Architecture Planning Interior Design

McGauran Giannini Soon Pty Ltd

ABN 13 006 488 302

10-22 Manton Lane Melbourne 3000 Australia

Telephone 61 3 9670 1800

Facsimile 61 3 9670 1808 Email: [email protected]

INDEPENDENT URBAN DESIGN ADVICE EXPERT WITNESS EVIDENCE

PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C107 For Australian Unity 114-130 Albert Road, South Melbourne

November 2014

Prepared by

Robert McGauran B. Arch. (Hons. Melb), B.A. (Fine Arts Melb.), P.D.M. (Melb.), LFRAIA, FVEPLA, Architect

Our ref: 14145

Robert McGauran B ARCH (HONS) LFRAIA BA (FINE ARTS) | Eli Giannini M ARCH LFRAIA | MK Soon B ARCH (HONS) FRAIA | Chris Jones B ARCH RAIA | Cameron Lacy B ARCH (HONS) | Joshua Wheeler B ARCH (HONS) BBSC DIRECTORS Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

1. BACKGROUND 1.1. I have been asked by Graeme Dickson Partners to comment on the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment C107 (the amendment) to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme with regard to the appropriateness of the amendment in relation to its context and principles of good urban design and as it relates to the land holdings of Australian Unity at 114-130 Albert Road, South Melbourne.

2. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT – THE CONTEXT 2.1. The St. Kilda Road and Queens Road/Kings Way corridor has with the Southbank area been the subject of major change from the early 1990’s until the present, becoming a mecca for entertainment along the Yarra River’s edge, commerce along the Kings Way interface and apartment style living for much of the hinterland and Queens Road and St Kilda Road interfaces. 2.2. A large residential community has been established with over 15,000 people now calling either Southbank or South Wharf home, with a 35% growth in this precinct population in the past 6 years. In Southbank alone this resident population is anticipated to substantially increase to over 70,000 with an additional worker population of 56,000. 2.3. Within the C107 area we have also seen major transformation occur but in this instance the evolution has been one that has set the scene for Southbank as unlike the neighbouring precinct it has long been seen as a place to live and work. 2.4. Initially the St Kilda and Queens Road corridors were seen largely as a residential address in the 19th century with the adjacent lower lying land reclaimed and primarily dedicated to recreation and industrial purposes with the formalising of the Albert Park Reserve providing an address with St Kilda Road for the new residential neighbourhood. 2.5. To this context of major change of areas along Queens Road, St Kilda Road and the upper end of Albert Road that have traditions of providing a sampler of the commercial and higher density residential development trends able to be delivered by the private sector at that time. The Australian Unity headquarters building was a 20th century example of this. 2.6. Evolution has been progressive as can be seen from the attached images with homes interspersed with hotels, office buildings and apartments forming a new skyline and later higher levels of infill and transformation.

2 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

1970’s image showing more development in the corridor with the former Prince Henry’s Hospital in the foreground and the Australian Unity Building behind

Website image (Brett Price photographer) showing the Australian Unity Holdings in the foreground and their relationship with the northern end of Albert Road 3 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

2.7. Many of the projects have been acknowledged with awards including in the last decade Yve, Melburnian and Balencea Apartments and in earlier times, the Stanhill and Newburn Flats by Frederick Romberg in the 1930’s and 1940’s. Many too, have been seen to push the boundaries of acceptable scale and aesthetic convention but ironically each sits comfortably in its constantly changing context. Page 90 and 91 of the Site Survey and Analysis report in the review of Design and Development Overlay 3 and 4 dated 2013 documents the wide variance in both setbacks and scale. 2.8. The breaches in heights of the current DDO control are even more striking. In Albert Road South the vast majority of properties exceed the DDO. In the northwest precinct more than 50% of development north of Park Street similarly exceeds the existing DDO. 2.9. In the Planisphere report the conclusion is that Precinct 6 Queens Road could see significant level of growth achieved through incremental increase in building height throughout the precinct. Similar findings are seen for Albert Road north and Bowen Crescent with significant capacity for growth in the Northwest Corner. More incremental change is envisaged in the Albert Road south precinct presumably due to the limited number of available remaining sites. 2.9.1. That being said recent project approvals in Palmerston Crescent exceed the nominated development height by almost one residential floor. 2.9.2. Whilst this analysis in the report is useful it is disappointing that ownership of adjoining lots has not been considered in a number of instances. 2.9.3. Sites such as the composite ownerships of Australian Unity of its headquarters in Albert Road and adjoining two sites are not considered in composite form. Although the smaller lots are identified as having high potential for change, the 1970’s building is not. This despite the owner having a track record in recent years of development of medium rise housing for ageing in place supported by diversified aged care support services. 2.9.4. With its outlook and amenity to Albert Road and its location within a high socio economic area I am advised this site will be the subject of a detailed feasibility study for this purpose In these circumstances it makes little sense to have differing controls over the three sites and even less sense not to be encouraging such a use in this location.

