future melbourne [insert portfolio] committee report · 2015. 11. 16. · attachments: 1. locality...

Attachments: 1. Locality Plan 2. Selected Plans 3. Plans 4. Delegate Report

Report to the Future Melbourne (Planning) Committee Agenda item 6.2 Ministerial Referral: TPM-2013-2/A 57-59 Haig Street, Southbank

2 June 2015

Presenter: Karen Snyders, Planning Coordinator

Purpose and background

1. The purpose of this report is to advise the Future Melbourne Committee of a referral of an application to amend a planning permit issued by the Minister at 57-59 Haig Street, Southbank (refer to Attachment 2 – Locality Plan). The application was referred on 25 November 2015, with further amended plans provided on 10 March 2015. The applicant is Meydan Group c/- Urbis Pty Ltd, the owner is the R. and J. Freeman Nominees Pty Ltd, and the architect is Bruce Henderson Architects Pty Ltd.

2. The subject site is located within the Capital City Zone – Schedule 3 and is affected by the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 60, that specifies a discretionary maximum building height of 100 metres, and Parking Overlay Schedule 1.

3. The application seeks approval to amend the planning permit issued for the site by the Minister for Planning to increase the height of the building to 155.7 metres, to change the internal layout, reduce the podium height, delete the basements and alter the façade design of the building. The setbacks and tower separation of the proposal are the same as that approved under the original permit.

4. The Minister for Planning is the Responsible Authority for determining the application as the gross floor area of the buildings exceeds 25,000m2. The application is referred to the Council for comment and is generally exempt from third party notice and review rights.

Key issues

5. The key issue to consider is whether the proposed increase in building height is appropriate with regard the design objectives and built form outcomes of the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 60.

6. The proposal seeks to increase the height of the tower from 122 metres to 155.7 metres in an area which has a discretionary height control of 100 metres. An increase in height is considered to be to the detriment of the public realm, undermines the purpose of the height control for the area and contemplates a higher built form which has not be envisioned for this area of Southbank.

7. Planning Officers have met with the applicant to discuss the proposal. The applicant prepared plans for discussion which reduced the height of the building to 143 metres. The reduction was principally achieved by reducing the height of the podium of the building to 20 metres. Despite the amended proposal having one less apartment, 77 less car parking spaces and 1,200 square metres less in gross floor area, the resultant proposed height is still considered to be an inappropriate outcome for this area of Southbank, where buildings are generally constructed and approved to a height of no more than 100 metres.

Recommendation from management

8. That the Future Melbourne Committee resolve that a letter be sent to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning indicating that the Melbourne City Council objects to the application on the grounds set out in the Delegate Report (refer to Attachment 3)

of 25

haneis

Text Box

1

1

Supporting Attachment

Legal

1. The Minister for Planning is the Responsible Authority for determining this application.

Finance

2. There are no direct financial issues arising from the recommendations contained within 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 advertising the application or referred this to any other referral authorities. This is the responsibility of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 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 to Attachment 3).

Environmental sustainability

6. Pursuant to Clause 22.19 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme, an environmentally sustainable design statement was submitted with the application stating that the development has the preliminary design potential to achieve a Five Star Green Star Rating.

