Page 1
Robert McGauran B ARCH (HONS) LFRAIA BA (FINE ARTS) | Eli Giannini M ARCH LFRAIA | MK Soon B ARCH (HONS) FRAIA | Chris Jones B ARCH RAIA | Cameron Lacy B ARCH (HONS) | Joshua Wheeler B ARCH (HONS) BBSC
DIRECTORS
URBAN DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURAL STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C107
For
JD INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD | CENTURY LEGEND PTY LTD
November 2014 Prepared by Robert McGauran B. Arch. (Hons. Melb), B.A. (Fine Arts Melb.), P.D.M. (Melb.), LFRAIA, FVEPLA, Architect Our ref: 14127
McGauran Giannini Soon Pty Ltd
ABN 13 006 488 302
10-22 Manton Lane
Melbourne 3000 Australia
Telephone 61 3 9670 1800
Facsimile 61 3 9670 1808
Email: [email protected]
Architecture Planning Interior Design
Page 2
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
2
1. BACKGROUND
1.1. I have been asked to comment on the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment
C107 (the amendment) to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme with regard to the
appropriateness of the amendment in relation to its context and principles of good
urban design and architecture.
2. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT – THE CONTEXT
2.1. The St. Kilda Road and Queens Road/Kings Way corridor has, with the Southbank
area, been the subject of major change from the early 1990’s until the present,
becoming a mecca for entertainment along the Yarra River’s edge, commerce along
the Kings Way interface and apartment style living for much of the hinterland and
Queens Road and St Kilda Road interfaces.
2.2. The arts presence that had existed has been further expanded and consolidated
with the development of ACCA, MTC, ABC, the Australian Ballet School, the VCA
Secondary College (in Miles Street) and the Recital Hall along the Sturt Street spine.
2.3. The Princess Bridge and Queensbridge Street crossings have been complimented
by additional pedestrian bridges linking the city with Southbank. The St Kilda Road
and south river edge spines are now a focus of commuter and recreational cycling
access and activity.
2.4. A large residential community has been established with over 15,000 people now
calling either Southbank or South Wharf home, with a 35% growth in this precinct
population in the past 6 years. In Southbank alone this resident population is
anticipated to substantially increase to over 70,000 with an additional worker
population of 56,000.
2.5. Within the C107 area we have also seen major transformation occur but in this
instance the evolution has been one that has set the scene for Southbank as, unlike
the neighbouring precinct, it has long been seen as a place to live and work.
Page 3
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
3
2.6. Initially the St Kilda and Queens Road corridors were seen largely as a residential
address in the 19th century with the adjacent lower lying land reclaimed and
primarily dedicated to recreation and industrial purposes with the formalising of the
Albert Park Reserve providing an address with St Kilda Road for the new residential
neighbourhood.
2.7. To this context of major change of areas along Queens Road, St Kilda Road and the
upper end of Albert Road that have traditions of providing a sampler of the
commercial and higher density residential development trends able to be delivered
by the private sector at that time. Evolution has been progressive as can be seen
from the attached images with homes interspersed with hotels, office buildings and
apartments forming a new skyline and later higher levels of infill and transformation.
Image showing the former BP House under construction in a primarily low scale context
Page 4
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
4
1970’s image showing more development in the corridor with the former Prince Henry’s Hospital in
the foreground
2.8. Progressively the port and inner urban industrial activities that lined the river and the
western and part eastern side of Kings Way and hinterland off the St Kilda Road
Ridge have been replaced with higher density urban renewal including the extensive
Southbank renewal project, the hinterland higher density development, regional
freeway infrastructure, and centres of commerce and higher density housing.
These changes have made significant contributions to Melbourne’s transformation.
2.9. Many of the projects have been acknowledged with awards including in the last
decade Yve, Melburnian and Balencea Apartments and in earlier times, the Stanhill
and Newburn Flats by Frederick Romberg in the 1930’s and 1940’s. Many too, have
been seen to push the boundaries of acceptable scale and aesthetic convention but
ironically each sits comfortably in its constantly changing context. Page 90 and 91
of the Site Survey and Analysis report in the “Review of Design and Development
Overlay 3 and 4, 2013” (Planisphere Report) document the wide variance in both
setbacks and heights.
2.9.1. Generally speaking there is a greater coherence to setbacks within the St
Kilda Road frontage properties.
2.9.2. In Queens Road setbacks are typically 15 metres at the northern end of the
precinct with significant exceptions and variances [particularly south of Lorne
Street].
2.9.3. In Kings Way setbacks are typically zero.
Page 5
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
5
2.10 The breaches in heights of the current DDO control are even more striking.
2.10.1 In Albert Road South the vast majority of properties exceed the
DDO height. In the northwest precinct more than 50% of
development north of Park Street similarly exceeds the existing
DDO.
