The applicant and council agreed that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the local road network. The anticipated traffic on Charles Street would increase from 508 vehicles per day to 542 vehicles per day. This increase is readily within the capacity of the local road network, including Greville Street. Mr Kiriakidis found that there may be a slight deterioration in the operation of turning movements from Charles Street to High Street during the PM peak period. However his analysis indicates that the intersection should continue to operate within acceptable standards. The construction of the tram super-stop should not have any detrimental impacts on the operation of the intersection. We are satisfied that the development will not cause adverse traffic impacts on the local road network.
Council and the applicant agreed that it is appropriate to waive part of the car parking requirement for the development. It is proposed to provide 63 car spaces for 108 dwellings, one space for the café, and 30 spaces for the office component. This provision of car parking is significantly less than is required pursuant to clause 52.06, and less than required under clause 55 in respect to the dwellings. Fewer car parking spaces are to be provided for the office component than are currently provided on the site.
We acknowledge that the site is well placed for people to travel by tram, train, bicycle and on foot rather than using a motor car. We strongly support policies that encourage lesser car usage, provided that they are realistic. We do not want to find that people living and working in the development have brought their cars into the area and are parking on the local streets rather than under the building.
Mr Kiriakidis referred to various data that suggests that car ownership in the inner suburbs is lower than elsewhere, and the provision of car parking is consistent with this data. In respect of the residential apartments, we concur with Mr Wright's suggestion that the residents are likely to be self-selecting, and people who need their cars may choose to not live in this development. Given the proximity of the development to education facilities, a proportion of the residents may be students who tend to have relatively low car ownership rates. We also acknowledge that the proposed car parking provision is consistent with rates being implemented in the City of Melbourne.
Notwithstanding the above considerations, we were not convinced that the car parking provisions proposed for this development would be adequate. We agree the parking does not need to be provided for bedsits that are likely to be occupied by students or people in affordable housing who usually do not own a car. We consider that a reasonable car parking rate for the 1 bedroom dwellings is 0.5 space per dwelling, given that many of the dwellings are likely to be occupied by people in employment and with active lifestyles including owning a car. A two bedroom apartment in this location may be occupied by a single person, but most likely by two people. Two bedroom apartments, even in this location, should be provided with at least one allocated car space.
The residential component of this development comprises 13 bedsits, 47 one bedroom dwellings and 48 two bedroom apartments. At the rates we suggest, provision should be made for 72 spaces, whereas 65 are to be provided.
No evidence was provided to support the request to waive half the car parking usually required for the office floor space. The provision of 30 car spaces is significantly lower than the car parking presently provided on the site for the office use. We were not provided with evidence that has persuaded us that the office staff currently on the site have such a low level of car use. We would prefer that, at a minimum, the current number of car spaces available for the office use (we think that it is approximately 45 spaces) be provided in the new development.
We are conscious that requiring additional car parking is likely to require an additional basement. Such an extension of the building could be cost prohibitive. We find that a reasonable way of balancing the strategic directions to limit the provision of car parking, the physical capacity of the site and the likely demand for car parking by the various uses is to require that 96 spaces continue to be provided for a smaller development with fewer dwellings.
We note that the deletion of two residential floors reduces the number of apartments by approximately eighteen apartments, to a total of ninety apartments. By retaining the total number of car spaces as currently designed, there would be a provision of car spaces as follows:
Bedsits - no car parking
54 no. - one bed apartments with 18 no. car spaces
36 no. - two bed apartments with 36 no. car spaces
office - 30 no. car spaces
café - 1 no. car space
We consider that this provision of car parking is barely adequate. We consider that to minimise problems that might arise from the future occupants wanting to use cars, the council and managers of this development energetically support the Green Plan that is required as a condition of this development. The Green Plan can encourage and assist people to use public transport, cycling and walking and its implementation will be integral to the success of this development.
We note that the application before us proposes no change to the one-way direction in Charles Street. This is different to the initial application that proposed that Charles Street be a two-way road between High Street and the access ramp to the development. We cannot require a change in the road arrangements and we are satisfied that the local road network will operate satisfactorily without any change. However, we consider that the proposed change to a two-way access potentially removes much of the traffic seeking access to the development from having to use the wider local road network. This will be beneficial if the development attracts many visitors. We urge council and the applicant to continue to discuss this alternate arrangement.
[2]
Does the development provide reasonable amenity for its future residents?
