THE DIMMEYS SITE, 140-160 SWAN STREET, RICHMOND

Declaration of Involvement

Sometime in the recent past, possibly late 2009 or early 2010, I was asked by aconsultant to the Applicant to look at a design proposal for this site as he wasconcerned about the quality of the work. I looked at the work which was materiallydifferent from the current proposal in that it was positioned differently on the site andhad a different form - and offered advice to the effect that more experiencedarchitects should be bought in to work with the project architect. The advice wasrefused. I did not charge for the advice and have had no further contact with theApplicant.

ARCHITECTURE

In reaching my views about this proposal, I have had regard to clause 15 of the VPPsand particularly the strategies and objectives of clause 15.01-2. Relevantly, theobjectives of this clause provides:

ObjectiveTo achieve architectural and urban design outcomes that contribute positivelyto local urban character and enhance the public realm while minimisingdetrimental impact on neighbouring properties.

The relevant strategies require the decision maker to apply various design principlesto residential and non-residential developments not covered by clauses 54 or 56. Ofthose objectives, I consider that the follov4ng are relevant to this proposal:

ContextDevelopment must take into account the natural, cultural and strategiccontext of its location.Planning authorities should emphasise urban design policies andframeworks for key locations or precincts.A comprehensive site analysis should be the starting point of the designprocess and form the basis for consideration of height, scale and massingof new development.

The public realmThe public realm, which includes main pedestrian spaces, streets,squares, parks and walkways, should be protected and enhanced.

Landmarks, views and vistasLandmarks, views and vistas should be protected and enhanced or,where appropriate, created by new additions to the built environment.

[5779069: 8069998_I]

2!

(5779069: 8069998_I]

Pedestrian spacesDesign of interfaces between buildings and public spaces, including thearrangement of adjoining activities, entrances, windows, andarchitectural detailing, should enhance the visual and social experienceof the user.

HeritageNew development should respect, but not simply copy, historicprecedents and create a worthy legacy for fUture generations.

Consolidation of sites and empty sitesNew development should contribute to the complexity and diversity ofthe built environment.Site consolidation should not result in street frontages that are out ofkeeping with the complexity and rhythm of existing streetscapes.The development process should be managed so that sites are not in anunattractive, neglected state for excessive periods and the impacts fromvacant sites are minimised.

Light and shadeEnjoyment of the public realm should be enhanced by a desirablebalance of sunlight and shade.This balance should not be compromised by undesirable overshadowingor exposure to the sun.

Energy and resource efficiencyAll building, subdivision and engineering works should include efficientuse of resources and energy efficiency.

Architectural qualityNew development should achieve high standards in architecture andurban design.Any rooftop plant, lift over-runs, service entries, communicationdevices, and other technical attachment should be treated as part of theoverall design.

This site is of particular import, not only to residents of Richmond but to Melburniansgenerally, and not only because of its heritage status. The attachment is emotional asmuch as it might derive from Dimmey's age or design; this can be illustrated by theinterest generated in newspapers when any development proposal has been aired forthe site. The shop, and most particularly it's tower, is a focal point of Swan Street andit matters to people. So the opportunity to add to the existing building carries with itsome heavy responsibilities.

3/

The City of Yana Draft Swan Street Structure Plan (May 2011) lists a number ofBuilt Form Objectives which, among others, require actives edges, sunlight in thepublic realm, high quality buildings at key gateway locations, ease of pedestrianmovement, upper level setbacks and accessible and affordable housing.

The City of Yarra Draft Urban Design Strategy (January 2011) lists as one of its KeyObjectives: 'Design Excellence in new Developments'. Under this heading, the Cityaspires to: Achieving higher quality architectural design in buildings', and'Identifying sites that require special design considerations'. A following KeyObjective is to develop 'Processes and Practices that promote good design'.

All of these Objectives are admirable and are now standard in urban place makingdocuments. But the one requirement which is essential to making a remarkable andlong term contribution to the built environment - high quality architecture - is neitherdefined nor developed.

I acknowledge that many believe that the difference between good and badarchitecture is simply "a matter of taste" and, further, that there is often a reluctanceto admit that a body of knowledge exists which can easily separate bad architecturefrom good architecture. But I believe there is and so I will attempt briefly to outlinethe issues that, within the many strands of design approaches, separate goodarchitecture from either ordinary or bad architecture.

I want to emphasise that it is not a matter of liking or disliking a particular building.One can look at a building and understand and admire what the architect intended toachieve and yet still see the building as not fulfilling its potential or failing in someway. But it will be clear that the design has been driven by commitment to a strongidea.

