Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report Planning Scheme Amendment C107 St Kilda Road North Precinct

5 May 2015

Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107

5 May 2015

Con Tsotsoros, Chair Jim Holdsworth, Member

Wolfgang Haala, Member

Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Contents Page Executive Summary ...... i 1 The Proposal ...... 1 1.1 The Amendment ...... 1 1.2 The subject site and surrounds ...... 1 1.3 Background to the proposal ...... 3 1.4 Authorisation ...... 3 1.5 Exhibition ...... 4 1.6 Submissions ...... 4 1.7 Issues dealt with in this report ...... 5 2 Planning Context ...... 7 2.1 Policy framework ...... 7 2.2 Planning scheme provisions ...... 8 2.3 Other planning strategies ...... 11 2.4 Planning scheme amendments ...... 13 2.5 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes ...... 13 2.6 protection ...... 14 3 Mandatory provisions ...... 17 3.1 The issue ...... 17 3.2 Submissions ...... 17 3.3 Evidence ...... 18 3.4 Discussion ...... 19 4 Building heights ...... 22 4.1 Background ...... 22 4.2 Australian Height Datum (AHD) and Reduced Level (RL) ...... 24 4.3 The issues ...... 24 4.4 Submissions ...... 24 4.5 Evidence ...... 26 4.6 Discussion ...... 26 4.7 Conclusion ...... 29 5 Precinct wide issues ...... 30 5.1 Capacity for growth ...... 30 5.2 Podium‐and‐tower form ...... 31 5.3 Tower width and depth ...... 33 5.4 Corner sites ...... 34 5.5 Separation distances ...... 36 5.6 Laneways ...... 38 5.7 Dwelling size and housing diversity ...... 39 5.8 Private and communal open space ...... 41 5.9 Shadows ...... 42

Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

5.10 Traffic and parking ...... 44 5.11 Other issues ...... 46 5.12 Recommendations ...... 46 6 Sub‐precinct 1 ‐ Edge of Shrine Memorial Gardens ...... 48 6.1 Issues ...... 49 6.2 Submissions ...... 49 6.3 Discussion ...... 49 6.4 Conclusion ...... 49 7 Sub‐precinct 2 ‐ Northwest Corner ...... 50 7.1 Background ...... 51 7.2 The Issues ...... 51 7.3 Building height ...... 52 7.4 Podiums ...... 55 7.5 Shadows ‐ Park and Bank Streets ...... 57 7.6 Recommendations ...... 58 8 Sub‐precinct 3 ‐ Albert Road South ...... 59 8.1 The Issues ...... 60 8.2 Built form ...... 60 8.3 Building heights ...... 61 8.4 Podiums ...... 63 8.5 Side and rear setbacks ...... 64 8.6 Shadows ‐ Mac Robertson Girls’ High School and Albert Park Reserve ...... 65 8.7 Recommendations ...... 66 9 Sub‐precinct 4 – Albert Road North and Bowen Crescent ...... 67 9.1 The Issues ...... 68 9.2 Building heights ...... 68 9.3 Setbacks and podiums ...... 71 9.4 Tower separation distance ...... 72 9.5 Shadows ‐ Albert Park Reserve and Bowen Crescent Reserve ...... 73 9.6 Recommendations ...... 77 10 Sub‐precinct 5 ‐ St Kilda Road South of Kings Way ...... 78 10.1 The Issues ...... 79 10.2 Building heights ...... 79 10.3 Setbacks ...... 82 10.4 Podiums and active street frontages ...... 83 10.5 Shadows ‐ Wesley College Junior School ...... 84 10.6 Recommendations ...... 85 11 Sub‐precinct 6 – Queens Road ...... 86 11.1 The Issues ...... 87 11.2 Building heights ...... 87 11.3 Setbacks ...... 88 11.4 Podium/Tower typology ...... 89 11.5 Conclusions ...... 89

Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

11.6 Recommendations ...... 90 12 Resolution of the Amendment ...... 91 12.1 Recommendations ...... 92

Appendix A List of Submitters Appendix B Parties to the Panel Hearing Appendix C Document list Appendix D Schedule 26 to the Design and Development Overlay (Panel preferred)

List of Tables Page Table 1 Policy Framework ...... 7 Table 2 DDO26 Overall and Sub‐Precinct Objectives ...... 9 Table 3 Mandatory provisions proposed for the St Kilda Road North Precinct in DDO26 10 Table 4 Evolution of Precinct wide discretionary and mandatory buildings heights ...... 23 Table 5 Exhibited and Revised (Version C) corner sites provision ...... 35

List of Figures Page Figure 1 St Kilda Road North Precinct and Sub‐Precincts ...... 2 Figure 2 Submissions received by Sub‐Precinct ...... 5 Figure 3 Expanded Central City ...... 11 Figure 4 Expanded Central City ‐ Transport 2050 ...... 12 Figure 5 Heights recommended in the 2013 Shrine Report ...... 22 Figure 6 Existing buildings that would exceed the proposed mandatory heights ...... 25 Figure 7 Sub‐precinct 1 ‐ Edge of Shrine Memorial Gardens ...... 48 Figure 8 Sub‐precinct 2 ‐ Northwest Corner ...... 50 Figure 9 Southbank height regime (Sheppard 31‐33 Park Street, South ) ...... 53 Figure 10 Discretionary heights recommended by Mr Sheppard ...... 54 Figure 11 Sub‐precinct 3 ‐ Albert Park South ...... 59 Figure 12 Sub‐precinct 4 – Albert Road North and Bowen Crescent ...... 67 Figure 13 Sub‐precinct 5 ‐ St Kilda Road South of Kings Way ...... 78 Figure 14 Sub‐precinct 6 – Queens Road ...... 86

Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

List of abbreviations and terms

2013 Shrine Report The Shrine of Remembrance, Managing the Significance of the Shrine, July 2013 AHD Australian Height Datum DDO26 Design and Development Overlay Schedule 26 DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning DTPLI Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (now DELWP) equinox 22 September of each year LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework Mandatory height Mandatory maximum building height MSS Municipal Strategic Statement the Planning Scheme Port Phillip Planning Scheme PPN46 Strategic Assessment Guidelines, ‐ Planning Practice Note 46 PPN59 The Role of Mandatory Provisions in Planning Schemes, September 2010 ‐ Planning Practice Note 59 the Precinct St Kilda Road North Precinct the Precinct Plan St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan, June 2013 SPPF State Planning Policy Framework VPP Planning Provisions winter solstice 22 June each year

Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Overview

Amendment Summary The Amendment Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107 Common Name St Kilda Road North Precinct Subject land Area shown in Figure 1 Purpose of Amendment The Amendment seeks to give statutory effect to the St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan 2013 Planning Authority and Port Phillip City Council Proponent Authorisation The Amendment was authorised by the Minister for Planning on 22 April 2014 subject to conditions shown in Chapter 1.4 Exhibition The Amendment was publicly exhibited from 7 August to 8 September 2014 as detailed in Chapter 1.5

Panel Process The Panel Con Tsotsoros, Chair Jim Holdsworth and Wolfgang Haala, Members Panel appointment Under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 5 November 2014 Panel request At its meeting of 28 October 2014, Council resolved to refer the submissions to a Panel Directions Hearing 27 November 2014 at Planning Panels Victoria Panel Hearing 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 December 2014 at 9, 10, 11, 13, 19, 20, 26 February 2014 at Planning Panels Victoria Site Inspection 3 February 2015 Submissions 226 submissions were received as shown in Chapter 1.6 and Appendix A Appearances Parties that appeared at the Panel Hearing are listed in Appendix B Date of this Report 5 May 2015

Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Executive Summary

(i) Summary St Kilda Road is a nationally recognised iconic boulevard that has evolved since its origins. It forms part of Melbourne’s central city area and spans approximately six kilometres. It is home to award winning buildings, corporate offices, prestigious residential addresses and a State significant landmark ‐ the Shrine of Remembrance. The Shrine is one of Victoria’s most important landmarks and has been protected through various planning controls for decades. Buildings developed within the surrounds of the Shrine in more recent times are of a scale not previously experienced. Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107 applies to the St Kilda Road North Precinct and includes the location of the proposed Domain train station that will form part of Melbourne’s future Metro underground railway line. Port Phillip Council is commended for its effective management of the St Kilda Road North Precinct that has resulted in the quality urban environment that generations have enjoyed to date. This has been largely achieved through discretionary provisions. The St Kilda Road North Precinct is expected to accommodate considerable growth comprising buildings of up to 85 metres in an area with existing residents, public open spaces, schools and traffic issues. The Precinct therefore needs to be carefully guided through a comprehensive suite of provisions including design objectives, building heights, setbacks and shadow provisions. Recognising the need to plan for St Kilda Road’s next phase of its evolution, Council dedicated considerable resources to prepare a strategy ‐ the St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan, 2013. The Precinct Plan is a comprehensive and well considered strategy that sets the vision for future generations. The Panel supports Amendment C107 because it will introduce planning provisions that are necessary to implement the St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan. Amendment C107 attracted concerns from a considerable number of submitters (both residents and land owners seeking to develop parcels of land) which were carefully considered before the Panel reached its conclusions. A condition of authorisation was for building heights proposed by the Amendment not to exceed mandatory heights found in the Shrine of Remembrance, Managing the Significance of the Shrine, July 2013. The Panel found that the mandatory building heights specified in the 2013 Shrine Report may be more conservative than the axial modelling used to justify these heights. As a precautionary approach, the Panel supports mandatory maximum building heights where there has been an identified potential impact on the Shrine. Protecting this State asset is not negotiable under any circumstance. Although the Panel did not find sufficient justification to apply mandatory provisions on a Precinct‐wide basis, it found exceptional circumstances that warrant some mandatory provisions in some Sub‐precincts. For example, the landscape setback and side setbacks along St Kilda Road are strong elements that define the boulevard and should be applied as mandatory provisions.

Page i Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

The Panel supports the building heights proposed by Council in areas not identified as impacting the Shrine, with the exception Sub‐precinct 2, and believes that they should be applied as discretionary provisions. The Panel understands the concern of submitters seeking certainty. However, Design and Development Overlay Schedule 26 includes an exhaustive list of design objectives and requirements that planning permit applications need to address, including traffic and overshadowing. The permit application process provides an opportunity to voice concern if someone believes that these matters have not been adequately addressed. The Panel is satisfied that future permit applications will consider the cumulative effects of traffic. Council should consider addressing existing traffic issues through traffic engineering measures. The Panel supports mandatory overshadowing provisions for highly used public spaces and Mac Robertson Girls’ High School (located outside of the St Kilda Rd commercial core) where there is discretion to assess the extent to which a new proposal may impact their amenity. However, a specific overshadowing provision for a junior school that located on commercial zone land along St Kilda Road about 20 years ago is not justified or supported. The Kings Way area in Sub‐precinct 2 should apply similar building heights to the section of Kings Way to achieve a consistent urban form. Consistent urban form is an underlying principle that Council seeks for the St Kilda Road North Precinct. The Panel believes that transitioning taller form down in Sub‐precinct 2 from the tallest buildings in St Kilda Road to lower scale residential areas in South Melbourne can still be achieved with this change. Transitioning built form is supported by existing local policy and should be pursued through discretionary building heights. The Panel supports a building height to most of Sub‐ precinct 6 (Queens Rd) lower than that of Sub‐precinct 5 (St Kilda Road), again through discretionary provisions. Other provisions such as rear and side setbacks should be discretionary to allow for varying lot sizes and shapes, existing buildings with blank walls, and unforeseeable circumstances. The Panel concludes that a combination of mandatory and discretionary provisions can achieve the vision sought by the St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan.

(ii) Recommendation Based on reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends that Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107 be adopted as exhibited subject to: PRECINCT‐WIDE 1. Amending Schedule 26 to the Design and Development Overlay, as shown in Appendix D, to: a) Translate mandatory podium requirements into discretionary provisions. b) Change the ‘Tower Design and Internal Amenity’ provision to ‘Tower forms (above podiums) should not exceed a maximum width of 35 metres…” c) Add guiding design provisions for corner sites in specified locations. d) Add ‘Separation distances / side and rear setbacks’ provisions that applies discretionary 4.5 metre side and rear setbacks (spacing between buildings), except for Sub‐precincts 5A and 5B where it is mandatory.

Page ii Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

e) Replace the relevant ‘Active frontages’ provision with ‘New development along Queens Lane and Bowen Lane should incorporate lighting, entry doors, habitable rooms with windows, and display windows’. f) Delete the heritage provision that duplicates the objective and existing local policy. g) Change the overshadowing provision to clarify that it applies to dwellings in the residential areas south west of Kings Way. h) Replace the car parking design provision with a new discretionary provision to sleeve car parking at ground level or above with activated uses. i) Add a new discretionary provision for new development along Queens Lane and Bowen Lane to incorporate lighting, entry doors, habitable rooms with windows, and display windows. j) Add a new requirement for a traffic and parking report which includes an examination of the cumulative impacts of traffic and parking in the Precinct. SUB‐PRECINCT 2 2. Amending Schedule 26 to the Design and Development Overlay, as shown in Appendix D, to: a) Change the mandatory 18 metre mandatory building height within 13 metres of Kings Way to discretionary 40 metres to be consistent with the portion of Kings Way in the Melbourne Planning Scheme. b) Change the mandatory 45 metre building height beyond 13 metres of Kings Way to discretionary 60 metres. c) Translate the mandatory 3 metre front landscape setback into a discretionary provision. SUB‐PRECINCT 3 3. Amending Schedule 26 to the exhibited Design and Development Overlay, as shown in Appendix D, to: a) Translate mandatory building heights into discretionary building heights. b) Translate mandatory front, side and rear setbacks into discretionary provisions. c) Add the words ‘that will reduce the amenity’ in the overshadowing provisions. d) Change the overshadowing measure for Mac Robertson Girls' High School from winter solstice to equinox. SUB‐PRECINCT 4 4. Amending Schedule 26 to the exhibited Design and Development Overlay, as shown in Appendix D, to: a) Translate mandatory maximum building heights into discretionary provisions other than mandatory heights specified in The Shrine of Remembrance, Managing the Significance of the Shrine, July 2013 b) Translate mandatory setbacks into discretionary provisions. c) Add the words ‘that will reduce the amenity’ in the overshadowing provisions. d) Change the overshadowing measure for Mac Robertson Girls' High School from winter solstice to equinox.

Page iii Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

SUB‐PRECINCT 5 5. Amending Schedule 26 to the exhibited Design and Development Overlay, as shown in Appendix D, to: a) Translate mandatory building heights into discretionary building heights with the exception of building heights in Sub‐precinct 5A. b) Translate other mandatory requirements into discretionary provisions. c) Delete the overshadowing provision relating to Wesley Junior School. SUB‐PRECINCT 6 6. Amend Schedule 26 to the exhibited Design and Development Overlay, as shown in Appendix D, to: a) Translate mandatory building height, podium height and tower setback, front setbacks and side setbacks into discretionary provisions with the exception of building heights in Queens Road area 6a (between Kings Way and Arthur Street). GENERAL 7. Amend Schedule 26 to the exhibited Design and Development Overlay, as shown in Appendix D, to: a) Change details in all maps and cross‐sections to be consistent with other changes recommended for the provisions. b) Change the provision directly under each cross‐section of each sub‐precinct to ‘Development in Sub‐Precinct M should generally be in accordance with Map N of this Schedule and the following requirements’. c) Include administrative and clerical changes proposed by Council since the overlay was exhibited. 8. Amend, where applicable, Clauses 21.04, 21.06 and 21.07 to align with changes recommended for Schedule 26 to the exhibited Design and Development Overlay.

Page iv Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

1 The Proposal

1.1 The Amendment The Amendment proposes to:  Insert a new Schedule 26 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO26) which specifies ‘design objectives’ and ‘design requirements’ (including mandatory heights and setbacks) for the overall St Kilda Road North Precinct (the Precinct) and Sub‐Precincts  Delete the existing Schedule 3 (DDO3) and Schedule 4 (DDO4) to the Design and Development Overlay that apply to the St Kilda Road North precinct  Modify the Local Planning Policy Framework (Municipal Strategic Statement) at Clauses 21.06‐7: St Kilda Road and Queens Road and 21.04‐5: Public Open Space and Foreshore, to reflect the vision and strategic directions of the Draft St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan 2013  Reference the Draft St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan 2013 at Clauses 21.07, 43.02 (Schedule 26), and  Modify Clause 66.06: Notice of permit applications under local provisions to update the requirement to give notice to The Shrine of Remembrance Trustees.

1.2 The subject site and surrounds The Amendment applies to the St Kilda Road North Precinct (the Precinct) comprising land generally between St Kilda Road and Queens Road, Melbourne and Kings Way, South Melbourne, extending from Dorcas Street, South Melbourne, in the north to Punt Road and High Street, Windsor, in the south. The Precinct includes land along Albert Road and the south side of Palmerston Crescent, east of Moray Street, South Melbourne. The Precinct is divided into six sub‐precincts, as shown in Figure 1.

Page 1 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Figure 1 St Kilda Road North Precinct and Sub‐Precincts

Source: St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan, June 2013

Page 2 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

1.3 Background to the proposal

27 January 2011 DDO3 and DDO4 were amended to introduce interim mandatory maximum building height (maximum height) provisions with an expiry date of 20 January 2013 (Amendment C86) January 2011 Council commenced a review of the Precinct and commissioned the following five technical studies covering built form, transport and access, community infrastructure needs, public realm and physical infrastructure capacity: 1. The Review of Schedules 3 and 4 to the Design and Development (prepared by Planisphere Consultants) 2. Sustainable Transport Management in St Kilda Road (prepared by Ratio Consultants) 3. Future Needs of the St Kilda Road Precinct (prepared by Urbis Consultants) 4. St Kilda Road Public Realm and Linkages Opportunities Study (prepared by ) 5. St Kilda Road Precinct Review Infrastructure Study (prepared by City of Port Phillip) Studies 2, 3, 4 and 5 are not endorsed by Council and may not reflect current Council policy. 17 January 2013 The expiry date for the interim mandatory height provisions was extended to 20 January 2014 (Amendment C98) 8 May 2014 The findings of The Shrine of Remembrance, Managing the significance of the Shrine, July 2013 were implemented (Amendment C140). Further details are provided at Chapter 0 5 June 2014 DDO4 was amended to clarify that the requirements of sub clause 2.0 do not apply if a planning permit was issued before Amendment C140 was introduced (Amendment C141) 30 June 2013 The Draft St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan 2013 consolidated the key findings of the five draft technical studies into a single document 16 January 2014 The expiry date for the interim mandatory height provisions in DDO3 and DDO4 were extended to 20 January 2015 (Amendment C130). The approved expiry date for DDO4 does not appear in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme 22 January 2015 The expiry date for the interim mandatory height provisions in DDO3 was extended to 20 January 2016 (Amendment C116)

1.4 Authorisation The Amendment was authorised by the Minister for Planning on 22 April 2014 subject to the following conditions:  Amendment C107 must not seek to introduce any built form controls that exceed the mandatory heights specified in The Shrine of Remembrance, Managing the Significant of the Shrine, July 2013, and

Page 3 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

 All documents associated with Amendment C107 must be submitted to the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure for review prior to the commencement of exhibition. Section 8A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires a Council to prepare and exhibit an amendment subject to authorisation by the Minister for Planning. This does not apply to a Panel that is required under Sections 22 and 24, to:  Consider all submissions  Give a reasonable opportunity to submitters, the responsible authority, the planning authority and any person the Panel to be heard. Section 25 allows a Panel to ‘make any recommendation it thinks fit’, with the exception of changes to the terms of State standard provisions.

1.5 Exhibition The Amendment was exhibited from 7 August to 8 September 2014 and notification comprised of:  Public notice in: - the Port Phillip Leader newspaper on 5 August 2014 - the Government Gazette on 7 August 2014  Direct notice to: - property owners and occupiers within the Precinct and land affected by Amendment C107 [13,389 letters] - property owners and occupiers outside of the Precinct in South Melbourne (City of Port Phillip), Southbank and South Yarra (City of Melbourne) and Windsor (City of Stonnington) [5,426 letters] - prescribed Ministers and relevant authorities / agencies - infrastructure and service providers and other interested persons/community groups  The Amendment and supporting documentation displayed: - at Council offices and libraries - on Council’s website and a separate ‘Have Your Say’ consultation website inviting online feedback - on DTPLI (now DELWP) website  Community drop in session held at St Kilda Town Hall and attended by 15 property owners and residents.

1.6 Submissions 228 submissions were referred to the Panel as follows:  148 submissions receiving during the exhibition  68 submissions received after the required due date of 8 September 2014  12 submissions not received in time to be considered by Council on 28 October 2014

Page 4 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Figure 2 Submissions received by Sub‐Precinct

1.7 Issues dealt with in this report The Panel considered all written submissions, as well as submissions presented to it during the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been assisted by the information provided to it as well as its observations from inspections of specific sites. Due to the considerable number of issues, submissions and expert evidence, this report presents general discussion on threshold issues and then specific issues relating to each Sub‐precinct. This report deals with the issues under the following headings:  Planning Context  Mandatory provisions  Building Heights  Precinct wide issues - Capacity for growth - Podium‐and‐Tower form - Tower width and depth - Corner sites - Separation distances - Laneways - Dwelling size and housing diversity - Private and communal open space - Shadows - Traffic and parking - Other issues  Sub‐precinct 1 – Edge of Shrine Memorial Gardens  Sub‐precinct 2 ‐ Northwest Corner  Sub‐precinct 3 ‐ Albert Road South  Sub‐precinct 4 ‐ Albert Road North and Bowen Crescent  Sub‐precinct 5 ‐ St Kilda Road South of Kings Way  Sub‐precinct 6 – Queens Road

Page 5 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

 Resolution of the Amendment.

Page 6 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

2 Planning Context

Council provided a response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines as part of the Explanatory Report. The Panel has reviewed the policy context of the Amendment and summarised the relevant zone and overlay provisions and other relevant planning strategies. The Precinct Plan is a comprehensive and well considered strategy and the provisions proposed by the Amendment are needed for its implementation. Through its review of the relevant provisions, the Panel concludes that the Amendment is supported by, and implements, the relevant sections of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework.

2.1 Policy framework Council submitted that the Amendment supports the State and local planning policy identified in Table 1.

Table 1 Policy Framework State Planning Policy Framework Clause 11 Settlement 11.02 Activity centres 11.02‐1 Supply of urban land 11.04 Metropolitan Melbourne 11.04‐1 Delivering jobs and investment 11.04‐2 Housing choice and affordability 11.04‐4 Liveable communities and neighbourhoods Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage 15.01 Urban environment 15.01‐1 Urban design 15.01‐2 Urban design principles 15.01‐5 Cultural identity and neighbourhood character Clause 16 Housing 16.01 Residential development 16.01‐1 Location of residential development Local Planning Policy Framework Clause 21 Municipal Strategic Statement 21.01 Vision and approach 21.01‐1 Vision 21.05 Built form 21.05‐1 Heritage Key issues The City of Port Phillip has a role in providing a setting and context for significant heritage buildings located at the boundaries of adjoining municipalities, including the Victorian Heritage listed Shrine of Remembrance. …

Page 7 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

To protect and sensitively manage the setting and backdrop of the Shrine of Remembrance 3.1 Maintain the visual prominence and silhouette of the Shrine of Remembrance. 3.2 Preserve key views and vistas to and from the Shrine of Remembrance. 3.3 Ensure new development is scaled to maintain a respectful setting and backdrop for the Shrine of Remembrance. 3.4 Prevent further built form intrusion on westward views from the Shrine by managing building heights to the west of St Kilda Road. 21.05‐2 Urban Structure and Character 21.06 Neighbourhoods 21.06‐7 St Kilda Road and Queens Road Vision  St Kilda Road maintains its role as a premier office location supporting the Central Activity District (CAD).  St Kilda Road, Queens Road and the Kings Way / Dorcas Street Mixed Activity Precinct realise their potential as preferred locations for well designed, higher density residential growth.  St Kilda Road maintains its role as a world famous boulevard and the Shrine of Remembrance maintains its prominence and landmark quality. Increased communal meeting spaces and public meeting points are provided. This clause includes local strategies for the Queens Road Residential Area and St Kilda Road Business 5 Precinct (Now Commercial 1 Zone). Clause 22 Local Planning Policy 22.06 Urban design policy for non residential development and multi unit residential development  Maximise access to sunlight from key public, recreational and open space areas through the sensitive design and siting of new development.  Ensure that new development does not overshadow public parkland (land included in the Public Park and Recreation Zone) between the hours of 10.00am and 4.00pm on the 22 June (winter solstice), unless otherwise specified in a DDO.

2.2 Planning scheme provisions

2.2.1 Zones The following zones apply to the subject land:  Commercial 1 Zone ‐ St Kilda Road, Albert Road and part of Queens Road  Mixed Use Zone ‐ North‐west part of the Precinct  General Residential Zone ‐ Most of Queens Road

2.2.2 Design and Development Overlay ‐ Schedule 3 and Schedule 4 The Amendment proposes to:  Delete DDO3 (Albert Road, Kings Way North and St Kilda Road North)  Delete DDO4 (St Kilda Road, Queens Road, Kings Way and Queens Way)  Introduce DDO26 to the area where DDO3 and DDO4 currently apply (subject land). DDO3 and DDO4 each have eight and nine design objectives respectively and include discretionary maximum building heights and setbacks. For both overlays, a proposal to:  Exceed the discretionary maximum building height will be considered where it can be clearly demonstrated that the proposed development will meet all the relevant design objectives and achieve all the outcomes specified in the schedule

Page 8 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

 Vary the discretionary setback distances will be considered where it can be demonstrated that the variation will achieve the design objectives; respond specifically to any on‐site, adjoining or nearby heritage place; retain any significant feature; and be consistent with the context of surrounding urban form.

2.2.3 Design and Development Overlay ‐ Schedule 13 (Shrine Vista) Chapter 2.6 provides details about this overlay in relation to protecting the Shrine Vista.

2.2.4 Design and Development Overlay ‐ Schedule 26 (St Kilda Road North Precinct Design and Development Area) The Amendment proposes to apply DDO26 across the entire Precinct and has 31 overall objectives that apply to all proposals and 34 objectives that apply across six sub‐precincts, as shown in Table 2. An application would have to meet 35 to 38 objectives, depending on where the property is located.

Table 2 DDO26 Overall and Sub‐Precinct Objectives

St Kilda Road North Precinct Overall Objectives 31 General 6 Shrine Setting 5 City Beautiful 5 Landscape Setting 8 Streets for People 4 Private Amenity and Outlook 3 Sub‐Precinct Objectives 34 Sub‐Precinct 1: Edge of Shrine Memorial Gardens 4 Sub‐Precinct 2: Northwest Corner 7 Sub‐Precinct 3: Albert Road South 4 Sub‐Precinct 4: Albert Road North & Bowen Crescent 6 Sub‐Precinct 5: St Kilda Road South 7 Sub‐Precinct 6: Queens Road 6

DDO26 includes mandatory provisions that vary depending on Sub‐Precinct, street or property block. Mandatory provisions include:  Maximum building height for tower and podium  Landscape setback from street frontage  Setback from property side boundary  Solar access to footpaths, schools, and major open spaces.

Page 9 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Table 3 Mandatory provisions proposed for the St Kilda Road North Precinct in DDO26

‐ ‐ ‐

rear

within

within

or

metres metres metres

from

beyond podium podium podium

tower

front Height

setback setback Height Precinct Area

‐ ‐ Sub Sub Landscape setback Min specified Max specified from Height specified Above side Above rear Above Setback other

1a 3m ‐ 18m 36m ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1b 3m ‐ 18m 25m ‐ ‐ ‐ 1c ‐ ‐ 18m 70m 4.5m 4.5m 9m 2 2 3m ‐ 18m 45m 4.5m 4.5m 9m 3a 3m 18m 30m 60m 4.5m 4.5m 9m 3b 3m 18m 30m 45m 4.5m 4.5m 9m 3c

3m ‐ 15m 30m 4.5m 4.5m 9m 3 3d 3m ‐ 15m 30m 4.5m 4.5m 9m

Precinct 3e 3m ‐ 18m 30m 4.5m 4.5m 9m 3f 3m ‐ 9m & 15m 18m 4.5m 4.5m 9m North

4a 3m 18m 30m & 60m 85m 4.5m 4.5m 9m Road

4b 3m 11m 85m ‐ ‐ ‐ Kilda 4 4c 3m 18m 30m 65m 4.5m 4.5m 9m St 4d 3m 18m 30m 65m 4.5m 4.5m 9m 4e 3m ‐ 11m 65m 4.5m 4.5m 9m 5a 13.7m & 4.5m ‐ 11m 65m 4.5m ‐ ‐ 5 5b 13.7m & 4.5m ‐ 11m 60m 4.5m ‐ ‐ 5c 13.7m & 4.5m 40m 60m 4.5m ‐ ‐ 6a 15m, 4.5m & 3m 11m 65m 4.5m ‐ ‐ 6 6b 15m & 4.5m 11m 40m 4.5m ‐ ‐ Note: Broad scale provisions shown above. DDO26 provides further details associated with these figures.

