//
[11]
austlii:vic/PPV/2025/17
General information, not legal advice.
PPV
2025-04-23
Original judgment source is linked above.
This is a brief description of how this report will be used for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the planning system. If you have concerns about a specific issue you should seek independent advice.
The planning authority must consider this report before deciding whether to adopt the Amendment.
[section 27(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the PE Act)]
For the Amendment to proceed, it must be adopted by the planning authority and then sent to the Minister for Planning for approval.
The planning authority is not obliged to follow the recommendations of the Panel, but it must give its reasons if it does not follow the recommendations. [section 31 (1) of the PE Act, and section 9 of the Planning and Environment Regulations 2015]
If approved by the Minister for Planning a formal change will be made to the planning scheme. Notice of approval of the Amendment will be published in the Government Gazette. [section 37 of the PE Act]
Planning Panels Victoria acknowledges the Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung People as the traditional custodians of the land on which our office is located. We pay our respects to their Elders past and present.
Heritage Overlay (North and West Melbourne Heritage Precinct)
Rezone the subject land from General Residential Zone to Mixed Use Zone and apply new Design and Development Overlay Schedule 84 to guide future redevelopment of the site
Ethos Urban on behalf of the Electrical Trades Union
Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C447melb (the Amendment) seeks to rezone 192-200 Arden Street, North Melbourne (the subject land) to align with its current and intended future use, and to guide future redevelopment of the subject land. It proposes to:
The subject land has served as the main offices of the Electrical Trades Union for several years. It is used for administration, education and training.
The GRZ is no longer appropriate for the subject land. The current use of 'office' is prohibited under the GRZ, and relies on existing use rights. Any future expansion of the current use will be difficult if the subject land remains in the GRZ.
The Panel is satisfied on the basis of the evidence before it that the MUZ is the appropriate zone to facilitate the continued and possible future expansion of the current use of the subject land. The MUZ is part of the suite of residential zones, and requires any future use and development proposal to address the character and amenity of the neighbouring area. Further, it reflects the existing zoning on the south side of Arden Street.
The heights proposed under the DDO84 are appropriate. The highest built form is proposed on the southern part of the site, and the height limit does not exceed the existing height of the Melbourne Mills building on the eastern side of the site. Heights step down along the Macaulay Road frontage to a modest 3.4 metres at the sensitive northern interface. The Panel is satisfied that this is an appropriate response to the existing dwellings at 139-153 O'Shanassy Street and the private open space at the rear of those dwellings.
The proposed heights are appropriate for an area which is undergoing substantial change. The subject land is located adjacent to the Arden and Macaulay urban renewal areas where significant intensification of built form is anticipated and encouraged. The proposed heights represent an appropriate transition to the residential areas to the north and east.
The proposed heights will not result in unacceptable overshadowing impacts. Due to the site's orientation and location, overshadowing will be largely limited to the surrounding streets to the east, south and west. No residences or open space will be overshadowed.
There is nothing before the Panel to suggest that the Amendment will result in unacceptable traffic congestion or a shortage of on-street parking. Any future redevelopment proposal will be assessed against the provisions of the planning scheme including clause 52.06 (parking) and will be required to demonstrate that traffic and parking impacts can be acceptably managed.
The Amendment will provide a community benefit by creating certainty through the application of a zone consistent with the existing use of the site, and permit future development appropriate to its context.
Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends:
a) in Table 1 (built form requirements): > > * amend the second dot point in the built form outcome for Area A as follows:
respects the scale and heritage significance of the Melbourne Mills building and protects the building's significant external heritage fabric**.**
b) in Clause 5.0 (application requirements), amend the dash points under 'design excellence report' as follows:
- how the development provides high quality architecture and urban design which demonstrates function, liveability, sustainability, and public contribution to buildings and urban spaces
- how the development addresses and provides high quality public realm outcomes and ameliorates solar and minimises or manages any adverse wind effects to the public realm.
The purpose of Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C447melb (the Amendment) is to align the zoning of the land at 192-200 Arden Street, North Melbourne (the subject land) with its current and intended future use, and guide future redevelopment of the subject land.
The Amendment applies to the land shown in Figure 3. This land is referred to in the materials presented to the Panel as the 'subject land' and the 'site'. These terms are used interchangeably in this Report.
