DOCSLIB.ORG

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I District Centre Review Proiect Report I Asupplement to Cities in the Suburbs: The District Centre Policy for the 7990s I i . I I I I I I I I I I I Deportment of PIaMlngand I Housing GoYMYTl8OI II ~ of VIctoria August 1992 I I DPU G LIBR A RY 111111111111 11 111 11111111111111111111 1111111111 111 I M0021745 I I I Contents I 1. Members of the District Centre Review Project Team 1 . 2. Members of the District Centre Review 1 I Technical Advisory Committee 3. List of submitters 3 I 4. Summary of submissions 5 I 5. Policy references 33 I I I I I I I I I IIlf.CO I 711 . 5522 9404241 0994 5 VIC :V Distirct centre review I supplement project report I D" . o -- D· J J -1 ]'. ' J J ? l J .. ............ .J ., J 'or ( J J . ! J J , ] (.. ~~~2 . 0994 I 5 J I VIC:V ,! supplement. j , I 1. Members of the District Centre Review Proiect Team in I the Department of Planning and Housing Peter McNabb, Project Leader I Gordon Edgar Lynne Jannan Tim Cottrell Russell Guest I Deidre Johnson Richard Walker I Malcolm Weller 2. Members of the District Centre Review - Technical Advisory CommiHee Cr James Barrett I City of Caulfield Municipal Offices Hawthorn Road I Caulfield 3162 Mary Crooks Chairwoman I Social Justice Consultative Council Department of the Premier and Cabinet 2nd Floor, 1 Treasury Place I Melbourne 3002 Mark Curry I Project Manager Consultation and Services Planning i Ministry of Transport 589 Collins Street l Melbourne 3000 Don Larkin I Deputy Chief Executive Officer Victorian Employers' Chainber of Commerce and Industry 50 Burwood Road I Hawthorn 3122 Owen Lennie Chairm;m I Planning Committee . Building Owners and ManagersAssociation of Australia 96 Elizabeth Street I Melbourne 3000 Peter Newman I Associate Professor Director, Institute for Science and ~echnology Policy Murdoch University I Murdoch 6150 I 1 I J ,.... Ron Thomlinson I Government Mfairs Executive Retail Traders' Association of Victoria 2nd Floor, 104 Franklin Street I Melbourne 3000 Victor Szwed I Group Manager Planning and Development City of Sunshine POBox 70 I Sunshine 3020 I -I- I I I I I I I I -I I I I 2 I I 3. List of submitters I Submitter Submission No. I Adamson, William - Resident, City of Ringwood 62 Association of Inner Eastern Councils Inc. 70 A .T. Cocks and Partners Pty. Ltd. on behalf of Sussan 1 Corporation (Aust) Pty. Ltd. I Baillieu Knight Frank (Vic.) Pty. Limited 2 Berwick, City of 9 Box Hill, City of 10173 Bowden, David - Director, Jones Lang Wootton Vic. Pty. Ltd. 84 I (RAPI Seminar 1813192) Building Owners and Managers Association of Australia Limited 78 Brighton, City of 11 Broadmeadows, City of 12 I Caldwell, David - Resident, City of Ringwood 63 Camberwell, City of 65 Camberwell Hawthorn Planning Watch Inc. 54 Caulfield, City of 13 I Centro Properties Limited 75 Coburg, City of 14 Coles Myer Ltd. 3 Contour Consultants Pty. Ltd. on behalf of Westfield Developments 4 I Cranbourne, Shire of 15 Croydon, City of 16 Dandenong, City of 17/18 Department of Labour 38 I Diamond Valley, Shire of 61 Doncaster & Templestowe, City of S8 Essendon, City of 59 Footscray, City of 19/80 Frankston, City of 60 I Gandel Group of Companies 5 Glen Centre Pty. Ltd. 74 Growth Equities Mutual Limited 6 Hames Sharley Australia (on behalf of AMP Society) 7 I Haines, William, Executive Chairman, Hames Sharley Australia 85 (BOMA South-Eastern Forum 2413/92) Hawthorn, City of 20121 Heidelberg, City of 22 I Holdway, Anthony - Resident, City of Ringwood 51 Housing Industry Association VictorialTasmania Division 42 Inner Metropolitan Regional Association 43 Jones, Brian - Chief Executive Officer, City of Camberwell 82 I (RAPI Seminar 1813/92) Kaukas, Yvonne - Resident, City of Ringwood 50 Kennan, The Hon. Jim, Minister for the Arts 64 Kennan, The Hon. Jim, Minister for Major Projects 37 I Kew, City of 23 Kirner, The Hon Joan, Premier of Victoria 41 Knox, City of 24 Lennie, Owen - on behalf of the Building Owners and Managers Association of 83 , Australia Limited (RAPI Seminar 1813192; BOMA South Eastern Forum 24/3/92) Lend Lease Retail Projects Pty. Ltd. 8 , Lillydale, Shire of 25 Local Government Planners Association of Victoria Incorporated 44 I Melbourne, City of 26 Melbourne Western Region Commission 49 Moodie, Matjory - Director. Anthony Moodie & Associates, Pty. Ltd. 86 (RAPI Seminar 18/3/92) I Moorabbin. City of 71 Municipal Association of Victoria 45 Northcote. City of 27 North Eastern Melbol!rne Regional Organisation of Councils 46 I Northern ,Region Commission Inc. 47 North Ringwood By-Pass Group 79 I