2.2.5 Other planning scheme overlays The following overlays apply to the subject land:  Heritage Overlay ‐ Individual properties throughout the Precinct  Special Building Overlay ‐ Mapped to flood contours between: - Leopold Street to Kings Way - Albert Road to Dorcas Street

Page 10 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

2.3 Other planning strategies

2.3.1 Plan Melbourne: Metropolitan Planning Strategy, May 2014 Direction 1.4 identifies St Kilda Road as part of Melbourne’s central city (as shown in Figure 3) and is located within Melbourne’s Central Subregion. Direction 1.4 seeks to “Plan for the expanded central city to become ’s largest commercial and residential centre by 2040”.

Figure 3 Expanded Central City

Source: Plan Melbourne, Map 10 p40 The Central Subregion is expected to accommodate 230,000‐280,000 additional residents and 260,000‐320,000 additional jobs. Despite the status provided by Direction 1.4, there is little strategic direction provided for the St Kilda Road Precinct and it is not listed in Table 1 (Metropolitan Melbourne Structure Plan) as an existing or future emerging area within the expanded central city. St Kilda Road is shown as a precinct in Map 10, however, it is not identified as part of the Melbourne Central Business District, Expanded central city urban renewal area or other urban renewal area. Initiative 4.6.2 (Develop Melbourne’s network of boulevards) provides some context:

Page 11 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Melbourne’s grand boulevards are a proud and distinctive feature of the city’s urban fabric. A legacy of the gold rush, boulevards like St Kilda Road, Victoria Parade and Royal Parade are wide, generous, tree‐lined spaces that serve multiple uses and can accommodate relatively tall buildings, thanks to the width of the road and the softening visual role of the trees (Map 25). Plan Melbourne proposes a new railway line and station, Domain, to be located with the Precinct as shown in Figure 4. At the time of the Panel finalising its report, the Government announced a new railway alignment that will supersede the plan shown in Plan Melbourne. However, the Panel notes that Domain station appears to remain constant in both alignments.

Figure 4 Expanded Central City ‐ Transport 2050

Source: Plan Melbourne, Map 20 p91

2.3.2 Draft St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan, June 2013 The Precinct Plan establishes a vision and strategic directions for the Precinct and its six sub‐ precincts over a 30‐40 year timeframe. The five strategic directions are: 1. Sustainable growth 2. A diverse, connected and well serviced community 3. High quality public realm and linkages 4. Sustainable transport priority 5. Reinforcing identity and character.

Page 12 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

2.4 Planning scheme amendments

2.4.1 Amendment C140 Amendment C140 responded to The Shrine of Remembrance, Managing the Significance of the Shrine, July 2013 (2013 Shrine Report) prepared on behalf of the Department of Premier and Cabinet for the Shrine of Remembrance Trustees. The Amendment responded to this study by, among other changes:  Making the Shrine of Remembrance Controls, April 2014 mandatory through DDO13 provisions [previously Vista Computations Engineering Manual, June 1986 (Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works E 023)]  Introducing further mandatory heights in DDO3 and DDO4  Requiring notice to the Remembrance Trustees for proposals that exceed preferred heights and for advertising signs that may impact the Shrine. Amendment C140 was introduced into the Port Phillip Planning Scheme on 8 May 2014.

2.4.2 Other planning scheme amendments Several submissions referenced Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C171 where a Planning Panel considered mandatory provisions. Examples of exceptional circumstances where mandatory provisions were considered appropriate include:  Bayside Planning Scheme Amendment C2  Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C20  Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C52  Queenscliff Planning Scheme Amendment C7.

2.5 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes Practice notes do not have any statutory weight, however, they provide guidance in the absence of other guidance or advice.

2.5.1 Strategic Assessment Guidelines, October 2013 ‐ Planning Practice Note 46 Planning Practice Note 46 – Strategic Assessment Guidelines (PPN46) provides a consistent framework for preparing and evaluating a proposed planning scheme amendment and its outcomes.

2.5.2 The Role of Mandatory Provisions in Planning Schemes, September 2010 – Planning Practice Note 59 Planning Practice Note 59 ‐ The Role of Mandatory Provisions in Planning Schemes (PPN59) states: Planning schemes based on the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) are predominantly performance based. Planning schemes specify the objective that needs to be achieved and provide a degree of freedom on how it is achieved. …

Page 13 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

A performance based planning scheme is able to accommodate variation, innovation, unforeseen uses and development or circumstances peculiar to a particular application to produce results beneficial to the community. Mandatory provisions in the VPP are the exception. The VPP process is primarily based on the principle that there should be discretion for most developments and that applications are to be tested against objectives and performance outcomes rather than merely prescriptive mandatory requirements. Nevertheless, there will be circumstances where a mandatory provision will provide certainty and ensure a preferable and efficient outcome. PPN59 provides five ‘tests’ to determine whether mandatory provisions are appropriate:  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?

2.6 Shrine of Remembrance protection The State significance of the Shrine of Remembrance (the Shrine) is recognised through:  Victorian Heritage Register (Historic Building No 848): The Shrine of Remembrance, Melbourne is of historical, social, architectural and aesthetic significance to the State of Victoria  National Trust: State significance  Heritage Overlay (HO489) to the Melbourne Planning Scheme. The Shrine is further recognised and protected through:  The Shrine of Remembrance, Managing the Significance of the Shrine, July 2013  Shrine of Remembrance Vista Controls, April 2014  Design and Development Overlay Schedule 13  Notice to the Shrine of Remembrance Trustees.

2.6.1 The Shrine of Remembrance, Managing the Significance of the Shrine, July 2013 The 2013 Shrine Report states three main ways in which the significance of the Shrine could be compromised: 1. By foreground and background (silhouette) intrusions into the axial view corridors 2. By building height impacting the context and sense of place 3. Through built form amenity impacts such as reflectivity, shadow, signs and winds, which affect both prospect and aspect vistas, as well as sense of place. In response, the 2013 Shrine Report introduced aspect and prospect view protection to and from the Shrine, as shown in Figures 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 of that report. Following the key outcomes of potential impact modelling, the report recommends the following as summarised:

Page 14 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

1. State Policy Amend the SPPF to specifically identify the Shrine as Victoria’s largest and most important . 2. Local Planning Policy Amend the MSS of the Melbourne, Port Phillip and Stonnington Planning Schemes to identify the State significance of the Shrine and its landmark qualities. 3. Type of Control The DDO to remain the preferred planning tool to manage built form around the Shrine subject to consistent expression between the Melbourne, Port Phillip and Stonnington Planning Schemes. 4. Heights Apply recommended mandatory and discretionary heights, as described on page 63 and Figure 8.1 of the 2013 Shrine Report. 5. Shrine Vista Computations Manual Apply the Shrine Vista Computations Manual correctly and consistently across the entire computations area as a mandatory tool. 6. Secondary Built Form Considerations Update the building and works requirements of all DDO provisions for Area 1 west of St Kilda Road to include reflectivity/glare, sign, wind and overshadowing considerations. 7. Referrals and Notification Consult with the Shrine of Remembrance Trustees where development is discretionary and may impact on the Shrine and for signs above 33 metres AHD. The 2013 Shrine Report informed the provisions in DDO3, DDO4 and DDO13 and the associated incorporated document ‐ Shrine of Remembrance Vista Controls, April 2014. A condition of authorisation stated that heights proposed by the Amendment must not exceed heights specified in the 2013 Shrine Report.

2.6.2 Shrine of Remembrance Vista Controls, April 2014 The Shrine of Remembrance Vista Controls, April 2014 is incorporated in the Melbourne, Port Phillip and Stonnington Planning Schemes pursuant to Section 6(2)(j) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This document therefore has equal statutory weight with other provisions of each planning scheme. DDO13 requires buildings or works to comply with the Shrine vista height control formula in this document. The vista controls were introduced through Amendment C140 and were not subject to public exhibition or a Panel process. This document states that the Shrine vista regulations were introduced in 1962 with the viewpoint at the centreline of Swanston Street and northwest of Collins Street. In 1977, the viewpoint was realigned to the south building line of Latrobe Street. The current vista control coordinates are based on the MMBW Shrine Vista Computations Engineering Manual, June 1986 (E‐023).

Page 15 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

2.6.3 Design and Development Overlay ‐ Schedule 13 (Shrine Vista) Design and Development Overlay Schedule 13 (DDO13) was introduced into the Port Phillip Planning Scheme on 8 May 2014 by Amendment C140. DDO13 spans across the Port Phillip, Melbourne and Stonnington municipalities, applies to all of the Subject Land and seeks: To ensure that the Shrine of Remembrance and its outline as viewed from Swanston Street outside the State Library in the City of Melbourne is not fully or partially obscured by any building or works. DDO13 includes a mandatory requirement for buildings or works to comply with the shrine vista height control formula described in the Shrine of Remembrance Vista Controls, April 2014. The Panel has assumed that the following two references are the same document:  Shrine of Remembrance Controls, April 2014 (DDO13)  Shrine of Remembrance Vista Controls, April 2014 (Clause 81.01 schedule).

2.6.4 Notice to the Shrine of Remembrance Trustees Currently through DDO3, the Shrine of Remembrance Trustees Notice must be given formal notice of a permit application to construct a building or construct or carry out works exceeding the preferred maximum height specified in Table 1 to the schedule. DDO26 proposes to change this so that the Shrine of Remembrance Trustees is given formal notice of a permit application for a sign if it is located above 23 metres AHD.

Page 16 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

3 Mandatory provisions

3.1 The issue PPN59 states that mandatory provisions in the Victoria Planning Provisions are the exception and provides five tests (as shown in Chapter 2.5) to assess their appropriateness. Although this practice note does not have any statutory weight, it provides good guidance in the absence of other suitable guidance or advice. The issue is whether mandatory provisions proposed by the Amendment are justified and necessary in the St Kilda Road North Precinct.

3.2 Submissions Council submitted that the Amendment was required to ‘carry through’ changes that sought to protect the Shrine, through clear design objectives and mandatory maximum heights and added: The existing discretionary controls have failed to maintain a base level of amenity and achieve the preferred urban character in certain locations across the precinct. Greater certainty is required and can be justified based on detailed the urban design analysis undertaken to inform Amendment C107. Council submitted that the mandatory provisions meet the tests in PPN59 based on design principles and intent detailed in the Precinct Plan. In its submission, Council responded to the following design principles and objectives to justify the mandatory provisions:  The importance of protecting the Shrine and its setting  The importance of built form reinforcing the formal boulevard avenues and spaces of the street system  The importance of building siting and massing to create landscape links that strengthen the physical and visual connections to major parks, reinforce the boulevard character and create an well designed ‘edge’ to open spaces  Creating ‘streets for people’ through mandatory podium requirements that ensure the ‘street‐wall’ created by buildings contribute to a positive street level experience  Ensuring private amenity and outlook. Submissions from Owners Corporations and other residents supported mandatory provisions because they believe:  They provide certainty that the local amenity will be protected  Overdevelopment of some sites may limit development on others  Discretionary provisions are not working effectively because approvals have significantly departed from the preferred heights and setbacks. Submissions from property owners with development interests disagreed with these opinions because they believed that precinct‐wide mandatory provisions:  Do not allow variation or innovation to suit site specific circumstances  Do not meet the tests set out in PPN59  Are not appropriate in a precinct with diverse characteristics

Page 17 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

 Would limit development opportunities in a high density area. Examples include the submissions of Jewish Care, Wuzhong International (Aust) Pty Ltd and Lintime Pty Ltd. Jewish Care referred to the Melbourne Amendment C171 panel report where the Panel opposed mandatory provisions because the panel believed that this approach attempted to micromanage development to make urban design a formulaic exercise. Eight other submissions referred to the Melbourne C171 panel report to support their opposition to mandatory provisions. When assessed against the tests in PPN59, Urbis, on behalf of Wuzhong International (Aust) Pty Ltd, submitted: Overall, whilst we recognise the need to protect the world class boulevard status of the St Kilda Road corridor and the significance of the Shrine we are concerned that the mandatory nature of the controls will unnecessarily limit potential growth opportunities in this area and are unjustified for the context for the subject site when considered against Practice Note 59. Lintime Pty Ltd submitted: The proposed mandatory height and setbacks are inappropriate and seemingly not based upon any detailed modelling. The precinct contains a mix of different sized sites, with different opportunities and constraints. A one‐size‐fits‐all approach here is not warranted and not supported by Practice Note 59 ‐ The role of mandatory provisions in planning schemes (September 2010). To address issues raised in submissions above, Fulcrum, on behalf of 15 Park St Pty Ltd, suggested: Consequently, we submit that a redrafted DD026 control is required specifying both mandatory and discretionary limits, accompanied by more specific guidance as to the requirements that are to be met and what the built form outcomes are to achieve if these heights are to be exceeded.

3.3 Evidence Mr Biles of Message Consultants was engaged as an expert on planning by the City of Port Phillip. Message Consultants prepared the 2013 Shrine Report. Mr Biles referred to PPN59 when assessing whether mandatory provisions were justified for the Precinct. In his evidence, Mr Biles acknowledged the existing mandatory Shrine Vista provisions and stated: Once these provisions were approved, a case for ensuring the adjacent sub‐ precincts, complemented and worked with the Shrine amendment became a clear imperative that indicated the need for mandatory height provisions in the wider context. Mr Biles stated that the rationale for applying mandatory provisions was based on the following four elements of the Precinct’s built form character:  Protecting the wider setting around the Shrine of Remembrance.

Page 18 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

 Maintaining and enhancing the character of the pre‐eminent St Kilda Road boulevard.  Maintaining a westward transition in building height which comprises the following elements:  The transition in height from St Kilda Road down towards Queens Road and Albert Park from the higher forms around the Domain.  The transition in heights from St Kilda Road/Albert Road across Kings Way and to the lower rise area of South Melbourne (i.e. sub‐precinct 2).  The progressive transition in scale along Albert Road and Palmerston Crescent, from Kings Way through to Moray Street.  Establishing a scale transition from the east side of Kings Way to the west side. In his evidence, Mr Biles added that the uncertainty resulting from not having mandatory provisions will result in a strong ‘knock on’ effect if built form outcomes are applied inappropriately. He stated that the Amendment was not just about neighbourhood character and amenity impacts on neighbours and that “It involves a bigger set of urban design issues that goes to the heart of an important civic spine with quite complex interrelationships between sub‐precincts.” Other experts believed that mandatory provisions were not appropriate or justified. Urban design experts Mr Sheppard of David Lock Associates and Mr McGauran of MGS Architects, engaged by 11 and 5 parties respectively, did not support applying mandatory provisions across the entire Precinct. They did, however, believe that some mandatory provisions were justified in some sub‐precincts, as discussed in sub‐precinct specific chapters in this report.

3.4 Discussion PPN59 outlines that planning schemes, based on the Victoria Planning Provisions, are predominantly performance based. A performance based system relies on a professional assessment against objectives and performance outcomes so that future variation, innovation or unforeseen circumstances can be accommodated. PPN59 states that mandatory provisions should only be applied in exceptional circumstances were appropriate or necessary. The Shrine is one of Victoria’s most important landmarks and its protection is not negotiable under any circumstance. Protecting the Shrine’s aspect and prospect views is an exceptional circumstance that warrants mandatory provisions. Submitters and experts shared the view that the wider setting around the Shrine needs to be protected and the character of St Kilda Road should be maintained and enhanced. The Panel commends Council for its role in achieving this outcome to date through the existing planning scheme provisions. The question is whether a similar level of protection as afforded to the Shrine is needed in the remainder of the Precinct to implement the Precinct Plan. To inform itself, the Panel reviewed the mandatory provisions against the five tests in PPN59, and concludes that they are not justified at a Precinct level for reasons outlined below.

Page 19 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Insufficient strategic justification Provisions have been in place for the Shrine Vista for decades. These provisions were updated in May 2014 through Amendment C140. The Panel acknowledges that the Shrine is of State significance and that its associated mandatory provisions have been justified through a separate planning process. It is acknowledged that Council is seeking to apply a consistent approach across the entire Precinct to achieve a uniform built form outcome. However, the Panel does not believe that this is a sufficient basis to justify mandatory provisions, beyond those for the Shrine. Existing planning policy provides solid justification for many of the DDO26 objectives sought to be achieved, however, there is insufficient justification to support mandatory provisions as a means of achieving these objectives. Mandatory provisions not appropriate or necessary for the majority of proposals The Panel does not consider mandatory provisions appropriate or necessary for the majority of proposals. An example is the 4.5 metre side setbacks which will be impractical on smaller properties in Sub‐precincts 2 and 3 compared to larger and more consistently sized properties along St Kilda Road. There are some instances in some sub‐precincts such as Sub‐ precinct 5, where the Panel found that mandatory provisions are necessary for a majority of proposals to achieve relevant objectives. Preferred outcome can still be achieved through performance based provisions The Panel believes that the performance based provisions have been managing the Precinct to a satisfactory level. There is a degree of built form variation within and between sub‐ precincts, however, a consistent pattern emerges when viewed across a broader scale. The Precinct Plan will provide further urban design guidance for assessing whether future permit applications are likely to achieve the intended built form outcomes. To date, Precinct wide built form consistency has been generally achieved through Council’s professional assessment of permit applications against detailed design objectives, performance based provisions and effective local policy. The Panel supports performance based provisions because they can increase the range of innovative designs and create interesting built form variation and can respond to site specific variations such as lot size and existing development. Variation from the proposed provisions is acceptable The Panel believes that Precinct Plan could be successfully implemented if a majority of proposals vary from the specified provisions, subject to meeting the design objectives and policies. The comprehensive nature of DDO26 and its exhaustive list of Precinct and Sub‐ precinct objectives and provisions will help assess whether variation from the provisions is appropriate. An applicant should not expect any variation from the provisions unless they meet the relevant design objectives. This means that there can only be a limited degree of variation before the objectives can no longer be met. In regards to planning certainty raised in submissions, this should be measured by whether the design objectives and associated policy can be achieved; not by the number of permits that vary from the provisions.

Page 20 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Administrative costs are unlikely to reduce It is unlikely that mandatory provisions will reduce administrative costs because Council will continue to allocate the same resources to assess an application and a considerable number of provisions will continue to be subject to third party appeal rights.

3.4.1 Conclusion The Panel concludes the Shrine is one of Victoria’s most important landmarks that should be protected through mandatory provisions. Where future development does not impact on the Shrine, there is insufficient strategic justification for mandatory provisions on a precinct‐ wide basis. It is not appropriate or necessary to apply mandatory provisions to the entire precinct simply because they apply to a portion of the Precinct. Taking into account the scale of the precinct, the design objectives could be achieved through predominantly performance based provisions. The Panel also concludes that some mandatory provisions are suitable and justified in some of the Sub‐precincts. These are discussed further throughout this report.

Page 21 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

4 Building heights

4.1 Background The building heights proposed before the Amendment was authorised were informed by the Precinct Plan. Subsequently, the former Minister for Planning approved amendments to the Melbourne, Stonnington and Port Phillip Planning Schemes to implement the findings of the 2013 Shrine Report. This report recommended heights shown in Figure 5. Amendment C140 revised, among other changes, building heights in DDO3 and DDO4 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme, as shown in Table 4. Most properties along St Kilda Road are subject to mandatory heights in addition to the DDO13 provisions (Shrine Vista).

Figure 5 Heights recommended in the 2013 Shrine Report

Page 22 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Table 4 Evolution of Precinct wide discretionary and mandatory buildings heights Amend C5: Amend C86: Amend C140: 2013 Shrine Amend C107 21/12/2000 20/2/2011 8/5/2014 ReportD DDO3 DDO26 Precinct Height Height Precinct Height Precinct Height Height 1 30m 30m 1 30m 3 30‐60m n/a 2 24m 24m 2 24m 3 30m n/a 3 18m 18m 3 18m 3 18‐30m n/a 4 9m 9m 4 9m 3 9m n/a 5 35m 35m 5 35m 2 45m Up to 150m AHD 6 45m 45m 6 45m 2 45m Up to 150m AHD 7 70m AHD 1 70m AHD 36/70 AHD 7 60m 60m 2 45m 65m AHD 85 AHD 9 4 85m AHD 8 36m AHD 1 36m AHD 36m AHD 8 36m AHD 36m AHD 10 25m AHD 1 25m AHD 25m AHD DDO4 DDO26 1 60m 60m 1 65m AHD 4 65m AHD 65m AHD 5 65m AHD 2 60m 60m 2 65m AHD 65m AHD 6 65m AHD 3 45m 45m 3 45m 5 60m 65‐110m AHD 4 24m 24m 4 24m 5 60m n/‐A 5 40m 40m 5 30 & 40mB 6 30 & 40m 65‐110m AHDC 6 60m 5 60m Shrine Vista Control Source: This table was prepared by the Panel and reviewed by Port Phillip City Council as part of the Hearing process. NOTES:  The heights represent sub‐precinct maximum heights and do not include building heights found in setbacks. For Amendment C107, the full set of heights for each sub‐area within each sub‐precinct can be found in the exhibited DDO26.  Many of the Amendment C107 sub‐precinct boundaries do not exactly align with the boundaries of precincts in DDO3 and 4. The height that applies to the majority of the area has been shown in the table above. KEY: Preferred maximum height (ie Discretionary) Mandatory maximum height A. Area east of St Kilda Road is not affected by the 2013 Shrine Report. B. 40m north of Hanna Street and 30m south of Roy Street. C. The 2013 Shrine Report proposes different heights to the north and south of the reserve. D. The Shrine of Remembrance: Managing the significance of the Shrine, July 2013 As discussed in Chapter 1.4, a condition of authorisation was that the Amendment not introduce any built form provisions that exceed the heights specified in the 2013 Shrine Report. Accordingly, Council reduced building heights to respond to this condition. The exhibited DDO26 includes precinct‐wide mandatory building heights, as shown in Table 3. A considerable number of existing buildings would exceed the proposed mandatory heights, as show in Figure 6.

Page 23 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Several submissions opposed increased building heights because it would impact existing views from their apartment. The Panel agrees with Council1 that there is no mechanism in the VPP to protect views from existing buildings. This matter is therefore not discussed further in this report.

4.2 Australian Height Datum (AHD) and Reduced Level (RL) The use of the Australian Height Datum (AHD) to identify allowable building heights in the area covered by Amendment C140 is appropriate given the use of computer‐based programs to assess the location and heights of proposed buildings in this important area. The use of Reduced Level (RL) as a basis for determining building heights using an arbitrary site datum, usually on the footpath in front of a site, is common practice. The relationship of Reduced Levels with AHD is the height of natural ground level compared to AHD. For example, in Sub‐precinct 4, this difference amounts to about 10 metres. Given that both forms of measurement are used in this area, it is considered that applicants will need to identify the height of a building by both methods, to demonstrate compliance with both the Shrine vista controls and the height limits (whether mandatory or discretionary) set out in the Amendment.

4.3 The issues The issues are whether the mandatory building heights in the exhibited DDO26:  Are appropriate and justified on a Precinct wide basis  Are justified for transitioning heights in Sub‐precinct 2 down towards Kings Way.  Have a strategic correlation with modelling in the 2013 Shrine Report, mandatory heights in DDO13 and the Amendment’s condition of authorisation.

4.4 Submissions Council submitted that the six principles and supporting objectives in the Precinct Plan establish the ‘preferred character’, including building heights, for each sub‐precinct. Council added: Whilst Amendment C107 (through DDO26) proposes to increase overall building heights in a number of sub‐precincts, it also introduces more refined and nuanced controls that will deliver improved design outcomes. Council added that ‘the heights proposed in C107 are based on a detailed analysis. Council did not just pick a number’. Council submitted that building heights for each sub‐precinct were informed by:  The overall urban design approach for the wider Precinct and scale relationships between Sub‐precincts  Mandatory heights recommended by the 2013 Shrine Report  Existing built form context of each individual sub‐precinct: - development constraints including lot sizes and land ownership

1 Council submission: Document 1, p140.

Page 24 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

- existing building heights/built form and landscape setbacks - the need to minimise amenity impacts on adjoining low rise residential areas - the need to avoid overshadowing of key open spaces and streets. As shown in Figure 14 of its submission (shown in Figure 6 below) Council provided its analysis of existing building heights that would exceed DDO26 mandatory heights proposed by the Amendment.

Figure 6 Existing buildings that would exceed the proposed mandatory heights

Source: Based on Figure 14 of Council submission, Document 1, p63

Page 25 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Submissions from residents opposed the proposed mandatory building heights. Several compared the existing preferred heights with the proposed mandatory heights. The Boulevarde Owners Corporation submitted that this was an increase in the existing allowable heights and opposed the increase because it was not in line with existing and preferred character and built form. Several other resident submitters supported the mandatory building heights because they provided certainty about the extent of development and associated issues such as amenity and traffic. Other submitters opposed the mandatory building heights and argued they:  Will restrict alternative outcomes from being considered on their merits  Do not respond to the metropolitan significance of the precinct  Do not have sufficient justification beyond the Shrine Vista  Will create unintended consequences resulting from how height is measured in DDO26 compared to DDO13  Will make existing buildings unlawful.

4.5 Evidence Planning and urban design experts, except for Mr Biles, believed that there was insufficient strategic justification to support precinct‐wide mandatory heights. Most experts disagreed with Council’s approach to apply mandatory heights across the entire precinct to ensure consistency with mandatory building height within the Shrine’s environs. The Panel was provided with extensive evidence to support the following statements: 1. Heights found in Figure 8.1 of the 2013 Shrine report do not align with the report’s logic and modelling. 2. DDO26 mandatory heights that overlap with the mandatory modelling in DDO13 exceed the level of protection required for the Shrine. 3. Mandatory heights are not required to transition building scale towards lower‐rise development.

4.6 Discussion It is noted that many submitters did not oppose the building heights in DDO26. Most issues were based on whether these heights were implemented as a mandatory or discretionary provision. The Panel acknowledges that the Precinct Plan seeks to achieve a consistent urban design approach with the mandatory provisions introduced to protect the Shrine Vista. As discussed in Chapter 3, there is insufficient basis to generally apply precinct‐wide mandatory provisions. When applying the same tests found in PPN59 specifically to building heights, the Panel cannot find sufficient justification for reasons provided below. The Panel considered building height related matters including Shrine Vista protection, the condition of authorisation and transition to lower‐rise development, as detailed later in this chapter.

Page 26 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Council argued that there may be circumstances where it is necessary to apply a mandatory height that is lower than some of the existing buildings in a sub‐precinct in order to address identified built form issues. The Panel could not find any issues that would warrant such an extreme response. After careful consideration, the Panel believes that the existing mandatory building heights would be generally suitable as discretionary heights subject to robustly worded provisions that make it clear that these heights should be met unless a proposal can meet all of the relevant objectives and policies. The Panel does not accept submissions that existing buildings that exceed proposed mandatory heights will be unlawful because:  They were lawfully approved with the planning scheme provisions at that time  A provision in DDO26 will allow existing buildings that exceed the mandatory height to be reconstructed to the existing height. Building heights for sub‐precincts are discussed in relevant chapters throughout this report.

4.6.1 Shrine vista protection Council, parties to the Hearing and the Panel unanimously agreed that the Shrine (and its view corridors) is one of Victoria’s significant state assets that requires protection. The Shrine vista has been protected through existing provisions for many decades. More recently, secondary building impacts on prospect and aspect views to and from the and south and south‐western quarter were considered worthy of protection. These are reflected in the 2013 Shrine Report and the exhibited DDO26. The Shrine vista corridor control in DDO13 is robust and effectively protects views to and from the Shrine and Swanston Street (in front of the State Library). Expert evidence demonstrated a misalignment between the modelling in the 2013 Shrine Report (and DDO13 that takes into account distance from the Shrine) and the mandatory heights found in Figure 8.1 of the 2013 Shrine Report. It is not clear is how perspective modelling with angled planes resulted in the horizontal heights. The Panel believes that the mandatory heights in DDO26 may exceed the level necessary to protect the Shrine. However, it is not the role of the Panel to comprehensively review or recommend changes to the 2013 Shrine Report.

4.6.2 Condition of authorisation The Panel has given serious weight to the condition of authorisation requiring Council not to introduce any built form provisions that exceed the mandatory heights specified in the 2013 Shrine Report. However, the condition of authorisation relied on these heights being necessary and justified. This places the Panel in a difficult position because on the one hand it is not its role to review the 2013 Shrine Report and on the other hand it does not seek to unnecessarily restrict development potential. The Panel has adopted a precautionary approach and applied the heights subject to the condition of authorisation.