The subject land is developed with interconnected buildings used as administrative and training offices by the Electrical Trades Union (ETU), the Proponent for the Amendment. The most prominent of these is the four storey Melbourne Mills building constructed in 1923, which is a contributory building under the Heritage Overlay for the North and West Melbourne Heritage Precinct (HO3). The remaining single and double storey buildings on the land were more recently constructed and do not have recognised heritage significance.
Figure 2 Existing development on the subject land
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 2 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The land on the north west corner of the site at 139-153 O'Shanassy Street is not included in the Amendment. It is occupied by social housing and owned by the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing.
The ETU intends to continue using the site for administration and training facilities. It has requested the Amendment to adjust the planning scheme provisions to better reflect the existing uses of the site and the character of the area. The use of land for 'office' is prohibited in the GRZ. While existing use rights apply, the Amendment is required to ensure the subject land can continue to be used by the ETU to support the provision of various services and facilities, particularly if a planning permit is sought to expand the administration and training facilities currently conducted on the land.
Objecting submissions raised concerns in relation to the following key issues:
Council did not propose any changes to the Amendment in response to submissions.
Given no opposing submitter requested to be heard by the Panel, and Council and the ETU were aligned in relation to the Amendment, the Panel determined that its process would be conducted based on the exchange of written material, without a hearing. This was supported by the parties.
The Panel considered all written submissions made in response to the exhibition of the Amendment, observations from its site visit and other material presented to it by Council and the ETU. All submissions and materials have been considered by the Panel in reaching its conclusions, regardless of whether they are specifically mentioned in the Report. A full list of material considered by the Panel is at Appendix A.
This Report deals with the issues under the following headings:
Relevant parts of the planning and policy context for the proposal are listed below. More detail is provided in the Explanatory Report for the Amendment, the Ethos Urban report submitted in support of the request for Amendment (D18), Council's submission (D28) and the planning evidence from John Glossop presented by the ETU (D25).
Council provided a comprehensive analysis of the strategic context for the Amendment and how it implements the planning objectives in the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (PE Act) and the key policy directions in both Plan Melbourne and the newly released Plan for Victoria.
Council submitted the Amendment is consistent with the Municipal Planning Strategy, as the MUZ and the DDO84 will appropriately manage the interface between the subject land and surrounding sensitive uses (particularly to the north). In particular, the proposed planning controls will:
Council highlighted various policy directives that are supported by the Amendment, including:
Relying on Mr Glossop's evidence, the ETU submitted the subject land:
Mr Glossop's evidence considered the following strategic issues:
Mr Glossop supported the overall strategic justification for the Amendment on the basis that the current office use is prohibited under the existing GRZ. He considered the appropriateness of several candidate zones including the MUZ, the Residential Growth Zone, Commercial 1 Zone and Commercial 2 Zone. He supported the MUZ as the most logical choice, finding that it strikes an appropriate balance between allowing the current use of the land to be continued (without having to rely on existing use rights) and potentially expanded while ensuring compatibility with adjoining residential development. He also noted it was desirable given the subject land's proximity to other MUZ land to the south of Arden Street and to the northwest along Macaulay Road.
Submitters objecting to the Amendment considered that it would result in inappropriate built form and amenity outcomes for the surrounding area. Some submitters raised concerns about whether the MUZ is an appropriate zone for the subject land given its largely residential setting. They questioned what benefit the Amendment would have for the community and noted potential impacts on the environment and other matters such as car parking. These matters are dealt with in subsequent chapters.
The Panel has assessed the Amendment against the principles of net community benefit and sustainable development, as set out in Clause 71.02-3 (Integrated decision making) of the Planning Scheme.
The Panel is satisfied on the basis of the submissions and evidence that the GRZ is no longer appropriate for the subject land. The current office use of the subject land is prohibited under the GRZ, and is only able to operate by virtue of existing use rights. While the surrounding land to the north and east of the site is zoned GRZ, this is not an appropriate zone for the subject land given its historic, current and future intended use. The Panel agrees with Mr Glossop that the MUZ is the most appropriate zone for the subject land. The MUZ is in the suite of residential zones, and requires any proposed use and development to have regard to the amenity of surrounding residential areas. Further, it is consistent with the zoning of the land on the south side of Arden Street.
Policy encourages an intensification of development and built form in this part of North Melbourne, which is well located to the adjacent Arden and Macaulay urban renewal areas, the Parkville National Employment and Innovation Cluster and nearby high quality existing and future public transport services.
