//
[1633]
Table 5 legend: 
State policy | 
Regional policy | 
Local policy
austlii:vic/PPV/2025/15
General information, not legal advice.
PPV
2025-04-07
Appendix J
Original judgment source is linked above.
For the reasons set out in this Report and subject to addressing the more specific issues raised in submissions and discussed in the following chapters, the Committee concludes:
Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Committee recommends:
Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Committee makes the following informal recommendations:
1.1 Terms of Reference and key issues in referred submissions
The Minister for Planning appointed the Precincts Standing Advisory Committee (the Committee) on 24 October 2023. The purpose of the Committee is set out in its Terms of Reference (Appendix F1) to:
...provide timely and independent advice on the following referrals:
Having regard to the referral letter, any issues raised in submissions on draft precinct plans, including draft planning scheme amendments, that have not been resolved by the precinct planning lead, and in respect of which the Minister for Planning has sought advice.
Having regard to the referral letter, any other strategic or statutory precinct planning matters as decided by the Minister for Planning
The Minister for Planning provided a referral letter dated 17 March 2024 requesting the Committee's independent review and advice in relation to the proposed Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan (FBDCP) and associated draft Amendment GC224 to the Melbourne and Port Phillip Planning Schemes (the Amendment). The Amendment was prepared by the Department of Transport and Planning Precincts (the Proponent).
The Amendment was exhibited from 1 December 2023 to 23 February 2024 and 62 submissions were received.
The Minister referred all submissions to the Committee for review and advice, noting that submissions had raised the following key issues and themes:
A Directions Hearing was held on 15 April 2024. On 18 April 2024, the Committee issued directions about keys dates and actions leading to a Hearing expected to begin on 27 May 2024.
(ii) Second and Third Directions Hearings and Hearing adjournment
On 29 April 2024, Melbourne City Council requested a third Directions Hearing be held on Monday 6 May 2024 to give parties time to respond to directions and timeframe for the conduct of the hearing proposed by the Proponent.
On 30 April 2024, a second Directions Hearing was held after which the Committee advised parties:
On 8 May 2024, a third Directions Hearing was held.
On 13 May 2024, the Committee issued further directions about key dates and actions leading to a rescheduled Hearing to begin on 6 November 2024.
The provision of evidence by all parties' experts was grouped according to the following themes:
The Committee had the benefit of receiving expert evidence from the experts listed in Table 1.
Prime Port Melbourne Pty Ltd, One Smarter Pty Ltd, Aquaino Pty Ltd, and Pendomer Pty Ltd
Prime Port Melbourne Pty Ltd, One Smarter Pty Ltd, Aquaino Pty Ltd, and Pendomer Pty Ltd
The following joint expert statements were received:
The Committee 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 material before the Committee is significant, with 635 documents tabled throughout the Hearing.
The Committee has considered all written submissions made in response to the exhibition of the Amendment, observations from its site visit, and submissions, evidence and other material presented to it during the Hearing and received in accordance with its directions. It has reviewed a large volume of material and has had to be selective in referring to the more relevant or determinative material in the Report. All submissions and materials have been considered by the Committee in reaching its conclusions, regardless of whether they are specifically mentioned in the Report.
The Committee has reviewed the various versions of the Amendment documentation submitted by the Proponent and other parties. The various versions included some substantive changes, and other drafting changes made for clarity. The Committee supports the Proponent's final versions except where otherwise stated in its Report.
The Committee's recommended versions of the following documents are in Report Volume 2:
The Committee recommends a number of changes to the FBDCP (final version). Many of these changes will require consequential changes to the proposed implementing provisions of the Melbourne and Port Phillip Planning Schemes. Not all of these changes are reflected in the Committee recommended versions of the planning scheme provisions. The Proponent will need to ensure the adopted and approved versions of the planning scheme provisions reflect, and are consistent with, the adopted and approved version of the FBDCP.
The Committee also makes 'informal' recommendations that are:
The Committee trusts these will be of assistance to the Proponent and the Minister in finalising the Amendment.
The Committee has prepared two volumes of the Report:
The Glossary and Abbreviations table at page 6 contains a comprehensive list of acronyms used in this Report.
The Committee refers to the following Amendment document versions in this Report:
It is not possible to acknowledge all who contributed to the Amendment GC224 process, through the original written submissions, suggestions for site inspections, the evidence, and the submissions and presentations of the parties.
The Committee thanks all who participated in this process. It appreciates the time people put into their submissions, and the way in which parties participated in the Hearing. The Committee thanks the Proponent for its assistance in setting up and hosting the document sharing platform.
The Committee particularly thanks the office of Planning Panels Victoria for its support and assistance throughout the process, with special acknowledgment to Georgia Brodrick, Project Officer and Gabrielle Trouse, Project Officer.
The Committee refers to projects using the FBDCP project identification system as shown below.
Table 2 FBDCP codes for project infrastructure types
Community hub projects: Sport and recreation facilities
For FBDCP projects introduced by the Proponent after exhibition, the letter "N" is added after the FBURA precinct letter (for example, MN_TR01).
For projects proposed for inclusion by Port Philip Council, the project identification number is preceded by "COPP" (for example, COPP_M_TR12).
For OSU candidate sites, the Committee uses an identification format based on the relevant Capital City Zone (CCZ) provisions:
(ii) 'Catalytic', 'Essential' and 'Local' infrastructure
The exhibited FBDCP identified three categories of infrastructure required to unlock the development of the FBURA:
The OSU has a range of specific terminology, discussed in detail in Chapter 6.1.
Fishermans Bend is Australia's largest urban renewal project. It has an area of about 480 hectares in the Melbourne and Port Phillip municipalities, making it more than twice the size of Melbourne's neighbouring Central Business District. Recognising the area will be the focus for large scale investment and growth, it has been declared a 'Project of State Significance' under Part 9A of the PE Act.
In its ultimate form, Fishermans Bend is expected to accommodate over 80,000 residents and 80,000 jobs. Since 2018, the Fishermans Bend Framework (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning) (FB Framework) has helped guide the transformation of the existing predominantly low rise industrial area towards this vision. The FB Framework:
In July 2019, Amendment GC81 implemented (in part) the FB Framework by introducing relevant policy and provisions into the Melbourne and Port Phillip Planning Schemes, including the Infrastructure Contributions Plan Overlay (ICPO). It was anticipated that an infrastructure contributions plan (ICP) would be prepared and would provide one means of securing contributions towards funding infrastructure for Fishermans Bend.
The ICPO prohibits the grant of a permit to subdivide land, construct a building or carry out works until an ICP has been incorporated into the planning scheme. Since then, the Specific Controls Overlay (SCO) has been applied to discreet parcels of land to enable development. Infrastructure contributions have been collected through interim arrangements, either through site-specific planning controls or voluntary agreements under section 173 of the PE Act.
Currently, ICPs can only be used in greenfield settings. Given the brownfields setting of Fishermans Bend, the Proponent is now proposing a Development Contributions Plan (DCP) as one mechanism to collect development contributions.
A comprehensive overview of prior strategic planning for Fishermans Bend is provided in Appendix D.
The Amendment applies to land in the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area (FBURA).
As shown in Figure 1, the FBURA consists of four of the five Fishermans Bend precincts:
The Amendment proposes an innovative approach to development contributions in Victoria.
Its primary purpose is to introduce two mechanisms to fund public infrastructure projects identified in the FB Framework by:
As noted in Chapter 1.5(iv), the exhibited FBDCP identified three categories of infrastructure required to unlock the development of the FBURA:
The 120 projects included in the FBDCP are all within the Essential infrastructure category. Some of the FBDCP projects, including the community hubs, some open space, bridges and the tram corridors, are specifically identified as key projects in the FB Framework.
Additional funding to that raised by the FBDCP and the OSU will be required to deliver all infrastructure projects required for the FBURA (i.e. for Catalytic and Local infrastructure projects).
The FBDCP includes about $2.44 billion of projects identified in the FB Framework. The Development Infrastructure Levy (DIL) has been capped at a set amount ($34,635 per dwelling or $286 per square metre of gross non-residential floorspace) rather than adopting the standard approach of setting a levy based on project costs and apportionment that recovers the total cost of required infrastructure. Described as a 'three-in-one' levy, the DIL includes charges for:
The FBDCP is expected to collect about $1.75 billion (or 71 percent of total project costs). However, additional value received through the OSU incentive scheme could increase cost recovery from 71 to 94 percent. The Victorian government would monitor and manage the shortfall, funding it through Victorian government budget processes over the life of the FBDCP and other external sources (such as Australian government grants).
Several open space projects, which could also be categorised as Essential infrastructure, are excluded from the FBDCP because they are proposed to be delivered through the OSU. The OSU sits alongside the FBDCP and is implemented through proposed changes to (primarily) the Capital City Zone Schedules in Melbourne and Port Phillip Planning Schemes.
The OSU is designed to deliver open space to the Victorian government in exchange for additional dwelling density on adjacent land. The scheme is voluntary.
In simple terms, the OSU operates by allowing a landowner to trade land required for public open space in the FBURA (identified in the CCZ schedule as 'eligible for open space uplift') for the right to deliver additional dwellings on their retained land.
Where a developer elects to use the OSU, OSU uplift dwellings will be delivered on land adjacent to the relevant OSU open space park.
The Victorian government has committed to deliver all open space in the FB Framework, including any open space identified for delivery by the OSU that is not delivered using this mechanism.
In addition to implementing the FBDCP and the OSU, the Amendment also proposes to:
Specifically, the Amendment proposes changes outlined in Table 3.
To reference the FBDCP and give effect to the OSU, revise:
Clause 11.03-6L-06 (Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area) (Reference Documents)
Clause 11.03-6L-04 (Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area)
Design and Development Overlay Schedules 30, 32 and 33
To give effect to the FBDCP (specifically the 'three-in-one' levy), revise:
To designate the Minister for Precincts as responsible authority for development contributions matters in the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area
To incorporate the FBDCP into the Planning Scheme through:
The planning context relevant to the Amendment is set out in Appendix E.
The issue is whether the Amendment is strategically justified and achieves a net community benefit.
The Proponent submitted the Amendment is strategically justified because:
The Proponent noted that no submission suggested the Amendment, at a broad level, is not strategically justified.
All DCP experts agreed that the FBDCP is needed to support future development of the FBURA.[2]
Mr Woodland gave planning evidence for the Proponent. His evidence was the Planning Policy Framework (through Clauses 11.02-3S and 19.03-1S) requires development to contribute financially to providing infrastructure using either a DCP or an ICP. He added that State planning policy:
Mr Glossop, a planning expert called by Melbourne Water, stated the:
Mr Glossop considered section 4(1) of the PE Act (objectives of planning in Victoria) and Planning Scheme Clauses 01, 11 and 19 were relevant to the Amendment. He added:
Without seeking to define the term, 'orderly' planning within this Amendment would generally relate to whether the necessary infrastructure was identified, appropriately funded and able to be provided in a timely manner. It is within this framework that I have considered the strategic justification for the Amendment.
It should not be controversial to observe that, in general terms, mechanisms to secure funding and delivery of infrastructure to support the redevelopment of urban renewal areas like Fishermans Bend would generally be consistent with notions of orderly and proper planning.
Port Phillip City Council raised concerns the exhibited FBDCP does not facilitate the achievement of the FB Framework vision. It submitted the FBDCP should fund all infrastructure essential to achieve the FB Framework vision and it is unrealistic to expect developers and Council to fund key local infrastructure that has been excluded from the FBDCP.
