FUTURE MELBOURNE [INSERT PORTFOLIO] COMMITTEE REPORT · Recommendation from management 8. That the...

Attachments: 1. Supporting Attachment 2. Locality Plan 3. Proposed Plans 4. Delegate Report

Report to the Future Melbourne (Planning) Committee Agenda item 6.6 Ministerial Planning Referral: TPM-2013-16 398-406 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne

3 December 2013

Presenter: Daniel Soussan, Planning Co-ordinator

Purpose and background

1. The purpose of this report is to advise the Future Melbourne Committee of a Ministerial Planning Application (reference 2013/006810) for 398-406 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne. The planning application was referred to the City of Melbourne by the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI) on 18 July 2013 (refer Attachment 2 – Locality Plan and Attachment 3 – Proposed plans). The applicant is PDS Group Pty Ltd c/o SJB Planning, the owner is Alberay Pty Ltd and the architect is Hayball Pty Ltd.

2. The application seeks a permit to demolish the two existing single storey ungraded buildings and construct a 55 storey, 178 metre high, tower. The building is to be occupied by retail at ground and first level, car parking on levels 2-8, an office pod per floor on levels 2-8 and 466 dwellings.

Key issues

3. The proposed height is contrary to the Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 21.12 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme (MPS) which identifies the site within an area to have a lower scale than the Hoddle Grid to provide a contrast in built form scale between the lower scale of Carlton and North Melbourne and the Hoddle Grid.

4. The proposed height, coupled with the lack of podium and tower typology and lack of upper level setbacks from the Elizabeth and A’Beckett Street frontages is contrary to Clause 22.01 of the MPS. The 178 metre sheer wall onto the street frontages will overwhelm pedestrians and result in a building which is visually intrusive and dominant from the public realm, produce a canyon effect in A’Beckett Street and have little reference to a pedestrian scale of built form.

5. The lack of setbacks from the eastern and southern boundaries are contrary to Clause 22.01 of the MPS in that they do not adequately respond to the development potential of adjoining sites or the objective that towers be spaced to ensure equitable access to daylight and sunlight.

6. Above level 8, the tower is proposed to be set back 2.2 metres from the eastern elevation. Future responsibility for providing tower separation would have to be borne by the adjoining property. Should the adjoining property be developed with a similar or lesser setback, the narrow gap between towers will create a canyon effect, resulting in a poor outcome for the A’Beckett Street streetscape and severely compromising the outlook of the proposed apartments.

7. The tower is proposed to be setback only 5 metres from the southern boundary above level 8. In some circumstances the City of Melbourne has approved a 5 metre side boundary setback on the basis that the adjoining property will replicate the setback (providing a 10m separation). This situation is only suitable where apartments are off-set or oriented to ensure apartments maintain an outlook or where the façade is predominantly services (such as lift core and non-habitable rooms). In this case, the southern façade of the proposal is predominantly apartments with a south facing outlook.

Recommendation from management

8. That the Future Melbourne Committee resolve that a letter be sent to the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure advising that:

8.1. The Council objects to the application for the reasons set out in the Delegate Report (refer Attachment 4).

of 26

Supporting Attachment

Legal

1. The Minister for Planning is the responsible authority for determining the application.

Finance

2. There are no direct financial issues arising from the recommendations contained in this report.

Conflict of interest

3. No member of Council staff, or other person engaged under a contract, involved in advising on or preparing this report has declared a direct or indirect interest in relation to the matter of the report.

Stakeholder consultation

4. Council officers have not advertised the application or referred this to any other referral authorities. This is the responsibility of the DTPLI acting on behalf of the Minister for Planning who is the responsible authority.

Relation to Council policy

5. Relevant Council policies are discussed in the attached delegate report (refer Attachment 4).

Environmental sustainability

6. A Sustainability Statement forms part of the application submission. It includes the advice that the proposed development incorporates a wide range of ESD features and sets out primary goals to enhance the building’s environmental performance and meet the objectives of the MPS. It also lists a number of these features. The report however only suggests that the proposal will achieve a four star green star rating. Clause 22.19 would seek a five star green star rating. This forms one of the proposed grounds of objection.

Attachment 1 Agenda item 6.6

Future Melbourne Committee 3 December 2013

of 26

Locality Plan

398-406 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne

Attachment 2 Agenda item 6.6

Future Melbourne Committee 3 December 2013

of 26

3D RENDER VIEWS

VIEW FROM NORTH WEST / ELIZABETH STREET

VIEW FROM WEST / NBECKETT STREET

VIEW FROM SOUTH / ELIZABETH STREET

398 Elizabeth Street Melbourne Hayball

Project No 1802 2

of 26

haneis

Text Box

Attachment 3 Agenda item 6.6 Future Melbourne Committee 3 December 2013

No. 74.713 SINGLE STOREY BLUESTONE & BRICK BUILDING

Rev Description Date

A'BECKETT STREET

BICYCLE PARKING SPACES (PROVIDED IN ADDITK( TO CLAUSE 52.34 REQUIREMENTS)

TREE TORE REMOVED SAWN BLUESTONE PAVING TO FOOTPATHS AND LAN EWAYS TO MCC STANDARDS

RAISED TIMBER PLINTH REFER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS DRAWINGS (SUBJECT TO MCC ENGINEERING APPROVAL)

LINE OF EXISTING KERB

LINE OF PROPOSED KERB (SUBJECT TO MCC ENGIN EE R INGAPPROVAL)

4100

REFURBISHED BLUESTONE WALL TO ADJOINING HERITAGE BUILDING

IZU

11,65611/4=6■ 6116=14111.411111■4■Z

PROPOSED ART INSTALLATION (SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT WITH NEIGHBOURING PROPERTY OWNER)

LOWERED SHOP AREA TO ACTIVATE THE STREET AND FACILITATE DIRECT ACCESS FROM ELIZABETH STREET. NO SERVICES OR PENETRATIONS TO BASEMENT LEVEL TO BE LOCATED BELOW RL 15.90

BICYCLE PARKING SPACES (PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO CLAUSE 52.34 REQUIREMENTS)

g ■312

3429 RETAIL BIN

BLILNIG MGR

RL 15.90 RETA/L BIKE

STORAGE

LINE OF DOUBLE HEIGHT SPACE OVER KERB

PWD AC

SUBSTATION RL 15.90 LITERATURE LANE 2 RH RESPONSE 20.09.13

FADED 11.07.13 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION PROPOSED ART PISTALLATIONS (SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT WITH NEIGHBOURING PROPERTY OWNER)

43.

411'

SHOP 399.9W

FFL 15.90

1-4J-1111Whiabhpelyi 1111114/%1111011111111111111111111/1111

ih-AV - Labid 14111j1:1010stRI!I IIIII!!!1 -,== lip I

1111011114111:11R

-le Ill if 17

141 %WV

II

II

444414101:1 ■41::1:;:11 :11141P' 1111.11.

