Architecture Planning Interior Design

McGauran Giannini Soon Pty Ltd

ABN 13 006 488 302

10-22 Manton Lane 3000

Telephone 61 3 9670 1800

Facsimile 61 3 9670 1808 Email: [email protected]

INDEPENDENT URBAN DESIGN ADVICE EXPERT WITNESS EVIDENCE

PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C107 For 100 Park Street

November 2014

Prepared by

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

Our ref: 14144

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

1. BACKGROUND 1.1. I have been asked by Minter Ellison Lawyers to comment on the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment C107 (the amendment) to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme with regard to the appropriateness of the amendment in relation to its context and principles of good urban design.

2. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT – THE CONTEXT 2.1. The St. Kilda Road and Queens Road/Kings Way corridor has with the Southbank area been the subject of major change from the early 1990’s until the present, becoming a mecca for entertainment along the ’s edge, commerce along the Kings Way interface and apartment style living for much of the hinterland and Queens Road and St Kilda Road interfaces. 2.2. The arts presence that had existed has been further expanded and consolidated with the development of ACCA, MTC, ABC, School, the VCA Secondary College (in Miles Street) and the Recital Hall along the Sturt Street spine. 2.3. The Princess Bridge and Queensbridge Street crossings have been complimented by additional pedestrian bridges linking the city with Southbank. The St Kilda Road and south river edge spines are now a focus of commuter and recreational cycling access and activity. 2.4. A large residential community has been established with over 15,000 people now calling either Southbank or South Wharf home, with a 35% growth in this precinct population in the past 6 years. In Southbank alone this resident population is anticipated to substantially increase to over 70,000 with an additional worker population of 56,000. 2.5. Within the C107 area we have also seen major transformation occur but in this instance the evolution has been one that has set the scene for Southbank as unlike the neighbouring precinct it has long been seen as a place to live and work.

2 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

2.6. Initially the St Kilda and Queens Road corridors were seen largely as a residential address in the 19th century with the adjacent lower lying land reclaimed and primarily dedicated to recreation and industrial purposes with the formalising of the Albert Park Reserve providing an address with St Kilda Road for the new residential neighbourhood. 2.7. To this context of major change of areas along Queens Road, St Kilda Road and the upper end of Albert Road that have traditions of providing a sampler of the commercial and higher density residential development trends able to be delivered by the private sector at that time. Evolution has been progressive as can be seen from the attached images with homes interspersed with hotels, office buildings and apartments forming a new skyline and later higher levels of infill and transformation.

Image showing the former BP House under construction in a primarily low scale context 3 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

1970’s image showing more development in the corridor with the former Prince Henry’s Hospital in the foreground

2.8. Progressively the port and inner urban industrial activities that lined the river and the western and part eastern side of Kings Way and hinterland off the St Kilda Road Ridge have been replaced with higher density urban renewal including the extensive Southbank renewal project, the hinterland higher density development, regional freeway infrastructure, and centres of commerce and higher density housing. These changes have made significant contributions to Melbourne’s transformation. 2.9. Many of the projects have been acknowledged with awards including in the last decade Yve, Melburnian and Balencea Apartments and in earlier times, the Stanhill and Newburn Flats by Frederick Romberg in the 1930’s and 1940’s. Many too, have been seen to push the boundaries of acceptable scale and aesthetic convention but ironically each sits comfortably in its constantly changing context. Page 90 and 91 of the Site Survey and Analysis report in the review of Design and Development Overlay 3 and 4 dated 2013 documents the wide variance in both setbacks and heights. 2.9.1. Generally speaking there is a greater coherence to setbacks within the St Kilda Road frontage properties. 2.9.2. In Queens Road setbacks are typically 15m at the northern end of the precinct with significant exceptions [particularly south of Lorne Street. 2.9.3. In Kings Way setbacks are typically zero. 2.10 The breaches in heights of the current DDO control are even more striking.

4 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

2.10.1 In Albert Road South the vast majority of properties exceed the DDO. In the northwest precinct more than 50% of development north of Park Street similarly exceeds the existing DDO. 2.10.2 In Queens Road south of Albert Reserve more than half of the frontage to the lake has been built at heights 10-60%+ the preferred heights with more than 75% of the balance of the sites identified as having medium or high redevelopment potential with development to either side of St Kilda Road similarly characterised by a substantial diversity of scale that simply confirm what is obvious from a visual inspection of the precinct. That is that built form is highly variable.