4 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

2.10. Elsewhere the conversion of 40 Albert Road won Architectural awards for sustainability, 42-50 Albert Road (29 storeys and 45% breach) was awarded by the City of Port Phillip urban design award for best new building greater than 6 storeys in 2014 and 34-38 Albert Road a similarly tall building of approximately 92 metres was shortlisted for awards in this year’s AIA awards. 2.11. To the west of Kings Way, City Edge built a 5 level development in direct juxtaposition with a fine grain 19th Century neighbourhood and the design merits were acknowledged with professional awards. Historically projects in the Albert Road South area have also been acknowledged with awards. 2.12. This is clear acknowledgement I think that this is an area where heights substantially greater than that envisaged in the amendment have both been successfully realised and moreover have been peer reviewed after completion and deemed to be successful. 2.13. These projects have each responded to both the opportunity offered by the changing needs of a rapidly changing urban context and relatively few abutting constraints. Council’s own infrastructure reports accompanying their review of the precinct also confirm that unlike other areas of the municipality such as Fisherman’s Bend, this precinct does not suffer from any substantial constraining forces. Hence historically these areas have always been defined as go-to locations but within a context of continuing to seek to fit-in to a future character that envisages a highly urbanised context. This program has been supported by a robust planning scheme that has supported this urban transformation. 2.14. The combination of the proposed Park Street tram corridor and the proposed Domain Metro Station cumulatively place these areas in the environs of this hub as some of the best connected areas to regional open space, jobs and services in all of Melbourne. 2.15. More recently formerly secondary light industrial and hinterland secondary office to the north of this ratcheted up successful Albert Road zone has been identified as an opportunity for transformation notably the area between Dorcas Street and Albert Road, with the review by Planisphere identifying potential for development of 60 metres or more. I support this assessment of significant opportunities for transformation.

5 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

2.16. Melbourne Metro

2.17. In Kings Way and around Albert Road to its east and west substantial change has also occurred with the higher density character of Queens Road and St Kilda Road wrapping down Albert Road and back along Kings Way with new development commencing in the 1970’s and seeing more recent manifestations.

2.18. To the western side of Kings Way, change has also occurred historically as a result of road widening and urban renewal. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s the skyline and streetscape pattern attributes were transformed with the construction of the Australian Unity development and City Edge apartment developments, whilst to the 6 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

north later corporate built form and main road fuel service and CityLink and Casino access arrangements transformed street engagement patterns mostly for the worse. New development more recently has seen large mixed use development in immediate juxtaposition with this lower scale area.

2.19. Elsewhere we have seen the commencement of new forms of housing to meet the needs of an ageing community with Australian Unity one of the leaders in this field. 2.19.1. Their new project in Rathdowne Street in Carlton (pictured above) introduces ageing in place into highly urbanised areas. This sector is evolving quickly with new facilities anticipated to incorporate advanced health care and socialising hubs on lower levels with housing catering to lower and higher needs groups on upper levels. 2.19.2. For these facilities access to open space and public transport facilities is highly desirable. The Albert Road landholdings of the organisation have the right credentials for such a facility. 2.20. Whilst the area west of Kings Way has two pockets of finer grain 19th Century terrace housing form north and south of the City Edge apartments, this lower scale built form is largely buffered from direct interfaces with the exception of two terrace house properties, one of which has been converted to a restaurant. In both instances these properties present as sideages to the larger road. 2.21. In relation to the precinct I have also considered the assessment of the Albert Road South Precinct by recent VCAT tribunal hearings. 2.21.1. In the matter Raffles Holdings Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC & Ors [2013] VCAT 126 (12 February 2013) Member Rundell noted “Palmerston Crescent is a transition zone between the old traditional low scale

residential neighbourhoods of South Melbourne and the new tall

7 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

commercial buildings close to Albert Street and Kings Way. The north side largely comprises the traditional single storey former workers cottages and it has an intact and highly consistent built form. It is included within a Heritage Overlay. The combination of small lots, intact traditional dwellings and the heritage overlay makes change on that side of the street likely to be very limited in number and form. 2.21.2. The south side of Palmerston Crescent through to Albert Road has a very different use and character. Comprising a mix of offices, car parks and apartment buildings, its built form comprises multi storey buildings with a tall and robust built form, sheer walls and limited setbacks to boundaries. 2.21.3. The strategic directions of the north and south sides of Palmerston Crescent vary markedly. The north side is to be constrained. In policy terms the area would be categorised as one of minimal residential growth to retain its recognised heritage values. This category would be the most restrained of the five levels of change set out in Council’s municipal strategic statement[2]. By contrast, the south side of Palmerston Crescent is identified as an area of substantial residential growth. This is defined to be Strategically appropriate locations for higher density residential development (being proximate to major activity centres and/or the PPTN) which provide new housing opportunities as part of the renewal of precincts and large sites. They offer the potential for more intensive development through the creation of new built form character[3].” 2.21.4. I would agree with this assessment. He also noted in his review that “the Tribunal has recently approved a five level development on the land adjoining to the east on the corner of Palmerston Crescent and Stead Street. Significantly for this review, that site’s interface to Palmerston Street has been deemed to be a sideage, and the approved development is not required to comply with the DDO. Consequently, it would rise to five storeys with setbacks in the order of 3 metres to Palmerston Street. Its upper level will be required to have a recessed appearance through the use of lightweight screening to upper level terraces. Requiring substantial setbacks on the review site would be an abrupt change in the streetscape should both 8 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