[3]
We concur with Mr Biasci that the development provides a high level of amenity for its future residents. All dwellings have access to daylight and all are provided with private open space adjacent to their living rooms. Balconies and windows are adequately screened or have adequate separation distances. The amenity of the dwellings will be augmented by the convenient access to the many amenities and facilities available in the Prahan PAC.
We have considered whether an unreasonable proportion of dwellings face south and possibly have an unsatisfactory amenity. We estimate that in the order of eighteen dwellings have a southern aspect, or approximately fifteen percent of dwellings. This is a higher proportion than we would usually consider acceptable. However we note that the southern frontages largely comprise full glazing into the kitchen/living areas which should provide adequate access to daylight. We also note that the context of the site requires the High Street frontage to be the main development area where much of the development should be focused. It is also acceptable in this context because the amenity of the dwellings will be augmented by the considerable opportunities to enjoy activities outside the dwelling.
The overshadowing diagrams indicate that the internal open space courtyard will be overshadowed for much of a day, except for the period from late morning to early afternoon. We consider that this is acceptable in this inner city environment. We think that the courtyards are not likely to be extensively used and will provide breathing spaces to be viewed from the apartments rather than being directly used. We think that residents are more than likely to use public spaces outside the development. Hence, the open spaces proposed within the development are important to offset perceptions of enclosure and built form within the development and the proposed spaces would perform that role well.
We have identified a number of detailed improvements that we consider would address some particular shortcomings of the proposal. These can be readily addressed in the completion of the final plans for the development. The matters to be addressed are:
Screening of the terrace area of dwelling 108.
Additional screening between balconies of 103 and 107 on the first floor.
Require the ground floor apartments G.01 and G.02 to address Charles Street.
The inclusion of acoustic measures recommended by Mr Burton to ensure that the dwellings on the east side are liveable.
Glazing to be provided at the ends of all internal corridors. We noted that those at the northern end of the north-south corridors on the eastern side of the proposed building did not have any source of natural light.
We are generally satisfied with the indicative landscaping plan prepared by by Mr McWha. We concur with his proposed selection of planting as it will provide sufficient mature size vegetation to soften the open space areas and the Charles Street frontage. We also support the proposed extensive use of low rise plantings throughout the development to provide visual variance and texture to the built form. We propose that the landscape plan can be strengthened by some changes as follows:
On the Ground Floor Plan and Figure 1 of the Landscape Architects Plan, the private open space to apartments G.03, G.04, G.05 and G.06 should be provided with an access point/gate opening from the communal courtyard space.
On Figure 1 of the Landscape Plan, to the courtyard space to the north of apartment G.07 on the boundary with the adjoining terrace house, create a 1.5 metre wide raised planter bed, for the inclusion of appropriate five metre high screening trees. This will necessitate moving the north edge of the timber deck to apartment G.07 approximately 1.5 metres south.
We accept the applicant's statement that there were construction, sprinkler and cost issues which mitigated the need to keep the proposed overall building height below 25 metres, which was a major consideration of the applicant. It was interesting that the solution the applicant chose to overcome this height constraint was to reduce the internal floor to ceiling height rather than the total number of floors. Given the internal areas of some of the smaller one bed/studio apartments, a reduction in internal ceiling heights would have a detrimental amenity impact, and we encourage the proponent to not unreasonably sacrifice internal amenity in the pursuit of cost savings.
With the changes we have identified, particularly the reduction in height, we find that the proposed mixed use building will be a positive development that makes very good use of a strategic site.
[4]
It follows from the above reasons that it is our conclusion that the decision of the responsible authority should be affirmed and a permit granted with varied conditions.
The permit will include conditions that have regard to the submissions and evidence of the parties, and the matters that arise from our reasons.
[5]
Construction of a building in the Business 2 zone and Residential 1 zone to be used as a food and drink premises (café, restaurant or convenience restaurant), office (as of right use) and dwellings (as of right use in the Residential 1 zone) with associated car parking dispensation.
[6]
Before the commencement of the development, three (3) copies of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the amended plans (prepared by CGB Architects and MGS Architects, all dated December 2008) circulated by Bosco Jonson (Jess Kraulis cover letter dated 23 September 2009) for the VCAT hearing commencing on
[7]
16 November 2009 but modified to show the following to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
[8]
A reduction in the height of the building by the deletion of two levels to be used for dwellings.