Oakleigh. City of 66 3 I Office of the Environment, Department of Conservation and Environment 40 I Phillips, Sylvia - Resident, City of Ringwood 52 Public Transport Users' Association 53 Prabran, City of 28 Preston, City of 76 I Retail Traders' Association of Victoria 48 Richmond, City of 29 RingwQod, City of 30/31 Royal Australian Planning Institute (Victorian Division) 67 I Sandon, The Hon. Malcolm, Minister for Police and Emergency Services 68 Sherbrooke, Shire of 55 South Melbourne, City of 32 Springvale, City of 69 I Spyker, The Hon. Peter, Minister for Transport 57172 Sunshine, City of 33 Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges Authority 56 Vic Roads 86 I Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry 77 Waverley, City of 34 Werribee, City of 35 White, The Hon. David, Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development 39 I Whitney, David - Consultant, Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty. Ltd. 81 (RAPI Seminar 18/3/92) Whittlesea, City of 36 I I I I I I I ,I I I I I 4 I I I 4. Summary of submissions 1 . A. T. COCKS AND PARTNERS PTY. LTD. ON BEHALF OF SUSSAN CORPORATION I (AUST) PTY. LTD. The current district centre policy is incapable of guiding future commercial, retail and community I development within metropolitan Melbourne. District centre policy objectives have not been achieved due to various physical constraints inhibiting further development opportunities, the static or declining population nodes around the district centre, over-reliance on fixed public transport to serve various centres, limited government I involvement to fund expansion, refurbishment and renovation programs, local political pressures and segregation of land ownership. I The policy has not been able to distinguish the role of large centres outside district centres. It also does not distinguish between the opportunities for further development at the various district centres. While retailing activity in district centres has decreased, retailing activity has increased at regional I shopping centres. District centre policy fails to recognise that some new uses or expanding uses should be located outside district centres. The submission criticises the philosophy of concentrating activity at district I centres using the success of the regional shopping centres as an argument. District centre policy needs to be more direct on a regional and individual centre basis. It should I properly recognise and respond to the cons'traints and opportunities of each of the nominated centres. Large retail and entertainment centres (e.g. Chadstone, etc) should never be district centres. However, because these centres play a vital role in providing the widest range of retailing and entertainment activities (outside a number of outer district centres and Central Melbourne itself) they need to be I recognised in a new retail hierarchy for metropolitan Melbourne. A policy needs to be established which maintains and encourages these centres to continue. District centres should be encouraged to achieve a balance of activities. The diminution in the I importance of retailing as the base activity for property nominated district centres needs to be recognised. Good planning policy for retail activity should include goods and service provision, accessibility to I goods and services, consumer behaviour, transportation systems, land use patterns, local and regional employment structures, local and regional environmental impacts, utilities provision, strategic and I metropolitan policies and the application of policy. District centre policy needs to differentiate between the various centres and the roles and activities they offer. I Regional shopping centres at middle suburban locations have been more successful than district centres with respect to retailing activity and have assumed a secondary role to Central. Melbourne .. The hierarchy of retailing activity in Melbourne is: (1) Central Melbourne, (2) Regional Shopping I Centres, (3) District Centres, (4) Community Shopping Centres, and (5) a combination of the above. The role of regional shopping centres has changed to include entertainment and leisure activities with I retailing. Regional shopping centres should not be designated as district centres. However, they do have worthy attributes such as their higher retail service provision, high accessibility, wide range of services provided and entertainment function. They should be complementary to district centres. I Their designation as 'regional activity centres' should not mean that expansion can be approved automatically. District centres should be recognised to provide a wide range of activities to service their local and I . regional catchments. District centres should not be primarily retail. They are better suited for commercial activities (office development) due to their location in relation to public transport and the I fragmentation of land ownership. I 5 District centres close to Highpoint City should stay designated as district centres but their designation cannot imply a superior status to Highpoint City with regards to retailing and entertainment. 