INDEPENDENT URBAN DESIGN ADVICE · commercial and higher density residential development trends able to be delivered ... Website image (Brett Price photographer) showing the Australian

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

INDEPENDENT URBAN DESIGN ADVICE EXPERT WITNESS EVIDENCE PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C107

For

180 Albert Road, South Melbourne

November 2014 Prepared by Robert McGauran B. Arch. (Hons. Melb), B.A. (Fine Arts Melb.), P.D.M. (Melb.), LFRAIA, FVEPLA, Architect

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

Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

MGS Architects

2

1. BACKGROUND

1.1. I have been asked by Minter Ellison Lawyers to comment on the proposed Planning

Scheme Amendment C107 (the amendment) to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme

with regard to the appropriateness of the amendment in relation to its context and

principles of good urban design.

2. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT – THE CONTEXT

2.1. The St. Kilda Road and Queens Road/Kings Way corridor has with the Southbank

area been the subject of major change from the early 1990’s until the present,

becoming a mecca for entertainment along the 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.


MGS Architects

3

2.5. Within the C107 area we have also seen major transformation occur but in this

instance the evolution has been one that has set the scene for Southbank as unlike

the neighbouring precinct it has long been seen as a place to live and work.

2.6. 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.


MGS Architects

4

Image showing the former BP House under construction in a primarily low scale context

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


MGS Architects

5

freeway infrastructure, and centres of commerce and higher density housing.

These changes have made significant contributions to Melbourne’s transformation.

Website image (Brett Price photographer) showing the Australian Unity Holdings in the foreground and

their relationship with the northern end of Albert Road

2.9. Many of the projects have been acknowledged with awards including in the last

decade Yve, Melburnian and Balencea Apartments and in earlier times, the Stanhill

and Newburn Flats by Frederick Romberg in the 1930’s and 1940’s. Many too, have

been seen to push the boundaries of acceptable scale and aesthetic convention but

ironically each sits comfortably in its constantly changing context. Page 90 and 91

of the Site Survey and Analysis report in the review of Design and Development

Overlay 3 and 4 dated 2013 documents the wide variance in both setbacks and

heights.

2.9.1. Generally speaking there is a greater coherence to setbacks within the St

Kilda Road frontage properties.

2.9.2. In Queens Road setbacks are typically 15 metres at the northern end of the

precinct with significant exceptions particularly south of Lorne Street.

2.9.3. In Kings Way setbacks are typically zero.

2.10 The breaches in heights of the current DDO control are even more striking.

2.10.1 In Albert Road South the vast majority of properties exceed the DDO. In the

northwest precinct more than 50% of development north of Park Street

similarly exceeds the existing DDO.


MGS Architects

6

2.10.2 In Queens Road south of Albert Reserve more than half of the frontage to

the lake has been built at heights 10-60%+ the preferred heights with more

than 75% of the balance of the sites identified as having medium or high

redevelopment potential with development to either side of St Kilda Road

similarly characterised by a substantial diversity of scale that simply confirm

what is obvious from a visual inspection of the precinct. That is that built

form is highly variable.

View from Lakeside Drive looking east showing the high degree of variance

in built form, footprint and design approach.

2.11. In the Planisphere report the conclusion is that Precinct 6 Queens Road could see

significant level of growth achieved through incremental increase in building height

throughout the precinct. Similar findings are seen for Albert Road north and Bowen

Crescent with significant capacity for growth in the Northwest Corner. More

incremental change is envisaged in the Albert Road south precinct presumably due

to the limited number of available remaining sites.

2.11.1. That being said recent project approvals in Palmerston Crescent exceed the

nominated development height by almost one residential floor.

2.11.2. Whilst this analysis in the report is useful it is disappointing that ownership of

adjoining lots has not been considered in a number of instances. Sites such

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


MGS Architects

7

development of medium rise housing for ageing in place supported by

diversified aged care support services.

2.11.3. With its outlook and amenity to Albert Road and its location within a high

socio economic area I am advised this site will be the subject of a detailed

feasibility study for this purpose. In these circumstances it makes little sense

to have differing controls over the three sites and even less sense not to be

encouraging such a use in this location.

