summary of submissions to draft pmwudf - city of …...submits redevelopment of 1-7 wfp (9) will...

ATTACHMENT 3 Summary of submissions to draft PMWUDF 20120322

Summary of submissions to draft Port Melbourne Waterfront Urban Design Framework (UDF)

Sub # Submitter profile Summary of the submission

1) Beacon Cove resident (Canberra Pde) Position: Issue specific objection

I. Submits that redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) will displace community facilities with a hotel and more apartments. II. Submits that the proposed buildings at 1-7 WFP are too big for site and will create ugly blot on landscape. III. Submits that redevelopment of 1-7 WFP will increase traffic and stress on local resources along Bay Street and Beach

Street. IV. Submits there is no opportunity to increase road access.

2) Beacon Cove resident (Beach Street) Position: Issue specific objection

I. Submits that towers conflict with character of the area. II. Submits redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) with high rise is an excessive commercial claim for developers. III. Submits that redevelopment of 1-7 WFP will exacerbate congestion in the ferry precinct.

3) Beacon Cove resident (Park Square) Position: Issue specific objection

I. Submits that previous restrictions for 1-7 WFP (9) were aimed at protecting and retaining the aesthetic appeal of the service area.

II. Submits that removing the 3 storey height limit goes against this intention. III. Submits that redevelopment of 1-7 WFP will increase traffic and parking problems.

4) email address only Position: Support & specific comment

I. Support for redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) of up to 5 levels with setback for Waterfront Place. II. Support for a plaza at the waterfront III. Support for development of the TT lines area IV. Support for better connecting of Bay Street with the waterfront. V. Does not support UDF findings in relation to the height of the towers as proposed primarily due to overshadowing of the

promenade, especially in winter months. VI. Does not support placement of traffic lights at the end of Princes Street. VII. Does not support dedicated lane along Beach St for all the TT traffic. VIII. Does not support planting trees along the median strip as it will lessen the connection with the beach.


I. Submits redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) will downgrade the liveability of Beach Road, Port Melbourne, Beacon Cove and beach areas.

II. Submits the area is unable to sustain such a high density, high rise development. III. Submits redevelopment of 1-7 WFP will create a traffic nightmare.

6) Beacon Cove resident I. Submits that redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) with 10 & 14 storey building is inappropriate and an overdevelopment.

WFP = Waterfront Place

of 34



(Park Square) Position: Issue specific objection

II. Submits that a 2-3 storey building would be more appropriate. III. Submits that redevelopment of 1-7 WFP will add to existing traffic problems, particularly when Spirit of Tasmania is

loading/unloading. 7) email address only

Position: Support

I. Supports increased focus on cycling and paths including road lanes on Beach Street. II. Submits there should be a substantial increase in bicycle racking opposite ‘The London’ on the foreshore, or alternatively

weekend or public holiday access to a single car park for bicycle security. 8) email address only

Position: Issue specific objection

I. Does not support redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) for more than 3 storeys. II. Support for redevelopment of 1-7 WFP as a boutique hotel with spa facilities and a pool which the community could pay

to use. III. Submits that redevelopment of 1-7 WFP above 3 storeys will increase traffic congestion in the area. IV. Submits that two 14 storey buildings will be an eye sore and will overpower the heritage railway station. V. Submits that the heritage railway station is a novelty for international visitors disembarking from ships.

VI. Submits there is a need for facilities that serve the community such as sea baths with a gym, pool and childcare facilities, rather than two 14 storey towers.

VII. Does not support signalisation at Princes Street as it will create a bottleneck between tram line and Bay Street intersection.

VIII. Submits that additional commercial units will not be able to operate, particularly in winter months. IX. Submits that anything more than 2 levels in height belongs on Bay Street. X. Support for more green open spaces not concrete public space.

9) email address only Position: Issue specific comments

I. Submits that two 14 story buildings will intimidate the public space, impede skyline visibility and dominate the landscape. II. Is concerned that an increase in residents living in the area will compromise ferry transport for tourists and freight.

10) Beacon Cove resident (Beach Street) Position: Issue specific comments

I. Submits that it is unlikely that significant additional parking would be provided as part of a redevelopment of 1-7 WFP and as such would generate extra traffic.

II. Submits that design concept described for 1-7 WFP (9) does not form a logical function and visual continuation of the Beacon Cove Towers.

III. Questions the commercial viability of (redevelopment of 1-7 WFP) due to being on the edge of the customer catchment area.

IV. Questions why Council shifted on the 3 storey building height restrictions for 1-7 WFP 11) Beacon Cove resident

(Park Square) Position: Issue specific comments

I. Submits that the views gained from community consultation about maintaining the amenities at 1-11 Waterfront Place have not been incorporated into the draft UDF.

II. Questions how tower heights of 10 & 14 storeys can be based on nearby building heights when those nearby area all 1/2/4 storey buildings.

12) Beacon Cove resident (Park Square) Position:

I. Does not support a redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) that will change the 3 storey height limit and allow two towers of 10 and 14 storeys.

II. Submits redevelopment of 1-7 WFP will increase traffic numbers and congestion in Beach Street, Princes Street and Waterfront Place.

of 34



Issue specific objection

III. Submits high density redevelopment of 1-7 WFP is against community wishes. IV. Submits vistas of the city skyline from ships arriving at Station Pier will be blocked and that the Heritage listed Port

Melbourne Railway Station and other low rise buildings and public open space in the area will be overshadowed and made cold and uninviting.

V. Recommends that Park Square be made one way for traffic. VI. Submits that the Park Square roadway is dangerous and basically a single lane road if all current allowed parking space is

being used. 13) Beacon Cove resident

(Orion Mews) Position: Issue specific objection

I. Objects to a 14 and 10 storey hotel development being allowed or supported. II. Submits the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) is totally against the communities expressed wishes as taken in previous

community consultation and that local Liberal and Labour Victorian members have made public statements during the election saying the same thing.

III. Submits the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP as described in the draft UDF will have wind tunnelling and shading impact on the beach and local area alongside.

IV. Submits that the draft UDF contains little if anything that will improve the traffic flow or reduce the congestion V. Submits that traffic issues will likely worsen as the apartment building frenzy continues in Port Melbourne.

VI. Does not support commercial development of the green belt alongside the freight holding / loading area. VII. Submits this green area was deliberately placed to maximize the view corridors and public enjoyment. VIII. Submits that the ferry waiting lane will likely create more traffic congestion and create an area more resembling a caravan

park. IX. Support for a remote parking of caravans and large vehicles waiting for the Spirit of Tasmania, not a line of them blocking

the beach views. 14) Beacon Cove resident

(Beach Street) Position: Support & Specific comments

I. Supports improving waterfront area to entice people to the water. II. Supports the current level of beach access for dogs and submits that any change to the existing waterfront design does not

compromise this access. III. Support for additional facilities to lock/secure bicycles for people cycling to the waterfront. IV. Supports the redevelopment that has occurred on Princes Pier (“is excellent”). Any changes to the waterfront must be

consistent with this high standard of work to ensure a positive return on the investment to transform the waterfront, for both local residents and visitors.

V. Does not support installation of larger trees along Beach Street or the streets that intersect Beach Street because of the potential to impede views from residential properties, potentially obstruct the bay outlook when travelling along these intersecting streets towards the beach, and impact the value of properties in and near the area of the UDF boundary.

VI. Acknowledges that improvements to the waterfront also offer potential to increase the value of nearby properties. VII. Submits that any further planting of street trees should blend with the continuation of palm trees along Beaconsfield Parade,

toward St. Kilda. VIII. Submits that unimpeded views of the beaches, the bay and beyond from as many vantage points as possible should be a

priority. IX. Submits that current levels of sand areas must be retained, specifically relating to proposed new pier next to the Port

Melbourne Yacht Club (PMYC), changes to the car park next to the PMYC (within the Bay and Beach Street Hub), beach access tracks, paths and vegetation

of 34



X. Submits that further enhancement of Station Pier would provide cruise ship and Spirit of Tasmania visitors with a more pleasant arrival to Melbourne.

XI. Values the waterfront area for its pleasant atmosphere, natural beauty of the bay and beaches and the relaxed and unique feel.

15) Beacon Cove resident (Park Square) Position: Specific comments

I. Submits that construction of two new towers on 1-7 WFP (9) will result in a loss of amenity and ambience in the immediate vicinity.

II. Seeks a council delivered solution to increased traffic and demand for parking that would occur as a consequence of the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP.

III. Is concerned about current traffic movement and access on Beach Street behind 1-7 WFP. Submits that traffic is worse in peak hours where traffic queues to enter the London Hotel roundabout.

16) South Melbourne business owner (Gladstone Street) Position: Support & Issue specific objection

I. Support for the draft UDF overall. II. Objects to the height and bulk described in the draft UDF for a redevelopment of 1-7 WFP. III. Submits a number of contradictions exist between the draft UDF visions & principles and the design objectives described

for 1-7 WFP. IV. Would support redevelopment of 1-7 WFP if it were of the appropriate scale of 2-4 levels. V. Requests this objection be disregarded if the information about the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP circulated is incorrect.

17) email address only Position: Issue specific objection

I. Does not support the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9). II. Submits that any redevelopment of 1-7 WFP should be three or four levels. III. Submits the area should be maintained as a public space (such as a pool or recreational facility that would benefit the

majority of residents, rather than creating tall buildings that cast shadows on the beach. 18) Beacon Cove resident

(Beach Street) Position: Issue specific objection

I. Does not support two high rise towers as part of the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) II. Submits that congestion is a problem in the area, especially when cruise ships are in. III. Is concerned that allowing buildings of this height to go ahead will set a precedent.

19) Port Melbourne resident (Rouse Street) Position: Issue specific objection & comment

I. Objects to the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP if it is over 3 storeys. II. Submits that a significant development on the site will force even more traffic down the side streets in Port Melbourne and

further exasperate congestion around the roundabout at the London Hotel at certain times of the day. III. Submits that there have been negative impacts associated with the construction and use other high density residential

developments in Port Melbourne. 20) Beacon Cove resident

(Australis Circuit) Position: Issue specific comment

I. Submits that council is ‘flying a kite’ regarding the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP and should maintain the 3 storey height limit currently stated for the site.

21) Beacon Cove resident (Beach Street)

I. Does not support high rise development on the site at 1-7 WFP (9) or on the foreshore. II. Submits that traffic is the main issue, particularly the lack of controls during the loading of the Spirit of Tasmania and the

of 34



Position: Issue specific objection

increased Cruise Ship activity. III. Concern that redevelopment of 1-7 WFP would diminish the "casual, holiday" feel of the area, increase traffic flow through

Beacon Cove. IV. Concern that the high rise car parking facility at 1-7 WFP would be the first thing tourists coming into the area would see.

22) Port Melbourne resident (First Point) Position: Issue specific objection

I. Does not support two high towers buildings at 1-7 WFP (9). II. Submits that Council has changed its mind since requesting interim height controls for the site in January 2011. III. Submits high rise on the site is not in keeping with the surrounding height in the neighbourhood, (e.g. Railway terminus, the

London Hotel, 2 storey houses along Beach Street at that point). IV. Submits that the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP will cause further traffic chaos, overshadowing, and be an eyesore. V. Submits that the roundabout at Princes and Beach Streets already does not work when the Spirit is loading, seen to be

blocked for 20 minutes with nothing moving. VI. Questions why the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP is necessary in this current world financial situation.