2.10.2 In Queens Road south of Albert Reserve more than half of the
frontage to the lake has been built at heights 10-60%+ the
preferred heights with more than 75% of the balance of the sites
identified as having medium or high redevelopment potential with
development to either side of St Kilda Road similarly
characterised by a substantial diversity of scale that simply
confirm what is obvious from a visual inspection of the precinct.
That is that built form is highly variable.
View from Lakeside Drive looking east showing the high degree of variance in
built form, footprint and design approach.
2.11. In the Planisphere report the conclusion is that Precinct 6 Queens Road could see
significant level of growth achieved through incremental increase in building height
throughout the precinct. Similar findings are seen for Albert Road north and Bowen
Crescent with significant capacity for growth in the Northwest Corner. More
incremental change is envisaged in the Albert Road south precinct presumably due
to the limited number of available remaining sites.
2.11.1. That being said recent project approvals in Palmerston Crescent exceed the
nominated development height by almost one residential floor.
Page 6
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
6
2.11.2. Whilst this analysis in the report is useful it is disappointing that ownership of
adjoining lots has not been considered in a number of instances. Sites such
as the composite ownerships of Australian Unity of its headquarters in Albert
Road and adjoining two sites are not considered in composite form. Although
the smaller lots are identified as having high potential for change the 1970’s
building is not. This despite the owner having a track record in recent years of
development of medium rise housing for ageing in place supported by
diversified aged care support services.
2.11.3. With its outlook and amenity to Albert Road and its location within a high
socio economic area I am advised this site will be the subject of a detailed
feasibility study for this purpose. In these circumstances it makes little sense
to have differing controls over the three sites and even less sense not to be
encouraging such a use in this location.
2.12. Elsewhere the conversion of 40 Albert Road won Architectural awards for
sustainability, 42-50 Albert Road (29 storeys and 45% breach) was awarded the City
of Port Phillip urban design award for best new building greater than 6 storeys in
2014 and 34-38 Albert Road a similarly tall building of approximately 92m was
shortlisted for awards in this year’s AIA awards. To the west of Kings Way, City
Edge built a 5 level development in direct juxtaposition with a fine grain 19th Century
neighbourhood and the design merits were acknowledged with professional
awards.
2.13. This is clear acknowledgement I think that this is an area where heights
substantially greater than that envisaged in the amendment have both been
successfully realised and moreover have been peer reviewed after completion and
deemed to be successful.
2.14. These projects have each responded to both the opportunity offered by the
changing needs of a rapidly changing urban context and relatively few abutting
constraints. Councils own infrastructure reports accompanying their review of the
precinct also confirm that unlike other areas of the municipality such as Fisherman’s
Bend, this precinct does not suffer from any substantial constraining forces. Hence
historically these areas have always been defined as go-to locations but within a
context of continuing to seek to fit-in to a future character that envisages a highly
urbanised context. This program has been supported by a robust planning scheme
that has supported this urban transformation.
Page 7
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
7
2.15. More recently formerly secondary light industrial and hinterland secondary office to
the north of this ratcheted up successful Albert Road zone has been identified as an
opportunity for transformation, notably the area between Dorcas Street and Albert
Road, with the review by Planisphere identifying potential for development of 60
metres or more. I support this assessment of significant opportunities for
transformation.
2.16. The combination of the proposed Park Street tram corridor and the proposed
Domain Metro Station cumulatively place these areas in the environs of this hub as
some of the best connected areas to regional open space, jobs and services in all of
Melbourne.
Page 8
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
8
2.17. In Kings Way and around Albert Road to its east and west substantial change has
also occurred with the higher density character of Queens Road and St Kilda Road
wrapping down Albert Road and back along Kings Way with new development
commencing in the 1970’s and seeing more recent manifestations.
2.18. To the western side of Kings Way, change has also occurred historically as a result
of road widening and urban renewal. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s the skyline
and streetscape pattern attributes were transformed with the construction of the
Australian Unity development and City Edge apartment developments, whilst to the
north later corporate built form and main road fuel service and CityLink and Casino
access arrangements transformed street engagement patterns. New development
more recently has seen large mixed use development in immediate juxtaposition
with this lower scale area.
Page 9
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
9
2.19. Whilst the area west of Kings Way has two pockets of finer grain 19th Century
terrace housing form north and south of the City Edge apartments, this lower scale
built form is largely buffered from direct interfaces with the exception of two terrace
house properties, one of which has been converted to a restaurant. In both
instances these properties present as sideages to the larger road.