2.12. Elsewhere the conversion of 40 Albert Road won Architectural awards for

sustainability, 42-50 Albert Road (29 storeys and 45% breach) was awarded by the

City of Port Phillip urban design award for best new building greater than 6 storeys

in 2014 and 34-38 Albert Road a similarly tall building of approximately 92m was

shortlisted for awards in this year’s AIA awards. To the west of Kings Way, City

Edge built a 5 level development in direct juxtaposition with a fine grain 19th Century

neighbourhood and the design merits were acknowledged with professional

awards. Historically projects in the Albert Road South area have also been

acknowledged with awards.

2.13. This is clear acknowledgement I think that this is an area where heights

substantially greater than that envisaged in the amendment have both been

successfully realised and moreover have been peer reviewed after completion and

deemed to be successful.

2.14. These projects have each responded to both the opportunity offered by the

changing needs of a rapidly changing urban context and relatively few abutting

constraints. Councils own infrastructure reports accompanying their review of the

precinct also confirm that unlike other areas of the municipality such as Fisherman’s

Bend, this precinct does not suffer from any substantial constraining forces. Hence

historically these areas have always been defined as go-to locations but within a

context of continuing to seek to fit-in to a future character that envisages a highly

urbanised context. This program has been supported by a robust planning scheme

that has supported this urban transformation.

2.15. More recently formerly secondary light industrial and hinterland secondary office to

the north of this ratcheted up successful Albert Road zone has been identified as an

opportunity for transformation notably the area between Dorcas Street and Albert

Road, with the review by Planisphere identifying potential for development of 60

metres or more. I support this assessment of significant opportunities for

transformation.


MGS Architects

8

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.

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.


MGS Architects

9

2.18.

To the western side of Kings Way, change has also occurred historically as a result

of road widening and urban renewal. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s the skyline

and streetscape pattern attributes were transformed with the construction of the

Australian Unity development and City Edge apartment developments, whilst to the

north later corporate built form and main road fuel service and CityLink and Casino

access arrangements transformed street engagement patterns mostly for the

worse. New development more recently has seen large mixed use development in

immediate juxtaposition with this lower scale area.

2.19. Elsewhere we have seen the commencement of new forms of housing to meet the

needs of an ageing community with Australian Unity one of the leaders in this field.

2.20. Their new project in Rathdowne Street in Carlton Pictured introduces ageing in

place into highly urbanised areas. This sector is evolving quickly with new facilities

anticipated to incorporate advanced health care and socialising hubs on lower levels

with housing catering to lower and higher needs groups on upper levels.


MGS Architects

10

2.21. For these facilities access to open space and public transport facilities is highly

desirable. The Albert Road landholdings of the organisation have the right

credentials for such a facility.

2.22. 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.

2.23. 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.

2.24. In relation to the precinct I have also considered the assessment of the Albert Road

South Precinct by recent VCAT tribunal hearings.

2.24.1. In the matter Raffles Holdings Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC & Ors [2013]

VCAT 126 (12 February 2013) member Rundell noted,’ Palmerston

Crescent is a transition zone between the old traditional low scale

residential neighbourhoods of South Melbourne and the new tall

commercial buildings close to Albert Street and Kings Way. The north

side largely comprises the traditional single storey former workers

cottages and it has an intact and highly consistent built form. It is

included within a Heritage Overlay. The combination of small lots,

intact traditional dwellings and the heritage overlay makes change on

that side of the street likely to be very limited in number and form.

2.24.2. The south side of Palmerston Crescent through to Albert Road has a

very different use and character. Comprising a mix of offices, car parks

and apartment buildings, its built form comprises multi storey

buildings with a tall and robust built form, sheer walls and limited

setbacks to boundaries.

2.24.3. The strategic directions of the north and south sides of Palmerston

Crescent vary markedly. The north side is to be constrained. In policy

terms the area would be categorised as one of minimal residential

growth to retain its recognised heritage values. This category would


MGS Architects

11

be the most restrained of the five levels of change set out in Council’s

municipal strategic statement[2].