developments be implemented. A large setback on this site would in my view appear to be overly abrupt and an anomaly that would appear to more incongruous than this proposal.” 2.21.5. He also noted in regard to another recent approval, “The Tribunal has also approved a refurbishment of an existing seven storey office building at 97-99 Palmerston Street for dwellings. The development would also add two levels above, increasing its height to nine storeys. This approval is within a sub-precinct of the DDO that has more onerous preferred heights and setbacks than the review site. I consider that the built form context is varied and likely to become more so, making strict compliance with the DDO less relevant. 2.21.6. Thirdly, I consider that there is a clear policy tension between policies seeking transition to the low-scale residential form, and policies that identify the area as one of substantial change. Substantial change is inevitably in conflict with policies seeking a gentle transition to the low scale residential area opposite. The policy tension arises from the relatively limited opportunities for intensive change available in Port Phillip, as change in much of the municipality is constrained by the prevailing built form, particularly its heritage fabric. Hence there is likely to be a desire to maximise development opportunities in the relatively unconstrained areas such as this. The relatively small sites in this area make it difficult to achieve substantial change whilst providing large setbacks. In general terms I consider that the rare opportunities should be maximised so change can be implemented in designated areas. This enables change in areas deemed to have special character and fabric to be tempered and restrained, without thwarting compact city objectives in this municipality.” 2.21.7. In each of these instances it has been apparent that the members reviewing the propositions have found the precinct is eclectic in nature and able to accommodate substantial change. In these circumstances the proposed rigid mandatory provisions seem out of place.

9 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

3. PROPOSED AMENDMENT – THE PROPOSAL 3.1. The Amendment proposes to implement objectives strategic directions and built form outcomes of the draft St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan of 2013 through the introduction of a new schedule to the Design and Development Overlay DDO26 and updating of the Local Planning Policy Framework. 3.2. Notably, inserting a new Schedule 26 to Clause 43.02 the Design and Development Overlay which specifies design objectives and design requirements including mandatory heights and setbacks for the overall St Kilda Road North Precinct and for individual sub precincts. 3.3. The deletion of the existing Schedules 3 and 4 to the Design and Development Overlay that apply to the St Kilda Road North Precinct and modification of the Port Phillip Planning Maps Nos 3DD0, Map No 4DDO and Map No 6DDO to reflect the above. To modify Local Planning Policy Framework at Clauses 21.06-7 St Kilda Road and Queens Road and Clause 21.04-5 Public Open Space and Foreshore to reflect the vision and strategic direction for the draft St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan. To include the draft St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan 2013 as a reference document to the Planning Scheme at Clauses 21.07 and Clause 43.02 (Schedule 26) and modify Clause 66.06 Notice of Permit Applications under Local Provisions to update the requirement to give notice. 3.4. The Amendment affects development south of Dorcas Street, west of St Kilda Road as far as High Street, and then south of High Street to near Punt Road and east of Punt Road down to the St Kilda Junction. With a second leg spanning to its western boundary, it is bordered by Queens Road as far as Albert Road and then covers the area between the north side of Albert Road and the south side of Palmerston Crescent to the eastern side of Moray Street. 3.5. In its explanation for the proposed amendment Council notes that the planning policies, notably the DDO’s covering this area were developed over 20 years ago and included discretionary and mandatory height limits and that over this time the precinct has evolved from predominantly commercial one to a one which is experiencing increased amounts of residential apartments. 3.6. In this context it explains there are many instances where the discretionary preferred heights have been exceeded by proposed and as built development. 3.7. It claims that the intention of the proposal is to ensure high quality development that respects the Shrine of Remembrance setting, reinforces the well-established

10 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

street layout landscape identity of the precinct, maintains residential amenity, and contributes to an inviting and activated environment for pedestrians at street level. 3.8. The amendment is claimed to align with: 3.8.1. Direction 2.1 – Plan for expected housing needs 3.8.2. Direction 4.6 – Create more great places through Melbourne and; 3.8.3. Direction 4.8 – Achieve and promote design excellence, and; 3.8.4. that it complies with Ministerial Direction 11 – Strategic Assessment of Direct Amendments. 3.9. Relevant planning policy framework clauses to consider include the following: 3.9.1. Clause 11.02-1 – Supply of Urban Land 3.9.2. Clause 11.04-1 – Delivering jobs and investment 3.9.3. Clause 11.04-2 – Housing choice and affordability 3.9.4. Clause 11.04-4 – Liveable communities and neighbourhoods 3.9.5. Clause 15.01 – Urban Design 3.9.6. Clause 15.01-2 – Urban Design Principles 3.9.7. Clause 15.01-5 – Cultural Identity and Neighbourhood Character 3.9.8. Clause 15.03-1 – Urban Conservation 3.9.9. Clause 16.01-2 – Location of residential development 3.9.10. Clause 16.01-4 – Housing Diversity 3.9.11. Clause 21.01 – Municipal Strategic Statement 3.9.12. Clause 21.05-2 – Urban Structure and Character 3.9.13. Clause 21.06-7 - St Kilda Road North Precinct 3.10. Schedule 4 3.10.1. As noted earlier the existing Schedule 4 to the Design and Development Overlay encourages the stepping down in built form between the Melbourne Central Activities District and St Kilda Junction and between St Kilda Road and Queens Road. Similarly it seeks to transition down to surrounding neighbourhoods along Albert Road and across Palmerston Crescent and Raglan Street. 3.10.2. The high tower scale of the CBD and perhaps more typical 20 storey approximate scale of the Junction referenced earlier retains the relative difference between the two bookends north and south. However the intermediate could not be said to be scaling down from the 100 and 160 metre scale of Southbank towards the 70 metre scale of St Kilda Junction,