2.20. At the gateway to St Kilda Road development has also changed. At one time St
Kilda Road scaled down to the St Kilda Junction but this is no longer the case.
Developments such as the Cadbury Schweppes Building and rival gateway
residential tower opposite have now been joined by new residential developments
south of Dandenong /Queens Road and continuing with larger development up the
St Kilda Road Hill.
New residential building under construction by JCB and Case developments at the St Kilda Junction.
Page 10
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
10
3. PROPOSED AMENDMENT – THE PROPOSAL
3.1. Notably, the Amendment proposes to implement the objectives, strategic directions
and built form outcomes of the draft St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan of 2013
through the introduction of a new schedule to the Design and Development Overlay
DDO26 and updating of the Local Planning Policy Framework.
Inserting a new Schedule 26 to Clause 43.02 the Design and Development
Overlay which specifies design objectives and design requirements including
mandatory heights and setbacks for the overall St Kilda Road North Precinct
and for individual sub precincts.
The deletion of the existing Schedules 3 and 4 to the Design and
Development Overlay that apply to the St Kilda Road North Precinct and
modification of the Port Phillip Planning Maps Nos 3DD0, Map No 4DDO and
Map No 6DDO to reflect the above.
To modify Local Planning Policy Framework at Clauses 21.06-7 St Kilda Road
and Queens Road and Clause 21.04-5 Public Open Space and Foreshore to
reflect the vision and strategic direction for the draft St Kilda Road North
Precinct Plan.
To include the draft St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan 2013 as a reference
document to the Planning Scheme at Clauses 21.07 and Clause 43.02
(Schedule 26) and modify Clause 66.06 Notice of Permit Applications under
Local Provisions to update the requirement to give notice.
3.2. The Amendment affects development south of Dorcas Street, west of St Kilda Road
as far as High Street, and then south of High Street to near Punt Road and east of
Punt Road down to the St Kilda Junction. With a second leg spanning to its
western boundary, it is bordered by Queens Road as far as Albert Road and then
covers the area between the north side of Albert Road and the south side of
Palmerston Crescent to the eastern side of Moray Street.
3.3. In its explanation for the proposed amendment Council notes that the planning
policies, notably the DDO’s covering this area were developed over 20 years ago
and included discretionary and mandatory height limits and that over this time the
precinct has evolved from predominantly commercial one to one which is
experiencing increased amounts of residential apartments.
3.4. In this context it explains there are many instances where the discretionary
preferred heights have been exceeded by proposed and as built development.
Page 11
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
11
3.5. It claims that the intention of the proposal is to ensure high quality development
that respects the Shrine of Remembrance setting, reinforces the well-established
street layout landscape identity of the precinct, maintains residential amenity, and
contributes to an inviting and activated environment for pedestrians at street level.
3.6. The amendment is claimed to align with:
3.6.1. Direction 2.1 – Plan for expected housing needs
3.6.2. Direction 4.6 – Create more great places through Melbourne and;
3.6.3. Direction 4.8 – Achieve and promote design excellence, and;
3.6.4. That it complies with Ministerial Direction 11 – Strategic Assessment of
Direct Amendments.
3.7. Relevant planning policy framework clauses to consider include the following:
3.7.1. Clause 11.02-1 – Supply of Urban Land
3.7.2. Clause 11.04-1 – Delivering jobs and investment
3.7.3. Clause 11.04-2 – Housing choice and affordability
3.7.4. Clause 11.04-4 – Liveable communities and neighbourhoods
3.7.5. Clause 15.01 – Urban Design
3.7.6. Clause 15.01-2 – Urban Design Principles
3.7.7. Clause 15.01-5 – Cultural Identity and Neighbourhood Character
3.7.8. Clause 15.03-1 – Urban Conservation
3.7.9. Clause 16.01-2 – Location of residential development
3.7.10. Clause 16.01-4 – Housing Diversity
3.7.11. Clause 21.01 – Municipal Strategic Statement
3.7.12. Clause 21.05-2 – Urban Structure and Character
3.7.13. Clause 21.06-7 - St Kilda Road North Precinct
3.8. Schedule 4
3.8.1. As noted earlier the existing Schedule 4 to the Design and Development
Overlay encourages the stepping down in built form between the Melbourne
Central Activities District and St Kilda Junction and between St Kilda Road
and Queens Road.
3.8.2. The high tower scale of the CBD and perhaps more typical 20 storey
approximate scale of the Junction referenced earlier retains the relative
difference between the two bookends north and south. However the
intermediate could not be said to be scaling down from the 100 and 160
metre scale of Southbank towards the 70 metre scale of St Kilda Junction,
Page 12
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
12
with the DDO establishing a scale lower than the southern extremity of the
precinct.