2. Screening of the terrace area of dwelling 108.
[9]
Additional screening of the balconies of 103 and 107 on the first floor.
[10]
Revised treatment of the frontages of the ground floor apartments G.01 and G.02 to provide an active frontage to Charles Street, including location of letterboxes on that frontage.
2. Inclusion of gates between the private open space and the communal courtyard for both dwellings G.04 and G.05.
3. The inclusion of acoustic measures recommended by Mr Robert Burton of the Burton Acoustic Group dated 20 October 2009 to the dwellings on the east side.
4. Glazing to be provided at the ends of all internal corridors.
5. All elevation plans to depict the full extent of built form that will be visible from that particular elevation irrespective of its setback from the most prominent component of built form for that elevation.
6. An eastern fence elevation documenting the full extent of the pedestrian interface of this site to the railway walkway for the entire site (including the land burdened by easement at the north of the site).
7. The ground floor levels raised, and any subsequent redesign of the building, to facilitate gravity led drainage of the site.
8. A schedule of building materials, finishes and colours for all external parts of the building including the provision of a coloured sample board with reflectivity of glass and finishes used in the building to be no greater than 15%.
[11]
Deletion of any 'indicative' outdoor seating areas for the food and drink premises located outside the title boundary.
[12]
Balcony areas for Dwellings 317, 416, 512, 612, 706, 806 increased to a minimum of 8 square metres and having a minimum dimension of 1.6 metres.
2. The motorcycle parking spaces to be dimensioned in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards.
3. The dimensions and layout of parking bays, access gradients, sightlines and structural columns such that they are in accordance with the Planning Scheme or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. Bicycle spaces, including access points and directional signage designed and dimensioned to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. The headroom within the car park that accesses the disabled parking spaces to meet the requirements of Australian Standard Part 6:
[13]
Off-Street Parking for People with Disabilities.
6. The canopy along the High Street frontage set back from the High Street road kerb 750mm.
7. Location of all mechanical plant and equipment including, but not limited to, lift overruns, flues, exhausts and air-conditioning units.
8. Ground floor plan to show the RLs along the High Street footpath at
[14]
5 metre intervals.
9. Details of how all storage areas within the basement will be allocated to the various proposed land uses.
[15]
Acoustic protection measures generally in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report of Mr Robert Burton of the Burton Acoustic Group dated 20 October 2009.
[16]
Any consequential changes required as a result of submitting documents to satisfy conditions 3-9.
[17]
If the consent of the Responsible Authority is obtained to relocate the traffic island to provide two-way access from Charles Street, modifications to the plans to reflect such access.
The development allowed by this permit and shown on the plans endorsed to accompany the permit must not be amended without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
[18]
Before the commencement of the development, engineering construction plans for the satisfactory drainage and discharge of stormwater from the site must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The legal point of stormwater discharge for the proposal shall be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Before the commencement of the development, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must include as relevant the following matters to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
[19]
Dimensions of waste areas
2. The number of bins to be provided
[20]
Hours of waste and recyclables collection
2. Method of presentation of bins for waste collection
3. Sufficient headroom into and within the basement to allow the passage of waste collection vehicles
4. Sufficient turning circles for the waste collection vehicles to drive out in forward gear from within the basement
5. Strategies for how the generation of waste and recyclables from the development will be minimised
6. If waste is to arrive in the ground level refuse room via a chute system details as to how waste will be sorted into hard, recycling and green waste to ensure minimal landfill results.
1. Strategies for minimising the impacts of waste collection on residential areas, including any necessary restrictions on the times in which bottles and rubbish can be removed from within the food and drink premises.
[21]
When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit and must be complied with at all times. Waste collection from the development must be in accordance with the plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
[22]
Before the commencement of the development, an Environmentally Sustainable Development Management Plan (ESD Management Plan) must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The ESD Management Plan must address the following to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
[23]
Energy Management
2. Water Conservation and Re-use
[24]
Identify relevant statutory obligations, strategic or other documented sustainability targets or performance standards
Document the means by which the appropriate target or performance will be achieved
[25]
Identify responsibilities and a schedule for implementation, and ongoing management, maintenance and monitoring.
[26]
Demonstrate that the design elements, technologies and operational practices that comprise the ESD management plan can be maintained over time.