By contrast, the south side of Palmerston Crescent is identified as an

area of substantial residential growth. This is defined to be Strategically

appropriate locations for higher density residential development

(being proximate to major activity centres and/or the PPTN) which

provide new housing opportunities as part of the renewal of precincts

and large sites. They offer the potential for more intensive

development through the creation of new built form character[3].”

2.24.4. I would agree with this assessment. He also noted in his review that’

“the Tribunal has recently approved a five level development on the

land adjoining to the east on the corner of Palmerston Crescent and

Stead Street. Significantly for this review, that site’s interface to

Palmerston Street has been deemed to be a sideage, and the

approved development is not required to comply with the DDO.

Consequently, it would rise to five storeys with setbacks in the order of

3 metres to Palmerston Street. It’s upper level will be required to have

a recessed appearance through the use of lightweight screening to

upper level terraces. Requiring substantial setbacks on the review site

would be an abrupt change in the streetscape should both

developments be implemented. A large setback on this site would in

my view appear to be overly abrupt and an anomaly that would

appear to more incongruous than this proposal.”

2.24.5. He also noted in regard to another recent approval, ‘The Tribunal has

also approved a refurbishment of an existing seven storey office

building at 97-99 Palmerston Street for dwellings. The development

would also add two levels above, increasing its height to nine storeys.

This approval is within a sub-precinct of the DDO that has more

onerous preferred heights and setbacks than the review site. I

consider that the built form context is varied and likely to become

more so, making strict compliance with the DDO less relevant.”

2.24.6. Thirdly, I consider that there is a clear policy tension between policies

seeking transition to the low-scale residential form, and policies that

identify the area as one of substantial change. Substantial change is

inevitably in conflict with policies seeking a gentle transition to the low


MGS Architects

12

scale residential area opposite. The policy tension arises from the

relatively limited opportunities for intensive change available in Port

Phillip, as change in much of the municipality is constrained by the

prevailing built form, particularly its heritage fabric. Hence there is

likely to be a desire to maximise development opportunities in the

relatively unconstrained areas such as this. The relatively small sites in

this area make it difficult to achieve substantial change whilst

providing large setbacks. In general terms I consider that the rare

opportunities should be maximised so change can be implemented in

designated areas. This enables change in areas deemed to have

special character and fabric to be tempered and restrained, without

thwarting compact city objectives in this municipality.”

2.24.7. In each of these instances it has been apparent that the members

reviewing the propositions have found the precinct is eclectic in

nature and able to accommodate substantial change. In these

circumstances the proposed rigid mandatory provisions seem out of

place.

3. PROPOSED AMENDMENT – THE PROPOSAL

3.1. The Amendment proposes to implement objectives, strategic directions and built

form outcomes of the draft St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan of 2013 through the

introduction of a new schedule to the Design and Development Overlay DDO26 and

updating of the Local Planning Policy Framework.

Notably, inserting a new Schedule 26 to Clause 43.02 the Design and

Development Overlay which specifies design objectives and design

requirements including mandatory heights and setbacks for the overall St

Kilda Road North Precinct and for individual sub precincts.

The deletion of the existing Schedules 3 and 4 to the Design and

Development Overlay that apply to the St Kilda Road North Precinct

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.


MGS Architects

13

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)

Modify Clause 66.06 Notice of Permit Applications under Local Provisions to

update the requirement to give notice.

3.2. The Amendment affects development south of Dorcas Street, west of St Kilda Road

as far as High Street, and then south of High Street to near Punt Road and east of

Punt Road down to the St Kilda Junction. With a second leg spanning to its

western boundary, it is bordered by Queens Road as far as Albert Road and then

covers the area between the north side of Albert Road and the south side of

Palmerston Crescent to the eastern side of Moray Street.

3.3. In its explanation for the proposed amendment Council notes that the planning

policies, notably the DDO’s covering this area were developed over 20 years ago

and included discretionary and mandatory height limits and that over this time the

precinct has evolved from predominantly commercial one to a one which is

experiencing increased amounts of residential apartments.