-9-110.11

41%%24112101110 -

1!"4114T111 .01111141

1111111.11 I imnrjAirITITIP11111111111:111111"1164111b

bh:111:11: 1.1.91.141-1L11-11•41.11-111.k.ht-1061 "11111-hi

FAO 0 M 1 10111111 104

lpholudi tiz,31:4

.,ETAGT b .Npirw

Alkadhlbpaltpipipi; Amu pivetviipololobbeihbon

only igigrre d1010,111 111 WI -I II:1 Pihro

BAP -11.-Inlh II 11 10.1011141g r, 1.0111111111 '401 41411/1111

1111.11.1:1.11111Nor

11115141111111111.11Wqriiiiithh ..1411%

%Oh% 11 tie b 11 4, % iskikaislil %lot

SERVICE CORRIDOR

ARE CONTROL

TOWN PLANNING

11=1 I=J II ii Hayball Pty Ltd 4/135 Stun Street Southbank Victoria Australia 3006 T 03 9699 3644 F 03 9699 3708 www.hayball.com.au

ARBV Registered Directors Len Hayball, Richard Leonard Robert Went, Tom Jordan, Sarah Buokeridge, Davrd Tweedie Directors Luc Bald) ABN 64 006 394 261

thrernims Wore any Ine carritrf *3 omrs dminsora .1 Ws von yeasowant nams 706

40' 1802 ELIZABETH 398 ELIZABETH STREET MELBOURNE 3000

TITLE

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

PROJECT NO 1802 DRAWN BY JD CHECKED AM DATE PRINTED 23/09/2013 11:56:12 AM SCALE 1: 10012A1

PROJECT 1802 DWG N° SK03 2

PROPOSED SEATING/BENCHES. REFER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS DRAWINGS

TWO STOREY RENDERED BUILDING

of 26

RH RESPONSE 20.09.13 1 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 11.07.13

111111111111111; 11111111111111

NATURAL VENTILATION

13 CAR SPACES

6300 •PC$

8300 6100 jp0 1700

CAR LIFT

EXIT TO GROUND

MINIM 6222 ne

ON E1NAY CAR CIRCULATION

SMALL CAR SPACE

ENTRY TO CA R PARK

TOWN PLANNING

I Rev I Description

Date I

HaybNI Pty Lid 41139 Stud Street Southbank Victoria Australia 3006 TOO 9699 3844

03 9699 3700 www.hayball.com.au

ARBV Registered Directors Len Hayball, Richard Leonard Robert Stent, Tom Jordan. Sarah BUskeddge, David Tweede Directors Luc Baldi ABN 84 006 394 281

ciTraMni XeCanIVIN.Fpme dame., tr... R.11.71% n.,..1rminemp.

dtatr. Val ON Ern* 11:. Atelltzleamial mid miraxtur MA [Cm.. pH. I. rdu-nd.M11.11.M.0.01,12ry.A.11.10C4.11711_1:Ce.rigel2011.1.103nern

1802 ELIZABETH 398 ELIZABETH STREET MELBOURNE 3000

TITLE

LEVEL 3

PROJECT NO 1802 DRAWN BY JD CHECKED AM DATE PRINTED 23/0912013 11 813:13 AM SCALE 1 : 100 CI A1

PROJECT DWG NO 1802 S KO6 2

of 26

L Ilmonatemps__ _ , —

4 F -- i---- t --t - - I - 1- - - - - • - - 4- • - - - - - - - - - A - - - - - - - - - - T- 1 — - 1-1 . —1- — - — - — —/- — - ---/- - — -

um II I

2 BED 2 633 nit

40.ln 2,-41

2200 4,

F

2

RFI RESPONSE

20.09.13 1

PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 11.07.13

Rev Description

I Date I

TOWN PLANNING

Ii

Haybail Pty Ltd 4/135 Sturt Street Southbank Victoria AustraN 3006 TOO 9899 3844 F 03 9599 3708 vivw.hayball.com.au

ARID/ Registered Directors Len Hayball, Richard Leonard Robert Stent, Tom Jordan, Sarah Buckeridge, David Tweede Directors Luc Bald ABN 84 006 394 361

Frtmerre.racion uvrh amnslals Dem obovIrAm“ F PaM10 damsons .1111.1 RNIKIVO, r>. If MN:" VIO pit y so tortonnPa Mt. ..01,4•1101, MII■V*

r•••• 6= 07:=2::=1 0 C.4.1. 171=1

1802 ELIZABETH 398 ELIZABETH STREET

MELBOURNE 3000

TITLE

LEVEL 10-16 TYPICAL

PROJECT NO 1802 DRA1NN BY JO CHECKED AM DATE PRINTED 2340912013 11:5817 All SCALE l: l00 Al if4

PROJECT D WG NO 1802 SK13 2 El

of 26

I MOM NM 11111

1

wl_EVR_ 53 1613 17766°1° 1

LHD 175000.001 wl_EVEL 52 •

LEVEL 48

LEVEL 47

ILF10 163400.001

1410 100500.03!

Imo 14e93ooll

14600accr

LEVEL 46 ALI#11 .900.0?

LEVEL 46 lAHO 154700.09f

LEVEL 44 15110 151910501

N. LEVEL 43

N. LEVEL 42

w LEVEL 35 Imo 12510500

w LEVEL 39

NI. LEVEL 38

LEVEL 37

w LEVEL 36

LEVEL 34

LEVIEL 33

MO 11990.003

15110 117030.001

J5110 1112o03Jj

N. LEVEL 32 JAHD 114700051

w LEVEL 31_

w LEVEL 30 •ILLF113 lcwaa°L .

1Ltio moon j

.126? 87 1

tA_FM 84900.00_1

ly LEVEL 29 _ Imo 106406001

w LEVEL 28

'aro imam

w LEVEL 27 Imo room I

w LEVEL 26 _ 14.910 sem cro

LEVEL 25 b ib0 9360003

Iv LEVEL 24 _

w LEVEL 23

w LEVEL 22

LEVEL 20 IMO 7901001

N. LEVEL 2

2 R Fl RESPONSE 20.09.13 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 11.07.13

Date .1 Rev Description

11 1=1

t73 CI M 7-1 - . J

w LIFT OVERRUN 15H0 191300.00 L

/5—

17 N. LIFT MOTOR ROOM fAFD mow* _

yr BY11-1 fano +moot° L

w ROOF imam

LEVEL 61

w LEVEL 50 1AHD 103200.00 !

_LEVE149_ 419

MATERIAL LEGEND

CP191 CONCRETE PANEL, BRIGHTONLITE OFF- WHITE CEMENT COLOUR

FN01 ALUMINPJ M FACADE FIN LIGHT NATURAL ANOOLSED ALEJ MINIUM COLOUR

GLO1 FRAMELESS GLASS BALUSTRADE, GREY COLOUR

00.02 ALUMINIUM FRAMED GLAZING SYSTEM, CLEAR GLASS

08.03 FRONT GLAZED GLAZING SYSTEM, GREY COLOUR /OPAQUE SPANDREL PANEL

00L04 SHOPFRONT GLAZING AND FRAMELESS DOORS. CLEAR FULL HEIGHT GLAZING TO STRUCTURAL GLAZING MULLIONS.

PF01 PERFORATED METAL CLADDING DARK GREY COLOUR

991-01 HORLZONTAL METAL SUNSHADE, DARK COLOUR

MT02 FRAMED METAL CANOPY & CLADDING TO CAR LIFT ENTRY, DARK GREY COLOUR

MT03 METAL FIN, DARK GR EY COLOUR

mr04 METAL WINDOW SUR ROUNDISHROUD DARK GREY COLOUR

swit NIGH QUALITY BLUESTONE CLADDING

Froy SAWN BLUESTONE CLADDING

or-C_of,

LEVEL 2L Imo mom]

w LEVEL 19 _ 1AE113 _782°°°°

w LEVEL 18

w LEVEL 17

w LEVEL 16

N. LEVEL 15

J5193 70400.001

12p_egovAl

5405.00 1

\-/- BASEMENT AHD 12200.00

111-F-Or,

■ 13L02-1

w LEVEL 14

me

jA 170.01

LEE 13

8 .