[27]
Before the commencement of the development, a landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The landscape plan must be generally in accordance with the Landscape Concept Design Report by Mr McWha dated October 2009 and must include to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
[28]
A schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers (including size at planting and maturity and botanical and common names)
2. Accurate widths of footpaths adjacent to the site
[29]
Details for correct planting procedure as required
2. Adequate drainage provided to paved areas
3. The construction materials of any footpath reinstatement adjacent to the frontages of the site
4. The extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated with the landscape treatment of the site
5. Details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio or decked areas
6. Details of the treatment of the northern boundary to provide an effective screen for the residents of 10 Charles Street
7. Details of any fill, cut, mulch or vegetation beneath the canopy of the River Red Gum that must be consistent with the requirements of the Tree Management Plan for this tree
8. On the Ground Floor Plan and Figure 1 of the Landscape Architects Plan, the private open space to apartments G.03, G.04, G.05 and G.06 should be provided with an access point/gate opening from the communal courtyard space.
[30]
On Figure 1 of the Landscape Plan, to the courtyard space to the north of apartment G.07 on the boundary with the adjoining terrace house, create a 1.5 metre wide raised planter bed, for the inclusion of appropriate 5 metre high screening trees. This will necessitate moving the north edge of the timber deck to apartment G.07 approximately 1.5 metres south.
[31]
When approved, the landscape plan will form part of the endorsed plans under this permit.
[32]
Before the commencement of the development, a tree management plan prepared by a suitably qualified arborist must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the tree management plan will form part of this permit and all works must be done in accordance with the tree management plan. The tree management plan must:
Require that all existing vegetation shown on the endorsed plans to be retained must be suitably and clearly identified before any development (including demolition and excavation) starts on the site. This includes the River Red Gum on the northern boundary, the row of natives to its immediate north and all street trees to be retained that abut the perimeter of the site
detail measures to protect the vegetation to be retained and in particular to ensure the viability of the River Red Gum near the northern boundary of the land at the mid-point of the site. Without limiting the generality of the tree management plan it must have at least three sections as follows:
Pre-construction - details to include a tree protection zone, height barrier around the tree protection zone, amount and type of mulch to be placed above the tree protection zone and method of cutting any roots or branches which extend beyond the tree protection zone
During-construction - details to include watering regime during construction and method of protection of exposed roots
Post-construction - details to include watering regime and time of final inspection when barrier can be removed and protection works and regime can cease.
[33]
The memo from Steve Watt of council's Parks Unit dated 5-10-09 and the report of Mr Galbraith dated 28 October 2009 must inform the content of this Tree Management Plan. Pre-construction works and any root cutting must be inspected and approved by the council's Parks Unit or a consulting arborist approved by Council. Removal of protection works and cessation of the Tree Management Plan must be authorised by council's Parks Unit or a consulting arborist.
[34]
Before the commencement of the use, a Green Travel Plan must be submitted to and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Green Travel Plan will be endorsed to form part of the permit. Given the parking dispensation granted, the Green Travel Plan must include actions and recommendations designed to reduce the use of cars and increase the use of alternative travel methods to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Before the commencement of the use, a Parking Management Plan is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority that must to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
[35]
Designate car parking spaces to the individual tenancies/dwellings
2. Detail the signage and line marking of car parking spaces
[36]
Demonstrate that all parking spaces associated with the office use are located in the Business 2 zone.
[37]
All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) shall be located or screened to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and shall be baffled so as to minimise the emission of unreasonable noise to the environment (as defined in Section 48A(4) of the Environment Protection Act1970) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Ventilation systems must be designed and installed in accordance with relevant Australian Standards.
Noise emanating from the subject land must not exceed the permissible noise levels when determined in accordance with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1 or any subsequent superseding policy, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any works required to ensure and maintain the noise in compliance with this policy must be completed prior to the commencement of the use or occupation of the site and maintained thereafter, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
External lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on adjoining land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The use and development must be managed so that the amenity of the area is not detrimentally affected through the transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land or through the appearance of any building, works or materials.
All walls on or facing an exposed boundary of the site must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The food and drink premises hereby approved shall only operate from 5.30am to midnight on any day.
A maximum number of 90 seats must be provided for the food and drink premises to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Noise emanating from the food and drink premises must comply with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music Noise from Public Premises) No. N-2, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority at all times.
