Coburg Activity Centre Boundary Eek Lake I Cr the Coburg Initiative Area Rr Batman E Reserve M Pentridge Redevelopmentstation Area

COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

FEBRUARY 2014

COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

CONTENTS

PART – A – BUILT FORM RATIONALE

1. Introduction 7 1.1. Purpose of the report 7 1.2. Background 7

2. Built Form Rationale 9 2.1. Methodology 10 2.2. Development Scenarios 10 2.3. Evaluation of Scenarios 10 Economic Analysis 10 Environmental Analysis 11 2.4. Preferred Scenario 13 2.5. Reﬁ nement of Preferred Scenario 13 Building Heights and Setbacks 14 Overshadowing 16 Podium heights 17 Heritage 18

3. Mandatory Planning Control Rationale 19

4. Conclusion 22

PART – B – BUILDING ENVELOPES

1. Building Envelopes 25 1.1. Precinct 1 - Coburg Station and Sydney Road 26 1.2. Precinct 2 - Bell Street North 40 1.3. Precinct 3 - Church, Community and Education 45 1.4. Precinct 4 - Hudson Street, Russell Street and Environs 46 1.5. Precinct 5 - Civic and Community 53 1.6. Precinct 6- Sydney Road Southern Commercial Gateway 56 1.7. Precinct 7 - Sydney Road – Moreland Road 59 1.8. Precinct 8 - Sydney Road Northern Commercial Gateway 61 1.9. Precinct 9 - Pentridge Coburg 65 1.10. Precinct 10 - Pentridge Village 66

APPENDIX 1 – OVERSHADOWING OF PUBLIC SPACES 67 APPENDIX 2 – OVERSHADOWING OF STREETS AT EQUINOX 73 REFERENCES 77

PART A BUILT FORM RATIONALE

COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of the Report

This report is intended to be read in conjunction with Schedule 1 to the Coburg Principal Activity Centre Zone (ACZ) at Clause 37.08 of the Moreland Planning Scheme. The information contained in this report relates speciﬁ cally to the Coburg Principal Activity Centre.

Part A of this report presents the rationale for the built form identifi ed for the Coburg Principal Activity Centre (PAC), as defi ned in the Colours of Coburg Place Framework and Strategies (8 December 2010). Specifi cally, the report expands upon Attachment 1 to the Land Use and Built Form Strategy in the Colours of Coburg Place Framework, by compiling information from across all the Place Framework Strategies and background work. The Colours of Coburg is the community framework of Moreland City Council’s urban redevelopment project – The Coburg Initiative (TCI).

This report also brings together the built form requirements identiﬁ ed throughout various structure plans, strategies and guidelines which apply to the Coburg Principal Activity Centre. The report will provide a clear and consolidated reference document to be used in conjunction with the Coburg ACZ to inform planning permit assessments as they apply to heights and setbacks. The relevant documents used to inform this report and the Coburg Principal Activity Centre Zone include: • The Colours of Coburg Place Framework and Strategies (December 2010). • Pentridge Coburg Design Guidelines and Masterplan (August 2009). • Pentridge Village Design Guidelines and Masterplan (August 2009). • Central Coburg 2020 Structure Plan (August 2006).

1.2 Background

The boundaries of the Coburg PAC and the precincts deﬁ ned by the applicable policies, strategies and plans are identiﬁ ed at Figure 1.

This report has been produced to accompany the planning scheme amendment to introduce the ACZ for Coburg and provide the strategic justiﬁ cation required to include speciﬁ c height controls in the planning scheme. The ACZ proposes mandatory maximum building heights, mandatory podium heights and mandatory overshadowing standards for key public spaces.

In establishing the mandatory height controls and preferred setback requirements for the Coburg PAC, regard has been given to: • DPCD Practice Note 59: The role of mandatory provisions in planning schemes (Sept 2010); • DPCD Practice Note 60: Height and setback controls for activity centres (April 2010); and • Various Planning Panel Victoria Reports, in particular, Manningham Amendment C33 Doncaster Hill Activity Centre Panel Report (Sept 2003).

7 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

LEGEND CC2020 and Coburg Activity Centre Boundary eek Lake i Cr The Coburg Initiative Area rr Batman e Reserve M Pentridge RedevelopmentStation Area

Gaffney St Sydney Rd Murray Rd

Champ St

O’Hea St

Bell St Bell St

Coburg Station Rodda St Rodda Victoria St

Barrow StBarrow

Hudson St Hudson

Russel St Russel Waterfiled St Waterfiled Munro St Harding St

Sydney Rd Walsh St Upfield Railway Corridor Railway Upfield Reynard St

Rennie St

Moreland Station N

0 100200 300 400 M Moreland Rd

Figure 1: Coburg Principal Activity Centre – Policy Boundaries

Further details on the built form rationale can be found in the Colours of Coburg Place Framework and Strategies (8 December 2010). Speciﬁ c references are included throughout this report.

The built form identiﬁ ed for the Coburg PAC is illustrated in Part B using computer generated three-dimensional building envelopes. These 3D envelopes have been prepared in Google Sketch Up and provide accurate testing of overshadowing standards.

8 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

2. BUILT FORM RATIONALE

2.1. Methodology

The following methodology was applied to identify an appropriate built form for the Coburg PAC. The methodology is summarised in Figure 2.

1. Identiﬁ cation of development scenarios to establish preferred development density through: Land use scenarios – Structure Plan (Central Coburg 2020 Structure – Structure Plan Plan, 2006). – Concept Plan (H,M,L) – Concept Plan Low (The Colours of Coburg Place Framework, 2010). – Concept Plan Medium (The Colours of Coburg Place Framework, 2010). – Concept Plan High (The Colours of Coburg Evaluation of scenarios – Place Framework, 2010). Structure Plan – Concept Plan (H,M,L)

2. Evaluation of scenarios: – Economic analysis (development yields/ﬂ oor space required to achieve PAC status). – Environmental analysis (resource consumption Preferred scenarios : Concept Plan High modelling).

3. Identifi cation of preferred scenario: Concept Plan High. 4. Re fi nement of preferred scenario in accordance with Refi nement of preferred scenario following built form principles: – Locate highest density in core (large land parcels, minimal interface issues, close to public transport). – Creation of rational building envelopes (to Final Heights & Setbacks maximise solar access, create quality internal layouts, accommodate realistic car parking confi gurations, create appropriate separation between buildings, create a viable movement Figure 2: Built Form Methodology network). – Manage overshadowing of key public spaces. – Create a defi ned streetscape character.