View from Lakeside Drive looking east showing the high degree of variance in built form, footprint and design approach. 2.11. In the Planisphere report the conclusion is that Precinct 6 Queens Road could see significant level of growth achieved through incremental increase in building height throughout the precinct. Similar findings are seen for Albert Road north and Bowen Crescent with significant capacity for growth in the Northwest Corner. More incremental change is envisaged in the Albert Road south precinct presumably due to the limited number of available remaining sites. 2.11.1. That being said recent project approvals in Palmerston Crescent exceed the nominated development height by almost one residential floor. 2.11.2. Whilst this analysis in the report is useful it is disappointing that ownership of adjoining lots has not been considered in a number of instances. Sites such

5 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

as the composite ownerships of Australian Unity of its headquarters in Albert Road and adjoining two sites are not considered in composite form. Although the smaller lots are identified as having high potential for change the 1970’s building is not. This despite the owner having a track record in recent years of development of medium rise housing for ageing in place supported by diversified aged care support services. 2.11.3. With its outlook and amenity to Albert Road and its location within a high socio economic area I am advised this site will be the subject of a detailed feasibility study for this purpose. In these circumstances it makes little sense to have differing controls over the three sites and even less sense not to be encouraging such a use in this location. 2.12. Elsewhere the conversion of 40 Albert Road won Architectural awards for sustainability, 42-50 Albert Road (29 storeys and 45% breach) was awarded by the City of Port Phillip urban design award for best new building greater than 6 storeys in 2014 and 34-38 Albert Road a similarly tall building of approximately 92m was shortlisted for awards in this year’s AIA awards. To the west of Kings Way, City Edge built a 5 level development in direct juxtaposition with a fine grain 19th Century neighbourhood and the design merits were acknowledged with professional awards. 2.13. This is clear acknowledgement I think that this is an area where heights substantially greater than that envisaged in the amendment have both been successfully realised and moreover have been peer reviewed after completion and deemed to be successful. 2.14. These projects have each responded to both the opportunity offered by the changing needs of a rapidly changing urban context and relatively few abutting constraints. Councils own infrastructure reports accompanying their review of the precinct also confirm that unlike other areas of the municipality such as Fisherman’s Bend, this precinct does not suffer from any substantial constraining forces. Hence historically these areas have always been defined as go-to locations but within a context of continuing to seek to fit-in to a future character that envisages a highly urbanised context. This program has been supported by a robust planning scheme that has supported this urban transformation. 2.15. More recently formerly secondary light industrial and hinterland secondary office to the north of this ratcheted up successful Albert Road zone has been identified as an opportunity for transformation notably the area between Dorcas Street and Albert 6 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

Road, with the review by Planisphere identifying potential for development of 60 metres or more. I support this assessment of significant opportunities for transformation. 2.16. The combination of the proposed Park Street tram corridor and the proposed Domain Metro Station cumulatively place these areas in the environs of this hub as some of the best connected areas to regional open space, jobs and services in all of Melbourne.

7 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

2.17. In Kings Way and around Albert Road to its east and west substantial change has also occurred with the higher density character of Queens Road and St Kilda Road wrapping down Albert Road and back along Kings Way with new development commencing in the 1970’s and seeing more recent manifestations. 2.18. To the western side of Kings Way, change has also occurred historically as a result of road widening and urban renewal. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s the skyline and streetscape pattern attributes were transformed with the construction of the Australian Unity development and City Edge apartment developments, whilst to the north later corporate built form and main road fuel service and CityLink and Casino access arrangements transformed street engagement patterns mostly for the worse. New development more recently has seen large mixed use development in immediate juxtaposition with this lower scale area.

8 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

2.19. Whilst the area west of Kings Way has two pockets of finer grain 19th Century terrace housing form north and south of the City Edge apartments, this lower scale built form is largely buffered from direct interfaces with the exception of two terrace house properties, one of which has been converted to a restaurant. In both instances these properties present as sideages to the larger road. 2.20. At the gateway to St Kilda Road development has also changed. At one time St Kilda Road scaled down to the St Kilda Junction but this is no longer the case. Developments such as the Cadbury Schweppes Building and rival gateway residential tower opposite have now been joined by new residential developments south of Dandenong /Queens Road and continuing with larger development up the St Kilda Road Hill.

New residential building under construction by JCB and Case developments at the St Kilda Junction.

