Manningham Amendment C95 and 3-9 & 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East
Expert Urban Design Evidence
Mark Sheppard April 2014
Instructed by Best Hooper Solicitors On behalf of Buffrey Nominees Pty Ltd
Date of site inspection(s) 3rd April 2014 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
Contents
1.0 Introduction ...... 3
2.0 Amendment C95 ...... 5
2.1 Mandatory Height Controls ...... 7
2.2 Street Setback ...... 10
2.3 Side and Rear Setback: ...... 11
2.4 Form:...... 11
2.5 Pedestrian Access:...... 12
2.6 Car Parking: ...... 12
3.0 Planning Application ...... 14
3.1 Urban Character ...... 14
3.2 Off-site Amenity Impacts ...... 16
3.3 Public Realm Amenity ...... 27
Appendix A: Summary of Experience & Personal Details ...... 31
Appendix B: Urban Context ...... 37
Appendix C: Policy Framework ...... 40
2 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
1.0 Introduction
[1] I am a Principal of town planning and urban design consultants David Lock Associates (Australia) Pty Ltd. I hold qualifications in architecture and urban design. I have over twenty years’ professional experience, and have practised exclusively in the field of urban design since 1993. Further details of my qualifications and experience are outlined in Appendix A.
[2] In August 2011, I was engaged by SJB Planning to provide an independent urban design assessment of a development proposal for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East. Following my review of the proposal, I recommended the following changes:
provide a 2-3 storey street wall;
provide a setback above the street wall of at least 2m and average 3-4m, although balconies may encroach within this setback;
ensure side and rear setbacks are generally in compliance with ResCode Standard B17 and sufficient for a landscape buffer; and
provide a continuous canopy over the footpath for the full frontage width.
[3] All of these recommendations were addressed in the Application Plans, dated Oct 2011, except the length of the canopy, which is discussed further in Section 3.4.
[4] In March 2014, I was engaged by SJB Planning on behalf of the permit applicant to assess the proposed Amendment C95 to the Manningham Planning Scheme and the planning permit application for the site from an urban design perspective.
3 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
[5] I have summarised the key aspects of the physical and policy context of the site, from an urban design perspective, in Appendices B and C.
4 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
2.0 Amendment C95
2.1 Need for DDO13
[6] The site is currently affected by Schedule 8 of the Design and Development Overlay (DDO 8). This DDO applies to residential areas surrounding activity centres and along main roads.
[7] The purpose of this Amendment is to facilitate the redevelopment of the site for mixed use purposes including a supermarket and a restaurant. This will effectively expand the adjoining Jackson Court Neighbourhood Activity Centre (NAC). Therefore, it would no longer be appropriate for DDO8 to be applied to this land.
[8] Design and development within NACs along Doncaster Road is generally governed by DDO1.
[9] Generally, DDO1 aligns with the commercially-zoned land in these centres and abuts Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) land which is typically affected by DDO8-2. For example, the property immediately north of the site, which forms part of the current commercial zoning of the Jackson Court NAC, is included within DDO1. The site directly abuts R1Z land to the west and south.
[10] Among other things, DDO1 requires that development be responsive to the heights of adjoining buildings and not cause significant loss of amenity to adjoining properties.
5 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
Plan showing the existing Zones along Doncaster Road
Plan showing the existing Design and Development Overlays along Doncaster Road
6 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
[11] Therefore, it is difficult to understand why a new schedule to the DDO is required for this site given that its circumstances are essentially equivalent to those of a large number of properties at the edge of NACs abutting the R1Z, for which DDO1 is presumably considered appropriate.
[12] However, in the event that the Panel considers it appropriate for there to be a site-specific DDO, I have assessed proposed DDO13 from an urban design perspective.
2.2 Design Objectives
[13] I consider the proposed design objectives to be sound, with the exception of the fifth objective which relates to pedestrian access between the site and the main shopping centre car park across the street. It is unclear how development of this land can ensure pedestrian access to the car park given that such access is necessarily outside the property.
2.3 Mandatory Height Controls
[14] The proposed DDO13 contains a mandatory height limit of 19m for the site.
