I 2

I CONTENTS I Page No

I 1. INTRODUCTION 3

I 2. EXHIBITION OF AMENDMENT L 160 4

I 3. SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS 5 'I 4. STATUTORY PLANNING CONTEXT 9 I 5. STRATEGIC PLANNING CONTEXT 13 I 6. PROPOSAL 20 7. SUBMISSION REGARDING AMENDLENT L 160 29 I 8. ASSESSMENT OF SUBMISSION AND PLANNING ISSUES 35 I 9. CONCLUSION 43 I

I Infrastructure Ubral'y I I I I

711 . 4099 00111192 451 MEL:M [Melbourne Metropolitan I (1995) Planning Scheme] Amendment L 160 panel hearing : submission on I behalf of the City of Melbourne I I 3

I 1.0 INTRODUCTION I 1.1 The purpose of the exhibited Amendment L 160 is to facilitate the expansion of the Carlton Stadium, Princes Park, Carlton North.

I 1.2 The exhibited amendment alters the provisions of Clause 125 of the Local Section of Part 1 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme (Reserved Land I marked 'Public Open Space') by inserting a new Clause 125-12 and an incorporated document named 'The Melbourne Planning Scheme, Non­ I Central City Specific Site Controls, Document No 10, 22 September 1994' in the schedule of specific site controls. I 1.3 Specifically, this new document allows the affected land to be developed for a new granstand at the eastern end of the stadium which will I accommodate a net increase of 10,500 spectators. The length of the playing field is to be increased by 6 metres and it is proposed to extend the I stadium beyond its existing boundaries to accommodate the new stand.

I The exhibited amendment also allows for the construction of light towers in order to utilise the stadium at night and further provides for greater use of I the John Elliott Stand facilities than is currently permitted.

1.4 The incorporated document introduced by the exhibited amendment I includes a concept plan and controls over use and development of land to which it relates. Detailed development plans for all buildings and works I must be approved by the Responsible Authority before buildings and works can commence and must be generally in accordance with the concept plan I and conditions. I 1.5 Lastly, the amendment also inserts a new Clause 135-5 in the Local Section Part 1 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme which will exempt the proposal from requiring further planning permissions for buildings and I works in an Urban Conservation Area No 2.

I The amendment will allow the expanded stadium to be used without a permit for the purposes of recreation or social, cultural, or educational or I similar activities and associated purposes. I I I 4 I 2.0 EXHIBITION OF AMENDMENT l 160 I 2.1 The amendment was placed on exhibition from 22 September to 24 I October 1994. I 2.2 The form of exhibition was as follows : Notice in Government Gazette on 22 September 1994 I Notices placed in the following newspapers : I Melbourne Times- 21 September and 28 September 1994 Melbourne Leader- 20 September and 27 September 1994 I The Age - 21 September and 28 September 1994

I Notices posted to 167 households in the immediate area

I 2.3 As well as the above, a consultative process was undertaken with the following interested groups and government organisations :

I • the City of Melbourne and officers from its relevant various departments; I • the City of Yarra; • the Club, its representatives and consultants; I • Department of Planning and Development; • North Carlton Residents' Association; I • Parkville Association; • Princes Hill Secondary College, and I • the North Carlton Branch of the Australian Labor Party

These representatives met on two occasions prior to the exhibition of the I amendment. The purpose of these meetings was to brief the community representatives on known details of the proposal as it was being formulated I and to seek identification of potential relevant issues. I I I I 5 I 2.4 During the formal exhibition period, a total 113 submissions were received I by Council, 30 submissions in support of the amendment and 83 submissions in .opposition. A petition objecting to the amendment was also I signed by 74 people.

I 3.0 SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS

I 3.1 The exhibited amendment specifically affects the Carlton Stadium which is located in the northern half of Princes Park. I Abutting the perimeters of Princes Park are Park Street and Bowen Crescent to the north, Princes Park Drive and Garton Street to the east, I Cemetery Road to the south and Royal Parade to the west. Apart from the stadium the park has been developed with a number of active and passive I recreation areas.

I 3.3 The highlights from Princes Park's history are summarised in the following paragraphs from the Interim Master Plan 1986 to provide a perspective on I the present situation.

"1845 Superitendent Latrobe trentatively reserved 2,560 acres for I recreational purposes to the north of Melbourne. Princes Park is a I remnant of this initiative. 1873 Princes Park (comprising approximately 97 acres) was I permanently reserved and rested jointly in the Ministry of Lands and the Melbourne City Council (MCC).

I The Crown Grant of June 13, 1873 specified that Princes Park should be "used for recreation and amusement of our subjects and I people".

I 1875 Approval was granted by the Secretary of Lands and work was commenced on the construction of an internal carriage drive to I circumnavigate Princes Park. The carriage drive was finally opened in 1892, however, its actual use did not seem to comply I I I 6

I with the envisaged use and it was plagued with problems right up until 1981 when it was closed to the public. I 1878 The Council (MCC) received an enourmous petition of 5,650 signatures demanding the establishment of an oval for Football in I Princes Park, because the Carlton Football Club (CFC) had been forced to vacate a former oval. The CFC was allowed to erect a I temporary fence around a site at the southern end of Princes Park.

I 1880s This decade saw gradual demands for use of Princes Park from the Bowling Club, the Carlton Cricket Club (CCC), and the Orleans I and Carlton Imperial Cricket Clubs.

1885 In the Annual Report for Princes Park it is noted than planting I works were being carried out. Also the strip of land between Haltom Street and Sydney Road was excised for the construction I of the North Carlton Railway line.

I Finally, the new brick curator's lodge was constructed, I 1886 Council (MCC) finally granted permissive occupancy for one acre of land north of the railway to the persistent Princes Hill Bowling Club (now the Princes Park Bowling Club). That same year, the I CFC amalgamated with the CCC (the latter of which had been located on the triangular strip of land to the south of Princes Park I where University College now resides). They were permitted to take joint permissive occupancy of the area west of the original I Football ground - the location of the ground was changed to reduce disturbances to funerals taking place in the Melbourne I Cemetery.

1898 The CFC and CCC were granted permissive occupancy of the I Carlton Recreation Reserve - the present location of the Carlton I Football Ground. I I I I 7

I The early 1900s The Grandstand and Club facilities were erected in the Carlton I Recreation Ground. Electric lights were erected along the major park pathways.

I 1919 In response to the latest fashion, the MCC allowed the construction of two public courts with a dressing pavilion and I drinking fountain.

I 1921 A children's playground was constructed adjacent to the tennis courts so that a caretaker could control both the playground and I tennis courts simultaneously. Male and female toilets were located nearby.

I 1922 Works were carried out under the banner of unemployment relief I including planting, pathways and grassed walks. 1925 The Parks and Gardens Committee decided to embark on a series I of projects to beautify the northern portion of the Park including ploughing, sowing, planting and mounding, as well as lake I formation. I 1936 Princes Park Drive was constructed. 1937 The Lake in the northern most portion of Princes Park was I converted into a children's' wading pool with a concreted base. The regulations for use of the pool were posted nearby. I 1938 Two sports pavilions were constructed on the Royal Parade side of I the Princes Park" I 3.4 At present the Carlton Stadium has the capacity to hold 32,500 spectators. 3.5 As well as holding AFL football matches, the Carlton Stadium has also held I special events such as the Jeff Fenech World Boxing Title fight (24,200 spectators) the AIDA musical concert (60,000 spectators over three nights), I a Rugby League match between Australia and Great Britain (31 ,000) and a I I I 8

I Soccer Match between AC Milan and the Australian Socceroos (16, 700 spectators). I In terms of attendances at AFL matches, in 1993 it ranged from 6,000 to 32,500 persons with mean and median attendances of 18,300 and 19,000 I persons respectively over 21 games.

I In 1994 the range was between 14,1 00 and 29,700 spectators and the mean and median has been 22,600 and 23,700 spectators. I 3.6 In terms of usage of the overall park, as previously stated it is used by a I wider variety users for active and passive open space. These activities were described in the report accompanying the exhibited amendment as I follows: "• Various competition football, cricket and soccer by sporting clubs, I many but not all of which are associated with the University of Melbourne; I • Princes Hill Tennis Club • Princes Park Bowling Club I • Princes Hill Primary School • Princes Hill Secondary College • St Mary's Boys Regional School I • Carlton Primary School • Cathedral College and Victorian Secondary School Sports I Association • use the Park for formal sporting and casual passive open space I purposes -jogging, walking and cycling on the parameter path and footpath outside the park - passive recreation predominantly over I the northern part of the park, • Children's play area over the eastern part of the park, • Carlton Cricket and Football Social Club, I • AFL football matches • District cricket matches and special events and I • Car parking associated with football matches and some special events." I I I I 9

I It is clear that when inspecting the site that the northern part of Princes Park performs a more local, passive, open space function whereas the ' I remainder of the Park performs a more active and regional function.

3.6 Beyond the Park boundaries there are residential uses fronting Park Street I and Bowen Crescent and extending further beyond to the north.

I Residential uses fronting Garton Street and extending further east, including residential related activities and community facilities, such as I schools. I The Melbourne General Cemetery to the ea~t and the University of Melbourne Colleges to the south with mixed residential, commercial and I institutional (private and government activities) to the west of Royal Parade.

I 4.0 STATUTORY PLANNING CONTEXT

I 4.1 Princes Park is on Crown Land permanently reserved by an Order in Council during 1873 as a site for a public park (Government Gazette of 13 I June 1873 page 1059.

By Crown Land Volumes 600 Folio 908 (dated 13 June 1873) Princes Park I was vested jointly in the Minister for Conservation and Environment (as successor to the Board of Land and Works) and the Council of the City of I Melbourne (as successor to the Main Alderman, Council and Citizens of the City of Melbourne). I The said Crown Land stipulates so far as relevant that the "land and the I buildings for the time being thereon shall be at all times hereafter maintained and used as and for a public park and offices and I conveniences connected therewith and for no other purpose whatsoever". By an Order in Council on 9 October 1917 the Council was appointed as I Committee of Management of the subject land (Government Gazette of 17 October 1917 Page 3258). The appointment was made under previous I legislation that corresponded to Section 14-1 of the Crown Land Act (Crow'n Land and Reserves Act). By later legislation the Corporation of the I I I 10

I City. of Melbourne became the Committee of Management in place of the Council. I Under the Carlton (Recreation Ground) Land Act 1966 as amended, the Corporation of the City of Melbourne as Committee of Management of I Princes Park was empowered to grant leases of the Carlton Recreation Ground - "for the purposes of sport or recreation or social activities, or I purposes connected therewith including the erection of buildings."

I The Corporation granted to the Club a lease of the ground for a term of 40 years from the 1 January 1967. I The Council is now both the Committee of Management of Princes Park and is Lessor of the Carlton Recreation Ground in place of the former I Corporation.