Page 27 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

4.6.3 Transition down to lower‐rise development In addition to protecting the Shrine, Council seeks to transition buildings heights down from St Kilda Road to Kings Way and along St Kilda Road and Queens Road from Hanna Street to St Kilda Junction. This contrasts with heights allowable through DDO13 and the 2013 Shrine report. These two documents consider it suitable for building heights of up to 150 metres on the western side of St Kilda Road and up to 110 metres on St Kilda Road and Queens Road from Hanna Street toward St Kilda junction. DDO26, on the other hand, applies varying mandatory heights to transition the height:  From Hanna Street down to 60 metres along St Kilda Road and down to 40 metres along Queens Road  From St Kilda Road down to 45 metres at Kings Way. A transition down to lower‐rise development is proposed for the following areas outside of DDO13 and the 2013 Shrine Report:  From Kings Way down to 9 metres along Albert Road at Moray Street  From Albert Road down to 15 metres at Palmerston Crescent (west of Kings Way). To inform itself, Panel considered: 1. Is transitioning of building heights justified? 2. If yes to 1, is the use of mandatory building heights rigorously justified? 3. If no to 2, should discretionary building heights guide the transition? 4. If yes to 3, can the exhibited mandatory building heights be generally translated to discretionary heights? Is transitioning of building heights justified? Several submitters and experts did not believe there was a need to transition building height, so the Panel has considered whether this approach was justified. The Panel found that Council’s approach is supported by an existing strategy to ensure that ‘new development at increased densities provides a transition in scale to any adjoining lower‐rise development’. The Panel accepts that the transition in scale to adjoining lower‐rise development is justified. Is the use of mandatory building heights rigorously justified? The Panel assessed whether mandatory provisions are required and justified and whether discretionary provisions were insufficient to achieve the transition in scale. The tests found in PPN59 assisted to make this assessment. The Panel found that, although Council’s objective to transition building height was justified, setting this transition through varying mandatory heights in sub‐precincts is not necessary or justified. A transition is only possible if a building on one side is either taller or short than the building on the other side. Therefore, in the absence of mandatory provisions, it would still be possible to achieve a transition in building scale toward lower‐rise development. The question then is whether discretionary provisions can achieve the degree of transition from the taller built form to reach a scale that responds appropriate to the lower‐rise development. Submitters and experts had different opinions about the extent of the transition.

Page 28 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Should discretionary building heights guide the transition? To inform itself, the Panel considered whether discretionary building heights are needed to guide the transition and whether the DDO26 mandatory building heights would be suitable as discretionary heights. Seeking a transition without guidance could provide difficult to implement because of sequencing factors such as location, actual building heights and timing. For example, if a new building substantially lower than most buildings was constructed, does this mean that the next building should be lower than the new building or lower than the majority of buildings in the area. This ambiguity may result in unintended built form outcomes and unnecessary delays in the permit application process. The Panel believes that discretionary building heights should guide development toward the ultimate intended scale. Can the exhibited mandatory building heights be generally translated to discretionary heights? The Panel believes that building heights proposed as mandatory in DDO26 are generally appropriate but as discretionary building heights. However the Panel recommends some variation to the building heights in specific sub‐precincts.

4.7 Conclusion The Panel concludes:  There is insufficient strategic basis to apply precinct‐wide mandatory building heights.  Buildings heights in DDO26 are generally suitable as discretionary building heights, unless specified otherwise in Chapters 6 to 11.  There appears to be conflicting logic between heights determined from the modelling in the 2013 Shrine Report and heights found in Figure 8.1 of the same report.  Transitioning built form down towards lower rise residential areas in Port Phillip is supported by local policy and, where appropriate within the precinct, should be implemented through guiding discretionary building heights.

Page 29 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

5 Precinct wide issues

This Chapter addresses the following threshold issues raised in submissions common to sub‐ precincts:  Capacity for growth  Podium‐and‐tower form  Tower width and depth  Corner sites  Separation distances  Dwelling size and housing diversity  Private and communal open space  External amenity impacts  Public realm  Traffic and parking.

5.1 Capacity for growth

5.1.1 The issue Several submitters believed that existing drainage infrastructure and the number and type of community facilities are not adequate to service the population anticipated for the Precinct. Some submitters believed that developers should pay for these new facilities through some form on development contribution. The issue is whether the Precinct is capable of accommodating growth envisaged by the Precinct Plan without unreasonably impacting on liveability and infrastructure.

5.1.2 Evidence and Submissions Council submitted that the primary strategic directions for growth in the Precinct exist in the Municipal Strategic Statement of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme, and changes proposed by Amendment C107 will leave them largely unchanged. Council added that a detailed capacity analysis was undertaken through the five technical studies listed in Chapter 1.3. The Amendment was prepared with an understanding that infrastructure in the Precinct could accommodate (based on a 25% redevelopment rate) an additional 3,100 dwellings and additional 9,979 car parking spaces. Several submitters stated that the role of the Precinct it to accommodate growth and that it is strategically located to existing and proposed public transport, employment, services and facilities. Other submitters believed that the Precinct has already experienced too much growth and that increased high rise development will unreasonably impact on the Precinct’s liveability and on infrastructure such as community services and facilities, and drainage infrastructure. In response, submitters sought to have proposed mandatory heights lowered to align with existing preferred heights. Whether a low or high growth scenario, some submitters wanted future developers to fund improvements and upgrades to the Precinct. Council submitted that it investigated the option of a Development Contributions Plan to fund public realm improvements and

Page 30 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015 infrastructure upgrades but did not to progress this option given the State Government review of development contributions.

5.1.3 Discussion The Panel agrees with Council that changes proposed by Amendment C107 have been identified for years in the primary strategic directions for the Precinct in the Municipal Strategic Statement of the Planning Scheme. The Precinct Plan and associated proposed changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement recognise that the anticipated level of growth needs to meet at least 35 DDO26 objectives to address, among other issues, amenity and liveability.

(i) Conclusion The Panel concludes that the Precinct’s role to accommodate growth remains largely unchanged and it makes no recommendation in relation to this matter.

5.2 Podium‐and‐tower form

5.2.1 The issue Each sub‐precinct in DDO26 has a mandatory height within a specified number of metres from the front or rear of the site. This effectively creates a podium‐and‐tower built form. The issue is whether mandatory podium‐and‐tower setbacks and heights are appropriate and need to be applied precinct‐wide.

5.2.2 Evidence and Submissions In its submission, Council confirmed that a podium‐and‐tower form is not sought along St Kilda Road and portions of Queens Road and Albert Road where ‘landscaped front setbacks help to ameliorate the impacts of taller buildings and achieve other objectives such as maintaining view corridors’. Council added: The urban design rationale for a podium approach to building designs is to create human scale street proportions, with the tower form recessive above the podium. Several submitters opposed the broad application of mandatory podium‐and‐tower form provisions because it would:  Result a less desirable built form outcome, or  Unreasonably constrain design and development opportunities. Many of these submitters quoted the Melbourne C171 Panel report that concluded:  First, there appears to be no evidence that the tower/podium typology is the best built form outcome to achieve the objectives sought by the structure plan …  Secondly, reliance on a rigid formulaic approach would inevitably preclude some of the excellent design examples …  Thirdly, the one size fits all design approach does not sit comfortably in an area like Southbank which, unlike the CBD, has a haphazard road layout, dead end streets and contains many lots with an irregular shape size …

Page 31 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

5.2.3 Discussion The Panel accepts Council’s urban design rationale that seeks to create human scale street proportions. However, the Panel is not convinced that mandatory and rigid setbacks above the podium are the only design response to achieve this objective. While many buildings are designed in the podium and tower form, there are many buildings that do not have podiums, often due to the existing planning provisions. St Kilda Road south of Kings Way is a significant example. These definitions are used in DDO26: A podium means those levels of a building which are constructed to the front or side boundaries of a site and where any building above those levels is set back from the levels below. A tower means any part of a building which sits above a podium or where there is no podium, any building taller than 5 storeys in height. It is common for podiums to be occupied by car parking and hence have less need for setbacks from side boundaries, therefore generating a podium form when upper levels are set back to provide daylight and create adequate separation of apartments or office space from buildings on adjoining sites. A podium‐and‐tower form is often the result of practical design rather than a desired built form. The provision of a podium has distinct benefits. One is the reduced height of a building abutting or close to the street frontage, thereby creating a 'street wall' that is comfortable for pedestrians in terms of scale and the ratio of built form to street width. Another is the benefit of a change in facade plane in assisting to ameliorate the impacts of downward winds generated by the tower. Along much of St Kilda Road, buildings do not have podiums but are essentially a cuboid form with walls extending upward without any setback of upper levels. This is an accepted built form for that road due to the required minimum setback of buildings from all boundaries, in particular from the street frontage, which ameliorates the visual impact of building height on pedestrian amenity in the street environment. The introduction of a provision to achieve a podium‐and‐tower form has merit, generally to ensure that the public realm benefits from a relatively low street wall height which, in conjunction with required setbacks for higher built form, achieves a podium‐and‐tower form. However, unless such setbacks are defined as maximums, there is no compulsion for such a profile to be met; the lower levels of a building could be set back to the tower setback line and hence be constructed without a step in the facade. The Panel considers that there is merit in providing for a stepped facade in defined locations within the Precinct, and that the streets where this is proposed are generally correct. By the same token, the Panel concurs with Council regarding locations where a stepped facade is not necessary.

Page 32 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

(i) Conclusion The Panel concludes:  Podium‐and‐tower form will not be suitable in all circumstances  Building setbacks should be discretionary to allow for suitable alternative built form outcomes.

5.3 Tower width and depth DDO26 Sub‐clause 3.0 (General requirements) includes the following provision: Tower Design and Internal Amenity  Tower forms (above podiums) should not exceed a maximum width and depth of 35 metres to:  Ensure that daylight penetrates through to parts of the building and streets, and adjoining buildings.  Reduce their perceived visual bulk.  Maintain sightlines between buildings. In Version C, Council revised the provision to:  Tower forms (above podiums) should not exceed a maximum width of 35 metres to: …

5.3.1 The issue The issue is whether the 35 metre tower width and depth provision is appropriate and necessary to achieve the intended design objectives.

5.3.2 Evidence and Submissions Council submitted in justification of the proposed provision: A maximum tower depth of 35m is proposed to ensure that daylight penetrates through to the streets and that the visual bulk of towers does not dominate the human scale quality of the street. The proposed depth of 35m was based on standards included in the Southbank Structure Plan 2010. Council revised this provision (Version C) to require a 35 metre maximum for only the width of the tower. Some submitters opposed the proposed 35 metre tower width and depth because they believed large properties can accommodate a wider tower and the dimensions are not supported by sound strategic justification or background evidence. Mr Sheppard, on behalf of 412 St Kilda Road Pty Ltd, stated in his evidence: Given the width of St Kilda Road, I do not consider that a tower width and depth control is needed to ensure adequate daylight or sense of openness in the street. Tower separation and side and rear setback controls to ensure adequate internal amenity are found within each sub‐precinct.

Page 33 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

5.3.3 Discussion

(i) Tower width and depth The exhibited Amendment discourages tower forms above podiums that exceed a maximum width and depth of 35 metres. This is proposed to achieve two outcomes:  To ensure that adequate natural light can reach the centre of a building and that occupants are not too distant from perimeter windows and views to the outdoors  To avoid large slab‐like structures facing the public domain. The Panel supports the first design intention, but considers that a maximum should apply to one dimension only. A long building can provide this amenity benefit if the transverse dimension is a maximum of 35 metres. The Panel concurs with the dimension of 35 metres. In terms of tower forms above podiums exceeding 35 metres, the Panel notes that there are few such sites in the area. Even if site amalgamation occurs, the Panel considers that the design and application process provides adequate opportunities to ensure that the exterior of such a building is designed and articulated to provide visual interest. The Panel does not consider it to be reasonable to arbitrarily restrict a tower’s footprint in both dimensions if a site allows it to exceed 35 metres in one dimension.

(ii) Conclusion The Panel concurs with Council, as expressed in Version C of DDO26, that the maximum width and depth of 35 metres should apply in one dimension only.

5.4 Corner sites DDO26 Sub‐clause 2.0 (Buildings and works ‐ Permit requirement) exempts the following corner sites from the mandatory podium requirement:  Frontage of abuttal to St Kilda Road, or Albert Road within Sub‐precinct 3  Kings Way within Sub‐precincts 4c and 4d  Queens Road with Sub‐precinct 4d  Corner of Park Street and St Kilda Road with Sub‐precinct 4a. DDO26 Sub‐clause 3.0 (General requirements ‐ Design quality) is associated with this exemption and includes the following provision: Design quality …  Corner sites must achieve a high quality architectural outcome at the transition of any varying podium requirements that contribute to consistent streetscapes.

5.4.1 The issue The issue is whether the corner sites provision will achieve its intended outcome in its current form.

Page 34 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

5.4.2 Evidence and Submissions Council submitted that the purpose of the exemption makes podium height and setback requirements discretionary to provide flexibility for corner sites where a podium requirement differs on each interface. Several submitters found it difficult to interpret the provisions related to corner sites in sub‐ clauses 2.0 and 3.0 of DDO26. In response, Council submitted at the Hearing the following revised wording for both clauses to help clarify how and where the provisions operate:

Table 5 Exhibited and Revised (Version C) corner sites provision

Exhibited version Revised version Clause 2.0 (Buildings and works ‐ Permit requirement) A permit cannot be granted to vary any mandatory requirements of this Schedule. This does not apply to the following circumstances: The podium height and setback requirements for All podium height and setback requirements for corner sites with a frontage or abuttal to St Kilda corner sites with a frontage or abuttal to: Road, or Albert Road within Sub‐Precinct 3, Kings - St Kilda Road within Sub‐Precincts 1, 4 and 5 Way within Sub‐Precincts 4c and 4d, Queens Road - Albert Road within Sub‐Precinct 3 within Sub‐Precinct 4d and the corner of Park Street - Kings Way within Sub‐Precincts 4c and 4d and St Kilda Road within Sub‐Precinct 4a. This allows - Queens Road within Sub‐Precinct 4d. for architectural resolution of varying podium height requirements. Clause 3.0 (General Requirement ‐ Design quality) Corner sites must achieve a high quality architectural Where a podium/tower typology is not proposed for outcome at the transition of any varying podium a corner site, a high quality architectural response is requirements that contribute to consistent required which achieves an appropriate transition to streetscapes. podium/setback requirements on adjoining sites, including through building articulation/ massing, building materials, finishes and design detail.

HEC Grace submitted that Sub‐precinct 2 should also be subject to the discretionary corner site podium height and setback provision. Its reasons for seeking a variation from prescribed street setbacks, podium heights and tower setbacks include: a) Provision for a ‘hard edge’ to the street corner – which could be appropriate in a more robust environment such as Kings Way; b) Provision of a landmark or statement building, which departs from the architectural expression adopted by the surrounding properties; and c) Activation and surveillance to both street frontages.

5.4.3 Discussion and conclusion The Panel acknowledges submitter concern that corner sites with side and main road frontages may have two different sets of conflicting provisions. Council clarified that it did not intend to apply the mandatory podium typology to corner sites. The revised wording, while providing clarity, only addresses corner sites in some Sub‐precincts. This does not include Sub‐precinct 2.

Page 35 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

As outlined in Chapter 5.2, the Panel does not support mandatory podium requirements. This removes the need for a provision that exempt corner sites that may have conflicting podium requirements. However, there should be guidance on how corner sites with different discretionary podium provisions should be designed. The Panel believes that the revised version shown in Table 5 provides this guidance.

(i) Conclusion The Panel supports:  The corner sites design element as a discretionary provision in all precincts  Council’s approach to corner sites in DDO26 (Version C).

5.5 Separation distances DDO26 requires a 9 metre separation distance between towers (above the podium) in 12 sub‐areas within Sub‐precincts 2, 3 and 4. It also requires a 4.5 metre side setback (above the podium) in Precincts 2‐6, effectively creating a 9 metre separation between towers.

5.5.1 The issue The issue is whether a uniform 9 metre separation distance between towers is appropriate and justified on a precinct wide basis.

5.5.2 Evidence and Submissions Council submitted that the mandatory separation distances were informed by:  The existing DDO4 requirement for a 4.5m setback from side boundaries which has resulted in consistency in the spacing of buildings along St Kilda Road and Queens Road, and now an established element of the area’s urban character. Given the established pattern of building spacing, these setbacks should be applied as mandatory controls.  Ensuring a minimum requirement to protect internal amenity and amenity to adjoining sites/dwellings.  Ensuring a minimum setback is achieved to ensure equitable development rights on adjoining sites. [emphasis added by Council] Submitters sought a 9 metre or greater separation distance between towers to address privacy and daylight access issues. Hansen Partnership, on behalf of the Domain Owners Corporation, believed that the City of Moreland's proposed Design Code for Higher Density Development is Melbourne’s leading example of best practice guidelines and submitted: The Moreland code sets building separation distances according to outlook and height, with the required distance increasing relative to height, so as to mitigate the impact of higher levels on lower levels, and with other important factors considered such as primary and secondary outlook. This would clearly not be achieved by a uniform 4.5m setback at all levels. Many submitters opposed any form of mandatory separation distances. There was a concentration of opposing submitters from property owners in Precincts 2 and 3 where properties were smaller, had an irregular shape or had an adjoining building with a blank

Page 36 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015 wall. Submitters and their experts stated that it was impractical to apply a standard precinct wide side setback on such properties. Mr Biles stated in his evidence for Council that building separation along St Kilda Road and Queens Road with regular spacing is a valued part of the existing boulevard character. Mr Biles added: A 4.5m side setback requirement ensures a 9m building separation which is consistent with the distance at which screening is not generally required to prevent overlooking (based on the common application of this common ResCode requirement to taller structures) allowing for side‐facing windows to provide natural daylight and ventilation to residential units. It also allows for an equal sharing of amenity between sites to prevent development on one site from compromising the development potential of its neighbour. There are a number of examples of how issues of building separation have been approached in higher density areas across Melbourne, and I consider the proposed 4.5m setback requirement an effective measure in the context of St Kilda Road North. The side setback requirements are intended to work alongside a requirement for a maximum 35m x 35m floorplate size to ensure a good level of amenity is available to residents. There may be times where this framework would be beneficially varied and still achieve a suitable design response.

5.5.3 Discussion Amendment C107 proposes a mandatory setback of 4.5 metres from side boundaries and a mandatory minimum tower separation of 9 metres. This requirement is proposed in order to ensure adequate internal amenity for occupants, potential for outlooks and ventilation and to meet the minimum separation of dwellings as provided for under Clause 55 of the VPP (ResCode). It also achieves visual separation of towers, with opportunities for solar penetration to and between buildings. These objectives have merit, however they are not readily applied in an environment where buildings exist on adjoining sites and which have setbacks that are less than 4.5 metres, including zero setbacks, or where sites are narrow and where imposition of this provision would restrict the allowable width and would prevent the construction of a building. The Panel believes that a precinct‐wide separation distance is not warranted or practical because it would:  Make narrow sites undevelopable  Restrict the development capacity of irregularly shaped sites to the wider part of the site  Require a side setback even if it is adjacent to a blank wall of an existing building on all or part of a side boundary  Not allow discretion to consider other innovative design solutions such as semi‐ detached buildings. The presence of irregularly shaped sites is particularly prevalent in Sub‐precincts 2, 3 and 4.

Page 37 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Many submissions and evidence referred to specific sites where buildings on adjoining sites have been constructed onto at least part of the common boundary, resulting in a blank wall facing the proposed development site. Submitters argued that in situations such as this, the logical design solution is to butt any new building up against this blank boundary wall rather than leave a setback of 4.5 metres, with windows facing a blank wall. While the specifics of each site differ, the Panel believes there is logic in allowing a new building to be constructed against the blank wall of an existing building on an adjoining site. However, it is likely that the profile of the two buildings will not be identical, with parts of the new building extending beyond the existing blank wall. In such circumstances, the 4.5 metre setback provision should, other things being equal, apply. With regard to narrow sites, the resolution of an acceptable provision is less straightforward. This is because there may not be a building of similar height to what is proposed on the adjoining sites, and hence the opportunity to build to one or other side boundary with zero setback, may not be evident. The Panel notes the recent VCAT approval of a building at 31‐33 Park Street, on the corner of Miller Lane (VCAT Reference no P1586/2014). This site and several properties to the west are relatively narrow and the imposition of 4.5 metre setbacks from one or both boundaries would severely limit the development capacity of these sites and would make a workable floor plan hard to achieve, if at all. However, a setback from one side boundary may be desirable to provide daylight and outlook to dwellings near to the middle of the site. In such cases, the construction to at least one side boundary is logical. In these circumstances, the Panel accepts that discussion between Council and applicants will be necessary to achieve a building envelope and its siting, including setbacks from both boundaries and at various heights, which will ensure equitable development capacity on all three sites while allowing reasonable development potential on the subject site. A discretionary 4.5 metre separation provision can provide this.

5.5.4 Conclusion The Panel concludes that a mandatory tower separation distance provision for Sub‐precincts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 is not warranted or practical. Discretionary 4.5 metre side and rear setbacks are a good baseline to commence assessing the degree of actual separation required to achieve relevant design objectives.

5.6 Laneways The exhibited DDO26 includes under 'Active Frontages': New development along laneways should incorporate lighting, entry doors, habitable rooms with windows, low fences and display windows.

Page 38 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

5.6.1 Evidence and submissions Submitters with properties abutting laneways stated that particular laneways were either cul‐de‐sacs with no connectivity and hence had little or no pedestrian activity, were abutted by only a few properties, were narrow and served a purely service role that was unlikely to change. They believed that endeavours to activate the ground floor frontages of building would be ineffective. Submitters added that laneways were intended as rear entrances and service areas with vehicular entries, loading docks, emergency exits, sub‐stations or garbage storage areas. For these reasons, submitters such as 74 Eastern Road Pty Ltd believed that there should be no requirement for service lanes to have active frontages. In response to issues raised by submitters, Council revised the Active Frontages requirement as shown in tracked changes: New development along Queens Lane and Bowens Lane should incorporate lighting, entry doors, habitable rooms with windows, low fences and display windows.

5.6.2 Discussion The Panel understands the logic in improving the quality of laneways in response to increasing land use density and hence use of laneways. However, this provision does not acknowledge the various types and functions of laneways. The Panel considers that the principle of activating laneways should only be required where there is space to provide active frontages in addition to the necessary service functions and where the laneway is a part of a pedestrian movement network with connections to other streets at both ends.

5.6.3 Conclusion The Panel finds that active frontages should only be required if the laneway provides pedestrian access between two streets. The need for service frontages and vehicular access uses should remain the primary function of ground level frontages to laneways. For these reasons, the Panel concludes that active frontages should be encouraged through the ‘Active Frontages’ requirements as shown in DDO26 Version C.

5.7 Dwelling size and housing diversity

5.7.1 The issue In response to submissions regarding apartment size, Council revised the exhibited DDO26 to include preferred minimum apartment sizes based on the number of bedrooms. The issue is whether it is appropriate to introduce a provision that directs the size of a dwelling.

5.7.2 Evidence and Submissions In support of applying preferred minimum apartment sizes, Council submitted:

Page 39 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

The following minimum apartment sizes apply in various locations across Australia: LOCATION STUDIO 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOMS 3 BEDROOMS Moreland 37m2 50m2 65m2 90m2 NSW ‐ State None stated 50m2 70m2 95m2 Environmental Planning Policy 65 Adelaide 35m2 50m2 65m2 80m2 (no separate (plus an additional bedroom) 15m2 for every additional bedroom over 3 bedrooms.) Council’s post‐exhibition change responds to resident submitters concerned that apartments below a certain size will result in, what they described as, ‘slum type’ neighbourhoods over time. These submitters sought minimum apartment sizes. Mr Twite, a planning expert, did not support minimum apartment sizes being included as part of this amendment because he believes that this measure would be more properly managed on a state‐wide basis in the VPP.

5.7.3 Discussion Plan Melbourne recognises that there is no regulation in Victoria beyond the National Construction Code to specify how apartments are designed. One of the issues identified is ‘the small size of many apartments’. The Panel therefore does not dispute that there is an identified issue with apartment sizes. However, there is no evidence to support claims that smaller apartments will transform the Precinct into a ‘slum type’ neighbourhood. In response to these unfounded claims, Council introduced a preferred minimum apartment size provision into DDO26 after it was publicly exhibited. The Panel is concerned that other organisations such as housing and industry groups may have made a submission to the Amendment if this provision was exhibited. The Panel acknowledges that preferred minimum apartment sizes can be varied to suit individual circumstances, however, without an understanding of potential impacts there may be unintended consequences. Although preferred provisions have some degree of flexibility, they have considerable weight when assessed as part of a planning permit application. It is understood that the size of apartments is one matter being considered by the Office of the Victorian Architect and DELWP. It is not clear why preferred apartment sizes need to be introduced into the Port Phillip Planning Scheme so urgently ahead of a State‐wide and consistent standard. The Panel notes that the Draft Moreland Higher Density Design Code, now known as the Moreland Apartment Design Code, is subject to Moreland Amendment C142. The Panel found no minimum dwelling sizes in the Moreland Planning Scheme. It appears that Council was referring to Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C142 that seeks to apply a local apartment design code for developments over five storeys. Council requested a Panel in January 2015 and whether this local code is appropriate was yet to be independently considered or approved at the time of the Stonnington C172 Hearing.

Page 40 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

5.7.4 Conclusion The Panel concludes that preferred minimum apartment sizes should be considered for their suitability after:  The Office of the Victoria Architect/DELWP work is finalised to avoid duplication or conflicts, and  The impact of applying local apartment sizes into the planning scheme are understood. No recommendation is made because minimum apartment sizes did not form part of the exhibited Amendment.

5.8 Private and communal open space

5.8.1 The issue DDO26 in clause 3.0 General Requirements – Tower design and internal amenity requires that ‘new residential development must have access to on‐site communal or private open space in the form of rooftops, podiums, balconies or courtyards’. The clause makes specific reference to clause 22.06 of the Planning Scheme, Urban Design Policy for Non Residential Development and Multi Unit Residential Development. This provides guidance on the dimensions and orientation of private open space and communal open space.

5.8.2 Evidence and Submissions Council submitted that the precinct has excellent access to large areas of formal public open space including Fawkner Park, the Domain Parklands and Albert Park Reserve. It recognises the need to improve the existing informal open spaces of the precinct over time to cater for increased demand and increase linkages to open spaces. In particular, Council referenced The Draft Precinct Plan in Strategic Direction 3.3 – High quality public realm and linkages which seeks to enhance existing public open space including streetscape upgrades, forecourts and frontages in St Kilda Road with public seating for public, private and communal use and pursuing opportunity for pedestrian plazas. It was submitted that the island sites off Cobden Street south of Kings Place is an area needing such improvements. Submitters raised the following issues:  5% open space requirement should not be waived  Private open space should be a mandatory minimum area for balconies that should not be included in assessing public open space requirements or the size of apartments  Rooftop open space or ‘green roofs’ should not be exempt from the proposed mandatory building heights.

5.8.3 Discussion The Panel notes that the Port Phillip Planning Scheme open space requirements apply and there is no specific intention to waive this requirement. The Panel is satisfied the Clause 3.0 requirements for private and communal open space compliment the neighbouring large areas of existing high quality open space from all areas of the Precinct.

Page 41 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

The Panel supports Council’s revised provisions that exempt roof gardens and communal open space in locations with mandatory building heights. The Panel formed this view after considering that the axial modelling in the 2013 Shrine Report allows a height greater than those proposed by the Amendment.

(i) Conclusion The Panel supports the approach to private and communal open space, including Council’s revised provisions that exempt roof gardens and communal open space in locations with mandatory building heights.

5.9 Shadows Clause 15 of the SPPF includes the following design principle, even if a development is not subject to Clauses 54, 55 and 56:  Enjoyment of the public realm should be enhanced by a desirable balance of sunlight and shade.  This balance should not be compromised by undesirable overshadowing or exposure to the sun. A strategy of the MSS is to ‘protect public open space from overshadowing by private development’. Clause 22.06 includes the following local policy:  Maximise access to sunlight from key public, recreational and open space areas through the sensitive design and siting of new development.  Ensure that new development does not overshadow public parkland (land included in the Public Park and Recreation Zone) between the hours of 10.00am and 4.00pm on the 22 June (winter solstice), unless otherwise specified in a DDO. The Amendment includes an overall design objective: To encourage building design that minimises adverse amenity impacts upon residential properties, Albert Park, the Shrine of Remembrance and other open space, streets and public places in the area as a result of overshadowing, wind tunnelling or visual bulk. The provision seeks to ensure that new development enhances the public realm and contributes to a network of pedestrian and friendly streets by measures like maintaining solar access to the southern footpaths of Bank and Park Streets. It seeks to transform the street environment in specific locations such as Kings Way. DDO26 seeks to limit impacts of overshadowing of:  Albert Park Reserve between 11am and 2pm at the winter solstice  Mac Robertson Girls’ High School and Wesley Junior School between 11am and 2pm at the winter solstice  South African War Memorial Reserve between 10am and 2pm at the equinox  Bowen Crescent Reserve between 10am and 2pm at the equinox  Southern footpaths of Bank and Park Streets between 10am and 2pm at the equinox

Page 42 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

5.9.1 The issue The issue is whether there is strategic justification to support the extent of mandatory overshadowing protection for the identified open spaces, footpaths, schools and residential area.