[15] I have reviewed the appropriateness of mandatory height controls having regard to Practice Notes 59: The Role of Mandatory Provisions in Planning Schemes and 60: Height and Setback Controls for Activity Centres (DPCD).
[16] As identified in both practice notes, the application of mandatory height and setback controls is not the preferred method for controlling built form outcomes, and the implementation of such controls will only be considered in exceptional circumstances. Discretionary controls, combined with clear design objectives, is the preferred approach, as
7 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
this provides flexibility to accommodate contextual variations and innovative design.
[17] Practice Note 59 offers the following five criteria to assess whether a provision should be mandatory or discretionary:
Is the mandatory provision strategically supported?
Is the mandatory provision appropriate to the majority of proposals?
Does the mandatory provision provide for the preferred outcome?
Will the majority of proposals not in accordance with the mandatory provision be clearly unacceptable?
Will the mandatory provision reduce administrative costs?
[18] The Jackson Court Urban Design Analysis report prepared by Planisphere provides the only recent strategic analysis in relation to the site.
[19] The report identifies Jackson Court NAC as a large established NAC which presents a strategic location for growth and envisages that increased building height could easily be accommodated within the centre. Further, it states that “the sites location at a high point presents an opportunity to provide a high quality built form landmark for the local area, as well as a greater sense of enclosure and definition for the centre.” (page 18).
[20] I note that the report recommends that the site be included within the Activity Centre boundary (page 22).
8 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
[21] In any event, the Jackson Court Urban Design Analysis recommends a preferred maximum height of 14.5m (4 storeys). So it does not provide strategic support for a mandatory height limit of 19m.
[22] The proposed mandatory height limit may be appropriate for the majority of proposals, and it does provide for the outcome that is currently preferred by Council and the Applicant. However, there is no evidence that the majority of the proposals not in accordance with it would be unacceptable. If my view that the other provisions in the proposed DDO should be discretionary is accepted, there would not be a notable saving in administrative costs as a result of a mandatory height limit.
[23] Therefore, I do not consider that the site meets sufficient of the criteria set out in Practise Note 59 to warrant a mandatory height control.
[24] Practice Note 60 lists examples of exceptional circumstances that might warrant mandatory height and setback controls, including:
Sensitive coastal environments where exceeding an identified height limit will unreasonably detract from the significance of the costal environment
Significant landscape precincts such as natural waterways, regional parks and areas where dense tree canopies are the dominant feature significant.
Heritage places where other controls are demonstrated to be inadequate to protect unique heritage values.
Sites of recognised State significance where building heights can be shown to add to the significance of the place, for example views to the Shrine of Remembrance and major waterways.
9 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
Helicopter and aeroplane flight paths and other aeronautical needs.
[25] None of these circumstances apply to the site as far as I am aware.
[26] The principles in these Practice Notes have been applied by a number of Panels, including Amendments C20 & C171 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme, Amendment C2 to the Bayside Planning Scheme and Amendment C52 to Port Phillip Planning Scheme.
[27] The assessments detailed in the Panel reports for these Planning Scheme Amendments, and the conclusions reached by the Panels, confirm the principle that the appropriate means of expressing building height requirements in planning schemes is as a discretionary provision, with mandatory height limits being applied only in exceptional circumstances.
[28] The relatively large area of the site of approximately 2,850 sqm and its location at the edge of a NAC also presents a relatively rare opportunity to make a notable contribution to urban consolidation and housing diversity. The proposed mandatory height control may unnecessarily fetter the ability to realise the urban consolidation potential of the property.
[29] In summary, I do not support the mandatory nature of the proposed height limit, primarily because it is not strategically supported and the exceptional circumstances necessary justify mandatory height limits do not exist in relation to the site. I consider that in order to enable creative design responses that capitalise on the opportunity for urban consolidation on this unusually large property, the proposed 19m height control should be changed from a mandatory to a discretionary control.
2.4 Street Setback
[30] Proposed DDO13 contains mandatory street setback provisions.