5. Determine ﬁ nal heights and setbacks for the Coburg Principal Activity Centre.

Note: The built form requirements of the former Pentridge Prison precincts was previously deﬁ ned by a Comprehensive Development Zone – Schedule 1 (CDZ1). A neutral translation of CDZ1 has occurred to the Coburg ACZ.

9 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

2.2. Development Scenarios

Three concept plan scenarios were prepared as part of The Coburg Initiative (TCI) master planning process. These concept plans are based on various density scenarios and are labelled Concept Plan Low, Concept Plan Medium and Concept Plan High. The three concept plan scenarios along with the CC2020 Structure Plan were evaluated to choose a preferred development density for the Coburg PAC.

For further information on the development scenarios, refer to the Economic Development Strategy (section 2.3.2 Gap Analysis, pgs 26-34) and Appendix 1 and 2 of the Public Realm and Infrastructure Strategy in the Colours of Coburg Place Framework (2010).

The main factors in the decision making process were the amount of development needed in central Coburg for it to function efﬁ ciently as a Principal Activity Centre and the resource consumption of the various development scenarios. A summary of this evaluation is outlined in Section 2.3 below.

2.3. Evaluation of Scenarios

The three concept plan scenarios were analysed based on economic and environmental outcomes.

Economic Analysis

The Economic Development Strategy (part of the Colours of Coburg Place Framework and Strategies) was prepared to test whether the economic imperatives sought for Coburg could be delivered by the Central Coburg 2020 Structure Plan (the Structure Plan).

A key question from the outset was whether the Structure Plan could deliver a centre that would fulﬁ l its role as a Principal Activity Centre - a role which is strongly aligned with the Structure Plan’s vision that it be the primary place of employment, shopping, living and activity in Moreland.

The original Structure Plan building heights were based on the residential, retail and ofﬁ ce demands identiﬁ ed in the Central Coburg Development Options Appraisal, SGS Economics (2005) and the capacity within central Coburg to accommodate these uses based on available land and infrastructure.

The Economic Development Strategy highlighted that to achieve a Principal Activity Centre offer, central Coburg has to provide 4 key things: • A mix of activities that generate high numbers of trips, including business, retail, services and entertainment; • Be generally well served by multiple public transport routes and on the Principal Public Transport Network or capable of being linked to that network; • A very large catchment covering several suburbs, and attracting activities that meet regional needs; and • The potential to grow and support intensive housing developments without conﬂ icting with surrounding land uses. (source: Melbourne 2030, October 2002)

10 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

The Economic Development Strategy identifi es that because the centre poorly performs in the fi rst element, it is unable to achieve element three. Consequently the housing, retail, commercial and service targets established under the Central Coburg 2020 Structure Plan fall signifi cantly short from those that are necessary for the centre to become a Principal Activity Centre or perform meaningfully within the Moreland economy.

Through analysing and benchmarking central Coburg against two highly successful Principal Activity Centres as part of the Economic Development Strategy – Box Hill and Subiaco, it has been possible to identify both the quantum of change (total jobs and investment required) and the diversity of uses that could be appropriately located in Coburg to achieve the expectations of a Principal Activity Centre. This has resulted in a need for taller buildings than that identiﬁ ed by the Structure Plan to ensure the area can accommodate the development densities required to adequately provide for the quantum of change and diversity of uses identiﬁ ed as necessary for a Principal Activity Centre. The economic analysis concluded that the Concept Plan High scenario was the preferred scenario to achieve the benchmarks of a Principal Activity Centre for Coburg.

For more information on this analysis, refer to the Economic Development Strategy in the Colours of Coburg Place Framework (2010).

Environmental Analysis

Integrated Resource Modelling (IRM) is a tool that provides performance indicators linking design objectives to sustainability objectives in a common data model. This in turn integrates resource fl ow parameters with different technical disciplines. It can be applied to the design and development of a plan whether for a region, city or locality to rapidly test different development scenarios and options. IRM uses performance outputs to inform the design process in order to optimise and mitigate the design (design continuous improvement though an iterative process of defi ne, evaluate, refi ne and optimise).

Within the Public Realm and Infrastructure Strategy (part of the Colours of Coburg Place Framework) the IRM tool has been used to assist in the determining the preferred development density scenario. Aligning the systems of water, energy, waste, transport and carbon, the resource implications of a number of land use scenarios can be explored and the impact of various infrastructure projects on the supply and demand outputs of each resource can be understood at a high level.

The key fi ndings of the IRM model for Coburg include: • Concept Plan High scenario is the most effi cient resource consumer and generator of the options evaluated and is approximately 20-30% more effi cient than the Structure Plan. • Without the introduction of any of the proposed infrastructure projects (business as usual) the total resources consumed and generated increase by approximately 40-60%. • Introducing a number of the infrastructure projects to the Concept Plan High scenario reduced the total consumption and generation of water and electricity to a lower quantity than that projected under the Structure Plan Scenario.

These results are illustrated in Figure 3.

11 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

ENERGY 60000

6.00 50000 5.50 STRUCTURE PLAN 5.00

4.50 40000 4.00

3.50 30000 3.00 Natural Gas

2.50 tCO2e/year Electricity

2.00 20000 al Built Form Ɵ MW/Capita/year 1.50

1.00 Residen 10000 0.50

0.00 TARGET Behavioural Change 0 -0.50

Commercial Building Standards Building Commercial Structure Plan Concept Plan 3 Concept Plan 3 (High) (High) - MiƟgated

WATER

2,500,000 250.00

2,000,000 200.00 Structure Plan

1,500,000 150.00 Harvested Water (non- potable uses)

l/day Non-Potable Water Uses 100.00 1,000,000 l/Capita/day Potable Water Uses

500,000

50.00 ng Ɵ Low Flow Fixtures Flow Low

0.00 0 Structure Plan Concept Plan Concept Plan 3 (High) 3 (High) -

Rainwater Harves Rainwater MiƟgated

WASTE 45,000

40,000 4.50

35,000 4.00 STRUCTURE PLAN

3.50 30,000

3.00 25,000 Waste tp Energy Waste EducaƟon ComposƟng

2.50 kg/day Program 20,000 Recycling 2.00 LandĮll 15,000 kg/Capita/day 1.50 10,000 1.00

5,000 0.50

0.00 0 Structure Plan D - Concept 3 MiƟgated [HIGH]

Figure 3: IRM Analysis for Energy, Water and Waste

For more information and detail on the IRM model outputs, refer to the Public Realm and Infrastructure Strategy (Section 6 - Density and the IRM Modelling Results, pg 11 and Appendix 3) in the Colours of Coburg Place Framework (2010).