11 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

with the DDO establishing a scale lower than the southern extremity of the precinct. 3.10.3. The existing DDO promotes the provision of a landscape setting particularly in the Queens Road and St Kilda Road Boulevards and verticality in the tower expression through spacing between developments. Amenity is protected through a goal to ensure that adjoining public open space impacts arising from overshadowing, bulk and wind effects is minimised. 3.10.4. Development outcomes are sought that respond to established landscape setback character and mature plantings, the continued provision of a green edge to Queens Road. 3.10.5. Additionally the overlay seeks to develop building designs that deliver parapets and roofs that ensure interest and variety in particular when seen from the aspect of Albert Park Reserve. 3.10.6. The provision of vehicular access is sought from Queens Lane and abutment to heritage places seeks development that is sympathetic in form and scale. 3.10.7. In my view each of these aspirations is sound. I will talk to the particular provisions of the proposed amendment later in this section where I have concerns. 3.11. Cl 21.06 Neighbourhoods 3.11.1. Clause 21.06-7 replaces the St Kilda Road and Queens Road Section with a new descriptor St Kilda Road North Precinct, acknowledging the extension west down Albert Road and north into Kings Way. This change is soundly based reflecting the coalescence of preferred future character for these extended zones with the core areas previously within the scheme. 3.11.2. The section notes key challenges section removes the concerns regarding poorly designed new development, perhaps acknowledging that recent development outcomes have typically been of a high standard. It adds the provision of the Park Street tram extension and the improvement of the Public Realm in Kings Way and Queens Way 3.11.3. Within the Vision section there are some grammatical issues that require inclusions and amendment. 3.11.3.1. The third dot point should be amended to include either precinct or environment after office in the first line. 3.11.3.2. Otherwise I am supportive of the vision for the precinct.

12 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

3.11.3.3. The strategies define six sub-precincts, the mapping of which I think in some instances needs to be questioned and suggests that in some an existing built form character needs to be maintained and strengthened an assertion again that I think needs further interrogation. 3.12. Sub Precinct 2: Northwest Corner 3.12.1. I agree with the assertion that this sub-precinct has considerable opportunity for development and change as a high density mixed-use enclave and that streetscapes require enhancement 3.12.2. With a backdrop of new buildings 92m high to Albert Road as a backdrop to the south and similarly tall buildings to the eastern St Kilda Road interface an opportunity exists for the accommodation of substantial building height to be accommodated whilst comfortably being visually integrated. The proposition that it needs to be half the height of development approved by council to its southern abutment seems both curious and lacking clearly strategic conviction. 3.13. Sub Precinct 3 Albert Road South

13 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

3.13.1. In the case of the areas north of Albert Road and east of Kings Way, the proposition is for a radical step down from heights at or in excess of 90 metres to a mandated maximum height of 45 metres north-westwards and from 92m to 60m, 45m , 30m, 18 and finally 9m to Moray Street. 3.13.1.1. Adding to this landscape, setbacks of 3m and in some cases podium heights of 18m with a depth of 5m are required to parts of Stead Street (north-eastern side only), Sandilands Street save for the last block bounding the intersection to Palmerston Street, Eastern Road and part of Thomson Street. In other locations these podiums step up to built form of 30m, 45 or 60m. 3.13.1.2. A podium 15m scale is also sought to the Kings Way interface for a 20m depth with a further 30m being prescribed as 30m. In some instances these step ups or downs cut across the arbitrary midpoint locations. 3.13.1.3. The heights that are chosen of 9, 15, 18, 30, 45 and 60 metres effectively fail to acknowledge conventional good practice for the heights of building types. In the case of residential buildings I would typically design for 3 to 3.1m floor to floor heights with a greater need for height at the uppermost level of 1m to allow for roof gradients, etc. 3.13.1.4. In the case of commercial space 3.6 to 4m is the typical range depending on the types of technology applied. The outcome of approach taken by Council is that it will inevitably see a push from developers to fit into this regime development with lower floor to floor heights in residential development to optimise their sellable floor space, reducing amenity and constraining development to box like outcomes. A residential 5 level development that should be 16.5m will be squeezed into 15m, a 3 level that should be 10.5m will be 9m, etc. 3.13.1.5. I would typically also advocate for a more generous ground level floor to floor height of at least 3.6m to allow flexibility in future land use at this level. 3.13.1.6. This failure to test the proposed heights against industry standard measures is disappointing. 14 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