3.4. In this context it explains there are many instances where the discretionary

preferred heights have been exceeded by proposed and as built development.

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 the following aspects of Plan Melbourne:

3.6.1. Direction 2.1 – Plan for expected housing needs

3.6.2. Direction 4.6 – Create more great places through Melbourne and;

3.6.3. Direction 4.8 – Achieve and promote design excellence, and;

3.6.4. That it complies with Ministerial Direction 11 – Strategic Assessment of

Direct Amendments.

3.7. Relevant planning policy framework clauses to consider include the following:

3.7.1. Clause 11.02-1 – Supply of Urban Land

3.7.2. Clause 11.04-1 – Delivering jobs and investment

3.7.3. Clause 11.04-2 – Housing choice and affordability

3.7.4. Clause 11.04-4 – Liveable communities and neighbourhoods

3.7.5. Clause 15.01 – Urban Design

3.7.6. Clause 15.01-2 – Urban Design Principles


MGS Architects

14

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. Similarly it seeks to transition down to surrounding

neighbourhoods along Albert Road and across Palmerston Crescent and

Raglan Street.

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,

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.


MGS Architects

15

3.8.7. In my view each of these aspirations is sound. I will talk to the particular

provisions of the proposed amendment later in this section where I have

concerns.

3.9. Cl 21.06 Neighbourhoods

3.9.1. Clause 21.06-7 replaces the St Kilda Road and Queens Road Section with a

new descriptor St Kilda Road North Precinct, acknowledging the extension

west down Albert Road and north into Kings Way. This change is soundly

based reflecting the coalescence of preferred future character for these

extended zones with the core areas previously within the scheme.

3.9.2. The section notes key challenges section removes the concerns regarding

poorly designed new development, perhaps acknowledging that recent

development outcomes have typically been of a high standard. It adds the

provision of the Park Street tram extension and the improvement of the

Public Realm in Kings Way and Queens Way

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.

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 3 Albert Road South


MGS Architects

16

3.10.1. I agree with the assertion that this sub-precinct has considerable opportunity

for development and change as a high density mixed-use enclave and that

streetscapes require enhancement.

3.10.2. In the case of the areas north of Albert Road and west of Kings Way, the

proposition is for a radical step down from heights at or in excess of 90

metres to a mandated maximum height of 45 metres north-westwards and

from 92m to 60m, 45m , 30m, 18m and finally 9m to Moray Street.

3.10.2.1. Adding to this landscape setbacks of 3m and podium setbacks of

18m with a depth of 5m are required to parts of Stead Street

(north-eastern side only), Sandilands Street save for the last block

bounding the intersection to Palmerston Street, Eastern Road and

part of Thomson Street.

3.10.2.2. A podium 18m in scale is also sought to the Palmerston Crescent

interface for a 20m depth with a further 30m being prescribed. In

some instances these step ups or downs cut across the arbitrary

midpoint locations.

3.10.2.3. The heights that are chosen of 9, 15, 18, 30, 45 and 60 effectively

fail to acknowledge conventional good practice for the heights of

building types. In the case of residential buildings I would

typically design for 3 to 3.1 floor to floor heights with a greater

need for height at the uppermost level of 1m to allow for roof

gradients etc. In the case of commercial space 3.6 to 4m is the

typical range depending on the types of technology applied. The

outcome of approach taken by council is that it will inevitably see

a push from developers to fit into this regime development with

lower floor to floor heights in residential development to optimise

their sellable floor space, reducing amenity and constraining

development to box like outcomes. A residential 5 level

development that should be 16.5m will be squeezed into 15m a 3

level that should be 10.5m will be 9m etc.

3.10.2.4. I would typically also advocate for a more generous ground level

floor to floor height of at least 3.6m to allow flexibility in future

land use at this level.


MGS Architects

17

3.10.2.5. This failure to test the proposed heights against industry standard

measures is disappointing.

3.10.2.6. Similarly the somewhat arbitrary rendering of setbacks, heights

podiums and midblock step-ups or downs fails to acknowledge

how buildings would be configured as a result.