10 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
[31] Whilst a zero setback to the street wall is generally an appropriate design response within an activity centre, this is not always the only acceptable response. Because the site is separated from the core of the centre and does not have any neighbour with a zero setback, it is conceivable that a modest setback could be appropriate for at least part of the frontage, particularly if it is treated as a widening of footpath. For example, a setback at the southern end of the frontage might be one way to respond to the adjoining residential property.
[32] I support the principle of a setback above the street wall in order to clearly define the street wall and avoid visually dominant upper levels. However, visual recessiveness can be achieved in a number of ways including contrasting and lightweight architectural expression. The use of techniques such as these may reduce the need for upper level setbacks.
[33] Therefore, I consider that discretionary street setback provisions would be more appropriate.
2.5 Side and Rear Setbacks
[34] DDO13 contains a series of prescriptive side and rear setbacks. These appear to be based on the permit application, which has been guided by ResCode Standard B17.
[35] Therefore, rather than being so prescriptive, it would be simpler and more flexible to adopt ResCode Standard B17 as a discretionary requirement.
2.6 Form
[36] I support the requirements under this heading. However, I do not consider that the nature of these provisions warrants mandatory controls.
11 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
2.7 Pedestrian Access
[37] As noted above, I query the appropriateness of a requirement for pedestrian access between the site and the main shopping centre car park across Mitchell Street. It is unclear how development of this land can ensure pedestrian access to the car park given that such access is necessarily beyond the property on public land.
2.8 Car Parking
[38] The proposed DDO requires a basement setback to provide for perimeter planting. Sometimes effective screen planting can be achieved by planter boxes above basements. Therefore I consider that this requirement should be reworded to allow for this possibility.
2.9 Summary
[39] In summary, I do not consider that a site specific DDO is necessary. Instead, I recommend the replacement of DDO8 with DDO1 on this site, to reflect its incorporation within the Activity Centre.
[40] If the Panel considers that it is appropriate to proceed with the proposed DDO13, I recommend:
Changing the height and street setback controls to discretionary provisions;
Simplifying the side and rear setback provisions to ResCode Standard B17;
Amending the “Form” requirements to discretionary provisions’;
Deleting the requirement for pedestrian access across Mitchell Street; and
12 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
Rewording the basement setback provision to allow for alternative means of landscaping.
13 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
3.0 Planning Application
3.1 Character
[41] The site is intended to become part of a NAC and is close to the PPTN. Therefore policy supports a change in its built form character to accommodate urban consolidation (see Clauses 11, 16, 21.03, 21.04 and 21.05).
[42] The preferred future character for the site is defined by proposed DDO13 which provides for a building up to 19m in height with a 3 storey street wall and upper level setbacks.
[43] I support a 3 storey street wall height. The existing character of the centre is defined by single and double storey commercial buildings. The office building to the north of the site is 2 storeys high. However, policy promotes greater density in activity centres. A 3 storey street wall will relate comfortable to the 1-2 storey scale of the existing buildings while providing better spatial definition of the public realm. It will not be so high that it would result in unacceptable overshadowing or street ‘enclosure’
[44] The proposal incorporates a 3-storey street wall in accordance with the preferred character. The detailed design of the proposed street wall will contribute to a positive new character for the centre in the following ways:
It is divided into a series of narrow vertical modules by the expression in the façade of a repeating apartment module and columns at Ground Floor. This will create an attractive rhythm and interesting visual experience at a pedestrian pace.
The vertical rhythm is reinforced by the use of varying but complementary materials.
14 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
The street wall incorporates an awning over the footpath.
The street wall provides an active frontage for the majority of the site frontage.
Views of the proposal from Mitchell Street
[45] The upper two levels along the western elevation are modulated through varied boundary setbacks and articulated by presence of balconies and use of different material.
[46] Levels 3 and 4 are generally set back 3.5-4.5m from the street wall. They are primarily clad in timber, render or feature screens formed by copper or multi-coloured battens.
[47] The setbacks and finishes will ensure a more visually recessive appearance at the Third and Fourth Level, consistent with the preferred future character. This will also ensure the street wall is clearly defined and remains the pre-eminent built form element from within the street.
15 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
[48] I note that the proposed height and setbacks comply with the proposed height and setback provisions within proposed DDO13.