[38]
The permit holder must do either or a combination of the following to control runoff from the site to no greater than the pre-development levels to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
install a water detention system ; and/or
install stormwater storage tanks to collect the water for the purposes of recycling as grey water within the site. The storage tanks must be sized and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Before the occupation of the development, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and established to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
All costs associated with the removal and replacement of the street tree along the Charles Street frontage are to be borne by the permit holder and paid for at the time of prior to obtaining a vehicle crossing permit_._
[39]
The car spaces hereby approved must be made available for staff and customers of the proposed commercial uses and residents of the dwellings at all times and not be used for any other purpose.
Prior to occupation of the building, areas set aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority be:
[40]
Constructed
2. Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans
[41]
Line marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes
2. kept available for their designated purposes at all times.
The loading and unloading of vehicles and the delivery of goods to and from all commercial uses must only be carried out entirely within public designated loading bays and be so conducted as to cause minimum interference with other vehicular traffic. The loading and unloading of vehicles and the delivery of goods to and from the premises must only occur between the hours of 7.00am and 10.00pm Mondays to Saturdays and between 9.00am and 10.00pm on Sundays or public holidays to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
[42]
The level of the footpath must not be lowered or altered in any way to facilitate access to the site without the consent of the Responsible Authority.
Prior to occupation of any of the uses all redundant crossovers must be removed and reinstated with kerb, channel and footpath to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority
The crossover must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineering construction plans and certification for the design from the Engineer must be provided to council at the completion of the works.
All services to the subject land and buildings approved as part of this permit must be provided underground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Any poles, service pits or other structures/features on the footpath required to be relocated to facilitate the development must be done at the cost of the owner and subject to the relevant authority's consent.
[43]
The collection of waste must be carried out in accordance with the Waste Management Plan. No goods or waste is to be stored or left exposed outside the building so as to be visible from any public road or thoroughfare.
[44]
Equipment, services, architectural features or structures of any kind, including telecommunication facilities, other than those shown on the endorsed plans must not be located above the roof level of the building unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority.
Utility installations must not be located within the front landscape setback to any road except as shown on the endorsed plans except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
[45]
This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
[46]
The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.
2. The development is not completed within five years of the date of this permit.
[47]
The use is not commenced within six years of the date of this permit.
[48]
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.
[49]
[1] Member Liston put that the effect of Melbourne 2030 is to emphasise the importance of optimising development opportunities where that can be achieved without compromising other planning objectives relating to neighbourhood character and established amenity. (Mexatas Architects v Moreland CC[2004] VCAT 1752.
[4] In Rock, Scissors and Paper case the Tribunal found as follows:
[53]
"The Chapel Street activity centre is one location where a higher intensity of development is allowed by policy. Clause 22.02 provides for development to exceed this preferred height if applicant is to demonstrate satisfactorily that the development:
[54]
Is compatible with and respectful of the scale and character of existing buildings and the area.
Achieves a pleasing physical environment, including pedestrian and shopper safety and amenity, by encouraging a high standard of architecture, urban design and streetscape works."
Ashwerth Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2009] VCAT 2769 (21 December 2009)
The positions of the submitters were clearly and unambiguously conveyed in the opening statements of the parties.
Mr Conner put that although the site has many attributes that make it suitable for some redevelopment, it is also constrained by its immediate context and by the planning policy framework. The application was refused largely because the development introduces a built form and bulk that is greater than the heights encouraged within the activity centre to the east, and the strategic attributes of the site do not justify a development of this scale. The planning policy framework generally supports higher rise development within the Prahan Principal Activity Centre (PAC) and lower rise elsewhere that respects the one to two storey built form in areas outside the PAC. Mr Connor submitted that this approach has been largely supported by recent decisions of council and the Tribunal. This submission was supported by Mr Biles and Ms Sehr.
Mr Wright put it simply and directly 'why not approve the development, as it ticks all the boxes'.
We agree that the mix of uses is entirely appropriate for this site. We concur that retaining a relatively large and established commercial business is a positive feature when so many sites such as this would be redeveloped only for apartments and the office component would most likely relocate to a car based office park in Melbourne's middle suburbs. The proposed café provides travellers, workers and residents with an opportunity to enjoy refreshments and shelter from the weather while they wait for a tram or train, or want to meet their neighbours and friends. The residential component is entirely consistent with state and local planning objectives and strategies.