3.8.3. The existing DDO promotes the provision of a landscape setting particularly
in the Queens Road and St Kilda Road Boulevards and verticality in the tower
expression through spacing between developments. Amenity is protected
through a goal to ensure that adjoining public open space impacts arising
from overshadowing, bulk and wind effects is minimised.
3.8.4. Development outcomes are sought that respond to established landscape
setback character and mature plantings, the continued provision of a green
edge to Queens Road.
3.8.5. Additionally the overlay seeks to develop building designs that deliver
parapets and roofs that ensure interest and variety in particular when seen
from the aspect of Albert Park Reserve.
3.8.6. The provision of vehicular access is sought from Queens Lane and abutment
to heritage places seeks development that is sympathetic in form and scale.
3.8.7. In my view each of these aspirations is sound. I will talk to the particular
provisions of the proposed amendment later in this section where I have
concerns.
3.9. Cl 21.06 Neighbourhoods
3.9.1. Clause 21.06-7 replaces the St Kilda Road and Queens Road Section with a
new descriptor St Kilda Road North Precinct, acknowledging the extension
west down Albert Road and north into Kings Way. This change is soundly
based reflecting the coalescence of preferred future character for these
extended zones with the core areas previously within the scheme.
3.9.2. The key challenges section removes the concerns regarding poorly designed
new development, perhaps acknowledging that recent development
outcomes have typically been of a high standard. It adds the provision of the
Park Street tram extension and the improvement of the Public Realm in Kings
Way and Queens Way. I suspect the latter is an error as Queens Way is the
area dividing the St Kilda Junction and St Kilda Road precinct east of Punt
Road and suggest the reference to Way should be replaced with Road.
3.9.3. Within the Vision section there are some grammatical issues that require
inclusions and amendment.
3.9.3.1. The third dot point should be amended to include either
precinct or environment after office in the first line.
Page 13
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
13
3.9.3.2. Otherwise I am supportive of the vision for the precinct.
3.9.3.3. The strategies define six sub-precincts, the mapping of which I
think in some instances needs to be questioned and suggests
that in some an existing built form character needs to be
maintained and strengthened an assertion again that I think
needs further interrogation.
3.10. Sub Precinct 6 Queens Road (refer DDO26-6)
3.10.1. The proposed strategies for this precinct have been changed from the
existing provisions.
3.10.2. Of considerable concern is the removal of the strategic support for this area
to be a “preferred location for housing growth subject to heritage and
amenity concerns.” This despite the conclusion of the consultant that there
were substantial opportunities for urban transformation in this area of the
municipality. Hence the decision to remove this objective is one of choice
rather than constraint. In my view this not consistent with good strategic
planning, the history of the precinct or the existing built form of the precinct.
Page 14
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
14
3.10.2.1. This is an area historically characterised by urban
intensification and it is apparent that there is strong strategic
and contextual support for it to continue to do so. For
example despite the consultants identifying that the majority
of recently built development exceeding the preferred
building height, there is no suggestion that this has resulted
in a poor outcome in either design quality or impacts on the
adjoin green space suggesting that the performance-based
responses long forming part of the scheme have been
effective in their application and outcome.
3.10.2.2. With so much of the municipality capped in its potential by
existing heritage controls and by more constrained proposed
residential zone provisions and ongoing uncertainty about the
timetable and amenity able to be delivered in the Fishermen’s
Bend precinct, I am not supportive of the removal of the
words that specifically support this previously go-go area as a
continuing preferred location for housing growth subject to
heritage and amenity concerns.
3.10.2.3. The area is one that for the past 80 years has been associated
with higher density built form, and it sits in a location where it
can reasonably be anticipated that substantial enhancements
to an already rich availability of public transport and schools
will soon be realised with both sides of politics proposing
new schools in the Albert Park reserve or nearby areas.
3.10.2.4. Furthermore in the analysis undertaken by Planisphere in their
background report there have been a considerable number of
sites identified that could be developed in the future.
3.10.2.5. For these reasons the ambition of this area to continue to
provide for higher density residential growth should remain a
core ambition of the in the scheme.
3.10.3. The proposed amendment introduces a need for podiums to both the
Queens Road and Queens Lane frontages further reducing development
potential when compared with a number of the recent and historic interface
approaches to these areas and when considered additionally in the context
of council also wanting substantial landscape setbacks to the Park interface
Page 15
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
15
and from neighbours. The requirement sets up a typology for this interface
which is not presently well represented and which in my view sits at odds
with the needs of the precinct.
3.10.4. This podium typology is at odds with much of the existing character of built
form at this interface and in my view is unnecessary if as exists at present
landscape setbacks are provided in the forecourt zone separating the street
from the park. It is not apparent where these proposed podiums are to be
perceived from and to what purpose.