The first approach in the development of a design is to address both site and purpose.These are givens in all design but the skill underpinning the design will be in theexploration and development of a strong idea. This idea might be within a stream ofarchitecture - say, for example, modernism or post-modernism. Or it may be anapproach which explores or even comments on ideas within a strand of our society'sculture - painting, sculpture, theatre or literature- or an investigation of a scientific ormathematical programme. Or it might be a strong response to an extraordinary site.The key is that the architect has pursued an idea which the building seeks to express.

[5779069: 80699981]

4/

The design of this proposal for 140 Swan Street is, sadly, driven by no idea - strongor otherwise. The proposal is, as a piece of architecture, banal. The proportions areill considered and the form and materials more appropriate to a commercial use.

All the drawings titled "Artist's Impression" clearly indicate the enormity, theunacceptable bulk of this proposal. The views from:

DandoStreet#1 &2,Swan Street NE corner of the site,The NE corner of Swan and Church,Stanley Street # I & 2,Swan and Botherambo Streets,Swan & Stewarts Streets,Swan street from the football precinct,White Street,Railway Crescent,East Richmond Station, andThe East Richmond Station Overpass

all indicate a proposal that is not only ill-suited in scale and form to Richmond butto inner Melbourne as a whole. The artist's impressions for this proposal show abuilding which is visually similar to a glazed gasometer.

Now, there are older industrial structures in Richmond which are round in whole or inpart so there are references for the shape But the proportions of this proposal arequite wrong; it lacks the requisite slenderness to make it an elegant component of thisparticular streetscape. The eastern and the western elevations, those most exposed toview, have no finesse in their scale. This proposal could work reasonably well in anouter suburban office park where there are landscaped areas between buildings, but inthis tight inner urban setting, I believe it would be irreparably damaging to theexisting character. In planning terminology, its bulk is ill-suited to its immediate andwider location.

As a response to its site and to its proposed residential use, the proposal is far fromsuccessfiñ. I will now address a number of issues which are crucial design and urbandesign considerations in assessing this residential proposal:

1. I find it difficult to understand the approach taken to siting this highly glazedbuilding at the angle chosen. Only two apartments per floor in the tower havenorth light and one of those has north west light. Two apartments would besubject to seriously hot western sun and two would have even, dull south light.Another approach to siting such a tower could probably have offered northlight to at least half of the apartments per floor.

(5779069: 6069998_Il

5/

The entry foyer to the residential tower is a long and a fairly miserablecorridor with mail boxes adjacent to the lift. This implies there is no secureentry to the tower. Good residential towers require pleasant and secure foyerswhich give residents a sense of 'being at home'. There should be some senseof space and easily accessible and secure mail delivery.

There is only one lift for what would be 80-90 apartments. What happens ifthere are problems with this one lift - a not unusual occurrence?

4 Waste removal must be by a commercial operator to avoid destroying streetswith dozens of rubbish bins.

HEIGHTI believe that in this matter there is a responsibility to discuss the issue of height. TheCouncil has recently resolved that a preferred height of 4 storeys apply to thisdevelopment. I believe this to be unrealistic as it would virtually prohibit anydevelopment over the existing heritage building. I consider the existing 4 storeys berevisited.

There are a number of factors which assist in determining the best height for abuilding on this or any site:

Site locationSite orientation and overshadowing impactsOptimum number of car spaces

As a rule I do not favour the notion of deciding on a suitable height for a site byplucking a height out of the air. When assessing proposed projects, I generally workthrough (i) - (iii) above.

At the heart of any height discussion is the recognition that taller buildings are alwaysmore visible. And what follows that understanding has to be a requirement that thebuilding be so well designed that the contribution it makes to the skyline is a goodone.

Site Location

Is the site in a residential street or a mixed retail/commercial area? What are theneighbouring properties? Is the area under change? In the case of the subject site at140-160 Swan Street, Richmond, my preferred approach would be as follows.

This site on Swan Street is a good location for an increase in density of retail,commercial and residential uses. The public transport is excellent, the site is adjacentto the central City and it's a popular and easily accessible destination for Melburniansand visitors. As the existing building is of historic importance, a careflilly considered,and sited higher density development above it would be advantageous to improvingthe retail, commercial and residential possibilities of Swan Street.

So in terms of considering its location, I see this site as able to hold some height.

(5779069: 8069996_i]

6/

Orientation and Overshadowing

The orientation of a site is of central importance. In the most simplistic example, asite on the north side of a street could cast shade over the footpath and street and sothe height of a project would be determined by a concern to protect the amenity andpleasure of the street. The width of the street would also be a matter to be consideredas, if the street were wide, it could be seen that shade between noon and 3pm on oneside of the street would be acceptable as long as sunlight were maintained on the otherfootpath.

The subject site, which is on the south side of Swan Street is ideal as shade will not becast over the desirable and busy destination of Swan Street. Additionally, the railwaybehind the site gives an expanded area for shadow to fall before it could impact onpublic or private amenity south of the railway.