Melbourne City Council questioned whether the Amendment would produce a net community benefit because there was no comprehensive funding strategy to demonstrate how all the infrastructure required for the FBURA would be delivered. It stated:
In circumstances where the Amendment will lift the barrier to development, it is speculative to suggest it will provide a net community benefit when it is not known whether the community will be provided with other items of basic and essential infrastructure.
It submitted that without a comprehensive funding strategy, the Amendment does not enable efficient, equitable, accessible and timely provision of social and physical infrastructure.
Other submissions stated the Amendment lacks the critical strategic basis, is out of sequence and does not represent orderly planning.
Submissions also raised issues with the strategic justification for the OSU. The Proponent submitted the OSU is strategically justified because:
Mr Woodland considered the proposed OSU mechanism, if properly designed, has the potential to meet the policy objectives of being efficient, equitable, accessible and timely. He referred to Plan Melbourne which provides the policy basis for using such a value capture mechanism at page 140:
Urban renewal precincts and sites offer significant opportunities to deliver tangible broader public benefit through their rezoning for social or affordable housing, as well as local assets such as open space and community facilities.
Consideration needs to be given to developing a new requirement that when land is rezoned to allow for higher value uses, a proportion of the value uplift should be contributed to the delivery of broader public benefit outcomes...
Mr Woodland also referred to Victoria's Value Creation and Capture Framework which states:
The Victorian State Planning Policy Framework sets out formal land use planning policies and principles that apply to value creation and capture tools such as planning controls and development contributions plans. This includes broader policy objectives such as economic development and environmental management, open space and housing development.
He considered the OSU mechanism would contribute to achieving the FB Framework's open space policy outcomes.
The Committee considers the Amendment is strategically justified and will result in net community benefit.
The FB Framework and relevant planning policy objectives provide strategic support for the introduction of funding mechanisms to collect contributions towards infrastructure projects in the FBURA. All projects included in the FBDCP and OSU are included in the FB Framework. The FB Framework provides the strategic justification for these projects.
The FB Framework cannot be realised without a fit for purpose development contributions mechanism (and associated planning scheme changes). The FBDCP is the key implementation measure for achieving this. The Committee agrees with Mr Woodland that Plan Melbourne and Victoria's Value Creation and Capture Framework provide additional policy bases for applying the OSU mechanism. The key benefit of the Amendment is that it provides the two principal funding mechanisms to deliver a large proportion of the infrastructure required to achieve the FB Framework vision in an orderly manner.
The Committee acknowledges the concerns of Melbourne and Port Phillip City Councils that not all projects that are essential (in the ordinary sense of the word) for the required urban transformation of the FBURA are included in the FBDCP and the OSU, and that other funding sources yet to be secured will be required. This creates a level of uncertainty.
To minimise this, and for the reasons set out in Chapter 4.8, the Committee considers that a comprehensive funding strategy that specifies how all infrastructure required for the FBURA will be funded, and when they will be delivered, is required to achieve orderly planning and avoid some of the potential disbenefits of the partial funding approach of the Amendment. This will be particularly important for Victorian government funded 'Catalytic' projects like the Fishermans Bend tram and the Metro 2 train which will be crucial for realising the FB Framework vision. In addition, in following chapters the Committee addresses the choice of projects for inclusion in both the FBDCP and the OSU and makes several recommendations to better achieve the FB Framework.
In Chapter 6, the Committee addresses concerns about the uncertainties of the OSU as a mechanism to deliver open space identified in the FB Framework, either at all or in a timely manner. It concludes that the potential negative impacts of the OSU are manageable and that overall, the OSU is likely to act as incentive for developers to deliver open space free of charge to the Victorian government and thereby assist in achieving the FB Framework vision.
The Amendment is an important step forward in achieving the FB Framework vision. It is already overdue. There will be continuing uncertainties and challenges in the immense transformation of the FBURA from its current industrial setting to its future high density urban form, providing much needed housing. The regular reviews of the FBDCP and the OSU will ensure that any failings of the funding mechanisms are able to be addressed in a timely manner to ensure the orderly delivery of the infrastructure required for the growing population.
On balance, the Committee considers that if the specific issues discussed in the following chapters are addressed, the Amendment will achieve a net community benefit.
For the reasons set out in this Report and subject to addressing the more specific issues raised in submissions and discussed in the following chapters, the Committee concludes:
Proceed with draft Amendment GC224 subject to the Committee's recommended changes in this Report.
3.2 Implementing the Fishermans Bend Framework Plan
3.2.1 Revision of the Fishermans Bend Framework
In addition to implementing the FBDCP and the OSU, the Amendment also proposes to:
Evidence and submissions relating to the IPO and master planning are discussed in Chapter 3.3.
The issue is whether it is appropriate and justified to revise urban design elements of the FBURA, established in the FB Framework, through this Amendment.
At the Hearing, the Proponent referred to a range of changes to the urban design elements of the FB Framework proposed by the Amendment as "minor refinements to the layout of FBURA". They were also often referred to as 'spatial changes' to the FBURA.
In response to a Committee Direction, the Proponent provided Document 74c which outlined the proposed changes to the current provisions. The current provisions had been introduced by Amendment GC81 to implement the FB Framework. It explained the work undertaken to inform the proposed changes included:
Melbourne and Port Phillip City Councils both submitted the changes were significant, were not minor and not supported by adequate urban design work or evidence.
Port Phillip City Council submitted it was not appropriate to revisit the FB Framework through the development contributions process. It added:
Council submits that this has the real potential to undo a lot of the good work that was achieved via the Framework and its associated lengthy committee hearing [for Amendment GC81].
It submitted any revisiting or refinement of the FB Framework should be done through the precinct implementation plan (PIP) process. It noted the draft Montague PIP process was underway, but not complete, and submitted that any changes to the FB Framework resulting from that process should occur through that planning scheme amendment and not as part of this Amendment. Port Phillip provided a document outlining a range of mapping and spatial changes appearing in the Proponent's Amendment documents that were matters being dealt with in the draft Montague PIP.[3] The Proponent agreed that several of the proposed changes should be addressed through the Montague PIP process and removed them from the Amendment documents (final version).[4]
Revised locations for community hubs, or their investigation areas, were generally supported however Port Phillip City Council submitted the Health and Wellbeing Hub investigation area proposed for Wirraway should be reinstated. It submitted the Hub should not be removed from the planning scheme maps strategies without a clear and transparent commitment and consultation on the matter from the Victorian government, including if the plan is to no longer deliver the hub here or elsewhere.
Ms Hodyl, the only urban design expert to give evidence at the Hearing, stated the Amendment proposed significant changes to the public realm in Lorimer that should be subject to a thorough design review process, which had not occurred. She did not support the proposed changes in Lorimer except for the following, which she considered would improve urban design outcomes:
She considered that local streets should remain 22 metres wide so that transport and landscape requirements can be met.
Mr Panozzo, in considering the provision of open space and community infrastructure in the FBDCP, raised concerns with several departures of the FBDCP from open space and community infrastructure provision as set out in the FB Framework. He noted the proposed departures were not underpinned by an analysis of the open space, sport and recreation network and demand.
The urban design changes proposed by the exhibited Amendment vary from minor refinements to significant changes. The Committee agrees with Ms Hodyl that proposed changes to the Lorimer public realm are significant. The same applies to several changes to Sandridge, Wirraway and Montague. They cannot fairly be described as "minor refinements to the layout of FBURA" as the Proponent sought to do.
Several of the proposed changes were the subject of extensive submissions. The Committee considers the more substantive changes to open space parks in following chapters.
The Committee accepts it could be appropriate to include minor refinements as part of this Amendment where it can be demonstrated that the proposed changes will not undermine the FB Framework vision, its objectives or the adequacy of infrastructure provision required by the future FBURA community. It is also sensible to include any genuine corrections needed.
However, many of the Proponent's proposed changes are more substantial, and are not justified by strategic work. Further, the Proponent did not provide evidence (for example, urban design or traffic evidence) in support of the proposed departures from the FB Framework.
The FBURA will ultimately be home to over 80,000 residents and thousands of office workers and visitors in a high density environment. After comprehensive consideration, the GC81 Review Panel found this future population would need to be supported with sufficient public open space, including linear open space along road reserves, and transformation of the public realm including generous streets. The Committee does not dispute Ms Hodyl' s evidence that a few of the proposed changes would provide better urban design outcomes, but overall the proposed spatial changes were not adequately ventilated before the Committee.
In general, public realm and urban design changes to the FB Framework should be considered through the PIP process undertaken for each FBURA precinct or, where applicable, through the master planning process (discussed below at Chapter 3.3).
The exception is community hubs, or their investigation areas, where new or revised locations have been determined in consultation with the relevant stakeholders. The Committee accepts this is not the case for the Health and Wellbeing Hub in Wirraway and agrees with Port Phillip Council that reference to an investigation area for this Hub should be reinstated in Clause 11.03-6L-07.
Unless expressly specified in this Report (Volumes 1 and 2), the Committee does not support any of the proposed changes to the future urban layout of the FBURA identified:
The Committee recommends the following changes to the draft Amendment:
Amend the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan, as shown in Report Volume 2 Appendix I, to:
Amend all proposed Melbourne Planning Scheme and Port Phillip Planning Scheme provisions to reflect and be consistent with the revised Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan.
The exhibited FBDCP showed a reconfigured area of open space for Lorimer Central Park, a Precinct level park, as compared to the current Map 1 in Schedule 4 to the Capital City Zone (CCZ4) in the Melbourne Planning Scheme. The existing layout is based on the FB Framework. It is also proposed to include Lorimer Central Park in a master planning area, along with surrounding land.
Figure 2 Existing and exhibited CCZ4 open spaces
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.
Lorimer Central Park in the existing CCZ4 is shown in the location of a strata title development known as 'Lorimer Place'. Lorimer Place includes 25 lots and the common property on Plan of Subdivision PS602537Y (owned by the Lorimer Place Owners Corporation). The common property includes a strip of land shown as "10 metre road widening" (yellow line) in the exhibited CCZ4 and is currently used as a private access road for lot owners.
The issue is whether the exhibited layout for Lorimer Central Park (L_OS03 and OSU_L3 & 4) is appropriate and justified.
Consistent with the FB Framework, Ms Hodyl supported reverting to the current configuration of Lorimer Central Park and surrounding open space and laneways as shown in the CCZ4 because:
VCHQ2 Pty Ltd, a Lorimer Place lot owner, supported the existing configuration of the park.
As the Hearing progressed the Proponent tabled various documents containing urban design modelling and overshadowing analysis for Lorimer Central.[5] Ultimately, the Proponent agreed to reinstate the current CCZ4 open space layout and its surrounds, and this was reflected in the Amendment documents (final version). It noted that further options for the layout of Lorimer Central Park could be considered through the master plan process.
Melbourne City Council did not support the exhibited configuration for Lorimer Central Park. It was "not closed to considering alternative arrangements for Lorimer Central through the master planning (incorporated plan) process" but considered it highly unlikely alternative arrangements would allow for an appropriate urban design that would also support OSU capacity. It remained open to master planning for the area which includes Lorimer Central Park provided built form provisions are included in IPO schedule to protect the park from overshadowing.
Urban design analysis for Lorimer Central Park presented during the Hearing did not persuade the Committee that the exhibited layout, or any alternative layout tabled, would produce a superior urban design layout to the existing configuration as shown in the CCZ4, or maintain adequate access to winter sunlight. There is no evidence before the Committee to warrant departing from the current configuration of Lorimer Central Park and the surrounding street network at this time. The Committee accepts Ms Hodyl's evidence that the current configuration will deliver a better urban design outcome than the exhibited layout.
The Proponent provided revised layouts for Lorimer Neighbourhood Park as follows:
Figure 3 Layouts for Lorimer Neighbourhood Park (in order): existing CCZ4, exhibited version, version 1, final version
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.