[49] Therefore, I consider that the proposed development will contribute appropriately to the preferred future character of the activity centre.
3.2 Off-site Amenity Impacts
[50] Clause 21.03 and Clause 22.06 both seek to maintain and enhance the amenity of residential areas.
[51] There are three key off-site amenity impacts from an urban design perspective: visual bulk, overshadowing and overlooking.
[52] As the proposed development is 5 storeys high, the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (GHDRD) provides the most relevant guidance in relation to off-site amenity impacts.
[53] In relation to visual bulk, Objective 2.7 of the GHDRD seeks “To ensure visual impacts to dwellings at the rear are appropriate to the context”. In other words, visual bulk is relative and expectations in relation to visual bulk should be calibrated according to the character of the area. Residents adjoining higher density areas should expect their outlook to be dominated by buildings (while those in lower density areas can expect a more open outlook). Design suggestion 2.7.1 is to “Consider views from dwellings at the rear or sides of the development”.
[54] In relation to overshadowing, Objective 2.6 of the GHDRD seeks “to ensure areas can develop with equitable access to outlook and sunlight”. Design suggestion 2.6.2 is to “maintain sunlight and daylight access to adjoining private open spaces of dwellings in accordance with Clause 55 of Planning Schemes”.
16 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
[55] In relation to overlooking, Objective 2.9 of the GHDRD seeks “to maximize residential amenity through the provision of views and protection of privacy within the subject site and on neighbouring properties”. Design suggestion 2.9.1 is to “Locate living areas, windows and private open spaces to minimize the potential for overlooking”.
[56] The proposed development has residential interfaces to the south and west.
[57] To the west, there is a row of residential properties that front Elizabeth Street. A second dwelling has been built in the rear yard of three of the five neighbourhing properties. As a consequence, they have small private open space alongside the common boundary with the site. The remaining two properties have larger backyards adjoining the site.
Aerial view of Mitchell Street and subject site (red dashed outline)
17 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
[58] To the south, 13 Mitchell Street contains a single storey dwelling that fronts Mitchell Street. It has a carport and one edge of its rear garden alongside the common boundary with the site.
[59] The neighbouring properties to the south and west are affected by DDO8, which promotes their redevelopment for 3-storey apartment buildings.
Visual Bulk
[60] Given the scale of the existing building on the site, the fact that the site effectively forms part of the activity centre, and even the neighbouring properties are encouraged to be redeveloped for 3 storey apartment buildings, I consider that the latter residents ought to expect an outlook dominated by built form. However, the proposal incorporates significant setbacks from the western and southern boundaries to manage its visual impact.
[61] ResCode Standard B17 provides a guide to acceptable visual impacts for buildings 4 storeys in height in residential area. Although this could be considered an inappropriately onerous standard to apply to this site, I note that the proposal would generally comply with ResCode Standard B17 if it was applicable.
18 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
Extract of TP-21 ‘Section A’ showing B17 compliance
Extract of TP-22 ‘Section B’ showing B17 compliance
19 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
Extract of TP-23 ‘Section C’ showing B17 compliance
Extract of TP-24 ‘Section D’ showing B17 compliance
20 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
Extract of TP-25 ‘Section E’ showing B17 compliance
Extract of TP-26 ‘Section F’ showing B17 compliance
21 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
[62] The only exceptions are:
The height of the Ground Floor at the rear of 6 and 8 Elizabeth Street (see Section B). However, this matches the height of the existing building in these locations.
A frame around the north-west corner of the building at Level 3. The horizontal element of this frame is an eave which is an allowable encroachment. There is also a vertical fin wall at the southern edge of apartment 3-13 which is not expressly covered by any of the Standard B17 ‘exclusions’. However, given its narrow thickness, I do not consider it will have a material visual impact.
A number of minor architectural features including eaves and pergolas, for example at Apartments 2-04 and 3-03. However, I consider these to be equivalent to the elements allowed to encroach within the Standard B17 setbacks.
[63] I note that the proposed setbacks would comply with the proposed side and rear setbacks within proposed DDO13.
[64] However, the proposed building is much longer than a conventional medium density residential development. Therefore, compliance with ResCode Standard B17 does not necessarily indicate that the visual bulk impacts are acceptable.