We agree that the site has many strategic advantages and it makes sense that it be developed greater than the prevailing two to three storey built form on High Street and in excess of the preferred height (12 metres) set out at clause 22.02. It has excellent proximity to the fixed rail public transport network. We were advised that a tram super-stop is to be built in High Street, close to the rail overpass. The site's convenient access to the public transport network would encourage people to forgo their cars in favour of using trams, trains, bicycles and their feet, producing fewer carbon emissions and conserving energy resources.
We concur with all parties that the proximity of the site to the Prahan PAC would enable residents of the development to enjoy convenient access to a vast array of shops, cafes, entertainment venues and education, health and employment opportunities. Its proximity to Melbourne's CBD and to the Prahan campus of Swinburne University will make the development attractive for a diverse range of one and two person households, particularly students.
We agree that the site is relatively unconstrained. The mature river red gum in the northeast corner of the site is the only attribute or feature on the site that should be retained. There are no easements or encumbrances that constrain the site's redevelopment.
The location of the site on the north side of High Street means that taller buildings would only overshadow the public realm of High Street, and not residential areas to the north. Shadows cast by the morning sun will overshadow Charles Street and the afternoon shadows will be directed to the rail easement. The neighbours to the north will not be affected by overshadowing. The main issues for the adjacent neighbours are the potential for overlooking and the visibility of such taller developments in the context of the surrounding one to three storey built form.
Heritage is not an issue in this matter. The site itself has no heritage significance. Charles Street is an attractive residential precinct with a consistent built form and pleasant streetscape. However it has no heritage values identified through the application of the relevant overlays in the scheme.
With its strategic advantages and the lack of obvious constraints, the main question to be determined in this case is: is a 32 metre and nine storey development too tall? Council, Mr Connor, Mr Biles and Ms Sehr all thought so. Mr Wright, Mr McGauran, Mr Mielnick and Mr Biacsi thought not.
We find that the state planning policy framework encourages intensice development of this site. The SPPF clearly encourages more intensive development of sites with such strategic advantages. Clauses 12, 14, 16 and 17 encourage Melbourne to become a more compact city by focusing employment, commercial activity, housing and community facilities to be located in activity centres and strategic sites. Clause 12 encourages more intense development in activity centres to meet Melbourne's rapid growth. Clause 14 seeks to encourage a more compact city, and clause 16 encourages the development of well designed medium density housing which respects the neighbourhood character, improves housing choice and makes better use of existing infrastructure. Clause 17 identifies activity centres as the preferred location for more intense development, including residential.
Mr Biacsi put that it is time to implement the state planning policy framework, and this has been supported by various Tribunal decisions[1]. The need to respond positively to development opportunities was also supported in Golden Ridge Investments Pty Ltd v Whitehorse CC [2004] VCAT 1706. Furthermore principal activity centres are second only to the CAD and are places where development should be optimised. Development within PACs is not required to have regard for their local context, unlike neighbourhood activity centres. The zoning of the land in the Business 2 zone gives further weight to the arguments to fully optimise the development potential of this site.
However we note that this site is at the edge of, and outside the boundary of the PAC. We find that we should not ignore the local context and the local planning policies. As Member Hewet stated, local policy is intended to address local issues and circumstances within the context of the more general state policies[2].
We find however that the local planning policy framework provides limited guidance in this matter. Clause 21.01 identifies High Street in the Strategic Framework Plan as a selected arterial road 'where medium density housing and high scale development may be supported'. The Urban Design policy at clause 22.02 encourages new development to make a positive contribution to the built form of the area and be respectful of the existing character and streetscape. The Residential Character, Amenity and Interface policy at clause 22.06, seeks to maintain and enhance the overall amenity of the surrounding area, particularly the protection of residential properties.
Clause 22.02 (and clause 22.06) encourages new development outside the Prahan PAC to generally respect the one to two storey built form character in residential areas. It contemplates development that may be taller than the prevailing one and two storey built form, and directs taller development to certain categories of land, including land with a frontage to main roads such as High Street. The policy requires that new buildings be not significantly higher or lower than surrounding buildings. The policy also contemplates that buildings may be out of scale with their context. It provides that if development is of a height and scale that is inconsistent with its particular setting, an applicant should demonstrate that:
The building does not abut a heritage place.
Portions of the building over two storeys are set back from the frontage to maintain the streetscape.
The upper floors of the building will be used for residential purposes.
The building has been designed to complement the character of the area.
The building will not adversely affect the amenity of any adjoining residential properties.