Source: existing and exhibited: Document 15; version 1: Document 145h; final version: Document 338
The issue is whether the exhibited layout for Lorimer Street neighbourhood open space (L_OS04 and OSU L_5) (Lorimer Neighbourhood Park) is appropriate and justified.
The Proponent submitted the version 1 layout was a better outcome than the existing CCZ4 configuration because:
The Proponent provided documentation concerning a current development proposal for 99-109 Lorimer Street (Document 107d). 99 Lorimer Street Project Pty Ltd, representing the landowner, submitted:
Ms Hodyl gave evidence (in relation to version 1 layout):
Changes to the design of the Lorimer Parkway, including the removal of a key east-west street link, and changes to the Turner Street landscape design, ... together will diminish the quality of this space, and its role as a major landscaped civic, cycling and pedestrian spine.
Changes to the configuration of Open Space 4 [Lorimer Neighbourhood Park], ... will impact the function and experience of this public space, and result in it being disconnected from the parkway.
She recommended reverting Lorimer Neighbourhood Park and its surrounding road network to its current CCZ4 configuration. Ms Hodyl noted alternative layouts could be pursued through the development of a master plan, paired with the OSU, and must deliver the Lorimer Parkway concept.
The Committee acknowledges that some urban design work has been undertaken as part of the current development proposal for 99-109 Lorimer Street. However, the exhibited layout of the Lorimer Neighbourhood Park has potential to disconnect the open space from the Lorimer Parkway, an integral part of the FB Framework.
The Committee accepts the evidence of Ms Hodyl that the proposed changes to Lorimer Neighbourhood Park and surrounding street network will compromise key elements of the open space itself and their role in the east-west parkway linkage envisaged for Lorimer.
The Proponent supported reinstating the laneway detail for 99 Lorimer Street, to better understand the site's proposed permeability and green links. This goes some way to addressing the Committee's concerns, but design challenges remain and further consideration is required.
Map 1 in the existing CCZ4 shows a green diagonal hatched area of '10 metre landscape setback' located within private land to the south of the 30-metre-wide Turner Street road reserve (Turner Street Linear Park). The exhibited CCZ4 shows the 10-metre strip within the 30-metre road reserve.
Figure 4 Existing and exhibited layouts of Turner Street
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.
The issue is whether it is appropriate and justified to relocate the 10-metre-wide linear landscape strip (open space) from its current CCZ4 location south of the Turner Street road reserve between Graham Street and Ingles Street.
Ms Hodyl recommended Turner Street be 40 metres wide including a 10-metre-wide linear open space. She considered that moving the 10-metre landscape setback into the 30-metre road reserve would diminish the urban outcomes in Lorimer. She stated the current layout was "an important element of creating a generous green, landscaped spine (see Figure 15) that also accommodates transport needs". Figure 15 of Ms Hodyl's evidence is shown below.
Ms Hodyl referred to the Lorimer Parkway, which includes the Turner Street Linear Park, as the defining feature of the Lorimer precinct:
...a highly-landscaped, pedestrian-oriented east-west spine that is an attractive, direct connection, generous in dimensions and supporting a diversity of uses, social interactions and transport movements. This has been a core concept of Lorimer since 2013 and has remained in place through multiple iterations of the design and planning strategy for Lorimer.
In her view, a 40 metre width was necessary to achieve all of the public realm and urban design outcomes required for the Turner Street Linear Park.
Figure 5 Ms Hodyl's evidence - Turner Street indicative design concept prepared by Melbourne City Council
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 Proponent did not agree that 40 metres is required and submitted:
Melbourne City Council submitted Turner Street Linear Park, as envisaged by the FB Framework and currently shown in the CCZ4, is essential to the vision for Lorimer. It referred to the following statement in the FB Framework:
This high density, mixed-use precinct [Lorimer] is centred on the creation of a central parkland and is stitched together with a linear green spine and landscaped pedestrian and cycling links. This will create an important public transport, recreational link and biodiversity corridor linking to the adjacent Employment Precinct (original emphasis).
Melbourne City Council did not agree the streets referenced by the Proponent were appropriate comparisons to the Turner Street Linear Park. It referred to the Fishermans Bend Ministerial Advisory Committee's report on the FB Framework which recommended that priority be given to "the development of the proposed Turner Street Boulevard in order to showcase the open space, active transport and biodiversity vision for Fishermans Bend".
The FB Framework seeks to integrate open space and provide built form relief through wider road reserves. Unlike Collins Street, the FB Framework identifies a 10-metre-wide linear open space corridor along Turner Street. The Committee accepts Ms Hodyl's evidence about the importance of Turner Street forming part of the Lorimer Parkway and its role in assisting to achieve the FB Framework targets for sustainable transport. The Committee accepts 40 metres is required to achieve an appropriate level of functionality given its intended uses (tram, cycling corridor, pedestrian boulevard and open space). It considers this to be the case whether or not Turner Street is ultimately closed to vehicular traffic.
The Proponent has not provided sufficient urban design analysis or any evidence to support the proposed change.
The exhibited FBDCP identifies Wirraway North Park as a Precinct level park.
The existing CCZ1 in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme shows Wirraway North Park as being approximately 2.26 hectares. The park includes the property at 112 Salmon Street and part of the adjacent property at 128 Salmon Street. The exhibited CCZ1 shows a reduced area of approximately 1.39 hectares, which only affects 112 Salmon Street.
Figure 6 Existing and exhibited layouts for Wirraway North Park
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 issue is whether it is appropriate and justified to reduce the size of the Precinct level park at the corner of Salmon Street and Woolboard Road (W_OS05) (Wirraway North Park).
It submitted future precinct planning for Wirraway will provide opportunity for:
Port Phillip City Council sought to retain the park size shown in the existing CCZ1. It submitted:
Port Phillip City Council relied on Mr Panozzo's evidence that identified a significant shortage of open space in the FBURA to support its submission that the amount and functionality of open space in the FBURA should not be reduced by the Amendment.
The Proponent challenged Mr Panozzo's evidence stating, in its Part C submission, that the question of the adequacy of the open space to be provided in the FBURA was fully resolved through GC81 process.
Mr Woodland's evidence was that the FBDCP will deliver 95 percent of the open space identified in the FB Framework (or once Kirrip Park is accounted for, 99 percent).
As a Precinct level park, the grounds and facilities of Wirraway North Park serve a function beyond the immediate neighbourhood. The Proponent has sought to demonstrate the layout and design of the park can fulfill this purpose with the required infrastructure accommodated on 112 Salmon Street only, without the need to acquire (part of) 128 Salmon Street.
The Proponent accepted the provision of open space was settled through the GC81 Amendment process, and yet seeks to reduce the amount of open space through what it describes as "minor refinements". It may be that the reduction is minor in the context of the FBURA as a whole and Mr Woodland's figures are correct. However, the Committee is mindful that the GC81 Panel acknowledged that the proposed provision of open space in Fishermans Bend falls well short of the targets set by the Planisphere Strategy (which were based on recommendations of the World Health Organisation) and comparable international and local examples.
The Committee has concerns that the proposed reduction in area of Wirraway North Park could have a significant impact on its functionality as a Precinct level park. The concept plans provided by the Proponent provided no comfort that the reduced size is workable for its intended purpose. Further detailed work is required.
These matters, together with the location of access roads for the park, should be explored through the PIP for Wirraway. To the extent that any consequential changes to the FBDCP are required as a result of the PIP process, they can be addressed through the associated planning scheme amendment.
The FB Framework identifies the park as a long term project with a layout shown in green on Figure 7. The open space area is 1.1 hectares and the adjacent developable area (shown in white) is 0.9 hectares.
Figure 7 FB Framework layout for Montague North Park
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 7 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The existing CCZ1 shows an area larger than that in the FB Framework (see Figure 8).
Figure 8 Existing CCZ1 and exhibited FBDCP for Montague North Park layouts
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 8 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Source: existing: Document 30; exhibited: Document 3
The exhibited FBDCP identifies Montague North Park as a Neighbourhood level park with an area of approximately 1.58 hectares as shown in Figure 8 (known as 11 Montague Street). The triangle of land proposed for removal, known as 1-5 Brady Street, has an area of 0.24 hectares.
Project M_OS02 is for embellishment (only) of the park. The underlying land at 11 Montague Street and 1-5 Brady Street is Crown land.
The issue is whether it is appropriate and justified to make spatial changes to Montague North Park, corner of Montague Street and Munro Street (M_OS02) (Montague North Park).
The Proponent provided the following map (Figure 9) from the draft Montague PIP to show the proposed layout of the park. The item numbers represent:
Figure 9 Extract from draft Montague Precinct Infrastructure Plan showing revised Montague North Park and Doran Street Plaza
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 9 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Port Phillip City Council did not support the new park on Doran Street as part of this Amendment because it is not in the existing FB Framework and is not proposed for funding in the FBDCP. It submitted this change, if it is to be pursued, should be dealt with in the Montague PIP process.
The Committee has interpreted the Proponent's final position as proposing to change the layout of Montague North Park (reduce its size and, consequently, its shape) from that shown in the current CCZ1 and to provide a commensurate measure of open space in the separate location of Doran Street without FBDCP funding for embellishment.
The current CCZ1 layout was the result of consideration by the GC81 Panel. It said:
The [GC81] Panel considers that the whole of the Montague North site should be used for public open space purposes. Montague has the lowest amount of open space per resident and worker ... and increasing the amount of public open space by expanding Montague North Park will be a good outcome.
It agrees with Port Phillip that the expanded park ... frees up land for the location of a major Sport and Recreation hub, which will create excellent synergies.
The Proponent has provided no open space, urban design or other strategic planning work to justify the proposed change or to demonstrate that the proposed open space area in Doran Street is an appropriate 'replacement' for the removal of 1-5 Brady Street from the park. It relies primarily on the existing "ongoing" lease arrangements over 1-5 Brady Street to justify the reduction in size of the park but has provided very little detail about those lease arrangements.
This has not been helpful to the Committee. The mere existence of a leasehold interest over an area of future open space currently shown in the relevant planning scheme is not a barrier to that land ultimately being acquired and used for open space. The Victorian government could wait for the lease to expire, seek to negotiate with the lessee to terminate the lease early or compulsorily acquire the leasehold interest.
If the use of 1-5 Brady Street as car parking for the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre is to be given priority over the provision of open space in this location then it must be demonstrated that the alternative put forward provides an overall equivalence, not just in total area of open space but also its functionality and role in the urban form of Montague. The Committee is not satisfied that this has been demonstrated as part of this process and there is no basis to depart from the layout as shown in the current CCZ1.
The Committee acknowledges that these (or similar) changes are proposed as part of the Montague PIP process. They should be thoroughly ventilated and tested through appropriate strategic work and evidence as part of that process. It is inappropriate for the changes to be made as part of this Amendment.
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 10 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Figure 11 Exhibited Port Phillip IPO2 locations
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 11 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
In the exhibited Amendment, master planning was proposed to be voluntary, and permits could be granted prior to the inclusion of an incorporated plan in the scheme. This was referred to as an 'opt-in' approach. Landowner(s), or the Victorian government, would decide if, and when, to use the approach. It was suggested that the master planning approach might be taken up, for example:
Melbourne City Council did not support the use of the IPO in Lorimer, submitting it would:
Melbourne City Council requested that if the IPO is retained, permit activity be prohibited in Area B (IPO7 Map 1), which includes Lorimer Central Park, until a master plan has been incorporated into the Planning Scheme. The Proponent supported this request, noting the area is impacted by the proposed tram route, open space and community infrastructure. The IPO7 (final version) included a new requirement and decision guidelines seeking to respond to the views of Melbourne City Council.