9 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

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

10 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

3.5. It claims that the intention of the proposal is to ensure high quality development that respects the setting, reinforces the well-established street layout landscape identity of the precinct, maintains residential amenity, and contributes to an inviting and activated environment for pedestrians at street level. 3.6. The amendment is claimed to align with the following aspects of Plan Melbourne: 3.6.1. Direction 2.1 – Plan for expected housing needs 3.6.2. Direction 4.6 – Create more great places through Melbourne and; 3.6.3. Direction 4.8 – Achieve and promote design excellence, and; 3.6.4. that it complies with Ministerial Direction 11 – Strategic Assessment of Direct Amendments. 3.7. Relevant planning policy framework clauses to consider include the following: 3.7.1. Clause 11.02-1 – Supply of Urban Land 3.7.2. Clause 11.04-1 – Delivering jobs and investment 3.7.3. Clause 11.04-2 – Housing choice and affordability 3.7.4. Clause 11.04-4 – Liveable communities and neighbourhoods 3.7.5. Clause 15.01 – Urban Design 3.7.6. Clause 15.01-2 – Urban Design Principles 3.7.7. Clause 15.01-5 – Cultural Identity and Neighbourhood Character 3.7.8. Clause 15.03-1 – Urban Conservation 3.7.9. Clause 16.01-2 – Location of residential development 3.7.10. Clause 16.01-4 – Housing Diversity 3.7.11. Clause 21.01 – Municipal Strategic Statement 3.7.12. Clause 21.05-2 – Urban Structure and Character 3.7.13. Clause 21.06-7 - St Kilda Road North Precinct 3.8. Schedule 4 3.8.1. As noted earlier the existing Schedule 4 to the Design and Development Overlay encourages the stepping down in built form between the Melbourne Central Activities District and St Kilda Junction and between St Kilda Road and Queens Road. 3.8.2. The high tower scale of the CBD and perhaps more typical 20 storey approximate scale of the Junction referenced earlier retains the relative difference between the two bookends north and south. However the intermediate could not be said to be scaling down from the 100 and 160 metre scale of Southbank towards the 70 metre scale of St Kilda Junction,

11 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

with the DDO establishing a scale lower than the southern extremity of the precinct. 3.8.3. The existing DDO promotes the provision of a landscape setting particularly in the Queens Road and St Kilda Road Boulevards and verticality in the tower expression through spacing between developments. Amenity is protected through a goal to ensure that adjoining public open space impacts arising from overshadowing, bulk and wind effects is minimised. 3.8.4. Development outcomes are sought that respond to established landscape setback character and mature plantings, the continued provision of a green edge to Queens Road. 3.8.5. Additionally the overlay seeks to develop building designs that deliver parapets and roofs that ensure interest and variety in particular when seen from the aspect of Albert Park Reserve. 3.8.6. The provision of vehicular access is sought from Queens Lane and abutment to heritage places seeks development that is sympathetic in form and scale. 3.8.7. In my view each of these aspirations is sound. I will talk to the particular provisions of the proposed amendment later in this section where I have concerns. 3.9. Cl 21.06 Neighbourhoods 3.9.1. Clause 21.06-7 replaces the St Kilda Road and Queens Road Section with a new descriptor St Kilda Road North Precinct, acknowledging the extension west down Albert Road and north into Kings Way. This change is soundly based reflecting the coalescence of preferred future character for these extended zones with the core areas previously within the scheme. 3.9.2. The section notes key challenges section removes the concerns regarding poorly designed new development, perhaps acknowledging that recent development outcomes have typically been of a high standard. It adds the provision of the Park Street tram extension and the improvement of the Public Realm in Kings Way and Queens Way. I suspect the latter is an error as Queens Way is the area dividing the St Kilda Junction and St Kilda Road precinct east of Punt Road and suggest the reference to Way should be replaced with Road. 3.9.3. Within the Vision section there are some grammatical issues that require inclusions and amendment.