12 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

2.4. Preferred Scenario

Based on the output of the IRM model and the analysis included in the Economic Development Strategy, Concept Plan High scenario was selected as the preferred development scenario for Coburg. The Concept Plan High scenario was selected on the criteria of: • Increasing land use density in a location that is well served by public transport. • Stimulating economic growth that will, in turn, support diverse social and cultural beneﬁ ts for the community. • Reducing the overall environmental impact of the TCI area and the projected increase in population.

2.5. Refi nement of Preferred Scenario

The Concept Plan High scenario was further reﬁ ned by applying a range of built form principles to achieve a good urban design outcome. This process provided conﬁ rmation of building heights and setbacks that were then included in the Land Use and Built Form Strategy (part of the Colours of Coburg Place Framework).

Figure 4: TCI Preferred Scenario - Concept Plan High

13 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

The building heights and setbacks were refi ned on the basis of the following built form principles: • Locate highest density mixed use development in the core (large land parcels, minimal interface issues and land close to all public transport options). • Creation of rational building envelopes (to maximise solar access, create quality internal layouts, provide for adequate car parking confi guration, create reasonable separation between buildings, create a viable movement network with new links and improved circulation). • Manage overshadowing of key public spaces. • Create a defi ned streetscape character.

Building Heights and Setbacks

The building heights and setbacks for Coburg are best illustrated by the Coburg Built Form 3D computer model diagrams at Part B of this report. Building height is provided in metres and storeys with 3.6m considered to be an average fl oor to ceiling height allowing a fl exibility of uses within the building (inclusive of ceiling/fl oor cavities). Maximum building heights are identifi ed in Figure 5.

The building height in the core of the centre is generally 10 storeys with a 6–8 storeys height limit for properties adjacent to the core.

The TCI boundary has a residential interface along Hudson Street, Rodda Street, Ross Street and along residential properties located north of Bell Street. The interface with these adjacent low scale residential areas has been resolved by nominating 2-4 storey building heights. The Structure Plan (CC2020) deﬁ ned spines along Sydney Road to the north and south, beyond the TCI area, nominate the same 2-4 storey transitional scale where there is a residential interface to the rear.

As discussed earlier, the building heights were established to accommodate the development yields necessary to provide for the quantum of change and diversity of uses required to realise the Principal Activity Centre status of Coburg.

The maximum heights are generally about 4 storeys greater (at the highest points) than what was originally identifi ed by the Structure Plan. The heights on the edge of the centre are generally consistent with the Structure Plan. The Structure Plan also identifi ed locations for taller buildings on gateway sites. This approach has not been brought forward by the Colours of Coburg Place Framework, given that buildings are signifi cantly taller overall. In summary, amongst other things, the built form objectives trying to be achieved for the Coburg PAC include: • To encourage high quality innovative contemporary architecture. • To establish an overall built form pattern of tallest buildings in proximity to Coburg Train Station and fronting Bell Street, transitioning down to more modest scale buildings at the fringes of the centre, ensuring a transition in scale of 1-2 storeys to the suburban hinterland. • To develop the core of the Centre as the focus for retail, offi ce, civic and entertainment uses, with restricted retail and neighbourhood scale retail uses on the periphery.

14 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

LEGEND Activity Centre Boundary Precinct Boundaries k ree LkeLakekke i C Land Not Subject to ACZ rr e Railway Line & Station M 36 metres 28.8 metres y R 21.6 metres MurrayMMu ray RdRd 18 metres

14.4 metres Sydney Rd

11 metres ey

RRd Height preference based on d use, heritage, and landscape character Heights as per Pentridge Piazza Masterplan Heights as per Pentridge Village Masterplan Interface with existing low scale residential areas should be 2-4 storeys

BellB lll StS Bell St

CCooburgobb Statiotatiion od

Ro R

VictoriaViV t i SStt t

Barrow StBarrow B

n n

led St led

o on

fil

d ds

Hudso Hu H H H

Waterfiled St Waterfiled Waterfi

MunroroooS StSt HardingH di g StS

o or

WalshWWa sh StSt

pfield Railway Corridor Railway pfield Upfield Railway Co Railway Upfield ReynardReReyynarrdd Stt

RennieR i StS

N Moreorelandellaannndd SStation

0 100101000 200 300303000 40040400 M

Moreland RdRd

Figure 5: Maximum Building Heights

15 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

• To improve the existing Sydney Road streetscape and create a new vibrant character for the Centre with well proportioned and active building edges throughout. • To provide a pedestrian oriented environment with improved links and an attractive and safe system of streets, laneways and other public spaces. • To ensure the height and setback of built form maximises solar access to public spaces and key pedestrian links, relative to the role and function of the space. • To ensure a high quality internal amenity of buildings, with particular emphasis on daylight access and natural ventilation. • To provide a range of transport options to access and travel around the Centre.

Overshadowing

A set of overshadowing criteria were developed for the key public open spaces within the activity centre as indicated in Table 1. These criteria have been designed to maximise solar access to key public spaces, even with an increased development density. The building heights and setbacks were then modiﬁ ed to meet the overshadowing criteria and allow adequate solar access in the public spaces.

Table 1 outlines the overshadowing criteria for all the key public spaces. After Council adopted the Colours of Coburg Place Framework in December 2011, further testing and reﬁ nement was carried out for the overshadowing criteria. This has resulted in some minor modiﬁ cation for the overshadowing criteria for Category 1 and Category 2 public spaces, which is also indicated in Table 1.

The Overshadowing of Public Space 3D diagrams at Appendix 1 of this report best illustrates how the overshadowing standards are met by the deﬁ ned heights and setbacks.