I 4.2 In terms of the relationship of the proposed development under Exhibited Amendment L 160 and the above legislation, further detailed submissions I will be put to the panel which have been prepared by Mr lan Murray, City Solicitor and Senior Partner of the law firm of Malleson, Stephen Jacques. I 4.3 Princes Park and the Carlton Stadium are designated public open space on the zoning map pursuant to Clause 125 of the Local Section of the I Melbourne Planning Scheme.

I Clause 125 which relates to Reserved Land states as its purpose :

I "To identify land for public use, including recreation, roads, railways, air fields, schools, hospitals, cemeteries and other government and semi­ I government uses." I Specifically, Clause 125-1 of this Control states : "Land which is marked on the Planning Scheme Map in the ways described I in the table below is reserved for ,the use shown or use by the authorities I and departments named in carrying out their lawful functions. The land may be used as described in the table or : I I I 11 I * As it was lawfully used immediately before the approval date, I * For a use that it is granted a permit.

Reserved land occupied by a public authority or municipal council may be I used in any way the authority or council may lawfully use it, provided it is I consistent with the use for which the land is reserved. Land is considered to be vested in a public authority or municipal council if I the authority or council is appointed a Committee of Management under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 or a corresponding previous Act." I It is noted that at Clause 125-2 a public authority or municipal council may construct a building or works if the responsible authority is satisfied that the I building or works will not subsequently interfere with the use for which the I land is reserved. 4.4 Pursuant to Clause 135 of the Local Section Part 1 of the Melbourne I Planning Scheme, Princes Park and the Carlton Stadium are within an Urban Conservation Area No 2. I The purpose of this control is :

I "* To conserve and enhance areas of architectural and historic significance and I encourage development that is in keeping with them." It is noted that in an Urban Conservation Area No 2 a planning permit is required to I construct a building and to construct or carry out works. I 4.5 As stated in the report prepared by the proponent, the zoning patterns surrounding Princes Park is diverse. The area immediately to the east of Princes Park and known as the Princes Hill residential area is zoned Melbourne Residential 1 R2. The I 1R2 zone is the primary residential zoning in the City of Melbourne and its provision can be found at Clause 114A of the Local Section of Part 1 of the Melbourne I Planning Scheme.

I This zone is also to be found over the west side of Royal Parade north of levers Street and south of Macarthur Road both in Parkville. I I I 12 I Opposite Princes Park to the west and between levers Street and I Macarthur Road is the Melbourne Residential 1R3 zone which is found at Clause 114B of the Local Section Part 1 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme. This zone seeks to ensure that the areas are used mainly for I residential development, however it also promotes the maintenance and establishment of residential accommodation associated with institutions I and also provides opportunity for research centres, medical centres and I educational centres to establish. Abutting Princes Park to the north and in the City of Moreland is a I Residential C Zone which is located between Park Street and the Barkly Square shopping centre (which itself is within a restricted business zone). It is noted that in the report accompanying the amendment that industrial I zones are located between Barkly Street on both sides of Weston Street.

I There are also a number of public purpose reservations located within close proximity to Princes Park including Secondary Road Reservations I over Royal Parade and Cemetery Road West, a Cemetery Reservation over the Melbourne General Cemetery, Commonwealth Government I Reservations over the University of Melbourne and associated colleges, Secondary School Reservations over Princes Hill Secondary College and Public Open Space Reservations over Royal Park and the Melbourne I Zoological Gardens.

I Importantly, urban conservation controls, as well as existing over Princes Park, also exist over the Princes Hill residential area. Furthermore, Royal I Park and the Melbourne Zoological Gardens are also within the Urban Conservation Area No 2. I In terms of existing height controls in the area, the following apply :

I * HC22 over properties fronting the northside of Park Street (with a maximum height limit of 9 metres under the Brunswick Planning I Scheme);

I * HC23 over properties fronting Bowen Crescent, North Carlton (with a maximum building height of 7 metres), I I I 13 I * HC24 over properties fronting Garton Street, North Carlton (with a I maximum building height of 9 metres), * HC54A, B, C, D and E between Royal Parade and the Avenue, I Parkville (with maximum building heights ranging from 8m to I 16.2m). 4.6 There have been a number of relevant planning appeals which pertain to I Carlton Stadium. These decisions are listed below: I * Planning Appeals P85\1017, P85\1021 and P85\1075 being R & L Havyatt and Others-vs-the Minister for Planning and Environment which were heard at Melbourne on 23 September and I 17 October 1985. These appeals essentially related to the erection of the John Elliott grandstand located within the perimeter of the I Carlton Stadium and situated at the northern end of the stadium. The Tribunal consisting of Messrs Barton, Siemon and Bennie I determined to grant planning permits for the erection of this stand. I * Planning Appeals 1992\002069, 1992\002077 and 1992\16604 were heard before Mr R Barton, Deputy President on Wednesday, 27 May 1992. These appeals related to the validity of the I conditions on the two permits issued by the previous Tribunal under the Melbourne Interim Development Order and the Melbourne and I Metropolitan Planning Scheme. In his decision Mr Barton essentially upheld Council's arguments that both permits were valid I and bind the Carlton Cricket and Football Social Club. I * Planning Appeals 1993\21472 and 1993\30571 were heard before Mr Ball, Deputy President and Mr Barr, member on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday the 19, 20 and 22 July 1993 and on I Monday, 23 August 1993. These appeals were brought by R Brown, G Morrison and Others against the City of Melbourne's I determination to extend the use of function rooms and corporate boxes within the John Elliott grandstand. These appeals were I disallowed by the Tribunal and a permit was directed to be issued. I I I 14

I 5.0 STRATEGIC PLANNING CONTEXT I 5.1 Clause 14 of the Regional Section of the Melbourne Planning Scheme relates to regional planning policies. Any planning authority preparing amendments to the Melbourne Planning Scheme must consider this Clause and the regional policies I that are found within it.

I Specifically at Clause 14-10 are the issues of recreation, open space and nature conservation. This clause states as follows : I "14-1 0 Recreation, open space and nature conservation I Public Use zones and reserved land for open space are principal means of preserving and protecting many historic and natural features, wildlife I habitats and essential resources such as flood plains, waterways and I providing recreation areas. It is metropolitan policy that : I * Open space linkages are established throughout the metropolitan I region, particularly along the Yarra and Maribyrnong Rivers and other streams such as the Werribee River and the Merri and Dandenong I Creeks. * Resources of soil, flora and fauna and significant natural features in I areas of high ecological and landscape interest are protected through the introduction of suitable zones and reserves. I * Land in residential areas will be set aside for local recreation use and provision of pedestrian links to commercial and community facilities. I Opportunities must be provided for the development of a variety of public and private recreation facilities and multiple use of public I buildings.

I * Sensitive natural assets must be conserved including :

I • Port Phillip Bay foreshore. • Urban waterways, particularly those highlighted in Figure 4 I I I 15 I • Significant landscapes and areas of high conservation value I on the Mornington Peninsula and the Dandenongs. • Significant wetland and woodland areas close to Melbourne. * All new works and structures on the metropolitan foreshore must be I designed and constructed so that they do not disrupt natural processes, particularly natural sand movements. Coastal vegetation and other important I natural features must be protected through management plans and planning controls. I * Where major developments are proposed in existing urban areas on land I which adjoins the coast or waterways, unrestricted public access to those features must be provided by the establishment of Public Use Zones or I reserved land for open space. * Public open space must not be rezoned, sold or used for other public use I such as a road unless there is a significant public benefit or equivalent open space or other compensation is provided. I * Existing public land immediately adjoining waterways and coasts must I remain in public ownership, other than in exceptional circumstances, and. development must not be allowed on such land.

I * Land identified by government as having strategic importance for open space I will be used as open space and retained in public ownership". 5.2 In June of 1994 the Department of Planning and Development issued 'Melbourne I Metropolitan Strategy- A Discussion Paper'. This document was a corporate strategy which aimed at integrating the policies and projects of different government I departments and agencies. Whilst physical urban planning was still an important component in this document, greater emphasis was placed on on key objectives for the development of Melbourne and the introduction of a range of programs to I achieve them.

I Specifically, it concentrated on six key issues :

I • Comparative advantages • Livability I I I 16

I • Transport • Infrastructure I • Use and conservation of resources • Urban management

I Whilst this was an important framework strategy, it does not specifically address the I issues of Princes Park either in a specific or broader contextual manner. 5.3 In November 1994, the State Government of Victoria in conjunction with the I Melbourne City Council issued- 'Creating Prosperity-Victoria's Capital City Policy'. I This document, again focussed on the broader strategic objectives of Victoria and provided a policy framework designed to build on the city strengths and increase its I economic viability. Significantly, the policy clarifies and strengthens the roles of I both the State Government and the Melbourne City Council in managing the city. In many respects this policy document is similar to the Melbourne Metropolitan I Strategy as it is a broadbrush strategic document for all of Victoria and therefore does not focus in any detail on the area of land currently in question. I 5.4 Perhaps, the most relevant strategic document applying to Princes Park, and its role in the broader open space and recreation context of the City of Melbourne is the I City of Melbourne's Strategy Plan of 1985. This strategic document outlined a wide range of specific policy objectives and goals and furthermore is aimed at the local I level.

I Specifically, Policy L2 (page 250) states that : I "The Council will improve the landscaped amenity and recreational opportunities of the City's metropolitan open space system.

I Policy Objectives : 1. To improve the landscape and open space links between each piece of . I major metropolitan open space to develop a continuous system of open I space throughout the city. 2. To improve the role of the city's waterways and railways for recreational use. I I ------

I 17 I 3. To develop groups of major metropolitan open spaces into contiguous I landscape entities while maintaining distinct sub areas which offer the broadest range of recreational opportunities."

I This policy speCifically outlines an action that required landscape and recreational management plans to specify landscape improvements, appropriate recreational I uses and the provision of facilities for (amongst others), Princes Park.

I Policy L5 (Page 254) states : I "The Council will seek to ensure that public open spaces primarily serve the recreational needs of the general public and are not set aside for the use of I private clubs". Policy Objectives : I 1. Improve the allocation of active recreational use and team sports to appropriate locations. I 2. To enable more non structured and informal recreational use of large parks. I 3. To increase use of the sporting facilities of private clubs by local residents I and casual users. I 4. To selectively reduce amounts of open space reserved for exclusive uses." The specific action under this policy for Princes Park was to introduce landscaping I treatment, e.g. mounding, tree lined pathways to enhance passive recreational use of the playing fields within south Princes Park and to develop facilities for casual I recreational use, such as bike paths , barbeques, fitness circuits, play equipment also south of Princes Park.