12 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

3.9.3.1. The third dot point should be amended to include either precinct or environment after office in the first line. 3.9.3.2. Otherwise I am supportive of the vision for the precinct. 3.9.3.3. The strategies define six sub-precincts, the mapping of which I think in some instances needs to be questioned and suggests that in some an existing built form character needs to be maintained and strengthened an assertion again that I think needs further interrogation. 3.10. Sub Precinct 2: Northwest Corner 3.10.1. I agree with the assertion that this sub-precinct has considerable opportunity for development and change as a high density mixed-use enclave and that streetscapes require enhancement. 3.10.2. With a backdrop of new buildings 92m high to Albert Road to the south and similarly tall buildings to the eastern St Kilda Road interface an opportunity exists for the substantial building height to be accommodated whilst comfortably being visually integrated. The proposition that it needs to be half the height of development approved by council to its southern abutment seems both curious and lacking clearly strategic conviction. 3.10.3. In the case of the areas north of Albert Road and east of Kings Way, the proposition is for a radical step down from heights at or in excess of 90 metres to a mandated maximum height of 45 metres. The rationale put forward for this proposed expectations linked to a perceived need to acknowledge and step down to the ‘low scale’ fine grain residential areas to the west of Kings Way and to preserve a fine grain character in the areas of Palmerston Crescent, etc. It is unclear to me why such weight has been put on a relationship that is at best tenuous. 3.10.4. Kings Way in the section between Albert Road and Park Street has 8 traffic lanes as a minimum with an additional service lane to its western interface inclusive of a through lane and parallel parking. These physical arrangements are magnitudes of separation of high significance and in my view provide the necessary buffers between areas of high levels of substantial change and the areas of lower change. The intervening arterial road in itself, I would argue is in fact far more intrusive in its impact on lower rise residential and mixed-use neighbourhoods by way of the noise and physical barriers it creates, than any

13 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

building of the scale either built in the environs of Albert Road or envisaged by Planisphere in their initial assessment of development opportunity. 3.10.5. I however cannot see the need or alignment of this supressed capacity with broader regional goals for the necessity to “provide a visual and physical transition from the higher scale development on St Kilda Road across the sub- precinct to the lower scale residential heritage area of South Melbourne West of Kings Way.” 3.10.6. Hence as noted earlier in my review I do not support this for the following reasons: 3.10.6.1. The location is one where the background skyline of Docklands, Albert Road and St Kilda Road already places the area within a context where significant change can reasonably be envisaged and where a difference of 15-20 metres or more will have no discernible impact across an eight-lane road and service road and from a limited number of views and within a context where existing backdrop buildings are more than twice the proposed maximum height. 3.10.6.2. The scale of Kings Way is one conducive to higher scale development and as previously noted only two lower scale residential buildings and the Palmerston Hotel have frontages to Kings Way. 3.10.6.3. The area is one where there is a goal of securing significant public transport infrastructure (The Metro and Park Street tram extension). Consistent with that it is my view that greater intensification should be sought. 3.10.6.4. The area has no direct abutments to residential neighbourhoods and height in my view should only be limited by the site potential in each instance and goals of enhancing measurable streetscape amenity outcomes, amenity between developments and protection of the shrine vistas. 3.10.6.5. Similarly I am not supportive of the need for podium and setback form to Kings Way for the reasons stated earlier. The application of the provision will constrain the potential of sites without permits to develop and will not result in outcomes that collectively will achieve the stated goal to ensure that 14 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

podium heights create and reinforce human scale along Kings Way and achieve a related and transitional form on both sides of Kings Way. It is apparent in the examples I have provided that Kings Way has great diversity in setback, form and outcome. 3.10.6.6. Even in a policy sense the outcomes would be seen to vary either side of the street with DDO 8 for the western side seeking 1 metre setbacks for canopy trees, street wall heights of 12 metres above which and preferred building heights across the precinct’s interface with Kings Way vary from 23.5 to 31 metres up to a 40 metre scale or 10 storeys whilst east of Kings Way the clause envisaged buildings without a setback or podium (refer maps). 3.10.6.7. Clearly buildings of 30 and 40 metres west of Kings Way would have a much more immediate visual adjacency and impact than development east of Kings Way. 3.10.6.8. Additionally it is apparent that there is no clear possibility of a consistent podium, setback or height arising from the inclusion of mandatory provisions for the NW precinct and in my mind these propositions should not be included.

3.10.7. The requirement for a fine grain character in the form and articulation also needs further explanation and clarity. 3.10.7.1. I would agree that in the lower street wall interfaces activation of frontages and a diversity of expression and finer grain rhythm should be sought to the street interfaces and along key pedestrian corridors such as Park Street consistent with its TOD credentials and mixed-use convenience and hospitality potential at street level.

15 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

3.10.7.2. That being said the character of the area has been one where grain is highly variable and indeed it is this characteristic that may be a worthwhile character to highlight elsewhere in the precinct. 3.10.7.3. I am not convinced that form needs to express a fine grain character nor what this means and am not convinced this is necessary. Similar to that outcome of such a measure will not in my view have direct impacts on the significant presence of new and older taller built form west of Kings Way. 3.10.7.4. I do support the development of Park Street with additional tree planting and protection of the south footpath at the equinox from unreasonable additional overshadowing between 11am and 2pm.