23) Port Melbourne resident (Evans Street) Position: Support & issue specific comment

I. Supports keeping the area between Station Pier and Bay Street as a mixed use area, II. Supports the inclusion of more restaurants in this area and possibly in the area near Princes Pier. III. Submits that spreading out the mixed use area would encourage people to venture further along the water front and also

help alleviate the congestion of activity around Bay Street and Station Pier. IV. Does not support any building at 1-7 WFP (9) site taller than those buildings to the south east of this site (along the beach

towards Bay Street) V. Submits 1-7 WFP should have a building no more than two storeys high to ensure the existing atmosphere of the area is

preserved. VI. Likes the contrast between Beacon Cove and the rest of Port Melbourne, and submits a low rise height limit is set to avoid

creating a Gold Coast style feel. 24) Beacon Cove resident


I. Support for redeveloping 1-7 WFP (9), so long as it is done so consistent with community views and contributes a benefit to community by way of facilities that everyone can use.

II. Object to the design response for 1-7 WFP because it is a significant variation from the Mirvac prepared Beacon Cove master plan.

III. Submit that the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP will be detrimental to the capital value of homes within Park Square and Beach Street due to excessive traffic congestion and removal of the unimpaired visual ‘link’ with Station Pier and the foreshore.

IV. Submit that the local community will not benefit from the redevelopment of the site. V. Submit that the focus of the draft UDF on the waterfront area as been at the expense of the surrounding streets.

VI. Submit that irrespective of setbacks, shape or form, a 10/14 storey development is inconsistent with the vision and principles described in the draft UDF.

VII. Submit that 10/14 floor towers will erode the appearance and diminish the significance of the historic railway platform and its environs.

VIII. Concerned about the impact of increased traffic flows and need for extra parking resulting from additional patronage (either casual visitors or permanent residents).

IX. Concern about the financial viability of any commercial entity (boutique hotel and retail outlets). Submit that feasibility studies have not been done.

25) Beacon Cove resident I. Submits that the community consultation process has been insincere. of 34



(Beach Street) Position: Comment

26) Beacon Cove resident (Beach Street) Position: Comment & issue specific complaint

I. Submits that the draft UDF is pretentious and inadequate. II. Submits that redevelopment of 1-7 WFP as described in the draft UDF would reduce the amenity of residents by increasing

congestion and overshadowing and diminish the visual amenity by obstructing the remaining view of the city from Port Phillip Bay.

III. Submits that new retail and restaurant developments cannot be sustained. IV. Submits that the foreshore/beach should be kept in public ownership, except for reasonable port related activities. V. Submits that specific suggestions to address safety on the bike path and promenade.

27) Port Melbourne resident (Stokes Street) Position: Support & comments & detailed response to all precincts

I. Support for upgrading the waterfront area generally. II. Submit that the addition of potentially three substantial and tall new buildings in Waterfront Place Precinct would be an

overdevelopment. III. Concern about adding population without commensurate services to Port Melbourne, particularly supermarkets and parking

which are observed to be already stretched. IV. Submit that Fishermans Bend should start to be scoped for shopping centre scale infrastructure to service the area prior to

further residential population increase.

28) email address Position: Comment

I. Concern about motivations behind the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP. II. Would support a “‘specially carefully designed and more considerate’ building for this prestigious area.”

29) Port Melbourne residents (Evans Street) Position: Support & Issue specific comment

I. Support suggested changes to the Beacon Cove Promenade. II. Support queuing lane for cars waiting to board the Tasmanian ferry. III. Does not support towers built on 1-7 WFP. IV. Submit there is a lack of clarity and precision in the draft UDF. Greater explanation is needed to provide rationale for some

statements, i.e. why a site is a key development opportunity and how a multi story building can still respect a single storey heritage building.

V. Submits the BCNA position that the existing height limit of 3 stories should be retained. VI. Submits that Council should not adopt the draft UDF. VII. Submits that another 2 months be set aside for community discussion on draft before Council decides to accept or reject.

30) 30) Submission made to Council meeting 14/02/12 Position: Comment

I. Submits belief that the community would not support a multi-storey development on 1-11 Waterfront Place. II. Submits that the draft UDF infers its support by use of diagrams and pictures.

31) Beacon Cove resident (Park Square) Position:

I. Does not support redevelopment at 1-7 WFP higher than 3 storeys. II. Concerned about the loss of the view of Melbourne from ships docking at Station Pier. III. Submits that traffic along Beach Street is increasing due to motorists rat running through Beacon Cove to the city and

of 34


Sub # Submitter profile Summary of t he submission

Issue specific objection freeway. 32) Port Melbourne resident

(Farrell Street) Position: Issue specific objection

I. Does not support redevelopment at 1-7 WFP. II. Submits the towers will overshadow the area creating shadowing, and visual disruption for residents in the area and

increase traffic in the area. III. Submits that towers 1-7 WFP breaks the current medium level development which is so attractive to the increasing number

of visitors approaching Melbourne by sea. IV. Submits that the Waterfront Place precinct is poorly designed to cope with the current volume of TT Line passengers and

freight, and increased cruise ship traffic during the summer months. 33) Port Melbourne resident

(Pier Street) Position: comments

I. Concern that community wishes are being ignored in regards to height limits on 1-7 WFP (9). II. Concerned about the loss of the view of Melbourne from ships docking at and leaving Station Pier.


IV. Does not support redevelopment at 1-7 WFP (9) higher than 3 storeys. V. Concerned about the loss of the view of Melbourne from ships docking at Station Pier.

VI. Submits that traffic along Beach Street is increasing due to motorists rat running through Beacon Cove to the city and freeway.

35) Port Melbourne resident Position: Support Issue specific objection & comments

I. Supports making more green space along the front of the three restaurants. II. Does not support redevelopment at 1-7 WFP (9) with 1 or 2 towers or multi level parking. III. Does not support the proposed new commercial buildings on TT Boundary. IV. Submits that 3 storey height limit for 1-7 WFP should be observed. V. Submits that traffic coming along Todd Rd and turning down Beach St could be reduced in waterfront place and south end

of Bay street if Vic Roads shut off Beach Street from through traffic at the North end by Beacon Rd. Concern about shadows, loss of sight from other buildings, wind channelling, extra traffic, increased demand for parking, pollution, noise pollution and extra people that redevelopment of 1-7 WFP would generate.

VI. Submits that any urban design interventions be best practice environmental sustainable design. VII. Concern that the seasonality of cruise ships means new commercial/retail activity could not be sustained and lead to high

vacancy numbers. VIII. Concern about the number of trucks using Bay Street to get to Beach road and potential for human fatalities.

36) Port Melbourne resident (Nott Street) Position: Design specific comments

I. Submits a number of ideas through hand annotated sketches from draft UDF. These include ideas for: a. Introducing a continuous green wedge from Sandridge beach through to Bay St and beyond to St Kilda. b. Planning and layout to separate vehicle traffic movement from pedestrian/cycling movements. c. A commercial multi use iconic green building development that promotes the panoramic views of Melbourne skyline and

offers multiple low impact commercial and community activities. d. A further increase in public green areas. e. Reducing the visual impact of parking areas. f. Minimizing the visual impact of TT truck parking area. g. Relocating the Port Melbourne Yacht Club from the Bay St site to return the Bay St area to the public realm.

of 34



37) Beacon Cove resident (The Crescent) Position: Support & issue specific comments & specific design comments

I. Supports the proposals for Beacon Cove Promenade Precinct, Princes Pier precinct, 103 Beach Street, Foodstore, Beach Street Precinct, Bay and Beach Street Precinct.

II. Supports the overall concept for Waterfront Place Precinct. III. Supports the building layout on 1-7 WFP (9). IV. Does not support redevelopment on 1-7 WFP higher than 3 storeys. V. Does not support commercial development on TT Line Boundary (6) or Beach Street (10).

VI. Does not support signalisation of Princes/Beach street intersection (8). VII. Submits that some of the “Goals” are consistent with the views expressed by the community and others are not. VIII. Submits the need for greater explanation to provide rationale for some of the “goals” particularly as it relates to why 'new

development’ and ‘future growth’ is needed and what is meant by ‘sustainable future’. IX. Submits greater explanation of the rationale for redevelopment of 1-7 WFP with high rise towers is needed. X. Submits that the covenants and the planning requirements for the Port Melbourne waterfront have not been made available

to the community to assist their considerations. XI. Submits that a cost/payment analysis of the project has not been made available for community consideration and is

concerned that ratepayers will have to pay for it. XII. Submits that the community may be being 'railroaded' into changes in this precinct which they do not want. XIII. Queries days per annum the waterfront is a tourist destination due to inhospitable weather and seasonality of cruise ships.

38) Port Melbourne resident (Station Street) Position: Issue specific comments

I. Seeks a reversal of a bad decision. II. Submits that council has made a grave error by approving ten and four storey developments in the two storey zone beside

Port Melbourne's heritage railway station. III. Submits that views of Melbourne for incoming ships and ferries will be blocked, and already horrendous traffic around

Station Pier made worse.

39) State Government Department (DPCD) Position: Support & Comments specific to Bay and Beach Street Hub

I. Supports the overall concept of the PMWUDF to improve and increase public open space along Port Melbourne foreshore, reduce existing conflicts between user groups and improve traffic flow.

II. Supports proposed public plaza (2) fro Waterfront Place Precinct. III. Supports concepts described for Princes Pier and Beacon Cove Promenade. IV. Supports WSUD interventions at Bay and Beach Street Hub (5). V. Submits greater strategic justification is needed for the beach access (4) Bay and Beach Street Hub to be certain designs

and works do not contradict Siting and Design Guidelines for Structures on the Victorian Coast 1998. VI. Submits greater strategic justification is needed for timber ramps near the PMYC (8) and (9) particularly in light of coastal

processes and vulnerability. Recommends consultation with Parks Victoria. VII. Submits that recommendations for 103 Beach Street (7) and improved beach connectivity (11) be considered in context of

the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008. VIII. Submit that Council should be aware of the relevant Crown land policies and guidelines for managing public land once the

handover from MPV is complete. 40) email address only

Position: Support

I. Supports the redevelopment of waterfront place precinct II. Submits that iconic developments are an important part of creating a welcoming, magnificent city entry.

of 34



41) Beacon Cove resident (Beach Street) Position: Issue specific comments

I. Concerned about high rise development on 1-7 WFP (9) because it will overpower and dominate Waterfront Place, destroy the ambience of and vista from Waterfront Place, Beach Street and Park Square, block the vista of the city skyline and be a significant detraction from the first view of Melbourne for passengers disembarking on Station Pier.

II. Is concerned about the loss of community facilities and green space included in the original Beacon Cove plan. III. Submits that the draft UDF is inconsistent with the views expressed by residents during the consultation phase. IV. Concern that there will be a very significant increase in traffic movements and congestion around the intersection near the

previous London Hotel and along Beach Street with consequent adverse impact on access and safety for all Beacon Cove residents and visitors to the area.

V. Concern that the heritage railway station which will be dwarfed by a towering building immediately adjacent to it. VI. Submits that justification of the 10/14 storey height by referencing the height of the 5 Beacon Cove towers does not

acknowledge low rise heights of buildings in closer vicinity. VII. Submits that the Beacon Cove development was sold on the basis that the facilities at 1-11 WFP would be low rise (3 level

heights) community facilities, comprising a gymnasium, crèche, and convenience store along with the tram 109 terminus. 42) email address only

Position: Support

I. Supports the whole of the PMWUDF.

43) Port Melbourne resident (Walter Street) Position: Support & Issue specific objection

I. Does not support redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) and 103 Beach (7) over 3 storeys because of impacts on traffic, shading, gateway, community space, over domination of the Station etc.