LEVEL 12

Nor LEVEL 11 IMO 53000.051

N. LEVEL 10

N. LEVEL 9 _ AHO 47200.00

NI/ LEVEL 8 _

■ LEVEL 15H13 4o400 co]

_LEVEL 6 MID 31ll_L50050

w LEVEL 5 I" 316°111°1_

w LEVEL 4 _111113 31700.031

Iv LEVEL 3 .1 ■1110 _2!1.1°.°9 L _ _ _

_sssoaccr

126) 8016600 1

Zd:211 NIEL in.11=1

TOWN PLANNING

Hayball Pty Ltd 41135 Stud Street Southbank Victoria Australia 3006 T 039050 3644 F 03 9690 3708 writhaKoalloom.au

ARB11 Registered Directors Len Hayball, Richard Leonard Robed Steel, Tom Jordan, Sarah Buckeridge, David Tweedie Directors Luc Bald ASH 84 006 394 2151

"2.2.2."%14"."'"Ilred.r2orkwEgroVe"61111""'"[111.1.ork" cawr'"Lnitg""""f 4.1,00%f-re.. 221-ons 0.1"""r"Vgirbr* Arcrealnertys....114.7esnal=4Z.. nt...04.1134 ■11:17..11,4111.,11317.11-190Lonsullart Ce.1101, ,■■

1802 ELIZABETH 398 ELABET1-1 STREET MELBOURNE 3000

TITLE

NORTH ELEVATION

PROJECT NO 1802 DRAWN BY JO CHECKED Checker DATE PRINTED 2340912013 12:39:47 PM SCALE 1 : 250 @Al

PROJECT DWG NO sK22 1802 2

Imo imam I

[MD /6146616 1

Imo imago

P0.0 1213600.00j

of 26

r6166.6 r_ ^ r

JIN4D imam LIFT OVERRUN

lAHD 180805001

Iv ROOF imp innacaj

LEVEL 54

AHD 17750053

[AHD Immo) I

Nir LEVEL 53

▪ LEVEL 52

•ler LEVEL 51 JA.110 172155001

v. LEVEL 50

1R10 180200.001

AHD 157600.DD I

LEVEL 47 I AHD 180500.001

Iv LEVEL 46

yr LEVEL 45 _ AN) 1547 1050

vr LEVEL 44 Imo 151060.001

LEVEL 43 An_Hasacom _

LEVEL 42 A.11 04600.1

.w LEVEL 41 JAM 14310050i _

.w• LEVEL 90 [ 1)_ ?Taxi

w LEVEL 39 jp.40_137300.05L

AHD 118800.32

117000.00

LEVEL 34

10- 33 _

AHD 10830250

LEva 32 1AHO 114103001

LEVEL 31 Jo 11120580]

■ LEVEL 30

v. LEVEL 29 JAHD 11:6401001

-yr LEVEL 28

liAHD 102505001

,s,Ke 47200.90

Lpia 21 i/6_11206115:1

LEVEL 20 PAH° Thlmok

mi. LEVEL 19 _Ltitp_762oalit

sir LEVEL 18 AHD M300.00

■ LEVEL 17 AH1. 1).. 0713100

LEVEL 16 AHD 157500.00

11, Lpa_15 _ [AFC, 84800501

■ LEVEL 14 simual

LEVB_ 13 mi.. 5BEW 00

w LEVEL 12 AF_113 055603 _

Imo _53»100J

LEVEL 10 _LAI-0 50101001 _

LEVEL 9

mom!

■

1r LEVEL. 7

1r LEVEL. 6

▪

LEVEL 5 _1 LEVEL 4 _ _3170580l

LEVB_ 3 JIN4 288050c I

1_1.FT MOTOR ROOM A}_4000500

Ir LEVEL 38 AH_Loi 4450.00

LEVB_ 37 pali5co.00 _

EVEL36 JAHD_ 12ascat

▪ LEVB_ 35 'AHD 125705001_

✓ BMU . _ NO lemma)

_I_EVEL 27 !AHD 09110510IIL

m_LEVEL 26 imp swynot

ir LEVEL 25 AH_LILI _mom]

1r LEVEL 24 _LAHD 00700.col

_ _Pa! vemcol

jam ma*

CHIN

GUM'.

44 NBECKETT ST MY80 80 A'BECKETT ST

TERATURE LN OR L.1 -10 00

SEMENT fivia 12300

Imo 43300501

37500.00

2 REI RESPONSE 20.0513 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 11.07,13

77 7

MATERIAL LEGEND

CN01 CONCRETE PANEL BRIGHTONLITE OFF- WHITE CEMENT COLOUR

TOWN PLANNING

Hayball Pty Ltd 4/135 Shirt Street Snuthbank lActona Australia 3006 T03 0699 3644 F03 9699 3708 %wAy.hayballoom.au

ARBV Registered Directors Len Hayloall, Richard Leonetti ROb.rk Swot Tom Jordan, Sarah Buckeridge, David Tweedie Directors Luc Baldi ABN 84 006 394 261

F0001 ALUMINIUM FACADE FIN LIGHT NATURAL ANODISED ALUMINIUM COLOUR


GLO2 ALUMINIUM FRAMED GLAZING SYSTEM, CLEAR GLASS

GLIM FRONT GLAZED GLAZING SYSTEM, GREY COLOUR / OPAQUE SPANDREL PANEL

GLIM SHOPKRONT GLAZING AND FRAMELESS DOORS. CLEAR FULL HEIGHT GLAZING TO STRUCTURAL GLAZING MULLIONS.

PFD1 PERFORATED METAL CLADDING DARK GREY COLOUR

INT01 HORIZONTAL METAL SUNSHADE. DARK COLOUR

58002 FRAMED METAL CANOPY & CLADDING TO CAR LIFT ENTRY, DARK GREY COLOUR

00053 METAL FN, DARK GREY COLOUR

mygg METAL WINDOW SURROUND/SHROUD DARK GREY COLOUR

sT01 HIGH QUALITY BLUESTONE CLADDING

5702 SAWN BLUESTONE CLADDING

Date Description I Rev I

.1.80.11[11..1VeNfil0.0.117.6 Wm B. Boy Ph Errna.., 66r16 6.1166F RN No rel.ar.166 Izahlwrt work sna ato torivr.ft eraravArgs. maw..

tr 6 601 66616196 iheAr066.111611.1 brel inn.066.611n61 conn6n pm 6 n. ginZ-74,ncpsavinpsyneete

1802 ELIZABETH 398 ELTZ-ABETH STREET MELBOURNE 3000

TITLE

EAST ELEVATION

PROJECT NO 1802 DRAWN BY JD CHECKED Checker DATE PRINTED 23113522013 12.40:27 PM SCALE 1 : 250 © Al

PROJECT 1802

DWG NO sK23 2

of 26

cEIMMr-1 71 CI [71 --- 7 7 M 7 7 El 7 7

18110 117000.00 I

Nir LEVEL 34 iiselact

1. LEVEL 33

✓ LEVEL 32 ITooto I

v. LEVEL 31

LEVEL 30

vir LEVEL 29

v. LEVEL 28 .412500.00

■ LEVEL 27

V LEVEL 26 A1O j_3780413 _

LEVEL 25 _Imo

w LEVEL 24 JAHo somata I

v. LEVEL 23 AP_

LEVEL 22 Ai-Hr rol_oevoo.

1.• LEVEL 21 ka-o_ 821700.00L

vr LEVEL 20 raionaL

■ LEVEL 19 LvIc_ 7620E0g1

■ LEVEL 18 jAkm 737A03 1

■ LEVEL 17 k911_ 70407•00 1

V LEVEL 16 [AHD 875000.01_

■ LEVEL 15 lario moose'

w. LEVEL 14 kin mono'

_EVEL 13 IMO 03701100 1

I Rev I Description Pate 1

Imo mese* BMU

ROOF 'AHD lanknool

3, Le+,,EL4

V LEVEL 63

LEVEL 52

1 AIM 134406701 v. LEVEL 38

v. LEVEL 37 la1sco.o3L

v. LEVEL 36 _

_EVEL 35 kvio 125700.001

18110 94600.40 I

*to mono'

Imo imam I

V LIFT OVERRUN

Iv LIFT MOTOR ROOM

15110 180801001

leo Immo° I

I AHD 175000.001

LEVEL 46 lAND 157000. so I

'AHD istemoo I V LEVEL 44

15100 mono v. LEVEL 42

1 5110 140201001 vy LEVEL 40

15002 12e00e00f

11 120100

1 AHD loENsooL

[AHD 105401001

_EVEL 51 172103.00L

_EVEL 50 I FHD 16920a*

_l___EVEL 49 1663" I

mLEVEL 48 1834ae 00 l

LEVEL 47 160500.00

LEVEL 46 .1131.4.703.4o

LEVEL 43 "MOO 1

v., LEVEL 41 1AND 143103.00L

✓ - LEVEL 39 LIFO 1373" I

EVErIL 12 AN_ .s.____Lssenoc,

-EV_E.1_ 11 ___ miLp_OL053C00.

