreduce the already limited parking.Would like to know if Council would provide financial

compensation to property owners if the proposed bicycle laneimpacts on property values.

See response to 1.


Objects to Mary Street becoming a bike thoroughfare as it willseverely decrease the already limited parking spaces. As MaryStreet is a quiet street with speed bumps there is no dangerwith cars and bikes sharing the road as it is.Coppin Street would be a better alternative for a redevelopedbike lane.

See response to 1.

98 Resident Bell StreetRichmond

Appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback.Concerned about the lack of high school options for boys inRichmond and has seen little evidence that there is any

meaningful coordination between Council, State Governmentdepartments and the federal government.Encouraged to see the need for a secondary school inRichmond was acknowledged in the structure plan and wouldbe happy to contribute to a further discussion on the issue.

Whilst the Plan acknowledges the lack of asecondary school in the area, the establishment ofa school within the study area is outside the scope

of the Plan.

99 Resident Malleson StreetRichmond

Objects to the proposal to convert one side of Mary Street intoa bicycle lane.It will increase the likelihood of accidents and cars will travel at

See response to 1.


27/52

Page 27 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers Responsehigher speeds without the barrier of cars parked on both sides.It will also widen the street and increase the incidence of carsand trucks travelling the wrong way. The increased speed ofcars will also reduce the amenity of the area due to theincreased noise levels.The impact of removing parking will be significant on otherstreets in the area as parking is already at a premium. It willalso have an adverse impact on property prices.

Would be more appropriate to implement this on CoppinStreet as it is wider and will have less detriment to thecommunity.Council should put its resources into policing people drivingthe wrong way down one way streets and reducing the speedat which people drive down Malleson Street.


Not in favour of the proposal for Mary Street in any form.Does not want any parking removed as it is already difficult tofind due to the large apartment buildings being developed, andpatrons from venues on Bridge Road parking in the street.Issues of noise, rubbish etc f rom patrons leaving alcoholpremises on Bridge Road an issue, particularly in the rear

laneway.No-one polices the bike riders from riding illegally.Coppin Street would be a much better alternative.

See response to 1.

101 Resident Land UseShould encourage the use of retail spaces to create a designprecinct. Richmond already has a reputation as a designsuburb but this should be solidified with support from Council.Should encourage the establishment of a design centre or adesign cultivation centre for kids. Edgy design elements couldbe incorporated into buildings, pavement and lighting.Built FormArea between Church Street and Brighton Street should be

limited to 4 storeys. The entire area bounded by Church,Swan and the Yarra is a heritage precinct and having 6storeys is inappropriate. Maintaining 3 storeys on the east sideof Church Street is great, however the available blocksbetween the Yarra and Swan Street are very large so evenwith visually recessive upper levels they will create bulky anddomineering buildings. This will destroy the character of thestreet.Concerned about opportunities for signature buildings with

Objective 1 & 2 under the Land Use themeprovides encouragement for independent fashionand local retailers to have a stronger presence inSwan Street although Councils role in relation tothis issue is limited.

Future development proposals will be considered

against relevant policy provisions, includingheritage policy considerations. The Built FormObjectives for Precinct 8 respond to theseconcerns.

Figure 9 Built Form Plan nominates important


28/52

Page 28 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers Responsehigher built form and what this will mean.

Public SpacesVery few public spaces so it would be good to create moreinteresting access to the Yarra River, potentially by upgradingthe walkway at Mary Street. Barkly Gardens would make afantastic design garden with contemporary landscaping and a

showcase for public sculptures. Would be good to haveaccess from Richmond to Herring Island which currentlybelongs to South Yarra.The eastern side of Church Street between the Yarra andSwan Street and the southern side of Swan between PuntRoad and Church Street have great characteristics that evokethe vibe of the laneways in the city and should be capitalisedfor interesting design spaces.

components of signature buildings including highquality architecture and unique, active uses atground level.

Improvements to the public domain are consideredunder Public Spaces.

A number of ideas are included in the Plan toenhance civic spaces and showcase local arts.See Figure 10, Public Spaces.

102 Resident Objects to Mary Street being used as a bike thoroughfare as itis already overcrowded by people parking there to visit BridgeRoad. Council should be developing creative ways to increaseparking spaces to reduce congestion, rather than taking them

away for bike lanes.Issues with litter, violence, damage to cars and noise frompeople leaving venues on Bridge Road on Thursday, Fridayand Saturday nights.

See response to 1.

103 Resident Melrose StreetCremorne

Concerned about the height limits in Precinct 6 (Punt Roadedge) and precinct 7 (Cremorne). Like the requirementsaround sensitive edges, the low to mid rise scale and the needto have upper level setbacks as these justly imply protectionfor their property from large developments. However believethe 5-6 height with a transition to 2-3 storeys at the rear that isdesignated for Precinct 6 should be repeated in Precinct 7 andPrecinct 9. The 5-6 storey height limit is too high for Punt

Road anyway and it should be reduced to 4 storeys to avoidcreating a canyon like feeling for residents to the rear.Strongly support the idea of utilising the existing car park atKangan TAFE as open space, it is what the area needs as it isseverely lacking in accessible open space.Would also like to suggest the land on the south corner ofGough and Cremorne Streets could present an opportunity forsemi enclosed public open space.