The Panel is satisfied the proposed MUZ and DDO84, together with the continued application of the HO3, will ensure the use and development of the subject land appropriately interfaces with and respects the character and amenity of the surrounding area and the heritage values both on the subject land and in the surrounding area. Built form and amenity impacts will need to be carefully managed to ensure appropriate outcomes, and the Panel is confident the proposed planning controls will facilitate this for the reasons set out in Chapter 3.
The Amendment is supported by, and implements, the relevant sections of the Planning Policy Framework. It is well founded and strategically justified, and should proceed subject to addressing the minor drafting issues discussed in the following chapters.
Adopt Amendment C447melb with the changes recommended in this Report.
The DDO84 proposes varied maximum heights across the subject land as shown in Figure 3. Area A is the interface with the dwellings at 139-153 O'Shanassy Street, and has the lowest height limit of 3.4 metres. Area E is the Melbourne Mills building. The proposed heights in Areas D and E reflect the 20 metre height of the existing Melbourne Mills building.
Figure 3 Proposed height limits across the site
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 3 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The issue is whether the proposed maximum building heights are appropriate.
A maximum building height of 3.4 metres along the northern boundary of the site will ensure that there is an appropriate interface with the residential buildings to the north. Limiting building heights to 7 metres adjacent to the western boundary provides a suitable response to the south-west intersection and allowing a staggered built form ranging up to a 20 metre building height limit along the Arden Street frontage is consistent with the 20.98 metre tall heritage Mills building. While the site is not part of the Arden Structure Plan, it lies immediately adjacent to its defined boundary where building heights of 6 - 18 storeys have recently been introduced.
Mr Glossop considered the 20 metre discretionary building height limit to be in keeping with the existing Melbourne Mills building, which he considered to be an appropriate scale within the context of the existing development on the subject land and the character of the surrounding area. He noted the existing built form to the north and east of the subject land is generally the order of one to four storeys. Further, the subject land is at the periphery of the Arden urban renewal precinct which is expected to experience transformative change over the next 30 years. The area in the Arden precinct to the west of Dryburgh Street has height controls of 25 to 64 metres.
Given its size, corner position and general location, Mr Glossop had no doubt that the subject land can accommodate greater scale than the existing built form, particularly for the western and southern portions.
Mr Glossop directly addressed the sensitive northern interface with the dwellings at 139-153 O'Shanassy Street. He noted the main areas of private open space and outlook from these dwellings face the subject land. He considered the DDO84 provides for a sensitive response, with taller built form requiring a minimum setback of 9 metres from the common boundary. Buildings within the setback would have a preferred height of 3.4 metres which he described as "_a very restrained and appropriate built form outcome to this sensitive edg_e".
The request for the Amendment was accompanied by a letter of support prepared by Trethowan Architecture (appended to D18) which expressed the opinion that the proposed building heights and the north boundary setback in the DDO84 would deliver an acceptable outcome with respect to the heritage values of the Melbourne Mills building and the surrounding HO3. The ETU provided an addendum to Trethowan Architecture's letter of support (D26) in which Claire Miller of Trethowan affirmed their position that the proposed building heights would provide an acceptable and compliant heritage outcome.
Objecting submitters were concerned that the proposed building height would:
The GRZ has no specific built form controls for non-residential uses of the land. The GRZ only controls height for dwellings and residential buildings. By introducing height limits, the proposed DDO84 will bring certainty regarding future built form outcomes on the subject land.
Figure 4 shows illustrations of the maximum building envelope that would be permitted under the DDO84. Perspectives from both Arden Street and Macaulay Road are shown, with the first image showing the envelope in context with the dwellings fronting O'Shanassy Street. These were prepared on behalf of the ETU and formed part of the material submitted in support of the request for the Amendment.
Figure 4 Proposed building envelope shown from Arden Street and Macaulay Road
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 4 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
While the DDO84 would allow substantially greater height on the south west portion of the subject land compared to what currently exists, the Panel agrees with Council and Mr Glossop that the proposed heights are appropriate. The maximum 20 metre limit in Areas D and E does not exceed the existing height of the Melbourne Mills building. The proposed heights across the southern parts of the subject land (7 to 20 metres) are in keeping with the height limits in the surrounding area as shown in Figure 5 below, including the:
The intersection at the south west corner (between Arden and Dryburgh Streets and Macaulay Road) is robust and not sensitive to increased built form or massing. In any event the heights step down to the south west corner and along the Macaulay Road frontage.