5.9.2 Evidence and Submissions Council submitted that DDO26 seeks to limit the impacts of overshadowing on open spaces in and adjoining the Precinct. Council added that it applied mandatory winter solstice provisions to the highly used and high amenity Albert Park Reserve, while the equinox standard has been applied to smaller or less highly used public spaces. Limiting the impact of overshadowing was supported by several submitters that raised concern that increased height will impact on the amenity of public spaces. In response to issues raised by submitters, Council revised the overshadowing provisions to allow discretion for considering how overshadowing will impact the amenity of the open space. This was achieved by adding the following underlined words: Development must not result in any additional overshadowing that will reduce the amenity of the:… This revision was included in DDO26 Version C. The issue of shadow impacts in specific Sub‐precincts is discussed in Chapters 6 to 9.

5.9.3 Discussion The Panel supports the importance of solar access as a consideration of height and design but is concerned about the locational impact of the provisions as proposed in the exhibited Amendment. The Panel believes that there should be discretion in relation to where the shadow may be cast and the amenity of the location. There should be the ability to consider overshadowing in relation the length of time and time of day, the likely use of area that may be overshadowed and the effect the shadow will have on the use of the space and its amenity. Council’s revised overshadowing provisions would achieve this. In relation to shadowing on Park and Bank Streets, Council clarified that the provision applies between Wells Street and Kings Way. However, this does not address concern regarding the impact the mandatory overshadowing provision will have on development potential. The mandatory requirement does not allow consideration of partial shadow, what sections of the footpath maybe impacted and how the footpath may be used. In relation to Mac Robertson Girls’ High School and Wesley Junior School, Council added to the provision that overshadowing be limited to the extent ‘that would reduce the amenity’ of the schools. This is supported for Mac Robertson Girls’ High School however the Panel does not support a specific shadowing requirement for Wesley Junior School. Wesley Junior School is located in a commercial zone and in an area with aspirations to accommodate significant development. The impact of the proposed overshadowing provision may limit the development opportunities in this location of Sub‐precinct 5 in direct conflict with the objectives for this location.

Page 43 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

5.9.4 Conclusions The Panel concludes:  The changes proposed by Council in DDO26 Version C provide an appropriate level of level of discretion to consider overshadowing in relation to amenity impacts.  There should be no additional overshadowing protection in DDO26 beyond that found in other clauses in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme for Wesley Junior School.  The overshadowing provision for the southern footpaths of Bank and Parks Street should be discretionary.  In relation to the residential areas of South Melbourne on the west side of Kings Way, the objectives of Clause 55.04‐5 (Overshadowing) should be considered in relation to any dwelling or residential building only. This should be clarified in the provisions.

5.10 Traffic and parking The exhibited DDO26 includes the following vehicle access and car parking requirements:  Vehicle ingress and egress, loading facilities and building services should not be located on frontages along St Kilda Road.  Vehicle ingress and egress must be located on lanes where possible. Council responded to submissions to the Amendment by adding the following application requirement to Version B of DDO26: A Traffic and Parking Assessment Report which includes an examination of the cumulative impacts of traffic and parking in the Precinct.

5.10.1 The issue The issue is whether the Amendment will result in unreasonable traffic and parking impacts in the Precinct.

5.10.2 Evidence and Submissions Specific to traffic issues in Queens Lane, Council submitted: Queens Lane provides local access to the adjoining properties. The current directional system is set based on the dimension of the lane in each section and the type of uses it facilitates. This also assists in limiting the level of through traffic as much of the current demands are generated by the adjoining sites. Directional signage could be reviewed to determine if there are any issues of clarity. Council submitted that a significant degree of traffic is generated by vehicles travelling to and from the CBD through the Precinct. It added that it ‘will continue to work with VicRoads, the City of Melbourne and Public Transport Victoria to address broader network issues and improve the provision of public transport and other suitable modes.’ Several submissions stated that the Precinct had traffic and parking issues and allowing further development in the Precinct will exacerbate the problem.

Page 44 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Mr Turnbull, a traffic expert called by Aurora Building Owners Corporation (who declared that he was a sessional panel member with Planning Panels Victoria with no conflict of interest) stated:  the existing traffic and future traffic potential in the Queens Lane corridor is at effective capacity and there should be no increase in potential future traffic,  future traffic potential can be restricted by means of height controls and parking limitation within the area,  parking limitation can be implemented by means of a Parking Overlay,  the Parking Overlay should be part of any amendment allowing an increase in development potential in the area, and  appropriate Parking Overlay requirements are set out in Section 8.3 above. Under cross examination by Mr Cicero, Mr Turnbull agreed that traffic congestion in inner Melbourne is not specific to the Precinct. Mr Turnbull acknowledged that development in the Precinct will occur over the longer term and that Council was known for approving car parking rates below the standard rates specified in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme. In response to concerns about existing traffic conditions and evidence from Mr Turnbull, the Panel asked parties to suggest traffic measures that may address traffic related issues. Balencea Committee of Management, Golden Age Development Pty Ltd and Mr Turnbull, on behalf of Aurora Building Owners Corporation, responded. Mr Turnbull believed that a left in/left out to/from Queens Lane and Lorne Street would create greater problems than the existing conditions. He contended that making Queens Lane one way would create significant disruption to abutting properties because 1,000 vehicles drive each way on a daily basis. Mr Turnbull stood by his evidence to restrict further development along Queens Lane and to applying a Parking Overlay with reduced rates. Golden Age did not offer a suggestion but commented that Mr Turnbull’s firm, Traffix Group, prepared a traffic impact assessment report, dated September 2014 for its permit application. Golden Age submitted that the report found that that the level of traffic produced by the proposed development will have no material impact on the operation of Queens Lane (as it currently operates) or the surrounding road network.

5.10.3 Discussion and conclusion The Panel acknowledges that the Precinct is experiencing significant traffic congestion during certain times of the day, and specifically areas such as Queens Lane are commonly referred to as ‘rat runs’. Taking into account the existing traffic and parking circumstances presented in submissions and by a traffic expert, the Panel is not convinced that the Amendment itself will result in unreasonable traffic and parking impacts in the Precinct. Many of traffic issues identified in Mr Turnbull’s evidence are existing conditions. The Panel took a number of factors into account when considering this matter, including the background report on traffic and existing local planning policy that anticipates the degree of future development expected in the Precinct. The Panel believes that there is no basis to

Page 45 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015 restrict future development in response to existing and future traffic and parking conditions. However, the Panel believes that traffic and parking conditions should be closely monitored and that traffic engineering measures be considered to manage these issues over time. The Panel agrees with Mr Turnbull that building height provisions and a Parking Overlay can be used to limit car parking in specified areas. However, this work was not prepared and exhibited as part of this Amendment. In the absence of this overlay, Council can negotiate the appropriate parking requirements on a case‐by‐case basis. The Panel is satisfied with Council’s revised wording in Version C of DDO26 that requires a permit application to consider the cumulative impact of traffic and parking in the Precinct.

(i) Conclusions The Panel concludes:  There should be no restriction on development capacity based on traffic and parking issues.  Requiring a permit application to consider the cumulative impact of traffic and parking will provide a mechanism for Council to monitor these issues over time.  Traffic and parking issues may need to be managed through measures that fall outside of the planning system.

5.11 Other issues

(i) Property values Submitters were concerned that future development will devalue their property value. The Panel agrees with Council2 that property value is not a direct consideration of the planning system. This matter is not discussed any further in this report.

(ii) Construction issues Resident submitters sought permit applications to include construction details including times and storage of materials so that vehicles and pedestrians on surrounding roads are not adversely impacted. Council submitted that such matters are managed under Local laws. The Panel adds that Council can require a Construction Management Plan as part of the planning permit to address construction issues.

5.12 Recommendations The Panel recommends: PRECINCT‐WIDE 1. Amending Design and Development Overlay Schedule 26, as shown in Appendix D, to: a) Translate mandatory podium requirements into discretionary provisions. b) Change the ‘Tower Design and Internal Amenity’ provision to ‘Tower forms (above podiums) should not exceed a maximum width of 35 metres …”

2 Document 1, p154

Page 46 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015 c) Add guiding design provisions for corner sites in specified locations. d) Add ‘Separation distances/side and rear setbacks’ provisions that applies discretionary 4.5 metre side and rear setbacks (spacing between buildings), except for Sub‐precincts 5A and 5B where it is mandatory. e) Replace the relevant ‘Active frontages’ provision with ‘New development along Queens Lane and Bowen Lane should incorporate lighting, entry doors, habitable rooms with windows, and display windows’. f) Delete the heritage provision that duplicates the objective and existing local policy. g) Change the overshadowing provision to clarify that it applies to dwellings in the residential areas south west of Kings Way. h) Replace the car parking design provision with a new discretionary provision to sleeve car parking at ground level or above with activated uses. i) Add a new requirement for a traffic and parking report which includes an examination of the cumulative impacts of traffic and parking in the Precinct.

Page 47 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

6 Sub‐precinct 1 ‐ Edge of Shrine Memorial Gardens

Figure 7 Sub‐precinct 1 ‐ Edge of Shrine Memorial Gardens

Page 48 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

6.1 Issues 13 submissions were received for Sub‐precinct 1, 12 of which were residents and one which had development interests. Issues raised in these submissions related to building heights and traffic.

6.2 Submissions Several submitters opposed the increase in building height from 60 metres AHD to 70 metres AHD because they believe it was not consistent with the existing environment. Other reasons include wind tunnelling, street shadowing and visual bulk, which would make the streets less pedestrian friendly. Others supported the proposed mandatory building heights because it would provide them with certainty. First Provenance Pty Ltd opposed the proposed mandatory building heights because they believe that they are too restrictive. It submitted that existing buildings in the area exceed the proposed height. Resident submitters were concerned with existing traffic congestion and parking issues and submitted that allowing further growth would exacerbate these problems.

6.3 Discussion The Panel acknowledges that Sub‐precinct 1 is an area in the 2013 Shrine Report identified for a mandatory 36 metre AHD building height on the St Kilda Road edge and a mandatory 70 metre building height for the area behind this edge. The Panel’s discussion in Chapter 4 regarding building heights and the potential discrepancy in the modelling and recommended heights found in the 2013 Shrine Report applies to Sub‐precinct 1. The Panel’s discussion in Chapter 5.9 regarding traffic applies to Sub‐precinct 1.

6.4 Conclusion The Panel concludes:  The exhibited mandatory building heights of 36 metres AHD and 70 metres AHD should apply for Sub‐precinct 1.  Traffic issues can be addressed in response to permit applications where the cumulative effects of traffic can be considered.

Page 49 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

7 Sub‐precinct 2 ‐ Northwest Corner

Figure 8 Sub‐precinct 2 ‐ Northwest Corner

Page 50 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

7.1 Background Sub‐precinct 2 has a complex inner urban character with diverse land uses including a mix of residential office and commercial uses. There are residential towers with podiums in Banks and Dorcas Streets. Commercial and services business uses are clustered along or near Kings Way. Sub‐precinct 2 is located adjacent to the residential towers fronting St Kilda Road opposite the Shrine to the east, the high rise towers of the Domain on Albert Street to the south and the high density Southbank precinct in the City of Melbourne to the north. The low scale, fine grain heritage residential neighbourhood of South Melbourne is on the opposite side of Kings Way to the west. The Precinct Plan identifies this location as an area where the built form character will develop and evolve and the future vision is for development of a vibrant residential and mixed use area. It has been identified as a sub‐precinct that is likely to undergo significant change and has the potential to accommodate significant amount of development. Sub‐precinct 2 attracted 16 submissions, of which nine submitters presented to the Panel.

7.2 The Issues The issues are: Building height Overall building height particularly the validity of stepping down from east to west on the basis of fine grain residential area in South Melbourne on west side of Kings Way. In particular:  Whether the built form provisions unnecessarily constrain opportunities in an area that is identified as part of an expanded CBD  Whether the high level of public transport routes is being maximised. Podiums  Whether the podium typology should be applied in all cases  Whether there should be a uniform mandated or discretionary podium height  Whether tower setback should be mandated (particularly on Kings Way). Landscape setback  Whether the landscape setback along Kings Way should be mandatory or discretionary. Spacing between building, and side and rear setbacks  Whether these provisions should be applied equally (with the same measures) or equitably (they vary proportionally because not all sites are the same). Shadow impact  Whether the provision for measuring the shadow impact on the south side of Park and Bank Streets is appropriate.

Page 51 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

7.3 Building height

7.3.1 Evidence and submissions The key objectives underpinning Council’s approach to building height in the precinct is: A visual and physical transition from the higher scale development of St Kilda Road, across the Sub‐Precinct to the low scale residential heritage area of South Melbourne (west of Kings Way)’. This reflects Council’s strategic objective to reintegrate the St Kilda Road North Precinct with South Melbourne, through improving the sense of connection and potential to access established infrastructure (shops, community services etc). Council maintained that the mandatory 45 metre building height, 18 metre podium and 3 metre landscaped setback is fundamental to Council’s vision to transition Kings Way to a boulevard and improve the connection of the Precinct across to the fine grain residential area of South Melbourne to the west. In their evidence, Mr McGauran and Mr Sheppard stated that there is no reasonable connectivity across Kings Way because:  Its significant 45 metre width  Kings Way has heavy traffic volume which is unlikely to change because it is part of the major north‐south cross city link and major access to City Link and the  Only two signalised points exist for pedestrians to cross Kings Way at Park Street and Albert Road which impacts on the ability to effectively connect the Precinct to South Melbourne. Experts and submitters in Sub‐precinct 2 noted that the 45 metre mandatory height conflicts with the Review of Design & Development Overlay 3 & 4 (November 2013) prepared by Planisphere that informed Amendment C107. The review recommended a discretionary maximum building height of 60 metres. Under cross‐examination by Mr Bisset, Mr Biles agreed that properties south‐west of Kings Way are not considered fine grain and that a 60 metre building height on the north‐east of Kings Way would have limited consequence to the area south‐west. The evidence of various experts stated that there was no basis to support the strong stepped transition sought by Council. They believed that the residential area did not form a creditable basis for stepping down building heights because Kings Way created a barrier and separation between the two areas and it is not clear where this distinction would be perceived from. Mr Sheppard’s evidence noted that north of Dorcas Street, DDO60 in the Melbourne Planning Scheme includes discretionary maximum building heights that step down from St Kilda Road to Kings Way at 70 metres AHD, 60 metres and 40 metres. He notes: If this pattern is extended across Sub‐Precinct 2, with the 45m maximum height at 209 Kings Way (the BMW dealership) and west of Little Bank Street and a 60m maximum height from there to Wells Street (he) consider that it would achieve both the objective of a transition between taller forms on St Kilda Road and the

Page 52 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

low‐rise area on the other side of Kings Way. It would also comply with the recommendations of the November 2013 Shrine Study. These comments are illustrated below:

Figure 9 Southbank height regime (Sheppard 31‐33 Park Street, South Melbourne)

Source: Melbourne Planning Scheme ‐ Design and Development Overlay Schedule 60 Roundbay Pty Ltd questioned the inclusion of the eastern side of Palmerston Crescent between Park Street and Kings Way at a height of 45 metres as proposed across Sub‐precinct 2 adjacent to the St Kilda Road and Albert Road frontages. Submitters noted that Amendment C140 applied 65 metres AHD to this area. Mr Sheppard supported an 85 metre discretionary building height, as shown in Figure 10, while Mr McGurn, on behalf of Roundbay Pty Ltd, sought a 65 metre discretionary building height.

Page 53 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Figure 10 Discretionary heights recommended by Mr Sheppard

Source: Mr Sheppard’s evidence for 32‐33 Park Street, South Melbourne

7.3.2 Discussion The Panel acknowledges Council’s vision but does not agree that the fine grain residential area west of Kings Way be the basis of establishing height on the east side of Kings Way. The Panel formed this view based on the evidence of Mr McGauran and Mr Sheppard that:  The width of Kings Way creates a visual and physical barrier between the east and west side  The role and function of Kings Way as a heavily trafficked road that provides a strong and distinct edge to the Precinct. The role and function of Kings Way is unlikely to change as it forms part of the major north south link in this part of Melbourne and provides major access to City Link and freeway movements to the east and the West Gate Bridge and freeway links to the west  There is a stronger relationship between this area and the Southbank precinct in the City of Melbourne to the north. The Panel supports maintaining the dominant height of building along St Kilda Road Boulevard to the east in Sub‐precinct 1 and the Domain in Sub‐precinct 4 to create the transition of height towards Kings Way. It does not support Council’s emphasis to ‘stepping

Page 54 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015 down’ building heights based on the fine grain residential area of South Melbourne. The Panel accepts that the nature and function of Kings Way forms a barrier and hard edge to Sub‐precinct 2. This should influence the strategic basis of height in Sub‐precinct 2. The Panel accepts that the relationship between Sub‐precinct 2 and the Southbank Precinct in the City of Melbourne to the north provides a stronger strategic relationship to building heights along the east side of Kings Way. The Panel agrees with Mr Sheppard that there is logic with extending the scale of building heights and setbacks found in Melbourne DDO60 along Kings Way. A building height of 40 metre within 13 metres of Kings Way, including the landscape setback and 60 metres for the remainder of Sub‐precinct 2, could achieve this. This approach will achieve a transition from St Kilda Road to Kings Way. The Panel notes that this will achieve a consistent built form outcome to Kings Way, similar to a consistent approach along St Kilda Road that Council seeks to achieve. The Panel notes that this is consistent with 2013 recommendations of Planisphere to Council.

7.3.3 Conclusion The Panel supports a discretionary 60 metre building height subject to any proposal exceeding this height demonstrating a discernible transition so that the dominance of St Kilda Road and Albert Road is not detracted.

7.4 Podiums

7.4.1 Evidence and submissions

(i) Podiums Evidence was presented to the Panel that podium heights are not consistent; that these can vary and still achieve visual interest and activity; that there needs to be discretion to accommodate site characteristics that include corner sites; and there are other solutions that achieve the desired public realm outcomes. It was a consistent view of submitters that this element should therefore be discretionary. Experts, Mr McGauran and Mr Sheppard believed that podium heights along Kings Way could be up to 35 metres. Mr Sheppard recommended extending the building heights and setbacks found in Melbourne DDO60 to achieve a consistent built form outcome along Kings Way. However, as shown in Figure 7, Mr Sheppard recommended 45 metres. This view is based on the 45 metre width and nature of Kings Way as an eight lane highly trafficked road which forms a hard edge to Sub‐precinct 2. It was submitted that the robust nature of the Precinct provides the opportunity to support the increase height and that this was justified on the strategic importance of the area as an extension to the Melbourne CBD.

Page 55 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

(ii) Landscape setback In relation to Kings Way there was strong support from submitters for the aspiration for public realm improvement, but there was no agreement that a boulevard status was feasible. Submitters supported the 3 metre landscape setback to allow for tree lined road treatment with buildings designed to create visual interest and activity, however, they wanted it implemented through a discretionary provision.

(iii) Side and rear setbacks There was general consensus from the expert witnesses that Sub‐precinct 2’s narrow lots, irregular subdivision pattern and existing development with existing lesser or zero setbacks would stifle or prevent development if mandatory requirements were applied. It was submitted that setbacks and spacing between buildings should be applied equitably rather than equally. It was submitted that adjoining buildings might have non sensitive facades, have existing greater setbacks or be orientated away from a development site. These circumstances can be best responded to through discretionary provisions assessed against design objective to ‘ensure a high degree of internal amenity for building occupants’.

7.4.2 Discussion The Panel supports the objective to create visual interest and activity along street frontages. Sub‐precinct 2 is characterised by a fine grain and irregular lot pattern with varied lot sizes that includes many small and/or narrow lots, island sites as well as a number of existing developments built to lot boundaries. This contrasts with Sub‐precinct 5 on St Kilda Road where mandatory front and side setbacks are imposed on the basis of regular lot sizes and allotment pattern. The Panel accepts the objective of supporting separation of buildings but this should be based on equitable rather than equal development. The Panel was presented with a range of responses that can manage ‘detrimental effects to public and private amenity such as overlooking, sunlight access and extreme wind effects’. These requirements should be discretionary so the individual aspects of each site and the design response can be assessed on a site‐by‐site basis at the permit stage. The Panel notes that there is no clear pattern of podium height and tower setback in the sub‐precinct and that it is not likely that a uniformed pattern can be achieved given the nature and pattern of existing development and the varied lot size and allotment patterns in Sub‐precinct 2. The Panel is not convinced that this is the best and only outcome for Sub‐ precinct 2. Discretionary setbacks would allow future developments to respond to an integrated building form throughout Sub‐precinct 2.

7.4.3 Conclusion The Panel concludes that podium height and tower setbacks, side and rear setbacks and front setback to Kings Way should be discretionary so that future developments can respond to an integrated building form throughout Sub‐precinct 2.

Page 56 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

7.5 Shadows ‐ Park and Bank Streets

7.5.1 Evidence and submissions DDO26 requires that: Development must maintain existing levels of solar access to the southern footpaths of Bank and Parks Streets when measured between 10am and 2pm at the equinox. Council submitted that Park Street currently benefits from sunlight to most of the southern footpath throughout the day at equinox and that parts of Bank Street also receive sunlight to the southern footpath at equinox at varying times of the day. Council seeks to maintain the existing level of solar access to these streets to enhance their pedestrian role and amenity. This objective was generally supported by submitters however Mr Bastone, in relation to 100 Park Street, argued that this should be a discretionary provision as it ‘would allow for an assessment of the impact, such as length of time of shadow to be undertaken’. He added that this would also allow for consideration of what part of the footpath may be impacted and how this part of the footpath is used. Submitters that opposed increased building height, raised concern that amenity at street level will be reduced due to wind tunnel effects and increased overshadowing, making them less attractive and less safe for residents. Other submitters supported the objective to maintain solar access to the southern footpath but disagreed that this should be mandatory. Evidence from Mr McGauran, Mr Sheppard and Mr Bastone stated that there should be a level of overshadowing protection but this be discretionary to assess:  Reasonable additional overshadowing between 11am and 2pm  What part of the footpath may be affected by overshadowing.

7.5.2 Discussion The Panel supports the objective of maintaining a level of solar access to the southern footpath of Park and Bank Street to achieve the amenity outcomes for an improved pedestrian public realm. This is consistent with submissions that acknowledged solar access was necessary to improve this public realm. However, the mandatory nature of the associated Sub‐precinct 2 requirement may unreasonably impact the height and design outcomes of new developments on the northern side of these streets. The mandatory overshadowing provision does not allow for consideration of partial shadow, what sections of the footpath maybe impacted and how it may be used. The Panel agrees that these factors and the ability to consider the effect of shadow from different design solutions is a sound approach. It has the potential to ensure an appropriate level of amenity is provided without the blunt mandatory requirement. The Sub‐precinct 2 overshadowing provision should be discretionary because the hard line demarcation is not justified. The Panel believes there should be scope to assess on a case‐ by‐case basis, such matters as the design of development to mitigate shadow being cast,

Page 57 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015 what part of the footpath any shadow impact may occur, and the time and length of time shadow may occur.

7.6 Recommendations SUB‐PRECINCT 2 The Panel recommends: 2. Amending Design and Development Overlay Schedule 26, as shown in Appendix D, to: a) Change the mandatory 18 metre mandatory building height within 13 metres of Kings Way to discretionary 40 metres to be consistent with the portion of Kings Way in the Melbourne Planning Scheme. b) Change the mandatory 45 metre building height beyond 13 metres of Kings Way to discretionary 60 metres. c) Translate the mandatory 3 metre front landscape setback into a discretionary provision. d) Change the mandatory overshadowing requirements into discretionary provisions.

Page 58 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

8 Sub‐precinct 3 ‐ Albert Road South

Figure 11 Sub‐precinct 3 ‐ Albert Park South

Page 59 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Sub‐precinct 3 is bounded by Kings Way, Albert Road, Moray Street and Raglan Street/Palmerston Crescent. The proposed mandatory building heights are designed to ensure a transition in height along Albert Road, with higher built form at Kings Way, stepping down to lowest built form near Moray Street. The provisions propose a stepping down from Albert Road to Raglan Street/Palmerston Crescent due to the low rise nature of the residential area to the north, an area largely comprising single‐storey traditional cottages and protected by a Heritage Overlay (HO440). Other provisions proposed for Sub‐precinct 3 are a 3 metre landscaped setback to all frontages except laneways; a 4.5 metre setback from side and rear boundaries above podium height and at least 9 metres from existing towers; and avoidance of additional overshadowing of the Mac Robertson Girls' High School and the Albert Park Reserve at the June solstice between 11.00am and 2.00pm.

8.1 The Issues Nine submissions were received from residents or property owners in Sub‐precinct 3. Issues raised by submitters related to the proposed mandatory building height and setback provisions, both in terms of the height limits or minimum setbacks, as well as the principle of mandatory provisions rather than discretionary. Other issues related to overshadowing of the Albert Park Reserve, issues relating to side and rear setbacks, active frontages to laneways, and the retention of solar access to residential properties.

8.2 Built form

8.2.1 Evidence and submissions 74 Eastern Road Pty Ltd submitted that the 35 metre maximum width or depth of towers should be deleted. It added that car parking within a building's podium should be allowed if screened. Mr McGauran considered the provision of a podium, as proposed along Sandilands Street, to be illogical given the built form of nearby buildings. Mr Sheppard recommended that the reference to 'human scale' in Clause 3.0 ‐ Street Wall/Podium Level be amended to better reflect the meaning of the term, thus: The design of podiums should incorporate vertical articulation that provides visual interest at a pedestrian pace, ameliorate wind effects and provide access to sunlight and sky views. A resident of an apartment building in Thomson Street argued that excessive built form would increase overshadowing of residential properties and that the current level of solar access should be preserved to existing residential buildings.

Page 60 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

8.2.2 Discussion There is broad disagreement among submitters about the mandatory nature of proposed provisions, whether in terms of height or setbacks. There was some recognition of the logic behind stepping down along Albert Road towards the west and between the heights of buildings facing Albert Road with those facing Palmerston Crescent. Submitters with development interests generally sought reduced setbacks, increased heights, and discretionary rather than mandatory provisions. Sub‐precinct 3 exhibits some particular characteristics which should influence the built form of new buildings. Albert Road is a very wide 'one‐sided' street whose buildings are highly visible and which have expansive views towards Albert Park Reserve. The presence of Mac Robertson Girls' High School is a particular feature of the Reserve. The built form to the north (north of Raglan Street / Palmerston Crescent) is low rise and residential and is likely to remain, as is the area to the west of Moray Street. To the east, both in the Sub‐precinct 3 and across Kings Way, are taller buildings which set a context for the existing 'stepping down' of built form in Sub‐precinct 3, both along Albert Road and in the south‐to‐north direction, and which is proposed to be reinforced by this Amendment.

8.3 Building heights

8.3.1 Evidence and submissions In general, submitters considered that the proposed provisions were not soundly based, unnecessarily restrictive and should allow greater levels of development than what is proposed. There was a high level of support for maximum building heights to be discretionary. 180 Albert Road Pty Ltd submitted that while the general intent of the Amendment is supported, the proposed provisions are overly prescriptive and lack strategic justification. It added that the provisions will unreasonably stifle development opportunities and that the area has capacity to absorb further growth. 180 Albert Road Pty Ltd believed that, given the above, the height applicable to its site, and presumably to nearby sites in Sub‐precinct area 26‐3d, be increased to 45 metres and be discretionary, that the podium height to Sandilands Street be discretionary, that the proposed landscape setbacks be discretionary. Australian Unity, owners of 114‐130 Albert Road, submitted that a mandatory maximum building height provision was unjustified and that a discretionary height would allow appropriate development of its consolidated holdings. Mr McGauran gave evidence regarding 114‐130 Albert Road. The site has a proposed mandatory building height of 45 metres and, like other properties in Sub‐precinct 3, a 3 metre landscaped setback. He considered that a discretionary height of 60 metres was 'about right' for this site and others in the immediate area, and supported the principle of stepping down along Albert Road from Kings Way towards Moray Street. Mr McGauran cited the proposed underground rail station near the Domain as partial justification of increased built form density in the area. He supported the principle of

Page 61 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015 discretionary maximum building heights matched with performance criteria to assess additional height, with heights ranging up to 15‐20 percent above the preferred maximum. Mr McGauran believed that the street wall heights should be as follows:  Eastern Road: be increased from 18 metres to 25 metres, and be discretionary  Thomson Street: be a discretionary 18 metres  Overall maximum height: be a discretionary 30 metres. Mr Sutton, on behalf of 74 Eastern Road Pty Ltd, called evidence from Mr Sheppard, who supported the above submissions. In its closing submission Council noted that 'transitions are not new. Council has been consistently pursuing transition outcomes via the current controls. The concept of a westward transition in building height is embedded in the existing controls that have been effectively in operation for over 20 years. Transitions are necessary not only from an urban structure point of view where they reinforce key pedestrian / transport routes, aid the legibility of the city and form edges. They are also essential to protect amenity and provide an appropriate scale at sensitive interfaces to the Precinct'.