The provision of car parking

Parking provision is mainly a cohtributor to detefmining height for residential projectsin residential areas; if the site and project can absorb basement parking withoutadversely impacting on neighbouring properties, then that is ideal and the number ofspaces it is possible to achieve will assist in determining the maximum number ofunits a site can hold. If at grade and above ground parking is being considered it isimportant that it is edged with other uses or extremely visually interesting andcomplex architectural detailing. Access to and egress from car parking must offersafety to pedestrians at street level.

After assessing the proposal under the height criteria listed, I have no difficulty withheight on this site as, on my reading of the material and observations of thesurrounding area, the height would not detrimentally impact on sunlight in the publicdomain.

SUMMARY

In summary, while I consider the site able to hold a building of some height, thearchitectural design, and the bulk and scale of this proposal are so poor that I believeit would be irreparably visually damaging to Richmond and to the wider areas of innerMelbourne were it to be built.

(5779069: 8069998_lI

DIMITY ALEXANDRIA REED

Professional qualifications:B/Architecture, University of MelbourneMaster Architecture RMITLife Fellow, Royal Australian Institute of Architects

Current appointments:Design Advisor, Revitalisation of Central DandenongPrincipal, Dimity Reed and Associates, Architecture, Planning, Urban DesignArchitecture & Urban Design Adviser, VicUrbanChair, Frankston Design Panel established by DSE and Frankston City CouncilTrustee, Shrine of Remembrance, 2000 presentCity of Melboume's Ambassador for Architecture 1998 - presentPatron, Queen Victoria Womens' Centre, 1994- presentMember, Heritage Panel, VicTrackPrevious appointments:Professor of Urban Design, RMIT University (ret'd)President, Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Victoria, 1984-1986Architecture Commentator, ABC Radio.Member, Design, Amenity and Integration Panel, Melbourne Docklands 1987-2003Member, Design, Amenity and Integration Panel, VicUrban 2003 - 2006Board Member, Zoos Victoria, 1999 2007Board Member, Urban and Regional Land Corporation, 2002 2003Member, Drainage and Waterways Committee, Melbourne Water 2001-2007Member, Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Planning Division.Past President, Royal Australian Institute of Architects Victorian ChapterBoard Member, Fringe Festival 1994-1999Chair, Victorian Council of the Arts, 1985-1992Board Member, Y.W.C.A. 1978-2000Member, Melbourne City Council Housing Advisory CommitteeBoard Member, Renewable Energy AuthorityMember, Ministerial Advisory Committee on Qood Built Form and Design OutcomesMember, Federal Government Urban Reform Working Party 1992-1996Chair or Member, Ministerial Planning Panels and Ministerial Advisory Committees

Instructions which defined the scope of this report:I have been requested by Minter Ellison Lawyers, on behalf of the permit applicant, The BalfourDevelopment Group, to provide advice concerning design issues relating to the proposeddevelopment of the vacant site at 17 Ellesmere Road, Windsor, and to prepare a statement ofevidence on the architectural and urban design responseFacts, matters and assumptions relied upon:

inspections of the subject site and surrounding area.Meetings and discussions with the Architects and Planning Consultantsreview of plans prepared in relation to the proposal.review of officer's report and other file material.

Documents taken into account:Planning Application documents and plans.

Areas of expertise;Urban Design, ArchitectureExpertise to prepare this reportFollowing extensive work over many years as Chair and Member of the Melbourne DocklandsDesign, Amenity and Integration Panel, and following that Authority's amalgamation with theUrban and Regional Land Corporation (of which I was a Board Member) to become VicUrban, Iwas appointed Design Adviser to VicUrban.My major role with VicLJrban is as Design Advisor to the 5290m State Government Revitalisationof Central Dandenong.In 2004, the Department of Sustainability and Environment with the City of Frankston appointedme as Chair of the Frankston Advisory Panel to oversee all public and private developmentinitiatives in Frankston. This appointment is ongoing. I am currently involved, for DPCD, in workon Footseray, Broadmeadows and Geelong.Identity of persons undertaking the work:The author

Summary of Opinions:Refer to report.Attachment 1 provides a summary of my professional qualifications and experience in accordancewith VCAT Practice Note 2I have made all reasonable enquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and that nomatters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from theTribunal.Dimity Reed AM

ATTACHMENT 1

DIMITY ALEXANDRIA REED6/77 Caroline Street, SOUTH YARRA 3141Professional qualifications:

B/Architecture, University of Melbourne

Master Architecture RMITLife Fellow, Royal Australian Institute of Architects

Private PracticePrincipal, Dimity Reed and Associates Architecture, Urban Design, Design Analysis, Advice &Commentary (1977- present)