3.13.1.7. Similarly the somewhat arbitrary rendering of setbacks, heights podiums and midblock step-ups or downs fails to acknowledge how buildings would be configured as a result. 3.13.1.8. In most instances in Palmerston Crescent buildings would have to incorporate long corridors pushing the lift cores to the back of blocks so that lift access could be achieved to all levels, No testing has been applied as to why 17m has been determined as the location to step up from one designated level to another. 3.13.1.9. The high level of visibility of the buildings in Albert Road as a backdrop for example are already clearly visible in Palmerston and Raglan Street and the character of the south eastern side is clearly different to the north western finer grain form. 3.13.1.10. Why does there need to be a transition within the block rather than simply considering the very generously scaled street as the point of transition? 3.13.1.11. As Member Rundle has clearly enunciated why, given the very limited opportunities for urban transformation in the municipality, would we be seeking to erode the form with mandatory provisions in this way and why is the proposed composition of these mandatory controls seen to be required in the exact form proposed? 3.13.1.12. Additionally how legible will it be given recent approvals which exceed these preferred heights and arrangements? 3.13.2. The rationale put forward for this proposed expectations linked to a perceived need to acknowledge and step down to the ‘low scale’ fine grain residential areas to the west of Kings Way and to preserve a fine grain character in the areas of Palmerston Crescent, etc. 3.13.3. As noted earlier in Member Rundell’s summation it is firstly apparent that scale immediately south of the junction is tall and that development to its northern abutting areas to Palmerston Crescent’s south side have been repeatedly supported at substantial heights that have been at variance with preferred and now mandated heights. 3.13.4. Member Rundell’s summation that these areas should both be optimised in their ability to deliver urban intensification and not unreasonably constrained 15 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

by mandatory or in his case preferred heights that transition down could reasonably be applied to both precincts within reason. 3.14. The area is one where there is a goal of securing significant public transport infrastructure (The Metro and Park Street tram extension). Consistent with that it is my view that greater intensification should be sought. 3.15. Despite placing great carriage on the distinctive attributes of the curvilinear streets of Albert Road, Bowen Crescent and Palmerston Crescent or reasons unexplained, the planning policies seek to apply differing strategies to the most particular and significant of these – Albert Road. 3.15.1. This high quality street is divided it into two separate areas north and south and further dividing the intersecting gateway with Kings Way to the east and west meaning that the four sides of the intersection are in four differing precincts with distinctively differing mandatory control ambitions. 3.15.2. This is despite the experience of the intersection being one where they all the framing corners are read as a contiguous framing of the gateway. Development north and south of Kings Way along Albert Road commenced at a similar time with commercial development interspersed between 19th century terrace forms. 3.16. The analysis by Planisphere anticipated substantial change in the block between Stead Street and Kings Way and Incremental consolidation of existing form thereafter with scaling down to the Palmerston Street interface. 3.17. This section of Albert Road is affected by widening slip lane from Queens Road into Albert Road and turning lanes from Albert Road eastwards. Both orient and visually integrate Albert Road South into its extension northwards across the intersection. 3.18. It appears that the amendment acknowledges this broadly by indicating built form to either side of Kings Way at a mandatory maximum of 60m. 3.18.1. Curiously this proposed scale stops short however of the existing iconic Australian Unity Building a building already built to a height approaching this proposed mandatory 60m scale. 3.18.2. Logically the mapping would extend the 60m scale of built form for the Australian Unity landholdings which as a consolidated site could with its neighbour both reinforce this important gateway to Melbourne and the Albert Road curvilinear avenue.

16 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

3.18.3. Similarly it would typically not be an ambition to set a mandatory height for a site like the Australian Unity sites, at a level similar to that of the existing building that has been in place for nearly 40 years. 3.19. I endorse the general proposition that from this higher corner form development would need to step down progressively to the finer grain heritage environments further to the south along Albert Road and into the lower scale hinterland areas to the west. 3.20. That being said the question has to be to what degree and does this have to be described so prescriptively and is the built environment such as that it signals such an approach is going to be both effective and warranted. I find it difficult to sustain any of these mandatory needs in this instance. 3.21. I am not convinced that mandatory height provisions are necessary to achieve this goal with our preferred heights and performance goals having served historically well in this precinct. 3.22. I note also that some recent approvals have exceeded the proposed heights in some instances, suggesting that acceptable outcomes can be achieved at the margins. In these circumstances and given the very differing scales of land holdings and opportunities I would urge for mandated heights not to be adopted in this instance where the precinct has been identified as one of relatively few areas of significant change in the municipality. 3.23. As I have stated in other contexts I am also not convinced that the proposed podium treatments have a clear correlation with either an intended outcome or logical development. Why for example does the podium form along the side streets? 3.23.1. As an example lower podiums are contemplated on side streets than on Albert Road and change at corners. 3.23.2. Typically within the context of South Melbourne and Albert Park corners built form has been given greater emphasis in commercial areas, with corner hotels a particularly characteristic form often being one or more storeys taller than neighbours and wrapping the corner. The Middle Park and Kerferd Road Hotels are two such examples. It would not be unreasonable to anticipate the scale of the Albert Road facades returning around the corner for some distance to both mark the corner and threshold between the lower built form hinterland and the primary boulevard. 17 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