2 BAILLIEU KNIGHT FRANK (VIC.) PTY. LIMITED I Central Melbourne should remain the prime metropolitan focus for all activities. The number of district centres should be reduced. I Proposals for major development outside district centres should be rigorously examined and permitted only after an examination of their real costs. I Statutory authorities should be required to make submissions on rezonings .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2 Hilary Grove, Glen Iris Place Type: Residential Buildings (Private), House Significance Level: Local
    ‘St Hilary’, formerly ‘Charleville’ 2 Hilary Grove, Glen Iris Place type: Residential Buildings (private), House Significance level: Local Recommended protection: Planning Scheme Architectural style: Victorian period (1851-1901) Georgian & Italianate Locality history Glen Iris is a suburb that lies at the northern end of the former City of Malvern. It occupies gently undulating country along the Gardiners Creek valley, and is bounded by Tooronga Road, Wattletree Road and the Monash Freeway. The hamlet of Gardiner now lies within Glen Iris, although this was formerly recognised as a locality of its own. Glen Iris has long straddled two municipalities, with a portion in the former City of Malvern and a portion in the former City of Camberwell (now the City of Boroondara). It was originally bisected by the Gardiners Creek but in the 1960s the South Eastern freeway created a wider barrier between the two sections. York Street, Glen Iris, for example, is now in two disconnected sections. The first settlement in this area took advantage of the Gardiners Creek, which provided a water source for stock, and for orchards and market gardens. The line of the creek, and the roads that followed it, including Malvern Road, became an eastwards arterial of early settlement. The first land sales in the mid-1850s attracted those seeking an elevated suburban retreat away from the noise and odours of the city, and the early estates operated as small farms. Among the notable early estates were ‘Charleville’ (1857), ‘Viewbank’ (c.1858-59) and ‘Brymawr’ (1859). The area was highly desirable on account of the picturesque countryside and commanding views.
    [Show full text]
  • Heritage Citation
    GJM Heritage Heritage Citation ‘CLANGILLIAN’ Address: 1334 High Street, Malvern Prepared by: GJM Heritage/Purcell Date: June 2017 (updated 31 July 2018) Place type: Residential Architect: Not known Grading: Locally significant Builder: Alfred Angel Integrity: Very High Construction Date: 1902 Recommendation: Include in the Heritage Overlay Extent of Overlay: To property title boundary Figure 1. 1334 High Street, Malvern (GJM Heritage/Purcell, June 2016) 1 GJM Heritage Statement of Significance What is significant? The Federation house known as Clangillian, 1334 High Street, Malvern, a single-storey dwelling built in 1902. Elements that contribute to the significance of the place include (but are not limited to): • The house’s original external form, materials and detailing • The house’s high level of integrity to its original design. Later alterations and additions, such as the rear carport, are not significant. How is it significant? Clangillian, 1334 High Street, Malvern, is of local architectural and aesthetic significance to the City of Stonnington. Why is it significant? Clangillian, 1334 High Street, Malvern, is a fine and highly intact example of a Federation house. The house strongly reflects the Federation Queen Anne architectural style popular in the first decade of the twentieth century in Malvern and across Melbourne more broadly. The asymmetrical composition, with complex roof forms, multiple gabled bays and integrated polygonal bay, along with architectural elements and materials, such as tall chimneys, and decorative coloured glass, are typical of the style. The use of quality materials and elaborate detailing imparts a sense of grandeur and demonstrates the status of the owner in wealthy established areas such as Malvern in the early twentieth century (Criterion D).