II. Does not support Commercial development adjacent to TT Spirit loading / unloading freight and car park (6) and (10) because any visual separation from the shipping activity would damage the link between people and the piers, ships, prevailing weather and the bay.

III. Supports a new public pier at Beach and Bay Street Hub. IV. Supports making the yacht club area more welcoming and other changes proposed. V. Supports Beach Street concepts.

VI. Supports Beacon Cove Promenade 44) Beacon Cove resident

(Beach Street) Position: Issue specific comments

I. Submits Council should not submit to an argument that changing the zoning from 3 level height limit to 14 is “reasonable” because of the surrounding buildings.

II. Submits that greater explanation is needed about the benefits to the local community if 1-7 WFP (9) is redeveloped as described in the draft UDF.

III. Submits that if proposal for 1-7 WFP outlined in the draft UDF goes ahead then the increased traffic resultant from the proposal must be addressed.

45) Port Melbourne resident (Beach Street) Position: Issue specific objection

I. Objection to proposed height on the basis that it will change the view/aspect. II. Submits that this objection could be reviewed if more information about the visual change was available.

46) Port Melbourne resident (PO Box)

I. Submits that redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) as described in the draft UDF is inconsistent with the original vision for Beacon Cove, is against the wishes and views of those who live there and will obliterate the view of the Melbourne city skyline.

II. Submits that redevelopment of 1-7 WFP will add hundreds of residents, and associated car and traffic services, and would of 34



Position: Issue specific comments

significantly affect both traffic volumes and resident amenity. III. Acknowledges that 1-7 WFP needs to be redeveloped, but believes it should be limited to 3-5 storeys.

47) Beacon Cove resident (Beach Street) Position: Support & Issue specific comments

I. Support the Bay & Beach St hub, Beach Street, Princes Pier proposals. II. Support Waterfront Place Precinct with specific exceptions. These are:

a. Does not support outcome to: “TT-Line operations visually screened from Waterfront Place”. Submits that the port uses should be open and are a vital living part of the area.

b. Does not support height concepts for redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9). Submits this should be restricted to a max height of 2 storeys.

c. Does not support redevelopment of 103 Beach Street to height above 2 storeys or 8 metres. 48) Beacon Cove resident

(Beach Street) Position: Issue specific comments

I. Concern about traffic and pedestrian flow associated with a redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) with towers. “a further 2-300 people permanently plus 2- 1000 people coming in and out daily by foot and cars“.

II. Concern about increased traffic on Beach Street and Waterfront Place associated with the commercial operations of the Tasmanian Ferry, particularly with waiting car queues along Beach to Bay Streets on busy loading times like Xmas and Easter.

III. Does not believe that additional underground parking will be an improvement to the amenity of the area. IV. Does not support Pedestrian Safe Zone. Believes cyclists should not be allowed to ride on this area.

49) Beacon Cove resident, (Beach Street) Position: Issue specific comments

I. Concern about existing traffic flow into Beach Street from both entries. II. Concern about carbon soot pollution from ships and from cars. III. Submits that future high rise buildings on 1-7 WFP (9) to be no more than 14 stories high.

50) St Kilda West resident (Cowderoy Street) Position: Support & Issue specific objection

I. Support for temporary queuing lane for TT lane passenger traffic described in Concept 1. II. Does not support anything about any proposed redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9). III. Submits that “the draft UDF is not respectful of the current ambience of the area and does not acknowledge lower building

heights of neighbouring buildings”. IV. Submits draft UDF “is inconsistent with CoPP submission to State Gov in Jan 2011.”

51) Port Melbourne resident (Beach Street) Position: Design specific comments

I. Submits that height restrictions on 1-7 WFP (9) should be kept low. II. Submits that there is “more than adequate but superfluous car space” for 1-7 WFP. III. Submits redevelopment of 1-7 WFP should be “for residents’. IV. Submits that car park for TT Shipping Line should be remote from site.

52) Port Melbourne resident (Rouse Street) Position: Support & design specific

I. Support for Concept 1 but without any carparking. II. Submits the draft UDF and consultation process have been done well. III. Submits that commercial redevelopment at (6) & (10) could include some retail, such as a café, but should not include a

nightclub or pub. IV. Submits that an iconic very slim vertical building would be good on WFP – similar to Eureka tower but much shorter. V. Submits that the dune /beach landscape beside the PoMC land adjacent to the pier should be revegetated.

of 34



comments 53) Beacon Cove residents

(Beach Street) Position: Support & precinct specific objection

I. Supports Beach Street Precinct; Bay and Beach Street hub; and Beacon Cove Promenade Precinct. II. Supports the recognition of immigration history and bicycle traffic in the Princes Pier precinct. III. Does not support increasing height at Food store (7) IV. Does not support increasing height at 1-7 WFP (9). Should be restricted to 3 storeys. V. Does not support commercial redevelopment of TT line boundary (6).

VI. Concern about the draft UDF being a “blueprint for disaster…when the area becomes a hub for entertainment venues.” VII. Concern about current levels of litter around Food store. Believes this would escalate with redevelopment. VIII. Concern that Princes Pier is dead. Suggests a seafood restaurant. IX. Submits the truncation of Princes Pier is ugly and looks derelict. X. Concern about speed of bikes, inline skates, dogs off leash, seagull feeding and trend towards Surfers Paradise built form

on waterfront generally. 54) Port Melbourne residents

(Beach Street) Position: Site specific objection

I. Does not support redevelopment of 1-7 WFP with 11 and 14 storey buildings. II. Submits “the community centre has to stay”. III. Is concerned that the UDF “misleads by showing plans from top only without showing the effect of the height of 11 and 14

floors to the surrounding.”

55) Port Melbourne residents (Beach Street) Stage 2 Position: Site specific objection

I. Does not support redevelopment of 1-7 WFP with 10 and 14 stories. II. Submits that the resultant increased population will exacerbate current traffic issues. III. Submits the height is totally out of character with the height of the current buildings on site and existing buildings in the

area.

56) Port Melbourne resident (Rouse Street) Position: Support & specific design comments

I. Supports draft UDF concepts for Waterfront Place Precinct, Beach Street, Bay and Beach Street hub, Princes Pier and Beacon Cove Promenade Precinct.

II. Supports general beautification. III. Supports the notion of a formally recognised gateway to the city for those arriving. IV. Supports the pedestrian access and public outdoor space described in concept for 1-7 WFP (9). V. Supports “the idea of a slender building form” at 1-7 WFP “the height you suggest in blue seems appropriate.”

VI. Supports minimisation road, including a dedicated lane for ferry traffic and maximising thee pedestrian areas. VII. Supports the proposals for landscaping, dune revegetation and public artwork in the Beach Street Precinct. VIII. Supports the improved pedestrian crossings at Bay Street in the Bay and Beach Street Precinct. IX. Supports “(6), (8) and (9) i.e. general revamping of the Yacht Club.” X. Supports (“loves”) the remnant piles at Princes Pier – requests they are not “messed with ‘artistic lights”.

XI. Supports (“loves”) the beacon and leading lights sculpture feature in Beacon Cove Promenade Precinct. XII. Submits that traffic calming in the Beach Street Precinct would be good. XIII. Submits that “a low rise apartment at Waterfront Place would be good as there is nowhere nice for visitors to Port

Melbourne to stay at.” 57) Port Melbourne resident

(Stokes Street) I. Submits there is a need for “more attractive colour on the sand beach (within the Beach Street Precinct) to get best view of

the beach from Port Melbourne and from Hobson’s Bay. of 34



Position: Specific design comments

58) Beacon Cove resident (Canberra Pde) Position: Support & design comments

I. Supports draft UDF concepts for Waterfront Place Precinct, Beach Street, Bay and Beach Street hub, Princes Pier and Beacon Cove Promenade Precinct.

II. Support for redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9). “Any new development should just fit in with what is near by e.g. 14 storey buildings are fine.”

III. Does not support adding commercial building on boundary of TT Shipping line (10) “as it may block any view or presence that a new hotel would have (9).”

IV. Submits “there appears to be a vocal minority group who believe they are speaking for the majority which in my opinion they are not. We can all speak for ourselves. Thankyou, as a resident I think the Council does a great job.”

V. Submits Port Melbourne is lacking in accommodation for visitors, and that a hotel on Waterfront Place would be appropriate.

VI. Submits that the TT Line traffic shouldn’t affect locals, only people that are coming to the area for the ferries. VII. Submits that “somehow encourage passengers coming off ships to go to Bay St…local shops are missing out because they

don’t know the Bay St shops are there.” 59) Beacon Cove resident

(Swallow Street) Position: Issue specific objection

I. Objects to a high rise development at 1-7 WFP (9).


I. Does not support the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) with two high rise towers. II. Submits “the reason we chose to live in this area relied substantially on the Mirvac plans for Waterfront Place are

particularly the ambience and vista of the waterfront and Port Phillip Bay.”

61) Port Melbourne resident (Princes Street) Position: Issue specific objection

I. Does not support the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) with 10-14 story towers. II. Submits that he believed there were regulations and planning guarantees set in stone for the area when he purchased his

home 13 years ago. III. Is concerned about “2 years of noise and filth” created by the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP. IV. Is concerned about loss of sun and community facilities.

62) Port Melbourne resident (Beach Street) Position: Specific support Specific objection & specific design issues

I. Supports redevelopment of 1-7 WFP(9). Submits that a more imaginative approach to the design guidelines for this (9) and the Food store site (7) is needed than the draft UDF currently provides.

II. Submits that “a very tall, slim, distinctive building, maybe 60-100 stories, like Eureka Tower… would make a wonderful beacon for ships…and have a relatively small footprint leaving considerable room for building setbacks and public activities on a human scale at ground level.”

III. Submits that overshadowing would be minimised by the slim design of the building and community benefit via significant public realm improvements leveraged as trade off for height.

of 34



IV. Supports proposal to narrow beach Street. V. Does not support queuing lane. Submits TT line should be forced to deal with its passengers not the neighbourhood.

VI. Does not support concept of an ‘enclosed town square’. VII. Objects to building on the Waterfront Place edge of the ferry truck parking (10). VIII. Submits that most Beach street traffic problems are directly due to the TT Line. Queries the appropriateness of ongoing

freight operations from Station Pier in the context of the changing nature of the operations themselves (bigger and more frequent) and residential development.

IX. Submits that the TT line should be moved to Webb Dock, the parking space made into a pedestrian area and the fourth berth used for cruise liners.

X. Submits there should be no more alienation of public foreshore by building on the beach side of road. 63) Beacon Cove resident

(Beach Street) Position: Issue specific objection & traffic concern

I. Objects to the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) above 3 storeys. II. Submits the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP will destroy the community feel of the area and block the view of the city skyline for

visitors arriving on boats and view of the Port from people on the Westgate Bridge. III. Submits that traffic management, parking and safety have not been adequately addressed in the draft UDF. IV. Is concerned about future noise from construction and from future increased traffic. V. Is concerned that there will be a lack of green open space in the area if 1-7 WFP is redeveloped.