3.10.4.1. Typically a podium form is sought where there is a need to
preserve a human scale at a pedestrian level, where there are
significant concerns about environmental amenity at street
level that a podium might overcome, or a historic street wall
scale. These do not apply nor is a predominant scale either of
prevailing existing 30 metre form that warrants this approach
as the Planisphere work demonstrates. In this instance none
of these attributes exist in the interface with Albert Park and
the proposed 30m podium is both unhelpful as a design tool
and likely to dumb down design responses in this instance.
3.10.4.2. Hence the reference to podium form to Queens Road should
in my view be deleted.
3.10.5. Similarly I would reject the assertion that Queens Road is a ‘lower rise’ area.
In fact what we see in this corridor is evidence of built form that shifts back
and forth between Queens Road in a manner that talks of the two being
interchangeable and the whole being a high density high rise environment.
This is confirmed by the height analysis and the attached images. The
images depicted below taken moving down the road from north to south
demonstrate that high rise form without podiums is an attribute of this
interface that predominates.
Page 16
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
16
Views travelling down Queens Road from Albert Road
Page 17
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
17
3.10.6. Whilst I would not support the notion of unfettered development height
potential on the land to Queens Road the proposition to impose a mandatory
height limit is not supported. The heights and setbacks as acknowledged by
the analysis undertaken in the background reports do not point to an
established cohesive scale that warrants a blunt instrument such as that
proposed. In contrast there is a strong case to support provisions that
protect the adjacent park reserve from unreasonable overshadowing.
3.10.7. There is however I think a need for new built form to respond to the scale of
higher density housing in the precinct. This may enable developments to
vary considerably according to their location, the size of sites and
neighbouring development and the scale of background development in St
Kilda Road and side streets.
3.10.8. Similarly the imposition of mandatory heights below that which already
exists in a number of instances has not been supported by any
demonstration that the approved proposals have resulted in poor outcomes.
As previously noted the reverse could be argued for more recent
developments such as Balencea and Yve where taller built form has also
received awards. As an Architect, performance based controls allow for
innovation and high quality outcomes as opposed to a ‘cookie cutter’
response.
3.10.9. Likewise the objective of picturesque and varied roof lines is at odds with
this blunt mandatory height regime, which as occurred in Sydney, is likely
to lead to a goal of filling the development envelopes and a constrained and
consistent skyline contrary to the broader vision.
3.10.10. Recommendation:
Amend the strategy as follows:
The Queens Road sub-precinct is a distinct high density, predominantly
residential area that forms the edge to Albert Park. New development
creates the backdrop to the eastern side of Queens Road with a forecourt
setback that facilitates provision of canopy forecourt trees to compliment
the character of the adjacent park reserve and boulevard.
3.11. Queens Lane
A visit to Queens Lane also provides a very varied design response with a high
proportion of buildings built in close proximity to the lane presumably in response to the
Page 18
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
18
statutory goals of maintaining expansive landscaped setbacks to the boulevards with
which they adjoin to either the east or west.
The highly varied edge to Queens Lane from south to north
Page 19
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
19
3.11.1. Curiously in my view the proposed amendment requires all
development fronting Queens Lane to mandatorily be built to the
Queens Lane Boundary and within 5m of the street frontage not to
exceed 11m in height.
3.11.2. At best from my inspections this is an aspiration for an outcome well
after the horse has bolted.
3.11.3. A mandatory system should only be put in place in my view where
there is a strong prevailing existing character and value identifiable in
the precinct.
3.11.4. Typical examples have included the street wall scale of many of our
19th century activity centres.
3.11.5. This is simply not the case in this instance. Its purpose is also
unclear. Queens Lane is a highly contested space serving now and in
the future as both the primary vehicle entry to most developments
fronting the two boulevards and also in many instances as a primary
pedestrian entry offering convenient access to the St Kilda Road
active transit corridor.
3.11.6. The road zone itself is narrow and the footpath zones are highly
constrained and contain frequent crossovers. The limited width of the
footpath precludes any possibility of protective canopies beyond the
lot boundary into the road reserve in most instances. In some recent
examples developments have responded to this constrained service
road public realm by setting back from the street to create porte
cochere and more generous weather protected pedestrian plaza
thresholds at ground level. This approach has in my view delivered
acceptable outcomes. If applied to the balance of undeveloped sites
in the corridor I am of the view that the outcome would not have any
appreciable benefit for pedestrians or streetscapes with the outcome
being a continued somewhat random and site specific response to
the public realm. Opportunity for an address off street to drop off or
pick up guests would be typically limited to basement garage areas
with the building presenting a garage door and building entry door
arrangement to the street. Activation of the street would be difficult
owing to the limited footpath width and the highly varied and often
service nature of development opposite.