EVEL 10 15110 5amoo

9_ lamo mem!

VjEV 8_ Ai-Uoaoace

mr- LEVEL 7 AH01 .110L40400

V LEVEL 6 Imo_ psoacej

_EVEL 5 ABWL46110.00

v. LEVEL 4 Am_l_t000

Iv LEVEL 3 lsiio zaemr.cf_

1..EVILL 2_ AH.Lo____Izeoaoo

50mm REBATE IN UN41 WALL

o(DiTi

0103

L(T01)

Ft()171

FNO1 ALUMINIUM FACADE FIN LIGHT NATURAL ANODISED ALUMHNIUM COLOUR

61.01 FRAMELESS GLASS BALUSTRADE, GREY COLOUR

6102 ALUMINIUM FRAMED GLAZING SYSTEM, CLEAR GLASS

GL03 FRONT GLAZED GLAZING SYSTEM, GREY COLOUR / OPAQUE SPANDREL PANEL

GLIM SHOP FRONT GLAZING AND FRAMELESS DOORS, CLEAR FULL HEIGHT GLATIING TO STRUCTURAL GLAZING MULLIONS,


PATO1 HORIZONTAL METAL SUNSHADE. DARK COLOUR

MT02 FRAMED METAL CANOPY & CLADDING TO CAR LIFT ENTRY, DARK GREY COLOUR

MT03 METAL PIN, DARK GREY COLOUR

gm METAL WINDOW SURROUND/SHROUD DARK GREY COLOUR

gm HIGH QUALITY BLUESTONE CLADDING

gm SAWN BLUESTONE CLADDING

MATERIAL LEGEND

CNO1 CONCRETE PANEL, BRIGHTCN LITE OFF- WHITE CEMENT COLOUR

TOWN PLANNING

Hayball Pty Ltd 4/135 Stud Street Southbank Victoria Australia 3006 T03 21606 3644 F03 9695 3708 wwwtrayball.comau

ARBV Registered Directors Len Hayball, Richard Leonard Robed Stool, Tom J ordan, Sarah Buckeridge, David Tweede Directors Luc Bald SRN 84008 394 261

Eumgeortgetenonplyor**Arpanaoraterzeinnoeconnences.,M.M.I. ova:ono OM Taw.. WM VMS. I Main. re d.niqe and pp ann..

mop Awl ea simflo tInArthletICansuon mint.. Lormeae ar.lo t.

1 802 ELIZABETH 398 ELABETH STREET

MELBOURNE 3000

TILE

SOUTH ELEVATION

PROJECT NO 1802 DRAWN BY JO CHECKED Checker DATE PRINTED 23429/2013 12:40:53 PM SCALE 1 : 250 @A1

PROJECT DWG NO 1802 SK24 2

20.0513 11.01.13 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION

2

EFL RESPONSE

li=11

of 26

2-0w1

MY

_1193900. _0(1 MIDI_ LIFT OVERRUN w

_ _ LIFT MOTOR ROOM

186600.C.LoLAHD BMU

pante Alio I ROOF

LEVEL 64 Nr

_ LEVEL 53

LEVEL 52 Iv

LEVEL 51

I lAg200.40 AHOL LEVEL po

I mono NMI LEVEL 49 ■

LEVEL 48 mir

. _ _ . _

moon AHDL LEVEL 47

kgeonoo AHD I LEVEL 46 w

igroo.cLa2_1_,Ho _ LEVEL 45 ■

151E00.07 AIM LEVEL 44

114E000.00 N1D I LEVEL 43 ■

_ . nAmILIA "1 LEVEL 42

I 143100.CO AHD L LEVEL 41 ■

_ 14021)010 AHD _ _ y

mono AHD1 LEVEL 39 ■

J134400.00 prol LEVEL 38

J131500.00 AHD 1 LEVEL 37 v.

J12860000 AHOL LEVEL

L125700.00 NC 1 LEVEL 35 „or _ . . _ .

111990000 AHD L LEVEL 34 v.

117C001AHD LEVB_ .33 NI,

LEVEL 32 w.

_ LEVEL 31

EO 0

105400.00 4,110 LEVEL 29 IF

lozono AHD I LEVEL 28 iv

_ Lawn°. 2bI3L LEVEL 27

196". L LEVEL 26 w.

_ . I 1711011 AHD I LEVEL 25 w

907.1_00.al LEVEL 24

Immo mo LEVEL 23 Nr

J17010000 AHDL LEVEL 22 -w

B2C0700 NOL LEVEL 21

79103.00 AHD= i LEVEL 20

pe20000 AHD I LEVEL 19

L73300.00_ LEVEL 18_1E

Imam Am] LEVB_ 17 v•

18750010 NC I LEVEL 16

1 66aw 4HPL LEVEL 15 v.

_ 10170A . AHOL _ LEVEL 14

. 56totkolVID LEVEL 13

55100.00 AHD LEVEL 12

1 533" AH° L LEVEL 11 ■

Isomojip AHD 1 LEVEL 10

147200.00 NW I LEVEL 9 Nr

I 433acla AHP L LEVEL. 8

L40400.03 two L LEVEL. 7

Imrsoo.00 LEVEL 6

L34800.00 . AHD] LEVEL5

317001LoL_LND LEVEL 4_m

_ . _Lai!" "L _ . _ LEVEL.3

isosoo.00 NW 1

17790000 A110

175000.00 AHD

172100.130 AHD

163400.1__14_1 "AHD

111200.DAHD

106300.00 4111

80 ..„ ST

_ 7141111 111E11 I 259000.LoALJ-si Lp./B__2

74-78 ELIZABETH ST LT hA TROBE ST

ST111

MATERIAL LEGEND

CNO1 CONCRETE PANEL BRIGHTONLITE OFF-WHITE CEMENT COLOUR

FNO1 ALUMWMJM FACADE FIN LIGHT NATURAL ANODISED ALUMINIUM COLOUR


GLO2 ALUMINIUM FRAMED GLAZING SYSTEM, CLEAR GLASS

GLO3 FRONT GLAZED GLAZING SYSTEM, GREY COLOUR !OPAQUE SPANDREL PANEL

GL04 SHOPFRONT GLAZING AND FRAMELESS DOORS CLEAR FULL HEIGHT GLAZING TO STRUCTURAL GLAZING MULLIONS.


MT01 H OR IZONTAL METAL SUNSHADE, DARK COLOUR

MT02 FRAMED METAL CANOPY IS C LADD WG TO CAR LIFT ENTRY, DARK GREY COLOUR

M113 METAL FN, DARK GREY COLOUR

p,gyrui. METAL WINDOW SURROUND/SHROUD DARK GREY COLOUR

Sim HIGH QUALITY BLUESTONE CLADDING

ST92 SAWN BLUESTONE CLADDING

2

RFI RESPONSE

20.09.13 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 11.07.13

Rev Description Date

11

F5,P11411119,81...1.M OR.. one mi... "amnia other tenr91.111:1 arrerIslons AI SU 0.111ps .11.3 MI. Archeettl..... !TIMM" nol cOmni.• pro.% Do

WPIWP.Arabacreomme. coon on 7coe ni .15 resew.