3.10.2.7. In most instances in Palmerston Crescent buildings would have to

incorporate long corridor’s pushing the lift cores to the back of

blocks so that lift access could be achieved to all levels. No

testing has been applied as to why 17m has been determined as

the location to step up from one designated level to another.

3.10.2.8. The high level of visibility of the buildings in Albert Road as a

backdrop for example are already clearly visible in Palmerston

and Raglan Street and the character of the south eastern side is

clearly different to the north western finer grain form.

3.10.2.9. Why does there need to be a transition within the block rather

than simply considering the very generously scaled street as the

point of transition? As Member Rundle has clearly enunciated

why given the very limited opportunities for urban transformation

in the municipality would we be seeking to erode the form with

mandatory provisions in this way and why is the proposed

composition of these mandatory controls seen to be required in

the exact form proposed?

3.10.2.10. Additionally how legible will it be given recent approvals that

exceed these preferred heights and arrangements?

3.11. Despite placing great carriage on the distinctive attributes of the curvilinear streets

of Albert Road, Bowen Crescent and Palmerston Crescent or reasons unexplained

the planning policies seek to apply differing strategies to the most particular and

significant of these - Albert Road. This high quality street is divided into two

separate areas north and south and further dividing the intersecting gateway with

Kings Way to the east and west meaning that the four sides of the intersection are

in four differing precincts with distinctively differing mandatory control ambitions.

This is despite the experience of the intersection being one where all the framing

corners are read as a contiguous framing of the gateway. Development north and

south of Kings Way along Albert Road commenced at a similar time with

commercial development interspersed between 19th century terrace forms.


MGS Architects

18

3.12. The analysis by Planisphere anticipated substantial change in the block between

Stead Street and Kings Way and Incremental consolidation of existing form

thereafter with scaling down to the Palmerston Crescent interface.

3.13. This section of Albert Road is affected by widening slip lane from Queens Road into

Albert Road and turning lanes from Albert Road eastwards. Both orient and visually

integrate Albert Road South into its extension northwards across the intersection.

3.14. It appears that the amendment acknowledges this broadly by indicating built form

to either side of Kings Way at a mandatory maximum of 60m. Curiously this

proposed scale stops short however of the existing iconic Australian Unity Building

a building already built to a height approaching this proposed mandatory 60m scale.

Logically the mapping would extend the 60m scale of built form for the Australian

Unity landholdings which as a consolidated site could with its neighbour both

reinforce this important gateway to Melbourne and the Albert road curvilinear

Avenue. Similarly it would typically not be an ambition to set a mandatory height at

a level similar to a building that has been in place for 40 years.

3.15. I endorse the general proposition that from this higher corner form development

would need to step down progressively to the finer grain heritage environments

further to the south along Albert Road and into the lower scale hinterland areas to

the west. That being said the question has to be to what degree and does this have

to be described so prescriptively and is the built environment such as that it signals

such an approach is going to be both effective and warranted. I find it difficult to

sustain any of these mandatory needs in this instance.

3.16. That being said I am not convinced that mandatory height provisions are necessary

to achieve this goal with our preferred heights and performance goals having served

us well historically in this precinct.

3.17. I note also that recent approvals have exceeded the proposed heights in some

instances suggesting that acceptable outcomes can be achieved at the margins. In

these circumstances and given the very differing scales of land holdings and

opportunities I would urge for mandated heights not to be adopted in this instance

where the precinct has been identified as one of relatively few areas of significant

change in the municipality.

3.18. As I have stated in other contexts I am also not convinced that the proposed

podium treatments have a clear correlation with either an intended outcome or

logical development. Why for example does the podium form along the side streets

step down as it meets Palmerston Crescent and Raglan Street?


MGS Architects

19

3.18.1. As an example lower podiums are contemplated on side streets than

on Albert Road. Typically within the context of South Melbourne and

Albert Park corner built form has been given greater emphasis in

commercial areas with corner hotels are a particularly characteristic

form often being one or more storeys taller than its neighbours and

wrapping the corner. The Middle Park and Kerferd Road Hotels are

two such examples. It would not be unreasonable to anticipate the

scale of the Albert Road facades returning around the corner for

some distance to both mark the corner and threshold between the

lower built form hinterland and the primary boulevard.