The Panel agrees with Mr Glossop that the lower 3.4 metre height limit in Area A represents and appropriate stepping down of the built form to the more sensitive interface with the rear of the dwellings at 139-153 O'Shanassy Street, including their private open space. The height limit in Area A is substantially lower than the existing dwellings, and will provide an appropriate built form transition to the north. It will ensure outlook and daylight access to those dwellings and their private open space is appropriately protected.
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 5 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The DDO84 includes built form outcomes in Table 1. Some of the outcomes were not clearly worded, and Council proposed revised drafting as follows:
The Panel is confident that the proposed maximum building heights in DDO84, together with the built form outcomes in Table 1 (with Council's drafting clarifications), will ensure appropriate built form outcomes on the site including the sensitive interface to the north (Area A), and the interface with the Melbourne Mills building (Area D).
Submitters raised concerns about the proposed building heights obstructing views. It is not clear to the Panel what views were of concern. Local policy at Clause 15.03-1L-02 states that new buildings should not obscure views from the street of the front or principal parts of adjoining significant or contributory places or buildings. The Trethowan Architecture letter (appended to D18) expresses the opinion that the western elevation of the Melbourne Mills building is neither a principal nor front elevation. To the extent that submitters are referring to other views, planning policy and controls do not indicate the presence of significant views to, through or around the site that warrant protection.
Objecting submitter concerns in relation to increased heat and reflected traffic noise were not substantiated.
The Panel concludes the proposed maximum building heights in the DDO84 are appropriate.
Amend the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 84 as follows:
a) In Table 1 (built form requirements):
- amend the second dot point in the built form outcome for Area A as follows:
ensures limited visibility from an appropriate interface and avoids unreasonable visual bulk to the adjoining site to the north at 139-153 O'Shanassy Street, North Melbourne.
respects the scale and heritage significance of the Melbourne Mills building and protects the building's significant external heritage fabric.
The issue is whether the proposed DDO84 built form provisions will potentially result in unacceptable overshadowing.
Objecting submitters were concerned about the potential for the built form changes to overshadow residential areas and block access to sunlight.
Council provided copies of shadow diagrams prepared in support of the request for the Amendment (Figure 6) and submitted:
Shadow testing demonstrates that the building envelopes proposed in DDO84 will have no significant overshadowing impacts on the surrounding areas. Like the current conditions, the proposed building envelope will not extend shadow onto any residential properties.
Figure 6 Shadowing diagrams of proposed built form envelope
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 6 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The ETU reiterated findings from the planning report submitted in support of the request for the Amendment (D18) that the "building height as described by DDO84 will not result in any overshadowing impacts to sensitive receptors, this includes the [dwellings at 139-153 O'Shanassy Street] to the north".
Mr Glossop was comfortable that overshadowing could be dealt with as part of any future planning permit application. He noted that the subject land's orientation means potential overshadowing from the anticipated allowable built form would typically affect road reserves and not secluded private open space or public open space.
Figure 6 demonstrates to the Panel's satisfaction that the building envelopes allowed under the DDO84 will have no overshadowing impacts to residential properties or public open space. The building heights will not result in unacceptable overshadowing.
The issue is whether the proposed built form controls will have an acceptable impact on the heritage character of the subject land and the amenity of surrounding residential areas.
Objecting submitters were concerned that the scale of development proposed to be allowed under the DDO84 would negatively impact the low-rise residential character of the area.
Mr Glossop considered that 139-153 O'Shanassy Street is the most sensitive interface with the subject land and that it requires a careful design response. His evidence was amenity tests of overshadowing and setbacks from north facing windows that apply under other provisions in the Planning Scheme are not relevant because the subject land is to the south of the dwellings on O'Shanassy Street.
Mr Glossop addressed how the DDO84 is drafted to ensure appropriate outcomes for the amenity of the dwellings at 139-153 O'Shanassy Street. He supported the design objectives of the DDO84 and the intent of the built form outcomes sought for Area A, but considered the drafting could be improved. He recommended the second built form outcome for Area A be redrafted along the lines of "Built form that: provides an attractive outlook from 139-153 O'Shanassy Street".