    [Show full text]
  • Stonnington Planning Scheme Municipal Strategic Statement
    STONNINGTON PLANNING SCHEME 21.09 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 02/07/2015 C186 The following strategic studies have informed the preparation of this planning scheme. All relevant material has been included in the planning scheme and decisions-makers should use these documents for background research only. Material in these documents that potentially provides guidance on decision-making but is not specifically referenced in the planning scheme has a limited role in decision-making. General City of Stonnington Council Plan City of Stonnington Municipal Public Health Plan City of Stonnington Planning Scheme Review, Final Review Report, June 2010 Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP), 2005 (and subsequent adopted actions and policies) Economic development Arts and Cultural Strategy, City of Stonnington, 2011-2015 Building Prosperity, Economic Development Strategy 2012-2016, City of Stonnington, 2012 Chapel Vision Structure Plan 2007- 2031, City of Stonnington, December 2007 Commercial Strategy, Stonnington City Council, 1999 Design Guidelines for Licensed Venues, Department of Justice, 2009 Forrest Hill Structure Plan; Stonnington City Council, 2005 Late Night Liquor Licence Trading in the Chapel Street Precinct: Measuring the Saturation Levels Research Paper, April 2010 Toorak Village Activity Centre Design Guidelines, Stonnington City Council, 2010 Toorak Village Structure Plan, Stonnington City Council, 2008 Waverley Road Urban Design Framework Plan, Planisphere, 2008 Housing City of Stonnington, Population Profile and Projections, .id. Built environment
    [Show full text]
  • Brass Bands of the World a Historical Directory
    Brass Bands of the World a historical directory Kurow Haka Brass Band, New Zealand, 1901 Gavin Holman January 2019 Introduction Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 6 Angola................................................................................................................................ 12 Australia – Australian Capital Territory ......................................................................... 13 Australia – New South Wales .......................................................................................... 14 Australia – Northern Territory ....................................................................................... 42 Australia – Queensland ................................................................................................... 43 Australia – South Australia ............................................................................................. 58 Australia – Tasmania ....................................................................................................... 68 Australia – Victoria .......................................................................................................... 73 Australia – Western Australia ....................................................................................... 101 Australia – other ............................................................................................................. 105 Austria ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Post-War Built Heritage in Victoria: Stage One
    Survey of Post-War Built Heritage in Victoria: Stage One Volume 1: Contextual Overview, Methodology, Lists & Appendices Prepared for Heritage Victoria October 2008 This report has been undertaken in accordance with the principles of the Burra Charter adopted by ICOMOS Australia This document has been completed by David Wixted, Suzanne Zahra and Simon Reeves © heritage ALLIANCE 2008 Contents 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Context ......................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Project Brief .................................................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................... 6 2.0 Contextual Overview .................................................................................................................. 7 3.0 Places of Potential State Significance .................................................................................... 35 3.1 Identification Methodology .......................................................................................................... 35 3.2 Verification of Places .................................................................................................................. 36 3.3 Application
    [Show full text]
  • Town and Country Planning Board of Victoria