64) Beacon Cove resident (Beach Street) Position: Issue specific objection & traffic concern

I. Objects to the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) above 3 storeys. II. Submits the redevelopment of this site will increase traffic congestion, noise, destroy community facilities, green space,

privacy and decrease property value. III. Submits traffic flow during peak hours is already problematic in the area. Submits draft UDF does not offer suitable

solutions to these issues. IV. Does not support proposal to signalise Princes/Beach street intersection.

65) Port Melbourne resident (Poolman St) Position: Issue specific objection

I. Objects to the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) above 3 storeys. II. Submits that traffic and parking is already a major issue in the immediate vicinity of this site. III. Submits there is already immense pressure on schools (Port Melbourne Primary), medical services and public transport. IV. Submits the stairs on Beacon Cove Promenade are hazardous as prams can't go up the steps so they revert to the bike

path, which can create a conflict.

66) email address only Position: Comments

I. Submits that 1-7 WFP(9) is unsuited to residential development because the Spirit of Tasmania operations means noise quality is unsuitable for normal living.

II. Submits that adding high rise development and more commercial activity without addressing the noise and traffic issues is a recipe for chaos.

III. Submits that the draft UDF does not offer a cogent solution to the dangerous, congested, confusing traffic interaction between pedestrians, cyclists, cars and trucks.

67) Beacon Cove resident (Park Square) Position: CRM :request for information

I. Requested a copy of the contract of sale for waterfront place.

of 34



68) Beacon Cove resident Position: Design and process comments

I. Submits that the UDF needs stand alone, independent, current technical reports in the areas of traffic, engineering, pedestrian connectivity and built form massing to inform the UDF design outcomes.

II. Submits that the TT Line queuing lane is a poor design resolution and did not have supporting research, or critical assessment by traffic engineers.

III. Submits that design solutions to 1-11 Waterfront Place, for Waterfront Place plaza, Beacon Cove promenade and Princes Pier+ New Beach now appears in the UDF still lacking technical research, independent sign off or considered design.

IV. Submits that these design solutions appear to ignore precinct problems and 2 years of considered community input into the UDF process.

V. Submits that Council is to be commended, under the circumstances, for completing the UDF that had lost its way under the appointed Consultants, and providing the Community with a document to consider, reiterate and remind Council of strongly held local concerns of traffic, pedestrian<cycle conflicts and the built form at Waterfront Place.

69) Port Melbourne residents (Beach Street) Position: Objection & issue specific comments

I. Objects to the proposed tower developments at 1-7 WFP (9). II. Submits that liveability in the immediate area will be adversely affected with the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP with towers. III. Submits that the draft UDF does not mention “…the need to increase public transport to cater for the expected influx the

current proposal will bring.” IV. Submits that the covenants that were placed on various titles by Mirvac/State Govt to protect the original vision for “this

prestigious gateway to our very liveable Capital city.” V. Submits that the covenants are “a major issue that requires full transparency for the community to understand what vested

interests are being served.” VI. Submits that councillors and CoPP appear not to be listening to their constituents regarding this overdevelopment. VII. Submits that a “mish-mash of controlling bodies for the waterfront areas” makes it difficult to know who takes responsibility

for enforcement issues around filthy rubbish areas and noise from restaurants on Station Pier. VIII. Submits that a “new roadway” to service the proposed new towers will create further congestion between the roundabout

and the tram crossing. IX. Submits that “the UDF proposals for precinct no 1 at Waterfront Place have merit provided the existing height restrictions at

1-7 WFP are maintained.” X. Submits that there is “much to be commended in the current proposals.”

XI. Submits that a successful outcome similar to the completed Princes Pier precinct “can still be achieved by scaling back the proposals for 1-7 WFP within the existing height limits.”

XII. Submits that blocked views and deleterious effect on property values for the original purchasers of the low rise houses behind 1-7 WFP warrants compensation.

70) Port Melbourne residents (Narooma Place) Position: Issue specific comments

I. Is “concerned and disappointed with the Port Melbourne UDF proposal, particularly Waterfront Place”. II. Submits that development of towers on 1-7 WFP (9) is excessive and inappropriate. III. Submits that retail development on the grassed area of the TT Line boundary is excessive and inappropriate. IV. Submits that the towers will overshadow public open space for much of the year, enclose the area, and make it

claustrophobic, unwelcoming and confronting. The redevelopment will also obscure views of the city and add to existing traffic chaos in the area with vehicular traffic from hundreds of new residents.

V. Submits that three storeys is entirely suited for the area and represents sound urban design principles. VI. Submits that the proposals in the UDF would forever destroy the overall concept and award wining design of Beacon Cove.

of 34



VII. Submits that covenants are key to preserving the integrity of the original concept. VIII. Submits that the considerable light and noise from the TT line carpark would have substantial impact on the amenity of any

future residents in the proposed new developments. IX. Submits that the (design concepts) for 1-7 WFP described in the draft UDF are not what the community want. Submits that

the community facilities that would be developed as a result of the redevelopment are of questionable benefit and do not counter the adverse affects of the proposals.

X. Submits that other tall buildings in the vicinity area result of poor planning decisions and should not be used as part of the consideration of the building form on 1-7 WFP.

XI. Submits that the proposed UDF will permanently spoil the open aspect and sense of freedom one has when down in this part of the bay.

71) Port Melbourne residents (Orcades Mews) Position: Issue specific objection

I. Does not support the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP(9) with 10-14 storey development. Submit that a 3 storey max community-use business.

II. Submits that covenants should protect the site as a low rise, community use business. III. Submits that council has not listened to the communities wishes about the height of a redevelopment of this site.

72) Representative body Position: Support & issue specific comments

I. Support for the vision of the draft PMWUDF II. Support for nine principles guiding the concept plans and objectives, particularly Principles 1 and 8. III. Submits that “the most problematic aspect of the draft UDF is the proposal to remove the existing 3 storey limits at 1-7 WFP

and allow a 10 storey and 12 storey tower to be built there.” IV. Submits that the draft UDF method for assessing “appropriate scale” for a redevelopment of 1-7 WFP is not the proper

consideration. V. Submits that the market analysis driving the scale of the proposals for 1-7 WFP is extremely dubious.

VI. Submits that the draft UDF does not adequately analyse the existing problems with traffic in the area or explore future solutions.

VII. Submits that an intensive high rise development at waterfront place will exacerbate rather than reduce this major problem. VIII. Submits the high rise proposal fails the UDF’s own test of ‘facilitating a desired and positive change.’ IX. Submits that it is now appropriate for the Council to review the decade old height controls for the Port Melbourne foreshore,

employing a review process that “involves proper consideration of the impacts on the whole area with contributions from all interested parties, particularly local residents.”

X. Submits that there have not been fundamental changes in conditions that warrant making changes to existing planning controls along the foreshore.

XI. Submits that existing height controls should only be changed if there is a demonstrable net public benefit. Submits that there is no justification for abandoning existing controls based on State policy for the overall development of Melbourne.

XII. Submits the draft UDF is fundamentally flawed in proposing two high rise towers at the Waterfront Place site. XIII. Submits the need to reconsider how the desirable aspects of the UDF can be attained with a low-rise development at

Waterfront Place. 73) Representative body

Position:

I. Supports the proposals in Bay and Beach Street hub for the PMYC to present a more open and accessible visual appearance to Bay Street as well as improving the amenity for beach users.

II. Submits that the manner in which this aspiration is presented in the draft UDF is too narrowly defined as a single solution of 34



Support & issue specific comments & request for wording.

and may not be achievable in practice. III. Requests the wording in relation to opening up the northern face of the PMYC be amended to focus on the shared

aspiration rather than a specific solution. IV. Submits that the importance of the Bay and access to it should be acknowledged in the Principles so that the community

wishes for north/south movements (as well as the east -west as is the current linear focus) are valued and promoted. V. Submits that the other proposals relating to Town Pier (PMYC site) speak to the history of Port Melbourne and also help

connect people with the Bay, and these are core values of the club. VI. Submits that PMYC wish to work with CoPP to translate these values and other aspects of the UDF into reality.

74) Port Melbourne business owner Position: Support & issue specific comments

I. Supports the overall draft UDF. II. Concern that tree planting in the Bay and Beach Street precinct opposite the Pier Restaurant and Function Centre will

eventually block views to the beach and bay. III. Submits a planting scheme of lower plants would be more appropriate.

75) email address only Position: Support

I. Support a 14 storey hotel being built at Waterfront Place. II. Submit that this would bring many more tourists into the area, who would in turn spend their vacation dollar in the area. III. Submits that there are other multi storey apartment towers already.

76) Albert Park residents (Moubray Street) Position: Issue specific objection

I. Do not support “the projected 11 storey building in the general area of Port Melbourne. II. Submit that it would be a major disastrous addition to the shoreline and that protecting our wonderful skyline is an

advantage to the massive general public.

77) Port Melbourne resident (Princes St) Position: Support & issue specific comments

I. Support for draft UDF generally. II. Supports particularly the design objectives to enhance the heritage character of the area, minimising bulk and height of

buildings, enhance the use of public spaces and the timber Pier at the Bay St end (8 & 9 in Bay and Beach Street Precinct). III. Does not support redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) above 3 storeys. Submits that it would be preferable as a hotel, community

centre, shopping area, a small hub, reflecting the unique community spirit and importance of Port Melbourne. IV. Submits the residents living in the area have enough problems with Traffic flow, busy streets and kids. V. Submits that a model of the area with proposed buildings covering the Port Melbourne Waterfront UDF study area and

beyond would be useful. VI. Suggests a council buy back that could extend out the services to the community and the cruise liners in character with the

history of the area. VII. Suggests removal of the storm water drain on the Port Melbourne beach. VIII. Requests ability to amend submission due to time constraints.

78) Middle Park resident Position:

I. Submits that there has already been too much development allowed to happen in the Port Melbourne area. II. Submits this has made parking in Bay Street impossible, crossing the road dangerous and long queues in the post office

and so on and on. Also submits that new comers are often only users of facilities not contributors to community life. of 34



Issue specific comments III. Requests that “there be no hideous development of the Beacon Cove area.” 79) Port Melbourne resident

(Crichton Avenue) Position: Support

I. Supports the draft UDF. II. Supports the redevelopment of 1-7 Waterfront Place. III. Submits that the site is a gateway to Melbourne and is really important that it has something beautiful constructed on it.

Something that is part of the attraction of visiting Port Melbourne. IV. Notes that the Queen Mary 2 cruise ship visit yesterday is a good example of how important Waterfront Place is to all

Melbournians- not just people who live in Beacon Cove. V. Submits that the debate about the draft UDF has been hijacked with claims that one group speaks for everyone, but they

don’t. 80) Port Melbourne residents

(Beach Street) Position: Objection And issue specific comments

I. Submits that Waterfront Place already achieves the vision described in the draft UDF, and that Council should recognise that the Port Melbourne Waterfront is already a significant part of greater Melbourne.

II. Submits that there is no need for massive new buildings or massive waterfront expenditures. III. Submits there is only a need to modify and progressively improve relatively minor works, in accord with funding and

sensible management practices. IV. Submits that the draft UDF proposal for 2 apartment blocks of 14 and 10 storeys on 1-11 Waterfront Place is completely in

contravention of the Community Vision Statement which was prepared after an exhaustive study by AECOM. V. Submits that building multistorey buildings which block views of visiting vessels and of the City of Melbourne will not

maintain.the Mirvac vision which included a community centre, a buffer to port activities that produce noise, light, smoke and traffic, and considered heritage issues and views.