Central Coburg has a grid based street network with streets running north-south and east-west. The north-south streets generally have good solar access at midday whereas the east-west streets have good solar access early in the morning and late afternoon. Due to the ﬁ ne grain street network there is generally good solar access throughout the day. This is illustrated in the Overshadowing of Streets 3D diagrams at Appendix 2. Munro Street, Harding Street and Bell Street are the key east-west streets connecting to the centre. In testing the 3D model, there was an emphasis on building heights and setbacks to be designed so not to overshadow the southern footpath on Equinox.

On the whole, the Coburg Activity Centre 3D Building Envelope computer model as detailed in Part B of this report provides the opportunity for planning permit applications to be superimposed onto this system to determine compliance with built form requirements as translated into the ACZ for Coburg, as well as, appropriateness of development in the context of adjoining sites and anticipated building envelopes to inform discretion in the decision- making process where mandatory height and setback requirements are not otherwise speciﬁ ed.

16 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

Public Space Existing Criteria Proposed Criteria

Category – 1 No more than ½ the space is No more than ½ the space is Civic Square Market site shadow at any time between shadow at any time between 10:30am and 2:30pm (4hrs) on 10:30am and 2:00pm (3.5hrs) on Winter Solstice Winter Solstice

Category – 1A No more than 1/3 the space is No change. Bridges Reserve shadow at any time between 10:30am and 2:30pm (4hrs) on Winter Solstice

Category – 2 No overshadowing of the southern No overshadowing of the southern Victoria Street Mall footpath (within 3m of property footpath (within 2m of property boundary) between 11:00am and boundary) between 12:00am and 2:00pm (3hrs) on Winter Solstice 2:00pm (2hrs) on Winter Solstice

Category – 3 No more than 1/3 the space is No change. Civic Square Russell Street site shadow at any time between Civic Square Bob Hawke Centre site 10:30am and 2:30pm (4hrs) on Coburg Station Forecourt Equinox

Table 1: Existing and Proposed overshadowing criteria for public spaces

Podium heights

Generally 4 storeys is identiﬁ ed as an appropriate maximum podium height for the Coburg PAC for the following reasons: • up to 4 storeys maintains a visual connection with the street. • 4 storeys provides an appropriate scale/proportion to the average street width.

In some locations the podium height drops down to 2 and 3 storeys, depending on the following speciﬁ c issues: • To integrate with existing low scale residential development on the fringes of the centre; • To achieve the overshadowing standards set for speciﬁ c public spaces; and • To conform to the existing character and scale of buildings fronting Sydney Rd

Where podiums have not been prescribed, it is for the following reasons: • To ensure viable building footprints suitable to the desired uses (e.g. ofﬁ ce and restricted retail). • Due to the wider nature of adjacent main roads and therefore an increased capacity to accommodate tall buildings with no podiums.

17 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

• To create a ‘gateway corridor’ at major intersections, marking the ‘passing through’ of a Principal Activity Centre.

Setbacks from podium level have been established, based on the following criteria: • To maintain the existing character and scale of buildings fronting Sydney Rd; • To achieve the overshadowing standards set for speciﬁ c public spaces; • To allow for reasonable development opportunities and support the desired ﬂ oorspace targets established by the Economic Development Strategy to achieve Principal Activity Centre status; and • To achieve appropriate separation between buildings.

Heritage

A number of Heritage Overlays exist in the Coburg PAC. These places have been identiﬁ ed at Figure 5 and on mapping in the ACZ so there is a clear understanding of their existence. This report and in particular, the 3D building envelope diagrams at Part B, are not intended to supersede the individual assessment of planning permit applications where the land is affected by a Heritage Overlay.

The 3D diagrams have been prepared on the basis of providing preferred building envelopes for a precinct, sub- precinct or streetscape. Assessment into the signiﬁ cance of heritage places or their surrounds has not been undertaken or factored into the preparation of 3D diagram. It is not intended that the diagrams be used as a default to the type of development that should automatically occur on land affected by the Heritage Overlay.

Moreland City Council values its cultural heritage as expressed through its Municipal Strategic Statement, identifying the importance of heritage with regard to its aesthetic, environmental, economic and social values for the community through its. Further, the Moreland Planning Scheme has a local planning policy at Clause 22.13 which assists in the protection, conservation and enhancement of all heritage places. It is considered that this and other relevant heritage policies must continue to be used in the assessment of planning permit applications in order to ﬁ nd a balance between preferred development outcomes as encouraged by the Coburg ACZ whilst ensuring the value of a heritage place is protected.

18 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

3. MANDATORY PLANNING CONTROL RATIONALE

Reasons for the various analysis undertaken in the preparation of the Colours of Coburg Place Framework and Strategies, and Central Coburg 2020 Structure Plan (as detailed above) is to provide clarity and certainty to the community, developers and Council in consideration of planning permit applications and subsequent development within the Coburg Principal Activity Centre. However, for certainty around built form outcomes to be properly communicated and utilised in the planning system, mandatory height controls are utilised to underpin the Activity Centre Zone for Coburg.

The use of mandatory height controls brings with it emotive differences in professional opinion on whether it is a valid planning tool in Victoria, with the underlying debate being prescription vs. discretion. The argument against mandatory height controls is generally summarised as one that it stiﬂ es development and eradicates the potential for creative design outcomes.

Various Planning Panels have tested this theory and determined that, although not in every instance, where it can be demonstrated appropriate background analysis has been undertaken to warrant the need for specifi c urban design and/or amenity outcomes, mandatory height controls are a justifi able approach to ensure appropriate development. In many instances, the background analysis and subsequent mandatory controls provide for development scenarios far greater in scale or fl exibility than what may have been contemplated by a developer if the strategic work and associated controls didn’t otherwise exist. Subsequently, creativity is addressed in the design response specifi c to the height and setback parameters afforded to the site or broader area.

The extensive strategic background work which supports the Coburg Activity Centre Zone, notably the Colours of Coburg and CC2020, serve to legitimise the use of mandatory height controls. Principles for their appropriate use are best demonstrated in the following Planning Panel Victoria discussions.

In Bayside City Council Amendment C46 panel report, the Panel considered Council’s approach for mandatory height controls as an acceptable principle to inform planning controls noting:

The advantage of mandatory controls is the certainty they provide to all parties: the intending developer, the adjoining property owners, the community and council. These are not inconsiderable advantages. Mandatory controls are therefore worth pursuing, provided planning has been undertaken in sufﬁ cient detail to take account of all the strategic objectives at both the local and metropolitan levels and develop an urban form that most satisfactorily meets these objectives.