[65] The western elevation is highly modulated. In particular, a deep recess opposite the boundary between 8 and 10 Elizabeth Street breaks the building into two separate forms. This break is reinforced by a roof garden at Level 1.
[66] The western façade is further articulated by balconies and indents to provide light to bedrooms. These measures will effectively break up the length of the building as it presents to the west.
22 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
Extract of TP-13 ‘Level 2’ plan showing deep recess and modulation of western façade
Extract of TP20 ‘West Elevation’ showing modulation and articulation of the facade
[67] I understand that Mr.Smyth has recommended the deletion of the screened western balcony of Apartment 1-03 and changes to the
23 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
external wall colour at the western end of the south façade to reduce visual bulk. I support these changes.
[68] In addition, the western setback is proposed to be planted with fifteen canopy trees on Level 1 – a combination of Chinese Elm, Weeping Lily Pilly and Cycad, as shown on the landscape plan, which will reach heights of 2-15m. A row of shrubs to a height of 3m is also proposed along this boundary. These will effectively filter views of the proposed building from adjoining residential properties along Elizabeth Street.
Extract of LC ‘Landscape Plan’ showing vegetation along the western interface
[69] The southern elevation is also well modulated through recessed balconies at Level 1 and 2, and increasing setbacks at upper levels. It is further articulated by varied materials and finishes. The proposed landscaping along the southern boundary includes thirteen canopy trees, which will reach heights of 5-10m and effectively filter views of the proposal from 13 Mitchell Street.
24 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
Overshadowing
[70] The shadow diagrams indicate that there will be some additional overshadowing of the neighbouring properties between 9am and 3pm at the equinox. However:
At 9am, proposed development will result in minimal additional overshadowing, with only a small increase in the private open spaces of 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 Elizabeth Street and 13 Mitchell Street.
By 10am the additional shadow on 6, 8 and 10 Elizabeth Street will be gone. The proposal will continue to overshadow small portions of the private open space of 10 Elizabeth Street and 13 Mitchell Street, but at least 75% of their secluded private open spaces will receive direct sunlight.
The proposal will cast an additional shadow on the small private open spaces of 4 and 12 Elizabeth Street at 10am. However, as shown in the photos below, these spaces are not their primary secluded private open spaces. Further, these properties are affected by DDO8-2 (Sub Precinct A) where redevelopment for apartments is encouraged. Hence, I consider the extent of shadowing to be acceptable.
25 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
Private Open Space of 4 Elizabeth Street affected by additional overshadowing
Private Open Space of 12 Elizabeth Street affected by additional overshadowing
[71] Therefore, I do not consider that the proposal will result in any unreasonable overshadowing of the neighbouring residential properties.
26 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
Overlooking
[72] There are number of windows and balconies within 9m of adjoining properties. However, these are all treated with screens or obscure glass.
[73] Therefore, I consider that the proposal will avoid unreasonable overlooking.
3.3 Equitable Development
[74] The site abuts a 2 storey office building to the north at 888 Doncaster Road which represents a potential future development site.
[75] This property is commercially-zoned and is affected by DDO1 which requires development to be responsive to the heights of adjoining buildings.
[76] Objective 2.6 of the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (DSE, 2004) is “To ensure areas can develop with an equitable access to outlook and sunlight”. Design suggestion 2.6.1 is to “consider the possible future development of adjoining sites and allow, as best as possible, or [sic] an equitable spread of development potential throughout the area”.
[77] Future development on 888 Doncaster Road could be reasonably expected to contain commercial use at ground level and apartments above.
[78] The proposal extends to the northern boundary at Ground Floor and Level 1. However, it presents a blank wall at these two levels. This will facilitate the efficient use of the adjoining property by allowing it to be built to the common boundary at these levels.
[79] At Level 2, the bedrooms of Apartment 2-17 face north. A setback of 2.5m is provided. If a future redevelopment of 888 Doncaster Road
27 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
has a matching setback and south-facing windows, it would be required to incorporate screening or other measures to avoid overlooking. However, this would be acceptable for bedroom windows.