I Policy L7 (Page 255) states :

I "The Council will encourage continued use and development of the major I sporting stadia subject to environmental and amenity considerations. I I I 18 I Policy Objectives: 1. To minimise adverse impacts on local amenity by the use and development I of major sporting facilities.

I 2. To facilitate increased community use of facilities no longer used for major I sporting events." The specific action under this policy was to develop, in conjunction with the State I Government, Clubs, administrating bodies and the public, management plans for the long term development of the Carlton Football Club (amongst others). Such I plans would specify ground capacity, appropriate new additions and improvements and parking\transport arrangements.

I Specifically at Map 6.10 entitled 'Metropolitan and Open Space Actions' at Page 107 of the Strategy Plan Princes Park is designated as being developed, as I adjacent metropolitan open spaces, into a contiguous landscaped entity. At page 139 Princes Park is included in the Open Space Precinct, the objective of which is : I "Priority Objective To promote a range of activities in a parkland setting to fulfil the leisure and I recreational needs of the community, including the protection of historic gardens and landscapes, the provision of specialist sporting facilities, the identification of I appropriate locations for local open space and the use of existing buildings for community facilities with the aim of increasing recreational opportunities for all I sectors of the community.

I Precinct Character and Location : All major open space groups will fall within this precinct type and the majority of parks and gardens so identified are of metropolitan significance and contain a range I of permanent buildings, fixtures and facilities. The Joss of open, undeveloped parkland for the provision of built facilities will be resisted unless a place for open I land is made available and the rationalisation of existing sporting facilities and I increased public access to those facilities will be actively promoted." Specifically, within this open space precinct the intensity of use and the types of I land use and urban design issues are to be addressed by master plan. I I I 19

I The City of Melbourne Strategy Plan 1985 was reviewed in 1992 in the document entitled 'Directions 1992-95'.

I Whilst this document in no way reaches the level of detail of the original 1985 document, it does provide a variable overview of goals and strategic directions. I Similar to the Melbourne Metropolitan Strategy and Victoria's Capital City Policy, this I document is of a broadbrush nature and does not specifically address Princes Park. 5.5 In May 1986 an Interim Report was produced by Green, Dale and Wright Pty Ltd on I behalf of the City of Melbourne which was entitled the 'Princes Park Master Plan'. I The Princes Park Master Plan Summary Report was issued in June 1988. Specifically at 2.2.1 at page 3 the Master Plan Summary Report states :

I "The existing large structures of the football ground dominate Princes Park. The entrance pavilions to the football ground are ugly and in poor condition and should I be rebuilt. The surrounding parking areas and pedestrian approaches are to be improved and screen plantings developed. The paved area at the eastern entrance I is also to provide opportunities for casual play."

The Master Plan goes on at 3.13 at page 7 of this report to recommend the I provision of new entrance forecourts and ticketing pavilions, to provide additional landscaping and perimeter screen plantation on all sides of the football ground, the I re-location of the same trees, the paving of a new car park to the west of approximately 150 spaces with asphalt and non-mountable kerbs, additional parking I on the grass of approximately 100 cars and the relocation of car park entrances and exits and the provision of a ticketing gate. I I I I I I I I 20 I 6.0 PROPOSAL

I 6.1 Amendment L 160 as stated previously introduces specific site controls for the Carlton Stadium via a new Clause 125-12. This control exempts the I proposal from planning permission if certain criteria are met. Furthermore the amendment also introduces a new paragraph at Clause 135-5 to I exempt the proposal from the Urban Conservation UC2 Controls.

I The controls pertaining to the development and use of the Carlton Stadium are contained in an incorporated document which includes a plan known as the 'Concept Plan' - Carlton Stadium, Princes Park, Carlton North and I which identifies the location of the stadium complex, areas where new development is to occur and existing development which is not included in I this concept plan.

I The concept plan identifies maximum heights of new buildings and works including maximum roof heights over the proposed eastern terrace and I maximum heights of light towers above natural ground level.

The document will require a development plan to be prepared which will I include the detailed plans of the new development. These detailed plans I must be consistent with the Concept Plan. I Specifically, the development plan will require details of: • New advertising signs. I • Uses of new buildings. • Location of vehicle and pedestrian access ways. • Location of new bike parking areas and access points to them. I • Proposed landscaping of open space areas to the east of the stadium adjacent to new buildings. I • Staging times and dates. • Wind conditions. I • Overshadowing at mid winter. • Garbage and waste disposal. I • Detailed design of proposed light towers, scoreboards and external lighting. I I I 21

I • Access for disabled. I In addition, a management plan for operating car parking areas must be prepared and form part of the development plan all components of which must be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority before any I work can commence.

I The amendment also specifies a number of specific controls, these include I • A maximum of 42,500 spectators in the stadium, with a reduction to I 38,500 after light towers are erected and operational,

• Light usage limited to no more than fifteen (15) occasions in any I calendar year and on no more than one occasion per week unless I further planning permission is obtained; • Light towers not to. be illuminated after 11.00 pm on any night that I they are used. I • Light spill to not exceed 22 lux above the ambient lux level in any residential property at ground level,

I • Any necessary traffic and parking management traffic control works I in nearby roads. • New buildings and works not to exceed the height depicted on the I Concept Plan. I The amendment also includes changes to the use of the John Elliott Stand. Importantly, many of the conditions that currently exist on the latest I planning permit pertaining to this stand are included in the amendment. I I I I I 22 I 6.2 The specific details of the proposal were adequately covered in the report I accompanying the amendment and are included below :

"New Eastern Terrace I The following plans indicate the proposed development extensions.

I It is proposed to demolish the existing standing room area at the eastern end of the ground between the Elliott Stand and the Southern Stand. This I area is currently able to accommodate 1,070 seated and 9,740 standing spectators (Total: 10,800 spectators). It is to be replaced with a new I terrace capable of accommodating initially 600 seated and 20,200 standing spectators (Total:20,800 spectators). There would thus be a net increase in this area of some 10,000 spectators, bringing ground capacity to under I 42,500 spectators.

I Eventually, this new terrace may include additional seating and lesser standing room areas. When this occurs, the ground capacity would be I 38,500 spectators, with the eastern terrace accommodating 2,385 seated and 14,390 standing spectators (Total: 16,800 spectators in new eastern I terrace). This would occur either prior to or at the time the light towers are installed, but not later.

I The built form of the new terrace comprises :

I Extending the outer boundary wall eastwards by an average of I approximately 6. 7- 10.5 metres (average 8.5 metres). Further extending the cantilevered top of the terrace by a further 4 I metres (total eastward extension: 10.7- 13.7, average 12 metres).

The height of the floor level of the stand at the eastern end (central) would I be 6 metres, rising to the north-eastern and south-eastern corners to 10.5 metres above natural ground level. The back wall above these floor areas, I used also as external height of between 9.5 and 14 metres above natural ground level. I I I I 23

I Eventually, it is intended to roof the new terrace. This would occur prior to or simultaneously with the installation and operation of the light towers. I When this occurs, the roof height above natural ground level will be 16 metres. The internally oriented advertising hoardings would be relocated I from the back wall of the stand to the front of the roof and would project a further 1.5 metres above roof level. The existing scoreboard is to be I relocated to the south-east corner and a new electronic scoreboard is proposed at the north-east corner. These scoreboards will have respective I heights of 20 metres and 21 metres above natural ground level. I External building finishes include the following details :

red brick (minimum height 3 metres) for the external boundary wall I with contrasting boarding and capping.

I main exit gates will be swing doors. All gates will be steel framed with metal inti// panels. I windows will be 6mm laminated safety glass. I a series of triangular tension membrane "sails" are to be fixed to the I underside of the steel bulkhead and the top of the boundary wall. the roof is to be constructed of steel trusses and metal deck roof I sheeting.

I Extended Playing Surface The length of the playing surface is currently 151 meres from boundary line I to boundary line and 157 metres from fence to fence). This compares with the following Victorian-based AFL grounds as follows :

I Melbourne Cricket Ground 157 metres Waverley Park 182 metres I Western Oval 183 metres Kardinia Park 183 metres I I I r--._------~- -- -~

I 24

I The Carlton Stadium therefore has a comparatively short playing length. The proposed new Eastern Terrace provides the opportunity to I simultaneously extend the ground length to bring it more into line with other grounds.

I The additional length of ground does not lead to a pro rata increase on the additional land required. That is, a lesser excision of the public park by 6 I metres would not occur if the length of playing surface was not extended by 6 metres. I As indicated on the plans accompanying the proposal, the boundary fence I will be shifted outwards in an arc extending from the Elliott Stand to the Southern Stand.

I Improved Spectator Entrance\Exits and Facilities There are two entrance\exit points at the eastern end of the ground, I located at the north-east and south-east corners. Toilet facilities are located behind the perimeter wall in similar locations. Food and beverages I are provided from booths located around the eastern end of the ground. I The entrances\exits and toilets are old, unsightly and unsuitable for 1990's needs of spectators. The existing entrances\exits are slow to pass through and unsuitable in the event of an emergency requiring rapid evacuation. I There is a lack of internal circulation space. On days of large crowds, spectators are not able to move to other nearby spectator locations at this I end of the ground, except by passing through the crowd. These are insufficient toilets for both men and women and access to them is I congested resulting in lengthy queuing.

These existing problems will be redressed as follows : I Infrastructure Library I provision of two centrally located ticket booths; I a single wider entry between an~ separate from the ticket booths; provision of an internal walkway\concourse below the new terrace I level. This concourse will connect to the existing concourse in the Southern Stand; I I I 25 I provision of new toilet facilities and food and beverages outlets at I concourse level;

provision of internal stairways from concourse level to terrace level; I and

I provision of nine (9) exits from the new terrace.

I Lights Four light towers are proposed. Unlike the MCG lights, these lights will be I provided within the proposed stadium external boundaries. The lights will be located:

I between the Elliott Stand and the proposed new terrace; between the proposed new terrace and the Southern Stand; I between the Heatley and Southern Stands; and between the Social Club and Gardiner Stands. I The lights will be 58 metres above natural ground level and will not exceed I 101.43m AHO.

The diameter of the supporting structure will be 3.5 metres which is I constant. Unlike the MCG lights, the lights will be a straight vertical structure rather than housing the lights on an angle. The lights are housed I in a triangular shaped top of approximately 125 square metres in area.

I The lighting being proposed has been designed on the basis of numerous criteria. Apart from cost, technical and energy efficiency considerations, I the lighting system has been carefully engineered to meet the following criteria.