1802 ELIZABETH

398 ELIZABETH STREET MELBOURNE 3000

TITLE

WEST ELEVATION

PROJECT NO 1002 DRAWN BY JD CHECKED AM DATE PRINTED 23/09/2013 12:41:41 PM SCALE 1 : 250 Al


1 :sot7 Q Aiv

TOWN PLANNING

Hayball Pty Ltd 4/135 Slurt Street Southbank Victona Australia 3006 1039699 3644 F 039699 3709 Wstw.h ayball.comau

flONKICerbatitn1.1.01/..arren.r.Ii. p. ern,.

ARBV Re gistered Directors Len HaybaN, Richard Leonard Robert Stent, Tom Jordan, Sarah Buckeridge, David Tweedie Directors Baldi ABN 134 006 394 261

fl=11

7 7 7 r: CITECIOn 171 Cyril 171 CI 71 El r: 71 71 rtV1 El 171 CI 17 El 7 71 17 " of 26

58200

24 200

1 r —

No. 71-73 DOUBLE STOREY BLUESTONE BUILDING

11.1=111111111.1.111177 2200 4103

•{'

43300

CARPAR

4040C

T7

32505

34115 .G1

31700

26200

`U1

CRAP.<

OPRPARK

CAPP:1RK

CARFARE

0N4PARI4

25270

GLIM CLEAR S141.11140 70

\ 0165001014. OWING MULU0445 WITH 1115412 ETA/ WINDCAY

\ SURROUIEUGHHCLIO \ 1 —3

PERO UST& 51145, DARK COLOUR PLANTER ON INSTALLED AT MAR OF FDIC 59TH GLEIERICIELANTS GGHTDIGIIITEGEATED INTO PLANTINGEINS

SAW OLUEETONE MMHG TUL4ALFWAY 14 ACCORDANCE WITH MCC GIJOEURES, 574415W011 GRADIENT LOX 120

CASEMENT

1554

A ge

FACADE EIN. LIGHT OULU) RER 020 405015

0040440 410. LIGHT 004.014114E0 ALUMINIUM

PERFORATED METAL CLADDING DARE GREY COLOUR

PASSIVE SUENTOLLANCE 04 LAROITAT FROM 000104 4100

000s:0 0,i,

5 884sOISIRL

.34010 21441AL

47 290

SECTION THROUGH C) BIN ROOM

12 1RF1 RESPONSE 120.06.13

I Rev Description Date

34 SOO c2•

CARFARE

2203

4100

4tG55

4401 411341ClUALT4 LTLUESHOPIE CLAWING 10 BOOSTER CLIPECNIA

CARPARIS

WEST WALL OF RISING BUJESTONE HERITAGE 5311120440 CURRENTLY OBSCURED EIT E4I01140 DELORS ON PROPOREO STE PROPOSN. WILL 7000523410 55116541 HEHRAGE ECUECTOPE WALL

25200

24 200

0800

15 200

leawlemea:1511 055401EPTT

04411 000'31 FIR LIGHT COLOURED ALUMPIUM

56I11 FRAMELESS GASS RALUSTRACIE

SECTJON THROUGH 0 LOBBY

TOWN PLANNING

Hayball Pty Ltd 41135 511271 5111502 Southbank Victoria Australia 3006 T 03 9699 3644 F 03 9699 3708 warro.hayballcom all

ARBV Registered Directors Len Hayball, Richard Leonard Robert Scent Tom Jordan, Sarah Buckerdge, David Tweedie Directors Luc Balch ABS 84 008 394 281

.111515E-1.1.45.41111 .4.1.1. 5541155,5 WM WO "MIMI FI.10 frpa Like .akd noria worrc lasa renponle........,

415004.4.54 5001.4 Malan! 00,14411144414Corautai.nrneme .03conrenteoorio 141410 . 111341.040 3040 341411444.5.1 60013e1000nama. 9.4‘n 00034 5644016.00

1802 ELIZABETH 398 ELIZABETH STREET MELBOURNE 3000

TITLE

PROPOSED LANE1NAY SECTIONS PROJECT NO 1602 DRAM BY Author CHECKED Checker DATE PRINTED 231090013 11:55:24 AM SCALE As isdicelgeA1


CH01

MATERIAL LEGEND

CONCRETE PANEL, BRiGHTONLFTE OFF-WH ITE CEMENT COLOUR

RESIDENTAL FNO1 ALUMINIUM FACADE FIN LIGHT NATURAL ANODISED ALUMINIUM COLOUR

GLIM FRAMELESS GLASS BALUSTRADE, GREY COLOUR

58500 T7 08.92 ALUMINIUM FRAMED GLAZING SYSTEM,

CLEAR GLASS 12001172071,

5I.03 FRONT GLAZED GLAZING SYSTEM, GREY COLOUR OPAQUE SPANDREL PANEL

55210 134.04 SHOPFRONT GLAZING AND FRAMELESS DOORS.

CLEAR FULL HEIGHT GLAZINGTO STRUCTURAL GLAZING MULLIONS.

RESIDENTIAL


MT61 HORIZONTAL METAL SUNSHADE, DARK COLCUR 9 003

M702 FRAMED METAL CANOPY a. CLADDING TO 0E01I1g1N71. CAR LIFT ENTRY, DARK GREY COLCUR

MT03 METAL FIN, DARK GREY COLOUR

m104 METAL WINDOW SURROUND/SHROUD 50 100 DARK GREY COLOUR 400321 444 LIGHT

CI:ARMCO 44.510/19/44

STO1 HIGH QUALITY BLUESTONE CLADDING 'NW assineirea

0707 SAWN BLUESTONE CLADDING

of 26

PLANNING REPORT

MINISTERIAL REFERRAL

Application number:

DTPLI Application Number:

TPM-2013-16

2013/006810

Applicant / Owner / Architect: Applicant – PDS Group Pty Ltd c/- SJB Planning

Owner – Alberay Pty Ltd

Architect – Hayball Pty Ltd

Address: 398 – 406 Elizabeth Street, MELBOURNE VIC 3000

Proposal: Demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a multi storey building comprising residential apartments, office, lower level retail premises (excluding adult sex bookshop, department store, hotel, supermarket, and tavern) and to waive the on-site loading requirements under Clause 52.07 of the Scheme (DTPLI ref 2013/006810)

Date received by City of Melbourne:

18 July 2013. Response to DTPLI request for further information received by City of Melbourne on 8 October 2013

Responsible officer: Katherine Smart

1. SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS

1.1. The site

The site has a 25.4 metre frontage to Elizabeth Street and 40.36 metres to A’Beckett Street with a total area of 1,030 square metres. The rear of the site also abuts Literature Lane for a length of approximately 4.63 metres. The site is relatively flat.

The site is currently occupied by two, single storey, ungraded buildings currently used as a hair salon and restaurant. There are two vehicular crossings from A’Beckett Street and access can also be gained from Literature Lane.

1.2. Surrounds

The surrounding area is currently quite low scale, with a small number of multi-storey buildings in the wider area. Generally buildings are single storey to mid-rise and built to all boundaries with retail frontages. There has however been recent approval of some larger buildings in the immediate area.

More particularly with respect to the immediate area it is noted that:

of 26

haneis

Text Box

Attachment 4 Agenda item 6.6 Future Melbourne Committee 3 December 2013

To the north across A’Beckett Street at No. 410 Elizabeth Street is the ‘MY80’, a 54 storey residential development currently under construction with generally no setbacks to the street. To the north-east at 58-64 A’Beckett Street is an approval for a high rise building with limited front setbacks.

To the south is a two storey ungraded commercial building. Further south across Little La Trobe Street is a two storey ‘B’ graded building. There are no current approvals on either of these sites.

To the east is a two storey ‘A’ graded heritage building and a two storey ‘B’ graded heritage building, both of which front A’Beckett Street.

West across Elizabeth Street is a six storey building with retail at ground level and apartments above.

2. THE PROPOSAL

The plans forming the subject of this assessment are a combination of those initially received (date stamped 18 July 2013) and plans received in response to the further information request from DTPLI (date stamped 1 October 2013). It is proposed to partly demolish the existing buildings and construct a 55 storey, 177.9 metre high tower (plus basement and roof plant).