8.3.2 Discussion

(i) Mandatory provisions The question of mandatory versus discretionary building heights tends to raise the issue of whether there has been adequate research to justify both the proposed building heights and their mandatory nature. Submitters often referred to PPN59 on mandatory provisions and maintained that the required rigorous justification does not exist. PPN59 notes that planning schemes based on the VPP are predominantly performance based. It defines a mandatory provision as 'a requirement or control that must be met and provides no opportunity to vary the requirement'. It lists five criteria which should be used to assess whether or not the benefits of any proposed mandatory provision outweigh any loss of opportunity and the flexibility inherent in a performance based system, the first of which is: 'Is the mandatory provision strategically supported?'. The Panel understands from Council that the principle behind applying mandatory maximum building heights is to achieve consistency with the mandatory height provisions introduced by Amendment C140 in the Shrine environs. Most submitters believed that mandatory maximum building heights will lead to utilitarian architecture where, because of the lack of discretion or flexibility in terms of height, developers will seek to exploit the maximum building envelope which would result in unimaginative built form and design. Former State government architect, Mr Denton, who was called to give evidence for 424 St Kilda Road, stated that mandatory provisions can and do lead to a blandness of design and mediocre outcomes because a mandatory maximum building height acts as a 'stick' rather than a 'carrot'. While he acknowledged that one ‘can do great buildings with mandatory controls’ he qualified this by stating that it would be better if the designer was not constrained in this way.

Page 62 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

(ii) Building heights The Panel considers that heights in Sub‐precinct 3 should be discretionary rather than mandatory. There is sound logic in 'stepping down' building heights from Albert Road towards the low‐rise nature of the residential area to the north of the Sub‐precinct in order to maintain the built form integrity of that area and to reinforce the difference in the urban structure along this boundary. However, this important variation in height can be achieved through varying discretionary building heights in both Albert Road and Raglan Street/Palmerston Crescent. Similarly, the sense of stepping down from the Albert Road properties and those along Raglan Street/Palmerston Crescent can be achieved by applying the exhibited building heights as discretionary provisions.

8.3.3 Conclusion The Panel concludes that the exhibited building heights are appropriate but they should be applied as discretionary provisions.

8.4 Podiums

8.4.1 Evidence and submissions The owners of 157‐161 Eastern Road submitted that their views were broadly in line with those of 74 Eastern Road Pty Ltd. They argued that the proposed mandatory podium height provisions applying to their property should be amended to 25 metres and be discretionary, and that the maximum overall height of 30 metres also be discretionary. Mr Sheppard, for 74 Eastern Road Pty Ltd, supported these submissions. Mr McGauran supported the principle of 'stepping down' of building heights along Albert Road from Kings Way to Moray Street.

8.4.2 Discussion The podium‐and‐tower building form is often the result of locating above‐ground car parking at lower levels and setbacks to provide daylight to habitable floors above. Podiums result in the street facade of a building having a height that relates positively to the scale of the street and is more comfortable for pedestrians, with the taller part of the building set back and hence less prominent in the streetscape. Amelioration of downward winds is an additional benefit of the tower‐and‐podium configuration. In this regard, the Amendment (at Section 3.0) in reference to Street Wall/Podium Level, states: The design of podiums should create a 'human scale' at the street edge, ameliorate wind effects and provide access to sunlight and sky views. There was some concern that the term human scale could be interpreted as a dimension equivalent to a person's height. The use of the term 'pedestrian scale' was seen as more appropriate as it implies a scale that is comfortable for pedestrians, that is, a street wall that is not overpowering or out of scale with the street environment.

Page 63 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

8.5 Side and rear setbacks

8.5.1 Evidence and submissions 74 Eastern Road Pty Ltd submitted that the front, side and rear setbacks should be discretionary and, in some circumstances no setback may be appropriate. Mr McGauran, for 180 Albert Road Pty Ltd, supported the landscape setback to Albert Road and supported the 30 metre maximum building height, but believed that it should be discretionary. Mr McGauran supported the 3 metre landscaped setback to buildings facing Albert Road but believed that it should be discretionary.

8.5.2 Discussion

(i) Side and rear setbacks The discussion found in Chapter 5.5 applies for Sub‐precinct 3. The Panel adds that the proposed side and rear setbacks are appropriate and should be the basis for assessing a proposed development. However, where an applicant can demonstrate that for reasons specific to the site, a reduced setback should apply, this should be able to be permitted. Examples of these reasons are described in Chapter 5.5.

(ii) Front setback The amendment proposes a 3 metre landscaped setback for all street frontages except laneways. This is consistent with the existing situation in some places, but in others there are setbacks on a building‐by‐building basis which vary upwards from zero. The principle of providing space at the front of a building for landscaping has merit, however it is evident that this cannot be achieved along all street frontages due to the siting of some buildings. For instance, the east side of Moray Street between Albert Road and Thomson Street comprises a series of buildings with a Heritage Overlay (HO440). Similarly, there are several buildings in Sub‐precinct 3 with site‐specific Heritage Overlays. The existence of buildings with no, or differing, front setbacks makes the achievement of a consistent 3 metre setback unlikely to be achieved. This raises the question of whether provisions such as this are proposed as a result of the predominant existing situation or whether it is proposed in order to progressively achieve a desirable urban design and street environment outcome. This is not clear in the Amendment and gives rise to the setback being challenged by some submitters. While that does not mean it should be required, the objective of all buildings having a setback of 3 metres, whether that minimum or greater, the Panel considers to be a worthwhile aspect of the Amendment. However, the Panel does not consider it to be a practicable goal in several streets due to a Heritage Overlay, the presence of heritage buildings, or the existence of substantial and recent buildings constructed close to the

Page 64 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015 street. The Panel therefore concludes that the requirement of a mandatory 3 metre setback is not necessary throughout Sub‐precinct 3. The Panel considers that the 3 metre front setback has merit as a means to enhance the landscaping of street spaces. It is noted that similar setbacks are common along most streets in Sub‐precinct 3 but there are some locations where older buildings with heritage value or very recent buildings do not have such a setback. For these reasons the Panel concludes that, while supporting the outcomes sought from requiring 3 metre ground level front setback, it believes that this could generally be achieved through discretionary provisions.

8.5.3 Conclusion The Panel concludes that the front, side and rear setbacks should be discretionary.

8.6 Shadows ‐ Mac Robertson Girls’ High School and Albert Park Reserve

8.6.1 Evidence and submissions The Amendment proposes that: New development must not result in additional overshadowing of the Mac Robertson Girls' High School and Albert Park Reserve at June solstice between 11am and 2pm. Australian Unity submitted that the potential overshadowing of the Mac Robertson Girls' High School should be discretionary, allowing some minor overshadowing of peripheral parts of the school grounds. Mr McGauran considered the overshadowing provision for Mac Robertson Girls' High School should apply at the equinox between 11.00am and 2.00pm, and could be mandatory. 180 Albert Road Pty Ltd submitted that shadow impacts on Albert Park Reserve be measured at the equinox and be discretionary. Mr McGauran supported the protection of Albert Park Reserve from overshadowing.

8.6.2 Discussion Several submitters opposed the mandatory provision that would prohibit any overshadowing between 11am and 2pm at the winter solstice. Council submitted that this requirement may result in some locations not being able to achieve maximum building heights. Submissions in sub‐precincts 3 and 4 opposed the mandatory nature of this requirement for Mac Robertson Girls’ High School for the same reasons. The submitters added that the provision does not allow the extent and nature of overshadowing to be assessed against other development objectives such as accommodating change. Several submitters representing properties on Albert Road considered this to be unduly restrictive given the low level of active use of the open space close to the south‐western side of Albert Road which would be affected by this requirement and the large expanse of that Reserve.

Page 65 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

The Panel considers that public parkland and school grounds are valuable public places and that solar access is a critical element of their enjoyment. The Panel acknowledges that a winter solstice control is unusual, given that the equinox is more commonly used as the benchmark for determining acceptable levels of overshadowing, however it is noted that the winter solstice is the benchmark for public open spaces such as the foreshore of this municipality. The Panel acknowledges the clarification made by Council but remains concerned about the implication of the mandatory nature of the requirement. Adherence to no further overshadowing is considered too restrictive. If there is any overshadowing of Mac Robertson Girls’ High School, it is likely to be on the Queens Road and Albert Road frontages. These frontages are tree lined in front of the existing school buildings. Discretionary provisions will allow matters including the extent of overshadowing (when it occurs), the nature and use of the area where shadow occurs which is considered the appropriate approach to be considered.

(i) Conclusion The Panel concludes that Mac Robertson Girls’ High School and Albert Park Reserve should be protected from additional overshadowing that will reduce amenity by applying the following measures:  Mac Robertson Girls’ High School: Equinox between 10am and 2pm.  Albert Park Reserve: Winter solstice between 11am and 2pm.

8.7 Recommendations SUB‐PRECINCT 3 The Panel recommends: 3. Amending Design and Development Overlay Schedule 26, as shown in Appendix D, to: a) Translate mandatory building heights into discretionary building heights. b) Translate mandatory front, side and rear setbacks into discretionary provisions. c) Add the words ‘that will reduce the amenity’ in the overshadowing provisions. d) Change the overshadowing measure for Mac Robertson Girls' High School from winter solstice to equinox.

Page 66 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

9 Sub‐precinct 4 – Albert Road North and Bowen Crescent

Figure 12 Sub‐precinct 4 – Albert Road North and Bowen Crescent

Page 67 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

9.1 The Issues Sub‐precinct 4 is bounded by St Kilda Road, Kings Way, the rear of properties on the west side of Albert Road between Kings Way and Park Street, and Park Street. It includes two small areas of open space: Bowen Crescent Reserve and the South African War Memorial Reserve. Part of Sub‐precinct 4 is within the area subject to mandatory maximum building heights relating to the Shrine environs. Mandatory maximum axial heights apply in this area under DDO13. Seven submissions were received from property owners in Sub‐precinct 4. Issues raised included:  Opposition to the mandatory nature of building height and setback provisions  The contention that building heights should be discretionary, with performance criteria used to determine an appropriate height  The relevance of the podium form of building  The role of Bowen Lane and the design of buildings abutting it  Overshadowing of Bowen Crescent Reserve (and the northern edge of Mac Robertson Girls’ High School grounds abutting Kings Way)  Equitable development, particularly relating to setbacks where sites are narrow, where blank walls exist on and adjacent site's common boundary, or oddly shaped.

9.2 Building heights

9.2.1 Evidence and submissions Submissions from residents supported mandatory maximum building heights, and in some cases, heights lower that those exhibited. 1 Albert Road Owners Corporation supported mandatory maximum building heights, citing the extent to which recently constructed buildings on the west side of Albert Road north of Kings Way have exceeded the applicable discretionary heights. Mr Swinburne, a resident in Sub‐precinct 4, submitted that many residents supported mandatory building heights because they provide certainty. He added that this is something valued by people who live in an area where significant development is occurring, and which was not evident with recent approvals in the immediate area. Mr Swinburne supported mandatory building heights for the Shrine environs being extended to part of Sub‐precinct 4. He added that mandatory building heights provide certainty to height, floor space, density, traffic, infrastructure and amenity. He provided some personal comments regarding traffic in the area, particularly how some turns and movements are restricted or banned thereby adding to congestion. Mr Swinburne proposed a mandatory maximum building height of 45 metres, as proposed for Sub‐precinct 2, but made no specific comment regarding Sub‐precinct 4. Submitters with development interests challenged the mandatory nature of the exhibited Sub‐precinct 4 building heights. It was submitted that a new building could be ‘shaded’ by

Page 68 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015 existing buildings closer to the Shrine or prospect views from key viewpoints in the Shrine precinct, and would therefore not interfere with Shrine Vista. In such circumstances, submitters sought the ability to consider a height above the specified building height. Ms Brennan SC appeared on behalf of Lintime Pty Ltd, owners of land in Area 4a where a mandatory maximum height of 85 metre AHD is proposed. A 3 metre landscape setback from Albert Road is also proposed, as is a maximum podium height of 18 to 30 metres with a setback of 10 metres to any higher built form. Ms Brennan stated her client's opposition to mandatory maximum building heights and setbacks. She noted that, for sites to the west, facing Palmerston Crescent, a 45 metre mandatory maximum building height is proposed. These differences in maximum height are intended to generate a transition in height from Albert Road towards Kings Way. Ms Brennan submitted that building height, setback and tower separation provisions should not be mandatory. She cited Plan Melbourne which identifies the St Kilda Road Precinct as a place of State Strategic Significance where opportunities for growth should be maximised, to justify her position. Ms Brennan agreed with the proposed maximum height of 85 metres, but argued that it should be discretionary. Ms Brennan questioned the basis for the proposed height limit of 85 metre AHD for buildings facing Albert Road and 45 metre AHD for buildings facing Palmerston Crescent. Mr McGurn, a planning expert for Lintime Pty Ltd, considered that the building height and setback generally should be discretionary as a means of achieving substantial growth. He believed that a mandatory height would 'unreasonably frustrate development and jeopardise broader policy objectives'. Mr McGurn considered that, having regard to 2013 Shrine Report, the exhibited 85 metre maximum building height is consistent, although he believed that it should be discretionary. Mr McGurn reinforced the prospect of achieving development capacity, considering it to be more important than an urban design based idea of transitions in building heights. Mr Sheppard, for Lintime Pty Ltd, agreed with Mr McGurn and recommended that maximum heights for buildings facing both Albert Road and Palmerston Crescent be 85 metre AHD and be discretionary. This would remove any transition in height between these two rows of buildings, subject to variations due to the discretionary nature of provisions. In response to cross‐examination by Mr Cicero, Mr Sheppard stated that the potential for growth should be maximised. Asked if the potential development capacity that would result if his recommended discretionary heights were in place, Mr Sheppard considered that, in terms of traffic generation, this ‘should not be a determinant’ and in terms of amenity for occupants, he considered that this ‘is a choice’. 412 St Kilda Road Pty Ltd submitted that the mandatory maximum building height of 65 metres AHD proposed for Sub‐precinct 4 is equivalent to approximately 55 metre above ground level (or RL 55) in this immediate area. Mr Sheppard and Mr Twite, gave evidence on urban design and planning respectively for 412 St Kilda Road Pty Ltd. Mr Sheppard pointed out that existing buildings in the vicinity have heights exceeding 65 metre AHD, such as 390 St Kilda Road (99.50 metre AHD) and 416 St Kilda Road (77.46 metre AHD). On this basis and given the overriding control of DDO13 he considered that 'there is

Page 69 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015 little to be gained by imposing a maximum height of 65 metre AHD for this site'. He noted that a building can exceed 65 metre AHD without intruding on the Shrine vista control, and considered that a discretionary maximum height of 75 metre AHD should apply. Mr Sheppard stated that, in part due to the criteria in PPN59, he found no basis for imposing a mandatory building height for 412 St Kilda Road. However, Mr Sheppard supported the mandatory requirement for a 3 metre landscaped setback to St Kilda Road, but not to Bowen Crescent. Mr Twite stated that existing buildings are in the foreground of the site when viewed from near the in the Shrine forecourt. He added that DDO26 would allow these buildings to be replaced at a height taller than the building height specified in the overlay schedule. This would effectively mask a building at 412 St Kilda Road from being viewed from the Shrine forecourt. Mr Twite did not support mandatory building heights because he believed they constrain high quality architecture and that discretionary provisions have worked well in many other places. He considered that a discretionary 75 metre AHD building height is appropriate.

9.2.2 Discussion Submissions and evidence focused on two aspects of building height; the height in terms of metres and the matter of mandatory versus discretionary maximum building heights. Some submitters argued that their properties located outside the DDO13 area could be taller than existing building heights or heights proposed by the Amendment without compromising the Shrine vista due to the height of intervening buildings. This position was held because such intervening buildings are either likely to remain or be rebuilt to the same profile and height. The Panel notes that many submitters outlined how the proposed mandatory building heights would affect their specific site, however, Council sought to apply Sub‐precinct wide building heights. Submitters did not adequately demonstrate whether the increased building height for a single site could be applied more broadly in Sub‐precinct 4 without compromising the Shrine vista. On the other hand, not including allowance for new buildings that will be hidden behind taller existing buildings appears to be a shortfall of the 2013 Shrine Report. A review of the 2013 Shrine Report falls outside the scope of this Amendment. As discussed in Chapter 4, the Panel did not find strategic justification to apply mandatory maximum building heights on a precinct‐wide basis. However, as a precautionary approach, the Panel believes that exhibited mandatory building heights should apply to Sub‐precinct 4 because it is an area nominated for the same mandatory heights in the 2013 Shrine Report. The mandatory heights will provide residents with certainty about the extent of development they should expect in the surrounding area.

9.2.3 Conclusion The Panel concludes that the mandatory building heights exhibited for Sub‐precinct 4 should be applied.

Page 70 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

9.3 Setbacks and podiums The Amendment proposes a mandatory 3 metre landscaped setback to all street frontages except Bowen Lane, Queens Lane and the short section of Park Street.

9.3.1 Evidence and submissions Mr Sheppard believed that the proposed 3 metre front setback should be retained and the podium height and upper level setback for Sub‐precinct 4a should be deleted. Mr Sheppard did not consider a setback above a podium to Queens Lane to be necessary given the almost purely service function of that street. In that regard, he agreed with Mr Cicero that in instances such as this section of Queens Lane, the wording in the amendment could be modified to reflect its predominant service function. He considered that side and rear setbacks should be discretionary and should only apply to habitable floors of a building. Mr Twite did not support mandatory setbacks and recommended that the proposed setback above podium height in Queens Lane and the proposed landscape setbacks to St Kilda Road and Bowen Crescent be discretionary.

9.3.2 Discussion

(i) Setbacks The Panel notes that most buildings along those streets where this setback is proposed have similar setbacks and considers this requirement to be well‐founded as a means to enhance the streetscapes and to provide for landscaping. The Panel agrees with Council that 3 metre setbacks are impractical in those locations where it is not proposed. The conclusions found in Chapter 5.5 apply for Sub‐precinct 4.

(ii) Podiums The Amendment proposes a variety of mandatory maximum podium heights to various parts of all street frontages with the exception of the northern end of the west side of Albert Road and St Kilda Road due to the long‐standing existing provisions which do not include a podium requirement. These podium heights include a setback requirement for additional building height above the podium. Most submitters either opposed the requirement for podiums or considered they should be discretionary. The Panel notes that built form in Sub‐precinct 4 rarely includes podiums which are consistent with what the Amendment proposes, and hence questions the rationale for requiring them as mandatory elements of new buildings. The Panel considers that with the retention of building heights as proposed (although as discretionary rather than mandatory limits) and the provision of the proposed 3 metre landscape setback, an appropriate built form can evolve which is compatible with the predominant built form. The Panel therefore does not consider that the requirement for podiums is necessary or desirable in this sub‐precinct.

Page 71 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

9.3.3 Conclusion The Panel concludes:  The 3 metre landscape setback should be retained.  The side and rear setbacks are appropriate and should be the basis for the assessment of any proposed development. However, where an applicant can demonstrate that for reasons that are specific to the site, a reduced setback should apply, this should be able to be permitted. Examples of these reasons are described in Chapter 5.5.  There should be no requirement for buildings to incorporate podiums in their design.

9.4 Tower separation distance

9.4.1 Evidence and submissions 1 Albert Road Owners Corporation submitted that a 4.5 metre setback from side boundaries does not ensure an adequate level of internal amenity given that a similar setback on the adjoining site would result in a total separation of 9 metres. In tall buildings, access to daylight and outlook would be severely compromised for apartments at lower levels and near the middle of a building's elevation. 1 Albert Road Owners Corporation noted the provision in the proposed DDO of two criteria for increasing this separation distance, namely: Equitably distribute access to an outlook, daylight and achieve privacy from primary living areas for both existing and proposed development, and Avoid windows to primary living areas and balconies that directly face one another. 1 Albert Road Owners Corporation cited several instances where greater separation of towers is required or proposed, namely:  DDO60 which applies in Southbank, where the requirement is for a 20 metre separation between towers although this can, subject to certain considerations, be reduced but only to 10 metres  The Interim Fishermens Bend Guidelines which have a preferred setback distance of 10 metres from shared property boundaries, or 20 metres between towers  Design standards being developed by the Office of the Victorian Government Architect which, amongst other provisions, propose a separation distance of between 12 and 24 metres between habitable rooms of towers and increased separation distances as height increases. Mr Sheppard considered that tower separation and side and rear setback provisions should be discretionary. It would also have a mandatory 3 metre setback from its two street frontages and an 11 metre high maximum podium height facing Queens Lane with a 5 metre setback to any higher built form.

Page 72 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

9.4.2 Discussion The Panel acknowledges that residential towers can be constructed with distances between them that result in limited outlook, overshadowing and reduced privacy. This occurs when towers are designed so that the windows of habitable rooms are a distance from the habitable room windows of a tower on an adjacent site that meets the minimum separation of 9 metres as allowed under Clause 55 of the VPP. This measure does not apply to buildings greater than five storeys. The evidence that minimum tower separation distances of 20 metres are under consideration or proposed in other places suggests that this may be an appropriate benchmark to achieve acceptable levels of amenity. The Panel supports this position in principle.

9.4.3 Conclusion The Panel concludes that a mandatory tower separation distance provision for Sub‐precinct 4 is not warranted or practical. Discretionary 4.5 metre side and rear setbacks are a good baseline to commence assessing the degree of actual separation required to achieve relevant design objectives.

9.5 Shadows ‐ Albert Park Reserve and Bowen Crescent Reserve

9.5.1 Evidence and submissions Several submissions from property interests opposed the mandatory overshadowing provisions. Evidence from Mr Bastone and Mr Sheppard for Impressive Enterprises, stated that applying the mandatory provision would ‘effectively prevent any increase in height let alone an increase to 65 metres’. Ms Brennan submitted that: Melbourne’s preeminent public parks and gardens such as , the State Library Forecourt, the north bank of the Yarra including Birrarung Marr are all protected by discretionary solstice shadow control, with only the south bank of the Yarra afforded mandatory protection. Ms Brennan added that a number of other prominent open space areas in Port Phillip are not afforded the mandatory level of protection proposed here. Ms Brennan submitted that solar access to Bowen Crescent Reserve should not be afforded greater status in decision making process. Mr Bastone provided photographs that showed the extent of shadow from significant trees in the reserve suggesting that this level of shadow, together with minimising impact through building articulation and form should be a considerations when deciding if any further overshadowing of the reserve is acceptable. A similar submission was presented in relation to the nearby property at 2 Bowen Crescent where a shadow analysis showed that additional overshadowing was likely. It recommended that the provision be discretionary and tested against ‘unreasonable’ additional impact. Submitters and experts generally supported the need to limit the extent of overshadowing of Albert Park Reserve but there were varying views as to whether solstice or equinox

Page 73 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015 standards should apply, which part of the park it should apply to and whether the provision should be mandatory or discretionary. Submissions from existing residents raised concern that increased height will impact on the amenity of public spaces and supported the protection of Albert Park Reserve from overshadowing. Albert Park Reserve and Bowen Crescent Reserve were specifically identified by submitters as spaces that should not be overshadowed. In his evidence in relation to 180 Albert Road, Mr Bastone took a different view and stated: Additional shadowing to Albert Park should generally be limited…..however should be discretionary and based on equinox as the park interface to the precinct is characterised by car parking, golf course … 180 Albert Road Pty Ltd submitted: The provision be refined to make them discretionary, and provide clarity that new development should not result in any ‘unreasonable additional overshadowing to Albert Park. Ms Brennan also appeared on behalf of the owner of 7 ‐ 8 Bowen Crescent, a triangular site in Sub‐precinct 4d which is at the corner of Kings Way and has Bowen Lane as its rear boundary, and is occupied by a seven storey office building. She considered that the proposed 65 metre AHD maximum building height be retained but be discretionary. Ms Brennan pointed out that the proposed Bowen Crescent Reserve sunlight provision would significantly limit the development capacity of the site to well below the potential 65 metre AHD height, and for this reason proposed that the sunlight provision be discretionary. She cited several large and small public spaces in the City of Melbourne where winter solstice shadow controls are discretionary, and others where the equinox is the date for assessment. Ms Brennan considered that the proposed control of overshadowing of the Mac Robertson Girls' High School land on the south side of Kings Way be deleted. Ms Brennan made the comment that provisions should be universally discretionary, not a mixture of mandatory and discretionary. Mr Sheppard’s evidence for 7‐8 Bowen Crescent addressed a variety of issues affecting the site. He made similar comments to others with regard to various sites in the area. In regard to this site, considered that the maximum podium height facing Bowen Crescent should be increased from the 18 to 30 metre range in the exhibited DDO26 to 40 metres and should be discretionary; that there should be no maximum podium height facing Bowen Lane; and that there is no need for active frontages to Bowen Lane given is primarily service function. In terms of the overshadowing provision for Bowen Crescent Reserve, Mr Sheppard proposed that it be discretionary, with the test being whether development will significantly lessen the amenity of the Reserve. In terms of overshadowing of the Mac Robertson Girls' High School grounds between the buildings and Kings Way, Mr Sheppard considered that this should also be discretionary, and be applied at the equinox rather than be a mandatory control applied at the winter solstice.

Page 74 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Mr Bisset appeared on behalf of the owners of 2 Bowen Crescent. This property is in Sub‐ precinct area 4d and is currently occupied by a multi‐level car park. The site’s redevelopment for residential purposes is under consideration. Mr Bisset's submissions were that the current height limit should be increased from 65 metres AHD to 99.5 metres AHD, based on calculations carried out by two land surveyors. These calculations showed that such height will not impact the Shrine vista as a building constructed to that height would be behind the existing buildings at 1 Albert Road and 390 St Kilda Road when viewed from the nominated viewpoints in the Shrine precinct. He considered that these two buildings can be expected to remain or be reconstructed at least to comparable heights. This is despite the fact that the mandatory maximum building heights for the site is 65 metres AHD in DDO4. Mr Bisset submitted that there is no need for a podium to Bowen Lane, and that the proposed podium height and depth, and the landscape setback of 3 metres, to Bowen Crescent be discretionary. He further considered the proposed side and rear setbacks be either deleted or be discretionary. In terms of the Shrine vista controls, Mr Bisset submitted that these are thoroughly managed through DDO13 and therefore this Amendment should confine itself to other aspects of built form in areas covered by DDO13. Mr Bastone, for 2 Bowen Crescent, considered that the Shrine vista control in DDO13 is widely accepted as appropriate for determining maximum building heights within the Shrine vista. The building heights in DDO26 should therefore be discretionary. In terms of shadowing of Bowen Crescent Reserve, Mr Bastone tendered a set of drawings prepared by Plus Architecture showing the extent of shadow cast by buildings on the site of heights from 65 metres AHD to 100 metres AHD on Bowen Crescent Reserve at various times of the day at the equinox. The drawings indicated among other things, that the shadow of a building with its top at 100 metres AHD would move off the Reserve by 1.00pm and a building with its top at 75 metres AHD would not cast a shadow on the Reserve after 12.00noon. It is noted that natural ground at the front of the site has a height of about 6.5 to 8 metres AHD. Mr Bastone commented that this was reasonable having regard to the existing trees along the Bowen Crescent side of the Reserve and the residual sun‐lit area. He considered that there was no need for a podium height limit and upper level setback to Bowen Lane. Mr Bisset called Mr Sheppard whose evidence supported the provision of a 3 metre setback to Bowen Crescent but not a maximum podium height for either Bowen Crescent or Bowen Lane. He considered that parking should be allowed within a podium provided it was screened from view, and that there is no need for a maximum building depth or width of 35 metres. He considered a maximum discretionary building height of 100 metres AHD to be preferable to the proposed mandatory maximum of 65 metres.

Page 75 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

He did not support the requirement for an active frontage to Bowen Lane given it is essentially service role.