I • Illumination level and conditions suitable for Colour Television I broadcast: Minimum 1200 lux vertical, back to camera; • Minimal light spillage external to the ground, particularly on the I Eastern boundary. I I I 26

I The proposal has assumed that the camera is located in the John Elliott Stand. I The lighting proposal consists of a total of 236 light fittings. Each light fitting is fitted with a single 2kW metal halide lamp. This particular light I source is selected for its high performance in relation to colour rendition, lumens output and colour temperature. The light source properties must I fall within the range specified by the Television authorities and has the advantage of blending well with failing daylight hence making the I conditions suitable for broadcasting events beginning in daylight and ending under floodlight conditions. I Towers 1 and 2 on the northern boundary will house 61 and 71 light fittings respectively. I Towers 3 and 4 on the southern boundary will house 32 and 4 7 I respectively. The light towers are proposed to be to the maximum of 58 metres to I achieve the required elevation for optimum aiming angles of the lights to the point of view of players and spectators. Towers 1 and 2 have more I light fittings due to the camera location. To supplement the required illuminance necessary for the cameras, 25 additional light fittings are I proposed to be installed on the John Elliott and Gardiner Stands. Integral to the lighting design, multiple switching levels will be provided as I follows:

I • Assurance : illuminance provided at the end of an event until spectators have left the ground. Lowering to this level of I illuminance will indicate to the spectators that the event is over and departure is encouraged. It is expected that the main lighting will be switched to this level at 10.30 pm of a football event. all lights will I then be switched off at 11.00 pm: 100 lux horizontal.

I • Competition: illuminance provided for event at night not televised: I 1000 lux horizontal. I I I 27

I • Colour Television: illuminance for Colour Television broadcast : 1200 lux vertical I Changes to the Use of the John Elliott Stand There have been various planning appeal decisions on the use of the John I Elliott Stand. The current planning permits allow some of the facilities of this stand to be used at various times. The dining room and private viewing I boxes may only be open during and used in conjunction with the following sporting events : I AFL home and away matches; I District football final matches; District cricket home and away matches and final matches; Sub-district cricket final matches; I First Class cricket matches (Planning Permit TP111301, condition 3 included a Appendix 2); I During "special events" as described under Clause 5.1 of Supplementary Deed No.3. These include no more than three (3) I events per year, held during daylight hours, each of one day's duration only. Two of these three events may occur on a Sunday, I provided also that one event is the VFA Grand. Final (until 1994) (Planning Permit TP92\ 1419 included as Appendix 3);

I For the following five dinner functions:

I • Carlton Football Club Pre-Season Guernsey Presentation Dinner I • Carlton Football Club Auction Dinner • Carlton Football Club Donor's Dinner I • Carlton Football Club Grand Final Eve Dinner • Carlton Football Club Best and Fairest Dinner and Presentation Night (Planning Permit TP92\1419), or I • Any other substitute function provided that the number of dinner functions does not exceed five per year (Planning I Permit TP92\ 1419). I I I ,---._------

I 28

I The private viewing boxes, in addition, may be used on any day between B.OOam and B.OOpm by the box lessees, their invitees and licensees I (Planning Permit TP92\ 1419).

During football and cricket matches, the dining room and private boxes may I only be open between 11.00am and 7.00pm, or until play concludes in the case of First Class cricket matches (Planning Permit 111301 ). At other I times of use, the hours of use of the dining room are :

I Sunday - Monday 9.00am- 10.00pm Tuesday - Thursday 7. OOam - 12. OOpm I Friday- Saturday 7. OOam - 1. OOam the following day

Condition 8 of the Planning Permit TP92\ 1419 disallows simultaneous I separate functions being held in the dining room and adjacent Sir Kenneth I Luke private viewing box. The dining room seats 275 persons and the Sir Kenneth Luke private I viewing box seats 160 persons. I It is now proposed to seek the following additional usage of the John Elliott Stand:

I use of the dining room and private viewing boxes during any event I (sporting or otherwise) conducted at the stadium; for up to eight dinner functions rather than five dinner functions II rather than five dinner functions per year. These other functions are likely to be : I • Annual General Meeting • Players Dinner, and I • Annual Sponsors Dinner

I simultaneous separate use of the dining room and Sir Kenneth Luke private viewing box. I I I ------

I 29

I use of private viewing boxes on any day after B.OOpm unti/10.00pm by the box lessees, their invitees and licensees; I special events (increased from 3 to 6 per year).

I Staging The staging of development enables the stadium to operate in its principal I function as an AFL football ground. Therefore, construction is not possible during the football season. I The staging program is proposed as follows : I Year 1 Stage 1A : northern half of new stand Year2 Stage 1B : southern half of new stand I Years 3-5 ' Stage 2A : roofing of new stand I Years 3-5 Stage 28: install and operate lights Roofing will occur simultaneously with the installation and operation of the I light towers. There is no planning reason, however, why roofing cannot occur earlier than this and may do so. I It is proposed that the lights not be operational until additional seating is provided in the new stand so that ground capacity does not exceed 38,500 I spectators and the new stand is roofed." I ,I 7.0 SUBMISSIONS REGARDING AMENDMENT l 160 7.1 In response to the exhibited Amendment L 160, a total of 113 submissions I were received, 30 submissions in support, 83 submissions in opposition with a further petition signed by 74 people objecting to the amendment.

I 7.2 Submissions in Support of the amendment Of the 30 submissions received in support of the amendment the following I arose as the major points :

I • . Extension is a good idea because the old section is old and inappropriate; I I I 30

I • Project gives work to people who are unemployed • Extensions to the Carlton Stadium will improve the area, I • The extension will provide spectator comfort, • Extension will give Melbourne another world class stadium • Cannot see how the proposed extension will have an adverse effect I on the local residents or the environment, • The existing ground is too small to accommodate all those wanting I to attend the football, • The proposed alterations do not significantly alter the present I dimensions of the Carlton oval enough to justify any objections for environmental reasons, I • The proposed extension will be of considerable benefit to those who attend events and local residents, • Traffic flow will improve, I • Encourages a more diverse use of the stadium, • Proposed improvements will outweigh the reduction in parkland, I • Will increase the number of people able to use the stadium.

I It is noted that the Carlton Cricket and Football Social the proponents of the amendment, also lodged a submission in support of the amendment with I two "riders" which are :

"Club reserves right to request further changes to planning controls should I additional information become available necessitating such changes - objection to form of amendment as an incorporated document, rather than I being included in the main body of the planning scheme."

I 7.3 SUBMISSIONS OBJECTING TO THE AMENDMENT I The main issues raised in submissions objecting to the amendment are outlined below :

I • Some of the uses proposed for the stadium and its associated I facilities are inconsistent with purposes of the reservation, • Reduction of open access, use of parkland for recreation, I I I ,...--._------~ ----- ~ -~--- ~-~-~

I 31

I • Parking on grass with a scoria mixed base has rendered these areas useless for games, I • Excessive increase in capacity of the stadium which has not been I justified by the Carlton Football Club, AFL or Council, • Over optimistic claims made in the proposal about the impact which I could be made on parking demand by "park and ride" options,

I • Inadequate justification for increasing the number of events, including night events, I • Inadequate safeguards or controls are proposed in the amendment I for limitations on the number of events permitted, I • Loss of residential amenities through noise and light spill, • The proposed changes to the John Elliott Stand are unrelated to the I redevelopment and should be considered separately, I • The lights on the light towers will have a significant detrimental effect on the surrounding residential areas - this is a much smaller I buffer zone than at the MCG, I • The existing avenue of trees must be retained, • The City of Melbourne already provides major sporting and I entertainment facilities at the MCG and the Tennis Centre and an expansion at Princes Park is not necessary, I • In encouraging medium density housing in inner city areas of the City of Melbourne, the State Government must be careful in I providing for the public open space needs of residents,

I • The light towers will be visually intrusive,

I • Additional night games will lead to extra noise and litter, I I I 32

I • Decisions being made at a time when residents are democratically unrepresented, I • The proposal would cause increased traffic and parking problems I within the surrounding residential areas, • The proposal would lead to a greater incidence of anti-social I behaviour particularly when night events are held,

I • The development is out of character with the historic character of the parklands and surrounding residential areas, I .. The proposal is contrary to the City of Melbourne's Strategy Plan for I Princes Park, • The proposal would compromise the long term future planning for I the area,

I • The club has not demonstrated the commercial viability of its plans particularly the level of use of the proposed new facilities that will be I required to provide a return on the investment, I • Public consultation has been unsatisfactory, • The lights will create an entertainment centre changing forever the I current passive cricket and football ground,

I • Opposed to the exemption of the development from normal planning controls, I • The exhibited amendment gives free range to the lessee of the land to develop the stadium with little control exercised by the City of I Melbourne,

I • Loss of residential amenities due to noise, pollution of car exhausts, I mental stress and offensive behaviour, I I I 33

I • Loss of parkland for residents and Princes Hill Secondary College students, I • Devaluation of properties,

I • Alienation of parkland for male dominated sports (football) currently I used by many women, • Ambience of the park is destroyed by existing major events, any I extensions with lights would dominate the area and ruin it, I • Residents do not want mid-week and Sunday events throughout the year which will be required to pay for the lights and grandstand,

I • Deplore the encouragement of passive viewing of sport where I active participation should occur, • An entertainment centre in Princes Park is inconsistent with Council I and State Government's plan to centre these activities along the Lower Yarra banks, I • The report on impact of light spill is farcical and inadequate,

I • Existing criminal vandalism from crowds in streets will increase,

I • Increased use of gravel on grass for parking is causing injuries for students, I • Students will not be able to use the parkland during three years of I construction and on gravel treated grass areas for parking, • Parkland that will be alienated is valued at approximately $2.5 I million - the Club's submission fails to address why the alienation of I open space is necessary and in the community interests, • The trees marked for removal (poplars) should be valued and I recompensed especially since most are healthy, can be easily relocated and currently provide effective screening, I I I 34 I • The landscape concept plan shows an absolute minimum of I expenditure on works immediately adjoining the proposed new stand and does not address sub-standard landscaping around the I remainder of the ground, • Perimeter landscaping costs should be between 8% to 12% of the I building costs,

I • The landscape concept plan should specifically show details of the proposed student games areas, I • The light towers will never be screened and break every urban I design height control principle totally out of scale in their context, • The proposal does not adequately deal with light spill - never before I have major light towers been sighted adjacent to a residential area,

I • Public parkland will be turned over to a minority group, I • An environmental effects statement must be produced, • The Club's report is biased containing inaccurate and incorrect I information,

I • The proposed eastern stand height is excessive at 21m as the John Elliott Stand and all other developments were restricted to 16.6m by I a previous Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision, I • The switch to low level at 10.30 pm and switch off time at 11.00 pm for the lights is totally inappropriate adjacent to a residential area,

I • It is incorrect and contradicts the AFL's position to say that Carlton I Stadium is second only to the MCG, • The Carlton Stadium is not located centrally within Melbourne and is I poorly provided with public transport -the report is deficient and incorrect with regard to parking surveys, I I /

I 35 I • Reliance cannot be made on the off-street car park cited in the I report for park and ride, I • No justification for night events which may be exceeded by permit, • Increase noise, amplification from events, more traffic all of which I will contribute to deteriorating health,

I • Lack of any financial analysis, I • The club should only be allowed three extra functions a year to be held in the John Elliott Stand providing that relevant existing I agreements are not broken, • That temporary parking on grass exit via Royal Parade and not via I residential streets,

I • No mention in the amendment of deliveries, cleaning and operations, etc which have a major impact on residential amenity, I • Many statements and claims made in the report accompanying the amendment are inaccurate and incomplete, there is no social impact I assessment, no details on staging of the works or the basis of funding, limited consideration as to the accuracy or the amelioration I of acoustic impacts and no assessment of light spill plumes in fog, etc, I • Existing sirens and public address system should be placed below I the roofline of the stand. I 8.0 ASSESSMENT OF SUBMISSIONS AND PLANNING ISSUES 8.1 Each of the critical components of the amendment and the issues raised in I the submissions will be addressed under the following headings :

I (i) Lights (ii) Grandstand I I I 36

I (iii) Traffic and Parking (iv) Increased usage I (v) Financial situation (vi) John Elliott Stand (vii) Ultra Viries I (viii) Leasing arrangements I 8.2 Lights I The issues of the light towers and the lighting of the stadium at night can really be broken into three categories, i.e. technical issues, such as light I spill, visual impact of the towers and, thirdly, the resultant impact on the amenity of the surrounding area by the usage of the stadium at night.