    1965-66 VICTORIA TWENTIETH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BOARD OF VICTORIA FOR THE PERIOD lsr JULY, 1964, TO 30rH JUNE, 1965 PRESENTED TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 (2) OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1961 [Appro:timate Cost of Report-Preparation, not given. Printing (225 copies), $736.00 By Authority A. C. BROOKS. GOVERNMENT PRINTER. MELBOURNE. No. 31.-[25 cents]-11377 /65. INDEX PAGE The Board s Regulations s Planning Schemes Examined by the Board 6 Hazelwood Joint Planning Scheme 7 City of Ringwood Planning Scheme 7 City of Maryborough Planning Scheme .. 8 Borough of Port Fairy Planning Scheme 8 Shire of Corio Planning Scheme-Lara Township Nos. 1 and 2 8 Shire of Sherbrooke Planning Scheme-Shire of Knox Planning Scheme 9 Eildon Reservoir .. 10 Eildon Reservoir Planning Scheme (Shire of Alexandra) 10 Eildon Reservoir Planning Scheme (Shire of Mansfield) 10 Eildon Sub-regional Planning Scheme, Extension A, 1963 11 Eppalock Planning Scheme 11 French Island Planning Scheme 12 Lake Bellfield Planning Scheme 13 Lake Buffalo Planning Scheme 13 Lake Glenmaggie Planning Scheme 14 Latrobe Valley Sub-regional Planning Scheme 1949, Extension A, 1964 15 Phillip Island Planning Scheme 15 Tower Hill Planning Scheme 16 Waratah Bay Planning Scheme 16 Planning Control for Victoria's Coastline 16 Lake Tyers to Cape Howe Coastal Planning Scheme 17 South-Western Coastal Planning Scheme (Shire of Portland) 18 South-Western Coastal Planning Scheme (Shire of Belfast) 18 South-Western Coastal Planning Scheme (Shire of Warrnambool) 18 South-Western Coastal Planning Scheme (Shire of Heytesbury) 18 South-Western Coastal Planning Scheme (Shire of Otway) 18 Wonthaggi Coastal Planning Scheme (Borough of Wonthaggi) 18 Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme 19 Melbourne's Boulevards 20 Planning Control Around Victoria's Reservoirs 21 Uniform Building Regulations 21 INDEX-continued.
    [Show full text]
  • Tovvn and COUN1'r,Y PL1\NNING 130ARD
    1952 VICTORIA SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT 01<' THE TOvVN AND COUN1'R,Y PL1\NNING 130ARD FOI1 THE PERIOD lsr JULY, 1951, TO 30rH JUNE, 1~)52. PHESENTED TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 4 (3) OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLA},"NING ACT 1944. Appro:rima.te Cost of Repo,-1.-Preparat!on-not given. PrintJng (\l50 copieti), £225 ]. !'!! Jtutlt.ortt!): W. M. HOUSTON, GOVERNMENT PRINTER, MELBOURNE. No. 5.-[2s. 3d.].-6989/52. INDEX Page The Act-Suggested Amendments .. 5 Regulations under the Act 8 Planning Schemes-General 8 Details of Planning Schemes in Course of Preparation 9 Latrobe Valley Sub-Regional Planning Scheme 12 Abattoirs 12 Gas and Fuel Corporation 13 Outfall Sewer 13 Railway Crossings 13 Shire of Narracan-- Moe-Newborough Planning Scheme 14 Y allourn North Planning Scheme 14 Shire of Morwell- Morwell Planning Scheme 14 Herne's Oak Planning Scheme 15 Yinnar Planning Scheme 15 Boolarra Planning Scheme 16 Shire of Traralgon- Traralgon Planning Scheme 16 Tyers Planning Scheme 16 Eildon Sub-Regional Planning Scheme 17 Gelliondale Sub-Regional Planning Schenu• 17 Club Terrace Planning Scheme 17 Geelong and Di~triet Town Planning Scheme 18 Portland and DiHtriet Planning Scheme 18 Wangaratta Sub-Regional Planning Scheme 19 Bendigo and District Joint Planning Scheme 19 City of Coburg Planning Scheme .. 20 City of Sandringham Planning Seheme 20 City of Moorabbin Planning Scheme~Seetion 1 20 City of Prahran Plaml'ing Seheme 20 City of Camberwell Planning Scheme 21 Shire of Broadml'adows Planning Scheme 21 Shire of Tungamah (Cobmm) Planning Scheme No. 2 21 Shire of W odonga Planning Scheme 22 City of Shepparton Planning t::lcheme 22 Shire of W arragul Planning Seh<>liH' 22 Shire of Numurkah- Numurkah Planning Scheme 23 Katunga.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Junction Estate and Matthew's Hill Precinct
    GRAND JUNCTION ESTATE & MATTHEW’S HILL PRECINCT GRAND JUNCTION ESTATE AND MATTHEW’S HILL PRECINCT 1 CONTEXT PTY LTD Locality History Two important factors influenced the development of Sunshine from a rural area in the mid-1800s to the industrial centre it had become by the 1950s. The first was the railway boom of the 1880s, when it became one of the main junctions in Victoria. The second was the establishment of the Sunshine Harvester Works in 1906-1907 by Hugh Victor McKay, giving the township its current name. In the 1880s Melbourne was booming, being one of the fastest growing cities in the world. The boom had a major impact on the development of the Brimbank area. The metropolis was expanding westward as new suburbs were developed along the newly established railway lines. As well as residential development, new and relocated factories flourished in the Brimbank area (Ford & Vines 2000:56). The wealth of connecting railway lines in Brimbank was a key factor in encouraging industries to settle in the area. Braybrook Junction Station opened in 1885 and St. Albans Station in 1887. Railway sidings went off from the main lines to quarries and new factories. The locality of Braybrook Junction, as Sunshine was first known, was described as ‘the greatest junction in Victoria’. New industries relating to the railway as well as agricultural implements thrived at Braybrook Junction. The Braybrook Implement Company started one of the first factories there, producing mainly farm implements. The factory, established on Devonshire Road next to the new railway junction was later taken over by H.V.