Mr Woodland recommended development of incorporated plans for Areas B in both the IPO7 (Melbourne) and IPO2 (Port Phillip), and the western portion of Area A in the IPO2, be government led rather than voluntary due to the complexities of the sites and the need to coordinate public transport infrastructure. The Proponent supported this approach for Areas B in both planning schemes.
Goodman requested the DPO rather than the IPO be applied to its five sites because:
Ms Hodyl stated the IPO schedule should not include provisions that undermine important amenity provisions that apply across Lorimer.
Melbourne City Council submitted that if the IPO is retained:
An incorporated plan must not result in an overall residential density greater than that specified in Table 1 of Schedule 4 to the Capital City Zone across the nominated incorporated plan area, not including additional residential density arising from the integration of Social Housing Uplift or Open Space Uplift, as outlined in Schedule 4 to the Capital City Zone.
The Proponent also revised the incorporated plan requirements to clarify that mandatory built form provisions cannot be modified through the incorporated plan process, but that variations to discretionary provisions in the relevant DDO schedule may be made.
After comprehensively comparing the functionality and benefits of the Development Plan Overlay (DPO) and IPO within the context of advice in Planning Practice Note 23, Mr Woodland supported the IPO as the appropriate tool for master planning. Relevant advice he referred to states:
The IPO requirement for a planning scheme amendment to incorporate or change the plan enables third parties to be involved in the process of making or changing the plan. For this reason, the IPO should normally be used for land that is likely to affect third-party interests and land comprising multiple lots in different ownership. Most redevelopment of existing urban land will fall into this category, particularly where the surrounding land use is residential.
Melbourne City Council requested it be a referral and approval authority for incorporated plans. Mr Woodland considered this to be unnecessary. He explained:
Mr Woodland recommended that rather than Melbourne City Council having official referral authority status, the IPO2 and IPO7 should require the views of the relevant council (and the Department of Transport and Planning) be sought and responded to. The Proponent agreed and included relevant provisions in subsequent versions of the IPO schedules.
Master planning will provide an appropriate level of flexibility for the delivery of infrastructure on large or complicated sites. It will provide flexibility in terms of timing, allowing a landowner or developer to lead the process when land is ripe for development and conversely, allowing the Victorian government to lead where necessary to activate development. This could be crucial in facilitating early development in FBURA precincts that do not yet have an approved PIP.
The Committee considers that the benefits of this flexibility outweigh potential downsides of the proposed approach. It acknowledges concerns about adding another layer of strategic planning and the possibility of a fragmented approach. However the Committee is confident that with careful coordination and communication between stakeholders, these concerns can be addressed.
The flexibility enabled through the IPO master planning process should not extend to allowing changes to key mandatory built form provisions in the relevant DDO schedules. The Committee considers relevant provisions in the final versions of the IPO2 and IPO7 achieve this.
The Committee is concerned about the proposed change during the Hearing to the master planning approach for Areas B in the IPO7 and IPO2 which would prohibit the grant of a permit prior to the inclusion of an incorporated plan in the scheme. This would have the effect of making the preparation of a master plan mandatory for these areas rather than voluntary. It has no information as to whether affected landowners fully understand the implications of this proposed change, or if they are aware of the change at all.
The Committee does agree with Mr Woodland's advice that it is preferrable that master planning for complex sites where public transport is proposed should be led by the Victorian government. However, it believes the preparation of a PIP is the appropriate process for this type of master planning because there will be factors to consider well beyond the boundaries of the incorporated plan area. Master planning through the IPO should not replace the function or need for the PIPs. For these reasons the Committee does not support the proposal to prohibit the grant of a permit in these areas prior to the development of an incorporated plan.
Using the IPO, rather than the DPO, ensures that changes to the FB Framework or any approved PIP will be subject to a planning scheme amendment and the required strategic justification provided. This is important as the IPO allows variations to discretionary built form standards established in the DDO schedules.
Mr Woodland provided sound reasons why the IPO, rather than the DPO, is the appropriate tool to enable the master planning process. The DPO provides a less restrictive approach by enabling development plans to be approved or amended without the need for a planning scheme amendment. However, the intensive scale and nature of change envisaged on these large existing urban sites is likely to impact third party interests. Consistent with advice in Planning Practice Note 23, the IPO is the more appropriate tool in these circumstances.
The Committee supports the IPO2 and IPO7 (final version) provisions which guarantee that the overall residential density of the incorporated plan area is not increased (leaving aside SHU and OSU dwelling increases) and that SHU or OSU dwelling densities cannot be redistributed.
The Committee agrees with referencing the views of both councils in the incorporated plan requirements of their respective IPO schedule as shown in the final version documents. Future development will ultimately impact land in each municipality so it is important each council's views are sought in the development of the plan and seriously considered, rather than seeking their views through referral of an amendment as part of the exhibition process once a plan has already been prepared.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the draft Amendment GC224:
Amend Melbourne Planning Scheme Incorporated Plan Overlay Schedule 7, as shown in Report Volume 2 Appendix G:4, and Port Phillip Planning Scheme Incorporated Plan Overlay Schedule 2, as shown in Report Volume 2 Appendix H:4, to:
3.3.2 Melbourne IPO7 master planning boundaries
The Amendment proposes to apply the IPO Schedule 7 (IPO7) to enable master planning in three locations in the Lorimer precinct shown in Figure 10 above.
The issue is whether the master planning boundaries proposed for Melbourne IPO7 Areas A, B and C are appropriate.
Melbourne City Council did not support the application of the IPO7 to Area A.
Ms Hodyl considered IPO7 was not needed for Area A, and stated:
The Proponent did not support Ms Hodyl's recommendation to delete Area A. Mr Woodland considered IPO7 should apply to Area A because it is a large site in single ownership in the Lorimer Core (and noting that the IPO7 contemplates master planning in Area A on an opt-in basis).
Ms Hodyl and Mr Woodland agreed it was acceptable to apply the IPO7 to Area B. Mr Woodland explained master planning was needed for land use and infrastructure in Area B because it comprises multiple sites in the Lorimer Core and the proposed tram route bisects it. He thought the Victorian government should lead the master planning process in Area B. Ms Hodyl noted that while application of the IPO7 could lead to further uncertainty on future urban design outcomes that will be delivered, it does provide a suitable vehicle for resolving design changes and connecting them to the infrastructure funding mechanism.
Ms Hodyl and Mr Woodland agreed IPO7 was justified for Area C (as exhibited). Mr Woodland stated it is a large site in single ownership that should have opt-in master planning.
Claric 178 Pty Ltd (Claric) requested the IPO be applied to 13 Hartley Street (parcel 110) and 95 Lorimer Street (parcel 111) to identify the area as subject to future master planning to determine the exact location of infrastructure. It considered the master planning process on these sites would enable options to be explored.
The Proponent agreed with Claric and submitted IPO7 Area C should be extended to parcels 110, 111 and 112. This was reflected in the IPO7 (final version). Melbourne City Council did not support the extended area, submitting that 'greater flexibility' was not a sufficient reason alone to support application of the IPO.
The Committee has concluded master planning on large or complex sites is appropriate. While it agrees with Ms Hodyl that aspects of Area A are logical and not overly complex, it is a large area that could support a range of future design layouts. The Committee supports revisions to the IPO schedules which remove the ability to vary mandatory requirements under the CCZ4 or DDO67, allowing amendments to discretionary standards only. Through this approach, the Committee considers there is scope to explore design options with a degree of flexibility that will not compromise important design standards established through existing planning provisions.
IPO7 is appropriate for Area B because it includes several properties and has a range of complex issues (in particular the proposed public transport corridor), and therefore warrants further investigation through a master planning process. The Committee considers the IPO7 (final version) will avoid sub-optimal outcomes for Lorimer Central Park by removing the ability to alter mandatory provisions in the DDO67.
The Committee agrees with the Proponent that Area C should be extended to include Parcels 110, 111 and 112 east of Hartley Street. These areas could benefit from further exploration of options to coordinate planning for future parks and the public transport corridor.
The Committee concludes the master planning boundaries proposed for Areas A, B and C in the IPO7 are generally appropriate, although Area C should be revised to:
3.3.3 Port Phillip IPO2 master planning boundaries
The Amendment proposes to apply the IPO Schedule 2 (IPO2) to enable master planning in three locations in in Port Phillip shown in Figure 11 above.
The issue is whether the master planning boundaries proposed for Port Phillip IPO2 Areas A, B and C are appropriate.
Mr Woodland considered IPO2 was justified for Area A because the area:
Mr Woodland considered IPO2 was justified for Area B because the area:
Mr Woodland did not identify similar justification for application of the IPO2 to Area C. He recommended the IPO2 not apply to Area C but if it remained, it should be developer-led and there should be discretion for a permit to be granted before an incorporated plan is approved (in other words, master planning should be 'opt-in' in Area C).
The Proponent submitted the preparation of an incorporated plan should be led by the Victorian government in IPO2 Area C because it contains numerous government land parcels.
IPO2 is appropriate for Areas A and B because they include large sites with complex issues that should be further investigated through a master planning process, consistent with the reasons provided by Mr Woodland.
The site at 50 Salmon Street (part of Area A) is an example of a large site with complex issues that would benefit from master planning because:
If infrastructure and access are not sequenced in a certain order, 50 Salmon Street may become 'land locked'. A master planning process is required to ensure this is appropriately addressed.
While acknowledging Mr Woodland's recommendation that Area C not be subject to an IPO, the Committee considers there is scope to explore design options through master planning for Area C.
As for the Lorimer IPO7, the Committee supports proposed changes to the IPO2 (final version) which remove the ability to vary mandatory built form standards in the applicable DDO schedules. The IPO2 (final version) allows master planning with a degree of flexibility that will not compromise important design standards.
The Committee concludes the master planning boundaries proposed for Areas A, B and C in the IPO2 are generally appropriate.
Ms Fisher said the Fishermans Bend Taskforce provided the amount and form of the proposed DIL. The Proponent did not propose to make any change to the proposed capped DIL, other than as discussed in relation to the application of the Community Infrastructure Levy (see Chapter 4.2).
Submissions generally supported the 'three-in-one' approach to the DIL because it provides developers with upfront certainty about applicable infrastructure charges.
Several submissions did not support, or raised concerns with, the proposed DIL rate and said it:
Mr Ainsaar noted the Arden DCP levy amount excludes drainage works and open space land. He added:
No party provided evidence which tested the development feasibility of the capped DIL. All DCP experts agreed it was appropriate to apply a cap in certain circumstances. Mr Ainsaar explained capping the levy amount is unusual but appropriate in this instance to limit any adverse impact of levies on housing affordability and development viability. He considered that the extent to which a collecting agency wishes to subsidise development through use of a capped levy is at its discretion.
Mr De Silva noted that the capped levy was a key feature of the FBDCP with the shortfall in funding resting with the Victorian government unless other incentives were able to assist in reducing the funding gap.
No expert advanced a view regarding the proposed levy amount.
A submission questioned whether applying a single charge area for the FBURA is fair or whether there should be separate charge areas for each of the FBURA precincts. It noted the Montague precinct will only benefit from an increase of 0.6 hectares of public open space, and yet landowners in that precinct are expected to make the same contribution to open space as landowners in other precincts.
All DCP experts agreed that it was appropriate for the FBDCP to be based on one charge area.
Mr Ainsaar considered the adoption of a single charge area appropriate because:
It is accepted that an alternative approach would have been to divide the proposed charge area for the DCP into multiple smaller charge areas in which it could be said that there was a nexus between the local roads in each charge area and the proposed charge area. This approach would, however, have made the funding of larger scale items of infrastructure more complex as it would have required decisions to be made about the level of usage which should be attributed to each item in respect of each charge area.