I Firstly, with respect to the issue of light spill, it is considered that the proposed lighting system demonstrates that spill of light can be contained I to within reasonable limits in relation to impact on amenity in the surrounding area. Detailed expert evidence on this matter will be provided I by Mr Miles Pierce of Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd, Consulting Engineers, Environmental Scientists and Planners and Project Managers. I In order to further inform the Panel of the issue of light spill and other lighting issues, the Environmental Effects Assessment of the MCG lights I will be submitted.

I In terms of the physical impact of the light towers themselves, expert evidence will be given by Mr Mark Allan, Senior Urban Designer of the City I of Melbourne. Essentially, it is submitted that the light towers will impact upon the visual appearance of the adjoining parkland and to varying I degrees, nearby commercial and residential areas. Mr Allan's evidence will conclude that should the light towers be permitted, the design should at the minimum address a number of principles including reducing the height of I the towers as much as possible, locating them within the confines of the stadium, incorporating a single solid supporting pole structure of a minimum I diameter dimensions, painting the lights in a matt white colour. I I I I 37 I As well as their visual impact, there have been submissions relating to the I shadowing caused by the towers themselves. Whilst this assessment has yet to be undertaken (at the time of writing) there is a requirement within the amendment itself that a proper shadow assessment be undertaken. It I is further submitted that it is unlikely that the shadows cast by the lights will have any significant impact over either parkland and/or nearby residential I properties.

I Of greater concern to Council is the consequential effects on the usage of the stadium for night events. Specifically, there are reservations regarding I the loss of amenity to the nearby residential properties particularly to the east through additional noise, traffic, vandalism, disruptive behaviour, etc particularly at the end of night events which are permitted up until I 10.30 pm.

I Whilst this concern is partly offset by the 'Park and Ride' schemes proposed to be provided by the Club and the limit of only fifteen events I (except with further planning permission) there is genuine concern that the houses within the street network in the Princes Hill area will be affected, at I times substantially, by patrons leaving the ground and travelling through this residential precinct. These issues, of course, were also raised in the I MCG hearing by the residents of East Melbourne. It is noted that the proponent proposes to incorporate a management plan I in conjunction with the City of Melbourne and the Victoria Police in order to incorporate strategies within the ground and in the nearby residential I precincts to alleviate such concerns. Whilst such an approach is welcomed, there are obvious difficulties associated with such a plan, I including its enforcement and, ultimately, should the plan prove not to be successful there are little, if any, other ameliorating works or programs that I can be undertaken to alleviate the resultant loss of amenity. 8.3 Grandstand I It is firstly submitted that the current buildings and works which constitute the eastern end of the ground present an ugly and chaotic sight to Princes I Park and the nearby residential properties to the east. Furthermore, the appearance, design, extent and height of the new grandstand is supported I I' I 38

I by Council and, once again, evidence will be led from Mr Mark Allan, Senior Urban Designer of the City of Melbourne whose opinion reinforces I Council's position.

With regard to the extension of the eastern boundary into open space, it is I submitted that the reduction of unfettered public open space is opposed in principle,· the subject area in this instance is not of sufficient quality or I usage to actively oppose the encroachment of the new stand.

I Indeed when an overall percentage calculation is undertaken, this area of open space is of extremely minor proportions to the overall park. Also, the I landscaping works proposed by the proponent is supported.

With regard to the issue of the proposal being inconsistent with the purpose I for which it is reserved for under the Planning Scheme, i.e. public open space - this is rejected. There are many types of public open space which I include both passive and active recreation areas (which are unfettered by buildings) and stadiums such as the Carlton Stadium. It is considered that I there is no alienation of public open space in terms of the planning scheme as the area of land currently outside the eastern stand will still be used for I the purposes of recreation albeit passive rather than active (if indeed if this is what this area of land is used for at present).

I With respect to the wind effects caused by the new grandstand, the report I prepared by the proponent is accepted. In terms of the noise of the increased capacity caused by the new stand, I the report prepared by the Watson, Moss Growcott Acoustic Pty Ltd is accepted with two reservations. I The first of these is in respect to the noise generated by the stadium at night when the ambient noise levels are lower in the general vicinity thereby I causing some loss of amenity to the nearby residential properties. Furthermore, the issue of disturbance late at night by people and cars I travelling through the residential precinct leaving the stadium, represents a concern to Council and relates to the earlier issue of the proposed I management plan to ameliorate these effects. It is considered that these noise issues have yet to be satisfactorily addressed. I I I 39 I The other issue relating to the concern over noise is in respect of special events rather than sporting events and in particular -rock concerts, or I musical events to be held at the ground. It is proposed that specific management plans regulating noise from these events in accord with I S.E.P.P.N2 Policy must be prepared to the satisfaction of Council. Whilst this policy does regulate the amount of noise that can be generated, it is of I little consolation to the residents of the area that should the special event exceed these noise limits that the Club is fined some months later in the I Magistrates' Court. It is imperative that there should be mechanisms in place to ensure that noise levels are within EPA guidelines at all times on I the day, or night of the special event. - The last issue in respect of the new grandstand is that of increase in I capacity. It is proposed that an additional 10,500 people will be catered for in this new stand thereby raising the level of the ground capacity to 42,500 I people.

I It seems strange that in this day and age that such a great proportion of the new numbers proposed in the grandstand will be standing room. It is I thought that it would have been more appropriate to provide an all seating grandstand. Such a move would, of course, significantly reduce the I additional numbers of people able to be accommodated in this stadium. Such a reduction in numbers would have benefits in terms of the additional I number of car spaces required to accommodate the increased number of cars generated by this new stand. At present, there is a heavy reliance on I the 'Park and Ride' scheme by the proponent, an issue which has yet to be resolved satisfactorily. I 8.4 Traffic and Parking There have been a number of submissions relating to the existing problems I of parking cars on the Princes Park grounds. It is emphasised that there is no additional car parking proposed under this amendment. Therefore, the I existing situation will remain. Whilst it is acknowledged that many residents in the area disagree with parking on the grounds of the park itself, this is a I situation that is unaffected by the proposal. I I I 40

I The additional ground capacity caused by the new stadium and therefore the generation of additional vehicles is however of significant concern. It is I strongly emphasised that such traffic and parking should not occur in or through the nearby residential areas.

I A detailed analysis of the traffic and parking issues of the proposal has been prepared by the firm of Grogan Richards Pty Ltd, Consulting I Engineers, Structural, Civil, Traffic and Transportation. Specifically, evidence will be provided by Mr Stephen Hunt, who is a partner of this firm. I At present, it is considered that the information provided in the amendment I regarding the additional traffic generated by this proposal is not of sufficient detail and greater work will have to be undertaken in order to firstly, accommodate the additional cars generated by this proposal and, I secondly, ameliorate any negative, external spillover effects into nearby I residential properties. 8.5 Increased Usage of Stadium I The Carlton Stadium has been in operation for over 100 years and, as such, has "existing use rights ". Therefore issues such as 'how many I events can take place on the ground' have not been fettered by the Planning Scheme. Such limits have, in the past, been contained within the leasing arrangements between the City of Melbourne and the Carlton I Cricket and Football Social Club. Indeed, without the leasing arrangements it could be strongly argued by the Club that provided it is consistent with the I purposes for which the land was reserved under the Crown Land Reserves I Act, it could be used 365 days (or nights) per year. However, within the parameters of the amendment, it is now proposed to I include a further change restricting the number of special events to twelve (12) per year. These special events (which include events outside normal I football and cricket games) will have an upper limit of twelve (12) per year. It is considered that such an additional control will provide greater certainty I for both the Club, the City of Melbourne and nearby residents and should I ensure that there will not be a continued proliferation of events. I I I 41 I 8.6 Financial Implications I Whilst Section 60 of the Planning and Environment Act allows for the consideration of social and economic effects of a proposal, it is considered that the issues raised by the submitters in terms of the financial standing of I the Carlton Cricket and Football Social Club is not an issue that is relevant to the determination of this amendment and therefore should not be I considered by the Panel.

I These financial implications are more of a commercial nature and they, more properly arise in the lease negotiations between the City of I Melbourne and the Club.

8.7 John Elliott Stand I There were submissions contending that the increase usage of the John Elliott Stand should not be heard as part of this amendment but should be I the subject of a further amendment. This is considered unnecessary and it seems an appropriate, efficient use of resources to have all issues heard I by the one Panel. I It is considered that the three additional dinners proposed, the Stand being used during ground usage (including sporting and special events) and the combined use of the Sir Kenneth Luke Room and the private viewing boxes I are perfectly reasonable and relatively small components when considering I the overall proposal. It is considered that the numbers of people generated by such changes in I the usage of the John Elliott Stand are not of sufficient magnitude or order to substantially and detrimentally effect the amenity of residential I properties.

8.8 Amendment is Ultra Viries I A separate submission prepared by Mr lan Murray, City Solicitor and Senior I Partner of Mallesons, Stephen Jacques will be presented to the Tribunal. Essentially, Mr Murray considers that the amendment can proceed I however, further legislative changes may be required "down the track" to facilitate this proposal. I I I 42 I Mr Murray can be made available to the Panel should they wish further I elaboration on his submission.

8.9 Leasing Arrangements I There is currently a lease between the Club and the City of Melbourne I which runs until the year 2006. At present there is a Supplemental Deed that is being negotiated between I the parties. However, this is not an issue that we respectfully suggest that is before the Panel however further details can be provided if required. I 9.0 CONCLUSION

I 9.1 Sporting, recreational, cultural and social requirements of the public have altered considerably over the last ten years not to mention over the last 100 I years.