Attachment 1 Agenda item 6.2

Future Melbourne Committee 2 June 2015

of 25

Locality Plan

57-59 Haig Street, Southbank

Attachment 2 Agenda item 6.2

Future Melbourne Committee 2 June 2015

of 25

APPROVED PERMITAPPROVED PERMIT CURRENT PROPOSALCURRENT PROPOSAL

HAIG STREET COMPARISON - GROUND LEVELHAIG STREET COMPARISON - GROUND LEVEL

SIGN

23.73 M 126°48'

8.68 M 126°02'

0.20 M 36°25'

6.07 M 125°58'

27.71 M 215°12'

38.43 M 305°06'

28.45 M 35°06'

UP

UP

UP

ELECTR

ICAL

SUBSTATIO

N

R.L. 1750

E

11

22

33

44

LIFT LOBBY

WASTE

RO

OM

LOAD

ING

DO

CK

METER

S

ENTR

YLO

BBY

400 8650 400 5800 400 1000 4200 400 6000

3m@

1:16.515m

@1:6 m

axR

AM

P U

P

RAMP ABOVE

11000

MD

F

2005950

2003850

2004800

200

BUILD

ING

MAN

AGER

FIRE C

ON

TRO

LR

OO

M

20 BIKE RACKS

CO

MM

ERC

IAL TENAN

CY

132.86smq

CO

MM

ERC

IAL TENAN

CY

88.21sqm

GAS

ARC

ADE

200215020030002004500200

8300

300020020002002900

13220250

4150250

BOOSTERS

10470200

3150200

6500

400 8600 500 900 200 3450 200 1200 200 2200 200 3000

600 3700 4700 500 5650 600 2200 3100 600 6200 600

700 1100 200 1100 200 2600 200 2500 700 3050 250

7600

80001500

3500

2400 2400

40003000

MAIL R

OO

MELEC

TRIC

ALSW

ITCH

RO

OM

200

2500

STOR

E

R.L. 1750

R.L. 1700

R.L. 1650

ACC

ESS C

ON

TRO

L SYSTEM

S

BIKLO

U

1.5sqm LO

UVR

E ABO

VE D

OO

RFO

R STAIR

PRESSU

RISATIO

N R

ELIEFN

ATUR

APER

FOINT

FIRE C

OSU

PPLY

4.9m H

EADR

OO

M ABO

VE LOAD

ING

DO

CK

R.L. 1860

R.L. 1860

R.L. 2042

R.L. 2042

PUM

P RO

OM

of 25

haneis

Text Box

Attachment 3 Agenda item 6.2 Future Melbourne Committee 2 June 2015

23.73 M 126°48'

8.68 M 126°02'

0.20 M 36°25'

6.07 M 125°58'

27.71 M 215°12'

38.43 M 305°06'

UP

UP

UP

UP

1:5.7 max

1:5.7 max

RA

MP

UP

R.L. 8200

20005800

2000

13141516171819

R.L. 8200

09 08 07 06 05

30055003001501000160090070027002000320070090013003005500300200

400 3150 2600 2900 400 2900 2900 400 2600 2600 400 2900 3225 200

5470200

49006400

9000

800

64004900

04 03 02

OFFIC

E135.20sqm

STO

RA

GE

CA

GE

S

7600

2500

12

1:121:12

14 15

01

BIKE RACKSBIKE RACKSBIKE RACKSBIKE RACKSBIKE RACKS

BIKE RACKSBIKE RACKSBIKE RACKS

BIKE RACK

13

400 3150 2600 2900 400 2900 2900 400 2900 2600 2600 2900 1531

MECH DUCT1200x450mm

ø600

10

STO

RA

GE

CA

GE

S

STO

RA

GE

CA

GE

S

R.L. 9550

6400

SM

ALL C

AR

0807

0910

11

04 01

05 02

06 03

1:5.7 max

RA

MP

UP

1:121:12

MECH DUCT1200x450mm

MECH DUCT1200x450mm

12 11

SM

ALL C

AR

BIKE RACKS BIKE RACKS

Com

ms

1100x500

Stair Pr.1100x1100

Stair Pr.1100x1100

Elec1100x500

Hyd

1900x500FIR

E


HAIG STREET COMPARISON - LOWER LEVELHAIG STREET COMPARISON - LOWER LEVEL

of 25

SMALL POORLY POSITIONED COMMUNAL AREA FULL FLOOR PLATE OF COMMUNAL WITH FOUR ORIENTATIONSAPPROVED PERMITAPPROVED PERMIT CURRENT PROPOSALCURRENT PROPOSAL

HAIG STREET COMPARISON - COMMUNAL LEVELHAIG STREET COMPARISON - COMMUNAL LEVEL

23.73 M 126°48'

0.20 M 36°25'

6.07 M 125°58'

27.71 M 215°12'

38.43 M 305°06'

28.45 M 35°06'

UP

UP

TILT-UP

WALL

POO

L DEC

K

GYM

NASIU

M75.15sqm

MEETIN

G / FU

NC

TION

72.48sqm

CIN

EMA

52.74sqm

FEM

ALE

MA

LE

R.L. 32700

K

PERGOLA OVER BBQ AREA

SW

IMM

ING

PO

OL A

RE

AD

OU

BLE

HE

IGH

T SP

AC

E98.56sqm

GLA

SS

SC

RE

EN

1500mm

HIG

HG

LAS

S S

CR

EE

N 1500m

m H

IGH

GLA

SS

SC

RE

EN

1500mm

HIG

HG

LAS

S S

CR

EE

N 1500m

m H

IGH

1200100

18020

100

900

850

800

LINE

OF B

UILD

ING

AB

OV

E

LINE

OF B

UILD

ING

AB

OV

E

TILT-UP

WALL

TILT-UP

WALL

TILT-UP WALL

9001001700100650

3100

CO

RE O

PENIN

G1000x2150

CO

RE O

PENIN

G1000x2150

Lobby &corridor30.43sm

qC

ore & services

66.45smq

TOILE

TS 29.63sqm

2sqm R

ELIEF AIRLO

UVR

E ABO

VE DO

OR

OU

TSIDE AIR

INTAKE

LOU

VRE 1sqm

A/C UNIT

A/C UNIT

OU

TSIDE AIR

INTAKE

LOU

VRE 0.5sqm

KITCH

EN

EXH

AUS

T LOU

VRE

(DO

MESTIC

GR

ADE EXH

AUS

T)