    [Show full text]
  • Potentially Contaminated Land in Victoria – Challenges for Local Government
    Potentially contaminated land in Victoria – challenges for local government Mark Beaufoy* In making planning decisions about potentially contaminated land (PCL) councils must decide whether the land is suitable for the proposed use and development. Planning policy encouraging urban consolidation and increas- ing property values are leading to the transformation of former industrial land to residential and other sensitive uses. However, the potential restrictions on land-use and the costs of investigating, remediating and redeveloping contaminated land can be significant. In making planning decisions about PCL, councils often face significant pressure to be commercial and practical, and to balance other planning objectives in performing legal obligations associated with PCL. At the same time, as a number of cases before the courts have demonstrated, councils can also face significant legal liability (and expensive and time-consuming litigation) if statutory obligations relating to PCL are not properly performed. The regulatory framework for PCL in Victoria is mature, having developed over the past 20 years following amendments to the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) and the introduction of Ministerial Direction No 1 – Potentially Contaminated Land on 9 October 1989. However, further work is required to improve some aspects of the regulatory framework, give clearer guidance to councils in making decisions about PCL and avoid the uncertainty created by some recent decisions reviewed by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. INTRODUCTION Much of the recent focus of Melbourne 2030: Planning for Sustainable Growth and Melbourne @ 5 Million has been on Melbourne’s growth areas, review of the urban growth boundary, the precinct structure plan process and improving transport infrastructure.1 An important part of this policy is also consolidating development and employment around Central Activity Districts (Box Hill, Broadmeadows, Dandenong, Footscray, Frankston and Ringwood), Activity Centres and more intensive development along major transport routes.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Port Phillip Heritage Review
    City of Port Phillip Heritage Review Place name: B.A.L.M. Paints Factory Citation No: Administration Building 8 (former) Other names: - Address: 2 Salmon Street, Port Heritage Precinct: None Melbourne Heritage Overlay: HO282 Category: Factory Graded as: Significant Style: Interwar Modernist Victorian Heritage Register: No Constructed: 1937 Designer: Unknown Amendment: C29, C161 Comment: Revised citation Significance What is significant? The former B.A.L.M. Paints factory administration building, to the extent of the building as constructed in 1937 at 2 Salmon Street, Port Melbourne, is significant. This is in the European Modernist manner having a plain stuccoed and brick façade with fluted Art Deco parapet treatment and projecting hood to the windows emphasising the horizontality of the composition. There is a tower towards the west end with a flag pole mounted on a tiered base in the Streamlined Moderne mode and porthole motif constituting the key stylistic elements. The brickwork between the windows is extended vertically through the cement window hood in ornamental terminations. Non-original alterations and additions to the building are not significant. How is it significant? The former B.A.L.M. Paints factory administration building at 2 Salmon Street, Port Melbourne is of local historic, architectural and aesthetic significance to the City of Port Phillip. City of Port Phillip Heritage Review Citation No: 8 Why is it significant? It is historically important (Criterion A) as evidence of the importance of the locality as part of Melbourne's inner industrial hub during the inter-war period, also recalling the presence of other paint manufacturers at Port Melbourne including Glazebrooks, also in Williamstown Road.