VI. Submits that the changed traffic, pedestrian and cycling circulation looks to be poorly defined and quite hazardous compared with the existing layout, which avoids haphazard mixing of traffic flows.

VII. Submits that mainly, there is a need to improve the traffic situation, not add to it. 81) Agency

Position: Issue specific comment

I. Submits that Mirvac remain involved with the covenants on 1-7 WFP (9) as this property was part of the Beacon Cove development which Mirvac developed in an joint venture with the Victorian State Government.

82) Representative body Position: Objection Issue specific comments

I. Support alterations to beautify the Waterfront and to improve logistics and infrastructure for the multiple users of the area II. Support more green public open space. III. Do not support any development of facilities for seaplane landings and arrivals. IV. Do not support any new commercial building developments. V. Submits that the Port Melbourne Waterfront is not just a local gateway, but part of Australian history and a national

treasure. VI. Submits that Beacon Cove is an award winning estate partially due to the integration of essential public amenities such as

small parks and the low-rise building constructed at 1-7 WFP. VII. Submit that there was a lack of due process in generating some recommendations of the proposal and in compiling the

draft. VIII. Submits that wind tunnel effects, overshadowing and further increasing traffic will occur if building heights on 1-7 WFP (9)

and 103 Beach Street, (7) are increased. IX. Submits that considering the surrounding high density buildings as a justification for adding more towers (on 1-7 WFP) is

contrary to the usual approach of CoPP planners where considering development on its individual merit is practiced. of 34



X. Submits that the already intolerable traffic congestion will become much worse with the traffic requirements of the suggested commercial building expansions.

XI. Submits the possibility of visitor parking in the basement of at least one building is unlikely to service existing needs let alone any increased use of the area.


I. Does not support redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) with 10 & 14 storey residential towers. II. Submits the proposal is contrary to what is required for local residents and youth. III. Submits that traffic is already a safety problem in the area and as a pedestrian bus user is concerned with pedestrian safety

and environmental effects of increased traffic on resident’s health. IV. Submits the proposal to construct additional residential facilities on this site is contrary to current state policy in regard to

sea level rise mitigation strategy. V. Submits that it is unfortunate that this concept has been incorporated into an otherwise well presented document.

84) Beacon Cove resident (Park Square) Position: Support & Issue specific objection

I. Support for Waterfront Place Precinct concept 2 generally, including TT Line queuing lane, signalisation at Princes and Beach Road, and pedestrian access through site at 1-7 WFP (9).

II. Support for Beach Street, Bay and Beaches Street, Princes Pier and Beacon Cove Promenade precincts generally. III. Does not support redevelopment of 1-7 WFP with 10 & 14 storey residential towers. IV. Submits any building over four storeys on this site will be strenuously opposed. V. Submits the original concept for beacon cove especially 1-7 WFP have been abandoned without due consideration and

process. VI. Submits that the concept described for 1-7 WFP is ill thought through and appears to be undertaken in a “knee jerk”

reaction to a recent land owners desire to construct a 28 storey residential tower on the site. VII. Submits that the visual analysis provided in the draft UDF is not reflective of actual building heights in Beach Road. VIII. Submits that the proposal to construct additional residential facilities on this site is contrary to current state policy in regard

to sea level rise mitigation strategy. IX. Submits that it is unfortunate that this concept has been incorporated into an otherwise well presented document.


I. Does not support redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) with 10 & 14 storey residential towers. II. Submits any building over four storeys on this site will be strenuously opposed. III. Submits the original concept for beacon cove especially 1-7 WFP have been abandoned without due consideration and

process. IV. Submits that the concept described for 1-7 WFP is ill thought through and appears to be undertaken in a “knee jerk”

reaction to a recent land owners desire to construct a 28 storey residential tower on the site. V. Submits that the visual analysis provided in the draft UDF is not reflective of actual building heights in Beach Road.

VI. Submits that traffic issues and congestion currently exist in both Beach Road and Waterfront Place, additional traffic is totally unacceptable in this area.

VII. Submits that the proposal to construct additional residential facilities on this site is contrary to current state policy in regard to sea level rise mitigation strategy.

VIII. Submits that it is unfortunate that this concept has been incorporated into an otherwise well presented document. 86) Agency

Position:

I. Support for the general vision and principles put forward in the draft UDF. II. Support for the concept of a separated/dedicated queuing lane for passenger vehicles accessing the TT Line. III. Submits that directing pedestrians along the western edge of the carpark through the proposed public plaza and past the

of 34



Support & issue specific objection & request wording change

existing restaurants could provide a suitable outcome to reduce current conflict between vehicles and pedestrians in the area – subject to the findings of the PoMC 2012 traffic modelling.

IV. Submits that any public plaza that encroaches on the Station Pier car park should not reduce the capacity of that area to accommodate vehicular movements and queuing.

V. Submits that the draft UDF be revised to reflect the need to retain and improve access to Station Pier for freight, emergency vehicles and for services to cruise ships.

VI. Does not support redevelopment of 1-7 WFP for residential development above 3 stories. VII. Submits that permanent residential accommodation with balconies or an aspect towards the TT line operations presents the

possibility of restricting port operations through complaints, unreasonable amenity expectation and security concerns. VIII. Do not support an eastern retail strip on the boundary of the TT Line freight yard. IX. Submits there is an opportunity to establish dedicated vehicle access to Station pier and marshalling for both TT line and

cruise shipping vehicles at this location. X. Submits that any future commercial development (10) would significantly reduce the capacity of the freight yard and any

proposal within the boundary of the freight yard would need detailed consideration of the TT lines requirements. XI. Submits that the draft UDF concept plans need to show the current configuration of the TT Line freight yard, or an up to

date aerial photograph. XII. Submits that there is scope to review the suitability of the current planning scheme zones for Station Pier and the TT Line

freight yard. XIII. Do not support sea plane services from Beacon Cove. Request this concept be removed from draft UDF. XIV. Submits that a loss of public car spaces in Waterfront Place precinct would provide an undesirable outcome. XV. Submits that while it is possible that an improved public domain can be provided at the interface of Station Pier, it is

essential that these concepts do not impact on access to Station Pier. 87) Representative body

Position: Support & issue specific objection & design and process comments

I. Support for Bay and Beach Street Hub generally. Design comments also included. II. Support for proposal that CoPP work with PMYC to improve the visual aspect and the access to parking and foot traffic to

the west of the Yacht Club. III. Support for Beach Street Precinct generally. Design comments also included. IV. Does not support proposals in the Waterfront Place Precinct on built form and the removal of green open public space for

development by commercial interests. V. Objects to the inclusion of two tall towers in any redevelopment of 1-7 WFP.

VI. Submits that the towers will create significant shading over the area, increase the wind tunnel effect, make a colder bleaker public area, permanently degrade the ambience of the general area, increase traffic congestion on Beach Street, diminish the Heritage Station and block the vistas of the CBD from cruise ships, Ferry, WFP Plaza and Station Pier.

VII. Submits that the city view corridors were a fundamental part of the award winning urban design concept of Beacon Cove. VIII. Submits that views of the bay from Stage 1 houses in Beach Street and Park Square were part of the implied offer to

purchase and embodied in covenants restricting this area to 3 storeys. IX. Submits that Port traffic is the major problem in and around Waterfront Place. X. Submits that a final UDF report should consider PoMC interim traffic modelling for the Station Pier.

XI. Submit that a disconnect has occurred between the reporting of the aspirations from the community consultations and the preparation by the officers and the Consultant of the draft UDF, particularly with the concept that involves removing green

of 34



space on the eastern edge of the plaza and that to have high rise towers. XII. Submit that it cannot be claimed that the suggested Outcomes in the UDF were based on community feedback and

consultation. XIII. Submits that “the expectation in the Vision (Report, July 2011) was minimal commercial development and no high rise.” XIV. Submit that “(we) retain the right to modify our position if new stakeholder opinion is received.”

88) Representative body Position: Support & issue specific objection

I. Support for the designation of Waterfront Place as an important entry point and gateway to Melbourne. II. Support, as a general statement of principle, the overarching vision of the draft UDF. III. Support the designation of 1-7 WFP as one of three Key Development Sites and the opportunities that this provides in

terms of further built form and land use intensification. IV. Support the broad category of land use proposed to be encouraged throughout the Waterfront Place Precinct. V. Support for the desire for redevelopment of 1-7 WFP to provide a residential edge to the Beach Street frontage.

VI. Supports the principle for providing an appropriate publicly accessible thoroughfare through 1-7 WFP. VII. Does not support the built form objective of a 3 m unobstructed public access corridor to all frontages addressing

Waterfront Place. VIII. Does not support a streetwall of a new development at 1-7 WFP limited to 3 levels. IX. Does not support any suggestion that building height on 1-7 WFP be limited to the height of eth tallest nearby buildings at

14 levels. X. Does not support a minimum 10 m wide unobstructed public access way and activated public open space provided along

the frontage facing the Railway Station. XI. Submits that this requirement is arbitrarily derived and should feature as part of a proper design process. XII. Submits that the principle that some form or amount of public carparking be provided as part of the redevelopment of 1-7

WFP is not opposed, however a requirement of 50 public car parking spaces is not supported. XIII. Submits that any old, obsolete or unnecessary restrictive covenants which may otherwise compromise the achievement of

the vision and objectives of the draft UDF be removed as a matter of priority via a planning scheme amendment. 89) email address only

Position: Issue specific comments

I. Concern “at the proposal to erect more high rise apartments on the beachfront.” II. Submits that “this proposal will be the start of further high rise buildings along the foreshore which cast vast shadows,

cause wind tunnels on walkways and beach, and deter visitors.

90) Port Melbourne resident (Swallow Street) Position: Issue specific objection & comments

I. Supports the maintaining of current port activity aspect around Station Pier as it provides energy, economic return, and awareness of its history to the area.

II. Does not support the proposal of the two towers of 14 and 10 storeys on 1-7 WFP. III. Submits it will dominate the openness of the space, shadow areas, create more wind tunnels, dominate the heritage railway

station, block the views from Station Pier of the city skyline, and create traffic congestion in Beach Street or in the Waterfront Place Cul-de-sac.

IV. Submits it was part of an award winning plan developed by Mirvac and the State Government and covenants and height restrictions of 3 storeys were put in place to particularly limit future high rise development at Waterfront Place to protect the area as planned for, including 1-7 WFP.

V. Does not support the use of the green space adjacent to the TT line parking area for retail and commercial development. 91) Port Melbourne resident I. Concern about severe lack of parking. Submits draft UDF does not address this adequately.

of 34



(Beacon Vista) Position: Issue Specific comments

II. Does not support signalisation of intersection Beach and Princes streets. III. Concern about road traffic flow. Draft UDF does not address this adequately. IV. Does not support design concepts for traffic interventions on corner of Bay and Beach streets that will restrict three lanes to

two. V. Does not support narrowing Beach Street. Submits this will be particularly problematic for truck movements and fro drivers

accessing the Beach Street carpark. VI. Supports the dedicated queuing lane for TT Line passengers. Submits other operational changes need to compliment such

a proposal. 92) South Melbourne

company (Cecil Street) Position: Support

I. Supports generally the content and key recommendations of draft UDF. II. Support generally the proposed heights at 1-7 WFP. Submit the site could accommodate buildings that are taller than its

immediate neighbours to provide a key architectural feature. III. Supports initiatives to improve traffic congestion in and around Station pier area, including the dedicated queuing lane for

vehicle accessing the wharf. IV. Does not support three levels for 103 Beach Street Food store. Submit this is an underdevelopment of an important

strategic site and should be encouraged to be redeveloped in the range of 8-15 levels. V. Support for increasing number of casual berth for boats.