9.5.2 Discussion While the South African War Memorial Reserve and Bowen Crescent Reserve are within Sub‐precinct 4, another parcel of open space was discussed by submitters. This is the setback of Mac Robertson Girls' High School buildings adjacent to Kings Way, which could be overshadowed by buildings on the north side of Kings Way depending on their heights. The proposed Amendment allows no additional overshadowing of these two small Reserves at the equinox between 10am and 2pm, and the Mac Robertson Girls' High School and Albert Park Reserve at winter solstice between 11 am and 2pm. The Panel considers that public parkland and school grounds are valuable public places and that solar access is a critical element of their enjoyment. The Panel acknowledges that a winter solstice control is unusual, given that the equinox is more commonly used as the benchmark for determining acceptable levels of overshadowing, however it is noted that the winter solstice is the benchmark used for more significant public open spaces such as the foreshore within Port Phillip. The Panel considers that the capacity for property development on a particular site should not take precedence over public amenity of this type. However, like several submitters and experts, the Panel was concerned with the severity of the proposed overshadowing provision. Albert Park Reserve Albert Park Reserve is a significant open space in Port Phillip and more generally for Melbourne. The Panel acknowledges that public parklands are valuable public places and that solar access is a critical element of their enjoyment. However it is acknowledged that the areas that may be affected are at the fringe of what is a large and diverse public open space area. The parts of the park that may be affected by overshadowing include parts of the golf course on Queens Road, car parking and park access on Albert Road. The exhibited mandatory requirement does not provide scope to consider how much overshadowing occurs, where it occurs; how that area is occupied or used; and the impact shadow may have on the overall use and enjoyment of the park. The Panel believes that overshadowing is an important consideration but that it be discretionary so that the design of development and the level of any overshadowing can be assessed against relevant objectives that will allow informed decisions to be made. In response to concern, Council revised the provision in Version C of DDO26 to:  Development must not result in any additional overshadowing that will reduce the amenity of the:  South African War Memorial Reserve and the Bowen Crescent Reserve at the equinox between 10am and 2pm  Mac Robertson Girls’ and Albert Park at June solstice between 11am and 2pm.

Page 76 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Bowen Crescent Reserve Bowen Crescent Reserve is well used and a valued open space. Its importance will increase with further development in the area. Limiting overshadowing is important to protect the reserve’s amenity and use. The Panel is however swayed by the evidence that a mandatory overshadowing requirement has a significant effect on development potential particularly for properties on Bowen Crescent. This conflicts with development objectives for the precinct. The Panel supports consideration of overshadowing but this should be discretionary, similar to many other similar open spaces elsewhere in Port Phillip and elsewhere as highlighted in submissions. This will allow a considered approach to assessing amenity impact on a case‐by‐case basis. The Panel acknowledges the 2 Bowen Crescent submission that the site could accommodate a height greater than 65 metres AHD without casting an unreasonable shadow on Bowen Crescent Reserve. However, for reasons outlined in the Building Heights section of this chapter, the Panel does not support building heights greater than those specified in the 2013 Shrine Report. In relation to Albert Park Reserve, Council revised the provision in Version C of DDO26 to limit additional overshadowing only if it reduces the amenity of the specified areas.

9.5.3 Conclusion The Panel agrees with the revised drafting in Version C of DDO26 to not allow any additional overshadowing that reduces the amenity of specified areas. The Panel considers that the equinox should be applied to measure the degree of overshadowing on Mac Robertson Girls' High School.

9.6 Recommendations SUB‐PRECINCT 4 The Panel recommends: 4. Amending Design and Development Overlay Schedule 26, as shown in Appendix D, to: a) Translate mandatory setbacks into discretionary provisions. b) Add the words ‘that will reduce the amenity’ in the overshadowing provisions. c) Change the overshadowing measure for Mac Robertson Girls' High School from winter solstice to equinox.

Page 77 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

10 Sub‐precinct 5 ‐ St Kilda Road South of Kings Way

Figure 13 Sub‐precinct 5 ‐ St Kilda Road South of Kings Way

Page 78 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

10.1 The Issues Sub‐precinct 5, St Kilda Road south of Kings Way extends along St Kilda Road from Toorak Road in the north to the junction with Queens Road at St Kilda Junction in the south. The sub‐precinct shares a municipal boundary with the City of Melbourne on the (eastern side of St Kilda Road) and with the City of Stonnington (eastern side of Punt Road in the south). The western side of St Kilda Road forms part of Melbourne’s iconic boulevard with key character elements of the prevailing street grid with a regular subdivision pattern. This part of Sub‐precinct 5 is characterised by uniform, deep and extensively landscaped frontages. The uniform side setbacks together with the east west roads connecting St Kilda Road with Queens Road provide views through and between buildings towards Albert Park Reserve. The lots extend through to Queens Lane that provides a dual purpose of secondary access and service function. The south‐eastern end of Sub‐precinct 5 on Raleigh and Union Streets between St Kilda Road and Punt Road has a different character. This area is characterised by irregular shaped parcels that transition to the east to the fine grain residential setting of Windsor in the City of Stonnington. Sub‐precinct 5 attracted the most number of submissions (167) comprising of a pro‐forma submission copied and signed by 150 residents in the same building and 17 other submissions. Seven submitters presented to the Panel. The key issues for resolution in Sub‐precinct 5 include the following:  Building heights  Setbacks  Podiums and active street frontages  Shadows ‐ Wesley Junior College.

10.2 Building heights

10.2.1 Evidence and submissions The question of mandatory verses discretionary height is common across the Amendment area and is discussed in Chapter 4 of this report. Sub‐precinct 5 is included in DDO13 applying to the protection of the Shrine vista introduced by Amendment C140. DDO13 applies a mandatory height limit that protects the axial view of the Shrine of Remembrance. In relation to precinct specific issues relating to height this varies across Sub‐precinct 5 and differs between that part of Sub‐precinct 5 on the Eastern side of St Kilda Road and that on the western side of St Kilda Road and bounded by Punt Road. Council supports mandatory maximum building heights across the Precinct, however, Sub‐ precinct 5 relies on provisions introduced by Amendment C140. Authorisation of the Amendment was conditional to exhibited building heights not exceeding those recommended in the 2013 Shrine Report. The height relating to Sub‐precinct 5 is:  Along the western side of St Kilda Road between Albert Road and Hanna Street should be 65AHD and mandatory. C107 proposes 65 AHD mandatory.

Page 79 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

 Along the western side of St Kilda Road between Hanna Street and St Kilda Junction heights should transition from 65AHD to up to 110AHD at St Kilda Junction. The discretion controls must be tied to Shrine‐specific objectives, built form requirements ad decision guidelines. C107 proposes 60m mandatory.  Heights along the eastern side of St Kilda Road south of the Shrine should be mandatory and managed through the Shrine Vista Control.

(i) Western side of St Kilda Road The Amendment proposes a mandatory 65 metre AHD maximum building height north of Albert Reserve and 60 metres south of Albert Reserve. The 150 duplicated pro‐forma submissions objected to increasing the existing discretionary 30 metre building height in Sub‐precinct 6 to a mandatory maximum building height of 40 metres. Matters related to Sub‐precinct 6 are discussed in Chapter 11 of this report. A couple of grounds for objecting to this change is blocking of views and traffic issues in Queens Lane; issues which are discussed in Chapter 5. Other grounds included noise and wind tunnelling which can be considered during the permit application stage. The submission for Golden Age Development accepted the mandatory 65 metre AHD for its site at 450 St Kilda Road. However, the submission on behalf of CLL@AU Pty Ltd at 424 St Kilda Road sought a discretionary building height to enable a design response to this ‘gateway’ site opposite Toorak Road at the corner of Kings Way and St Kilda Road. Mr Denton provided expert evidence that mandatory provisions can and do lead to a blandness of design and mediocre outcomes because a mandatory maximum building height acts as a 'stick' rather than a 'carrot'. While he acknowledged that one ‘can do great buildings with mandatory controls’ he qualified this by stating that it would be better if the designer was not constrained in this way.

(ii) Eastern side of St Kilda Road (Jewish Care; Summerhill) The Amendment proposes a maximum height of 60 metres along the St Kilda Road frontage and 40 metres on the Punt Road frontage; both being mandatory. Council is proposing a stepping down of height to Punt Road and the fine grain residential area of Windsor to the east. The two submissions from property owners in this part of Sub‐precinct 5 opposed mandatory provisions. The submission from 601 St Kilda Road on the south‐eastern corner of St Kilda Road and High Street have sought 65 metres AHD to be discretionary to allow additional height to respond to its location as a gateway provided the axial view is protected. Council responded that the draft Precinct Plan and Planisphere Review did not identify gateway sites. Jewish Care opposed mandatory heights because it unnecessarily constrains design options. It opposed the objective of transitioning heights down to Punt Road, although Mr Sheppard gave evidence that this could be accommodated through discretionary provisions.

Page 80 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

10.2.2 Discussion

(i) Western side of St Kilda Road In addition to the exhibited building heights, a mandatory height requirement continues to apply (through DDO13) to protect the axial view corridor of the Shrine across the whole Sub‐ precinct 5. The Panel notes that a condition of authorisation compelled Council to align the mandatory building height along St Kilda Road (65 metres north of Hanna Street) with the 2013 Shrine Report. In some instances, Council originally proposed building heights that exceeded heights found in this report. The Panel does not advocate changing the exhibited mandatory 65 metre maximum building height for this part of Sub‐precinct 5. The requirement for mandatory height does not apply to the other parts of Sub‐precinct 5 south of Hanna Street. The Panel believes that the 60 metre building height should be applied as discretionary because there is insufficient strategic basis to apply it as a mandatory requirement. This conclusion was formed after assessing the nature of the proposed building height with criteria in PPN59 and is consistent with conclusions in Chapter 4 of this report. The Panel is satisfied that the experience of discretionary heights along St Kilda Road has resulted in a relatively consistent and acceptable scale of development. Council submitted a map that showed breaches beyond the proposed mandatory heights. This shows a significant level of compliance with some developments that exceeded the mandatory height which are more variations rather than breaches. The Panel is satisfied that this consistency can be maintained where the exercise of discretion is justified against all relevant height objectives of the overlay. The Panel is swayed by the consistency this provides with the DDO19 provisions in the Melbourne Planning Scheme for the east side of St Kilda Road opposite Sub‐precinct 5.

(ii) Eastern side of St Kilda Road The Panel does not support heights being mandatory for the reasons previously outlined for the western side of St Kilda Road. Summerhill submitted that the height should be discretionary to provide flexibility to design a ‘gateway’. Council view is that gateways were not identified as an element in the Planisphere work, however the Panel believes that they should not be ruled out as part of a design response. While this could be achieved within a mandatory height requirement, this would unnecessarily constrain a response.

(iii) Punt Road In relation to heights on Punt Road, Council maintains a stepping in height needs a 20 metre to 25 metre difference in height to be discernible. Mr Sheppard gave evidence that an angled line achieves a transition and provides other design options. The Panel is not convinced that a mandatory 20 metre difference in height alone is necessary to effect the transition to fine grain residential development at Windsor. Other design measures can be applied to achieve this outcome and be assessed on a site‐by‐site basis against the clear objective for this part of the Sub‐precinct 5. A mandated height will unnecessarily constrain

Page 81 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015 a design response. The Panel is satisfied that the design objective for this location is sufficiently clear to inform an appropriate outcome under discretionary provisions for this part of Sub‐precinct 5.

10.2.3 Conclusion The Panel concludes that a mandatory maximum building height of 65 metre AHD should apply along the western side of St Kilda Road between Albert Road and Hanna Street. This aligns with a condition of authorisation for the Amendment. All other building heights are supported as exhibited subject to being discretionary.

10.3 Setbacks

10.3.1 Evidence and submissions The uniform landscape setback along St Kilda Road is a strong element of the built form. It was recognised and supported by all experts. Golden Age Developments sought discretion because mandatory requirements will make its proposal, currently before Council, prohibited. It submitted that their current design is site responsive to an existing heritage property by providing a ‘Curved edge having the effect of ‘peeling away’ from this property, which will ensure that this heritage property rains the dominant property in this part of the street.’ A varied front setback ranging from 11.9 metres to 29.3 metres is proposed to provide: A curved front façade which is visually interesting and will enable a landscaped passive recreational space fronting St Kilda Road. However, the Amendment would prohibit a terrace projecting up to 1.8 metres into the landscape setback. The 4.5 metre side setback requirement is a consistent existing pattern along St Kilda Road. Under cross‐examination, Mr Sheppard and Mr Barlow supported the mandatory setback in Sub‐precinct 5. Golden Age Developments submitted a number of circumstances applying to its site at 450 St Kilda Road that would conflict with mandatory requirements. The site has a common southern boundary to the Blackman Hotel for some 35 metres. The design response being pursued in its current planning permit application is an abuttal for the ground and first floor levels then a 4.5 metre setback above. The mandatory side setback proposed by the Amendment would prohibit this design response.

10.3.2 Discussion The Panel agrees that front and side setbacks are a strong and consistent element along St Kilda Road and their continuation is supported. The Panel notes that these are mandatory elements in DDO41 and DDO42 in the Melbourne Planning Scheme for the east side of St Kilda Road. Experts before the Panel agreed that these were the two strong design elements that created the iconic St Kilda Road Boulevard. A consequence of a mandatory requirement is that it does not provide for any variation like that highlighted by the Golden Age Development proposal. However the consistency applying these strong design elements and the contribution it makes to maintaining and enhancing the pre‐eminent St Kilda Road

Page 82 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Boulevard justifies these as mandatory requirements for future developments. The uniformed allotment pattern and lot sizes allow this consistent approach to be applied.

10.3.3 Conclusion The Panel concludes that there is sufficient justification to apply a mandatory front landscape setback of 13.7 metres with 4.5 metre side setback along both sides of St Kilda Road. The Panel notes that this will result in a consistent application of height and setback provisions along St Kilda Road in both the Melbourne and Port Phillip Planning Schemes.

10.4 Podiums and active street frontages

10.4.1 Evidence and submissions Council’s objective is to create visual interest and activity for pedestrians at street level with the use of podium form of development on Punt Road and Queens Lane.

(i) Punt Road Mr Sheppard’s evidence supported that a 20 metre high podium was appropriate in High Street to match street width, and recommended the mandatory 18 metre high podium be changed to discretionary.

(ii) Queens Lane Submitters acknowledged the important pedestrian role of Queens Lane and supported the concept of active frontages and improvement to the streetscape. Queens Lane forms a primary access way and resident submitters highlighted existing traffic congestion will only exacerbate with increased development. Traffic and parking issues are discussed at Chapter 5.10. Mr Sheppard acknowledged the role and scale of development along the lane, however consistent with his evidence in other sub‐precincts, he did not support mandatory podium requirements. Golden Age Developments submitted that its current planning application would be prohibited because it proposed 8 metre and 4.5 metre setback for the levels above rather than a mandatory 5 metres.

10.4.2 Discussion

(i) Punt Road The Panel acknowledges the agreement to the podium form of development along Punt Road but supports evidence that the mandatory height and setback provisions are not necessary to achieve the objective of human scale.

(ii) Queens Lane Submitters acknowledged the important pedestrian role of Queens Lane and the concept of active frontages and improvements to the streetscape. The Panel agrees with this and the continuation of its dual role to also provide a service function that is reflected in the Precinct objectives. The Panel acknowledges Council’s aspirations in requiring a podium typology to

Page 83 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015 achieve Council’s visual interest and activity objective but based on submissions from a number of experts, is not convinced that a consistent podium height and tower setback is necessary to achieve this. The Panel notes that this is not the prevailing typology in Queens Lane as noted by Planisphere in the review of DDOs 3 and 4 (May 2013) at p54: Queens Lane provides service and vehicle access to properties fronting queens Road and St Kilda Road. The interface along Queens Lane is varied with a mix of landscaping, vehicle access ways, car spaces, blank facades and high solid fencing. Pedestrian use of Queens Lane is increasing due to the poor amenity of Queens Road and a quality walking environment should be fostered here, in addition to maintaining its service function. This was confirmed by inspections carried out by the Panel and gives weight for this requirement to be discretionary. Many of the existing Queens Lane settings are not likely to change overtime as they apply in many cases to significant development that are strata subdivided. Each proposal should respond to the objective of contributing to a pedestrian friendly street but be able to respond to the context of its immediate surroundings. The best or preferred outcome is likely to vary given the mixed nature of the Queens Lane setting. This should be reflected in the design objective for Queens Lane.

10.4.3 Conclusion The Panel concludes that there is not sufficient justification to apply mandatory podium height and tower setback provisions for Queens Lane and in the south‐eastern end of Sub‐ precinct 5 on Punt Road, Henry and Raleigh Streets. However, they provide guidance and should be applied as discretionary provisions.

10.5 Shadows ‐ Wesley College Junior School The exhibited DDO requires: New development must limit overshadowing of Wesley College Junior School at the June solstice between 11am and 2pm.

10.5.1 Evidence and submissions Mr Sheppard stated that the wording was not clear because it suggests that it cannot be varied. He assumed that it was intended to be discretionary. It was also not clear if it applied to any part of the school (both buildings and playground which is artificial grass). He noted that some overshadowing of the school cannot be avoided without compromising the regular pattern of 60 metre high buildings along St Kilda Road. In response to submissions and evidence, Council suggested refinements to the overshadowing provision by including the wording ‘that would reduce the amenity’ to focus on the amenity of the school.

10.5.2 Discussion The current provision relating to overshadowing is unclear and potentially overly prescriptive. Council proposed some refinements that focused the restriction on the

Page 84 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015 amenity of the school. It would appear logical to apply an overshadowing provision to Wesley College Junior School because the Panel has recommended a similar provision for Mac Robertson Girls’ High School. However, there is a distinct difference between the two. Mac Robertson Girls’ High School was constructed on the north‐east corner of a major public open space (Albert Park Reserve) in the 1930s and surrounded by low rise development at the time. In contrast, Wesley College purchased a commercially zoned site within an intensified commercial area in the early 1990s. Sub‐precinct 5 is in a Commercial 1 Zone with policy and aspiration for commercial and residential development of up to 60 metres in height. The Panel is swayed by Mr Sheppard’s evidence that this provision is likely to have the impact of prohibiting the form of development that was recently approved for the Jewish Care site. He added that the continuation of 60 metre development contemplated along this part of St Kilda Road cannot be realised under this provision. The Panel does not support the proposed specific overshadowing requirement that has the effect of preventing this level of development. The Panel is satisfied that the general provisions for use and development in the scheme are sufficient to resolve development proposals on a case‐by‐case basis and recommends that the specific overshadowing provision be deleted.

10.5.3 Conclusion The Panel concludes that there is insufficient strategic basis to apply an overshadowing provision for Wesley College Junior School.

10.6 Recommendations SUB‐PRECINCT 5 The Panel recommends: 5. Amending Design and Development Overlay Schedule 26, as shown in Appendix D, to: a) Translate mandatory building heights into discretionary building heights with the exception of building heights in Sub‐precinct 5A. b) Translate other mandatory requirements into discretionary provisions. c) Delete the overshadowing provision relating to Wesley College Junior School.

Page 85 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

11 Sub‐precinct 6 – Queens Road

Figure 14 Sub‐precinct 6 – Queens Road

Page 86 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

11.1 The Issues There were two submissions with development interest in Sub‐precinct 6 from JD International (20‐22 Queens Road) and Saffire Developments (K1 Union Street). 158 submissions from residents in the adjoining Sub‐precinct 5 raised concerns about the impacts of new buildings such as loss of views, traffic and amenity. The key issues for Sub‐precinct 6 related to building height and the concept of stepping down from St Kilda Road to Queens Road and the justification for mandatory provisions relating to height, front and side setbacks, spacing between buildings and podium/tower typology.

11.2 Building heights DDO26 proposed a mandatory building height of 65 metres in Area 6A and a mandatory building height of 40 metres in Area 6B.

11.2.1 Evidence and submissions Council supported the concept of transition from St Kilda Road to Queens Road in building height as a policy that has been successfully applied for many years. Council maintained that it is a long held policy to enhance the primacy of St Kilda Road by stepping down built form to Queens Road as an edge to the Albert Park Reserve. Council submitted that the 40 metre mandatory building height for Sub‐precinct 6 south of Arthur Street will ensure a consistency of design outcome to provide a defined edge when viewed from a distance across Albert Park Reserve. This Amendment proposes a mandatory 65 metre north of Arthur Street in line with the 2013 Shrine Report. The two urban design experts for Saffire Developments provided evidence to support a greater height for this sub‐precinct. Mr McGauran supported a discretionary 40 metre building height whereas Mr Sheppard supported 65 metres. Planning expert Mr Crowder supported a height greater than 40 metres. Mr Crowder presented photographic evidence and concluded that it was difficult to differentiate buildings along St Kilda Road from buildings along Queens Road when viewed from the Albert Park Reserve and therefore stepping down height was not justified. He supported a discretionary 40 metre building height so that proposals could be considered on a case‐by‐case basis.

11.2.2 Discussion The Panel does not recommend any change to the mandatory 65 metre building height along Queens Road between Kings Way and Arthur Street (Area 6A in DDO26). This mandatory height aligns with the height identified in the 2013 Shrine Report. In relation to the remainder of Sub‐precinct 6, the Panel is satisfied that discretionary building heights along Queens Road have resulted in a relatively consistent and acceptable scale of development. Council submitted a map that showed existing buildings that exceeded the proposed mandatory building heights. The map demonstrates a consistent range of variation from the proposed building heights. The Panel is satisfied that this consistency can be maintained where the exercise of discretion is justified against relevant objectives in DDO26.

Page 87 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

The Panel agrees with the objective of DDO26 to maintain the dominance of building height along St Kilda Road (to the east in Sub‐precinct 5) by creating a transition of height down towards Queens Road and the Albert Park Reserve. This is different to existing local policy seeking to transition taller built form down towards lower scale finer grain areas. The Panel does not support the extent of transition sought through a mandatory 20 metre stepping down of building height from St Kilda Road to Queens Road. Council could still achieve its objective if there was a degree of variation in the transition. In relation to concerns from residents in Sub‐precinct 5, future permit applications will need to respond to an exhaustive list of objectives in addition to front, side and rear setbacks that address solar access and amenity issues. Although discretionary, the considerably lower building height for Sub‐precinct 6 will provide buildings along St Kilda Road with primacy.

11.3 Setbacks DDO26 proposes a mandatory landscape setback of 15 metres and mandatory side setback of 4.5 metres.

11.3.1 Evidence and submissions The proposed mandatory front setback of 15 metres was recognised by experts as a consistent and strong element in built form along Queens Road. Mr Crowder‘s evidence was that the front setback should be discretionary while Mr Sheppard supported it being mandatory similar to St Kilda Road based on the history of consistent application. He did identify the need for some flexibility for 20‐22 Queens Road due to its unusual front boundary alignment while ensuring a substantial front setback is achieved. Side setbacks and spacing between buildings of 4.5 metres was generally supported by experts recognising that uniform spacing was a key element of the character of Sub‐precinct 6. Mr Sheppard supported a mandatory side setback while Mr McGauran believed that it should be discretionary to allow flexibility for responding to existing development and to allow alternative designs. A submission from K1 Union Street highlighted the need for flexibility for side setback requirements for properties at 80 Queens Road, K1 & K3 Union Street due to the site orientation (they do not follow the east‐west alignment of the other properties in the sub‐ precinct) and unusual subdivision pattern.

11.3.2 Discussion The Panel notes that Queens Road has a consistent existing pattern that reflects the proposed 15 metre landscape setback and 4.5 metre side setback proposed in DDO26. The Panel is satisfied that these strong and supported design elements (front landscape setback, uniformed spacing between buildings and side setbacks) can continue to be achieved through discretion exercised against the design objectives. This view is reinforced by the fact that these built form elements have been consistently achieved over many years through discretionary provisions.

Page 88 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

11.4 Podium/Tower typology

11.4.1 Evidence and submissions Council proposes a podium/tower typology to reinforce the boulevard character of Queens Road and for Queens Lane to create visual interest and activity for pedestrians at street level. Mr Biles supported Council’s approach to Queens Road and stated ‘it will enable the maintenance of the existing landscaped setback to the street and the sheer elevations to the street which contribute to establishing a strong boulevard edge defining the boundary of Albert Park’. Mr McGauran stated that the podium typology is at odds with the existing character along this interface and the usual circumstances where this typology is introduced. Mr Sheppard supported this view. In relation to Queens Lane, Mr McGauran stated that a zero setback with an 11 metre podium should not be mandatory because a strong podium form character does not exist in Queens Lane. He added that given the constrained nature of the lane, a better objective would be to seek to achieve a high level of pedestrian address with generous scaled entries, pavement treatments and high quality materials.

11.4.2 Discussion The Panel accepts Mr McGauran’s evidence that the podium typology is at odds with existing character. Mandatory podium/ tower typology is therefore not supported for Queens Road or Queens Lane. The Panel is satisfied that the consistent 15 metre wide landscape setback to Queens Road with the Albert Park Reserve on the west side provides a strong boulevard experience for Queens Road. While a podium typology is one design option to reinforce the boulevard experience, it is not the only option nor is the consistent development form that exists. The Panel supports the views of the experts that it is not the only design response that would achieve this objective. In relation to Queens Lane, the Panel acknowledges Council’s aspirations to achieve visual interest and activity in Queens Lane. The Panel is not convinced that a consistent podium height and tower setback is able to be realised and believes this typology is not necessary to achieve Council’s objective. This is further discussed in Chapter 9.3.3 (Sub‐precinct 5).

11.5 Conclusions The Panel concludes:  Mandatory building heights in area 6A, as identified in the 2013 Shrine Report, may impact on the Shrine and should not be changed. Building heights outside of this area should be discretionary. A transition in height from St Kilda Road down to Queens Road is supported and a discretionary 40 metre building height along Queens Road can achieve this.  Mandatory podium/ tower typology is not supported for Queens Road or Queens Lane.

Page 89 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

 The 15 metre landscape setback and 4.5 metre side setback should be applied as discretionary provisions.

11.6 Recommendations SUB‐PRECINCT 6 The Panel recommends: 6. Amend Schedule 26 to the exhibited Design and Development Overlay, as shown in Appendix D, to: a) Translate mandatory building height, podium height and tower setback, front setbacks and side setbacks into discretionary provisions with the exception of building heights in Queens Road area 6a (between Kings Way and Arthur Street).

Page 90 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

12 Resolution of the Amendment

St Kilda Road is a nationally recognised iconic boulevard that has evolved since its origins. Commencing as Melbourne’s prestigious residential address with grand mansions, it transformed into a commercial hub with corporate offices in the twentieth century and has returned to predominantly residential development in recent times. The consistent themes seen throughout this evolution include architectural excellence, quality development and the Shrine. The Shrine is one of Victoria’s most important landmarks and has been protected through various planning controls for decades. However, buildings developed within the surrounds of the Shrine in more recent times are of a scale not previously experienced. Port Phillip City Council is commended for its effective management of the Precinct that has resulted in the quality urban environment that generations have enjoyed to date. Recognising the need to plan for St Kilda Road’s next phase of its evolution, Council dedicated considerable resources to prepare a strategy. The Precinct Plan is a comprehensive and well considered strategy that sets the vision for future generations. The Panel supports the Amendment because it will introduce provisions that will help achieve this vision. The Panel supports mandatory maximum building heights where there has been an identified potential impact on the Shrine. These mandatory heights will provide certainty to residents in the affected Sub‐precincts. Mandatory landscape setbacks and side setbacks along St Kilda Road and mandatory overshadowing provisions for highly used public spaces and Mac Robertson Girls’ High School (located outside of the St Kilda Rd commercial core) are supported. The Panel supports the building heights proposed by Council in areas identified as not impacting the Shrine, with the exception Sub‐precinct 2, and believes that they should be applied as discretionary provisions. The Kings Way area in Sub‐precinct 2 should apply similar heights to the City of Melbourne section of Kings Way to achieve a consistent urban form. Transitioning taller built form down in this Sub‐precinct, from the tallest buildings along St Kilda Road to lower scale residential areas in South Melbourne is supported by local policy and should be pursued through discretionary building heights. Other provisions such as rear and side setbacks should also be discretionary to allow for varying lot sizes and shapes, existing buildings with blank walls, and unforeseeable circumstances. There are drafting issues that should be addressed before the Amendment is finalised. Written and oral submissions included suggested changes to DDO26. In response, Council provided the Panel with a marked up version of DDO26 showing its response to these suggestions on 16 February 2015. The Panel forwarded the schedule to all parties seeking comments by 26 February 2015 and subsequently invited parties to attend a drafting session to discuss drafting related matters. This was held on 5 March 2015 at the St Kilda Town Hall. The Panel found this to be a very useful process because it resulted in positive suggested changes that would improve the operation of DDO26.

Page 91 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

The type of suggested changes include:  Clear definitions for terms used throughout such as tower, transition, medium scale, human scale  Drafting should apply a style commonly known such as ResCode (i.e. Clauses 54, 55 and 56 of the Planning Scheme)  Delete the list of reference documents  Simplified wording and clerical corrections. It was suggested that the list of reference documents be deleted because they may no longer represented changes to the Amendment since exhibition. These documents are:  The Draft St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan (2013).  The Shrine of Remembrance, Managing the Significance of the Shrine, July 2013. Council clarified that the draft Precinct Plan will be revised to align with changes to the Amendment and marked as a final version. The Panel concludes that the two reference documents provide important context and should remain. Some of the drafting issues are no longer relevant because the relevant provision may have been amended or deleted in the Panel’s preferred DDO26 in Appendix D. However, the Panel found consistency and accuracy issues that should be addressed before the Amendment is finalised. The Panel informally recommends that, before finalising DDO26, Port Phillip City Council make further revisions to:  Ensure consistent terminology and style  Address administrative and clerical matters.