I In order to accommodate these changing needs, stadiums and venues, including the Carlton Stadium need also to evolve in order to meet these I demands.

It is acknowledged that should a ground, such as the Carlton Stadium not I evolve, then its role as a venue for major sporting and cultural events will diminish. Having said this, it is necessary to understand the context in I which the ground sits particularly with respect to the sensitive parklands surrounding it, and the nearby residential areas and the amenities that are I inherent in this precinct. I Given the above it is considered that the grandstand structure, the extension of the ground, the light towers and the lights themselves are I satisfactory. In terms of the usage of the grounds and the obvious consequences that I flow from the above structures being constructed, there are concerns in I relation to the traffic and parking and night time events. I Infrastructure Library I • I 43

I Some of these concerns can be ameliorated by various means, such as management plans, etc. I Whether these mechanisms and methods of amelioration are all of sufficient strength in order to achieve their purpose is a matter which we put I before the Panel for their deliberation.

I 9.2 It is strongly emphasised that what has been put to the Panel in these submissions and in the evidence led by the Council is not the City of I Melbourne's formal position on exhibited Amendment L 160. I The Commissioners of the City of Melbourne have made it quite clear that they do not intend to pre-empt the Panel's delibereations and furthermore they want all parties to have the opportunity to fully express their views to I an independent body. Not until all parties have been heard and the Panel hands down its determination will the City of Melbourne reach a formal I position on the amendment.

I What has been put to the Panel at this hearing is an "officer" view. The Commissioners are aware that this view will be put, in order to facilitate the I hearing and the Panel's deliberations. I I I

I Stuart McGurn Town Planner I On behalf of the City of Melbourne I Encl: I I I I·· 11~ -.·_.._ ol I I I I I I I AMENDMENT L160

I PANEL HEARING I SUMMARY. I I THE CITY OF MELBOURNE I I I I I I I I I· 2 I 1.0 Introduction At the beginning of the hearing it was submitted by Council that sporting, I recreational, cultural and social requirements of the public have altered considerably over the last ten years and that in order to accommodate these I changing needs, stadiums and venues, (including the Carlton Stadium) I need also to evolve. It was acknowledged that should a ground, such as the Carlton Stadium, not I evolve, its role as a venue for major sporting and cultural events will diminish. It was emphasised, however, that it was necessary to understand the context in which the ground sits, particularly with respect to the sensitive I parklands, the nearby residential areas and the amenities that are inherent I in this precinct. It was then further submitted to the Panel that after considering the above I the grandstand structure, the extension of the ground, the light towers and the lights themselves were satisfactory. This position has not changed, I however, · as the Panel hearing has evolved additional guidelines, requirements and modifications to the above "position" have become I evident. These will be dealt with in more detail later in these submissions.

It was also submitted on the first day that in terms of the usage of the I stadium and the obvious consequences that flow from the light towers and new stand being constructed that there were concerns particularly in relation I to traffic and parking and also night time events. Such concerns have not been ameliorated by any subsequent submissions put to this panel. Indeed, I the concerns expressed on the first day have, in some respects, been heightened and it is clear that significant work still needs to be done in order to ensure that the amenity of the surrounding land and the nearby residents I is not substantially affected.

I In summary therefore, a great range of issues have been put to the Panel by the numerous submitters that have appeared before it. Some of these I issues, can be readily addressed, others, with further work, can be satisfactorily dealt with, whilst some issues have raised more questions that I have yet to be answered. Each of the critical elements that have been I I ~-· 3

I raised in this hearing will now be dealt with in the subsequent sections of this submission. I 2.0 STRATEGIC CONTEXT The City of Melbourne agrees with the submission put by Mr Trevor I Huggard, former Lord Mayor of the City of Melbourne, when he states that the City of Melbourne Strategy Plan 1985 is still valid and applicable to both I the Carlton Stadium and the proposal before the Panel.

I However, it is considered that the Strategy Plan can be most accurately described as having an "even handed view" on a development such as this. I The specific policies that are relevant are listed below.

Policy L2 (Page 250) which states that : I "The Council improve the landscaped amenity and recreational I opportunities of the City's metropolitan open space system" Policy L5 (Page 254) states that: I "The Council seek to ensure that public open spaces primarily serve the recreational need of the general I public and are not set aside for the use of private clubs."

Also Policy L7 (255) states that: I "The Council encourage continued use and development of the major sporting stadia subject to environmental and I amenity considerations".

I When the proposal is held in the light of these above policies, it is considered that the Strategy Plan does not effectively bar (in a policy sense), this proposal from proceeding, however, there is a strong emphasis I on the development improving the landscaped amenity and recreational opportunities of Princes Park and that the environmental and amenity I impact of the proposal does not detrimentally effect the surrounding area.

I This heavy strategic onus is also evident at Clause 14-1 0 of the Regional Section of the Melbourne Planning Scheme where, among other things, it is I metropolitan policy that : I I I·· 4 I "Public Open Space must not be rezoned, sold or used for other public use, such as a road, unless there is a significant public benefit or I equivalent open space or other compensation is provided."

I Once again, it is considered that this does not effectively bar the proposal from proceeding but it does require that a significant public benefit flows I from this proposal. It can, of course, readily be argued by the proponent that the new grandstand facility provides such a public benefit by better I facilities for the sporting public who attend the Carlton Stadium and by the improved appearance of the eastern end of the ground.

I Also, Council relies on the submissions of the Parks and Gardens Division of Council who consider that the proposal is not inconsistent with the I Princes Park Master Plan.

I Lastly, with respect to the "Melbourne Open Space" strategic document of 1988 (and specifically, Section 5.1) Council contends that the proposal does I not conflict with this policy. I 3.0 LEGAL CONTEXT The submissions of the City of Yarra claim that both the City of Melbourne I and the proponent have failed to draw a proper distinction between the land permanently reserved and the Crowns Land (Reserves) Act 1978 and I reserved under the Planning Scheme, have failed to distinguish between the reservation as a "public park" under the Crown Grant and "public open I space" under the planning scheme and further have failed to adequately consider the impacts of Section 46 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The City of Yarra went on further to highlight what in its mind is a I failure to consider the different lease regimes under the Carlton (Recreation Ground) Act 1966 and Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978, and furthermore I submitted that there has been a failure to consider current legislative and leasing restrictions and, as a result, the amendment is both ambiguous in its I terms and unenforceable in the use control regime it purports to impose. I I I ~-- 5 1 Whilst great emphasis is placed on these submissions by the City of Yarra, at 2.17 of its report on page 11 , it concedes that it does not have answers to I all the conundrums and ambiguities raised in the foregoing legal debate and I most importantly states : "Nor are all of them necessarily within the ambit of this I Panel's proceedings."

I With respect to these legal issues, Council relies upon the submissions of Mr lan Murray, City Solicitor and Senior Partner of the legal firm Mallesons, I Stephen Jacques where he stated in his conclusions : I "In summary what all this essentially means is that: (a) the Amendment only relates to planning permission under the Act; I (b) the Amendment is within the ambit of the basic empowering section of the Act (86); I (c) the Amendment is amply controlled under Section 46 of the Act; (d) the Amendment does not impact upon the reservation or the Crown Land (Reserves) Act; I (e) the leasing power of the Council is controlled under the Carlton Land Act, and I (f) the Crown Parliament exercises overall ultimate control through the I Crown grant and its legislative controls." It is understood by all parties that further legislative change will be required I should this proposed amendment become part of the Melbourne Planning Scheme. Such legislative changes are, of course, outside the ambit of this hearing. However, despite these issues being outside the ambit of these I hearings, the City of Melbourne would welcome guidance by the Panel perhaps by way of a "critical path" outlining what changes need to be made I and in what sequence, to the various empowering legislation.

I Certainly, it is submitted that the required subsequent legislative changes in no way limits the power of this Panel nor do they stop this Panel from I determining the amendment on its planning merits. I I 1-. 6 I 4.0 LEASE

I Similarly, the issue of the lease is technically outside the scope of this amendment, however, it is acknowledged that the both the amendment and I the lease sit hand-in-hand and furthermore Council agrees with the submissions of Dr John Hammond in that consistency between the two I documents should be achieved.

I In achieving such consistency, the City of Melbourne would again welcome the Panel to make comments and\or suggestions in relation to general ground use controls (in addition to those being considered for night events I and special events). Of course, the general ground use controls are perhaps more properly placed in the lease given the scope of this I amendment.

I 5.0 UNE!-ECTED DECISION MAKERS A number of submissions from the residents, the North Carlton Residents' I Association and the ALP have focussed on non-elected Commissioners and the loss of democratic process.

I In response, it is considered that the current political framework of Local Government and the City of Melbourne should not of itself stop the I determination of any development application.

I Furthermore, the Commissioners of the City of Melbourne have attempted to ensure that all parties to this proposal have had an adequate opportunity I to express their views to an independent panel.

It is submitted that this panel process has achieved the wishes of the City's I Commissioners and the Council welcomes and looks forward to the I independent report of the Panel. It is, of course, emphasised that the final decision will be made by the I Minister for Planning and Environment and the State Government and that this government has, of course, been democratically elected. I I I I. 7 I In summary, every party has had ample opportunity to express their views I on this issue and that all submissions wiU be carefully considered by the Panel, the Commissioners of the City of Melbourne and, finally, the State I Government.

I 6.0 CREDIBILITY OF THE CARLTON FOOTBALL CLUB Mr Dickson in his submission maintained that the credentials of the Carlton I Football Club were a material issue in the determination of this amendment. This submission was echoed by numerous residents who indicated a I significant degree of community anger targeted mainly at the perceived attitude of the Club, the alleged number of conditions that have been eroded over the years by the Club and the dominance of the stadium both in the I parkland and the surrounding area.

I It is submitted that the long held principle that planning permissions run with the land and that the character of the applicant is not a relevant issue is still I pertinent in this amendment. I This, of course, is not to say that the Council does not acknowledge the frustrations and, indeed, anger of the local community and it is hoped that this panel process will go some way to alleviating that anger and further that I all parties wiU feel that they have had a meaningful input into the decision I making process. Clearly, a great deal of work needs to be done by the Club no matter what I the outcome of this amendment is, in order to overcome the apparent breakdown in relations with the surrounding community. I However, despite all of this it is considered that the issues in the amendment such as night usage, light towers, the new stand, etc should all I be judged on their merits and that the credentials of the Club itself are not I relevant to these proceedings. I I I .------

I. 8 I 7.0 ALIENATION OF PUBLIC LAND Clearly, the new stand will annexe a portion of the existing public open I space, although it is acknowledged that in overall land area terms such a I portion of land is not significant. Furthermore, despite many submissions to the contrary it is still considered I that the 1Om to 12m strip of land immediately east of the existing terrace wall is not highly valuable land in recreation terms. I Certainly, there will be a change to the nature of that land in that it will be enclosed by the stadium and therefore is no longer unfettered public open I space. However, it is still argued that this area of land will still be used for the purposes of recreation albeit by fee paying spectators who wish to view I sport at the Carlton Stadium.