The Panel believes a central part of the structure planning process for activity centres is to demonstrate in physical form how potentially confl icting objectives should be resolved. This is where the objectives of urban consolidation and particularly the need to focus development in and around activity centres will be considered in the local context and an urban form developed to provide the best fi t. If this has been at a level of detail that can justifi ably specify building heights and setbacks, then mandatory controls would be appropriate. (p.32)

The comments of the Bayside C46 panel are not isolated. Justiﬁ cation for mandatory height controls in the Panel’s consideration of Melbourne City Council Amendment C20:

… In the Panel’s view, a mandatory control will be appropriate where it can be established that, in the vast majority of cases, an application not in accordance with the building requirements would be contrary to the design objectives set out in the schedule….

19 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

The Panel considers that a mandatory control is appropriate in circumstances where: • A strategic assessment or study has identiﬁ ed that in the vast majority of cases buildings not in accordance with the building height or other requirements would detract from the essential character of the area or other built form outcome the design objectives are seeking to achieve; and • In the vast majority of cases such buildings would not be supported by Council after application of its design objectives and any relevant guidelines.

In such circumstances the Panel considers that to allow discretion for all applications, merely to accommodate the opportunity of granting a permit in ‘exceptional’ circumstances, serves no useful purpose, particularly where the demand for development exceeding the building requirements is great. In this situation, if there really is an exceptional circumstance that would justify a departure from the speciﬁ ed building requirement, it is appropriate that it be considered by means of a site speciﬁ c amendment. (p.30-31)

The principle of when it may be appropriate to apply mandatory controls was also considered by the Manningham City Council Amendment C33 Panel with reference to the Doncaster Hill Strategy:

It was suggested by some submitters that the mandatory nature of the controls (especially height) was unduly restrictive, and that individual proposals which are otherwise consistent with the Doncaster Hill Strategy should be judged on their merits.

It is recognised that the Victorian Planning Provisions were designed as a broadly performance-based planning system with a minimum of mandatory controls. However, it is also a strategically-based system in which the controls must be justiﬁ ed by a sound and clearly expressed planning strategy. Within this system, it is reasonable to suggest that the sounder the strategy, the greater the justiﬁ cation for mandatory controls.

In this case, the controls are based not just on a comprehensive planning strategy, but also on a detailed analysis of alternative urban forms. The analysis examined both visual and amenity impacts, leading to development of building envelopes designed to maximise achievement of the strategy’s objectives. The Panel considers that the thoroughness of the strategic and analytical work in this case justiﬁ es the use of mandatory controls for the key elements of building height, interface with the boulevards and the height of design elements. This question of mandatory controls was also addressed by the Panel assessing Amendment C20 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme. That Panel reached a similar conclusion in its report. … At Doncaster Hill, the controls that may be varied by permit include front setbacks for properties not abutting the boulevards, and side and rear setbacks. Side and rear setbacks are generally speciﬁ ed between 4m and 5m. However, Council agreed that on smaller sites these setbacks may be neither practicable nor economically feasible, and that applications on such sites would take these constraints into account when discretion to vary the setbacks by permit is exercised.

The Panel’s overall conclusion is that the mandatory and discretionary aspects of controls in DDO6 are appropriate. (p.65-66)

It should be noted that Manningham’s Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 6 (DDO6) mentioned above was translated into the ﬁ rst Activity Centre Zone to be introduced into the Victoria Planning Provisions on 17 September 2009 (Amendment VC59). The Doncaster Hill ACZ was largely a neutral translation of DDO6, and included the same mandatory controls as DDO6 under the Manningham Planning Scheme.

These Planning Panel examples were reiterated in advice received from Maddocks Lawyers on 25 October 2011 in response to Council ofﬁ cer queries as to whether mandatory height controls would be appropriate for the Coburg

20 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

Principal Activity Centre Zone. The legal advice was quite clear that there are a range of panel reports and ﬁ ndings on the issue and in the scenarios most analogous to the Coburg Activity Centre, (namely Doncaster Hill) it was not apparent that exceptional circumstances were shown to exist. Rather, the analysis which underpinned the amendment was rigorous and that of itself justiﬁ ed the application of mandatory controls.

According to Practice Note No. 60 - Height and setback controls for activity centres (April 2010), while the preference is not to use mandatory controls, where they are to be used, rigorous strategic justiﬁ cation has to be provided. The Practice Note advises that the level of strategic work required is: • A Housing Strategy which examines the city’s future housing needs and the role of activity centres (including Neighbourhood Activity Centres) in accommodating these needs. • An activity centre/economic strategy which examines the role of the centre as part of a network of centres an analysis of the capacity and constraints of each centre where planning controls are proposed. • An analysis of the capacity and constraints of each centre where planning controls are proposed. • A comprehensive built form analysis of each centre where planning controls are proposed • Identiﬁ cation and analysis of key sites within each centre which can accommodate more intense development when compared with the remainder of the centre.

These guidelines are notable in terms of the extensive work carried out by Moreland City Council in the preparation of the strategies and structure plans underpinning the amendment. With reference to the Coburg PAC, Council’s legal advice from Maddocks concluded that given the level of analysis and built form rationale prepared for the Centre, there is a convincing argument to support mandatory height controls for the Coburg ACZ.

Having regard to the type of considerations referred to in the cited panel reports, the following observations are made concerning Coburg PAC which arguably justify the use of mandatory controls: • It is an area in which Council has championed on the basis of a ﬁ rm vision for the area. • It is an area that will continue to experience signiﬁ cant developmental pressures; • It is an area in respect of which there has been considerable investigation through the various studies and reports referred to in your Built Form Rationale document; • It is an area that is partly affected by heritage controls.

. . . In my view, properly argued, there are compelling reasons to suggest that a higher level of prescription to what is commonly found in planning schemes is appropriate provided the appropriate strategic background work and analysis is carried out.