Council agreed with Mr Glossop's view that the intent of the second built form outcome for Area A is to limit amenity impacts to the adjoining dwellings in O'Shanassy Street. It submitted that rather than incorporating new language such as 'attractive outlook', the built form outcome could simply mirror that for other areas (which is the wording suggested by Council described in Chapter 3.1).
As noted in Chapter 3.1, the Proponent relied on the Trethowan Architecture letter in submitting that the heights and setbacks proposed under the DDO84 were a suitable response to the heritage values of the Melbourne Mills building.
The Panel agrees with Council and Mr Glossop that the subject land's most sensitive interface is to the north, in Area A. As noted in Chapter 3.1, the Panel supports Council's proposed rewording of the second built form outcome for Area A in Table 1, and considers this will achieve the intent of Mr Glossop's suggestion of an attractive outlook.
In terms of impacts on the character of the broader area, the DDO84 includes provisions that seek to ensure an appropriate response to the surrounding area in terms of character and amenity as Council and Mr Glossop pointed out. These include:
These requirements are sufficient to ensure future development on the subject land will have an acceptable impact on the character and amenity of surrounding residential areas.
That said, minor drafting changes are required to improve the clarity of the requirements for a design excellence report.
The exhibited DDO84 included the following application requirement:
The Panel queried what was intended by the references to 'liveability', and 'ameliorating' solar and wind effects to the public realm. Mr Glossop noted that the drafting is very similar to requirements in the DDO for the Arden precinct, and agreed:
Mr Glossop identified no consequences (positive or negative) if the term 'liveability' were deleted. He considered the lack of clarity in relation to the wind and solar requirements is unhelpful, and recommended alternative drafting that refers to whether the proposed development 'minimises or manages' adverse wind effects. He did not consider any reference to solar effects was justified given the scale of development expected under the DDO84 and the overshadowing analysis prepared in support of the request for the Amendment.
Council supported Mr Glossop's suggested drafting changes, as does the Panel.
Amend the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 84 as follows:
a) in Clause 5.0 (application requirements), amend the dash points under 'design excellence report' as follows:
- how the development provides high quality architecture and urban design which demonstrates function, liveability, sustainability, and public contribution to buildings and urban spaces
- how the development addresses and provides high quality public realm outcomes and ameliorates solar and minimises or manages any adverse wind effects to the public realm.
The issue is whether development in the form allowed by the Amendment will have an acceptable impact on on-street car parking and traffic volumes in the area.
Objecting submitters were concerned the Amendment might lead to increased utilisation of on-street parking in the surrounding streets, resulting in fewer spots being available for existing residents. There were also general comments made about the possibility of increased traffic congestion as a result of the Amendment.
There are currently 70 car parking spaces at the site. Any future site development will be assessed against the carparking requirements specified in Clause 52.06 [of the planning scheme] to ensure an appropriate number of car parking spaces is provided on site. In addition, the site is near the new Arden Station and will benefit from increased connectivity along the new Metro service. The site also benefits from tram access.
The ETU presented traffic evidence from John-Paul Maina of Impact Traffic Engineering (D24). Mr Maina's firm commissioned a survey to understand existing car parking conditions and utilisation in the area. It found that long term parking on weekdays is generally 'at capacity', with medium and short term parking generally available. On weekends, all types were generally available.
Mr Maina found that the Amendment would have no adverse impacts in the locality, having regard to:
Mr Maina considered the combination of medium term parking availability during weekdays, and the imminent opening of Arden Station, will result in circumstances that "can comfortably support an increased building floor area on the site". Further, traffic and parking impacts of any future development would be assessed as part of a future permit application process.
Longer term, Mr Maina anticipated the site's proximity to the Arden precinct would mean future transport planning would prioritise public and active transport over car travel. He expected a reduction in private car use in areas where walking and cycling is encouraged, and noted there are good links from the subject land to public transport. He noted there is a diversity of uses within the walkable catchment of the subject land. He also noted that limited parking supply tends to promote a shift to other transport modes in inner city transport rich environments.
On that basis, Mr Maina expected the Amendment would have no long term adverse impacts in the locality.
The submissions and evidence before the Panel demonstrate that there is no basis for the concerns that the Amendment will have unacceptable impacts on parking supply or traffic congestion. The traffic and parking impacts of any particular development proposal will be assessed at the permit application stage against the requirements of the Planning Scheme. Permits will be conditioned to ensure that traffic and parking impacts are acceptably managed.