[80] At Level 3, the proposed apartments are setback 4.5m from the northern boundary. The apartments north towards 888 Doncaster Road. If any future development at 888 Doncaster Road matches this setback, there will be a separation of 9m between the two buildings, avoiding the need for screening of windows.
[81] Above Level 3, the restaurant is setback 6m from the northern boundary allowing for the equitable development of 888 Doncaster Road.
[82] Therefore, I consider that the proposal maintains an equitable development opportunity to the north.
3.4 Public Realm Amenity
[83] Clause 15 calls for development to contribute positively to the amenity of the public realm. This is particularly important in activity centre which rely on an inviting public realm for their success.
[84] The proposed development will contribute to the amenity of the public realm in the following ways:
The majority of the street frontage will be activated by shop fronts and pedestrian entries at ground floor.
The proposed vehicle entries to the site will disrupt the pedestrian environment. However, this is inevitable given the nature of the development and the lack of alternative opportunities for vehicle access. In any event, the proposed cross-overs are generally in the same locations as existing cross-overs. Further the application proposes to remove four
28 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
other existing cross-overs. Therefore, on balance there will be less disruption to the pedestrian environment than is currently the case.
Car parking is provided at basement level which will ensure that it does not adversely affect the visual amenity of public realm.
The proposed development includes an awning over the Mitchell Street footpath.
The proposal will provide passive surveillance of Mitchell Street outside business hours from apartments and the restaurant at upper levels.
[85] There is currently a 2m wide footpath and a nature strip in front of the site. I consider that a nature strip is an inappropriate treatment within an activity centre, particularly in front of a supermarket, because heavy pedestrian volumes can be expected. Instead, I recommend that the footpath be widened by extending it to the kerb. This would provide an opportunity for street furniture such as seating and bins. I also consider that the Applicant should install additional street trees along the site frontage to enhance the character and amenity of Mitchell Street, in accordance with Council’s street tree strategy.
[86] I also consider that the proposed canopy over the footpath should be extended to the northern boundary so that it will be continuous with that of a future development at 888 Doncaster Road.
[87] The images below, prepared by the architect and landscape architect, illustrate these recommendations.
29 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
Views of the proposal from Mitchell Street showing removal of nature strip along supermarket frontage and extension of canopy to the north
[88] I consider that these changes can be made by way of permit conditions.
30 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
4.0 Conclusion
[89] In conclusion, I do not consider that a site specific DDO is necessary. Instead, I recommend the replacement of DDO8 with DDO1 on this site, to reflect its incorporation within the Activity Centre.
[90] If the Panel considers that it is appropriate to proceed with the proposed DDO13, I recommend:
Changing the height and street setback controls to discretionary provisions;
Simplifying the side and rear setback provisions to ResCode Standard B17;
Amending the “Form” requirements to discretionary provisions;
Deleting the requirement for pedestrian access across Mitchell Street; and
Rewording the basement setback provision to allow for alternative means of landscaping.
[91] I consider that the proposed development should be supported from an urban design perspective.
[92] The proposal responds appropriately to the preferred future character of the area, and will contribute appropriately to urban consolidation objectives. The proposal will avoid unreasonable visual bulk, overlooking or overshadowing impacts on the residential properties to the west and south.
[93] The proposal will not unreasonably prejudice the future development of 888 Doncaster Road.
31 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
[94] The proposed development will contribute appropriately to the public realm amenity of Mitchell Street. However, I recommend that, should a permit be issued a condition be imposed requiring improvements to the treatment of the public realm as outlined in Section 3.3.
32 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
Appendix A: Summary of Experience & Personal Details
Name and Address
Mark Peter Sheppard Principal David Lock Associates (Australia) Pty ltd 2/166 Albert Road SOUTH MELBOURNE VIC 3205
Qualifications and Experience
Qualifications:
Corporate Member of the Planning Institute of Australia, 2008 MA Urban Design, Oxford Brookes University, UK, 1992 Diploma Urban Design, Oxford Brookes University, UK, 1992 Bachelor of Architecture, University of Auckland, NZ, 1990
Professional experience:
Director, David Lock Associates (Australia), 1997 to present Urban Designer - Associate, David Lock Associates, UK, 1993 – 1997 Architectural Assistant, Sipson Gray Associates, London, UK, 1990 – 1993 Architectural Assistant, Kirkcaldy Associates, Auckland, NZ, 1988 – 1990
33 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
Area of Expertise
I have over twenty years experience in private practice with various architecture and urban design consultancies in New Zealand, England and Australia, and have practised exclusively in the field of urban design since 1993.