Page 20
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
20
3.11.7. A far better objective in my view would be to support the investment
of interfaces with Queens Lane with a high level of residential
address ambition. Generously scaled entries should be provided for
access to buildings and the quality of lighting pavement treatments
and finishes should provide a visually engaging and strong sense of
address to Queens Lane as well as Queens Road and St Kilda Road
recognising the nature of key destinations both east and west of
sites.
3.11.8. I am unlike council not overly concerned in relation to the presence of
built form at higher levels close to the street and site than currently
envisaged. This has been successfully managed within Melbourne’s
central city lanes where heights have been at or exceeding 40m with
zero setbacks. The objectives should be to foster a high level of
engagement with the street and a heightened level of investment in
the manner in which the building program and built form engage with
the public realm. The controls should be discretionary. There should
be no need for mandatory controls.
3.11.9. The project proposed at 20-22 Queens Road represents one such
variant to the preferred approach to this interface with two crossovers
providing a porte cochere undercover entry and a generous arrival
zone for residents too as a shared zone along with landscape
contribution midblock to the Queens Lane interface. Main public
lobbies are indented but clearly visible from the street providing an
explicit window to the street and dividend for the public realm that a
continuous street wall would not in my view have achieved.
3.12. Side setbacks
3.12.1. The mandatory provision of side setbacks is also in my view
unwarranted in this precinct as it is elsewhere in the precinct. This is
because as observed in the Planisphere report, a substantial number
of developments are already built and performance criteria and
appropriate design responses to the neighbouring abutments will
ensure these issues are addressed if the aspiration for shared
amenity and equitable development potential is embedded in
performance criteria. In some instances it could be reasonably
Page 21
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
21
envisaged that opportunities to build closer to or further from
boundaries will deliver better outcomes for light view and project
design quality than a more uniform box. The Yve development is an
example of a built form with a more plastic curvilinear footprint where
such an approach has occurred and where the building has
diminished in its footprint towards its top also providing more space
between it and adjoining development and a more compelling skyline
outcome and sculptural form than would have been achieved with the
blunt envelope tools notated in the proposed amendment.
3.12.2. Hence I would recommend that performance criteria should be put in
place for abutments between development rather than mandatory
provisions.
3.13. Setbacks to Queens Road
3.13.1. The setback requirement for 15m to Queens Road should similarly in
my view have some scope for modest variation to enable a better
design solution. If for example the development abuts an adjoining
development with a lesser setback and if the design response
demonstrates an ability to accommodate the necessary green canopy
tree forecourt buffer to the park successfully, some modest variation
should be able to be considered provided the outcome does not
result in unreasonable overshadowing of the adjoining parklands.
Page 22
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
22
3.13.2. This is particularly necessary in my view in the southern half of the
precinct where there is a high incidence of existing older
development some of considerable scale with very modest setback
from the Queens Road boundary. Logically it would be desirable to
replace these underdeveloped or poorly developed sites with better
design outcomes placed within a landscaped setting. In my
experience if the design controls are not established with a
knowledge of the threshold point for redevelopment viability of which
increased development potential over and above existing floor area is
typically a consideration, then desired change is unlikely to occur. I
am concerned that a mandated provision will in a number of
instances curtail the likelihood of positive change in this precinct.
4. CONCLUSION
For these reasons I am of the view that the amendment requires substantial redrafting.
4.1. In my view the amendment should acknowledge the reasonably anticipated
provision of the Melbourne Metro in one or another form both with a station within
the precinct and the strategic significance that that initiative would have for greater
connections to a larger catchment of Melbourne. The amendment also needs to
acknowledge that the precinct is an area with substantial opportunity for
intensification, but also one with a long and continuing history of substantial
change.
4.2. This character should be matched with performance criteria and preferred
maximum heights rather than mandatory provisions other than in the environs of the
Shrine where height limits have an underlying science and the asset being
protected warrants these provisions.
4.3. Elsewhere opportunities should be informed by principles of responding to
prevailing built form rhythms of scale that may allow some flex upwards in some
instances within a modest range of 15-20% as has typically occurred subject to
offsite impacts, suitable amenity and development outcomes and broader urban
legibility being achieved.
4.4. The proposition that there are views or sensitivities from within Albert Park or South
Melbourne that warrant both curtailment and prescription of built form to the extent
envisaged has not in my view been substantiated by either the background work or
Page 23
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
23
the physical or strategic assessment of the precinct. In each instance this has only
confirmed the highly eclectic and individualistic nature of much of the precinct.