Mr Maina's conclusion that the Amendment will have no long term negative impacts in the locality is consistent with the Panel's observation that the subject land is well served by multiple public transport options, being located close to the future Arden Station, the Route 57 tram on Abbotsford Street, and the Route 401 express shuttle bus. The subject land is on the doorstep of the CBD and on the periphery of the emerging Arden precinct which is expected to see a radical increase in the number of people working and living nearby. The Panel agrees with Mr Maina that car usage will decrease in future as more public transport services become available and community expectations around private vehicle usage change.
The comparatively modest outcomes sought by the Amendment in terms of intensification of development are appropriate and are in line with expectations of mode shift away from private vehicles, in an inner city environment where restricted on-street parking opportunities tend to influence mode shift.
That said, the Panel recommends that Council continue to monitor the availability of on-street parking in the area, and if shortages become problematic for existing residents, it should take appropriate action to manage on-street parking to ensure an appropriate availability for residents (such as introducing permit parking).
The Panel concludes the Amendment will not have an unacceptable impact on on-street parking opportunities or traffic volumes in the locality.
Submitters objecting to the Amendment were concerned that the Amendment did not adequately assess or respond to potential environmental matters including carbon emissions, waste management and effects on biodiversity. Some submitters questioned the benefits of the Amendment for the community.
Any future development of the site will be required to address all the relevant performance measures set out in Clauses 15.01-2L-01 (Energy, Water and Waste Efficiency) and 19.03-3L (Stormwater Management) of the Melbourne Planning Scheme, as well as any other standard state planning provisions supporting sustainable buildings.
This Amendment will ensure that the Subject Land can continue to be operated and used by the Proponent and will give certainty for future development outcomes which will bring community benefit.
The ETU did not respond directly to these particular matters in its submission to the Panel, but rather pointed to the overarching support for the Amendment in the evidence of Mr Glossop and Mr Maina and the material prepared by Ethos Urban and Trethowan Architecture in support of the Amendment request (D18). It submitted:
All of this material wholeheartedly supports the Amendment. By contrast, the opposing submitters' concerns are comparatively minor and are not, in any event, supportable given the existing use and development of the Subject Land, the physical and strategic context of the Subject Land, and the careful manner in which the proposed DDO84, in particular, has been drafted to control the future development of the Subject Land. The Amendment contemplates a comparatively low scale of change for the Subject Land entirely in keeping with the existing character of the area and neighbours' legitimate amenity expectations under the Scheme.
No substantive information was put before the Panel in support of submissions relating to carbon emissions, waste management or biodiversity. As Council pointed out, environmental performance and waste management arrangements for any future development will be assessed as part of the planning permit application process, and will be required to meet the standards and requirements set out in various provisions of the Planning Scheme.
There is nothing before the Panel to suggest that the Amendment will have any community disbenefit that warrants further scrutiny. Mr Glossop demonstrated in his evidence that the rezoning and built form outcomes sought by the Amendment appropriately balance the objectives of planning in Victoria and the policy directions in the planning scheme. The Amendment will ensure this well-located and connected inner city site can continue to support its long-standing use and allow the ETU to expand its operations in a manner that will not adversely impact the surrounding community. Considering its location near the soon to be opened Arden Station and Arden precinct, the Amendment seeks a reasonable and sympathetic outcome for the subject land.
Authorisation - Report to the Future Melbourne Committee dated 19 March 2024
Authorisation - Council meeting minutes dated 19 March 2024
Department of Transport and Planning markups on Explanatory Report for authorisation
Planning Scheme Map - Design and Development Overlay Schedule 84
Clause 72.03 (What does this planning scheme consist of)
Amendment request report dated 3 June 2024, Ethos Urban
Post exhibition - Council meeting minutes dated 3 December 2024
Post exhibition - Council meeting minutes dated 3 December 2024 (confirmed)
Post exhibition - Report to the Future Melbourne Committee and attachments dated 3 December 2024
C447melb - Planning Scheme Amendment report, Ethos Urban, dated 3 June 2024
Cover letter regarding information directed by the Panel
Building heights and setbacks map from Future Melbourne Committee report dated 19 March 2024
Height and overshadowing illustrations from Future Melbourne Committee report dated 19 March 2024
Addendum letter of support from Trethowan Architecture - Heritage