A/C UNIT

OU

TSIDE AIR

INTAKE

LOU

VRE 1sqm

0.25sqm TO

ILETEXH

AUS

T LOU

VRE

Com

ms

1100x500

Stair Pr.1100x1100

Stair Pr.1100x1100

Elec1100x500

Hyd

1900x500FIR

E

of 25

4 x 1 BED3 X 2 BED

4 x 1 BED3 X 2 BED(OCCURS ON LEVELS12 - 39)


HAIG STREET COMPARISON - TYPICAL APARTMENT LEVEL TYPE 1HAIG STREET COMPARISON - TYPICAL APARTMENT LEVEL TYPE 1

23.73 M 126°48'

8.68 M 126°02'

0.20 M 36°25'

6.07 M 125°58'

27 71 M 215°12'

38.43 M 305°06'

28.45 M 35°06'

UP

UP

CLEA

RAN

CE

TOC

LAREN

DO

NTO

WER

BA

LCO

NY

6.38sqm

BA

LCO

NY

7.48sqm

BA

LCO

NY 12.87sqm

1BE

D44.57sqm

1BE

D44.32sqm

2BE

DS

62.11sqm

1BE

D44.40sqm

1BE

D50.86sqm

Stair relief1600x1300

2BE

DS

67.95sqm2B

ED

S67.99sqm

F P Ln

FP

Ln

PF

Ln

LSA600x1500

GAS

Ln

FP

F

PF

Ln

Ln

PF

P

Ln

2500

CO

RE O

PENIN

G1000x2150

CO

RE O

PENIN

G1000x2150

5000 4250 6200 5450

SETBACK5000

1400 500 700 3400 300 5900 300 4600 700 500 1400

7600

3007400

80014000

8007000

300

3002900

22003100

30007750

30003100

21002850

300

140012004600300590030034001200

BA

LCO

NY 7.63sqm

BA

LCO

NY 11.40sqm

BA

LCO

NY 9.80sqm

BA

LCO

NY

4.66sqmLobby &corridor

25.52smq

Core &

services69.66sm

q

Com

ms

1100x500

Stair Pr.1100x1100

Stair Pr.1100x1100

Elec1100x500

Hyd

1900x500FIR

E 25002501900

11002001100

of 25

4 x 1 BED3 X 2 BED

2 x 1 BED4 X 2 BED(OCCURS ON LEVELS 39-47)

HAIG STREET COMPARISON - TYPICAL APARTMENT LEVEL TYPE 2HAIG STREET COMPARISON - TYPICAL APARTMENT LEVEL TYPE 2


23.73 M 126°48'

8.68 M 126°02'

0.20 M 36°25'

6.07 M 125°58'

27.71 M 215°12'

38.43 M 305°06'

28.45 M 35°06'

UP

UP

BA

LCO

NY

6.38sqm

CLEA

RAN

CE

TOC

LAREN

DO

NTO

WER

BA

LCO

NY 12.87sqm

BA

LCO

NY

7.48sqm

5000 4250 6200 5450

SETBACK5000

1400 500 700 3400 300 5900 300 4600 700 500 1400

7600

3007400

80014000

8007000

300

3002900

22003100

30007750

30003100

21002850

300

140012004600300590030034001200

BA

LCO

NY 11.40sqm

BA

LCO

NY 9.80sqm

1BE

D45.25sqm

2BE

DS

74.21sqm1BE

D44.40sqm

2BE

D84.45sqm

Stair relief1600x1300

2BE

DS

68.71sqm2B

ED

S68.86sqm

FP

Ln

PF

Ln

LSA600x1500

GAS

Ln

FP

F

PF

Ln

Ln

PF

P

Ln

CO

RE O

PENIN

G1000x2150

CO

RE O

PENIN

G1000x2150

BA

LCO

NY

4.66sqmLobby &corridor

25.18smq

Core &

services66.32sm

q

Com

ms

1100x500

Stair Pr.1100x1100

Stair Pr.1100x1100

Elec1100x500

Hyd

1900x500FIR

E 25002501900

11002001100

of 25

HAIG

STR

EET

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

HAIG

STR

EET

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

57 H

AIG

STR

EET

- SU

BJEC

T SI

TE

334

CI 7

12

34

57 H

AIG

STR

EET

- SU

BJEC

T SI

TE

334

C 7

APP

ROV

ED P

ERM

IT

- 38

LEVE

LS +

RO

OF

PLA

NT

- 4 x

BA

SEM

ENT

LEVE

LS

- 249

APA

RTM

ENTS

14

4 (1

BED

)

105

(2BE

D)

- 173

CA

RPA

RKIN

G S

PACE

S

- CO

MM

UN

AL

FACI

LITI

ES @

LEV

EL 5

- 126

m2 C

OM

MER

CIA

L A

REA

LOD

GED

PRO

POSA

L

- 48

LEVE

LS +

RO

OF

PLA

NT

- 0 x

BA

SEM

ENT

LEVE

LS

- 248

APA

RTM

ENTS

12

8 (1

BED

)

120

(2BE

D)