4.5. In some instances, particularly within the North West Precinct, the Queens Road
and St Kilda Road corridors, the substantial opportunity for intensification has been
undermined by the prescribed nature of capacity set out in the amendment.
Morevover, these proposed constraints have in my view failed to acknowledge the
changing nature of the city as it is developing to both the Southbank extension of
the CDZ and the St Kilda Junction gateway.
4.6. A more satisfactory outcome would be one that continues to seek response to the
key values that underpin the precinct. These include:
4.6.1. Equitable but not necessarily equal (as site capacity varies)
development and amenity goals between adjoining sites.
4.6.2. Design responses that support the curvilinear nature of key precinct
boulevards.
4.6.3. A landscaped buffer and protection of amenity of key public spaces
and continued support for a canopy tree and forecourt setback zone
east of Queens Road and down St Kilda Road.
4.6.4. Sensitive responses to adjoining heritage and scaling down of
development west of Kings Way to hinterland and southerly low
scale heritage neighbourhoods
4.6.5. Promotion of activated and engaged street level land uses to the NW
precinct areas
4.6.6. Enhancement of the amenity and scale of shared spaces in Queens
Lane.
4.6.7. The provision of preferred heights for each precinct with the
requirements for podiums to new development on Kings Way,
Queens Lane and Queens Road deleted and amended elsewhere to
be a preferred outcome.
Page 24
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
24
5. DOCUMENTS FORMING THE BASIS OF THE REPORT
A number of documents were referred to in the preparation of this report, which are listed
below:
5.1. Site and Title Particulars
5.2. Current Port Phillip Planning Scheme Controls
5.3. Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme Exhibition Material
5.4. Supporting Amendment Documentation
5.5. Public Notice
5.6. Explanatory Report
5.7. Instruction Sheet
5.8. Changes to the Planning Scheme
5.9. Clause 21.04 - Land Use
5.10. Clause 21.06 – Neighbourhoods
5.11. Clause 21.07 – Incorporated Documents
5.12. Schedule 26 to the Design and Development Overlay (DD026)
5.13. Schedule to Clause 66.06
5.14. Changes to the Planning Scheme Maps
5.15. Maps 3, 4 and 6 DDO – areas to be deleted from Design and Development Overlay
Schedule 3 and 4
5.16. Maps 3, 4 and 6 DDO – areas to be included in Design and Development Overlay
Schedule 26
5.17. Reference Document
5.18. Draft St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan 2013 Part 1, Part 2
5.19. Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme – other
5.20. Summary document and notice from Council to Ratio dated 6 August 2014
5.21. Ratio Submission in response to Amendment C107 dated 8 September 2014
5.22. Consideration of Submissions by Council
5.23. Planisphere review of Schedules 3 and 4 to the DDO
5.24. Council Agenda dated 23 September 2014 and Attachment 1
5.25. Council summary of submission
5.26. Planning Permit Application No P0640/2014
5.27. Emails from Council providing pre-application advice and comments to Ratio and
Rothe Lowman dated 18 and 19 June 2014
5.28. Ratio letter to Council dated 28 July 2014 lodging amended application documents:
5.29. Letter from Helier McFarland Surveyors
Page 25
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
25
5.30. Plan of Survey
5.31. Existing Conditions Plan
5.32. Ratio Town Planning Report
5.33. Council requests for further information dated 31 July 2013 and 5 August 2014
5.34. Ratio response to Council RFI (Selected Planning Permit Application material)
5.35. Letter from Ratio to Council dated 18 August 2014
5.36. Landscape plan prepared by Tract
5.37. Urban Context and Design Response prepared by David Lock Associates dated July
2014
5.38. Architectural statement
5.39. Urban Context and Site Analysis
5.40. Design Evolution and Response
5.41. Design Proposal
5.42. Shadow Analysis
5.43. Drawings
6. STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE
6.1. My name is Robert Alan McGauran. I have been a director of McGauran Giannini
Soon Pty Ltd Architects, Urban Planners and Interior Designers since 1985 and
practice at 10-22 Manton Lane Melbourne.
6.2. Qualifications
6.3. I have an Honours degree in Architecture from the University of Melbourne, a
Bachelor of Arts majoring in Architectural History from the University of Melbourne
and a Postgraduate Diploma in Business Management from the University of
Melbourne Business School.
6.4. Professional Roles Architecture
Within the architectural profession, I have held a range of senior roles arising from
peer nomination including:
6.4.1. Chairperson of the Architects Registration Board of Victoria
6.4.2. Vice-President of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects
6.4.3. Chapter and National Councillor of the Royal Australian Institute of
Architects
6.4.4. Leadership and membership of accreditation panels for the
Architectural programs at RMIT, UOM, UOQ and Deakin University.