Expertise to prepare this report
I have been involved in the planning, design and assessment of numerous activity centre and urban infill projects in Victoria. These have included:
Structure Plans for Preston Central (2007 National PIA Urban Planning Award), Highpoint, Forrest Hill, Wheelers Hill and three urban villages in Moreland;
Urban Design Frameworks for Darebin High Street (2004 National PIA Urban Design Award), Sunshine North, Highpoint, Central Dandenong, South Melbourne, Carlisle Street Balaclava, St Albans and Footscray;
Built Form Guidelines for the Brunswick Major Activity Centre, Port Melbourne, Ormond Road, Elwood and Buildings over Three Storeys in Moreland; and
Numerous independent urban design assessments of planning scheme amendments and development proposals to inform Planning Panel and VCAT hearings.
Other significant contributors
I was assisted in the preparation of this report by Amruta Pandhe of David Lock Associates.
34 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
Instructions which defined the scope of this report
I am engaged by Best Hooper Lawyers on behalf of Buffrey Nominees Pty Ltd.
I have received verbal and written instructions from Best Hooper Lawyers, and various documents relating to the proposal.
I have been requested to give expert evidence in relation to urban design aspects of the proposed planning provisions and permit application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East.
Facts, matters and assumptions relied upon
. Inspection of the Site and surrounding area.
. Review of relevant existing and proposed planning provisions and guidelines. Documents taken into account
In forming my opinion, I have relied on:
. Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 documentation; . The Manningham Planning Scheme and Reference Documents; . Jackson Court Urban Design Analysis report prepared by Planisphere; . Manningham Residential Strategy, dated March 2012; . Manningham Activity Centre Strategy, dated September 2005; . Officers Report in Council Agenda, dated February 2014; . Architecture Plans prepared by Ascui Edwards Architects Pty Ltd comprising TP0 – TP32, dated April 2014; . Landscape Plans prepared by Memla Pty Ltd, Drawing LC,
35 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
dated April 2014; . Draft planning permit PL11/021966; and . Various correspondences. Summary of opinions
Refer to the conclusion of this statement (section 4).
Provisional opinions
There are no provisional opinions in this report.
Questions outside my area of expertise, incomplete or inaccurate aspects of this report
The report does not address any questions outside my area of expertise, nor does it contain any incomplete or inaccurate statements.
I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and confirm that no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.
Mark Sheppard
36 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
Appendix B: Urban Context
The following aspects of the site and its physical context are notable from an urban design perspective:
The location of the site at the edge of the Jackson Court Neighbourhood Activity Centre;
The site’s unusually wide street frontage to Mitchell Street;
The site’s location at the crest of a hill, and its fall of approximately 5cm from east to west;
The site’s proximity to the PPTN along Doncaster Road approximately 130m to the north;
The site’s large area of approximately 2850 sqm, which presents a relatively rare opportunity within or near this centre to make a notable contribution to urban consolidation and housing diversity;
The commercial built form character of this part of Mitchell Street and the Jackson Court NAC, containing a mix of 1-2 storey commercial buildings; and
3-4 storey apartment buildings along Doncaster Road opposite the Jackson Court Neighbourhood NAC;
Development surrounding the site, including:
o To the north, a double storey office building at 888 Doncaster Road;
o To the south, a single storey dwelling at 13 Mitchell Street;
o To the west, single and double storey dwellings at 4,6,8,10 and 12 Elizabeth Street; and
37 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
o To the east, across Mitchell Street, a car park forming part of the Jackson Court Neighbourhood Activity Centre.