- 171

CA

RPA

RKIN

G S

PACE

S

- CO

MM

UN

AL

FACI

LITI

ES @

LEV

EL 1

0

- 491

.5m

2 CO

MM

ERCI

AL

ARE

A

AM

END

ED P

ROPO

SAL

- 44

LEVE

LS +

RO

OF

PLA

NT

- 0 x

BA

SEM

ENT

LEVE

LS

- 248

APA

RTM

ENTS

12

8 (1

BED

)

120

(2BE

D)

- 94

CARP

ARK

ING

SPA

CES

- CO

MM

UN

AL

FACI

LITI

ES @

LEV

EL 6

- 491

.5m

2 CO

MM

ERCI

AL

ARE

A

TOP

OF

SECO

ND

ARY

POD

IUM

TOP

OF

POD

IUM

TOP

OF

POD

IUM

ROO

F LE

VEL

RL 1

39.5

00

ROO

F LE

VEL

RL 1

50.5

00

ROO

F LE

VEL

RL 1

18.9

50

RL 2

1.70

0

RL 3

2.70

0TO

P O

F PO

DIU

MRL

32.

150

RL 1

6.65

0

TOP

OF

SECO

ND

ARY

POD

IUM

RL 2

0.35

0

of 25

HAIG

STR

EET CO

MPA

RIS

ON - N

ORTH

EAST ELEV

ATIO

NHAIG

STR

EET CO

MPA

RIS

ON - N

ORTH

EAST ELEV

ATIO

N

HAIG

STREET

BLAKENEY PLAC

E

No.45

27 Levelsapartm

ent building

No.45

27 Levelsapartm

ent building

APPRO

VED

PERMIT

ENV

ELOPE SH

OW

N G

REEN

LOD

GED

PROPO

SAL

ENV

ELOPE D

ASEH

ED RED

AM

END

ED PRO

POSA

LIN

DICATED

of 25

HAIG

STR

EET CO

MPA

RIS

ON - N

ORTH

WES

T ELEVATIO

NHAIG

STR

EET CO

MPA

RIS

ON - N

ORTH

WES

T ELEVATIO

N

APPRO

VED

PERMIT

ENV

ELOPE SH

OW

N G

REEN

LOD

GED

PROPO

SAL

ENV

ELOPE D

ASEH

ED RED

AM

END

ED PRO

POSA

LIN

DICATED

GS

SC

S

of 25

HAIG

STR

EET CO

MPA

RIS

ON - S

OUTH

EAST ELEV

ATIO

NHAIG

STR

EET CO

MPA

RIS

ON - S

OUTH

EAST ELEV

ATIO

N

APPRO

VED

PERMIT

ENV

ELOPE SH

OW

N G

REEN

LOD

GED

PROPO

SAL

ENV

ELOPE D

ASEH

ED RED

AM

END

ED PRO

POSA

LIN

DICATED

of 25

of 13

PLANNING REPORT MINISTERIAL REFERRAL

Application number: TPM-2013-2/A

DTPLI Application number: 2012/010161A

Applicant / Owner / Architect: Meydan Group c/- Urbis / R and J Freeman Nominees Pty Ltd / Bruce Henderson Architects Pty Ltd

Address: 57-59 Haig Street, SOUTHBANK VIC 3006

Proposal: Demolition of the existing building and development of the land for a multi storey residential tower comprising a ground floor commercial tenancy (DELWP ref. no 2012/010161)

Date received by City of Melbourne:

25 November 2014

Responsible officer: Report Date: (DM# 9043643)

Adam Birch

13 May 2015

1. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

1.1 Original Application

On 3 December 2013, the Future Melbourne Committee resolved to offer in principal

support to for an application for a planning permit made to the Minister for Planning

for ‘Demolition of the existing building and development of the land for a multi storey

residential tower comprising a ground floor commercial tenancy’ at 57-59 Haig

Street, Soutbank. The proposal comprised of a 122 metre tower with 249 apartments

over 39 levels.

The support for the application was given only on the basis that a number of

recommended conditions of permit would be imposed. These conditions related to

setbacks from boundaries of the tower from boundaries, tower seperation, other

detailed matters and standard requirements.

On 27 May 2014, Planning Permit 2012/010161 was approved by the Minister for

Planning, subject to conditions which were generally consistent with that

recommended by Council. Condition 1 of the permit required amended plans to be

submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. To date, plans have not

been endorsed in accordance with Condition 1 of the planning permit.

1.2 Application to amend a planning permit

On the 17 November 2014, an application to amend a planning permit was referred

to the City of Melbourne for comment. This application proposed amending the

design of the building by (in brief)

Increasing the height of the building to 155.7 metres (47 Levels)

of 25

haneis

Text Box

Attachment 4 Agenda item 6.2 Future Melbourne Committee 2 June 2015

of 13

Deletion of basements and relocation of all vehicle parking to the podium

levels.

Changing the external appearance of the building

Complete reconfiguration of the internal layout of the building.