It should be noted that underdevelopment creates similar risks of compromising the planned vision for a particular area by potentially establishing inadequate building scales and associated yields, existing for long periods of time on sites which could otherwise be used to further the objectives of the centre. This is particularly important for Principal Activity Centres such as Coburg whereby there is an optimistic challenge to stimulate growth and substantially improve future economic, social and environmental experiences into the future. Hence, it is expected that any signiﬁ cant variation to the mandatory heights prescribed in the Coburg ACZ, i.e. maximum building height that is 3 storeys or less than prescribed, should be accompanied by information demonstrating how this variation may still achieve the objectives of the zone, and/or how future intensiﬁ cation measures can be included into the development to achieve these objectives, e.g. additional storeys.

21 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

4. CONCLUSION

The rigorous analysis undertaken though the preparation of the Colours of Coburg Place Framework and Strategies, complimented by the previous work under the Central Coburg 2020 Structure Plan, established a built form rationale which has led to the identifi cation of defi nitive building envelopes for the Coburg PAC. Through analysis and benchmarking, a “High” development scenario has been chosen as the most suitable approach for the redevelopment of the Coburg PAC. Through the development of TCI, a number of key targets have been established for the Centre, which directly relate back to the need for preferred building envelopes, and specifi cally mandatory height controls. These targets include: • 9,805 new jobs; • 275,639sqm increased retail and offi ce fl oor area; • 81,197sqm health, education and government fl oor area; • 5,800 new dwellings; and • Enhanced local facilities and services including City Oval, Coburg Leisure and Aquatic Centre, Coburg Library and Coburg Town Hall and Civic Centre.

These ambitions are intrinsically linked to the built form rationale for the Coburg PAC. Overdevelopment or underdevelopment will effectively compromise the targets and ambitions established by the extensive analysis and testing that has been undertaken for the Centre to date. This report compliments the need to be as clear as possible to all stakeholders that the consistency of future development proposals with the prescribed building envelopes is paramount to the successful regeneration of central Coburg, and the economic and social ﬂ ow on effects to Moreland as a whole.

22 PART B BUILDING ENVELOPES

COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

1. BUILDING ENVELOPES

The building envelopes section is a 3-dimensional representation of the built form controls deﬁ ned in the Coburg Activity Centre Zone. These diagrams are to be used as supplementary information to the zone.

Figure 6 provides an overall map of precincts within the Coburg Principal Activity Centre, followed by a map for each precinct and associated 3D built form envelopes.

k ree Lake ri C Batman r Reserve Me Station

Gaffney St Sydney Rd Murray Rd

8 Champ St 9

O’Hea St

10 3

2 5

Bell St Bell St 4

Coburg Station Rodda St Rodda Victoria St

1 StBarrow

4 4 Hudson St Hudson

Russel St Russel 4 Waterfiled St Waterfiled Munro St Harding St

Sydney Rd Walsh St

6 Upfield Railway Corridor Railway Upfield Reynard St

Rennie St

Moreland Station N

0 100200 300 400 M Moreland Rd

Figure 6: Precinct Map

25 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

1.1. Precinct 1 - Coburg Station and Sydney Road

2.12.1 22.2.222.32.3 2.4242.4 Bell St Bell StreetStreet 4.14.1 1.14 1.15 1.26 1.1 1.13 4.242

Waterfiled Street Waterfiled 1.12 1.16 1.25 4 NOTE 1* 1.17 4.34.3 1.2 1.11 1.24 1.18 Victoria Street 1.3

1.10 1.19 1.23 4

Hudson Street Street Hudson Hudson

1.4 Road Sydney Russell Street Russell

4.444

Upfield Railway Corridor Railway Upfield 1.5 1.9 1.20 1.22 4 Louisa Street Louisa

Munro Street 1.21

1.6 1.7 1.8

Walker St Walker

Loch St Loch Loch St Loch Railway Pl Railway

NOTE 1* : Indicative location for Civic Square Market Site, minimum area: 1450 m2