We find these policies provide little assistance in this matter. The tests to be applied to taller buildings are highly general and would be applied through a competent planning assessment of a development. The policies have an underlying theme that seeks to limit development to the prevailing built form, even on sites with compelling strategic advantages. We consider that this approach is increasingly being overtaken by Melbourne's rapid rate of development, particularly in the inner areas.
Chapel Street Vision Structure Plan aims to fill the gap between the state planning policies and its local policies. It provides strategic directions for the Prahan PAC in respect to preferred use and development including height and design. It has been the subject of extensive community consultation and was adopted by council in December 2007. We were advised that there are ongoing discussions between council and the Department of Planning and Community Development regarding giving it statutory weight. Mr Mielnik tabled a copy of a draft amendment. This came as a surprise to Mr Conner and we conclude that discussions about the form and content of an amendment are preliminary and 'fluid' and we give no weight to the draft amendment. We do however note that it does not include the review site which indicates to us that it is not regarded as being part of the Principal Activity Centre.
The review site is outside the boundaries of the PAC, but within the Chapel Vision study area. The site is within a 'limited/minimal change area' that is defined as:
Limited change areas are the areas not in other change areas, where there is mixed existing character and where limited change can be accommodated in accordance with the preferred character of the area.
The preferred maximum building height for the review site is four to eight metres or one to two levels. The preferred height for the High Street frontages to the east of the railway line is 11 to 19 metres or three to five levels, hence Chapel Vision proposes that heights and built form should diminish as one travels westward along High Street.
We consider that the focus of Chapel Vision is use and development within the PAC, and that it says very little about its edges. We are not convinced that has carefully considered the planning objectives and strategies for High Street in the vicinity of the review site. We were not taken to any careful analysis in Chapel Vision of the strategic attributes of this site in particular, or High Street between the rail line and Punt Road. If it had done so, we think that it is likely that the strategic advantages of sites such as the review site would have been given greater development capacity than is shown in the plan. We therefore give little weight to chapel vision, partly as it has no statutory significance, but also because its policies for the review site do not reflect the site's strategic opportunities.
This is not to say that Chapel Vision has no value to this matter. The main weight that we give to Chapel Vision is that it confirms that provision is being made for substantial residential development within the PAC, and Prahan will makes its contribution to the metropolitan task of accommodating the high growth rates without every site having to optimise its development capacity.
We were taken to a number of recent decisions in and close to the PAC. Member Cook approved a five storey apartment building at 100-102 High Street opposite the review site commenting that that 'there is policy support and locational factors to justify a building of the proposed height and scale[3].
A permit has also been granted for a five storey apartment building at 118 High Street and for a three storey apartment building at 72-76 High Street. Within the Prahan PAC proper, permits have been granted for a six storey building at 153A High Street, and seven storey and twelve storey development (Rock, Paper and Scissors) at 201-209 High Street[4].
We are guided by the principles underlying these decisions in which the strategic policy directions for a compact city were balanced with a careful assessment of the context of the adjoining and nearby built form. Context has been an important consideration of the redevelopment of sites within the PAC and on its edges.
There was much discussion as to whether the site is a gateway to the Prahan PAC or a transition site between the Prahan PAC and its lower rise interface to the west. Mr Biles thought it should be seen as a transition site from the intense PAC to the lower rise areas to the western part of High Street. Mr McGauran and Mr Biacsi saw it as a gateway on which some height and prominence is appropriate. Chapel Vision sees the site as being outside the centre's boundaries. It identifies gateway sites, but this is not one of those sites.
It is our view that the strategic location and attributes of the site makes it a gateway site. Chapel Vision necessarily utilises somewhat arbitrary boundaries and according to Mr McGauran this site was directed by the Study Steering Committee to be outside that area. However, in our view if a strategic study was completed focusing on this part of High Street, the strategic context of the site would inevitably identify it as a site that is a gateway to the PAC, the public transport network and one that has considerable development capacity. As a corner site, it should have some prominence and presence in the High Street streetscape.
Balancing the various factors discussed above - planning policy, context, the absence of constraints and relevant decisions - we conclude that development on this site should more attuned to the state planning policies of compact city and less attuned to the policies of minimal change in clause 22.02 and Chapel Vision. However we agree with other Tribunal decisions[5] that the local context is important. At 32 metres, we find that the proposed development is too large and dominant in the High Street streetscape and fails to adequately respect the Charles Street residential precinct. We were not convinced that the overall building height of this proposal, even with its well thought out massing, setbacks, and articulation was acceptable. Our conclusion is guided by the following considerations:
There is substantial capacity within the Prahan PAC to accommodate high rise development to meet compact city objectives.