1.3 Discussion Plans

On 2 April 2015, the applicant provided further revised plans to address concerns

raised with the proposal. These plans reduced the height of podium to 20 metres,

thereby reducing the height of the building by 13 metres to an overall height of 143

metres. As a result 77 car parking spaces would also be removed. The applicant has

not formally amended these plans with DELWP.

2. SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS 2.1. The site

The subject site is located on the south side of Haig Street between Cecil Street to the west and Clarendon Street to the east as shown in the locality plan. The site area is 1,093 square metres. It is currently developed with a two storey building fronting onto Haig Street with a warehouse to the rear. Vehicle access to the site is from Blakeney Place. The site is rectangular in shape with a Haig Street frontage of 28.5 metres, 27.71 metres to the rear laneway and 6.07 metres to Blakeney Place.

Aerial Photo / Locality Plan

2.2. Surrounds North-west To the north-west of the subject site is the Hanover Welfare Services and crisis accommodation centre. Farther to the north-west along Haig Street is an apartment complex (Tiara Apartments) has recently been completed at 46-50 Haig Street. Tiara Apartments provides 210 apartments over 32 storeys and includes 6 floors of car parking.

North-east Clarendon Towers abuts the subject land to the north-east at 45 Haig Street. This is a 27 storey apartment complex which occupies the land bound by Haig Street, Clarendon Street and Blakeney Place. Access to podium car parking in this building is from crossovers on both Haig Street and Blakeney Place.

Clarendon Towers has a podium of car parking for 5 levels built to all boundaries. At level 6 the podium provides large terraces for the apartments 6, 7 and 8 which

of 25

of 13

immediately abuts the subject site. The tower element is setback 5 metres from the title boundary. Apartments and balconies of Clarendon Towers are oriented to capitalise on the views to the south-west and south-east.

The elevation facing the subject site has apartment balconies setback 4 metres from the common boundary shared with the subject site for levels 7 to 24, and 5 metres from levels 25 to 27.

South East To the south-east immediately abutting the subject site to the rear is Blakeney Place whilst farther to the south is the Urban Central Accommodation building at 334-342 City Road. This hostel building is built to its rear boundary for five storeys, and has habitable room windows located on the rear laneway which is 6.2 metres from the subject site boundary.

South-west A double storey office and warehouse is located immediately abutting the subject site to the south-west at 61-63 Haig Street. Further to the south-west is the elevated West Gate Freeway is located at the western end of Haig Street and south of City Road.

The following development activity has or is occurring on surrounding properties:

Approved 103 metre residential

tower by City of Melbourne

Application for 87 metre residential

hotel tower

Existing 32-storey tower

approved by City of Melbourne

Existing 27 Level Tower

approved by City of Melbourne

Approved 122

metre tower by

City of

Melbourne

Current ministerial application

for 190 metre tower (Council

objected)

Current ministerial application

for 170 metre tower

of 25

of 13

3. THE PROPOSAL The plans referred to the City of Melbourne for comment were received on 25 November 2014. The application seeks approval to amend the planning permit under Section 72 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The application seeks approval to modify the design of the proposal, in brief by:

Removing basement levels

Reconfiguration of podium for vehicular parking

Reconfiguration of the ground floor

Internal rearrangements

Increasing the height of the proposal from 122 to 155.7 metres

Modification to the façade design

Original Approval Amended Proposal Discussion Plans

Dwelling 249 apartments

248 apartments

Commercial/Office One commercial/office

(150 square metres)

Two commercial tenancies (221 square

metres)

One office (270.4 square metres)

Building height 122 metres 155.7 metres 143 metres

Podium height 30.4 metres 31 metres 20 metres

Front, side and rear setbacks of tower

North West (front)- 5 to 6 metres

South East (rear): 2 metres

South-west (side): 3 to 5 metres

North-east (side) – 5 to 7 metres

Gross floor area (GFA)

29,831.28sqm 31,378.3 sqm 28,630.39sqm

Tower separation 10 metre minimum from Claredon Tower to the east.

Car parking spaces 169 car parking spaces 171 car parking

spaces

95 car parking

spaces

Bicycle facilities and spaces

104 bicycle parking

spaces

165 bicycle parking

spaces

120 bicycle

parking spaces

Motorcycle Parking 5 motorcycle spaces 10 motorcycle

spaces

3 motorcycle

spaces

Vehicle access Two ramps proposed

from Blakeney Place

proposed to access

car parking at

basement and podium

levels

One Vehicle ramp proposed from

Blakeney Place to access parking at

podium level.

of 25

of 13

Loading/unloading Onsite loading bay proposed access via Blakeney Place

Figure 1: Side by side comparison (Not to scale, indicative only)

=

of 25

of 13

4. PLANNING SCHEME PROVISIONS The following provisions of the Melbourne Planning Scheme apply:

State Planning

Policies

Clause 11.04-2 ‘Activity Centre Hierarchy’ & Clause 11.04-4 ‘Central

Melbourne’