The Plan specifies 5-6 storeys along Punt Roadfrontage, transitioning to 2-3 storeys at rear.This is to support a reinvigorated precinctcomprising medium scale, well-designeddevelopment designed to support mixedcommercial and residential uses that wouldenhance pedestrian amenity at street level andensure development transitions in scale to

adjoining residential areas fronting WellingtonStreet to protect amenity.

Precinct 7 provides a variety of built form and sitesthat vary in size and does not offer the samecontext as Precinct 6. Therefore a differentapproach is warranted. Precinct 9 (Maltings) isalready subject to a Comprehensive DevelopmentZone which specifies built form requirements,


29/52

Page 29 of 52


Enhanced street greening and proposed green links areexcellent, however should also link with a new pedestriancrossing over Punt Road to create a pedestrian friendly axisdown Blanche Street between Goschs paddock and theKangan open space.Strongly support objectives around housing options offering

accessibility to all as maintaining the diversity in the area isimportant.

including height.

Noted.

Noted.

104 Resident Bunting StreetRichmond

Limited meter parking should be installed along Swan Streetand the surrounds to stop people parking in the area to get tothe sporting precinct.Many of the one-way streets are used by vehicles going thewrong way which is very dangerous. Larger signage and moreenforcement are required.New multi-level apartments should be required to providesufficient parking including visitor parking. They should alsoprovide outdoor areas for residents and not build over thecomplete footprint.

Need stricter rules about footpath trading as access for pramsand wheelchairs is very difficult due to tables, bill boards etc.

Regularly broken bottles and rubbish on the pavement nearhotels and fast food outlets so stricter enforcement needs tobe introduced.

Public open space is limited and whilst the idea of sharedmulti-purpose roof spaces may be good for the residents ofthat particular building they can cause privacy issues forsurrounding buildings and residents.

Some modern building styles and cheap constructiontechniques look sad after a few years of weathering.

Idea of having fresh food shops is appealing but the v iability ofit surviving in competition to the supermarket is reduced.

Imposing of height limits on both sides of Swan Street shouldbecome law to avoid compromise from different agendas such

The allocation of parking and t raffic enforcementare not within the scope of a structure plan.

The provision of parking in association with newdevelopment is part of the planning permitapplication process.

Footpath trading is managed in accordance withCouncils Footpath Trading Policy.Not within scope of the Plan


Overlooking is considered as part of planningapplication process.

Building materials are not within scope of the Plan.

The establishment of fresh food retailers isencouraged under Theme 1, Land Use, Objective1.

Whilst preferred maximum heights are nominatedin the Plan, the Victoria Planning system does not


30/52

Page 30 of 52

Name Address Summary of Submission Officers Responseas developers and the State Government.

The existing Victorian-era buildings should be preserved asexamples of the history of Richmond. Heritage Overlays inpractice do not save or preserve a building from developmentor destruction.

Increasing the height of buildings east of Burnley Street to 5-6storeys is excessive and will be overbearing and contribute toamenity issues.Tram super stops are not viable as Swan Street is too narrow.

provide any opportunity to apply mandatory heightcontrols.

A large area at the western end of the Study areais covered by a Heritage Overlay. The heritagevalues of the area have been considered duringthe development of the Plan.

The Built Form Objectives relating to Precinct 3include ensuring that new development sensitivelyresponds to adjoining low-scale residential areas.A new style of easy access tram stop is currentlybeing considered for Bridge Road and may besuitable in Swan Street.


On behalf of:Gwynne StreetCremorne

Generally supportive of the indicative built form outcomesenvisaged for Cremorne. Supportive of the discretionaryapproach over arbitrary mandatory provisions and hope anyfuture planning provisions will reflect this.Understand that the future evolution of the precinct is foroffice, educational and arts-related activities and believe that

residential land use is compatible with this direction, so itwould be short sighted to prevent all future residential use inthe precinct. Particularly as an element of residentialdevelopment is likely to be the major catalyst for urbanrenewal in the area.Oppose the continued use of the Business 3 Zone as it willprevent the sort of reinvestment required to make Cremorne avibrant and successful mixed use precinct where employment,educational and accommodation used can complement oneanother.Aware that none of the generic VPP zones adequatelyencourage employment uses whilst also enabling residentialdevelopment in a manner that doesnt prejudice the ongoing

operations of existing or potential non-residential activities inthe area. Therefore propose a Special Use Zone based on theBusiness 2 Zone, with dwellings prohibited unless:- the dwelling is not located on the ground or first floor toensure active commercial frontages and a reasonableproportion of employment floor space per site- the dwelling is designed to protect the future amenity ofresidents against potential emissions created by employmentand other uses.

Noted.

The Cremorne area is one of Yarras fewemployment precincts and in order to ensure that

the area continues to support land uses whichgenerate employment it will be important to applya zoning which encourages that and does notallow residential use to dislocate employmentrelated uses.


31/52

Page 31 of 52


The strategic, contextual and location attributes of Cremorneare too valuable to waste and with careful planning and designresidential developments could be incorporated. Urge Councilto think outside the square and contemplate the formulation ofa non-generic zone.

106 Environmental

Community Group

Swan Street precinct presents a major opportunity to

showcase best practice in respect to carbon constrainedurban dev

Documents

Save Dimmeys. Swan St Structure Draft Attachment 2 - Summary of Submissions