26 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

SSYDNEY RD Y D N E Y R D

S T L L 28.8m BBELLE ST

14.4m

1.1

WWATE A T E R FIELDF I E L D

S T 21.6m

14.4m 10.8m 7.2m

T S

A I R O T C I VVICTORIA ST

1.2

27 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

WWATERFIELD ST A T E R F I E L D S T

21.6m

T S 14.4m I A R O T ICTORIAI C ST V

1.3

LLOU O U ISAI ST T S A 21.6m S S T A R I T O C 14.4m VVICTORIAI ST

1.4

28 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

LLO S T O I A U O R I S I C T A ST VVICTORIA ST S T

28.8m

14.4m

T S O R N U MMUNRO ST 1.5

S T LLOCHO C H ST

18m

L Y P LWA RRAILWAYAI PL 10.8m

MMUNRO ST 7.2m U N R O

S T

1.6

29 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

P L AY I LW RRAILWAYA PL

18m

10.8m

MMUNRO ST U 7.2m N R O S T

ST R KE AL WWALKER ST 1.7

T S D L I E F R E T A WWATERFIELD ST

R O

S T

18m

10.8m

7.2m D R Y E N D Y 1.8 SSYDNEY RD

30 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

SSYDNEY RD Y D N E Y

R D

28.8m

LLOUISA ST O

U 14.4m I S A

T S S T O R N U 1.9 MMUNRO ST

T S A R I T O C VVICTORIAI ST

SSYDNEY RD Y D N E Y

R D

28.8m

LLOUISA ST O

I S 14.4m A

S T

1.10

31 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

SSYDNEY RD Y D N E Y R D 21.6m

14.4m

10.8m WWATERFIELD ST A T E 7.2m R F I T E S L D A

S I T R O T C I 1.11 VVICTORIA ST

SSYDNEYY RD D N E Y R D

T S L L BBELLE ST 21.6m

28.8m 10.8m

WWATERFIELD ST A T E R F I E L D S T 1.12

32 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

SSYDNEYY RD D N E Y R D

T S L L 21.6m BBELLE ST

10.8m

28.8m

14.4m WWATERFIELD ST A T E R F I E L D S T 1.13

SSYDNEY RD Y D N E Y

R D

T S 28.8m L L BBELLE ST

WWATERFIELD ST 14.4m A T E R F I E L D

S T 1.14

33 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

28.8m

T L S BBELLE L ST

21.6m SSYDNEY RD

D 10.8m

1.15

S T A R I O C T 21.6m VVICTORIAI ST

10.8m

SSYDNEY RD

D 1.16

34 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

SY D N E Y R R D 21.6m

10.8m

T S IA R O T IC VVICTORIA ST 1.17

DNED N E Y R R D

10.8m

7.2m

T S IA R O T IC VVICTORIA ST 1.18

35 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

S T

I A R O VICT

21.6m

10.8m

1.19

SYDNEYS RD

D 21.6m

10.8m

T S

O R N U 1.20 MMUNRO ST

36 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

18m

10.8m

HHARDING ST A R D I D R N G Y E S N T D Y 1.21 SSYDNEY RD

21.6m

SSYDNEY RD

D 10.8m

Y T S G R IN D D R A 1.22 HHARDING ST

37 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

S T A R IAI ST O C T V I

21.6m

SSYDNEY RD

Y D 10.8m N

1.23

21.6m

10.8m

SSYDNEY RD

D T N S E I A Y R

O R T I C D VVICTORIA ST 1.24

38 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

S Y DNEYD R N E Y

R D 21.6m

RRUSSELL ST 10.8m

S S E L L

S T

1.25

T S L L E BBELL ST

21.6m

SSYDNEY RD Y D 10.8m N

E Y

R D

1.26

39 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

1.2. Precinct 2 - Bell Street North

Cha Cham

O’Hea Street

2.7

Ross Street Ross Ross Street Ross

Wilson Street

2.6

Sydney Road Sydney

Upfield Railway Corridor Corridor Corridor Railway Railway Railway Upfield Upfield Upfield

Ross Street Ross RossRoss Street Street

Ross Stree Ross 2.5

Lobb Street Lobb Lobb Street Lobb

McKay Street McKay McKay Street McKay

Main Street Main Main Street Main

2.8 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

Bell Street

40 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

21.6m S T Y K A MMcKAYc ST 14.4m

S T R U O M I L GGILMOUR ST BBELL ST EL L S T

T S

N I A 2.1 MMAIN ST

BBELL ST E L L

S T

T S BB LLOBBO ST

21.6m

14.4m

T S T S R Y U A K O c MMcKAY ST M L 2.2 I GGILMOUR ST

41 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

BBELL ST E L L S T 21.6m

14.4m

T T S S

S B S B O RROSS ST O 2.3 LLOBB ST

D R Y E N D Y SSYDNEY RD 21.6m BBELL ST E L L S T 14.4m

T S

7.2m S S O 2.4 RROSS ST

42 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

SSYDNEY RD Y D N E Y

R D

21.6m

14.4m

7.2m

RROSS ST O S S

S T

2.5

21.6m

14.4m

7.2m

T S

T RROSS ST O R S A S H S T U Q R 2.6 UURQUHART ST

43 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

STS T

RROSS ST O 14.4m S S 10.8m N S 7.2m O S T L I 2.7 WWILSON

14.4m ST N AI MMAIN BBELL ST E L L S T

T S

7.2m S E C I V R E 2.8 SSERVICES ST

44 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

1.3. Precinct 3 - Church, Community and Education

m m

Cha Cham

eeetet

Pentridge Blvd

Ross Street Street Ross Ross

Sydney Road Sydney

t t r

reet Urquhart St

Street

Str

o oss o

R Ro

Elm Grove

Bell St

Built form for Precinct 3 to be derived from proposed use, existing heritage and landscaping character for the precinct.

45 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

1.4. Precinct 4 - Hudson Street, Russell Street and Environs

8 22.1.1 Bell St

4.1 .2626

4.2 4.11 Rodda St Rodda 1.25125 4.5

4.3 11.24.24.24

e e

1.23123 S 4.6

Hudson Street Street Hudson Hudson

Russell Street Street Russell Russell RRR ell Street ll Street

w wayw w Corridor

ilw

R R

4.4 4.10 UfildR U fi ld R ilway Corridor 11.22122.22 4.7 4.8 4.9

11.21.21 Hardingr Streettreet

h St h h

46 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

21.6m

T 7.2 m S L L E BBELL HHUDSONST ST U D S O N S 4.1 T

T L S BBELLE L ST

HHUDSON ST

U 14.4m D

O 7.2m

4.2

47 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

14.4m

7.2m HHUDSON ST U T D S

S A O I N R O S T T C I VVICTORIA ST 4.3

HHUDSON ST U D 14.4m S O 7.2m N

S T

4.4

48 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

T L S BBELLE L ST

28.8m

RRUSSELL ST U 10.8m S S E L L

S T 4.5

T S A R I 28.8m VICTO

RRUSSELL ST 10.8m U S S E L L

S T 4.6

49 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

36m

21.6m

RRUSSELL ST U 10.8m S S T E S

L L G N S I T D R 4.7 A HHARDING ST

21.6m

10.8m

T S

G N I D R A HHARDING ST 4.8

50 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

18m

10.8m

T S

G N I D R A 4.9 HHARDING ST

A D D O RRODDAT SST

10.8m

HHARDING ST 7.2m A R D IN G S 4.10 T

51 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

28.8m

14.4m T S

7.2m A D D O RRODDA ST

4.11

52 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

1.5. Precinct 5 - Civic and Community

rt St Urquhart Street

5.1 Drummond Street Elm Grove 5.3 5.2

l St Bell Street

53 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

PPENTRIDGEE N T R I D G E

36m

R T H A Q U UURQUHARTR

14.4m

5.1

S T 21.6m R T U H A UURQUHARTR Q 14.4m

T S L L E BBELL ST 5.2

54 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

PENTRID

36m

S T T

URQUHAR 14.4m

T S L L E BBELL ST

5.3

55 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

1.6. Precinct 6- Sydney Road Southern Commercial Gateway

Munro Street HardingSt 6.1

SheffieldSheffield StreetStreet Baxter Street

HHattonatton GGroverove

6.3 6.2 Walsh StreetStreet

Sargood Street

Sydney Rd

Edward St Reynard Street

Woolacott SStreettreet

RennieRennie StreetStreet

56 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

min. 15m min. 2.5m min. 9m min. 6m

min. 2.5m

podium max. 7.5m high min. 2m T

overall max. G ST neighbour boundary 14.5m high N Indication of laneway which occurs podium max. I next to some rear properties. In 11m high all cases setbacks are from the D

neighbour boundary at rear. R

AARDI

6.1 H

min. 18m min. 2.5m min. 9m

min. 6m min. 7m

min. 2.5m

podium max. 7.5m high

RRD overall max. neighbour boundary 18m high Y

Indication of laneway which occurs EEY next to some rear properties. In podium max. all cases setbacks are from the 11m high N

neighbour boundary at rear. D

YYDN 6.2 S

57 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

min. 18m min. 2.5m min. 9m

min. 6m

min. 7m min. 2.5m

podium max. neighbour7.5m boundary high

SYS Y Indication of laneway which occurs DDNEYoverall RD max. next to some rear properties. In N 18m high all cases setbacks are from the neighbour boundary at rear. E Y podium max. 11m high R D 6.3