Clause 15.01-1 ‘Urban Design’ & Clause 15.01-2 ‘Urban design principles’

Clause 16.01-1 ‘Integrated housing’ & Clause 16.01-2 ‘Location or

residential development’ & Clause 16.01-3 ‘Strategic redevelopment sites’

Municipal

Strategic

Statement

Clause 21.03-1 ‘Vision for Melbourne’

Clause 21.03-3 ‘Approach for managing built form’

Clause 21.04-1 ‘Housing and Community’

Clause 21.05 ‘City Structure and Built Form’

Clause 21.08-3 ‘Southbank’

Local Planning

Policies

Clause 22.01 – Urban Design within the Capital City Zone

Clause 22.19 – Energy, Water and Waste Efficiency

Statutory Controls

Capital City Zone

Schedule 3

The use of the land for ‘Accommodation’ is a ‘permit not required’ use

provided the ground floor of the building has a floor to ceiling height of at

least 4 metres.

The use of the land for ‘Office’ and ‘retail premises (other than Adult sex bookshop, Department store, Hotel, and Tavern)’ is a ‘permit not required’ use.

Pursuant to Clause 37.04-4 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works, and to demolish or remove a building.

Design and

Development

Overlay

Schedule 60

Pursuant to Clause 43.02-2 a permit is required to construct a building or

construct or carry out works unless a schedule to this overlay specifically

states that a permit is not required.

Schedule 60 does not exempt the proposed building from requiring a

permit.

The subject site is located within Area 3 – Southbank Central Interface

which recommends:

a maximum building height of 100 metres;

podium heights not exceeding 30 metres;

development above a podium should be setback a minimum of 10

metres from the front, side and rear boundaries;

towers should be a minimum of 20 metres from an adjoining tower,

unless the majority of the built form outcomes are met; and there is

an inadequate tower setback on a neighbouring site. The minimum

set back of towers in this case should be 10 metres; and ground

floors of buildings should have a floor to ceiling height of 4 metres

Parking Overlay

1

A permit is required to provide parking in excess of a rate of:

for that part of the site devoted to dwellings (including common areas serving the dwellings) must not exceed one (1) space per

of 25

of 13

dwelling.

for that part of the site devoted to other uses, (excluding

common areas serving the dwellings) must not exceed the

number calculated using one of the following formulas

.

The maximum partking rate is: 250 car parking space.

Therefore, as 95 car parking spaces are proposed, no planning permit is

triggered under this overlay.

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.06,

Car Parking

A permit is not required under this provision (refer the Parking Overlay)

Clause 52.07

Loading and Unloading of Vehicles

A permit is not required under this provision as a loading bay has been

proposed.

Clause 52.34, Bicycle Facilities

The proposal requires:

50 residential spaces

26 visitor spaces

1 employee spaces

Total = 77 spaces required

120 bicycle parking spaces are proposed. Therefore a permit is not

required under this provision.

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

An application for a residential development of five or more storeys

within the Capital City Zone must be accompanied by:

• An urban context report.

• A design response.

DELWP, on behalf of the Minister for Planning, must inform the applicant

in writing that the urban context report meets the requirements of Clause

52.35-02 and is satisfactory.

Clause 52.36, Integrated Public Transport Planning

An application for an excess of 60 dwellings must be referred to PTV for

comment.

As the Minister for Planning is the Responsible Authority for this planning

application, DELWP is required to refer this matter to the relevant

of 25

of 13

department.

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

Pursuant to Clause 65.01 before deciding on an application or approval of a plan, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate (as relevant):

The matters set out in Section 60 of the Act.

The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

The purpose of the zone, overlay or other provision.

Any matter required to be considered in the zone, overlay or other provision.

The orderly planning of the area.

The effect on the amenity of the area.

The proximity of the land to any public land.

Whether the proposed development is designed to maintain or improve the quality of stormwater within and exiting the site.

5. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The application has been referred to the City of Melbourne for comment. Pursuant to 37.04-4, 43.02-2, an application for building and works is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52 (1) (a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64 (1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82 (1) of the Act.

6. REFERRALS The application was referred to the City of Melbourne’s Urban Design and Engineering Services Group. The following comments were received (summarised).

6.1 Urban Design Urban Design was not supportive of the proposed increase in height of the building in context of the building within this particular area of Southbank that was considered to dominate the public realm. The provision of the podium car parking was not supported to Haig Street or Blakeney Place.

6.2 Engineering Services Group Civil The Principal Infrastructure Engineer did not object to the amended planning application.

Traffic The Principal Traffic Engineer provided the following summarised comments:

The reduced parking rate was supported.

The traffic impact was considered negligible

of 25

of 13

Recommended removal of small car parking spaces and additional information about ‘sliding spaces’. (These have been removed in the discussion plans)

Reconfiguration of the aisle width of Level 9/AF (This level has been deleted from the discussion plans)

Relocation of motor cycle spaces to lower levels of the car park.