The application proposes the following uses:

Dwelling Total number of dwellings: 466

One bedroom dwellings: 116

One bedroom + study: 62

Two bedroom dwellings: 260

of 26

Three bedroom dwellings: 28

Office Leasable Floor Area 389sqm at levels 2 to 8

Retail 1,016sqm at ground and first level.

The floor plans also include the following:

Widening of the A’Beckett Street footpath and proposed landscaping and street furniture.

Proposed 4.1 metre wide laneway linking A’Beckett Street to Literature Lane along the eastern boundary of the site. The proposed laneway is also to be used as a loading dock and car park entry to the building.

A new crossing and the removal of a street tree on the A’Beckett Street frontage.

Building services at basement level.

Levels 2 to 8 containing car parking and one office pod per floor.

Plant and communal residential amenities on Level 34.

Plant at levels 55 to 57.

The specific details of the proposal are as follows:

Building height 177.9 metres to the top of the roof plant.

Podium height The building sets back from the southern boundary from

level nine at a height of 32.2 metres

Front, side and rear setbacks

North (A’Beckett Street): the building is setback 300mm

at all levels. Fins which are an architectural feature of

the building façade have varying projections over the

title boundary from slightly projecting to a maximum of

300mm.

West (Elizabeth Street): the building is setback 300mm

at all levels. Fins which are an architectural feature of

the building have varying projections over the title

boundary from slightly projecting to a maximum of

300mm.

East: From ground level to level nine the building is

setback 4.1 metres from the eastern boundary. From

level nine and above the building cantilevers over the

‘podium’ setback 2.2 metres from the eastern boundary.

From level two and above the architectural fins are used

on this elevation.

South: From ground level to level nine the building is

built to the boundary and then sets in 5 metres from the

southern boundary. From level nine and above the fins

are used on this elevation.

Gross floor area (GFA) The area schedule forming part of the application

documentation states that the gross floor area is 43,583

square metres.

Car parking spaces A total of 94 car spaces are to be provided, as well as

of 26

six motorcycle spaces.

Bicycle facilities and spaces

173 spaces provided; 51 in the basement, seven at

ground, and 11 on each of the levels 2 to 8. 18

additional spaces are proposed on the footpath.

Loading/unloading No loading dock has been proposed.

Vehicle access Car spaces are to be accessed from a new crossing

from A’Beckett Street via a car lift.

Finishes The building has been designed ‘in the round’ with no

blank facades. The applicant has described the building

as ‘a dark box wrapped in shifting and peeling concrete

fins.’ The building façade comprises of vertical precast

concrete panels, grey spandrel glazing, grey glass

glazed balustrades for balconies and a lighter coloured

concrete vertical fins. The ground level shopfronts are

to be clear glazing. The car parking podium levels are

dark grey perforated metal cladding.

A steel framed dark grey metal canopy is proposed

above level one on both street frontages, it projects 2.1

metres over the tile boundary

3. BACKGROUND

3.1. Pre-application discussions

The plans presented at the pre-application meeting were for a 55 storey building similar to the application proposal.

The key issues raised at the pre-application meeting were:

Tower setbacks in relation to streetscapes and adjoining properties development opportunities.

Greater activation of street frontages is required in the car parking podium.

Activation of the ground level along the proposed lane.

Potential wind impacts.

3.2. Site history

There is no directly relevant history or background for this application.

4. PLANNING SCHEME PROVISIONS

The following provisions of the Melbourne Planning Scheme apply:

State Planning

Policies

Clause 11 – Settlement.

Clause 15.01-1- Urban Design.

Clause 15.01-5 – Cultural Identity and neighbourhood character.

Clause 15.02 – Sustainable development.

Clause 15.03 – Heritage.

of 26

Clause 16 – Housing.

Clause 18.02-1 – Sustainable personal transport.

Clause 18.02-5 Car parking

Municipal

Strategic

Statement

Clause 21.03 – Vision.

Clause 21.04-1 – Growth Area Framework.

Clause 21.06-1 - Urban Design.

Clause 21.06-2 – Heritage.

Clause 21.06-3 – Sustainable development.

Clause 21.07 – Housing.

Clause 21.09 – Transport.

Clause 21.12 – Hoddle Grid.

Local Planning

Policies

Clause 22.01 – Urban Design within the Capital City Zone.

Cause 22.02- Sunlight to Public Spaces.

Clause 22.04 – Heritage Place within the Capital City Zone.

Clause 22.19- Energy, Waste and Waste Efficiency.

Clause 22.20 – CBD Lanes

Statutory Controls

Capital City Zone

Schedule 1

A permit is required to carry out demolition.

A permit is required to carry out buildings and works.

Retail, office and accommodation are Section 1 uses.

Design and

Development

Overlay

Clause 43.02-2 states that a permit is required to carry out buildings and

works, but that this does not apply if a schedule to the overlay

specifically states that a permit is not required.

Design and

Development

Overlay 1 –

Active Street

frontage

This overlay applies to the Elizabeth Street frontage of the site.

Pursuant to this overlay, a permit is required to carry out buildings and

works at ground level. The proposed development requires a permit

under this overlay.

Design and This overlay applies to the Elizabeth Street frontage. A permit is not

of 26

Development

Overlay 4 –

Weather

Protection

required to carry out buildings and works if adequate weather protection

to the street frontage is provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible

Authority.

The proposed canopies should be to the satisfaction of the Responsible

Authority.

Special Building

Overlay

Pursuant to Clause 44.05-1 a permit is required to construct a building or

carry out works. An application must be referred to Melbourne Water.

As the Minister for Planning is the Responsible Authority, DTPLI has

responsibility for this referral. (Melbourne Water responded with no

objection subject to conditions)

Parking Overlay

1

A permit is required to provide parking in excess of the car parking rates

in Clause 3.0 of Schedule 1 to the Parking Overlay. Clause 3.0 sets a

rate of 1 space per dwelling. However, Clause 2.0 states that this permit

requirement does not apply to additional car parking to serve dwellings

or a residential hotel.

In addition to car parking for the residential component a number of

spaces may also be provided for the retail and office components,

without a permit. A permit is required to exceed this number.

The proposal generates a maximum allowance of 466 spaces for the

dwellings and 7 for the commercial component.

The proposed development for 94 car parking spaces is below the

maximum limits and no permit is required for the proposed car parking

provision.

Motorcycle parking: the schedule states that motor cycle parking should

be provided at a rate of one space per 100 car parking spaces. Six

parking spaces have been provided which meets the requirements and

therefore there is no permit trigger.

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.06, Car Parking

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-3, a permit is required to provide more than

the maximum parking provision specified in a schedule to the Parking

Overlay.

As stated above, the proposed car parking provision is within the limits set out for Parking Overlay 1.

Clause 52.07, Loading and Unloading of Vehicles

Clause 52.07 applies to applications for the manufacture, servicing,

storage or sale of goods or materials. As part of the land is to be used

for retail purposes, a permit is triggered under this clause. The applicant

has indicated that they are not providing a loading area however it is

likely that the proposed laneway may be used for this purpose.

Clause 52.34, Bicycle Facilities

A permit may be granted to reduce or waive the bicycle parking

requirement.

Pursuant to Clause 52.34, the proposed uses generate a requirement for

a minimum of 144 bikes, inclusive of 93 resident, 2 employee and 49

of 26

visitor bicycle spaces. 173 spaces are provided. Therefore, no permit is

required to reduce the bicycle parking requirement.

Clause 52.35, Urban Context Report and Design Response for Residential Development of Four or More Storeys

This has been provided to DTPLI.

Clause 52.36, Integrated Public Transport Planning

An application for developments in excess of 60 dwellings must be

referred to PTV for comment. As the Minister for Planning is the

Responsible Authority, DTPLI has responsibility for this referral.