VI. Support for the development of the Waterfront Place precinct. Submit it will generate significant economic benefits to Melbourne as well as benefits to the local community.

VII. Submits the UDF should be a priority project for council so that the further planning scheme amendment can be finalised in a timely manner.

93) State Labor Member for Albert Park Position: Issue Specific objection

I. Does not support redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) above 3 storeys. II. Submits the draft UDF should be amended so that the aims and principals can be delivered with 1-7 WFP remaining within

the existing height limit.

94) Port Melbourne company (Station Pier) Position: Objection &issue specific comments

I. Does not support any reconfiguration of Beach Street that would result in a reduction of the number of lanes and lanes width.

II. Does not support signalisation at Beach and Princes Streets. III. Does not support any proposal for future retail/commercial development on TT Line freight yard. IV. Does not support any changes the Waterfront Place Precinct that would result to any reduction of the TT Line freight yard

footprint. V. Does not support proposed retail along the western boundary of the freight yard. Submits this area should instead be

considered for establishing dedicated access to Station Pier for TT Line and cruise ship users. VI. Submits that the UDF does not recognise that the Waterfront Place is the only entry point to Melbourne for cruise shipping

and ferry passengers from Tasmania. VII. Submits that the forecast for growth in passengers of both services should be amongst the principles guiding the future

development of the precinct. 95) Port Melbourne residents

I. Concerned that the proposed towers on 1-7 WFP (9) are a gross overdevelopment. II. Submits that the there will be a further loss of community loss of community facilities.

of 34



Position: Issue Specific comments

III. Submits that the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) will reduce green space, block the city skyline for interstate visitors, increase in traffic congestion, increase pollution from increased traffic in the area, create trouble for people getting off the ferries, make trams even more packed in the morning time and overshadow the heritage Railway station.

IV. Concerned about the recent consultation process. 96) Port Melbourne resident

(Beach Street) Position: Issue Specific comments

I. Submits that the area under consideration is already subject to significant parking restrictions and traffic problems that would be severely exacerbated if multiple high rise development were allowed on the Waterford Place site.

II. Is concerned about Council habit of waiving parking requirements for commercial and residential development. Submits this must happen within Waterfront Place.

III. Submits that the UDF should maintain the policy for buildings fronting Beach St and Beaconsfield Parade that limit the height of buildings to maximum four stories at the front and six at the back.

IV. Commends the consultation process. 97) Representative body

Position: Issue Specific objection

I. Does not support any development in Waterfront Place that would prejudice the former railway station, destroy the vistas and character of the low rise, welcoming area around Station Pier.

98) Beacon Cove resident (Park Square) Position: Issue Specific support and objection

I. Supports the plan to build a Town Pier at the end of Bay Street. II. Does not support two high rise towers at 1-7 WFP. III. Submits they are not compatible with the open spaces or with the areas rich maritime history and unique character, will

make traffic congestion for residents and visitors even worse, shade walking areas in winter, be a visual block from all directions, impinge of the heritage listed railway station..

IV. Does not support shops on the walkway down to the gatehouse because they will be an eyesore, take up green space and take away width permanently from important access to Station Pier.

V. Concerned that the wishes of the community have been ignored. VI. Submits that the site was set aside for community use and that the community has been deprived of a gym, childcare

centre, swimming pool and tennis court. 99) St Kilda resident

(St Leonards Ave) Position: Support & Issue Specific comments

I. Support generally for concept 1. Submits that implementation of either concept would be an improvement. II. Submits that it is difficult to work out the true intention of the draft UDF III. Submits that the jargon, conclusions and references to Amendment C73 need further explanation and inclusion in

Appendix. IV. Submits that rationale about why it is proposed to abandon the earlier ‘built form aspiration’ of 3 storeys height limit is

missing and needed. V. Submits that the proposed towers at the same height as the Beacon Cove buildings are clearly to be preferred to the earlier

28 storey claim, but its not a good enough solution for this important site. VI. Submits that ‘urban design and built form aspirations’ at pedestrian level would be much better served by a 3 storey

building. 100) Beacon Cove Resident

(Beach Street) Position:

I. Supports draft UDF generally. Submits that future planning to enable the happy cohabitation of residents and the Port in Beacon Cove can only be a positive.

II. Does not support redevelopment of 1-7 WFP above 5 storeys. Submits that open air apartments will be sabotaged, views will be cut, shadows and air tunnels created and the foreshore upstaged.

of 34



Support & issue specific objections

III. Does not support redevelopment of 103 Beach Street Foodstore. Submits that noise pollution and security problems will occur.

IV. Submits there is already terrible traffic flow especially when we are working with Port activities. V. Is concerned about the impact of a new entry to Beach Street carpark.

101) Beacon Cove Resident (Beach Street) Position: Support & comments about parking

I. Supports draft UDF. Submits a preference for concept 2. II. Supports redevelopment of 1-7 WFP “if it does not block views of existing residents.” III. Supports redevelopment of 103 Beach Street, Foodstore. Submits the IGA and café have worked hard to service the

community over the years and should miss out. IV. Supports idea of queing lane as long as total public carparking is not reduced. V. Does not support design proposal (13) at Concept 2 unless replacement car spaces can be found elsewhere.

VI. Submits that a hotel in the design style of the Westin on Collins Street (on 1-7 WFP) would be good if there were adequate underground public car parking and if there were no nightclubs or gambling.

VII. Submits that the welfare of the Port Melbourne Yacht Club and existing businesses should be considered. 102) Port Melbourne resident

(Beach St) Position: Support & issue specific objections & comments about traffic

I. Supports draft UDF generally. II. Does not support redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9). III. Concerned about traffic in the area. IV. Request more garbage disposal facilities. V. Suggests need to introduce paid parking particularly along the western part.

103) Port Melbourne resident (Princes St) Position: No comment

104) St Kilda resident (Chaucer St) Position: No comment

105) Beacon Cove Resident (Beach Street) Position: Support & issue specific objections

I. Supports draft UDF generally. II. Does not support a tower development at 1-7 WFP (9). Submits the original low rise plans for Beacon Cove should be

respected. III. Does not support redevelopment of 103 Beach Street (7). Submits that the retention of a general store use is important. IV. Does not support commercial development of TT Line boundary. V. Submits that Port Melbourne is a working port and council should not try to ‘beautify’ this area within an inch of its life.

106) Beacon Cove resident (Beach Street)

I. Supports draft UDF generally. II. Does not support a tower development at 1-7 WFP (9). Submits the original low rise plans for Beacon Cove should be

of 34


Sub # Submitter profile Summary of th e submission

Position: Support & issue specific objections

respected. III. Does not support redevelopment of 103 Beach Street (7). Submits that the retention of a general store use is important. IV. Does not support commercial development of TT Line boundary. V. Submits that Port Melbourne is a working port and council should not try to ‘beautify’ this area within an inch of its life.

107) Middle Park resident (Beaconsfield Parade) Position: Support

I. Supports the draft UDF. II. Supports all proposals for more residential apartments. III. Supports the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) with residential towers. IV. Submits that Waterfront Place precinct is broken and needs to be urgently fixed. V. Does not support more offices at 103 Beach Street (7)

108) Brighton resident (Mulgoa Street) Position: Support

I. Supports the draft UDF. II. Supports the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) with residential towers with views and pedestrian access. Submits it should

have more residential. III. Submits that Waterfront Place Precinct needs to be made more inviting. IV. Submits that good architecture should be embraced and more apartments, restaurants, boating facilities and activities for

tourists added. V. Does not support more offices at 103 Beach Street (7). Submits that the Food store use should remain.

109) East St Kilda resident (Alexandra Street) Position: Support

I. Supports the draft UDF. II. Supports the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) with residential towers. Submits it should allow for more residential. III. Does not support the redevelopment of 103 Beach Street (7). IV. Supports proposals for Boundary with the TT shipping line. V. Does not like the Princes Pier Precinct.

110) Elsternwick resident (Orron Road) Position: Support

I. Supports the draft UDF. II. Supports the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) for residential use. Submits it should have more residential. III. Submits that improving the look of Waterfront Place Precinct is a good idea. IV. Does not support redevelopment of 103 Beach Street (7). Submits that offices should not be included. V. Supports more mooring facilities at Beacon Cove Promenade.

111) Port Melbourne resident (Park Square) Position: Issue Specific objection

I. Does not support the proposed development of 1-7 WFP (9). II. Submits there is no place for the use, bulk and height of this development in this location in Port Melbourne. III. Submits traffic is already diabolical when there is an on-loading of off loading of the Spirit of Tasmania and would be made

worse. IV. Submits the traffic and roads network need to be seriously addressed, regardless of any proposed development. V. Is concerned about the impact to the heritage railway station and noise pollution associated with redevelopment and use of

1-7 WFP (9). 112) Port Melbourne resident


I. Does not support the proposed development of 1-7 WFP (9). II. Submits the traffic and roads network need to be seriously addressed, regardless of any proposed development. III. Is concerned that a hotel and late night bars are not conducive to a quiet beach lifestyle. IV. Submits that noise pollution from cars, trucks and hooting of ship horns at 9.30pm at night already exist. V. Is concerned that there would not be enough passing trade to sustain retail shops.

of 34



VI. Submits Princes Pier is an example of how the community wishes to keep heritage intact and celebrate our history. Is concerned that the railway station would be compromised by a massive medium rise hotel.

113) Port Melbourne resident (Esplanade West) Position: Support & Specific design comments

I. Supports the shared Vision. II. Supports Safe pedestrian environment. III. Does not support commercial activity at 6, 7, 9, 10 and 14 IV. Does not support 11 stories at 103 Beach Street (7) or 14 and 10 stories at 1-7 WFP (9). V. Submits there is a need to explicitly define urban design and planning terms used in the draft UDF.

VI. Submits there is a need to publish background analysis for rationale for traffic and commercial interventions.

114) Port Melbourne resident (Princes Street) Position: Support & Specific design comments

I. Supports the concept for Waterfront Place precinct being a front door to Melbourne. Submits it would be useful to consider the precinct as a back door too – the Bay as a backdrop.

II. Supports a general overall plan to guide the developers of 1-7 WFP as to how this site fits in with the overall plan of the city waterfront.

III. Support for a TT Line queuing lane. IV. Support for consideration of WSUD and dune revegetation in Beach Street Precinct. V. Supports the addition of low walls separating Beacon Cove from the public areas in the Beacon Cove Promenade Precinct.

VI. Does not support two tall structures at the front door. VII. Submits the low rise red terracotta roofs of 1-7 WFP (9) and 103 Beach Street (7) are a unique and pleasing feature in the

context of Port Melbourne. VIII. Submits that redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) would need consideration to be given to the impact of the development on

traffic patterns – cars, bikes, pedestrians, public transport and education facilities; on the heritage railway station; wind tunnel effect on tram passengers.