3.18.2. The current mapping is less clear in its intent. As in other instances

some flexibility would enable a ‘right fit’ solution to be achieved.

3.18.3. Also apparent is that the proposed 3m setback for all street frontages

is not one that is consistent with much of the recent corner built form

both historic and new along this boulevard varying from this

mandated requirement. Whilst the goal of creating a generous and

engaging steetscape is acknowledged in examples for instance such

as south of Stead Street where a café has been incorporated at

ground level, such an outcome may neither be necessary or ideal in

all instances. Again flexibility to assess propositions on their merits is

warranted.

3.19. As per other precincts side and rear setbacks should be based on performance and

equitable development principles rather than mandatory provisions.

3.20. I do agree that the Mac.Robertson Girls High School should be protected from

overshadowing at the winter solstice between 11 am and 2 pm.

3.18. Side setbacks

3.18.1. The mandatory provision of side setbacks is also in my view

unwarranted in this precinct as it is elsewhere in DDO26. 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.


MGS Architects

20

3.18.2. In some instances it could be reasonably 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-.

3.18.3. 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 the 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.

3.18.4. Hence I would recommend that performance criteria should be put in

place for abutments between development rather than mandatory

provisions.

4. CONCLUSION

4.1. For these reasons I am of the view that the amendment requires substantial

redrafting.

4.1.1. 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. In my view there has if anything been a

suppressing of development potential arising from this whereas in

areas such as Arden Macaulay, Footscray & Melbourne North, greater

development potential has been envisaged. 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.

4.1.2. 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.

4.1.3. Elsewhere opportunities should be informed by principles of

responding to prevailing built form rhythms of scale that may allow


MGS Architects

21

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.

4.1.4. 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 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.

4.1.5. 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. Moreover, 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.

4.1.6. A more satisfactory outcome would be one that continues to seek

response to the key values that underpin the precinct. These include:

4.1.6.1. Equitable but not necessarily equal (as site capacity varies)

development and amenity goals between adjoining sites.

4.1.6.2. Design responses that support the curvilinear nature of key

precinct boulevards.

4.1.6.3. 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.

4.1.6.4. Sensitive responses to adjoining heritage and scaling down of

development west of Kings Way to hinterland and southerly

low scale heritage neighbourhoods

4.1.6.5. Promotion of activated and engaged street level land uses to

the NW precinct areas

4.1.6.6. Enhancement of the amenity and scale of shared spaces in

Queens Lane.

4.1.6.7. The provision of preferred heights for each precinct with:


MGS Architects

22

4.1.6.7.1. The scale of preferred heights in the NW precinct

increased to 60m

4.1.6.7.2. Extent of preferred 60m heights extended south of

Kingsway to include the 3 abutting Australian Unity

landholdings

4.1.6.7.3. The requirements for podiums be reassessed to

allow for individual developments to be considered

on their merits and based on the attributes of both

abutments and the quality of the design response.

I do not support the proposition that setbacks to

Kings Way are warranted and also struggle to see

the merits of the proposals in a number of

instances where the existing or emerging character

does not have this attribute in significant sections

of a street.

Stead Street for example has some buildings

with zero setback and the majority do not have

the setback sought. To the northern side the

recent Edge Apartments has 8 residential

levels rising directly above a two level podium

carpark.

In Sandilands Street offices rise within one

metre approximately of the southern footpath

to the corner with Albert Road and opposite an

new apartment building occupying almost

50% of the northern interface rises 8

residential levels without a podium form.

At Eastern Road at the southwest corner with

Raglan Street, Development has been built

without the street landscape setback and

activation whilst opposite the historic hotel

was similarly built with zero lot line

arrangements.

Further SW the new apartments bounding the

corner with Albert Road are built with elements


MGS Architects

23

meeting the street and no podium or

landscape setback for most of the building

length to the intersection with Thomson

Street.