Recommended relocation of bicycle racks where located behind car parking spaces.

Cumulative impact of the proposal together with development of surrounding properties relying on Blakeney Place may require reconfiguration of traffic directions and turns in and out from Claredon Street.

Waste

Swept path diagrams were requested for the loading facilities and waste truck

7. ASSESSMENT The key issues in the consideration of this application are:

The increase in height of the proposed building

The changes to the layout of the building

The changes to the external appearance of the building

Wind Impacts

Car parking and access

Environmentally Sustainable Design

7.1. Building Height

The original application was approved and supported with a height of 122 metres. This height was previously supported by Council and was issued a planning permit. The previous delegate report for the application was supportive of the height because:

It is considered that a reduction of height by 22 metres would not make a significant difference to the observer’s general perception of the urban scale at the tower level, particularly when viewed from the street level. Even in middle-distance views, the proposed building and its tall neighbours would be above normal view lines and the general experience would be one of tall buildings, but of different heights and set at different distances.

In terms of the far-distance views (where these exist), the proposed building would be viewed in the context of other tall buildings in Southbank and it would not be possible to differentiate between those that are a little closer or further away.

Policy Context The MSS identifies this area of Southbank as one where significant residential growth can occur, supporting the overall urban consolidation objectives outlined in the State Planning Policy framework. It includes the statement that towers will be the major form of development. The subject site is located in an area where high rise development is encouraged. Local policies, together with the design objectives and built form outcomes in the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 60 guide the scale and form of development in the creation of a new built form character.

The site is located within Area 3 (Southbank Central Interface) of the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 60 (DDO60) which has discretionary height control

of 25

of 13

of 100 metres. As required under this DDO60, building and works should not exceed the building heights specified and should meet the built form outcomes.

The design objectives of DDO60 are:

To ensure that the suitability of each development to its context takes precedence over the individual merit of the building.

To ensure that new buildings respect the future development potential of adjacent sites and allow for an equitable spread of development potential on these sites.

To ensure that new buildings respect the potential of future development on adjacent sites to access privacy, sunlight, daylight and an outlook from habitable interiors

To ensure the height of new buildings does not overwhelm the public domain.

To allow daylight and sunlight to penetrate to the street and lower building levels.

To ensure development supports high levels of pedestrian amenity in relation to daylight, sky views, wind and sunlight.

To maintain the visual dominance and views to the Arts Centre Spire as a civic skyline landmark.

To ensure that development provides a high level of amenity for building occupants.

To ensure that advertising signs interfacing with or visible from the Shrine of Remembrance do not adversely affect the significance of the Shrine of Remembrance.

To ensure that the scale and design of new buildings preserve the significance of the Shrine of Remembrance as a historic and cultural landmark and place of reverence.

The Design objectives for Area 2 (Central Core) and Area 3 (Interface) are:

To avoid detriment to the public domain from the impacts of buildings.

To ensure that development has a pedestrian scale at the street level.

To provide for appropriate spacing between buildings so as to maximise light, air and outlook for occupants.

The built form outcomes for Area 3 (Southbank Central Interface) are:

Buildings that provide an appropriate transition to development in adjoining areas to the south, west and east.

Buildings that do not dominate urban form in adjoining areas.

The maintenance of the dominant streetscape scale.

Consideration of additional height The subject site is located centrally within Area 3 of the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 60, see image below. Area 3 is located to the southern end of Southbank, close to the West Gate Freeway. The area is undergoing a transition, with lower scale older building stock being renewed with mid-scale towers. Towers within this area have been generally constructed to a height of 100 metres at most, with relatively small variation or increase in building height. This area differs from Area 2 (Central Core) of DDO60 which contemplates an even taller built form, with a discretionary height of 160 metres.

of 25

of 13

Figure 2 - Area 3 shown in blue

The proposed increase of height from 122 metres to 155.7 metres (an increase of 33.7 metres) for the tower is considered to be contrary to the built form outcomes of Design Development Overlay Schedule 60. In particular the proposal would dominate the urban form of the area and streetscapes. The proposal would undermine the intention of the building height control for the area and would result in the contemplation of an even taller built form for in this location of Southbank.

As a matter of consistency, Council has not been supportive of buildings which have exceeded the preferred building height for the area to the degree of which is proposed. The area as constructed so far has generally been consistent with the 100 metre control. This is considered an appropriate height for the area which provides a transition in scale from the taller central area of Southbank and the lower scale surrounding area. An increase in height in this instance, despite many other positives of the proposal is not considered appropriate.

Similarly to the proposed 170 metres tower proposed at 65-71 Haig Street, the City of Melbourne’s Urban Design team not supporting the proposed increase in height. The proposed increase in height is considered not to provide appropriate transition to development on adjoining areas both within the City of Melbourne and adjoining City of Port Phillip. The proposal is considered that is will dominate urban form on adjoining areas particularly given the preferred heights for DDO60 and the Montague Precinct with the Fisherman’s Bend Urban Renewal Area.