115) Port Melbourne resident (Cruikshank St) Position: Support & Specific design comments

I. Support for draft UDF generally. Submits a preference for Concept 1, specifically the grass extension with road constriction. II. Does not support redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) above 3 storeys. Endorses BCNA position on this. III. Does not support redevelopment of 103 Beach Street, food store (7). IV. Does not support commercial development of TT Line boundary (6) & (10). V. Does not support additional day boat mooring facilities (1) or seaplanes.

VI. Submits that Council is to be applauded for wishing to improve the foreshore and enhance residential and visitor amenity. The draft proposal is overall well considered.

VII. Submits need for increased bike parking, low allergy trees. 116) Port Melbourne resident

(Beaconsfield Parade) Position: Support

I. Support for draft UDF. II. Support for redevelopment of 1-7 WFP. Submits that a well designed high rise is great for the area.

117) Beacon Cove residents (Beach Street) Position:

I. Objects to 1 – 11 Waterfront Place development proposal. II. Submits support for the objections raised by the BCNA. III. Submits that road traffic is already chaotic at peak times with commuters, freight vehicles and Spirit of Tasmania users

attempting to negotiate the intersection of Princes and Beach streets and that road and light rail, is inadequate to cope with of 34



Issue specific objection the impact of redevelopment of this site IV. Submits that existing 109 Tram services need upgrading even without the additional usage generated by the development

in question. 118) Beacon Cove resident

(The Crescent) Position: Support

I. Support for the draft UDF. II. Support for all proposals, particularly the concepts for reconfiguring Brach St to better cope with traffic. III. Support for a temporary queuing lane (concept 2) and opportunity for new commercial development. IV. Support for options for further heritage interpretation at Princes Pier. V. Submits that the proposed height of development for 1-7 WFP should be reduced to a height that is sympathetic to the low

rise heights of buildings in close vicinity such as the London Hotel, Beach Road buildings and the heritage Railway Station. VI. Submits that Council is to be commended on the professionalism of the consultation process.

119) Port Melbourne resident (Beach Street) Position: Support & issue specific objection

I. Support for a dedicated queuing lane for TT line passenger traffic. II. Does not support a high rise development at 1-7 WFP (9). Submits that domination by high rise buildings is not needed in

this unique area of Port Melbourne.

120) Port Melbourne resident (Princes Street) Position: No comment

121) Port Melbourne resident (Capistrano Place) Position: Objection

I. Does not support the draft UDF. II. Does not support the development of high rise buildings anywhere on Port Melbourne waterfront. III. Submits that there is a weak case for a temporary lane for TT line traffic. IV. Submits that existing access to waterfront place is good enough. V. Submits that there is no need for additional commercial development to activate the area.

VI. Submits that the Port Melbourne waterfront does not need changing. 122) Port Melbourne resident

(Beach Street) Position: No comment

123) Port Melbourne resident (Walter Street) Position: Support & issue specific objection

I. Support for draft UDF generally. Submits that the provision of open space and activation of waterfront areas acknowledges the importance of this community asset for the broader public.

II. Does not support high rise development on a site that was set aside for community uses as part of the Beacon Cove development

III. Submits that this project should be couched in the context of social impact of increased population on community facilities and infrastructure.

IV. Is concerned about highrise development overshadowing foreshore public areas and the impact of increased traffic in an of 34



area already congested at peak periods. 124) Brighton

(St Kilda Street) Position: Support

I. Support for draft UDF. Submits there is a need to enhance the visual appeal of the (Waterfront Place) precinct. II. Support for the redevelopment of 1-7WFP. Submits that a residential component will add life to the area. III. Supports design concepts for the boundary with the TT Shipping line, Bay and Beach street precinct, Beach Street Precinct,

Prince Pier and Beacon Cove Promenade. IV. Does not support redevelopment of 103 beach Street Food store (7). Submits that there should be no commercial facilities

so as to keep residential appeal. V. Submits that there is a need to get on and clean this important area for all of us to enjoy.

125) Representative body (Multicultural Arts Victoria) Position: Comments

I. Submits that there is a need for more cultural and arts activity in the waterfront precinct. II. Submits that feedback from programming the Piers Festival at both Station and Princes Piers has been very positive.

Submits that an ongoing artistic program for utilising the Princes Pier gatehouse is needed.

126) North Carlton resident (Park Square property owner) Position: Support & issue specific objection

I. Support for draft UDF generally. II. Supports the creation of more open space and improved access for cyclists and pedestrians, improvements to Beacon

Cove promenade, redevelopment of Station Pier and refurbishment of Princes Pier. III. Does not support redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (10) over 4 storeys. IV. Does not support the redevelopment of 103 Beach Street (7) over 4 storeys. V. Does not support adding further retail development in this area, including supermarkets.

VI. Submits that redevelopment of 1-7 WFP would bring chaos to an area that is already suffering under the weight of traffic and people.

127) Property investor (Princes Court) Position: Support

I. Support for the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP. Submits that the proposed development of 1-7 WFP is exactly what the harbour entrance to Melbourne should look like in order for Melbourne to maintain its status as one of the most awarded cities in the world.

II. Submits that as a property investor in the area, the inability for 1-11 Waterfront Place to go ahead would seriously weaken the precincts attraction for further investment

128) Port Melbourne resident (Beach Street) Position: Support & design specific comments

I. Support for the draft UDF generally. Submits that the draft looks exciting and innovative. II. Supports redevelopment of 103 Beach Street food store (7) no higher than 4 storeys due to proximity to the historical

railway station and low level residential buildings in Beach Street. Submits that the site should be accommodation only on the first and second levels. Suggests a small hotel.

III. Submits a preference for Concept 1 with the 'V' shaped tree lined plaza. IV. Submit that the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) should limit the height of the two proposed new buildings to a maximum of 4

and 6 stories in line with the Anchorage 6 stories and the Mirvac building (delish fish) 4 stories. V. Support for the proposals for Beach and Bay Street Precinct and Beach Street Precinct. Submits that they will enhance

Beach Street between Bay Street and the Waterfront development. I especially like the emphasis on comfort and enjoyment for pedestrians and cyclists. The timber constructions (8) and (9), the revegetation project (13) and incorporation of the rotunda into the landscape, as well as proposed artwork will be a 'winner' with local residents and visitors.

of 34



129) Watsonia North resident Position: No comment

130) East Malvern Position: No comment

131) Port Melbourne resident (Heath Street) Position: Support & issue specific objection

I. Supports the draft UDF. Submits that the greening and pedestrian friendly approach is particularly good. II. Supports the design concepts for covered walkways and screened car parking as part of the redevelopment of 103 Beach

Street (7). III. Supports a temporary queuing land for TT line passengers. IV. Supports the design concept to widen the public open space adjacent to the Bay Trail and dune revegetation. V. Does not support the Waterfront Place Tower development. Submits that Port Melbourne is already a highly populated

area. VI. Submits there is a need for more open space and amenities not towers of cement.

132) Bill Incomplete submission

133) Glen Waverley resident (Springvale road) Position: Support

I. Supports the draft UDF. Submits that reconfiguration of Beach Street to create more usable open space is welcome. II. Supports the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP. Submits that the creation of multiple public outdoor spaces is a feature. III. Support for commercial development (6). Submits that a new commercial development is welcome change. IV. Support for additional day mooring facilities. V. Submits as the "Gateway to Melbourne and Victoria" for national and international passenger shipping, it should have a

modern and attractive design and easy access to all facilities. VI. Submits that a new timber deck with seatings, lighting, drink fountains and beach showers is a welcome change.

134) Port Melbourne resident (Bay Street) Position: Support

I. Supports the draft UDF. Submits that (Waterfront Place) precinct is letting down the overall area and the draft UDF offers the improvement to actually make it something cohesive and inviting.

II. Submits there is a need to ensure public access and improved facilities for all residents. III. Support for redevelopment of 1-7 WFP particularly the access and public inclusion in the complex. IV. Support for having a dedicated queuing lane for the TT line. V. Submits that walk / run / cycling access right along the beach must be maintained and not stop start.

135) Port Melbourne resident (Edina Ave) Position: Support & design comments

I. Supports the draft UDF. Submits preference for concept 2 for street flow. II. Support for general separation of traffic and cyclists/pedestrians. III. Support for redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) to height of 4-6 storey. Particularly likes the open aspects of the buildings at

ground/street level. IV. Does not support 11 or 14 storey development at (9). V. Support for temporary queuing lane for TT passenger vehicles. Submits that the allocation of times needs to be generous

enough so that people aren’t tempted to queue in surrounding areas. VI. Submits there is a need for this development (9) to link bus or other public transport along Beach St to St Kilda.

136) Port Melbourne resident Incomplete survey. Appears to have lost online survey connection of 34



(Beach St) Position:

137) Port Melbourne resident (Beach St) Position: Support

I. Supports the draft UDF.

138) South Melbourne resident (Park Street) Position: Support

I. Supports the draft UDF. Submits that “this is the kind of well rounded proposal that needs our Council's support. Ultimately it will provide better facilities and a substantially improved service and facilities.”

II. Supports the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9). Submits that redevelopment of this site is needed and proposals look attractive and what the area ultimately needs.

III. Submits that the draft UDF as a total framework has been well thought out and presents as a whole unit, to try and dismantle add or subtract in part would upset the balance of the project as currently defined.

IV. Is concerned about the 30 year time frame. 139) Port Melbourne resident

(Clay Street) Position: Issue specific comment

I. Submits that 1-7 WFP (9) should not be residential use nor any other use that will add to traffic congestion or diminish the community hub

II. Submits that the history of Beacon Cove estate design and the community hub created around the railway station should be added to the UDF.

140) Port Melbourne resident (Crichton Avenue) Position: Support & issue specific comments

I. Support for the draft UDF generally. Submits that the pubic space improvements and public realm is well considered. II. Does not support the scale of the proposed development at 1-7 WFP (9). Submits it does not fit with the precinct. III. Submits that services need to be developed first then development. Is concerned about the additional demand that new

residential development will place on local social services such as schools and childcare. IV. Submits that redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) should be for business and tourist accommodation thus providing no additional

drain on social services, providing jobs and ongoing economic benefit to the area. V. Queries the need for additional retail floor space.

141) Port Melbourne resident (Esplanade West) Position: Support

I. Support for the draft UDF. Submits that the proposals could only enhance the area and public realm improvements carry appeal particularly for first time visitors to Melbourne.

II. Submit that the addition of an information kiosk and toilet facilities would be welcome in the area. III. Submits that public outdoor space must be a priority.

142) Port Melbourne resident (Capistrano Place) Position: Support & issue specific comment

I. Supports the idea of a public place at Waterfront Place Precinct. II. Support for Princes Pier. Submits that car parking should be eliminated to make the area more pedestrian friendly. III. Support for community facilities at ground level of a redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) IV. Objects to any plans to erect buildings up to 14 storeys high at Waterfront Place. Submits it would totally destroy the "soul"

of Port Melbourne. V. Does not support Concept 2. Is unsure of impact of Concept 1.

VI. Submits that any new commercial development will exacerbate traffic problems in the area. of 34



VII. Submits that there is a problem with pedestrian/cyclist shared lanes. 143) Port Melbourne resident

(Bay Street) Position: Support

I. Support for the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9). Submits that the height limit should be kept to 14 storeys for rear and 10 for front.

II. Submits that the redevelopment (9) is an exciting opportunity and is desperately overdue. III. Submits that Port Melbourne population is getting younger and shouldn't be held to ransom by minority groups. IV. Supports the redevelopment of 103 Beach Street (7) particularly the covered walkways and screened car parks. V. Supports a dedicated lane for TT-Line passenger vehicles.