On balance it was considered preferable to adopt a more straightforward approach, especially in circumstances where lower order infrastructure was capable of being funded through other sources including Council rates and conditions on development permits.
Several submissions also raised concerns in relation to the 100 percent apportionment of all FBDCP projects (except one) to the FBURA, submitting that some projects would benefit external users.
The Proponent explained the FBDCP levee project is part of a proposed levee that extends beyond the boundaries of the FBURA. The part of the levee included in the FBDCP extends from Spencer Street to Bolte Bridge / Graham Street and the FBDCP does not include the section along the northern and western extent of the NEIC.
Port Phillip City Council submitted a DCP should ensure funds are raised equitably across all users of infrastructure in a defined catchment. It questioned whether the major flood and drainage infrastructure included in the FBDCP had a wider benefit than the FBURA community. It noted the DCP Guidelines set out the principles of a DCP, including "infrastructure costs must be apportioned on the basis of projected share of usage". Port Phillip City Council submitted the FBDCP should include a reasonable external apportionment for Melbourne Water drainage projects, based on the proportion of the area protected in the FBDCP compared with the proportion of the area outside the FBDCP charge area that is protected.
Melbourne City Council's submission aligned with Port Phillip City Council's emphasising that external usage of all major drainage projects, not just the levee, should be apportioned on the understanding that the drainage projects operate as an integrated whole. It submitted Melbourne Water would need to determine whether different projects would require different levels of apportionment.
Melbourne Water submitted the FBDCP area receives the principal benefit of the drainage infrastructure provided for in the FBDCP and no evidence has been presented with an assessment of contended external demand. Melbourne Water explained modelling was undertaken for the whole Fishermans Bend area including the NEIC and it is not possible to estimate with any level of accuracy the external benefit of drainage projects. It raised concerns as to how funding from external beneficiaries would be obtained within a reasonable timeframe to allow delivery of the infrastructure.
The Proponent submitted the component of the development levy notionally attributed to paying for major drainage works is significantly below a 100 percent apportionment of demand because it is not a full cost recovery DCP. It said apportionment in the context of a capped levy is a theoretical exercise as the Victorian government is the Development Agency and will effectively be meeting the cost of external demand (consistent with the position adopted by the Advisory Committee considering the Arden DCP).
Melbourne Water agreed with this approach to external apportionment and submitted:
This is a radical and new approach which is not provided for the DCP Guidelines, but nevertheless accords with the principles of need, nexus and equity.
Port Phillip City Council contested the proposition that the funding gap is the external apportionment. It submitted apportionment relates to the costs attributed to the charge area and external benefitting areas, not the amount collected from the charge area. In this case, 100 percent of the cost of the drainage projects has been attributed to the FBURA and zero percent has been attributed to those external areas that benefit from those same drainage projects.
Melbourne City Council clarified it is not seeking perfect apportionment, but rather that the matter be addressed properly.
Regarding the levee, the Proponent submitted it is difficult to apply this concept to a large piece of fixed infrastructure which is critical to delivery of the FBURA because:
Development infrastructure levies are one factor which affect the development viability of projects. The exhibited FBDCP states that the "draft DCP charge rate has been set at a level that ensures that development makes a reasonable contribution towards the cost of delivering essential infrastructure in Fishermans Bend, whilst also balancing development feasibility considerations".
The Victorian government has committed to fund the shortfall for FBDCP projects of approximately $700 million and this amount is at its discretion.
There is no evidence before the Committee to suggest the proposed rate will create a major deterrent to development in the FBURA or significantly impact housing affordability. None of the DCP experts raised concerns about the amount of the capped levy.
Mr Ainsaar's evidence included a useful comparison of the various component of the FBDCP DIL with levies applied in the Arden Urban Renewal Precinct. The Committee accepts that once all component parts, including drainage and open space, are considered, the levies on future development for the two renewal areas are likely similar.
The Committee agrees with Mr Ainsaar that development contributions are one element in the housing affordability equation and that property markets and conditions will fluctuate and change over the life of the FBDCP. It is expected that the capped DIL rate will be considered alongside development activity levels through the five-year reviews of the FBDCP.
A DCP must comply with the PE Act and the DCP Ministerial Direction. In addition, the DCP Guidelines should be followed unless it can be demonstrated an alternative methodology can continue to meet the requirements of the PE Act.
Consistent with the DCP Guidelines, the FBDCP should (amongst other things):
The Committee considers the FBDCP generally demonstrates nexus because the new infrastructure needed for the new FBURA community has generally been justified through the FB Framework since 2018.
However, calculation of the DIL amount is not based on an apportionment exercise and is not transparent because it has been capped at what the Proponent considered a reasonable upper limit, rather than based on the value and apportionment of total project costs (as per the DCP Guidelines).
The Committee has stated above that, in principle, it accepts a capped levy approach because it will help ensure the levy amount does not hinder the feasibility of future development needed for the FBURA community.
The Committee agrees with Mr Ainsaar that a single charge area is appropriate because projects which have been included in the FBDCP are needed and shared across the FBURA and likely to be used by the whole of the future FBURA community. It is therefore equitable that all new development in the FBURA contributes to the provision of FBDCP infrastructure at the same rate.
Regarding external apportionment, the Committee does not believe that demand for all FBDCP projects (except one) will be generated entirely by the existing and future FBURA population. In particular, the Committee has similar concerns to Melbourne and Port Phillip City Councils that the benefit of major drainage projects may extend beyond the FBURA and this has not been accounted for in estimating costs attributable to the FBDCP catchment area. The Committee also has concerns that potential external usage of District open space projects in the FBDCP has not been estimated.
The Proponent has suggested the 29 percent of costs not recovered through the FBDCP (the 'gap') accounts for external demand. An estimated figure of external demand cannot be confirmed because there is no supporting work which apportions each project based on the share of usage within and outside the FBURA. Charging local developers for demand generated by external users would be unfair, inequitable, and does not accord with section 4(1)(a) of the PE Act.
The Committee accepts the Arden DCP also adopts a capped levy without the usual apportionment of projects. The Victorian Planning Authority (VPA) Projects Standing Advisory Committee that considered the Arden DCP concluded:
The Committee is unaware of discussions or information presented to the VPA Projects Standing Advisory Committee that led it to conclude that the funding gap should cover the external benefits. For the FBDCP, the Committee was not presented with enough information to confidently make the same conclusion. To the Committee's knowledge, the work has simply not been done.
The Committee acknowledges the FBURA is, to some extent, an exceptional case. It accepts the single charge area approach which avoids the need to undertake an apportionment exercise for demand for infrastructure within the FBURA, that is, between the four FBURA precincts. However, there is no supporting information to:
To overcome this and to meet the PE Act's requirement for fairness and to improve transparency, an external apportionment exercise must be undertaken before the Amendment is finalised. This will be relatively simple for most projects, but for other projects (such as the major drainage and flood mitigation projects) more detailed analysis will be required.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the draft Amendment:
Amend the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan, as shown in Report Volume 2 Appendix I, to:
The Minister for Planning has issued directions under section 46M of the PE Act, through the DCP Ministerial Direction, which restricts the type of works, services or facilities that can be funded from a DIL. Any unlisted community infrastructure item can only be funded up to a capped amount per dwelling through a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
The exhibited FBDCP did not include a CIL. Rather, it provided that all proposed community infrastructure would be funded through the DIL, including community infrastructure not permitted to be funded from a DIL.
The Minister may grant an exemption from the need to comply with this Direction in relation to a particular development contributions plan. An exemption may be granted subject to conditions.
Some submissions considered the exhibited FBDCP did not comply with the DCP Ministerial Direction because it included community infrastructure projects that were not permitted to be funded through a DIL.
All development contributions experts agreed that charges for community infrastructure should be identified as a separate CIL.
The Proponent acknowledged the discrepancy with the DCP Ministerial Direction, and in the FBDCP (final version) included a CIL in addition to the DIL. It explained:
Port Phillip City Council requested that funding be collected through the DIL method rather than introducing a CIL so that a higher proportion of contributions collected could be directed to community infrastructure projects . It submitted a CIL was unnecessary because:
The Proponent did not oppose the Committee recommending that an exemption be sought from the Minister for Planning to enable all projects to be funded through the DIL, noting that:
Unless an exemption is granted, the DCP Ministerial Direction does not allow community infrastructure to be funded out of a DIL and the FBDCP will require a separate CIL. The Committee acknowledges that the FBDCP (final version) is now compliant with the DCP Ministerial Direction in this regard as it includes a CIL.
The Committee supports the Proponent requesting that the Minister for Planning grant an exemption from the DCP Ministerial Guidelines (Direction 5) to allow community infrastructure to be funded out of the DIL under the FBDCP. This would avoid the need for a CIL which adds complexity to an already complex funding situation.
Even in standard DCPs, the cap on the CIL applied under the DCP Ministerial Direction generally results in substantial shortfalls in the funding of community infrastructure under a DCP. The FBURA is the largest urban renewal project in Australia and its infrastructure requirements are unprecedented. The additional costs of providing the necessary community infrastructure projects in the FBURA will be very substantial, if these are funded through a separate CIL capped in accordance with the DCP Ministerial Direction, and there is a significant risk that essential community infrastructure will not be delivered.
The Committee therefore considers community infrastructure projects in the FBURA should be funded from the DIL, and this is a clear case where the exercise of the Minister's discretion to grant such an exemption would be appropriate.
However, if the exemption is either not sought or not obtained, the FBDCP (final version) with its separate CIL and DIL amounts remains appropriate and community infrastructure can be funded first from the CIL and augmented by other funding sources. In this respect, the Committee supports the clarifications to funding of community infrastructure in the FBDCP (final version).
The Department of Transport and Planning should request an exemption from Direction 5 of the Ministerial Direction on the preparation and content of development contributions plans from the Minister for Planning to allow community infrastructure to be funded by the Development Infrastructure Levy under the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan.
The exhibited FBDCP explains how projects were costed. It states:
A contingency of 15% has been applied to all projects, with the exception of Major drainage and flood mitigation projects costed by Melbourne Water.
The FBDCP (version 1) introduced an alternative contingency approach for the major drainage and flood mitigation projects, costed by Melbourne Water. Melbourne Water adopted a probabilistic (P90) contingency derived by conducting a Monte-Carlo simulation based on the base estimate and the contingent risks identified for each project.
'P90' refers to a cost estimate with a 90 percent probability of the project being delivered within that cost (and a 10 percent chance of exceeding the estimate). 'P50' refers to a cost estimate with a 50 percent probability of the project being delivered within that cost (and a 50 percent chance of exceeding the estimate).
Submissions were concerned about the way that FBDCP projects had been costed, including the contingencies applied.
Parties accepted adopting contingencies in the FBDCP but sought to minimise the extent of funds quarantined. They suggested one way to do that is to progress with the detailed design of projects so the project costs could be estimated with a level of certainty and the need for a large contingency was avoided. The Proponent accepted that principle.
The DCP experts did not address the topic of contingencies at the expert meeting. Mr De Silva considered applying a standard 15 percent contingency to project costings was appropriate and said that any increase to a 'standard' contingency would require further project specific justification.
Melbourne and Port Phillip City Councils submitted:
Melbourne City Council submitted all open space projects should use a 30 percent contingency.
For Melbourne Water drainage projects,[8] Port Phillip City Council submitted:
The substantial contingencies represent a potential over-costing for these projects that will be crowding out potential funding for many other projects in the DCP. With a total cost of $302 million, the high levels of contingencies represent significant amounts of the DCP levy that is being sequestered for "just in case" purposes and because insufficient design related issues have been resolved.