Office building north of the site at 888 Doncaster Road
Single storey residential south of the site at 13 Mitchell Street
38 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
Core of the Jackson Court Neighbourhood Activity Centre east of the site across Mitchell Street
Front and rear of residential properties fronting Elizabeth Street west of the site
39 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
Appendix C: Policy Framework
From an urban design perspective, the key planning controls, policies, and Incorporated and Reference Documents in the Manningham Planning Scheme include:
ZONES & OVERLAYS
Clause 32.01: Residential 1 Zone (R1Z)
Seeks to provide for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households. Encourages development to respect the neighbourhood character.
Clause 43.02: Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 8 (DDO8)
Encourages increased residential densities, in particular three storey ‘apartment style’ development. Contains a range of design requirements. In particular, the table to schedule 8 states that buildings must not exceed a height of 11m provided the minimum land size area is 1,800 sqm. Buildings should be setback from the street the distance specified in Clause 55.03-1 or 6m, whichever is the lesser.
SPPF
Clause 11.01: Activity Centres
Encourages a diversity of housing types at higher densities in and around activity centres. It seeks to encourage higher density housing in and around NAC’s that are designed to fit the context and enhance the character of the area while providing a variety of housing options for different type of households.
40 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
Clause 15.01: Urban Environment
Encourages development to respond appropriately to its context. Promotes good urban design to make the environment more liveable and attractive and contribute positively to local urban character while minimising detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.
Clause 16.01: Residential Development
Seeks to increase the supply of housing in existing urban areas by increasing housing yield in appropriate locations. It seeks to encourage higher density housing on sites which are well located in relation to activity centres, employment corridors and public transport.
MSS
Clause 21.03: Key Influences
Encourages new development in appropriate locations and seeks higher density development in close proximity to activity centres and major roads to provide for the changing needs of the community.
Clause 21.04: Vision –Strategic Framework
Identifies the site’s location as one of the preferred locations for medium and higher density housing.
Clause 21.05: Residential
Sets outs the key strategic directions for future residential development. The Residential Character Precincts map places the site in precinct 2 where a substantial level of change is anticipated. It seeks to encourage high density development in this precinct and defines sub-precincts with different height, scale and built form requirements. The site sits within Sub- precinct A where two storey units (9 metres) are encouraged and three
41 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
storey (11 metres) ‘apartment style’ buildings on land with a minimum area of 1,800 sqm.
Clause 22.08 Safety Through Urban Design Policy
Seeks to provide a safe and healthy environment for Manningham residents through enhancing the built environment and improving community safety. Promotes building design that encourages active street frontages and passive surveillance by use of building entrances and windows.
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
Activity Centre Design Guidelines (DSE, 2005)
Provides design guidelines to assist with the development of high quality buildings within and around activity centres. Provides design suggestions about how best to design and integrate higher density development with the street and surrounds.
Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (DSE, 2004)
Relates to development of five storeys and above, and provides ‘best practice’ design advice for higher density residential development that promotes high quality public and private amenity and good design.
Safer Design Guidelines for Victoria (DSE 2005)
Seeks to facilitate the planning and design of safer urban environments for all Victorian communities.
Urban Design Charter for Victoria (DPCD, 2009)
Encourages best practice urban design throughout Victoria based on a series of principles. Seeks to make cities and towns throughout Victoria more liveable through high quality urban design.
42 Urban Design Expert Evidence in the matter of Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C95 and Permit Application for 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, Doncaster East Mark Sheppard, David Lock Associates
Manningham Residential Strategy (2012)
The Residential Strategy defines key strategic directions and actions required to meet the municipality’s changing housing needs. It seeks to encourage housing in areas to close to activity centres, public transport and employment opportunities.
Manningham Activity Centre Strategy (2005)
The Strategy provides strategic framework for all the NACs in Manningham Council. It identifies the issues and opportunities presented by Jackson Court NAC and provide recommendations. It seeks to create a precinct that integrates the activity centre area with the adjacent mixed uses and medium density residential development.
43 David Lock Associates Brunswick Built Form Review
Level 2/166 Albert Road t: +61 3 9682 8568 ABN: 45 080 477 523 South Melbourne 3205 [email protected] ACN: 080 477 523 Victoria www.dlaaust.com 35