6.4.5. Jury membership and leadership of Awards Panels for the RAIA
Page 26
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
26
6.4.6. Victorian Convenor of the Residential Working Group for the RAIA,
6.4.7. Awarded a Life Fellowship to the RAIA in 1999 for contributions to the
Profession
6.5. My areas of expertise are in Architecture and Urban Planning.
6.6. I have been director in charge of a number of projects that have won professional
design, development and industry awards including luxury residential, heritage,
education, affordable housing, and environmental design, commercial, retail and
industrial developments.
6.7. Professional Affiliations –Education, Urban Design and Planning
6.7.1. I am a member of the PIA (Urban Design)
6.7.2. I was awarded Fellowship of VPELA in 2010.
6.7.3. In 2010 I was appointed the University Architect for Monash
University.
6.7.4. From 2003-2010, I sat on the Building and Estates for the University
of Melbourne
6.7.5. I have been a Board member of Melbourne Affordable Housing and
then Housing Choices Australia.
6.7.6. In urban design, I have held positions on the Priority Development
Panel for the Minister of Planning
6.7.7. I have chaired the Sullivans Cove Design Panel for the State
Government of Tasmania from 2008-2011.
6.7.8. I am University Architect for Monash University and have lead the
development of comprehensive masterplans for each of their major
campuses at Clayton, Caulfield Berwick and Gippsland.
6.7.9. Member of the Standing Advisory Committee on Local Variations to
the Good Design Guide (most recently reviewing density, car parking,
visual bulk, overshadowing and overlooking techniques).
6.7.10. Sessional panel member for Planning Panels Victoria reviewing
amongst other projects the C11 Urban Villages and C14 Phoenix
Precinct in Glen Eira.
6.7.11. Ministerial Advisory Panel appointed by the Minister for the
Commonwealth Games to review the proposed Pedestrian Bridge
Link to the MCG.
Page 27
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
27
6.8. Commencing last year with the University of Melbourne, Monash University, DPCD,
the City of Moreland and the City of Darebin, I am participating an Australian
Research Council funded research project into transit oriented development
intensification of Melbourne’s transport corridors
6.9. I have assisted in the evaluation of potential for the
Arden Metro Precinct for DPCD and the City of
Melbourne and had previously assisted DPCD and
the City of Melbourne in the development of the
Southbank Future Plan and notably the Sturt Street
spine in 2005.
6.10. Earlier in 2010 I was invited to represent the design professions in the DAVOS
summit in the theme area – Inclusive Cities, lead by the Prime Minister.
6.11. I have prepared Urban Design Frameworks and Structure Plans for key precincts
including the Cremorne precinct and Victoria Gardens precinct in the City of Yarra,
the Toorak Village and Chapel Vision Structure Plans in the City of Stonnington, and
the Megamile Structure Plan and Tally Ho Structure Plan in Whitehorse.
6.12. I have also been on the DPCD Expert Panel for Activity Centres and acted as
consultant on urban design matters and in particular major projects to Local
Councils including City of Port Phillip, Hobsons Bay City Council, City of Banyule,
City of Whitehorse, City of Kingston, City of Moonee Valley and the City of Yarra.
6.13. Within the City of Port Phillip I have been involved in both private and public sector
projects.
6.14. For the Private Sector these have included:
6.14.1. Project Director-Mixed-use development -181 Bay Street Port
Melbourne
6.14.2. Private Housing developments Dickens St. St. Kilda, Deakin St West
St Kilda, 452 St Kilda Road Melbourne.
6.15. For the Government Sector these have included
6.15.1. Redevelopment of the Aquatic Drive boating precinct at Albert Park
for Parks Victoria (Winner RAIA Award 1996)
6.15.2. New Boarding House Woodstock St Kilda for City of Port Phillip
6.15.3. Urban Design Guidelines for the Balaclava Station Precinct for City of
Port Phillip
6.15.4. Architectural Adviser to council- Oasis Residential development
designed by Williams Boag Architects
Page 28
Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
MGS Architects
28
6.15.5. Expert Witness advise to tribunals on the Esplanade Hotel and 142-
150 Beaconsfield Parade and 220 Barkly St St. Kilda
6.15.6. Feasibility for Redevelopment of Balaclava Station for DSE and City of
Port Phillip
6.16. I live in the City of Port Phillip, have visited the site and am familiar with the area.
I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and that no matters of
significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.
Prepared By
ROBERT MCGAURAN
B. ARCH. (HONS. MELB), B.A. (FINE ARTS MELB.), P.D.M. (MELB.), LFRAIA, ARCHITECT
Dated
November 2014