4. CONCLUSION For these reasons I am of the view that the amendment requires substantial redrafting. 4.1. In my view the amendment should acknowledge the reasonably anticipated provision of the Melbourne Metro in one or another form both with a station within the precinct and the strategic significance that that initiative would have for greater connections to a larger catchment of Melbourne. The amendment also needs to acknowledge that the precinct is an area with substantial opportunity for intensification, but also one with a long and continuing history of substantial change. 4.2. This character should be matched with performance criteria and preferred maximum heights rather than mandatory provisions other than in the environs of the Shrine where height limits have an underlying science and the asset being protected warrants these provisions. 4.3. Elsewhere opportunities should be informed by principles of responding to prevailing built form rhythms of scale that may allow some flex upwards in some instances within a modest range of 15-20% as has typically occurred subject to offsite impacts, suitable amenity and development outcomes and broader urban legibility being achieved. 4.4. The proposition that there are views or sensitivities from within Albert Park or South Melbourne that warrant both curtailment and prescription of built form to the extent 16 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

envisaged has not in my view been substantiated by either the background work or the physical or strategic assessment of the precinct. In each instance this has only confirmed the highly eclectic and individualistic nature of much of the precinct. 4.5. In some instances, particularly within the North West Precinct, the Queens Road and St Kilda Road corridors the substantial opportunity for intensification has been undermined by the prescribed nature of capacity set out in the amendment. Morevover, these proposed constraints have in my view failed to acknowledge the changing nature of the city as it is developing to both the Southbank extension of the CDZ and the St Kilda Junction gateway. 4.6. A more satisfactory outcome would be one that continues to seek response to the key values that underpin the precinct. These include: 4.6.1. Equitable but not necessarily equal (as site capacity varies) development and amenity goals between adjoining sites. 4.6.2. Design responses that support the curvilinear nature of key precinct boulevards. 4.6.3. A landscaped buffer and protection of amenity of key public spaces and continued support for a canopy tree and forecourt setback zone east of Queens Road and down St Kilda Road. 4.6.4. Sensitive responses to adjoining heritage and scaling down of development west of Kings Way to hinterland and southerly low scale heritage neighbourhoods. 4.6.5. Promotion of activated and engaged street level land uses to the NW precinct areas. 4.6.6. The provision of preferred heights for each precinct with the scale of preferred heights in the NW precinct increased to 60m.

5. DOCUMENTS FORMING THE BASIS OF THE REPORT A number of documents were referred to in the preparation of this report, which are listed below: 5.1. Site and Title Particulars 5.2. Current Port Phillip Planning Scheme Controls 5.3. Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme Exhibition Material 5.4. Supporting Amendment Documentation 5.5. Public Notice 5.6. Explanatory Report 17 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

5.7. Instruction Sheet 5.8. Changes to the Planning Scheme 5.9. Clause 21.04 - Land Use 5.10. Clause 21.06 – Neighbourhoods 5.11. Clause 21.07 – Incorporated Documents 5.12. Schedule 26 to the Design and Development Overlay (DD026) 5.13. Schedule to Clause 66.06 5.14. Changes to the Planning Scheme Maps 5.15. Maps 3, 4 and 6 DDO – areas to be deleted from Design and Development Overlay Schedule 3 and 4 5.16. Maps 3, 4 and 6 DDO – areas to be included in Design and Development Overlay Schedule 26 5.17. Reference Document 5.18. Draft St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan 2013 Part 1, Part 2 5.19. Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme – other 5.20. Consideration of Submissions by Council 5.21. Planisphere review of Schedules 3 and 4 to the DDO 5.22. Council Agenda dated 23 September 2014 and Attachment 1 5.23. Council summary of submission

6. STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE 6.1. My name is Robert Alan McGauran. I have been a director of McGauran Giannini Soon Pty Ltd Architects, Urban Planners and Interior Designers since 1985 and practice at 10-22 Manton Lane Melbourne. 6.2. Qualifications 6.3. I have an Honours degree in Architecture from the , a Bachelor of Arts majoring in Architectural History from the University of Melbourne and a Postgraduate Diploma in Business Management from the University of Melbourne Business School. 6.4. Professional Roles Architecture Within the architectural profession, I have held a range of senior roles arising from peer nomination including: 6.4.1. Chairperson of the Architects Registration Board of 6.4.2. Vice-President of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects

18 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

6.4.3. Chapter and National Councillor of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects 6.4.4. Leadership and membership of accreditation panels for the Architectural programs at RMIT, UOM, UOQ and Deakin University. 6.4.5. Jury membership and leadership of Awards Panels for the RAIA 6.4.6. Victorian Convenor of the Residential Working Group for the RAIA, 6.4.7. Awarded a Life Fellowship to the RAIA in 1999 for contributions to the Profession 6.5. My areas of expertise are in Architecture and Urban Planning. 6.6. I have been director in charge of a number of projects that have won professional design, development and industry awards including luxury residential, heritage, education, affordable housing, and environmental design, commercial, retail and industrial developments. 6.7. Professional Affiliations – Education, Urban Design and Planning 6.7.1. I am a member of the PIA (Urban Design) 6.7.2. I was awarded Fellowship of VPELA in 2010. 6.7.3. In 2010 I was appointed the University Architect for Monash University. 6.7.4. From 2003-2010, I sat on the Building and Estates for the University of Melbourne 6.7.5. I have been a Board member of Melbourne Affordable Housing and then Housing Choices Australia. 6.7.6. In urban design, I have held positions on the Priority Development Panel for the Minister of Planning 6.7.7. I have chaired the Sullivans Cove Design Panel for the State Government of Tasmania from 2008-2011. 6.7.8. I am University Architect for Monash University and have lead the development of comprehensive masterplans for each of their major campuses at Clayton, Caulfield Berwick and Gippsland. 6.7.9. Member of the Standing Advisory Committee on Local Variations to the Good Design Guide (most recently reviewing density, car parking, visual bulk, overshadowing and overlooking techniques). 6.7.10. Sessional panel member for Planning Panels Victoria reviewing amongst other projects the C11 Urban Villages and C14 Phoenix Precinct in Glen Eira. 19 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

6.7.11. Ministerial Advisory Panel appointed by the Minister for the Commonwealth Games to review the proposed Pedestrian Bridge Link to the MCG. 6.8. Commencing last year with the University of Melbourne, Monash University, DPCD, the City of Moreland and the City of Darebin, I am participating an Australian Research Council funded research project into transit oriented development intensification of Melbourne’s transport corridors 6.9. I have assisted in the evaluation of potential for the Arden Metro Precinct for DPCD and the City of Melbourne and had previously assisted DPCD and the City of Melbourne in the development of the Southbank Future Plan and notably the Sturt Street spine in 2005. 6.10. Earlier in 2010 I was invited to represent the design professions in the DAVOS summit in the theme area – Inclusive Cities, lead by the Prime Minister. 6.11. I have prepared Urban Design Frameworks and Structure Plans for key precincts including the Cremorne precinct and Victoria Gardens precinct in the City of Yarra, the Toorak Village and Chapel Vision Structure Plans in the City of Stonnington, and the Megamile Structure Plan and Tally Ho Structure Plan in Whitehorse. 6.12. I have also been on the DPCD Expert Panel for Activity Centres and acted as consultant on urban design matters and in particular major projects to Local Councils including City of Port Phillip, Hobsons Bay City Council, City of Banyule, City of Whitehorse, City of Kingston, City of Moonee Valley and the City of Yarra. 6.13. Within the City of Port Phillip I have been involved in both private and public sector projects. 6.14. For the Private Sector these have included: 6.14.1. Project Director-Mixed-use development -181 Bay Street Port Melbourne 6.14.2. Private Housing developments Dickens St. St. Kilda, Deakin St West St Kilda, 452 St Kilda Road Melbourne. 6.15. For the Government Sector these have included 6.15.1. Redevelopment of the Aquatic Drive boating precinct at Albert Park for Parks Victoria (Winner RAIA Award 1996) 6.15.2. New Boarding House Woodstock St Kilda for City of Port Phillip

20 MGS Architects Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

6.15.3. Urban Design Guidelines for the Balaclava Station Precinct for City of Port Phillip 6.15.4. Architectural Adviser to council – Oasis Residential development designed by Williams Boag Architects 6.15.5. Expert Witness advise to tribunals on the Esplanade Hotel and 142- 150 Beaconsfield Parade and 220 Barkly St St. Kilda 6.15.6. Feasibility for Redevelopment of Balaclava Station for DSE and City of Port Phillip 6.16. I live in the City of Port Phillip, have visited the site and am familiar with the area.

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

Prepared By ROBERT MCGAURAN B. ARCH. (HONS. MELB), B.A. (FINE ARTS MELB.), P.D.M. (MELB.), LFRAIA, ARCHITECT

Dated November 2014

21 MGS Architects