3.23.3. The current mapping is less clear in its intent. As in other instances some flexibility would enable a ‘right fit’ solution to be achieved based on individual circumstances. 3.23.4. Also apparent is that the proposed 3m setback for all street frontages is not one that is consistent with much of the recent corner built form both historic and new along this boulevard varying from this mandated requirement. 3.23.5. Whilst the goal of creating a generous and engaging streetscape is acknowledged in examples for instance such as south of Stead Street where a café has been incorporated at ground level, such an outcome may neither be necessary or ideal in all instances. Again flexibility to assess propositions on their merits is warranted. 3.24. As per other precincts side and rear setbacks should be based on performance and equitable development principles rather than mandatory provisions. At present there is a mandatory set of provisions between sites and between new and existing development proposed. In the case of the Australian Unity composite precinct it is not clear how the relationship between this site and adjoining sites owned by the same group. Whilst the need for equitable development is acknowledged in this instance there should be an incentive to consolidate lots and develop them in a coordinated manner. Similarly if existing buildings were to be reused as part of a redevelopment it is unclear as to how they could meet the required setback criteria if for example an adjacent building was also in existence. Surely opportunities should be able to be considered on their merits that may vary numerically from the mandatory criteria whilst meeting this set of goals. 3.25. I do agree that the Mac.Robertson Girls High School should be protected from overshadowing at the winter solstice between 11 am and 2 pm. 3.18. Side Setbacks 3.18.1. The mandatory provision of side setbacks is also in my view unwarranted in this precinct as it is elsewhere in the precinct. This is because as observed in the Planisphere report, a substantial number of developments are already built and performance criteria and appropriate design responses to the neighbouring abutments will ensure these issues are addressed if the aspiration for shared amenity and equitable development potential is embedded in performance criteria. 18 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

3.18.2. In some instances it could be reasonably envisaged that opportunities to build closer to or further from boundaries will deliver better outcomes for light view and project design quality than a more uniform box. 3.18.3. The Yve development is an example of a built form with a more plastic curvilinear footprint where such an approach has occurred and where the building has diminished in its footprint towards the top also providing more space between it and adjoining development and a more compelling skyline outcome and sculptural form than would have been achieved with the blunt envelope tools notated in the proposed amendment. 3.18.4. Hence I would recommend that performance criteria should be put in place for abutments between development rather than mandatory provisions.

4. CONCLUSION For these reasons I am of the view that the amendment requires substantial redrafting. 4.1. In my view the amendment should acknowledge the reasonably anticipated provision of the Melbourne Metro in one or another form both with a station within the precinct and the strategic significance that that initiative would have for greater connections to a larger catchment of Melbourne. 4.2. In my view there has if anything been a suppressing of development potential arising from this whereas in areas such as Arden Macaulay, Footscray & Melbourne North, greater development potential has been envisaged. The amendment also needs to acknowledge that the precinct is an area with substantial opportunity for intensification, but also one with a long and continuing history of substantial change. 4.3. This character should be matched with performance criteria and preferred maximum heights rather than mandatory provisions other than in the environs of the Shrine where height limits have an underlying science and the asset being protected warrants these provisions. 4.4. Elsewhere opportunities should be informed by principles of responding to prevailing built form rhythms of scale that may allow some flex upwards in some instances within a modest range of 15-20% as has typically occurred subject to

19 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

offsite impacts, suitable amenity and development outcomes and broader urban legibility being achieved. 4.5. The proposition that there are views or sensitivities from within Albert Park or South Melbourne that warrant both curtailment and prescription of built form to the extent envisaged has not in my view been substantiated by either the background work or the physical or strategic assessment of the precinct. In each instance this has only confirmed the highly eclectic and individualistic nature of much of the precinct. 4.6. In some instances, particularly within the North West Precinct, the Queens Road and St Kilda Road corridors the substantial opportunity for intensification has been undermined by the prescribed nature of capacity set out in the amendment. Moreover, these proposed constraints have in my view failed to acknowledge the changing nature of the city as it is developing to both the Southbank extension of the CDZ and the St Kilda Junction gateway. 4.7. A more satisfactory outcome would be one that continues to seek response to the key values that underpin the precinct. It is these values that should be imbedded in the amendment. These include: 4.7.1. Equitable but not necessarily equal (as site capacity varies) development and amenity goals between adjoining sites. 4.7.2. Design responses that support the curvilinear nature of key precinct boulevards. 4.7.3. A landscaped buffer and protection of amenity of key public spaces and continued support for a canopy tree and forecourt setback zone east of Queens Road and down St Kilda Road. 4.7.4. Sensitive responses to adjoining heritage and scaling down of development west of Kings Way to hinterland and southerly low scale heritage neighbourhoods. 4.7.5. Promotion of activated and engaged street level land uses to the NW precinct areas. 4.7.6. Enhancement of the amenity and scale of shared spaces in Queens Lane. 4.7.7. The provision of preferred heights for each precinct with: 4.7.7.1. The scale of preferred heights in the NW precinct increased to 60m. 4.7.7.2. Extent of preferred 60m heights extended south of Kings Way to include the 3 abutting Australian Unity landholdings. 20 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