    [Show full text]
  • Maribyrnong Planning Scheme Municipal Strategic Statement
    MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME 21.01 MUNICIPAL PROFILE 16/11/2006 C31 21.01-1 Introduction 19/01/2006 VC37 How will the City of Maribyrnong look and feel and function in 15 or 20 year’s time? The trends which are operating now, and the opportunities for redevelopment and change which exist here, show quite clearly that there will be major physical changes within the city in the foreseeable future. Major and rapid change, amounting to the complete re-creation of some areas, will occur in a horse-shoe shaped area within a kilometre or so of the city’s eastern, northern and western boundaries. On the other hand, in most of the central areas of the city, change, if it occurs at all, will be slow and subtle; consolidating and enhancing existing character rather than re-creation. These physical changes will bring about significant cultural, social, economic and environmental changes. The Council is committed to bringing about these changes. The primary issue is to influence change to achieve the outcomes which are carefully considered, fair and just to all, which will enhance the environment and economic and social opportunities, and bring to life Council’s mission of building a diverse yet cohesive inner city community where everyone can contribute to the life of the city. Achieving the best outcomes from change requires a description of what is wanted. The process of change needs to be carefully managed to increase future opportunities for, choice in, and access to, housing, employment, leisure, recreation, entertainment, shopping, and education. These are the foundations of our quality of life.
    [Show full text]
  • Maroondah at a Glance
    Annual Report 2019/20 Council Plan 2017-2021 Maroondah at a glance Maroondah is home to... 46,324 households 31 118,558 9700 neighbourhood businesses centres people We provide... 129 public 3 playgrounds 26 aquatic centres facility 3 playgrounds skate parks 3 arts & cultural centres 2 2 2 golf courses indoor sports stadiums libraries 557 parks & reserves 51 sporting ovals 10 MAROONDAH CITY COUNCIL - ANNUAL REPORT 2019/20 We maintain... 785kms of stormwater 478.4kms drainage pipes of local roads 38kms 632kms of shared trails of footpaths 77,914 street trees MAROONDAH CITY COUNCIL - ANNUAL REPORT 2019/20 11 Annual Report 2019/20 Our city The City of Maroondah covers a land area of 61.4 square kilometres in Melbourne’s outer east, 22 kilometres from the Central Business District. The area is a substantially developed peri-urban residential municipality, with an estimated population of 118,558 residents and 46,324 households with an average of 2.56 people per VIC household. It includes the suburbs of Bayswater North, Croydon, Croydon Hills, Croydon North, Croydon Calder Hwy Hume Hwy South, Heathmont, Kilsyth South, Ringwood, Ringwood East, Ringwood North and Warranwood. Maroondah Hwy The city also includes small sections of Kilsyth, Western Hwy Park Orchards, Vermont and Wonga Park. Eastern Fwy With little remaining land available for greenfield CBD residential development, future population growth EastLink will be mainly stimulated by housing consolidation Princes Fwy and medium density development. Princes Hwy Maroondah has the strategic advantage of being located at the north-eastern junction of the Eastern Freeway - EastLink corridor. There are two Nepean Hwy train lines and a large number of bus routes linking Sth Gippsland Hwy the City with other regions.
    [Show full text]