Port Phillip City Council described the contingencies as a 'necessary evil' and stated there "should be a limit on the contingencies adopted" because their effect is to raise funds for an expenditure that may be unnecessary and therefore may impose unnecessary levies. Port Phillip City Council submitted a contingency:
... is an impost on the DCP, and more so when the DCP is a capped levy with limited funding and represents "lazy" money. Moreover, charging a contingency crowds out the delivery of other infrastructure which is funded to a higher degree of confidence and certainty.
Both councils submitted that Melbourne Water should advance the designs of its drainage projects, with Melbourne City Council seeking at least 50 percent design, preferably before the FBDCP is finalised but in any case before the first five-yearly review of the FBDCP. Port Phillip City Council said more design work was needed for both BR01 (Salmon Street bridge) and the Melbourne Water drainage projects before including them in the FBDCP.
Both Councils were critical of Melbourne Water's use of a probabilistic (P90) contingency introduced with FBDCP (version 1).[9]
Melbourne City Council submitted Melbourne Water's use of a P90 contingency was unjustifiably conservative and should be reduced to a P50 contingency regardless of any redesign or re-costing of the projects. Port Phillip City Council submitted a P50 and P90 contingency "were both too high" and instead at a maximum, the projects should be subject to a standard contingency rate as applied to other projects in the FBDCP (such as 25 percent).
In its closing submission, Melbourne Water committed to advancing the drainage projects to a 50 percent design before the first five-yearly review of the FBDCP.
Mr Quincey, an expert in costing water infrastructure and flood mitigation projects called by Melbourne Water, stated:
In response to Mr Quincey's evidence, Melbourne City Council submitted that while both probabilistic and deterministic contingencies can be used, there is a finite budget for FBDCP projects so it would prefer the same approach to contingencies be taken.
DR01 (Construction of distributed storages across the four precincts) is a large infrastructure item with a high degree of uncertainty in the costs. Melbourne City Council submitted:
The Proponent provided project sheets for all FBDCP projects which set out the final proposed costings and contingencies (Document 301).
Information presented to the Committee explains how projects were formulated and costed. All work has been undertaken by appropriately qualified professionals. With cost estimates adjusted to March 2023 dollars, the Committee is confident the FBDCP can progress with the project costs specified in the project sheets. To increase confidence in the figures, costings should be updated to the latest benchmark date immediately prior to finalisation of the Amendment.
Although the exhibited FBDCP stated that all projects (except for Melbourne Water major drainage projects) included a 15 percent contingency, in fact a range of contingencies has been applied. This is appropriate because different project types have different risks, and some projects are further advanced in design than others. For example, project sheets for roads and crossings show a level of design detail such that some projects have no contingency.
Where contingencies are included, they mostly appear to be deterministic assessments. As the designs mature, and the delivery agency becomes more confident of the estimate, it may be appropriate to reduce the contingency. The Committee encourages this to the extent possible before the Amendment is finalised, particularly for bridge projects and the Melbourne Water drainage projects (discussed further below). To the extent not possible, this should occur as part of the first review of the FBDCP and thereafter at each review.
With respect to Melbourne Water's drainage projects, the Committee accepts Mr Quincey's evidence that the P90 probabilistic contingency is appropriate and in line with best practice. However, the result is that the FBDCP project budget contains some large contingent sums.
The Committee acknowledges the concerns of both Melbourne and Port Phillip City Councils that allocating FBDCP funding to contingencies that may not be required leads, on one view, to other Essential projects (that is, projects eligible for DCP funding) not being funded by the FBDCP. There was also concern that excessively high contingencies may impose unnecessary levies on developers.
The Committee has taken the approach that selection of projects for the FBDCP must be undertaken by reference to transparent criteria, as set out in the FBDCP (see Chapter 5.1), not by reference to a notional amount 'available' through FBDCP funding.
Because the Victorian government has committed to delivering all projects identified in the FB Framework, whether funded by the FBDCP or not, and the DIL is capped, there is no 'lazy money' in the FBDCP as submitted by Port Phillip City Council.
The Committee urges Melbourne Water to progress the design of its projects as soon as possible, preferably prior to finalisation of the Amendment. All Melbourne Water projects should be advanced to at least 50 percent design within the first five years of commencement of the Amendment. Any reductions in project costs resulting from this further design work should be considered for allocation to Essential projects that have not been included in the gazetted FBDCP.
For DR01 (Construction of distributed storages across the four precincts), the Committee accepts the 25 percent deterministic contingency, as reflected in the final costing sheet (Document 303). Given the nature of this project, the risks arise largely from the ground and construction works required which will only become better known closer to the actual work being undertaken. This is not a project where contingencies can be significantly reduced at this stage by further design.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the draft Amendment:
Amend the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan, as shown in Report Volume 2 Appendix I, to:
4.3.2 Land valuation approach and information about the land acquisition process
The exhibited FBDCP includes property-specific land valuations for all land to be acquired using FBDCP funding. The valuations were prepared using a direct comparison approach ('before and after') of the underlying land value based on assumptions which included the land being ripe for development.
The land valuation experts agreed the direct comparison approach was appropriate.
Landowners made submissions about both the method of valuation and property-specific valuations in the exhibited FBDCP. The Proponent provided updated land valuations for several properties after reaching agreement with relevant landowners. These were reflected in the FBDCP (final version).
Several submissions considered the exhibited FBDCP did not provide enough information about how the Victorian government would acquire land identified for public purposes or the valuation methods to be used. They submitted further information should be provided such as:
The Committee accepts the evidence of the land valuation experts that use of the direct comparison approach to land valuation is appropriate. The Committee does not comment on specific land valuations because these were agreed between the Proponent and the relevant landowners.
It is important that potentially affected landowners have access to adequate information about land acquisition processes and valuation methods so that they can clearly understand what to expect. The Committee considers that the FBDCP (final version) contains sufficient information but that further and expanded guidance on the land acquisition process and valuation methods to be used should be provided elsewhere (such as in an updated Factsheet 1 or other guidance material to accompany the FBDCP).
The Department of Transport and Planning should prepare and make available guidance material on the land acquisition process and valuation methods used in the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan.
4.4 Applying the Development Infrastructure Levy
The exhibited FBDCP applies the DIL to all dwellings delivered by the development, that is, the base permitted density dwellings and the OSU uplift dwellings.
The issue is whether it is appropriate to apply the DIL to OSU uplift dwellings.
Kador Group submitted the DIL should not apply to additional dwellings enabled by the OSU because it would defeat the intent of the uplift.
Melbourne City Council submitted the DIL should be applied to all development, including OSU uplift dwellings, unless there are good reasons for a particular category to be excluded.
The Proponent considered it is appropriate to apply the DIL to OSU dwellings because:
Mr McNeill, a DCP expert who gave evidence for Melbourne City Council, supported applying the DIL to OSU uplift dwellings because they are additional demand units and should therefore be liable to pay development contributions.
The Committee supports the premise that all new development which produces additional demand units should contribute towards the cost of development infrastructure, subject to the exemptions as set out in the DCP Ministerial Direction.
The DIL should be payable on all OSU uplift dwellings because the additional population will generate additional demands on infrastructure and services. Issues around how the OSU operates and whether it will provide a genuine incentive for developers to opt in to the scheme are discussed in Chapter 6. As discussed, the incentive created by the OSU is based on a separate calculation and does not rely on an exemption from paying development contributions on OSU uplift dwellings.
The Committee concludes the Development Infrastructure Levy should apply to OSU uplift dwellings.
The issue is whether the works-in-kind provisions specified in the FBDCP are appropriate.
Submitters generally supported the FBDCP works-in-kind provisions. The Property Council of Australia submitted that providing for works-in-kind in the FBDCP is highly desirable because it provides transparency to developers about how their contributions are used.
Several submitters sought further clarification of works-in-kind mechanisms in the FBDCP in relation to:
Melbourne Water requested that FBDCP section 5.3.3 be revised to specify:
Melbourne Water did not support use of the word 'should' to avoid any risks that works adjacent to FBDCP projects could be included as works in lieu.
Melbourne City Council submitted that the Development Agency and future asset owner are unlikely to ever be the same agency and that any agreement for works-in-kind should provide for approval of the design of works by the future asset owner, and the future asset owner should be a party to any section 173 agreement for works-in-kind.
The Proponent supported requests to clarify and update works-in-kind provisions at sections 5.3.3 and 5.3.5 of the FBDCP.
The Committee supports providing clarification to works-in-kind provisions in the FBDCP. As the Development Agency for the FBDCP is the Victorian government and the councils or Melbourne Water will often be the future infrastructure asset owners, it is important future asset owners are party to agreements for works-in-kind and have a role in approving detailed design of works.
The revised wording proposed by the Proponent in sections 5.3.3 and 5.3.5 of the FBDCP (final version) makes clear that:
The Committee concludes the works-in-kind provisions are generally appropriate as shown in the FBDCP (final version).
The FBDCP proposes a 30-year FBDCP timeframe with reviews every five years.
The PE Act does not place any limit on the timeframe for a DCP.
A DCP must include a time horizon. This time horizon should not exceed 20 to 25 years. If the time horizon is not reasonable, new development in the early years will be paying for infrastructure that will not be delivered until many years later. This is inequitable and unreasonable.
The DCP Guidelines explain that in setting a timeframe it is important to consider:
One submission considered the FBDCP delivery timeframe of 2055:
The Proponent submitted that the timeframe responds to the FB Framework targets and accounts for changes in development activity arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.
No DCP expert raised concern about the proposed 30-year timeframe for the FBDCP.
Mr Ainsaar said there is no limit on the timeframe for a DCP but a DCP must specify a timeframe. He considered the timeframe of 30 years reasonable because:
Mr De Silva stated that while a 20-year timeframe is often associated with a greenfield DCP, the timeframe must be informed by and respond to the development context. In this case, 30 years generally reflects the scale of the FBURA, the mix of funding sources and that the FBDCP will have regular periodic reviews.
Mr De Silva supported reviewing the FBDCP every five years and noted the need to consider a range of factors including:
Mr Ainsaar considered the exhibited review provisions should be strengthened and clarified given the importance and scale of the FBDCP area. He said it would be useful to state that the review should include:
Mr Hrelja agreed in principle with Mr Ainsaar but said it was more important to develop an accurate and comprehensive estimate of FBDCP levy income, funding gap and funding strategy for all projects at the outset rather than leaving this for a review.
The Proponent accepted Mr Ainsaar's recommendation that the review process could be strengthened and proposed to adopt wording suggested by Melbourne City Council. The FBDCP final version includes the following new content in Section 5.6:
Reviews of the DCP will include a review of relevant policy and project requirements and costs as well as associated charges and extent of development activity.
While the DCP Guidelines advise caution in setting very long-term horizons for reasons of equity, the Committee agrees with Mr Ainsaar and Mr De Silva that it is appropriate to apply a 30-year timeframe to the FBDCP. This is consistent with the FB Framework and is appropriate for the scale of redevelopment and infrastructure proposed for the FBURA.
The PE Act requires collecting and development agencies to report annually to the Minister for Planning on DCP levies received and their use. The PE Act does not, however, specify requirements for reviewing DCPs. The DCP Guidelines recommend DCPs are reviewed every three years to identify any changes required resulting from:
The Committee supports a review of the FBDCP every five years, and agrees with Mr Ainsaar that the review provisions should be strengthened and clarified given:
The Committee also supports the scope of review proposed by Melbourne City Council. It covers the matters suggested by the DCP Guidelines and, while detailed, appropriately clarifies tasks that are likely to be required for each review without mandating. These matters should be included in the FBDCP.