I It is acknowledged that the use of the northern area of Princes Park and the southern sporting ovals will be used more often for the purposes of car I parking as a consequence of this proposal. Whilst, these areas are not within the scope of the amendment it is conceded that car parking will prevent these areas of land being used for recreational pursuits for I approximately fifteen (15) additional events per year. Because the additional usage will occur at night, it is considered that this "alienation" is of I less concern as there will be little active use of these areas at those times. I 8.0 NEED I . The evidence of Mr Lacey whilst highlighting the potential gap in the supply of venues in the range of 25,000 to 75,000 people does not, it is submitted provide a serious or critical analysis of the demand for night use facilities at I Princes Park.

I Furthermore, Mr Clarke, Town Planner for the proponent indicated that the number of night events (i.e.15) was arrived at through an analysis of the I environmental capacity of the surrounding area. Such an approach again does .not identify that there is in fact a need for this type of usage at this I facility. Essentially, what has been put to the Panel by the proponent is that I I I. 9

I there may be a latent demand and once Carlton Stadium has such facilities, this demand will then be met.

I Although invited by the Panel to provide some details of what events the Carlton Football Club intends to hold during the night and at special events, I this information has still not been supplied.

I In an amendment, such as this, it is considered that the issue of 'need' is an important one and further information should be provided. I

9.0 EFFECT ON PRINCES PARK HIGH SCHOOL I Whilst it is acknowledged that there are significant concerns by the school regarding this proposal, it is considered that the amount of open space to be I enclosed by the new stadium is relatively small in area and will not I substantially affect the usage of Princes Park by the school. In addition, it would appear that the issues regarding the use of the area I north of the stadium and the No 1 Oval have yet to be resolved (between the school and the City of Melbourne), however, such issues are not I affected by the amendment.

Lastly, there is the potential through further design for playground facilities, I such as basketball hoops and half court areas to be provided in the landscape plan, thereby providing much needed additional facilities that can I be used by the school.

I 10.0 NOISE The City of Melbourne accepts the evidence from Mr Growcott, Acoustic I Engineer, who was called on behalf of the proponent.

One issue arising out of his evidence was that of the infill panel that was I required to shield noise to Bowen Crescent from the "gap" between the John Elliott Stand and the new eastern stand. Mr Allan in his evidence has I stated that the model prepared by the proponent's architects, have gone quite some way in meeting Council's concerns and it is now considered that I it is only a matter of further detail and modelling before the City of Melbourne is satisfied. I I r------

10 I The only other issue that has arisen out of this particular component of the proposal is the concern of noise management during concerts and night I events. It is again emphasised that Council is seeking to ensure the amenity of the surrounding residential area is not prejudiced. It is I imperative that there should be mechanisms in place to ensure that noise levels are within EPA guidelines at all times on the day or night of the I special event. I 11.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN In general the landscape solution proposed by Mr Chris Dance, Landscape I Architect, on behalf of the proponent is supported although it is recognised that certain components of this landscape plan may need to be further I modified particularly in relation to the mounding proposed and also the issue I of the ticket booths and potential queuing. With respect to the mounding, this issue will clearly need to be re-visited, I given the concerns of Mr Nigel Lewis, Conservation Architect and Mr Bruce Echberg, Landscape Architect, who gave evidence for the residents that on balance they would. prefer to see a flat surface with some sort of fence I structure so as to ensure that there would be no spill-over of people on to the grassed open space. Notwithstanding, this it is still Council's view that I the mounding will go some way to integrating the new structure with the landscape strip and furthermore alleviating the bulk of the new stand as I viewed from Gartan Street.

I It is acknowledged that these competing views will need to be further examined, however, it is submitted that this is essentially a matter of detail.

I A further issue that needs to be properly addressed is whether the area outside the ticket boxes and entrances to the new eastern stand will be I sufficient for the numbers of people wishing to access the ground at this point. It seems clear from the evidence provided by the proponent that I insufficient work has been done on this particular issue. This is a matter of some importance and an issue of public safety. I I I I. 11 I 12.0 CAR PARKING ON PRINCES PARK It is acknowledged that the increased usage of the ground, particularly at I night, will impact upon the grassed surfaces of Princes Park where I approximately 2,200 cars are accommodated. Firstly, it should be pointed out that it is considered that such car parking is I permissible particularly in light of the comments provided by Mr Malone of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. I Certainly, with respect to the intensified use of these car parking areas I additional research will need to be undertaken as to the likely damage to the surface of the park and what alleviating works will be necessary in order to I overcome such damage. Any solution will, no doubt cost significant amounts of money and the issue I of who should pay for thP.se new works (should they be needed) has not yet been determined. I

14.0 EASTERN STAND I It is considered that the height and the form of the new stand is generally acceptable, however, emphasis is given to Mr Mark Allan's evidence where I he was at pains to point out that the detailing and finishes of the stand was of critical importance in determining the quality of the building and the effect I that the building will have on the appearance of the park and nearby Garton Street and Bowen Crescent. I 15.0 LIGHT TOWERS The spill of light at approximately 20 lux above ambient levels is considered I appropriate by both the proponent's expert, Mr Catt and by the City of I Melbourne's expert witness, Mr Miles Pierce. It is emphasised however that this level was reached on the basis of the I ambient light levels in the area being in the mid range, i.e. 8 to 12 lux. If, in fact, the ambient lux level in the neighbourhood is of the order suggested by I Mr Poulton, the expert witness for the City of Yarra, then it is acknowledged I I I. 12

I and conceded by Mr Pierce on behalf of the City of Melbourne, the light spill level needs to be further reduced to a figure lower than 20 lux.

I It is considered that the bloom caused by the proposal can, in fact, have a positive effect on the appearance of the parkland and will not in itself be out I of place in the urban context in which the Carlton Stadium sits.

I The light bank on the John Elliott Stand as proposed by the Club needs to be further assessed by the City of Melbourne in terms of its design and I appearance.

With respect to the towers itself, it is considered that the points raised in Mr I Allan's evidence :

I "• they be as low as possible, this may include a retractable design; • be located within the confines of the stadium; I • incorporate a single, solid supporting structure of minimum diameter\dimensions; I • provide a simple enclosure to support the lights solid at the back; • be painted in a matt white colour, as suggested."

I should be incorporated as guidelines into the amendment text.

I With respect to the retractable or semi-retractable issue, the Adelaide Oval was merely used by the City of Melbourne as an example of the technology I being available and being able to be implemented. It was not meant to compare the relative merits of the Adelaide Oval as opposed to Prince Park I and, indeed, the evidence from Mr Allan emphasised this point. It was his contention that the lights would have a significant impact upon the parkland and that a semi-retractable design bringing the lights back into line with the I roof of the existing stands would clearly ameliorate much of the concern I caused by the negative impact of these structures. I I I I r------~~~------

I~ 13 I 16.0 NIGHT EVENTS I A number of submissions were made by the residents that the nature of crowds at night were different to those who attended during the day. It is acknowledged by the City of Melbourne that this assumption is most I probably correct.

I It is therefore still a concern that the management plan proposed by the proponent, whilst weicomed, still may not be of sufficient enforceability or I surety to maintain the reasonable amenity expectations of the residents of Princes Hill.

I Again, it is emphasised that there has been no demonstrable need put before the Panel by the Club regarding these events and, indeed the limit of I fifteen events that has been placed in the amendment text is on the basis of Mr Clarke's "environmental capacity" concept. Nothing that has been said I at this hearing has alleviated the concern the City of Melbourne has in respect of this issue. I If, however, the Panel is of the view that night events are appropriate then it is suggested that the management plan proposed by the Club should not I just include the proponent and the police but should also include the Cities of Melbourne, Moreland and Yarra and further should include community I representatives in order. to provide the most balanced and effective means I of managing the safety and amenity of this area at night. It is also submitted that it is considered that what night in the week the event I takes place does differ in nature and it is respectfully suggested that the Panel examine this issue. I

17.0 TRAFFIC I Clearly, this is a significant issue in the determination of this proposal. It is considered that the evidence of Mr Hunt and Mr O'Brien is correct and that I significant works still have to be undertaken by the proponent in order for there to be any certainty that the generation of cars caused by the new I stand can be accommodated. I I ~-· 14

I At best it is considered that the 'park and ride scheme' is still notional, the management plan requires further work, the issue of public transport has clearly not been resolved (this is particularly critical given the need to move I people effectively late at night), the management of the car park areas and the problems of access and traffic congestion all still have serious question I marks hanging over them.

I The level of concern is in fact increased when you look at the issue of occupancy rates which have been assessed by the proponent at 3.0 I whereas the one night time survey undertaken by Ratio Consultants indicates a figure closer to 2.0. Further research needs to be done in terms I of occupancy rates and 'park and ride schemes' for night time events.

The requirements of the traffic and parking plan should include the I recom111endations of Mr Hunt in his report of January 1995 (at pages 12 and I 13). The major issue that is before the Panel on this point is whether this work I should be undertaken before the Panel determines the suitability or otherwise of this proposal or whether there is enough certainty for the Panel to approve the proposal now and allow this work to be undertaken before I the actual buildings and works are commenced. I 18.0 GUIDELINES I This issue was raised by Ms McRobert as to whether the inclusion of guidelines would provide greater certainty for the Responsible Authority in I determining issues such as the construction of new buildings and works.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the proponent believes the words "to the I satisfaction of the Responsible Authority" provide greater control for Council, Council would welcome any further input the Panel may have in terms of I guidelines in order to better direct its attention in determining the various I components of this proposal. I I I I. 15 I 19.0 DAY TIME LIMITS This issue was raised by Mr Turnbull who put a question to the proponent I as to whether there should be an upper limit imposed by this amendment on I the number of day games to be played at the stadium. It is acknowledged by Council that the number of games has increased over I the last few years and this is an issue that may well impact upon the amenity of the surrounding areas. However, it is respectfully submitted that I it is outside the scope of this amendment to place an upper limit in the planning scheme on the number of day-time football games. Although the inclusion of the special events clause certainly provides a restriction in I terms of other events that may occur at the ground it is considered that the number of games has always resided in the lease and this is probably the I most appropriate place to locate such a control. I 20.0 ENTERTAINMENT VENUE I Mr Dickson submitted that the stadium was changing in its nature and was evolving into an entertainment venue rather than a football ground.