General Provisions

Clause 61.01 –

Administration

and enforcement

of this scheme

The Minister for Planning is the responsible authority for this planning

permit application as the total floor area of the development exceeds

25,000 square metres.

Clause 65 – Approval of an application or plan

This clause sets out Decision Guidelines. These include the matters set

out in Section 60 of the Act.

5. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

The application has been referred to the City of Melbourne for comment. The covering letter from DTPLI includes the statement that the application is exempt from notice under Section 52 of the Act. This is correct in relation to Capital City Zone 1 provisions, Design and Development Overlay 1 and 4 and Special Building Overlay.

6. REFERRALS

The application was referred to Urban Design, Engineering Services, Land Survey, Urban Landscapes and the Municipal Building Surveyor. Key matters raised in responses are summarised/set out below.

Urban Design The comments include the following:

The proposed plot ratio is approximately 42 which is indicative of an overdevelopment of the site.

The height of 178 metres is considered excessive and inconsistent with the MSS which includes: ‘ensure the area bounded by Latrobe and Victoria Streets and Elizabeth / Peel Streets has a lower scale than the Hoddle Grid and provides a contrast in built form scale between the lower scale of Carlton and North Melbourne and the higher scale of the Hoddle grid.’

of 26

Setbacks from boundaries are inadequate.

Proposal compromises development potential of adjoining properties to the east and south.

The use of fins is supported.

The canopy may impact on street trees and City of Melbourne requires comments from the appropriate branch.

Support given for the proposed through-site link however note that it would be more successful with increased building setbacks.

Insufficient active frontages to the new laneway or literature lane. Inhabited space could be provided by the relocation of the substation and or the deletion of a car lift.

Upper podium levels are dominated by car parking. Car parking should be replaced with habitable space where it fronts onto public open space.

All building entry points should be well lit and avoid areas of concealment. The depth of the recess outside the southwest entry should be less than its width.

Engineering Services Traffic Engineering

Made the following comments:

The extension of kerbing to A’Beckett Street will result in a reduced lane to the intersection of Elizabeth / A’Beckett Streets and the removal of an existing on-street loading bay. Whilst this may be appropriate, Engineering Services considers that the Kerb extension should be excluded from the planning process. This matter will need to be addressed separately, taking into consideration the full intersection and the appropriate width of any kerb extension. The current proposal shows a widening of approximately 2.5 metres which will exclude any similar measures on the north side of the road.

Car parking numbers and arrangements are supported.

The statutory requirement for motorcycles has been met (6 provided).

The statutory requirement for Bike parking has been met.

The Traffix Group traffic report indicates that waste collection may be accommodated within the proposed laneway along the eastern boundary of the site. This are may also be utilised for loading. It is recommended that further information regarding gradients and sweep paths be prepared which show access for a loading vehicle to this area.

A waste management plan is required and details of swept paths are required if the proposed lane is to be used for waste collection.

Infrastructure

Comments provided include the following:

Object to the installation of the raised timber plinth and planter beds in the A’Beckett Street footpath.

Stairs should be set back sufficiently to enable tactile ground surface indicators to be within site boundary.

Maximum permissible width of vehicle crossover without pedestrian refuge is 7.6 m. (Note the width of crossover is less than 7.6m)

of 26

All projections over the street alignment must conform to Building Regulations 2006, Part 5, Sections 505 to 514 as appropriate. Reference may be made to the City of Melbourne’s Road Encroachment Guidelines with respect to projections impacting on street trees and clearances from face/back of kerb.

The footpath in A’Beckett Street must be upgraded and reconstructed in sawn bluestone together with associated works, including the renewal and upgrade of kerb and channel adjacent the subject land.

A number of matters of detail are raised, which can be addressed by conditions, if a permit is issued.

Waste Management

Council would prefer to collect the waste from this site and a Waste Management Plan (WMP) is required. Recommended condition regarding waste is provided.

Land Survey The proposed development proposes a new laneway.

The land can remain as part of the development and have a section 173 agreement for public access during certain times or 24/7. It also appears that it may be used as a loading dock by the development and this would affect the ability of the area to function as a new pedestrian link between the two roads.

The land can be vested in Council as a Road on a plan of subdivision which would be under Council’s care and management, in this case it would probably have no standing signs to allow for pedestrian use and safety.

Urban Landscapes The application was referred to Urban Landscapes as a street tree in A’Beckett Street is proposed to be removed and other trees may be affected by the canopy. The advice received included:

The adjoining street tree in Elizabeth Street cannot be removed. The proposed building’s canopy will have a major impact on this tree as the tree will require heavy pruning.

The adjoining street trees in A’Beckett Street can potentially be removed. The proposed building’s canopy will have a major impact on the one remaining street tree as it will require heavy pruning.

Municipal Building Surveyor The application was discussed with Council’s Assistant Building Surveyor who advised that a Construction Management Plan would be required.

7. ASSESSMENT

The key issues in the consideration of this application are:

Height.

Design and built form, including setbacks and the impact on development potential of adjoining properties.

Active street frontages.

Overshadowing.

Loading and waste.

Wind.

of 26

ESD.

Street trees

Height

Pursuant to Clause 21.12 the MSS identifies this site in an area to have

“…a lower scale than the Hoddle Grid and provides a contrast in built form scale between the lower scale of Carlton and North Melbourne and the higher scale of the Hoddle Grid.”

This is repeated with the following statement;

“…ensure a strong contrast in scale of development along Elizabeth Street from the lower scale areas to the north of Victoria Street and the higher scale of the Capital City Zone.”

The proposed height of 178m is more commensurate with building heights in the Hoddle Grid, however there are a number of taller buildings in the Elizabeth, La Trobe and Victoria Streets triangle, including:

55 storey tower currently under construction ‘MY80’ at 410 Elizabeth Street.

48 storey building permit issued at 58-64 A’Beckett Street.

32 and 42 storey buildings constructed at 475 Swanston Street.

33 storey building constructed at 19 A’Beckett Street.

In the area to the west of Elizabeth Street taller buildings include:

39 and 46 storey towers (above a podium) at 151 Franklin Street.

In relation to the proposal at 410 Elizabeth Street ‘MY80’, Council commented on 22 May 2009 to DPCD suggesting that the height of the building be reduced to 80 metres (as well as requesting a 40m podium and tower setback above this).

Despite the Council’s submissions, the 55 storey tower (without a podium or setbacks) has been approved and is now under construction.

The applicant advocates that this proposal, of this height and of a singular tower form “establishes a clear dialogue between the proposed building and its ‘partner building” (MY80).

The proposed height of 178m is consistent with the taller skyscrapers within the Hoddle Grid and having regard to the lack of a podium tower form and any meaningful setbacks (discussed below), this height is contrary to the City of Melbourne’s MSS vision for future built form for this area. .

Design and Built Form

Podium

The Local Policy for Urban Design in the Capital City Zone (Clause 22.01) recommends that towers should have a podium height generally between 35 to 40 metres except where a different parapet height already exists or where the need to provide a context for a heritage building or to emphasise a street corner justifies a variation from this norm.

The applicant has submitted that the area has an abundant mix of building heights and styles with no prevailing podium height. A podium form was not provided on the site given the lack of a clear dominant podium height and size of the site. The

of 26

singular tower form has been designed to emphasise the corner site and ‘establish a clear dialogue with ‘MY80’ to the north’.

There is no clearly established podium height for this area, unlike the Hoddle Grid. This is due to the area being a much lower scale with a variety of building heights from single to multi storey. However, to guide future development, planning policy has been put in place to pursue a future desired built form character which creates buildings with a pedestrian scale podium height of between 35 to 40 metres to achieve a built form extension to the Hoddle Grid.

Local Policy Clause 22.01 recommends a podium /tower typology, with exceptions including a need to emphasise a corner site. The City Of Melbourne’s urban design branch raised concern regarding the lack of setback along the northern boundary, resulting in an inadequate setback to the MY80 building to the north (20 metres) and an overbearing impact on A’Beckett Street. The Urban Design department commented that particularly if the height is to be approved, the tower should be set back 10 metres from the street frontages to achieve a street wall height of human scale and to avoid a canyon effect to A’Beckett Street, while improving wind conditions at ground level.