There are no other developments of this size present or proposed in this section of High Street. Other approved developments in this part of High Street will be in the five to six storey range. Additional development at Swinburne University may be similar to this development, however the university site is within the PAC.
The building will be evident as a significant mass and will be an obvious and dominant feature in the High Street streetscape, particularly as the primary form in High Street is fine grain due to the narrow lot widths. We concur with Mr Biles that the building has substantial planes that will have substance and presence to High Street in a manner inconsistent with the present and likely future built form.
There will be limited opportunities for redevelopment in this part of High Street and the building will continue to be dominant rather than becoming part of a changing taller built form. The references to this proposed building height 'blending in' with the existing building heights as viewed as far away as Commercial Road/St Kilda Road to the west, were far fetched.
The proposed building does not blend into a backdrop of taller buildings on St Kilda Road that minimise their dominance or presence in the streetscape.
The design itself commands attention due to its design, and the three design elements exaggerate its sense of bulk and mass.
However the site is a gateway and has many strategic advantages that should be optimised. It also has few constraints. Sites such as this are rare and development should be reasonably optimised.
While we recognise the positive aspects of the progressive built form setbacks proposed, particularly in relation to the adjacent residential neighbours to the north, the stepping up of massing to the southeast corner of this proposal would still be seen as excessive in relation to the surrounding finer grain and low scale allotments.
Chapel Vision envisaged that there would be incremental opportunities for infill development, to a scale of 11 to 19 metres or three to five levels with setbacks. We consider that this may be on the small side, it provides a sensible basis that can be adjusted upwards depending on the merits and circumstances of the particular sites. We find it is difficult to support the proposal for the site under consideration that is outside the 'core' of the PAC.
We consider that the building should be a gateway building that defines the edge of the PAC. We consider that a building of seven storeys with the same three principal design elements as proposed can achieve a commanding presence without an overwhelming dominance. It is our view that two levels should be removed from the development. We do not intend to prescribe the levels to be removed, this is best done by the proponents who will need to weigh up design and financial considerations. However we would prefer that one level be removed from the middle section and one level should be removed from the upper section. This would remove in the order of eighteen dwellings from the development. We consider that a development that provides in the order of ninety apartments, 1,700 square metres of office floor space, and a café on a site close to an activity centre and public transport to be a very positive planning outcome and entirely consistent with the state and local planning policy framework.
As we have noted above, one of the positive features of this site is that it is largely unconstrained. The interface to the north is the only sensitive interface, both in terms of the proximity to dwellings at 10-16 Charles Street, and to residents further north in that street. Ms Sehr represented many Charles Street residents who expressed concern with the height and dominance of the development.
Units G01 and 101 are set back 2.5 metres from the southern wall of 10 Charles Street. Units G05 and 105 are set back one metre from this wall. Dwellings at the second level are set back at least 11.6 metres from this wall. The interface at the northern boundary is a single storey dwelling adjacent to a two storey building. We are satisfied that there will be no overlooking or adverse outcomes.
We find that the proposed development should not have any adverse impacts on the dwellings at 10-16 Charles Street. These dwellings are orientated east-west and so will have very limited views of the development from within the dwellings or their private open space. The higher elements of the development will be partially screened by the red river gum tree. There is no overshadowing of the dwellings from the development. We find the interface between the development and its immediate neighbours with the reduced height to be satisfactory.
We consider that the height and bulk of the development will be most visible from the western side of Charles Street, particularly from the front of no. 1-9 Charles Street. Except for the street trees, there will be little to screen the views of the upper sections of the development. We acknowledge that visibility is not in itself grounds to reject this development. The real test is whether the proposal is complementary to the surrounding area, and of a scale that can be assimilated without unreasonably disturbing the surrounding built environment (Rowcliffe Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC[2004] VCAT 46). This is an inner city site and tall buildings in St Kilda Road are readily visible in a distance. However, a nine storey building would be highly visible from Charles Street and a building of that height would be a significant intrusion into the existing built form. It would also be different to the built form that the community expects to be developed. In our view the contrast from one to two storeys to nine storeys is unreasonably dramatic and extreme. A lesser gradation between the low rise fine grain residential precinct to the bulky, high rise built form at High Street is preferable.