I To some extent this is true although it is still considered that the dominant use of the stadium is that of a venue for AFL football. It should be pointed I out, however, that should the nature and focus of the stadium change that this in itself is not necessarily a negative, however, steps have to be taken I to ensure that the amenity of the surrounding areas is not further eroded. It is the City of Melbourne's view that certainly this is a delicate 'balancing act' I but one that can be successfully undertaken.

21.0 CONCLUSION I The City of Melbourne believes that through the mechanism of this hearing, I all parties have had ample opportunity to air their views and concerns. Furthermore, the City of Melbourne is confident that the recommendations I of the Panel will ensure that a "net community benefit" results. I I I I' 16 I The original 'officer' position put to the Panel on the first day has not significantly altered although modifications and additional guidelines on I various issues, as outlined previously, will need to be incorporated, should I this proposal proceed. In terms of the concerns expressed, these have not been alleviated by the I evidence led by the proponent. There is still significant concern in relation to the traffic and parking and to the night time events and the effect that this I will have on the amenity of the surrounding area. The issues of detail regarding construction elements can, of course, be dealt with at a later date and is considered that they can be resolved satisfactorily although it is I emphasised that guidance will be required with respect to the issue of I retractable lights. For the record, it is once again worth emphasising that what has been put to I the Panel in these submissions, and in the evidence led by the Council, is not the City of Melbourne's formal position on the exhibited amendment. I The Commissioners do not wish to pre-empt the Panel's deliberations and are gratified that all parties have had the opportunity to fully express their I views. I I

Stuart McGurn I Town Planner On behalf of I The City of Melbourne I amend160:tcb I I I I : APPENDIX 19 .,..._,_ ·-· .... ··-·----- ..... - --·- ,~, ... . • _.- .r. •"'- .... -~ I, \ Jlld Cauntr'l Ptannmg Ac_t 1901 I · OFi=lC~ 'JSC. ONL't I I \ o:-=.-.. ••~.- ..••... ~... ~g_0_Q.P..Q.q_I~~---.?.~-~~N IN§_ SCH~~·-··----:...·.! ... ~-~! ••• .:.::.:~ .• - (Name ot scnema or orcar) -. I 4 113 -NNING PERMIT No: -~-~ o~-~-~~::.~~~~£f~~.:--~----··------.. -......

V'ec: !o tne c::mditions {if any) $8C out hereunder tne lollowmg is 1\erecy permitted:

[~arl ton Rec:eation Ground, ?rinc!s Park, Royal ?3rade 1 Car~ ton, Ci~y of ~1bourne to nave a ~ubl ic grandstand inccrpora~ing ~ublic seating, a dining room, private ~ie~ing lloxes and media facilities erected thergon in accordance with the attached endorsed lllllllans Nos "ROB l, z, 3, 4, 5, 6, 29/9/1985'' and subject to the foil owing conditions.

The 1ayout of the sita and the size of the proposed bui1dings and ·o~~orl.cs as sho~ on the endorsed plan shall not be· altered or modified (whether or no~ in order to CQmp1 y witn any Statut.!, Statutory Rule or By--1 aw or for any other reason) without the consent. of the Responsib 1e Aut3ari ty.

The external appearanc~, exterior finishes and internal layout shall be in accordance wi tn tne said plans to the satisfaction of t!te Responsib1 e Authority and such plans and t,e use of any bui1ding as shown ther~Qn sna11 not be alter!d or modified {whether or not in order to comply with any \ statute, statutory rule or by-law or for any other reason) ·~thcut t.,e writtsn CQnsen~ of the Responsible Authcr~ty except to comp1y with any conditions · a~tached to the permit.

The dininq room and privata viewing boxes eontaine · ...... :. ·• .. _ .o~· shall only be open during and in conjunction "Nith the. ~~~Cl I . eventz 1 • n~~~ ,:...;- 3( al 'IFL heme and away matches ; · 2 8 JAN 19~6

13(b} Ois~rict football final iDat:hes;

Oist:-ict cricket home and away matches and final m~~~------off'

Sub-01strict cric~et final matches; and

•• !(el F'i rs~ C1 a.ss c:-i c:xet. :11atc:tes • .• - 1 1 'I~ . '.-!~ and a~ no other time .

an sue~ oc:as~ons as the dininq roam is open, pursuant to Condition 3, it ••• sna1 1. only oe open be'bte2n ll.OOam and 7 .OOpm gxcept ·•hen !='irst Ci a..ss c:-ic~et mat:nes ar! being played •hen it may r~ain open untii the c:nc1usian of play II on that day. ihe dining r"Oom and privatl! boxes containe-d witl'lin the grands-:and snali i'IOt be al' 'JSed at any time or for any pur?osa o!ner than in conformity ·lfi tl': :ne ~e~uir~ments of ~nd1tions J and i, / I I/ I 2. 2. JAN 1S86 ~- ...... ··············--·· ·-·-···--················ ...... ··•····· . ... ······--...... _!:..fi!..4.(d:t.1.!~~---. , ...... •• · - ··-- .. -~--~··~-·------______...:I~~~~O!J:n~P.£:01!______2

au i 1d i oq en trances shall be con structl!d in ace or,e e~ pi ry da 1:e of tll i s per111 it be e:< tanded by the Re s_.,n s i 0 1a >Ill tho ri ty . I

I ,, ja ...... t?:fl!!. 'aM1Y...... "/ / i .. ,, ... ~,...... '- -.. ;:,_ N i.'j~·di4 ... For and on beha~ f of the ...... ' ...... Respcnsi'o 1 e Au· cri ty. PLANNING PERMIT

~- .".I :J

For further reference contact: Eloise Gucciardo Permit No. TP 92/1419 Telephone: 658 8408 Development Approvals Branch Planning Scheme MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME Council House 200 Little Collins Street Responsible Authority CITY OF MELBOURNE John Elliott Grandstand, Princes Park, Royal Parade, North Carlton ADDRESS OF THE LAND

A Notwrd'latancing Condliona 3, 4 and 5 of Permias No TP 111301 .nd CM 96, f\e dninQ rocm and private vi.wtng boxe& in lne John Elliott G,.ndswtd may~ uMd •• foiJCJiiJn.: · THE PERMIT ALLOWS (ol llurin9 ...... _,,.•. A ·~a1 .wnt' tor lha pu~ ollhia Permit t. an ewnt which he• bMn aoproved by ft• MMbouma City Council unct. OauM 5.1 of Su~sn.ntal o..d No 3. betwea1 dw Counc:d and lh• C&rtton Cricket and Food;Jd Social CluO dated 10 Oec:.mbtlt I Gal .nd (b) For "'"following 6vo IUnc P!..s.e- Guom..y P!-toocn om-. (ol Corit<>n Footl>oll CM> Aucticn 0"'-. (ou) Corit<>n Footbol Club Donor·• Oinn«. (ovl Coritcn F...- Club Gtond F"mol Evo DiM•. I (vi Cortt<>n l'ootl>oll Club 8eot ond Fait"' OinnOf ond PrOMnoation Night. I

ot such o~• cinrw ~~. u lf'la oo-·•~ of·.... John Elliott Gtand!Uand lhad ~in• provided 1ttat In• nUTI.,_ o( di'II"Mt !unction• must not exc..d five in I any YMI and not more lf\an OtM taka Paoe in any monlh and·- ! i 8 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PERMIT.

On any occasions when the dining room is being used as authorised by this Permit the hours of operation shall not exceed the following:

Sunday and Monday 9 am to 10 pm Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday 7 am to 12 midnight Friday and Saturday 7 am to 1 am the following day

2 Any pre-function or post-function activities, including cleaning, shall be undertaken within these permitted hours and at no other time.

3 Patrons' ingress and egress to the John Elliott grandstand for the purposes of the uses hereby permitted shall be through the George Harris Social Club entrance. ·

4 Pedestrian paths and access ways within the ·ground shall be improved to enable well lit and safe access from the George Harris Stand to the John Elliott Stand in accordance with the plans and specifications I approved in writing by the Responsible Authority.

5 If during the currency of this Permit the Council ratifies a plan in accordance with the Princes Park Master I Plan to change the layout of the existing social club carpark and construct additional paved carparking, and the proposed works are commenced, the cost of up to 250 spaces shall be borne by the operator of the ~. John Elliott Grandstand to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. II Conditions Continued II

r (_"_.(_; . :... ._; II --~-"I ..~.., ~ ...... •...... i) . l 0 . ~ /...... s ········································j·······················~- ·~ ~ I 11~-(D_a_t_e)______s_i_gn_a_t_ur_e __ ·______~-- --~------···--- r.i="'-11. -- ·------~------·--- --...... ~ .... --. ·-··~ . - _ __, ____ ,___ ~...... :....-...... :_ __ ... __ ..._ ..... AP.Q_IjcatjQn No TP 92/1419 (Continued)

The operator of the John Elliott grandstand shall advise patrons of the five dinner functions authorised by this permit by means of a notice on publicity and tickets of the availability of carparking facilities accessed from Royal Parade after 7 pm on any evening, and that the Council discourages parking in nearby residential Jl streets. ' In addition. the operator shall advise the Responsible Authority of the details of the schedules functions at ~I least 14 days prior to the event. 7 Any noise emissions, including those generated by sound amplification equipment, from the use of the dining room and private viewing boxes within the grandstand for purposes authorised by this Permit shall not II-I exceed such levels as-may be prescribed by the Environment Protection Authority when measured from any residential property on land at present zoned Melbourne Residential 1 R2 under the Melbourne Planning El Scheme. 8 When the dining room is being used for the specified functions hereby permitted, the Sir Kenneth Luke 1~: I private viewing box shall not be used for any simultaneous separate function. I 9 The time for commencement of the use hereby authorised is pursuant to Section 68(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 specified as two years from the date of issue of this permit

IJ I The time within which the use may be commenced may on application made before or within three months after the expiry date of this permit be extended by the Responsible Authority. 1:1 II ...... This permit is issued in accordance with the Administrative Appeal Tribunal decision dated 17 II September 1993 pursuant to Section 85(1 )(b) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 I: I II I I lS"".(o-f3 c~~-:r:-~...... :... :-:.:.r...... 1- I (Date) Signature II· I I I I 11· I I II I I 2.1 .1 0 Special Events

2.1.10.1 In this clause "special event" means any event or I match held at the Carlton Stadium to which members of the public are permitted to _attend for I a fee other than any - I Australian Rules Football match; cricket match which is not a first class I international cricket match; or event or match at which less than 7,500 fee paying spectators are present at any one I time (save that where more than 7,500, but less than 10,000, fee paying spectators are present at any one time information may be I provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority to warrant it not being I included as a special event). Unless the responsible authority is otherwise satisfied, no more than 12 special events may be I held at the Carlton Stadium in any one ca lendar I year. I I I I I I I I