VI. Support for Beach Street Precinct. Submits the draft UDF is ‘spot on’. VII. Support for Beacon Cove Promenade. VIII. Suggests a commercial element be added to Princes Pier and childcare facility in the redevelopment (9).

144) Beacon Cove resident (Beach Street) Position: Support & comments

I. Support for draft UDF generally. Submits that reconfiguring Beach Street seems sensible, but would prefer to leave as is and better maintain what is there already.

II. Support for Concept 1 or 2. III. Support for queuing lane for TT passenger vehicles. IV. Support for Beach Street Precinct design concepts for WSUD and dune revegetation; more shade trees. V. Support for community facilities as part of redevelopment for 1-7 WFP ((9). Submits that it would be good to have

Waterfront Place not sitting vacant but not just a whole lot of expensive tourist shops. Suggests preference for some lovely market type shops that offer something a bit different from the mainstream retail.

VI. Does not support any residential development. Submits that it is crowded and noisy enough. VII. Submits that one of the biggest attractions for tourists and locals is the natural, non built up look and feel of this area.

145) Beacon Cove resident (Beach Street) Position: Support & comments

I. Support for the draft UDF. II. Support for the queuing lane for TT passenger vehicles. Submits that the TT line freight area is seldom full and should be

considered for use as part of the queuing solution too. III. Submits that that the draft UDF doesn’t take into consideration of traffic problems that already exist and that it will be

worsened with the increased traffic that will be produced by the changes. Submits that anything to improve and reduce traffic flow and noise and speed wound be great.

IV. Submits that parking can be an issue especially in summer with caravans and RV’s parking sometimes overnight when waiting for the Ships to arrive.

V. Suggests not closing Princes Pier at the gates at night so it can be used for fishing etc VI. Suggests more rubbish bins on Beacon Cove Promenade and Beach Street Precinct.

146) Port Melbourne resident (Princes Street) Position: Support & issue specific objection

I. Support for the draft UDF. Submits that it is conceptually sound and should be commended (with the exception of the height at (9) and (7)).

II. Support for the temporary TT line queuing lane. Submits that some PoMC land should be used for this purpose to reduce need for queuing lanes in public streets.

III. Does not support the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) or 103 Beach Street (7). Submits that existing height restrictions should be maintained to avoid further increased traffic congestion and maintain existing city vista.

IV. Submits there seems to focus on the needs of visitors and increased retail outlets rather than those of current residents. V. Submits that any new traffic management needs to prioritise Ferry and Cruise ship traffic flow via Beach Road and Graham

Street rather than Beach Street and Princes Street to prevent excessive traffic in residential streets. of 34



VI. Submits that Princes Pier needs some shade trees. VII. Submits that the design of Beacon Cove Promenade needs resolution to better accommodate pushchair/wheelchair

(remove steps) and reduce conflict with cyclists on the cycle path. 147) Representative of a

Beacon Cove Owners Corporation (Beach Street) Position: Site specific comments

I. Submit that the concepts proposed for a redevelopment of 103 Beach Street (7) need a height of 6-10 stories so that a more suitable outcome with regards to financial ability to work in a profitable environment and consistency with the two high rise buildings on either side of the store.

II. Submits that an increased height on (7) would better meet the draft UDF objectives that the site should reinforce a sense of place and identity and that the ground floor should retain and develop a strong public realm connection to all boundaries.

III. Submits that the site downstairs should retain a local daily convenience retail offer. Submits that weather conditions and seasonality has a strong bearing on the attractiveness and commercial success of operations in Waterfront Place.

148) Port Melbourne resident (Graham St) Position: Objection & issue specific objection

I. Objects to redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) with high rise buildings. Submits that they would magnify existing traffic gridlock and dominate the beachfront, open community space and Heritage station, blocking Gateway views to City and Bay for tourists and locals

II. Submits that more resolution needs to be made before council considers the draft UDF. III. Is concerned about the draft UDF going ahead with so much opposition against the draft plans for 1-7 WFP (9). IV. Endorses the BCNA position on 1-7 WFP. V. Refers to the BCNA petition to the Legislative Assembly of Victoria requesting City of Port Phillip to retain existing

community facilities at 1-11 Waterfront Place instead of the mooted 14 and 10 storey towers. VI. Is concerned about the area around the Port Melbourne Yacht Club. More detail is needed on the new pier (8) and (9) and

revegetation (13). VII. Supports the refurbishment of the Princes Pier gatehouse.

149) Port Melbourne resident (Nott Street) Position: Support & issue specific objection

I. Support for the draft UDF generally. II. Does not support the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9). Submits that there is no genuine need to redevelop this site for more

intensive use. Submits that there is no evidence that there is any problem here which needs fixing. III. Submits that the proposed use (9) never formed part of the original concept for Beacon Cove, which was developed on the

basis of 1-11 Waterfront Place providing open space and low-impact use. IV. Submits that any benefit that could be offered to support the redevelopment of (9) would be outweighed by the problems it

would bring. V. Does not support commercial redevelopment on TT boundary (6). Submits tree screening should be the only addition.

VI. Is unconvinced of the benefits of a queuing lane for TT line passenger vehicles. 150) Ivanhoe residents

(Jellicoe St) Position: Support

I. Support for the draft UDF. II. Submits that “the proposal looks very modern and has a lovely feel about it.”

151) Bayswater resident Position: No comment

152) Port Melbourne resident I. Support for the draft UDF generally. of 34



(Princes Street) Position: Support & issue specific objection & comments

II. Supports redevelopment of (7) 103 Beach Street. III. Does not support signalisation (8) at Princes and Beach Street intersection. IV. Does not support “any development that is going to bring even more traffic into the area e.g. a multi storey building at 1-11

Waterfront Place.” V. Submits that it is difficult to see how either of the two concept proposals will improve Waterfront Place Precinct without the

removal of the Tasmanian ferry terminal completely from this area. VI. Suggests a number of public transport initiatives (trams and buses) to reduce reliance on cars by tourists and locals.

153) email address only Position: No comment

154) Port Melbourne resident Position: Support & issue specific objection

I. Support for the draft UDF generally. Specifically the overall design of the public spaces, provision of a separate queuing land for the Tasmanian ferry, recognition of the need to accommodate car, bicycle and pedestrian traffic.

II. Support for (6) 7 (10) commercial development along the perimeter of two sides of the TT line freight area. III. Support for more Waterfront Place precinct provision for pedestrians and cyclists. IV. Support Beach and Bay Street Precinct concepts, particularly making the Yacht Club more open to the public. V. Supports Beacon Cove Promenade and Princes Pier concepts. Submits that it is over optimistic to expect that Princes Pier

would become the premier location for Maritime, Industrial and Immigration history. VI. Submits preference for Concept 2 with a dedicated ferry queuing lane. VII. Does not support the redevelopment of 1-7WFP (9) because it will exacerbate the increasing traffic in this area. VIII. Submits that more solutions need to be found for traffic issues in the Beach Street area.

155) Port Melbourne resident (Edwards Avenue) Position: Support & issue specific objection & comments

I. Supports draft UDF generally. II. Support commercial redevelopment on TT boundary (6) but restricted to kiosk scale so that grassed area is retained. III. Does not support redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) to a size that will block views of the city, create wind tunnels and shade on

waterfront place and exacerbate traffic and parking issues. IV. Submits there is a need for rubbish bins, increased accessibility and resolution of pedestrian-cyclist conflict on Beacon

Cove Promenade. V. Submits that green open space improvements need a watering regime and to be real grass rather than artificial.

VI. Submits there is a need for community facilities. VII. Submits that “the proposal to have pedestrians crossing Beach Street is most unsatisfactory”. Request consideration of

locals who have to walk their dogs. 156) Beacon Cove residents

(Park Square) Position: Support & issue specific objection & comments

I. Supports draft UDF. Particularly: Reconfigurations to improve traffic flows; separate queuing lane for TT line passenger vehicles; Improvements to cyclist access; Activating the edge of existing restaurants by widening the footpath.

II. Does not support the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9) above 3 storeys. Submits that “the architecture of the current building is nice and fits with the houses in Beacon Cove. Another multistorey apartment building on this site would spoil the community feel of this area.”

III. Questions the need for a ‘second’ gathering space at Waterfront Place when Princes Pier already provides this function. Submits that “this space is better utilised to fix the traffic flow issues.”

IV. Submit preference for Concept 2. V. Request more detail about signalisation of Princes and Beach Streets (8).

of 34



VI. Submit that there is a need for better utilisation of the PoMC land, specifically the Gatehouse (4) and TT boundary (6) need to be considered in concert.

157) Kensington resident

Position: Support

I. Support for the draft UDF. Submits that this will bring one of Melbourne's best locations to life. II. Support for the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9). Submits this would “be a great place to live, great place to socialize and

entertain and great as a first impression when arriving into Melbourne by ship.” III. Support for extra boating capabilities (1). Submits it will add to the potentially dynamic atmosphere planned. IV. Support for Beach and Bay Street precinct concepts.

158) Newport resident Position: No comment

159) Port Melbourne resident (Edwards Avenue) Position: Support

I. Support for the draft UDF. Submits preference for Concept 1. II. Support for the redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9). Submits this is an ideal site for a hotel which would create jobs and improve

the activation of the area. III. Support to create an environment like St Kilda promenade (in front of sea baths). IV. Submits that an increase in the height of buildings (possibly up to 30 levels) is acceptable as long as there is public benefit

such as active street frontages, cafes public gym, extra parking to replace street parking etc. and minimal overshadowing of beach.

V. Submits that there could be an increase in number of cafe's and restaurants and incorporation to the Vision to add access past Station Pier Gatehouse, so that the whole pier can be opened up to public in the future.

VI. Submits leveraging off Princes Pier redevelopment to make the area a public draw card. VII. Submits that the design of Beacon Cove Promenade needs resolution to better accommodate pushchair/wheelchair

(remove steps) and reduce conflict with cyclists on the cycle path. 160) Port Melbourne resident

(Esplanade East) Position: Support & comments

I. Support for draft UDF. Particularly improving access for all and addition of day boat moorings. II. Support for concept 1. III. Support for redevelopment of 103 Beach Street (7). Submits convenience use should be retained and no offices added. IV. Support for temporary queuing lane for TT line passenger vehicles (15) V. Support for new timber deck near the PMYC dune revegetation and water sensitive design.

VI. Support for Princes Pier future opportunities. Submits commercial use should be avoided. VII. Submits that any building developments be kept to a maximum of 5 storeys so the city skyline can gradually rise from the

beach. VIII. Submits preference for low rise buildings generally. IX. Suggests a playground in the area.

161) Port Melbourne resident (Narooma Place) Position: No comment

162) Port Melbourne resident (Beach Street)

I. Support draft UDF generally. II. Does not support redevelopment of 1-7 WFP (9).

of 34


of 34


Position: Support & issue specific objection & comments

III. Does not support additional day boat moorings (1). IV. Concerned “that the real infrastructure has not been addressed.” Specifically how increases in car and foot traffic, rubbish

and noise will be addressed. V. Does not want more access to beach as this will encourage more people to the area.

VI. Requests more rubbish bins. 163) Port Melbourne resident

(Beach Street) Position: No comment

summary of submissions to draft pmwudf - city of …...submits redevelopment of 1-7 wfp (9) will...

Documents