12.1 Recommendations GENERAL 7. Amending Design and Development Overlay Schedule 26, as shown in Appendix D, to: a) Change details in all maps and cross‐sections to be consistent with other changes recommended for the provisions. b) Change the provision directly under each cross‐section of each sub‐precinct to ‘Development in Sub‐Precinct M should generally be in accordance with Map N of this Schedule and the following requirements’. c) Include administrative and clerical changes proposed by Council since the overlay was exhibited. 8. Amend, where applicable, Clauses 21.04, 21.06 and 21.07 to align with changes recommended for Schedule 26 to the exhibited Design and Development Overlay.

Page 92 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Appendix A List of Submitters

No Name of Submitter No Name of Submitter

1 Neil Pickering 33 Xiang Au & Zhaoyuan Li 2 Val & Bruce Stirling 34 Sammy Gitonga & Eranga Gunasekara 3 Owners Corporation Committee of 35 Andrew & Sue Buckley Management ‐ The Boulevarde 4 Paul Evans 36 Cal Rule 5 Shirley & Philip Borden 37 Bruce Clift 6 Benjamin Oshlack & Paul B Friedman 38 Alex Angelini 7 Anna & Michael Priester 39 Robert Edge 8 Peter Brohier 40 Paul Polkinghorne 9 Maureen Schott 41 Yuanya Wang 10 Ross Fotheringham 42 Hakan Psen 11 Margaret & Vivienne Dorevitch 43 Peter Carlon 12 Esther Goldberg 44 M Matlik 13 Razzy Pty Ltd & C Delutis 45 S Nanayakkara 14 Peter Brooksbank 46 Peter & Jennifer Davey 15 Linda Bardo‐Nicholls 47 Paul Howard 16 Leita Pinkus 48 Arthur Liu 17 Wolfe Sharp 49 M A & L Silagy 18 Melbourne Water 50 Graham Mascord 19 Aaron Murden & Melissa Hoffman 51 Michelle Gibson & John Quillan 20 Sandi Gracin 52 Susan Woodhams 21 Greg Hocking 53 Rosie Davis 22 Vince Vozzo 54 Guiseppe Scarfo 23 Peter & Karen Alexander 55 Wendy Abicare 24 Graeme Goldsmith 56 Jing Zhang 25 Damian O'Brien 57 Judith M Tisdall 26 Julie Sewell 58 Xicomin Feng 27 Hayden Downing 59 Eliza Elliott 28 Heather Newmark 60 Tiamchan Rittitak 29 Jack Ryan 61 Grant Philpott 30 George Norris 62 Leanne Waller 31 Stephen Mobbs 63 Marcus Chua 32 Noela Foote 64 J Gillman & P Harris

Page 93 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

No Name of Submitter No Name of Submitter

65 Xiao Yuan 99 Kevin McDermott 66 Richard & Mary Noall 100 Norman Morris 67 Leo Ammavuta 101 Yong Ying Llang 68 G Wanless 102 Shane & Sharlene Golding 69 Margaret Croker 103 Liz & Mark Winslow 70 P Wilson 104 Rex & Wendy Colliver 71 Weng Lg 105 Robert Edge 72 C J & B Rose 106 Vincent Morabito 73 David Bower & Julie Dunmore 107 Judith Thompson 74 Robert & Katherine Udoncich 108 Simon Berry 75 Robert Borrius‐Broek 109 S Warren & H E Warren 76 George Ye 110 Helen Hewison 77 Leonard Tan 111 L Coutts 78 Pasquale D'Orazio 112 John Lai & Louisa Chou 79 Les Rewell 113 Herwan Flores 80 Hilbert 114 Xiao Chen 81 39 Park Street Pty Ltd 115 Mrs M Kelly 82 The Domain Owners Corporation 116 Ms Qlong Yang 83 Lillie Properties 117 Rob & Linden Hughes 84 John Baldwin 118 Anthony Marsh 85 Zen Holdings Vic Pty Ltd & Ozark Pty Ltd & 119 June Hamilton Richmond House Corporation 86 Jewish Care 120 Manjul Charan 87 Summerhill Property Pty Ltd 121 Poornam Charan 88 Geoff Carroll 122 Ryan Menejes 89 Irene Carroll 123 Djoli Tugiono 90 Claire Day 124 Lucy Luo 91 100 Park Street Pty Ltd 125 Anthea Nolan 92 Peter Marsh 126 Roundbay Pty Ltd 93 Coner Pty Ltd 127 Lintime Pty Ltd 94 Andrea Haddad 128 Stonnington City Council 95 First Provenance Pty Ltd 129 Yong Hall Pty Ltd 96 DTPLI ‐ Transport Integration Division 130 Myriad Dreams Pty Ltd 97 Australian Properties Opportunity Fund 131 Michael & Edna Samuel 98 15 Park Street Pty Ltd 132 JD International Pty Ltd

Page 94 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

No Name of Submitter No Name of Submitter

133 HEC Grace Pty Ltd 167 Caroline Chong 134 74 Eastern Road Pty Ltd 168 Donn Guthrie 135 412 St Kilda Road Pty Ltd 169 M Brayshaw 136 Golden Age St Kilda Developments Pty Ltd 170 Mark Assetta 137 CLL@ AU Pty Ltd 171 Mark Assetta 138 George & Maureen Swinburne 172 Nicholas Sanders 139 Kodomo Pty Ltd 173 Lynette Clarke 140 Roger & Jill Donnelly 174 Peter Starkie 141 Royal Domain Tower Owners Corporation 175 Suvendy Kumar Sahoo Committee 142 Australian Unity Pty Ltd 176 Eileen Hattam 143 75‐77 Palmerston Cres 177 Vincent Vozzo 144 Dr Ignatium Oostermeyer 178 Jan Collett 145 Anna Kalogeratos 179 Des O'Shea 146 Jack Sandow and Paige Richards 180 Monika Kamienowska 147 65 Palmerston Crescent Pty Ltd 181 Paul Harper 148 Wuzhong International (Aust) Pty Ltd 182 Julie Kirk 149 Chantel Thornton 183 Xiaomin Jiao 150 Srelko Lorbek 184 Rayna Whitecross 151 Finlay Macrae & Marli Kirby 185 Kenneth Whitecross 152 Juliana & Adam Hesketh 186 Warren Smith 153 Peter McDonald 187 Catherine Sutcliffe 154 David Haylock 188 R L C Sutcliffe 155 Ann Haylock 189 Yan Li 156 Kate McMahon 190 David Strong 157 May Chung 191 Tony Kellar 158 Charles O'Neil 192 Kaye Kellar 159 David Hayes 193 Rick Aitchison 160 Richelle Berman 194 Elizabeth Aitchison 161 Angela Dhar 195 Mr & Mrs Farbridge‐Currie 162 Stephen Pogany 196 Peter & Fran McAdam 163 Adrienne Sylvia 197 Anita Dhar 164 John Sylvia 198 Murray McManenim 165 J Pritchard 199 Kyra McManenim 166 E Irwn 200 George Varkanis

Page 95 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

No Name of Submitter No Name of Submitter

201 Diana Kerr 215 Toni Lalich & Deborah Cheetham 202 Barrie Kerr 216 Alex Guan 203 Susan Stirling 217 K1 Union Street Melbourne 204 Darrel Drieberg 218 SaschenFonds Property Investment IVGmbH ATF 205 Darrel Drieberg 219 180 Albert Road Pty Ltd 206 Robert Ward 220 Shane Young 207 Helen Ward 221 Clifton Pires 208 Sung‐Tao Yen 222 Michelle & Sean McCormack 209 Andrew Chamberlain 223 Impressive Enterprises 210 Tina Bartlett‐Game 224 The Boulevarde Owners Corporation 211 Kim Steade 225 Balencea Owners Corporation 212 Marlene Sanders 226 RT Le Tet & Associates 213 582 St Kilda Road Owners Corporation 227 Lucient Owners Corporation 214 Zen Holdings Vic Pty Ltd 228 Marcus Spigelman

Page 96 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Appendix B Parties to the Panel Hearing

Submitter Represented by Port Phillip City Council Mr John Cicero of Best Hooper and calling the following expert witness: - Mr Tim Biles of Message Consulting on urban design 100 Park Street Pty Ltd Mr Phil Bisset of Minter Ellison and calling the following expert witnesses: - Mr Maugan Bastone of Urbis on planning - Mr Rob McGauran of MGS Architects on urban design 15 Park Street Pty Ltd Mr Peter O’Farrell of Counsel and calling the following expert witness: - Mr Mark Sheppard of David Lock Associates on urban design 180 Albert Road Pty Ltd Mr Phil Bisset of Minter Ellison Lawyers and calling the following expert witness: - Mr Maugan Bastone of Urbis on planning - Mr Rob McGauran of MGS Architects on urban design 39 Park Street Pty Ltd / Michael Vilchanski Mr Jeremy Gobbo of Counsel instructed by Tisher Liner FC Law 412 St Kilda Road Pty Ltd Mr Jeremy Gobbo QC of Counsel and calling the following expert witnesses: - Mr Kel Twite of SJB Planning on planning - Mr Mark Sheppard of David Lock Associates on urban design 454 St Kilda Road Owners Corporation Mr Adrian Mordech 74 Eastern Road Pty Ltd Mr Nick Sutton of Planning & Property Partners and calling the following expert witness: - Mr Mark Sheppard of David Lock Associates on urban design Aurora Building Owners Corporation 1 Ms Megan Schutz of Schutz Consulting Pty Ltd and calling the following expert witness: - Henry Turnbull of the Traffix Group on traffic Australian Unity Investments Mr Paul Chiappi of Counsel and calling the following expert witness: - Mr Robert McGauran of MGS Architects on urban design Balencea Owners Corporation Mr Paul Fowler, Mr A Mordech and Mr Michael Anderton

Page 97 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Submitter Represented by CLL @ AU Pty Ltd Ms Susan Brennan SC of Counsel and calling the following expert witnesses: - Mr Michael Barlow of Urbis on planning - Mr John Denton on urban design Coner Pty Ltd Mr Hugh Smith of SJB Planning Pty Ltd First Provenance Pty Ltd Ms Jane Kelly of Urbis George & Maureen Swinburne Mr George Swinburne Golden Age Development Ms Ellen Laskaridis of Minter Ellison HEC Grace Pty Ltd Mr Phil Bisset of Minter Ellison and calling the following expert witnesses: - Mr Maugan Bastone of Urbis on planning - Mr Rob McGauran of MGS Architects on urban design Impressive Enterprises Pty Ltd Ms Susan Brennan SC and Mr Andrew Walker of Counsel instructed by Planning & Property Partners and calling the following expert witness: - Mr Mark Sheppard of David Lock Associates on urban design JD International Pty Ltd Mr Jeremy Gobbo QC of Counsel and calling the following expert witnesses: - Mr David Crowder of Ratio on Planning - Mr Mark Sheppard of David Lock Associates on urban design - Mr Rob McGauran of MGS Architects on urban design and architecture Jewish Care Vic Pty Ltd Mr David Vorchheimer of HWL Ebsworth and calling the following expert witness: - Mr Mark Sheppard of David Lock Associates on urban design Lintime Pty Ltd Planning & Property Partners and calling the following expert witnesses: - Mr Stuart McGurn of ERM on planning - Mr Mark Sheppard of David Lock Associates on urban design Lucient Owners Corporation Mr Les Condon Michelle & Sean McCormack, Clifton Pires and Mr McCormack and Mr Simon Hall Shane Young Mr Greg Hocking Ms Clare Somerville of Norton Rose Fulbright and calling the following expert witness: - Mr Mark Sheppard of David Lock Associates on urban Design

Page 98 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Submitter Represented by Ms Anna Kalogeratos Ms Anna Kalogeratos and Mr Savvas Kalogeratos Ms Sandi Gracin Myriad Dreams Pty Ltd Mr Peter O’Farrell of Counsel RE Le Tet & Associates Pty Ltd Mr David Vorchheimer of HWL Ebsworth Lawyers and calling the following expert witness: - Mr Mark Sheppard of David Lock Associates on urban design Roundbay Pty Ltd Planning & Property Partners and calling the following expert witnesses: - Mr Stuart McGurn of ERM on planning - Mr Mark Sheppard of David Lock Associates on urban design Saffire Development Corporation Matthew Payne of Spiire Australia Summerhill Properties Pty Ltd Ms Susan Brennan SC of Counsel and calling the following expert witnesses: - Mr Marc Ellenbroek of SJB Planning on planning - Mr Mark Sheppard of David Lock Associates on urban design The Carter Group Mr Peter O’Farrell of Counsel The Domain Owners Corporation Mr Cameron Gentle of Hansen Partnership Wuzhong International (Aust) Pty Ltd Mr Phil Bisset of Minter Ellison Lawyers and calling the following expert witnesses: - Mr Maugan Bastone of Urbis on planning - Mr Mark Sheppard of David Lock Associates on urban Design Zen Holdings (Vic) Pty Ltd Mr Reto Hofmann of Moray and Agnew Lawyers

Page 99 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Appendix C Document list

No Description Presented by 9 December 2014

1 Submission Council 2 C140, C220, C200 Explanatory Report Council 3 Bayside Panel report C103 and provisions Council 4 Supplementary evidence T Biles 5 Shrine reference document T Biles 6 Plan P Chiappi 7 City of Port Phillip Housing Strategy 2007 to 2017 extract S Brennan 8 Balencea building images S Brennan 9 VCAT P159/2005 extract S Brennan 10 December 2014

10 Shrine of Remembrance Vista Controls Incorporated Document Council 11 Panel and advisory report S Brennan 12 Port Phillip PS Map 4HO S Brennan 13 Melbourne Planning Scheme Design and Development Overlay S Brennan 14 Urbis extract – oblique aerial S Brennan 15 Yve building article S Brennan 16 635 St Kilda Road photo S Brennan 17 Melbourne PS Amendment C20 Panel Report S Brennan 18 Schedule 37 to the Design and Development Overlay Melbourne Planning Scheme S Brennan 19 Images of Kingstoun and Central Equity buildings J Gobbo 20 Aerial photo of St Kilda Road P O’Farrell 21 Artisan Architects design response elevations P O’Farrell 22 Shrine of Remembrance Technical Reports Council 23 Fig 13 and 14 – Existing and proposed controls on height Council 11 December 2014

24 Building heights map Council 25 VCAT P3543/2012 Council 26 VCAT P3090/2010 Council 27 VCAT P2019/2010 Council 28 VCAT P1025/2010 Council 29 Council report 24/9/12 P Bisset 30 McGauran evidence C58 Stonnington Council 31 McGauran evidence C171 Melbourne Council 32 Supplementary document M Bastone

Page 100 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

No Description Presented by

33 Plans – 88 Park Street P Bisset 34 Permit – 88 Park Street P Bisset 35 Submission on behalf of HEC P Bisset 36 Submission on behalf of 100 Park Street, South Melbourne P Bisset 37 DDO3 P Bisset 12 December 2014

38 Jewish Care D Vorchheimer 39 Supplementary evidence M Sheppard 40 Design and Development Overlay Schedule 8 Council 41 Design and Development Overlay Schedule 21 Council 42 Carlisle Street Urban Design Framework extract Council 43 Urban design expert evidence of Mark Sheppard for C58 Stonnington Council 44 619 St Kilda Road plans D Vorchheimer 45 619 St Kilda Road permit D Vorchheimer 46 619 St Kilda Road Shadow diagrams D Vorchheimer 47 619 St Kilda Road property title D Vorchheimer 48 Supplementary evidence M Sheppard 49 15 Park Street Pty Ltd submission P O’Farrell 50 Well Street environs aerial map P O’Farrell 51 Design and Development Overlay Schedule 26 ‐ notated P O’Farrell 52 Golden Age Developments Submission E Laskaridis 53 450 St Kilda Road images E Laskaridis 54 Submission on behalf of Australian Unity P Chiappi 55 Submission on behalf of Domain Owners Corporation 1 C Gentle 56 Images of building separations C Gentle 15 December 2014

57 Submission for Aurora Building Corporation 1 M Schutz 58 Summary of issues S McCormack 16 December 2014

59 39 Park Street Pty Ltd Submission J Gobbo QC 60 Submission ‐ Saffire Developments Pty Ltd M Payne 17 December 2014

61 Submission G Swinburne 62 Albert Road building images G Swinburne 63 74 Eastern Road Pty Ltd submission N Sutton 64 Supplementary evidence M Sheppard

Page 101 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

18 December 2014

65 Submission on behalf of Summerhill Properties Pty Ltd S Brennan 66 601 St Kilda Road montages of proposal S Brennan 67 Panel report S Brennan 68 St Kilda Road Urban Design Guidelines 69 Supplementary evidence M Sheppard 70 Supplementary evidence – 412 St Kilda Road M Sheppard 71 Elevation J Gobbo QC 72 Shrine of Remembrance – Vista Control overlay analysis J Gobbo QC 9 February 2015

73 Amendment RL11 Panel report ‐ extract S Brennan SC Plan of survey and existing conditions for 28 Albert Road and 13‐21 Palmerston 74 S Brennan SC Crescent, South Melbourne 75 Aerial maps for 28 Albert Road and 13‐21 Palmerston Crescent, South Melbourne S Brennan SC Supplementary evidence ‐ 28 Albert Road and 13‐21 Palmerston Crescent, South 76 M Sheppard Melbourne 77 Submission S Gracin 78 Submission on behalf of Lintime Pty Ltd and Roundbay Pty Ltd S Brennan SC 79 Site plan and streetscape elevation for 28‐32 Albert Road, South Melbourne S Brennan SC Intensifying Melbourne, Melbourne School of Design, The ‐ S Brennan SC 80 extract 81 No documenrt 10 February 2015 82 Submission on behalf of Impressive Enterprises Pty Ltd S Brennan SC 83 Compilation of provisions from the Melbourne and Port Phillip planning schemes S Brennan SC 84 Supplementary evidence ‐ 7‐8 Bowen Crescent, South Melbourne M Sheppard 11 February 2015 85 Submission ‐ Balencea Owners Corporation A Mordech 86 Submission on behalf of 65 Palmerston Crescent Pty Ltd P O’Farrell 87a Plans, sites context, images and design response for 65 Palmerston Crescent P O’Farrell 87b Architectural plans for 65 Palmerston Crescent prepared by Plus Architecture P O’Farrell Architectural plans for 65 Palmerston Crescent prepared by Jackson Clements 88 P O’Farrell Burrows 89 Comparison of building elevation for 65 Palmerston Crescent with DDO26 provisions P O’Farrell 90 Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development ‐ extract P O’Farrell 91 Submission on behalf of Zen Holdings Pty Ltd R Hoffman 92 Submission on behalf of Gregory David Hocking C Somerville 93 Supplementary evidence ‐ 31‐33 Park Street, South Melbourne M Sheppard 94 Submission on behalf of First Provenance Pty Ltd

Page 102 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

13 February 2015 95 Submission on behalf of Coner Pty Ltd K Burns 96 Building heights survey plan for 424 St Kilda Road, Melbourne M Barlow 97 Height controls for 424 St Kilda Road, Melbourne M Barlow 98 Mandatory controls for St Kilda Road M Barlow 99 Submission on behalf of CLL@AU Pty Ltd S Brennan QC 100 Submission on behalf of RT Le Tet & Associates Pty Ltd D Vorchheimer 101 Supplementary evidence ‐ 157‐161 Eastern Road, South Melbourne M Sheppard 19 February 2015 102 Photos of development surrounding 157‐161 Eastern Road, South Melbourne J Gobbo QC 103 Queens Road streetscape views from Albert Park Golf Course D Crowder 104 Queens Road streetscape views from Albert Park Reserve D Crowder 105 Supplementary evidence ‐ 20‐22 Queens Road, Melbourne M Sheppard 106 Queens Road building elevations J Gobbo QC 107 Submission on behalf of JD International Pty Ltd J Gobbo QC 108 Critical vistas ‐ 20‐22 Queens Road, Melbourne J Gobbo QC 20 February 2015 109 Planning zone map for 180 Albert Road, South Melbourne P Bisset 110 Raffles Holdings Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC & Ors [2013] VCAT 126 (12 February 2013) P Bisset 111 Submission on behalf of 180 Albert Road Pty Ltd P Bisset 112a Shrine Vista assessment of 2 Bowen Crescent, Melbourne by Reeds Consulting P Bisset Shrine Vista assessment of 2 Bowen Crescent, Melbourne peer review by Breese Pitt P Bisset 112b Dixon 112c Backdrop view +22.5 AHD eye level P Bisset 113 Supplementary evidence ‐ 2 Bowen Crescent, Melbourne M Sheppard 114 Photos of existing overshadowing conditions of Bowen Crescent Reserve M Sheppard 115 No document 116 Submission on behalf of Wuzhong International (Aust) Pty Ltd Bisset 117 Closing Submission and Reply Council

Page 103 of 129 Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C107  Panel Report  5 May 2015

Appendix D Schedule 26 to the Design and Development Overlay (Panel preferred)

Page 104 of 129 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

SCHEDULE 26 TO THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY

Shown on the planning scheme map as DDO26. ST KILDA ROAD NORTH PRECINCT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT AREA St Kilda Road North Precinct comprises land generally between St Kilda Road and Queens Road, Melbourne and Kings Way, South Melbourne, extending from Dorcas Street, South Melbourne, in the north to Punt Road and High Street, Windsor, in the south. The precinct also includes land along Albert Road and the south side of Palmerston Crescent, east of Moray Street, South Melbourne. The extent of the Precinct is shown on Map 1.

1.0 Design objectives

St Kilda Road North Precinct-wide Overall Objectives General . To provide for the future development of the St Kilda Road North Precinct, as a Precinct integrated with its urban and landscape surrounds. . To ensure development is environmentally sustainable. . To ensure development does not dominate or obstruct view corridors to key landmark and civic buildings, including the Shrine of Remembrance. . To encourage building design that minimises adverse amenity impacts upon residential properties, Albert Park Reserve, the Shrine of Remembrance and other open space, streets and public places in the area as a result of overshadowing, wind tunnelling or visual bulk within the context of the medium or higher rise built form that is encouraged in each area. . To ensure development does not compromise any identified heritage value on the site or on of adjoining or nearby properties. . To create a stepping down in built form as a transition between the medium to high scale buildings in St Kilda and Queens Roads, and the residential scale of the surrounding neighbourhoods. . To enhance the role of Kings Way as an important commercial precinct and gateway to the municipality and the central city area, by improving the quality of the built form and landscaping. Shrine Setting . To protect the Shrine of Remembrance as a significant historic and cultural landmark and place of reverence by: - Maintaining the scale of development within its setting and backdrop. - Preserving important views and vistas to and from the Shrine. - Ensuring that external building materials and finishes are selected to minimise solar reflectivity and glare impacts, particularly on and Remembrance Day. - Ensure that advertising signs do not adversely affect the significance of the Shrine of Remembrance as a place providing contemplation and reflection. . To prevent further intrusion of built form into the Shrine’s silhouette above the level of the roof when viewed from its western elevation. . To maintain a lower scale edge along St Kilda Road in the vicinity of the Shrine, north of Park Street. . To maintain the view corridor along Bank Street between the Shrine terrace and South Clock Tower. . To maintain solar access to the Shrine’s memorial gardens at all times of the day and year.

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 1 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

City Beautiful . To reinforce a sense of symmetry and consistency in the streetscapes of St Kilda and Queens Road, through regularity of building heights, spacing and frontage setbacks. . To create a stepping down in built form as a that transitions between the medium to high higher scale buildings in St Kilda Road and medium scale buildings in Queens Roads, and the residential scale of the surrounding neighbourhoods. . To enhance the role of Kings Way as an important commercial precinct and gateway to the municipality and the central city area, by improving the quality of the built form and landscaping. . To emphasise the Domain as the point of transition along the St Kilda Road boulevard, through a higher scale built form fronting Albert Road north of Kings Way. . To achieve a stepped building form along Albert Road and from Albert Road to Palmerston Crescent / Raglan Street, south/west of Kings Way, that creates a transitional scale down in scale to adjoining residential properties. . To ensure development provides for a built form transition from the Domain interchange (intersection of St Kilda Road and Albert Road) to the adjoining low rise residential areas and to Albert Park Lake Reserve. . To ensure development does not compromise any identified heritage value of adjoining or nearby properties. Landscape Setting . To ensure development contributes to an expanded network of high quality green streets and public places. . To maintain and consolidate the grand landscape setting of the pPrecinct as an important and distinctive feature of the area by requiring consistent front and side boundary setbacks and high quality landscaping. . To maintain solar access to major open spaces. . To provide an attractive and enclosing street edge to Bowen Crescent Reserve and Albert Road North. . To maintain a consistent landscaped frontage setback along St Kilda Road and Queens Road. . To define the edges of Albert Park Reserve along Queens Road and Albert Road with a high quality of built form and landscaped setbacks. . To strengthen the landscaped links along the streets connecting St Kilda Road and Queens Road. . To develop a high quality landscape setting which enhances the key view corridors and public realm of: - Albert Road, Bowen Crescent and Kings Way, between Domain/St Kilda Road and Albert Park Lake Reserve - Park Street, between Domain and Eastern Reserve. - Bank Street, between the Domain and South Melbourne Town Hall Clock Tower. - St Kilda Road. - Queens Road, between the Domain and St Kilda Junction. Streets for People . To ensure new development enhances the public realm and contributes to a network of pedestrian friendly streets. . To improve the streetscape environment of Kings Way through high quality built form and consistent landscaped setbacks. . To ensure development contributes to connections that achieve a fine-grained pedestrian network. . To create an active, high quality pedestrian environment at street level.

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 2 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

Private Amenity and Outlook . To maintain solar access in adjoining residential areas south/west of Kings Way. . To ensure a high degree of internal amenity for building occupants;, including providing for outlook and privacy, natural ventilation, sunlight and daylight and noise minimisation. . To ensure spacing achieving sufficient spacing between towers forms is sufficient to: - Allow for cross ventilation within the building. - Assist in maintaining the sense of space and ‘open sky views’ at street level. - Provide opportunities for buildings to have an outlook. . To ensure development does not unreasonably impact on the amenity of adjoining residential areas. . To maintain solar access in ensure development in the Precinct does not overshadow adjoining residential areas properties south/west of Kings Way.

1.2 Sub-Precinct objectives In addition to the overall objectives for the Precinct the following specific objectives apply to the individual Sub-Precincts.

Sub-Precinct 1: Edge of Shrine Memorial Gardens The Edge of Shrine Memorial Gardens Sub-Precinct forms the western backdrop to the Shrine and the edge to the Memorial Gardens and the Domain Parklands. The scale, form and detailed design elements of buildings within this Sub-Precinct are critical in respecting the sensitivity of the Shrine setting. . To ensure that buildings are of a scale, form and design detail that creates a respectful background to the Shrine of Remembrance and Memorial Gardens. . To ensure that buildings are designed to respect the sensitivity of the immediate vicinity of Shrine of Remembrance and the more distant elevated points of the Shrine of Remembrance site. . To ensure that new development reinforces the established and consistent built form pattern of low scale built form at street edge with high towers that have substantial setback from the street edge. . To ensure the continuation of consistent street tree planting that contributes to the maintenance of a high amenity of the streetscape.

Sub-Precinct 2: Northwest Corner The North Wwest Corner Sub-Precinct has a mixed character and role, with a varying scale and quality of existing buildings and, in many parts, a poor quality of streetscape. This Sub- Precinct and presents considerable opportunity for development and change as a higher density residential or and mixed use enclave, based around lively, pedestrian focussed streets. . To ensure that new development creates a vibrant residential and mixed use environment, with a higher through an increased scale and density of development. . To reinforce the primacy of St Kilda Road by ensure ensuring development provides a gradual visual and physical transition from the higher scale development of St Kilda Road, across the Sub-Precinct to the low scale residential heritage area of South Melbourne (west of Kings Way). . To ensure that podium heights create and reinforce human scale along Kings Way. . To ensure that development provides for a fine grain character in the form and articulation of new buildings.

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 3 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

. To create a high quality public realm through additional tree planting and maintenance of maintaining access to sunlight along the key pedestrian streets of Bank and Park Streets. . To improve the streetscape environment of Kings Way through high quality form and consistent landscape setbacks. . To ensure the development in Kings Way creates a landscaped boulevard through high quality architectural design and a landscaped public realm interface. . To ensure that podium and heights create and reinforce a ‘human scale’ to provide visual interest and activity for pedestrians at street level along Kings Way. . To improve the streetscape environment of the Northwest Corner Sub-Precinct through high quality built form and consistent landscaped setbacks.