4.7.7.3. The requirements for podiums reassessed to allow for individual developments to be considered on their merits and based on the attributes of both abutments and the quality of the design response. 4.7.7.4. I do not support the proposition that setbacks to Kings Way are warranted and also struggle to see the merits of the proposals in a number of instances where the existing or emerging character does not have this attribute in significant sections of a street.  Stead Street for example has some buildings with zero setback and the majority do not have the setback sought. To the northern side the recent Edge Apartments has 8 residential levels rising directly above a two level podium car park.  In Sandilands Street offices rise within one metre approximately of the southern footpath to the corner with Albert Road and opposite a new apartment building occupying almost 50% of the northern interface rises 8 residential levels without a podium form.  At Eastern Road at the southwest corner with Raglan Street, development has been built without the street landscape setback and activation whilst opposite the historic hotel was similarly built with zero lot line arrangements.  Further south west the new apartments bounding the corner with Albert Road are built with elements meeting the street and no podium or landscape setback for most of the building length to the intersection with Thomson Street.  Similarly along Thomson Street with a landscape setback of 3m and podiums, existing setbacks are similarly less and where redeveloped have been undertaken to greater height in part than sought under these provisions are sought to both sides of Thomson Street.

21 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

 To the Northern side of the intersection of Eastern Road and Albert Road, the Art Deco block of apartments are similarly noncompliant with this objective.  Given the majority of new developments appear to not comply with the core criteria one is left asking why these provisions are being sought? Clearly it would appear it will not create a legible and coherent streetscape.  South of Eastern Road there is also what I believe to be a somewhat random transition in proposed step down in heights.  Logically there would seem to be no reason why redevelopment of the ageing corporate stock in this area could not be achieved in a manner that fits in as this is quite evidently not a precinct where there is a consistent set of characteristics. 4.7.8. Similarly there is no reason in my mind why mandated heights are necessary in the areas where substantial change is envisaged. 4.7.9. Having said this I am supportive of a landscape setback to Albert Road where a relatively consistent provision is evident and where a contribution to the setting of Albert Road and Albert Park can be achieved in a meaningful manner. 4.8. For these reasons I am of the view that the provisions for this precinct require substantial review. Clearly there is not a case based on either existing approvals, or development for the application of a mandatory regime for heights or podiums in this precinct and so in my view this element of the provisions should be removed. Likewise the extent of transitioning within the precinct down to areas north of Palmerston Crescent and Raglan Street is not in my view warranted. 4.9. There are however a number of performance criteria that are supported. These include: 4.9.1. Protection of the Albert Park Reserve from overshadowing 4.9.2. Retention of a landscaped setback to Albert Road 4.9.3. Activation of the ground level street interfaces; and 4.9.4. Transitioning down from Kingsway to Moray Street albeit that in my view this should occur in the sites immediately adjoining the heritage overlay areas and to the north in the sites immediately north of Stead 22 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

Street neither including the large consolidated Australian Unity site and potentially its immediate neighbour.

5. DOCUMENTS FORMING THE BASIS OF THE REPORT A number of documents were referred to in the preparation of this report, which are listed below: 5.1. Site and Title Particulars 5.2. Current Port Phillip Planning Scheme Controls 5.3. Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme Exhibition Material 5.4. Supporting Amendment Documentation 5.5. Public Notice 5.6. Explanatory Report 5.7. Instruction Sheet 5.8. Changes to the Planning Scheme 5.9. Clause 21.04 - Land Use 5.10. Clause 21.06 – Neighbourhoods 5.11. Clause 21.07 – Incorporated Documents 5.12. Schedule 26 to the Design and Development Overlay (DD026) 5.13. Schedule to Clause 66.06 5.14. Changes to the Planning Scheme Maps 5.15. Maps 3, 4 and 6 DDO – areas to be deleted from Design and Development Overlay Schedule 3 and 4 5.16. Maps 3, 4 and 6 DDO – areas to be included in Design and Development Overlay Schedule 26 5.17. Reference Document 5.18. Draft St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan 2013 Part 1, Part 2 5.19. Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme – other 5.20. Consideration of Submissions by Council 5.21. Planisphere review of Schedules 3 and 4 to the DDO 5.22. Council Agenda dated 23 September 2014 and Attachment 1