Similarly along Thomson Street where a

landscape setback of 3m and podiums,

existing setbacks are similarly less and where

redeveloped have been undertaken to greater

height in part than sought under these

provisions to both sides of Thomson Street.

To the Northern side of the intersection of

Eastern Road and Albert Road, the Art Deco

block of apartments are similarly noncompliant

with this objective.

Given the majority of new developments

appear to not comply with the core criteria one

is left asking why these provisions are being

sought. Clearly it is not to create a legible and

coherent streetscape that infills.

South of Eastern Road there is also what I

believe to be a somewhat random transition in

proposed step down in heights. Logically

there would seem to be no reason why

redevelopment of the ageing corporate stock

in this area could not be achieved in a manner

that fits in as this is quite evidently not a

precinct where there is a consistent set of

characteristics. Similarly there is no reason in

my mind why mandated heights are necessary

in the areas where substantial change is

envisaged. It seems to me the taller built form

of 8-10 residential floors preferred or 7 office

levels could easily be accommodated for at

least two-thirds of this block. Before

transitioning down to the lower corner


MGS Architects

24

interface with Moray Street and the H0440

Overlay area.

Having said this I am supportive of a landscape

setback to Albert Road where a relatively

consistent provision is evident and where a

contribution to the setting of Albert Road and

Albert Park can be achieved in a meaningful

manner.

4.2. 180 Albert Road sits within an area where development that approximates the

proposed 30m benchmark would in my view sit comfortably into an area where

substantial change should be encouraged. That being said a mandated maximum

of 30m would unnecessarily constrain the opportunity for the building to be tailored

to optimise its fitness for purpose and its architectural resolution and would hence

not be supported.

4.3. For these reasons I am of the view that the provisions for this precinct require

substantial review. Clearly there is not a case based on either existing approvals, or

development for the application of a mandatory regime for heights or podiums in

this precinct and so in my view this element of the provisions should be removed.

Likewise the extent of transitioning within the precinct down to areas north of

Palmerston Crescent and Raglan Street is not in my view warranted.

4.4. There are however a number of performance criteria that are supported. These

include:

4.4.1. protection of the Albert Park Reserve from overshadowing,

4.4.2. retention of a landscaped setback to Albert Road

4.4.3. activation of the ground level street interfaces and

4.4.4. transitioning down from Kings Way to Moray Street albeit that in my

view this should occur in the sites that immediately adjoin the

heritage overlay areas and to the north in the sites immediately north

of Stead Street neither including the large consolidated Australian

Unity Site and potentially its immediate neighbour.


MGS Architects

25

5. DOCUMENTS FORMING THE BASIS OF THE REPORT

5.1. A number of documents were referred to in the preparation of this report, which are

listed below:

5.1.1. Site and Title Particulars

5.1.2. Current Port Phillip Planning Scheme Controls

5.1.3. Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme Exhibition

Material

5.1.3.1. Supporting Amendment Documentation

5.1.3.1.1. Public Notice

5.1.3.1.2. Explanatory Report

5.1.3.1.3. Instruction Sheet

5.1.3.2. Changes to the Planning Scheme

5.1.3.2.1. Clause 21.04 - Land Use

5.1.3.2.2. Clause 21.06 – Neighbourhoods

5.1.3.2.3. Clause 21.07 – Incorporated Documents

5.1.3.2.4. Schedule 26 to the Design and Development Overlay (DD026)

5.1.3.2.5. Schedule to Clause 66.06

5.1.3.3. Changes to the Planning Scheme Maps

5.1.3.3.1. Maps 3, 4 and 6 DDO – areas to be deleted from Design and Development

Overlay Schedule 3 and 4

5.1.3.3.2. Maps 3, 4 and 6 DDO – areas to be included in Design and Development Overlay

Schedule 26

5.1.3.4. Reference Document

5.1.3.4.1. Draft St Kilda Road North Precinct Plan 2013 Part 1, Part 2

5.1.4. Amendment C107 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme – other

5.1.4.1. Planisphere review of Schedules 3 and 4 to the DDO


MGS Architects

26

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

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


MGS Architects

27

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.

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.


MGS Architects

28

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

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