Buildings have been approved with lesser setbacks to the streets where they have met the relevant Planning Scheme objectives.

Among the most important of these is the objective of Clause 22.01 which seeks to improve the pedestrian experience. Given the height of the tower, zero setbacks will overwhelm the pedestrian, resulting is a building which is visually intrusive and dominant from the Elizabeth and A’Beckett Streets public realm. A greater setback would reduce this impact.

While it is acknowledged that the building has been designed ‘in the round’ for this corner site, the proposal is contrary to Local Policy 22.01 and a building of this height should be of a podium/tower typology.

The proposed height coupled with the lack of podium and upper level setbacks is contrary with the relevant objectives of Clause 22.01 and cannot be supported.

Setbacks

The Local Policy for Urban Design in the Capital City Zone (Clause 22.01) recommends that towers be set back at least 10 metres from street frontages and they be spaced to ensure equitable access to daylight and sunlight. Towers should be 24 metres from a similar tower-podium development. Separation may be reduced where it can be demonstrated that towers are offset, habitable room windows do not directly face one another and where consideration is given to the development potential of adjoining sites.

The building proposes no setback from the Elizabeth and A’Beckett Street frontages.

To the east, above level 8, the building is set back 2.2 metres from the title boundary and the adjoining two, two storey heritage buildings. To the south, above level 8, the building is setback 5 metres from the title boundary.

These setbacks do not appropriately respond to the principle of considering the development potential of adjoining sites. This model of possible future development is contrary to Clause 22.01, requiring spacing between towers. If the proposed development were approved, future responsibility for providing tower separation to the eastern boundary would have to be borne by 71 A’Beckett Street. Approval of a 2.2m side setback would impose an inequitable burden upon 71 A’Beckett Street, compromising its development potential.

of 26

If this setback was matched, or a lesser setback approved, this would provide a minimum 4.4m separation between towers which does not achieve equitable access to daylight and sunlight in accordance with Clause 22.01.

In addition, if the proposed development were approved a precedent for a wall 178m in height with 2.2m setback from a side boundary would be created, which developers may then seek to replicate on other sites in the city. This would be clearly contrary to one of the fundamental principles of Clause 22.01.

To the south the building is setback 5 metres above level 8. Clause 22.01 states that:

‘Tower separation setbacks may be reduced where it can be demonstrated that towers are offset and habitable room windows do not directly face one another and where consideration is given to the development potential of adjoining lots.’

The City of Melbourne has approved a 5 metre side boundary setback where it is considered that the adjoining property will replicate the setback and therefore provide a 10 metre building separation.

This is only appropriate where apartments are off-set or oriented to ensure they still maintain outlook (other than directly across the intervening setback) or where the façade is predominantly services, such as lift core and non-habitable rooms.

The southern façade of this proposal has a predominance of apartments with south facing outlook. This may well be mirrored in any future redevelopment of the adjoining property to the south with north facing apartments setback 5 metres from the common boundary. Therefore the proposal does not warrant a reduced tower separation in this circumstance and the 5 metre setback to the southern boundary is insufficient.

The lack of setback from the southern boundary places an inequitable requirement upon the adjacent site, 388 Elizabeth Street, to provide a 24 metre tower separation.

Active frontages The proposed new pedestrian through link along the eastern boundary is supported. The City of Melbourne’s urban design branch has suggested ways to increase the activation of the ground level of the laneway.

Levels 2 to 8 contain car parking and an office pod per floor. The urban design branch has recommended better activation of the street facades on these levels.

Overshadowing General policy under Clause 22.02 (Sunlight to Public Spaces) states that development should not cast additional shadows on public spaces including major pedestrian routes between 11 am and 2 pm on 22 September. Shadow diagrams submitted with the application show that from 11 am to 12 pm the proposed building will create an increase in overshadowing to the eastern and western footpaths of Elizabeth Street and at 1pm the eastern footpath. This area will be more intensely developed and taller buildings will cause some overshadowing of the major pedestrian routes.

Parking and Traffic Issues raised include a recommendation that the proposed widening of A’Beckett Street footpath be removed from the planning application and a requirement for the submission of swept paths for waste trucks to access the proposed laneway. The City of Melbourne’s response to DTPLI will incorporate these issues.

of 26

Other matters raised by Traffic Engineering could be addressed by conditions, if a permit were to be issued.

Wind A wind report by Mel Consultants forms part of the application submission. The summary to this report includes the following advice:

‘…wind conditions in the surrounding streetscapes are well within the criterion for walking comfort and have been shown to be not significantly changed compared to the existing wind conditions. The wind conditions along the new laneway and Literature Lane have been shown to be either on or within the criterion for short term stationary activities’.

There appear to be no adverse wind impacts in the public realm.

Environmentally Sustainable Development Clause 22.19 (Energy, Water and Waste Efficiency) requires that applications be accompanied by:

A Waste Management Plan.

An ESD Statement demonstrating how the development meets relevant policy objectives and requirements.

For buildings over 2,000 square metres in gross floor area the Sustainable Design Statement must include a statement from a suitably qualified professional verifying that the building has the preliminary design potential to achieve the relevant Performance Measures set out in Clause 22.19-5.

A Sustainability Statement forms part of the application. It notes that the proposed development incorporates a wide range of ESD features and sets out primary goals to enhance the building’s environmental performance and meet the objectives of the Melbourne Planning Scheme. It also lists a number of these features.

The report concludes that the performance outcomes are consistent with the objectives of Clause 22.19.

The report notes however that the building will only achieve a four star green star rating.

Given the intent of Clause 22.19 is to encourage ‘Australian Excellence’ for new multi-unit residential developments and given the scale of the development proposed, it is recommended that further work should be undertaken in order to achieve a 5 star green star rating. If a permit were to issue this could be addressed by condition, however, given the recommendation is that the application not be supported this would form one of the grounds of objection to the proposal.

Internal Amenity Most of the bedrooms in the apartments have direct window access and the internal amenity of the apartments is generally appropriate. Should the land to the east and south be developed with similar setbacks to the current proposal, the outlook of the east and south facing apartments would be diminished.

7.1. Conclusion

Overall it is considered that the proposed development does not respond appropriately to the relevant provisions of the Melbourne Planning Scheme, including Clause 21.12 (MSS) and Clause 22.01 (Urban Design within the Capital City Zone). This is largely as a result of inadequate setbacks from the north, south

of 26

and west boundaries and leads to the conclusion that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.

8. RECOMMENDATION

That a letter be sent to DTPLI advising that the City of Melbourne objects to the application on the following grounds:

The proposal by virtue of its height and inadequate setbacks represents an overdevelopment of the site.

The proposed height, combined with the lack of podium setbacks, is contrary to Clause 21.12 of the MSS and Clause 22.01.

The proposal by virtue of its height, lack of podium and inadequate setbacks will have an overbearing impact upon the public realm contrary to relevant provisions of the Melbourne Planning Scheme, including Cause 22.01.

The proposal does not adequately respond to the development potential of adjoining sites to the east and south.

The proposed façades at levels 2-8 are dominated by car parking resulting in inactive street frontages.

The proposal to widen the A’Beckett Street footpath adjacent to the site is not supported. This is a matter that would need to be dealt with the City of Melbourne engineers outside the planning permit process.

The proposal fails to achieve a five star green star rating in accordance with Clause 22.19.

Katherine Smart Planning Officer

of 26

FUTURE MELBOURNE [INSERT PORTFOLIO] COMMITTEE REPORT · Recommendation from management 8. That the...

Documents

Transcript of FUTURE MELBOURNE [INSERT PORTFOLIO] COMMITTEE REPORT · Recommendation from management 8. That the...