58 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

1.7. Precinct 7 - Sydney Road – Moreland Road

RennieRennie StreetStreet

Norman StreetStreet

The GGroverove

CCarronarron StreetStreet

ThThee AvenueAvenue ThThee AvenueAvenue

7.2 7.1

Sydney Rd t tree S

y CCampbellampbell StreeStreett Wolseley Street Wolseley Wolsele

MMooreoore StreetStreet

Blair StreetStreet

Allen StreetStreet

MoMorelandreland RoadRoad

59 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

min. min. 18m 2.5m min. 9m

min. 6m

min. 2.5m podium max. 7.5m high neighbour boundary

min. 7m

SYDS Y Indication of laneway which occurs D overall max. next to some rear properties. In all cases setbacks are from the NNEY 18m high neighbour boundary at rear. E Y R podium max. R 11m high D 7.1

min. 18m min. 2.5m min. 9m min. 6m min. 2.5m

min. 7m podium max. 7.5m high

overall max. R

neighbour boundary 18m high Y RD

podium max. E Indication of laneway which occurs 11m high next to some rear properties. In N

all cases setbacks are from the D neighbour boundary at rear. YDNEY 7.2 S

60 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

1.8. Precinct 8 - Sydney Road Northern Commercial Gateway

8.3

Gaffney St

8.2 Dean St

Sydney Rd

Ross St8.1

Rogers St

8.4 Champ Street Champ

O’Hea Street PentridgePentridge BlvdBlvd

61 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

min. 8m

min. 5m min. 5m

boundary

podium max. overall max. 7.5m high 11m high

T 8.1

min. 13m min. 2.5m min. 8m min. 2m min. 5m min. 2.5m

D boundary RRD

overall max. Y podium max. 14.5 m high 11m high E

NNE

YYD 8.2A S

62 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

min. 14m

min. 9m min. 2.5m min. 6m min. 2m

min. 2.5m

podium max. 7.5m high

overall max. R 14.5 m high neighbour boundaryboundary podium max. Y 11m high EEY

YDY 8.2B S

min. 13m min. 8m min. 2.5m min. 5m

min. 2m

min. 2.5m boundary

SYDNEYS R Y D overall max. N 14.5m high E podium max. Y 11m high

R D 8.3A

63 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

min. 14m min. 9m

min. 6m min. 2.5m

min. 2m podium max. neighbour7.5m boundary high min. 2.5m

boundary

SYS Y DDNEY R overall max. podium max. N 14.5m high 11m high E Y

R D 8.3B

min. 14m min. 9m min. 2.5m min. 6m min. 2m

min. 2.5m

podium max. 7.5m high

overall max. S neighbour boundary 14.5 m high boundary podium max. 11m high P

MPM

8.4 C

64 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

1.9. Precinct 9 - Pentridge Coburg

For the built form requirements of Precinct 9 refer to the Pentridge Coburg Design Guidelines and Masterplan (Aug 2009).

65 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

1.10. Precinct 10 - Pentridge Village

For the built form requirements of Precinct 10 refer to the Pentridge Village Design Guidelines and Masterplan (Aug 2009).

66 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

APPENDIX 1 – OVERSHADOWING OF PUBLIC SPACES

Category – 1 Civic Square Market site

No more than ½ the space is shadow at any time between 10:30am and 2:00pm (3.5hrs) on 21 June (Winter Solstice)

10:30 AM 11:30 AM

12:30 PM 1:30 PM

2:00 PM

67 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

Category – 1A Bridges Reserve

No more than 1/3 the space is shadow at any time between 10:30am and 2:30pm (4hrs) on 21 June Winter Solstice

10:30 AM 11:30 AM

12:30 PM 1:30 PM

2:30 PM

68 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

Category – 2 Victoria Street Mall

No overshadowing of the southern footpath (within 2m of property boundary) between 12:00pm and 2:00pm (2hrs) on 21 June (Winter Solstice)

12:00 PM 1:00 PM

2:00 PM

69 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

Category – 3 Civic Square Russell Street site

No more than 1/3 the space is shadow at any time between 10:30am and 2:30pm (4hrs) on 21 Sep (Equinox)

10:30 AM 11:30 AM

12:30 PM 1:30 PM

2:30 PM

70 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

Category – 3 Civic Square Bob Hawke Centre site

No more than 1/3 the space is shadow at any time between 10:30am and 2:30pm (4hrs) on 21 Sep (Equinox)

10:30 AM 11:30 AM

12:30 PM 1:30 PM

2:30 PM

71 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

Category – 3 Coburg Station Forecourt

No more than 1/3 the space is shadow at any time between 10:30am and 2:30pm (4hrs) on 21 Sep (Equinox)

10:30 AM 11:30 AM

12:30 PM 1:30 PM

2:30 PM

72 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

APPENDIX 2 – OVERSHADOWING OF STREETS AT EQUINOX

9:00 AM

10:00 AM

73 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

11:00 AM

12:00 PM

74 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

1:00 PM

2:00 PM

75 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

3:00 PM

4:00 PM

76 COBURG PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE - BUILT FORM RATIONALE & BUILDING ENVELOPES

REFERENCES

• The Colours of Coburg Place Framework and Strategies (December 2010) – Land Use and Built Form Strategy (2010) – Economic Development Strategy (2010) – Public Realm and Infrastructure Strategy (2010) – Delivering the Community’s Goals: An innovative Governance Model (2010)

• Pentridge Coburg Design Guidelines and Masterplan (August 2009) • Pentridge Village Design Guidelines and Masterplan (August 2009) • Central Coburg 2020 Structure Plan (August 2006)