Since the introduction of Amendment GC81, development infrastructure contributions and open space contributions have been collected by the VPA through interim arrangements, either through voluntary agreements under section 173 of the PE Act or site-specific planning controls. These are referred to as 'interim contributions'.
These arrangements typically identify the contributions rate payable and indexation provisions, payment timing, and a schedule of infrastructure to be funded by contributions. Development approvals may also require that the development contributions agreement includes a schedule of specific infrastructure projects (land or construction) to be provided by the landowner as works-in-kind, where those projects are considered to provide a broader precinct function.
The interim contribution rates are less than the DIL rate proposed under the FBDCP. At the time public consultation on the draft Amendment commenced, the interim charges were:
The updated interim charge includes a $3,000 charge for major drainage and flood mitigation works but does not include a public open space contribution. The existing 8 percent public open space will remain a requirement under clause 53.01 until gazettal of the Amendment.
Some submissions requested that the FBDCP be amended to:
It was submitted this would ensure procedural fairness for current development applications that were costed and pursued under pre FBDCP rates.
The Proponent clarified that the exhibited DCPO exempts land or development which has an existing agreement requiring the payment of development contributions or the provision of community or physical infrastructure (works-in-kind).
Mr De Silva was satisfied that the approach adopted to use collected funds is appropriate and will not lead to increased charges being paid by landowners or developers.
All DCP experts agreed it would be appropriate to include explanatory information about interim contributions in the FBDCP to improve transparency.
Melbourne and Port Phillip Councils submitted additional demand units under amended pre-Amendment authorisations should be subject to the DIL where there is no danger of double dipping.
The Proponent agreed it is not fair and reasonable to charge twice for open space contributions and this potentially could occur if demand units added after the commencement of the Amendment attract the DIL. However, it submitted:
The Proponent supported clarifying exemptions provisions in the FBDCP section 5.3.6 and the relevant DCPO Schedules for development with existing approvals. It did not support extending exemption provisions to apply interim rates to new development applications without existing approvals or agreements requiring development contributions.
The Proponent proposed the following drafting for Clause 4.0 of the DCPO Schedules (final version):
The following land or development is exempt from payment of development contributions:
The Proponent proposed to revise the exhibited FBDCP to reduce the project extent of road project W_TR05 by deleting land and construction costs from 19 Salmon Street (parcel 58) noting these works will be provided under existing agreements.[11]
In applying principles of fairness, Mr Milner, a planning expert called by the Gadens Clients, recommended the owner of 19 Salmon Street be entitled to either a cash refund or development credit for contributions to land and works for the Tarver Street widening and open space enhancement (W_TR05) as exhibited.
Prime Port Melbourne Pty Ltd, the owner of 19 Salmon Street, requested the land and works for W_TR05 be included in the FBDCP and that it be provided with a cash refund or development credit for land and works already contributed. It submitted the Tarver Street extension on 19 Salmon Street will provide an important mid-block link, contributing to traffic, pedestrian and cyclist linkages in the FBURA and would improve the public realm.
The Proponent submitted that there was no proper basis for Prime Port Melbourne's request. It added:
The Committee appreciates the extensive information provided by the Proponent to explain interim contributions collected to date.
It is fair and equitable for land with pre-existing authorisations requiring the payment of development contributions to be exempt from payment of the DIL, and that contributions under those approvals should continue to be paid in accordance with relevant existing agreements.
The Committee does not support interim provisions that extend an exemption to new applications made since exhibition of the Amendment but prior to its approval. The exhibited FBDCP rates are readily available and should be factored into development decisions for new applications.
The Committee acknowledges the potential for 'double dipping' if any of the pre-Amendment authorisations collected open space contributions through Clause 53.01 and were based on the value of the land to be developed (rather than the demand units allowed under the original permission). Given the very limited situations where this could occur, the Committee agrees with the Proponent that applying the principle that pre-Amendment authorisations can proceed based on the contributions arrangements already in place outweighs the potential loss in revenue by not applying the DIL to these additional demand units. The Committee considers the drafting that would be required to avoid 'double dipping' would be complex and could lead to ambiguities about what is and what is not exempt, difficulties in administering the provision, and disputes in particular cases. This is to be avoided. The Committee supports the wording of Clause 4.0 (final version) of the relevant DCPO Schedules.
However, where an application has not been approved before commencement of the Amendment, the Committee considers that any subsequent approval should be subject to the DIL. The existing interim contributions rates were not linked to a detailed infrastructure plan, and it is accepted that they would not generate sufficient funding to pay for essential infrastructure in the FBURA. Developers have known the expected quantum of development contributions likely under the FBDCP for some time and are responsible for factoring these costs into decisions about feasibility. In the unlikely event that they have not done so, they have an opportunity to amend live applications to take account of the charges proposed under the FBDCP or withdraw applications if they are not viable.
The Committee considers that credits or refunds should generally not be given for contributions already made, either land or works, which are normally developer funded and do not warrant cost sharing arrangements. These are standard development costs associated with providing infrastructure that is for the benefit of the residents of the new development, rather than for the benefit of the wider FBURA. The Committee supports clarifying this position through the additional point at section 3.1.1 of the FBDCP as proposed by the Proponent in the FBDCP (final version).
However, the Committee has concerns with removing the land and construction costs for the Tarver Street widening at 19 Salmon Street from the FBDCP. The land and works at 19 Salmon Street already contributed will form part of a new mid-block street which is for critical active transport, linear open space and a biodiversity link through the area.[12] The project is not standard developer works and will have a wider benefit. It should therefore remain in the FBDCP. Any subsequent application for reimbursement would be subject to the works-in-kind reimbursement provisions in section 5.3.5 of the FBDCP.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the draft Amendment:
Amend the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan, as shown in Report Volume 2 Appendix I, to:
The issues are whether a Governance (Implementation) and Funding (Finance) Strategy should be prepared, and if so:
The Committee for Melbourne and the Urban Development Institute of Australia each sought a commitment to clear funding and delivery timeframes to give the development sector more certainty and stimulate investment in the FBURA.
Melbourne and Port Phillip City Councils requested a governance and implementation strategy and comprehensive funding and finance strategy be prepared alongside the FBDCP. They considered these strategies necessary to renew Fishermans Bend successfully and requested they:
In the development contributions experts' joint statement:
Mr McNeill recommended the strategies clearly set out:
Mr De Silva recommended the Proponent develop the scope of the governance and implementation strategy in consultation with Melbourne City Council, Port Phillip City Council and key delivery partners after the FBDCP is approved.
At the Hearing, there were differing views as to whether these strategies belonged within or outside the FBDCP.
The Proponent did not support a governance and implementation strategy or a funding and finance strategy. It submitted:
The FB Framework has an ambitious vision that needs to deliver a significant amount of infrastructure to achieve the intended outcomes. There is generally a correlation between certainty in how and when infrastructure will be developed and decisions by developers about if or when to develop. However, the alternative methodology adopted in the preparation of the FBDCP (including the capped DIL that does not result from total infrastructure cost and apportionment) does not have the transparency evident in a DCP that applies a conventional DCP methodology.
Authorities and developers would benefit from a governance and finance strategy that helps clarify how the timing and delivery of projects in the FBDCP relates to those that have been excluded. This includes Catalytic infrastructure projects which will influence when and how land is developed in the FBURA, other Victorian government (or other externally) funded projects identified in the FB Framework, and open space to be delivered by the OSU.
The Committee considers the following key principles should be included in the strategy (regardless of whether they are also included in the FBDCP):
Ideally, the strategy should include indicative delivery timings and funding sources (committed and potential) for each FB Framework project.
It is unnecessary for the strategy to be included in the FBDCP as it would govern delivery of projects sitting outside the FBDCP.
Ideally, the Governance (Implementation) and Funding (Finance) Strategy would accompany the Amendment. If this is not possible, it should be developed and finalised as soon as possible after the Amendment is gazetted.
The Department of Transport and Planning should prepare a Governance (Implementation) and Funding (Finance) Strategy that includes the following key principles:
5 Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan projects
Section 4K of the PE Act regulates the contents of a DCP but does not specify how projects must be selected. The DCP Ministerial Direction sets out works, services or facilities that may be funded from a DIL, including:
In addition, the exhibited FBDCP at section 2.5 stated projects were selected having regard to the following considerations:
The infrastructure projects that have been included in the FBDCP were said to have the following characteristics:
The issue is whether the methodology used to select projects for inclusion in the FBDCP is appropriate.
Melbourne City Council and Port Phillip City Council were concerned with the lack of transparency about the methodology used to select projects for inclusion in the FBDCP and whether the methodology was appropriate for project selection.
Mr DeSilva explained the high-level infrastructure classifications of Catalytic, Essential and Local were identified to recognise the varying types and roles of infrastructure to assist in the selection of projects. This was considered important because not all infrastructure projects could reasonably be included in the FBDCP due to the vast overall number of projects and associated costs.
Mr Hrelja said the distinction between Essential and Local infrastructure is not clear, nor why the exhibited FBDCP does not include all local infrastructure where delivery co-ordination, agency delivery and cost apportionment is needed. He suggested an alternative approach to classification.
Port Phillip City Council submitted that the high-level categorisation was "misconceived", and that all Local infrastructure is essential in the ordinary sense of the word as it is required to deliver the FB Framework's vision.
Melbourne City Council submitted although the FBDCP stated there were three categories of infrastructure, there were, in fact, four: Catalytic, Local, Essential (funded by the DCP) and Essential (not funded by the DCP).
Mr McNeill requested further details of the project selection methodology to understand:
The Proponent explained the selection process did not start with adoption of the high-level categorisation process. Instead it commenced with a bottom-up approach, whereby all projects irrespective of the type and classification, but excluding future Victorian government funded construction projects, were identified.
Ms Fisher provided detail about project selection. She said it was an iterative process continually refined by:
Mr DeSilva supported the guiding principles for project selection set out in section 2.5 of the exhibited FBDCP.
The Proponent tabled Document 129, in response to a Direction from the Committee, which stepped through the project identification, classification, selection and the prioritisation process.
All of the experts accepted the project selection criteria in the DCP and Document 129 as fundamentally sound. However, the documentation and evidence before the SAC indicates that those criteria played a confined role in the project selection process, and that many projects that met the criteria were excluded based upon a "prioritisation" process which in some cases simply amounted to a direction from the Taskforce that a particular project be excluded.
Mr Ainsaar said the FBDCP projects are strategically justified, generally accord with background technical reports, the FB Framework Plan and the DCP Ministerial Direction and DCP Guidelines (subject to consideration of the CIL).
The Proponent submitted there was broad agreement that projects in the FBDCP (final version) were suitable for inclusion, both in terms of merit and eligibility. It identified three outstanding issues:
Some submissions requested further refinement of the FBDCP projects list by including some additional projects and excluding other projects.
The Proponent referred to the need for decisions about how funding should be assigned and that this is "ultimately a political, rather than a planning, judgment".
At the Hearing, the Proponent accepted that in some "loose sense" all infrastructure specified in the FB Framework is essential, in that it should be provided and that 'essential' is a value laden term. It proposed to amend reference to the three higher order categories in the final version FBDCP to refer to four categories of infrastructure:
The Proponent proposed to clarify in the FBDCP that 'Other infrastructure' would be funded by a range of sources, including Commonwealth, Victorian and local government.
There is no set methodology for selecting projects to include in a DCP.
The DCP Ministerial Guideline sets out works, services and facilities that may be funded by a DCP. All projects in the FBDCP are consistent with the DCP Ministerial Guideline.