Sub-Precinct 3: Albert Road South The Albert Road South Sub-Precinct forms the edge of Albert Park and provides a transition in scale to the adjoining heritage residential neighbourhoods and parklands. . To ensure that the built form transitions in scale from: - its highest towards the Domain and gradually steps down along Albert Road from Kings Way to Moray Street. - Albert Road and Kings Way to the adjoining heritage neighbourhood of South Melbourne. . To ensure that a medium rise built form is established on the Palmerston Crescent and Raglan Street frontage providing an appropriate lower scale transitional interface between higher scale development on Albert Park Road and Kings Way for and the adjoining heritage neighbourhood of South Melbourne. . To ensure that landscaped setbacks are provided to all street frontages and enhance the leafy character of the area. . To ensure that podium designs and heights create a human scale and provide visual interest and activity for the pedestrian at the street level. . To ensure that building facades follow the street alignment and reflect the curvature of the underlying 19th century ‘city beautiful movement’ street pattern unique to the area.

Sub-Precinct 4: Albert Road North & Bowen Crescent The Albert Road North & Bowen Crescent Sub-Precinct is distinct part of the study area Precinct expressing a unique nineteenth century formal street layout. Higher scale buildings clustered around the Domain will sit in a landscaped setting serving as focal point within the overall precinct area and a point of transition along the St Kilda Road axis. . To ensure that built form creates a focal point within for the wider St Kilda Road Precinct where Albert Road, St Kilda Road and Domain Road meet through the development of higher scale and quality buildings where Albert Road, St Kilda Road and Domain Road meet. . To ensure that development reinforces the distinctive street pattern by building frontages following the curve of the street and are complemented by formal tree planting in setback areas. . To ensure that podium heights create and reinforce human scale at street level. . To encourage the development of a vibrant inner urban residential and mixed use area. . To ensure that development provides high quality living spaces and protects the amenity of existing residential developments and adjoining residential neighbourhoods in South Melbourne. . To improve public streets, provide for additional street trees and increase pedestrian connections.

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 4 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

. To ensure that development improves the pedestrian environment along Queens Lane and Bowen Lane through buildings designed to address and engage with the street edge, while maintaining the service role of these lanes.

Sub-Precinct 5: St Kilda Road South of Kings Way The St Kilda Road South of Kings Way Sub-Precinct forms the southern section of the St Kilda Road boulevard between Kings Way and the Junction. Here, the streetscape is strongly defined by the scale and form of regularly spaced buildings, the consistent boulevard planting and the wide, straight road reserve with multiple traffic lanes. . To ensure the development contributes to and maintains consistent and symmetrical building heights on both sides of St Kilda Road. . To ensure that development results in regularly placed buildings, with space between them to frame view corridors. . To ensure that development provides generous landscaped front setbacks to St Kilda Road that strengthens to the leafy grand boulevard character. . To provide landscaped links along east-west streets. . To provide for active frontages at street level. . To encourage the development of a high quality, high amenity mixed use area on Raleigh and Union Streets. . To ensure that development improves the pedestrian environment along Queens Lane with buildings designed to address and engage with the street edge, while recognising the service role of this Lane.

Sub-Precinct 6: Queens Road The Queens Road Sub-Precinct is distinct as a lower rise, predominantly residential area that forms the edge to Albert Park. There is a consistency of building scale and siting that creates a cohesive streetscape. . To reinforce the primacy of St Kilda Road by transitioning built form between buildings along St Kilda Road to lower rise buildings along Queens Road. . To ensure that development provides generous and consistent front setbacks and regular spacing between buildings. . To ensure that buildings are of a medium scale with towers setback above a podium. . To ensure that development frames long ranging views along Queens Road and forms an edge to the Albert Park Reserve. . To ensure that front setbacks provide for canopy trees and other larger plants to enhance the streetscape and pedestrian space. . To provide landscaped links along east-west streets. . To retain and enhance the presence of important heritage buildings. . To ensure that development improves the pedestrian environment along Queens Lane with through buildings designed to address and engage with the Queens Lane street edge while maintaining the service role of this lane.

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 5 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

Map 1: St Kilda Road North Precinct and Sub-Precincts

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 6 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

2.0 Buildings and works

Permit Requirement A permit cannot be granted to vary any mandatory requirements of this Schedule. This does not apply to the following circumstances:

. Minor buildings and works, such as vVerandahs, architectural features, balconies, shelters, sunshades, art works, street furniture, fences, reskinning or recladding of an existing building and also basements which do not project above ground level, may be constructed within the setback areas specified above. . Within Sub-Precinct 2, Sub-Precinct 3, Sub-Precinct 5b, Sub-Precinct 5c and Sub- Precinct 6b architectural features such as domes, towers, masts and building services that do not exceed the maximum height by more than 4 metres and do not exceed 10% of the gross floor area of the top building level. . The podium height and setback requirements for corner sites with a frontage or abuttal to St Kilda Road, or Albert Road within Sub-Precinct 3, Kings Way within Sub- Precincts 4c and 4d, Queens Road within Sub-Precinct 4d and the corner of Park Street and St Kilda Road within Sub-Precinct 4a. This allows for architectural resolution of varying podium height requirements. Reconstructed or replacement Existing buildings: A permit may be granted to replace a building or works existing on the approval date but which does not meet the height or setback requirements of this schedule if: . The responsible authority is satisfied that an increased height or reduced setback improves the amenity and enhances the urban character of the area does not unreasonably impact on the vision for the Precinct as set out in the Design Objectives for Precincts. . The building or works is no higher than the building being replaced. . The building or works is to be constructed no closer to a boundary that the building being replaced.

3.0 General Requirements

Design Quality . New developments must achieve urban design and architectural excellence. . Corner sites must achieve a high quality architectural outcome at the transition of any varying podium requirements that contribute to consistent streetscapes. . Development on corner sites with a St Kilda Road, Albert Road, Kings Way or Queens Road frontage or abuttal should not express the side street podium requirement to those roads. . Where a podium / tower typology is not proposed for a corner site, a high quality architectural response is required which achieves an appropriate transition to podium / setback requirements on adjoining sites, including through building articulation/massing building materials, finishes and design detail. . Development on large sites should minimise building bulk and promote vertical articulation in their design.

Separation distances / side and rear setbacks . For Sub-Precincts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6: - Development above the podium should be set back a minimum of 4.5 metres from side and rear boundaries and at least 9 metres from existing towers. - Where there is no podium or an existing tower, a setback of 4.5 metres to the boundary should be provided.

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 7 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

. For Sub-Precinct 5, development along St Kilda Road must be setback 4.5 metres from side boundaries. For all Sub-Precincts, setbacks greater than the specified minimum may be required to achieve the relevant objectives. Landscaped setbacks . Frontages along St Kilda Road and Queens Road must be retained as open space for substantial landscaping and pedestrian activity: - Within St Kilda Road, frontages should function as a forecourt for public, private and communal use. Public seating areas should be provided in these forecourts. - Queens Road frontages must be designed to provide substantial landscaping, including, where appropriate, large scale canopy trees. . Clear sightlines should be provided from the footpath to the building façade to increase perceptions of pedestrian safety. . Water sensitive urban design treatments should be incorporated into frontage design to manage and reduce stormwater runoff. . Exhaust stacks from underground car parks must be located away from main pedestrian areas and incorporated into the building design or adequately screened. . Grade differences between the ground floor level and natural ground level should be kept to a minimum. Where level differences cannot be avoided (for example, due to the Special Building Overlay), stairs, terraces, disabled access ramps must be designed to not visually dominate the frontage setback space or significantly reduce the area for landscaping.

Heritage . New development must respect the form, massing and siting of heritage buildings on the development site or adjoining sites.

Street Wall/Podium Level . The design of podiums should create a ‘human scale’ providing visual interest and activity for pedestrians at the street edge, ameliorate wind effects and provide access to sunlight and sky views. . The design of buildings should reinforce the pattern of the street by aligning their façade with the curvature of the street frontage. . The design of new buildings should include openable habitable windows and balcony doors on the first five levels of the ‘street wall’ to enhance the sense of connection, surveillance and safety at ground level. . New development must avoid car parking at ‘street wall’ level. All car parking at ground level or above should be sleeved with active uses to ensure it is not visible from the street. . Buildings located on corner sites should address both street frontages.

Active Frontages . New development should provide integrated community and active space at street level that contributes to a high quality public realm. . All building frontages (except on laneways and service streets) should: - Be orientated towards the street. - Allow for natural surveillance and a visual connection into the building through transparent windows and balconies. - Avoid blank walls, large areas of reflective services, high fences, service areas, car parks and garage doors in the podium interface areas.

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 8 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

- Provide clear glazing to street frontages; security grills must be visually permeable and mounted internally. - Provide no or low, visually permeable front fencing. . New development along Queens Lane and Bowen Lane should incorporate lighting, entry doors, habitable rooms with windows, and display windows. . Design pedestrian entrances to open directly onto the street, as a key feature of the façade and at the same level as the public footpath. . Foyer areas should have visibility to the street and be designed to encourage activity and interest both within and external to the building. . New development within a residential zone should provide: - Individual entry points to ground level dwellings to create multiple residential addresses along the building façade, rather than a single entry point. - Entrances with weather protection and lighting. . New development within a commercial or mixed use zones other than a residential zone should provide: - Transparent windows and entrances for at least 80 per cent of the width of the street frontage of each individual retail premises, or at least 60 per cent of the width of the street frontage of each premises for other commercial uses. - Lighting design that is incorporated to the façade to contribute to a sense of safety at night. . New development along laneways should incorporate lighting, entry doors, habitable rooms with windows, low fences and display windows. Tower Design and Internal Amenity . Tower forms (above podiums) should not exceed a maximum width and depth of 35 metres to: - Ensure that daylight penetrates through to parts of the building and streets, and adjoining buildings. - Reduce their perceived visual bulk. - Maintain sightlines between buildings. . New residential development must have access to onsite communal or private open space in the form of rooftops, podiums, balconies or courtyards. Building services . Waste materials storage and services must be provided on site and should be screened from areas of high pedestrian activity. . Waste Sstorage or services should not impede pedestrian access and should be located away from footpaths. . New buildings should provide internal and on-site loading facilities and on-site service vehicle parking at the rear of buildings to minimise disruption of traffic or pedestrian access and avoid laneway congestion. . Building services on rooftops should be screened to avoid detrimental noise and visual impacts on the amenity of both private and public realms. . Noise attenuation measures and suppression techniques should be incorporated into developments to ensure noise does not unreasonably affect the amenity of public areas and nearby residences. . Encourage rRoof and vertical gardens should be encouraged in new or refurbished buildings. Vehicular Access and car parking . Vehicle crossovers should be no more than 6 metres wide, with a maximum of one crossover per site.

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 9 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

. Vehicle ingress and egress, loading facilities and building services should not be located on frontages along St Kilda Road or Punt Road. . Vehicle ingress and egress must should be located on lanes where possible. . Car access ways should not visually dominate the façade of a building, and be visually permeable to retain a visual connection through the site and allow for natural surveillance. . Car parks should be built underground or located to the rear of the site to enable active uses on the street frontage. Where car parks are built above ground, they should not front the site or be visible from St Kilda Road, and Queens Road, or Punt Road. . Car parking within a podium should incorporate floor to ceiling heights of 3.5m to enable future adaptation for habitable uses. . Open/at-grade car parks should not be located in front setback areas. Pedestrian Permeability . New development should include pedestrian links along St Kilda Road, Queens Road and areas in the Mixed Use Zone to create mid-block links and increase the permeability of the Precinct. . Development should enhance existing links/laneways by providing a mix of active and non-active frontages, appropriate to the role of the link / laneway.

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 10 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

4.0 Sub-Precinct Requirements

4.1 Sub-Precinct 1 – Edge of Shrine Memorial Gardens Map 2: Built form and setback requirements: Sub-Precinct 1

Cross Section AA

Development in Sub-Precinct 1 must should be generally in in accordance with Map 2 of this Schedule and the following requirements: . New development must not protrude into the Shrine’s silhouette above the level of the Portico roof when viewed from Birdwood Avenue. . Buildings must maintain solar access to the Shrine of Remembrance Memorial Gardens at all times of the day and year. A permit cannot be granted to vary the above requirements. . Development on corner sites with a St Kilda Road frontage or abuttal should not express the side street podium requirements to St Kilda Road. Sub-Precinct 1-a

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 11 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

. A 3 metre landscape setback must be provided to the direct frontage or abuttal to St Kilda Road. . Development within 5 metres of Dorcas and Park Streets, must should not exceed a height of 18 metres. . Development beyond the setbacks identified above must not exceed a height of 36 metres AHD. A permit cannot be granted to vary the above requirements. Sub-Precinct 1-b . A 3 metre landscape setback must be provided to the direct frontage or abuttal to St Kilda Road. . Development within 5 metres of Wells Street, must should not exceed a height of 18 metres. . Development beyond the setbacks identified above must not exceed a height of 25 metres AHD. A permit cannot be granted to vary the above requirements. Sub-Precinct 1-c . Development within 5 metres of Dorcas, Wells and Park Streets, must should not exceed a height of 18 metres. . Development beyond the setbacks identified above must not exceed a height of 70 metres AHD. . Development above the podium must be setback at least 4.5 metres from side and rear common boundaries and at least 9 metres from other existing towers. A permit cannot be granted to vary the above requirements. . Development must ensure that the key view corridor along Park Street between the Domain and Eastern Reserve is enhanced through a high quality of built form and landscaping.

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 12 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

4.2 Sub-Precinct 2 - North-west corner Map 3: Built form and setback requirements: Sub-Precinct 2

Cross Section AA

Cross Section BB

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 13 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

Development in Sub-Precinct 2 must should be generally in accordance with Map 3 of this Schedule and the following requirements: . A 3 metre landscape setback must should be provided to the direct frontage or abuttal to Kings Way. . Development within 13 metres (inclusive of the 3 metre landscape setback) of a direct frontage or abuttal to Kings Way must should not exceed a height of 1840 metres. . Development with a direct frontage or abuttal to any road, excluding Kings Way, must should: - be built to the boundary, and - not exceed 18 metres in height within 5 metres of any street frontage. . Development beyond the setbacks identified above must should not exceed a height of 4560 metres. . Development above the podium must be setback at least 4.5 metres from side and rear common boundaries and at least 9 metres from other existing towers. . Building facades must follow the alignment of the street frontage to follow the distinctive curvilinear street pattern. . Development must should maintain the existing levels of solar access to the southern footpaths of Bank and Park Streets when measured between 10 am and 2 pm at the equinox. . Development must should maintain solar access to not overshadow the adjoining dwellings in the residential areas south west of Kings Way and comply with the objectives of Clause 55.04-5 - Overshadowing. A permit cannot be granted to vary the above requirements. . Development should reinforce the fine grain pattern of the Sub-Precinct. . Large redevelopment and proposals that consolidate smaller sites should incorporate through-block pedestrian links and express the historic fine grain subdivision into their design.

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 14 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

4.3 Sub-Precinct 3 - Albert Road South Map 4: Built form and setback requirements: Sub-Precinct 3

Cross Section AA

Development in Sub-Precinct 3 must should be generally in accordance Map 4 of this Schedule and the following requirements: . A 3 metre landscaped setback must should be provided to all street frontages, except laneways. . Building facades must should follow the alignment of the road frontage to follow the distinctive curvilinear street pattern. . Development above the podium must be setback at least 4.5 metres from side and rear common boundaries and at least 9 metres from other existing towers. . New development must not result in any additional overshadowing that will reduce the amenity of: - Mac Robertson Girls’ High School at the equinox between 10am and 2pm.

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 15 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

- and Albert Park Reserve at June winter solstice between 11am and 2pm. A permit cannot be granted to vary the above requirements. . Development on corner sites with an Albert Road frontage or abuttal should not express the side street podium requirements to Albert Road Sub-Precinct 3-a . Development within 13 metres (inclusive of the 3 metre landscape setback) of Kings Way must should be a minimum height of 18 metres and not exceed a maximum height of 30 metres. . Development beyond the setbacks identified above must should not exceed a height of 60 metres. A permit cannot be granted to vary the above requirements.

Sub-Precinct 3-b . Development within 13 metres (inclusive of the 3 metre landscape setback) of Stead Street must should be a minimum height of 18 metres and not exceed a maximum height of 30 metres. . Development beyond the setbacks identified above must should not exceed a height of 45 metres. A permit cannot be granted to vary the above requirements.

Sub-Precinct 3-c . Development within 20 metres (inclusive of the 3 metre landscape setback) of Palmerston Crescent must should not exceed a height of 15 metres. . Development beyond the setbacks identified above must should not exceed a height of 30 metres. A permit cannot be granted to vary the above requirements.

Sub-Precinct 3-d . Development within 20 metres (inclusive of the 3 metre landscape setback) of Palmerston Crescent must should not exceed 15 metres in height. . Development beyond of the 20 metre Palmerston Crescent setback and within 8 metres (inclusive of the 3 metre landscape setback) of Sandilands Street and the eastern side of Eastern Road must should not exceed a height of 18 metres. . Development beyond the setbacks identified above must should not exceed a height of 30 metres. A permit cannot be granted to vary the above requirements.

Sub-Precinct 3-e . Development within 8 metres (inclusive of the 3 metre landscape setback) of Thomson Street and the western side of Eastern Road should not exceed a maximum height of 18 metres. . Development beyond the setbacks identified above must should not exceed a height of 30 metres. A permit cannot be granted to vary the above requirements.

Sub-Precinct 3-f . Development within 20 metres (inclusive of the 3 metre landscape setback) of Moray Street should not exceed a height of 9 metres.

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 16 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

. Development within 20 metres (inclusive of the 3 metre landscape setback) of Raglan Street must should not exceed a height 15 metres. . Development beyond the setbacks identified above must should not exceed a height of 18 metres. . Development at boundaries with a dwelling in a properties zoned Rresidential zone 1 must comply with the objectives of Clause 55.04-5 (Overshadowing). A permit cannot be granted to vary the above requirements.

4.4 Sub-Precinct 4 – Albert Road North & Bowen Crescent Map 5: Built form and setback requirements: Sub-Precinct 4

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 17 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

Cross Section AA

Development in Sub-Precinct 4 must should be generally in accordance Map 5 of this Schedule and the following requirements. . A 3 metre landscaped setback must should be provided to all street frontages, except Bowen Lane, Queens Lane and Park Street. . Building facades must should align with the street frontage. . Development must not result in any additional overshadowing that will reduce the amenity of the: - Mac Robertson Girls’ High School, South African War Memorial Reserve and the Bowen Crescent Reserve at the equinox between 10am and 2pm. - Mac Robertson Girls’ High School and Albert Park Reserve at June winter solstice between 11am and 2pm. A permit cannot be granted to vary the above requirements . Development on corner sites with a St Kilda Road frontage or abuttal should not express the side street podium requirements to St Kilda Road.

Sub-Precinct 4-a . Development: - within 13 metres (inclusive of the 3 metre landscape setback) of any direct street frontage or abuttal to Albert Road and Kings Way, must should be a minimum height of 18m and must should not exceed a maximum height of 30 metres, and - between 13 metres (inclusive of the 3 metre landscape setback) of Kings Way and the northern boundary of 70 Albert Road, must not exceed a height of 60 metres. . Development with a direct frontage to Park Street, must should: - be built to the boundary, and - within 5 metres of Park Street not exceed a height of 18 metres. . Development beyond the setback areas set out above must not exceed a height of 85 metres AHD. . Development above the podium must be setback at least 4.5 metres from side and rear common boundaries and at least 9 metres from other existing towers. A permit cannot be granted to vary the above requirements.

Sub-Precinct 4-b 1-29 Albert Road . Development fronting Bowen Lane must should: - be built to the Bowen Lane boundary, and - within 5 metres of Bowen Lane not exceed a height of 11 metres.

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 18 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

. Development beyond the setback areas set out above must not exceed a height of 85 metres AHD. A permit cannot be granted to vary any of the above requirements.

Sub-Precinct 4-c . Development within 13 metres (inclusive of the 3 metre landscape setback) of any street frontage to Albert Road and Kings Way, must should be a minimum height of 18 metres and not exceed a maximum height of 30 metres. . Development fronting Bowen Lane or Queens Lane must should: - be built to the Bowen Lane or Queens Lane boundary; and - within 5 metres of Bowen Lane or Queens Lane not exceed a height of 11 metres except within 13 metres of Kings Way. . Development beyond the setback areas set out above must not exceed 65 metres AHD. . Development above the podium must be setback at least 4.5 metres from side and rear common boundaries and at least 9 metres from other existing towers. A permit cannot be granted to vary the above requirements.

Sub-Precinct 4-d . Development within 8 metres (inclusive of the 3 metre landscape setback) of any street frontage to Bowen Crescent, Queens Road and Kings Way must be a minimum height of 18 metres and not exceed a maximum height of 30 metres. . Development fronting Bowen Lane or Queens Lane must should: - be built to the Bowen Lane or Queens Lane boundary; and - within 5 metres of Bowen Lane or Queens Lane not exceed a height of 11 metres Development beyond the setback areas set out above must not exceed a height of 65 metres AHD. . Development above the podium must be setback at least 4.5 metres from side and rear common boundaries and at least 9 metres from other existing towers. A permit cannot be granted to vary the above requirements. Sub-Precinct 4-e . Development fronting Queens Lane must should: - be built to the Queens Lane boundary; and - within 5 metres of Queens Lane not exceed a height of 11 metres. . Development beyond of the setback areas set out above must not exceed a height of 65 metres AHD. . Development above 30 metres must be setback at least 4.5 metres from side and rear common boundaries and at least 9 metres from other existing towers. A permit cannot be granted to vary the above requirements.

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 19 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

Sub–Precinct 5 – St Kilda Road south of Kings Way Map 6: Built form and setback requirements: Sub-Precinct 5

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 20 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

Cross Section AA

Development in Sub-Precinct 5 must should be generally in accordance with Map 6 of this Schedule and the following requirements: On St Kilda Road – West side between Kings Way, Queens Lane and Queens Road/St Kilda Road intersection. . A landscape setback of 13.7 metres must be provided to St Kilda Road. A permit cannot be granted to vary the above requirements. . Development on corner sites with a St Kilda Road frontage or abuttal should not express the side street podium requirements to St Kilda Road. Sub-Precinct 5-a . A landscape setback of 4.5 metres must should be provided to Arthur Street, Leopold Street, Louise Street and Hanna Street. . A landscape setback of 3 metres must should be provided to Kings Way. . Development must be setback 4.5 metres from side boundaries. . Development fronting and abutting Queens Lane must should: - be built to the Queens Lane boundary; and - within 5 metres of Queens Lane not exceed a height of 11 metres. . Development beyond the landscape setbacks and the Queens Lane height limit identified above must not exceed a height of 65 metres AHD. A permit cannot be granted to vary the above requirements.

Sub-Precinct 5-b . A landscape setback of 4.5 metres must should be provided to Roy Street, Beatrice Street, Lorne Street and Union Street and 6 metres to Queens Road. . Development fronting and abutting Queens Lane must should: - be built to the Queens Lane boundary; and - within 5 metres of Queens Lane not exceed a height of 11 metres. . Development height beyond of the landscape setbacks and the Queens Lane height limit must should not exceed a height of 60 metres. . Development must be setback 4.5 metres from side boundaries. A permit cannot be granted to vary the above requirements.

Sub-Precinct 5-c . A landscape setback of 4.5 metres must should be provided to any street frontage or street abuttal, except St Kilda Road. . Development within 9.5 metres (inclusive of the 4.5 metre landscape setback) of Punt Road, High Street, Raleigh Street, Union Street and Henry Street must should not

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 21 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

exceed a height of 18 metres. Development on corner sites with a St Kilda Road frontage or abuttal should not express this podium to St Kilda Road. . Development within 50 metres of Punt Road between Raleigh Street and Union Street, beyond of the landscape setbacks and podium setbacks identified above must should not exceed a height of 40 metres. . Development beyond the setback areas set out above must should not exceed a height of 60 metres. . Development must be setback 4.5 metres from side boundaries. A permit cannot be granted to vary the above requirements. New development must limit overshadowing of Wesley College Junior School the June solstice between 11am-2pm.

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 22 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

4.6 Sub-Precinct 6– Queens Road Map 7: Built form and setback requirements: Sub-Precinct 6

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 23 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

Cross Section AA

Development in Sub-Precinct 6 must should be generally in accordance with Map 7 of this Schedule and the following requirements: . A landscape setback of 15 metres must should be provided to Queens Road. . A landscape setback of 4.5 metres must should be provided to Arthur Street, Leopold Street, Louise Street, Hanna Street, Roy Street, Beatrice Street, Lorne Street and Union Street. . Development fronting and abutting Queens Lane must should: - be built to the Queens Lane boundary; and - within 5 metres of Queens Lane not exceed a height of 11 metres. . Development must be setback 4.5 metres from side boundaries. A permit cannot be granted to vary the above requirements. Sub-Precinct 6-a . A landscape setback of 3 metres must should be provided to Kings Way. . Development beyond the landscape setbacks and the Queens Lane height limit must not exceed a height of 65 metres AHD. A permit cannot be granted to vary the above requirements.

Sub-Precinct 6-b . Development within 25 metres (inclusive of the 15 metre landscape setback) of any street frontage to Queens Road, must should not exceed a height of 30 metres. . Development within 5 metres of Queens Lane must not exceed a height of 11 metres. . Development beyond the landscape setbacks and podium height limits must should not exceed a height of 40 metres. A permit cannot be granted to vary the above requirements.

45.0 Application requirements

‐‐/‐‐/‐‐ An application to construct a building or construct or carry out works must be accompanied by the following information, as appropriate: . A plan, drawn to scale and including relevant dimensions, that shows: - The boundaries and dimensions of the land. - The location of adjoining roads. - A neighbourhood framework plan illustrating the location and use/purpose of adjacent buildings and works. - Relevant ground levels and surface levels (using Australian Height Datum).

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 24 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

- The location and layout of existing buildings and works (including landscaping) identifying those buildings, works and landscaping to be retained. - The location and layout of proposed buildings and works (including landscaping). - Existing and proposed vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian access points, driveways, and pathways; car and bicycle parking and loading areas. . Elevation and section drawings, drawn to scale and including relevant dimensions, that show: - The location and height of existing buildings and works to be retained and proposed buildings and works (using Australian Height Datum). - The location and height of adjacent buildings and works (using Australian Height Datum). - Any appurtenances to the exterior of the building (including roof structures). - Relevant ground levels and surface levels (using Australian Height Datum). - The colour, materials and finishes of external walls and surfaces. - Where buildings will be visible from the forecourt of the Shrine of Remembrance, evidence that the reflectivity of the materials and finishes will not cause visual distraction from glare on ANZAC Day (April 25) and Remembrance Day (11 November). - A landscape plan showing the detailed landscape design and including the details of vegetation to be planted; the density of planting, the location of pathways, surfaces to be constructed and materials to be used, the location, design and finishes of furniture, fixtures and public art works, and other site works as relevant. . A Traffic and Parking Assessment Report which includes an examination of the cumulative impacts of traffic and parking in the Precinct. . Shadow diagrams, drawn to scale and including relevant dimensions, that shows: - The boundaries and dimensions of the land. - The location and layout of proposed buildings and works, including the location of windows and open spaces (as relevant). - The location of adjoining roads. - The location and use/purpose of adjacent buildings and works. - The shadows cast by the development during daylight hours on 22 September (equinox). - For applications within sub-precincts affected by additional shadow requirements, the shadows cast by the development during the specified day and time. . A wind impact study demonstrating the wind effects of proposed buildings and works. . Plans or a model, drawn or constructed to scale and including relevant dimensions that show the proposed development in the context of the Shrine and its setting.

56.0 Decision guidelines

‐‐/‐‐/‐‐ Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the Responsible Authority must consider, as appropriate: . Whether the proposed buildings or works achieve the Design Objectives . Whether the proposed buildings or works are in accordance with the General Requirements and the Requirements of for the relevant Sub-Precinct detailed in this schedule. . Whether the development is designed to avoid or limit over shadowing of adjoining residential properties and the public realm in accordance with the design guidelines of Objectives and Policy Requirements of Clause 22.06 - Urban design policy for non residential development and multi unit residential development.

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 25 of 26 PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME

67.0 Advertising Signs

Notice Requirements ‐‐/‐‐/‐‐ Where a permit is required under Clause 52.05 for a sign and the sign is located above 23 metres AHD notice must be given under Section 52(1)(c) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to the Shrine of Remembrance Trustees as specified in the Schedule to Clause 66.06.

Decision Guidelines

Before deciding on an application to display a sign located above 23 metres AHD, the Responsible Authority must consider, in addition to the decision guidelines at Clause 52.05 and Clause 65: . Whether the advertising sign detracts from the landmark qualities and historical and cultural significance of the Shrine of Remembrance . Whether the location, size, illumination and reflectivity of the advertising signs detracts from important views and vistas from the Shrine of Remembrance

78.0 Reference documents

Reference Documents: The Draft St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan (2013). The Shrine of Remembrance, Managing the sSignificance of the Shrine, July 2013.

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 26 Page 26 of 26