The design objectives of DDO60 include that the suitability of each development to its context takes precedence over the individual merit of the building. It is acknowledged that other buildings in area have been approved in excess of 100 metres on Haig Street, including the site itself. However, these approvals do not provide justification for an additional departure from the preferred maximum building height.

The proposal as it stands would set a new benchmark for building height in the area which is not what was envisioned for in this location of Southbank. If supported, the proposal would set an undesirable precedent for increased height in the area.

of 25

of 13

The applicant has proposed reducing the initially proposed height of 155.7 metres to 143 metres and various other design improvements. However the increased height in itself from the originally approved 122 metres is considered to be excessive for the area.

7.2 External Appearance The proposal seeks to change the external appearance of the building. This is generally an improvement in the built form of the proposal and the podium when considered in isolation would result in a less dominate built form when viewed by pedestrians on Haig Street and Blakeney Place. The façade design of the podium to Blakeney Place is appropriate in provided architectural interest, ventilation to the car park and visual screening. The podium design to Haig Street maintains active frontages with ground floor commercial space and office and art screen above. The changes to the appearance of the tower including its façade and roof top provide for articulation and finished roof profile to enhance the appearance of the tower in its setting. It is noted that there are no changes proposed to reduce the setbacks from boundaries. Nor is the tower separation to adjoining sites proposed to be reduced from the original proposal. Given that the changes to external appearance are generally consistent with policy and the setbacks of the tower have not been reduced, these changes are an acceptable outcome.

The applicant has provided discussion plans which reduce the height of the podium from 30.9 metres to 20 metres. A reduction in podium height would be a positive outcome as it would provide a transition in scale of podiums between the two adjoining buildings.

7.3 Internal rearrangement The proposal seeks various internal changes. Of note these include, but are not

limited to:

Deletion of basements

Introduction of a through block link between Haig Street and Blakeney Place

Changes from a skin of apartments on the podium level to office facing Haig

Street.

Removal of apartments facing Blakeney Place at podium levels.

Increase in communal facilities

Changes to apartment layout with relocated central core and reduced hallway

lengths.

In addition to these changes, the discussion plans circulated by the applicant have

shown a reduction of the number of car parking spaces by 77 and a reduction of the

gross floor area by 1,200 square metres from the originally proposed design.

The internal changes are generally an improvement on the original proposal and

result in a more workable and functional design. The applicant has explained that the

previous design was not constructible, with the inclusion of basements and a core on

one side of the building. The apartments which were originally proposed to the

podium facing a service lane - Blakeney Place would have had compromised

amenity, because they required screening to prevent overlooking into the residential

hotel interfacing with the site.

of 25

of 13

The original proposal and the amended proposal included one bedroom apartments

which are less than 50 square metres internally, and the two bedroom apartments

are less than 70 square metres internally. Despite this, the layout of apartments is

functional and has access to relatively large balconies. No apartment relies on

borrowed light and given the setbacks from boundaries and tower separation the

level of amenity for the apartments is satisfactory.

7.4 Wind Impacts A Wind Report has been submitted with the application which advises that the wind conditions of the surrounding area and the podium level would be within the criteria for walking comfort. This meets the minimum requirements for wind conditions under the Capital City Zone Schedule 3.

The photographs within the wind report do however not include the proposed towers at 65-67 Haig Street, Southbank and 344 City Road. It is unclear what impact these towers may have cumulatively should they be approved. Further test should be carried out with these models to consider the cumulative wind impacts of the proposal. In addition if the discussion plans which show a reduced podium height are approved by the Minster for Planning, further wind test should be carried out to address the impact of this change.

7.5 Car parking and access The applicant has addressed some of the traffic comments made by the City of Melbourne’s Principal Traffic Engineer in the discussion plans by removing three levels of car parking from the podium. Should the Minister see fit to approval the proposal, outstanding matters related to location of bicycle and motor cycle parking and swept path diagrams could be addressed through conditions of permit. Any required changes to the traffic management of the surrounding road network would be a matter of further consultation with surrounding building owners, the City of Melbourne, PTV and VicRoads.

7.6 ESD The applicant has submitted a Sustainable Management Plan for the amended

proposal. The report advises that the proposal has the preliminary design potential to

achieve a 5-star Green-Star Rating. This is consistent with policy.

7.7 Conclusion It is considered that despite a number of improvements to the original design of the proposal, that the increase in height of the tower should not be supported.

8 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That a letter be sent to DTPLI advising that the City of Melbourne objects to the proposal on the following grounds:

The increase in height of the tower is contrary to the design objectives and built form outcomes of the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 60 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme. An increase in height would be to the detriment of the public realm, undermine the purpose of the height control for the area and would set a benchmark of a higher built form which has not be envisioned for this area of Southbank.

of 25

future melbourne [insert portfolio] committee report · 2015. 11. 16. · attachments: 1. locality...

Documents