Professional Experience:Head, Department of Design & Professor of Urban Design, RMIT (1992-2001)Adjunct Professor Urban Design, RMIT (2001 - present)Member, Docklands Consultation Steering Committee 1988-1990Chair: Design Advisory Panel to the Melbourne Docklands Authority 1990- 1995Member, Design, Amenity and Integration Panel, Docklands 1995-2003Design Advisor, Revitalisation of Central Dandenong 2006,present

Professional ContributionsPresident, Royal Australian Institute of Architects (Victorian Chapter 1984-1986)Awarded Life Fellowship of the R.A.1.A. (1992)Co-ordinator Melbourne Architecture Foundation (2001- present)Part time Member, Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Planning Division (1989 1994)Chair or Member of Panels hearing proposed Amendments to Planning Schemes 1984-2005General Manager, Housing Services, Ministry of Housing. (1982-1984)Chief Executive, White Paper Secretariat: The Victorian Govemments White Paper on Housing (1981 -1982)Commissioner, the Housing Commission of Victoria (1978-1982)Chairman of Directors, Archicentre Pt/Ltd (1980-1984)Co-ordinator of the pilot Victorian programme (1979) and the National programme (1980) of theArchitecture in Schools programme (1979-1981)Founding member of the Association of Women in Architecture. (1978)Board Member, The Young Womens Christian Association (1978 2000)Architect with Kevin Borland and Associates (1972-1977)

Criticism & CommentaryUrban Design commentator, The Age, (1988- present)Architecture writer, Herald Sun, 1982-1988Editor, Architect (1984-86)Editor, Building Today (1992-94)Editor, Antipodesign (1994-1996)Deakin Lecturer, Festival of Federation (2001)

Local GovernmentCouncillor, City of St Kilda (1992-1994)Commissioner, City of Moreland (1994- 1996)

Current appointments:Design Advisor in the Revitalisation of Central DandenongPrincipal, Dimity Reed and Associates, Architecture, Urban DesignArchitecture & Urban Design Adviser, VicUrbanChair, Frankston Design Panel established by DSE and Frankston City CouncilChair, Geelong Design Panel established by DSE and Geelong City CouncilTrustee, Shrine of Remembrance, 2000 presentDesign Advisor, Municipal Association of VictoriaCity of Melbourne's Ambassador for Architecture 1998 - presentChair or Member, Ministerial Planning Panels and Ministerial Advisory CommitteesPatron, Queen Victoria Womens' Centre, 1994- presentMember, Heritage Panel, VicTrack

Previous appointments:Member, Federal Government Urban Reform Working Party 1992-1996Architecture Commentator, ABC Radio.Chair, Design, Amenity and Integration Panel, Docklands 1990 1995Member, Design, Amenity and Integration Panel, Docklands 1995-2003Member, Design, Amenity and Integration Panel, VicUrban 2003 -2006Board Member, Zoos Victoria, 1999-2007Board Member, Urban and Regional Land Corporation, 2002 - 2003 (URLC amalgamated withVicUrban 2003)Member, Waterways Committee, Melbourne Water 2001-2007Member, Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Planning Division.Past President, Royal Australian Institute of Architects Victorian ChapterBoard Member, Fringe Festival 1994-1999Chair, Victorian Council of the Arts, 1985-1992Board Member, Y.W.C.A. 1978-2000Member, Melbourne City Council Housing Advisory CommitteeBoard Member, Renewable Energy AuthorityMember, Ministerial Advisory Committee on Good Built Form and Design Outcomes

Awards:Centenary of Federation Medal 2001Member Order of Australia 2006The R.A.I.A Bates Smart and McCutcheon Award for Architectural Journalism: 1988The R.A.I.A. President's Award for the Architects In Schools Programme: 1988The R.A.I.A Presidents Award for an outstanding contribution to architecture:1990The R.A.I.A. Presidents Award, Curation of the Home Sweet Home Exhibition, LaTrobe Library1991The R.A.I.A Bates, Smart and McCutcheon Award for Architectural Journalism: 1996Royal Australian Institute of Architects Roll of Honour

Publications:ABZ of Pregnancy - Co-authored with Professor Carl Wood. Pub. Nelson. 1972Exploring Language: Senior English. Co-authored with Judith Womersley. Pub. Harcourt Braceand JovanovichExploring Language: A Stretch of the Imagination. Co-authored with Judith Womersley. Pub.Harcourt BraceAustralia's Guide to Good Residential Design - National Office of Local GovernmentTangled Destinies: The National Museum of Australia. Pub: Images Publishing. 2002Judging Architecture: Image Publishing. 2003, ContributorCarlton, A History 2003, ContributorI Believe This, 2003, ContributorNeed, Greed and Indifference: Making the Australian Suburb. In preparation.