23 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

6. STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE 6.1. My name is Robert Alan McGauran. I have been a director of McGauran Giannini Soon Pty Ltd Architects, Urban Planners and Interior Designers since 1985 and practice at 10-22 Manton Lane Melbourne. 6.2. Qualifications 6.3. I have an Honours degree in Architecture from the University of Melbourne, a Bachelor of Arts majoring in Architectural History from the University of Melbourne and a Postgraduate Diploma in Business Management from the University of Melbourne Business School. 6.4. Professional Roles Architecture Within the architectural profession, I have held a range of senior roles arising from peer nomination including: 6.4.1. Chairperson of the Architects Registration Board of Victoria 6.4.2. Vice-President of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects 6.4.3. Chapter and National Councillor of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects 6.4.4. Leadership and membership of accreditation panels for the Architectural programs at RMIT, UOM, UOQ and Deakin University. 6.4.5. Jury membership and leadership of Awards Panels for the RAIA 6.4.6. Victorian Convenor of the Residential Working Group for the RAIA, 6.4.7. Awarded a Life Fellowship to the RAIA in 1999 for contributions to the Profession 6.5. My areas of expertise are in Architecture and Urban Planning. 6.6. I have been director in charge of a number of projects that have won professional design, development and industry awards including luxury residential, heritage, education, affordable housing, and environmental design, commercial, retail and industrial developments. 6.7. Professional Affiliations – Education, Urban Design and Planning 6.7.1. I am a member of the PIA (Urban Design) 6.7.2. I was awarded Fellowship of VPELA in 2010. 6.7.3. In 2010 I was appointed the University Architect for Monash University. 6.7.4. From 2003-2010, I sat on the Building and Estates for the University of Melbourne 24 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

6.7.5. I have been a Board member of Melbourne Affordable Housing and then Housing Choices Australia. 6.7.6. In urban design, I have held positions on the Priority Development Panel for the Minister of Planning 6.7.7. I have chaired the Sullivans Cove Design Panel for the State Government of Tasmania from 2008-2011. 6.7.8. I am University Architect for Monash University and have led the development of comprehensive masterplans for each of their major campuses at Clayton, Caulfield Berwick and Gippsland. 6.7.9. Member of the Standing Advisory Committee on Local Variations to the Good Design Guide (most recently reviewing density, car parking, visual bulk, overshadowing and overlooking techniques). 6.7.10. Sessional panel member for Planning Panels Victoria reviewing amongst other projects the C11 Urban Villages and C14 Phoenix Precinct in Glen Eira. 6.7.11. Ministerial Advisory Panel appointed by the Minister for the Commonwealth Games to review the proposed Pedestrian Bridge Link to the MCG. 6.8. Commencing last year with the University of Melbourne, Monash University, DPCD, the City of Moreland and the City of Darebin, I am participating an Australian Research Council funded research project into transit oriented development intensification of Melbourne’s transport corridors 6.9. I have assisted in the evaluation of potential for the Arden Metro Precinct for DPCD and the City of Melbourne and had previously assisted DPCD and the City of Melbourne in the development of the Southbank Future Plan and notably the Sturt Street spine in 2005. 6.10. Earlier in 2010 I was invited to represent the design professions in the DAVOS summit in the theme area – Inclusive Cities, lead by the Prime Minister. 6.11. I have prepared Urban Design Frameworks and Structure Plans for key precincts including the Cremorne precinct and Victoria Gardens precinct in the City of Yarra, the Toorak Village and Chapel Vision Structure Plans in the City of Stonnington, and the Megamile Structure Plan and Tally Ho Structure Plan in Whitehorse.

25 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

6.12. I have also been on the DPCD Expert Panel for Activity Centres and acted as consultant on urban design matters and in particular major projects to Local Councils including City of Port Phillip, Hobsons Bay City Council, City of Banyule, City of Whitehorse, City of Kingston, City of Moonee Valley and the City of Yarra. 6.13. Within the City of Port Phillip I have been involved in both private and public sector projects. 6.14. For the Private Sector these have included: 6.14.1. Project Director-Mixed-use development -181 Bay Street Port Melbourne 6.14.2. Private Housing developments Dickens St. St. Kilda, Deakin St West St Kilda, 452 St Kilda Road Melbourne. 6.15. For the Government Sector these have included 6.15.1. Redevelopment of the Aquatic Drive boating precinct at Albert Park for Parks Victoria (Winner RAIA Award 1996) 6.15.2. New Boarding House Woodstock St Kilda for City of Port Phillip 6.15.3. Urban Design Guidelines for the Balaclava Station Precinct for City of Port Phillip 6.15.4. Architectural Adviser to council- Oasis Residential development designed by Williams Boag Architects 6.15.5. Expert Witness advise to tribunals on the Esplanade Hotel and 142- 150 Beaconsfield Parade and 220 Barkly St St. Kilda 6.15.6. Feasibility for Redevelopment of Balaclava Station for DSE and City of Port Phillip 6.16. I live in the City of Port Phillip, have visited the site and am familiar with the area.

I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and that no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.

Prepared By ROBERT MCGAURAN B. ARCH. (HONS. MELB), B.A. (FINE ARTS MELB.), P.D.M. (MELB.), LFRAIA, ARCHITECT Dated November 2014 26 MGS Architects