The DCP Guidelines provide that a DCP must be strategically justified and linked to the State or local planning policy framework in the planning scheme. It says infrastructure projects can be included in a DCP if they will be used by the future community of an area, including new and existing development. New development does not have to trigger the need for new infrastructure, but it can only be charged in accordance with its projected share of usage. In this way, nexus and need can be established between new development and the need for new infrastructure.
Reflecting the DCP Guidelines, the Committee has considered the methodology employed for project selection in terms of whether it:
The Committee agrees with submissions that the exhibited Amendment did not include sufficient information to understand, at a detailed level, how some of the projects were classified and selected for inclusion in the FBDCP. The Proponent provided a significant volume of information throughout the Hearing process to clarify the methodology, and this has assisted the Committee.
The key matter for the Committee is whether the methodology employed has resulted in a list of projects that is consistent with the principles of need and nexus and is therefore appropriate for inclusion in the FBDCP.
Generally, the Committee is satisfied that the methodology identified relevant criteria for project selection, which are broadly outlined in section 2.5 of the FBDCP. These criteria ensure that projects included in the FBDCP satisfy both need and nexus (subject to recommended modifications to the FBDCP as outlined in the following chapters).
However, in addition to these considerations, funding decisions were made about various projects for reasons that went beyond planning considerations (which the Proponent acknowledged). Higher level classifications, while not necessary, help provide transparency around these other considerations, making it clear how the Victorian government proposes the different classes of infrastructure should be funded.
The Committee accepts that given the scale of infrastructure projects identified for the FBURA in the FB Framework, not all of them could be included in the FBDCP without impacting development feasibility, even though all might technically qualify for inclusion in a DCP. That said, the Committee refers to the role of the capped levy which is intended to protect development feasibility. If additional projects are included in the FBDCP now, it is the funding gap which will increase. Including additional projects would have no impact on development feasibility.
It is beyond the scope of the Committee's task to make a recommendation as to whether the size of the funding gap is appropriate or whether projects should be 'traded' for one another to meet a specified funding figure existing outside the FBDCP.
The Committee considers requests for project inclusions or exclusions in the following chapters based on whether the methodology, including guiding principles and classifications, have been consistently applied to infrastructure projects and not on a cost basis.
Refinements to the infrastructure classifications proposed by the Proponent in the FBDCP (final version) are supported as they provide greater clarity about the breadth of infrastructure required in the FBURA and the range of ways in which it will be funded. The proposed wording is more transparent and reduces the inclination to view the classifications as indicating a level of hierarchy or importance. The Committee is therefore comfortable that the requirements for transparency of project selection have been met by the FBDCP (final version).
Melbourne City Council submitted that further information was required to provide greater certainty about the scope of FBDCP projects, including detailed design and costings. It submitted it was too difficult to piece together information from numerous documents and hampered the ability to provide meaningful feedback on the scope and costing of FBDCP projects.
Port Phillip City Council submitted there has been a failure to properly scope infrastructure, particularly open space embellishment. It sought project sheets for each project as part of the approved FBDCP.
All DCP experts agreed attaching individual project sheets setting out costing detail and project scope, including cross-sections that were the basis of costings for road projects, would improve the FBDCP.
In accordance with a Committee Direction, the Proponent provided project sheets for each project in the FBDCP. They included a broad description of the project, categorisation, land and works costs, contingencies (where applicable) and other fees (where applicable). Cross sections were included for road projects. Major drainage projects presented an overall cost only, based on an estimate from Melbourne Water prepared by WT Partnership.
Melbourne City Council acknowledged the project sheets but maintained its position that more fundamental updates are required before the FBDCP is finalised. It said the project sheets should be 'bespoke' rather than generic based on approximate areas and costs per square metre. It sought a 'project sheet package' which would include:
It emphasised the importance of project sheets in facilitating the delivery of works-in-kind projects and to enable the future asset owner to understand the infrastructure for which it will take responsibility. Melbourne City Council was concerned that the project sheets:
Melbourne City Council sought several specific changes to the project sheets:
The Committee supports including project sheets in the FBDCP to:
It would have been useful to exhibit project sheets with the FBDCP to reduce confusion and uncertainty about the scope and costing of projects to be delivered. The Committee found it difficult at the outset to navigate the volume of information, presented in various forms, required to gain a solid understanding of projects included in the FBDCP.
The project sheets provided on 24 January 2025 are considered acceptable to include in the FBDCP subject to some refinement to provide greater clarity about project scope and costings:
Following review of the scope of some projects, the total costs of Melbourne Water drainage projects listed in Documents 301 and 303 and as included the FBDCP (final version) amount to a sum less than in the exhibited FBDCP. In round figures, the difference is $308,500,000 down to $296,900,000. Using the project sheets and costs addresses the request by both councils that costs be as accurate as possible.
It is understood design of DR01 is ongoing and assets will be delivered progressively. This should be reflected in the project sheet so as not to require a planning scheme amendment as the project is delivered. For the same reason, it would be prudent to include a note on the project sheets that all projects will be subject to further detailed design.
The project sheets will need to be updated to reflect the Committee's recommendations regarding reverting the urban structure as shown in the current Melbourne and Port Phillip planning scheme provisions, or as otherwise explicitly recommended by the Committee.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the draft Amendment:
The exhibited FBDCP included four land projects for the proposed new tram lines:
The issue is whether it is appropriate to include public transport land projects in the FBDCP.
There were submissions for and against including public transport land projects in the FBDCP.
All DCP experts except Mr Hrelja agreed it was appropriate to fund public transport land projects in the FBDCP because they are an essential component of the FB Framework and it is an important first step in demonstrating commitment to the projects.
My Hrelja agreed it is important to fund public transport land as early as possible, but the source of funds is a funding strategy decision and the funds do not have to be sourced from DCP levies.
Port Phillip City Council acknowledged it is possible to fund public transport land projects in a DCP, but did not support their inclusion submitting that land and other works associated with public transport are primarily a Victorian government responsibility. Port Phillip City Council expressed concern that there is no certainty that these projects will be delivered in the life of the FBDCP and without a firm commitment to a timeframe consistent with the FBDCP, the allocation of any funding from DCP levies is not appropriate.
Melbourne City Council submitted that public transport land should not be in the FBDCP because it is properly categorised as Catalytic infrastructure, in the same way public transport is categorised as such. It said there is not much point in classifying infrastructure as Local, Essential and Catalytic to help decide what is in and what is outside the FBDCP if that classification is not applied consistently. Melbourne City Council suggested that planning provisions offer alternative means for the Victorian government to identify land required for public transport.
The Property Council of Australia supported the inclusion of land for proposed new tram lines in the FBDCP because it would help establish a much needed public transport connection between Fishermans Bend and the Melbourne Central Business District.
Although Mr De Silva's evidence said public transport land projects should be the first priority under the FBDCP, some submissions said there is nothing in the Amendment or the PE Act that can require the Victorian government to proceed to acquire land within any particular timeframe, even when nominated as a short term time project.
The Proponent proposed to remove public transport project PT04 from the FBDCP because of uncertainty over when this infrastructure would be needed. It also proposed to reclassify public transport land projects as 'Road widening' projects rather than 'Public transport widening', and to reduce the width of PT01 from a 10-metre widening of Plummer Street to a 5-metre widening.
Melbourne City Council submitted that public transport land projects should be shown in the planning scheme and noted PT04 is not shown in the existing Port Phillip CCZ1. Melbourne City Council identified that projects were described with various references in the planning schemes and submitted that all references should refer to 'land for public transport' and not road widening.
The Lorimer Central Owners Corporation requested that the exhibited FBDCP and Melbourne Planning Scheme maps, which show the Lorimer Central common property (currently used as a road) as a 10 metre 'road widening' when it is not a public road, be corrected.
The Committee views provision of public transport to the FBURA as clearly Catalytic and this was not disputed by any party. The Committee considers the land required to enable the public transport to be part of the public transport project and therefore also Catalytic. On this basis, it should not be included in the FBDCP.
The Committee acknowledges that land for public transport can be included in a DCP. The provision of public transport to the FBURA is an essential component of the FB Framework. Further, public transport land generally meets the considerations at section 2.5 of the FBDCP. It is essential to the delivery of the urban structure outlined in the FB Framework and has demonstrated capacity to leverage and enable development activity.
However, that could equally be said for PT04 which is now proposed to be removed. The Committee is not convinced the timing of the need for PT04 is vastly different from PT01, which is part of the same transport corridor. The Proponent's approach to project selection is not consistent in this respect which the Committee found unhelpful in understanding the Proponent's approach.
Although not appropriate for inclusion in the FBDCP, the Committee considers it important that the planning framework should contain a clear commitment to the delivery of public transport land. The Committee considers that public transport land should be clearly identified as land required for a future public transport corridor (rather than as road widening projects) in the CCZ4 and CCZ1 for clarity and to correctly identify its future use. This will also correct the mapping error in relation to Lorimer Central.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the draft Amendment:
Amend the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan, as shown in Report Volume 2 Appendix I, to:
Amend the Capital City Zone Schedule 4 (Melbourne), as shown in Report Volume 2 Appendix G:2, and the Capital City Zone Schedule 1 (Port Phillip), as shown in Report Volume 2 Appendix H:2, to:
Amend the Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 1 (Melbourne), as shown in Report Volume 2 Appendix G:3, and the Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 2 (Port Phillip), as shown in Report Volume 2 Appendix H:3, to:
The exhibited FBDCP included 65 transport projects, excluding Public Transport Land projects. The projects comprised:
The issues are whether the FBDCP should be amended to:
The Proponent explained that the FB Framework identifies six bridge projects for delivery in the FBURA. The following criteria were considered when selecting which bridge projects to include in the FBDCP:
The Proponent submitted the first two criteria favour upgrading existing bridges and the third favours minimising the number of bridges in the FBDCP due to high overall costs. It said a decision was made that the Hartley Street bridge, including an active transport component, should be delivered as part of the future tram project proposed for this bridge and funded from other sources.
The Salmon Street bridge upgrade was selected for inclusion in the FBDCP over the Ingles Street bridge based on:
Melbourne City Council submitted active transport connections across the West Gate Freeway are fundamental elements in achieving the vision in the FB Framework for an 80:20 mode split between sustainable transport and car-based travel. It said new and improved active transport connections between Lorimer and Sandridge must be funded by the FBDCP, including:
Melbourne City Council submitted that these projects:
Reference was made to the Jacobs Report 'Improving Connectivity in Fishermans Bend' which states:
Today the M1 corridor, which runs through the heart of Fishermans Bend, is a clear barrier to efficient movement. Without enhanced connections across the M1, it will be challenging to establish a close sense of community between the various precincts. There are currently two relatively narrow overpasses across the M1 at Ingles Street and Salmon Streets and underpasses under the M1 at Montague Street and Todd Road at the far eastern and western edges of the renewal area.
These links currently carry private car traffic and some bus services. The provision of walking and cycling connections is relatively limited. Without improvement in these links, the renewal area will likely develop as separate zones with limited urban flow across and through the area. Without improvement in connectivity it will also prove extremely challenging to achieve the vision of Fishermans Bend being largely connected through active and public modes of transport. The precinct could be at risk of developing as a home for people who largely travel to work in other parts of Melbourne via private car on the M1 freeway.
Melbourne City Council submitted the costs for the Ingles Street bridge 'active transport only' option referred to in Supplementary Information Note 02[13] were based on an incorrect reading of the Jacobs report and associated with a new bridge structure rather than an upgrade using a cantilevered structure. Melbourne City Council noted the Jacobs report said this cantilevered option was worthy of further investigation, likely to be feasible and lower cost than a new bridge.
The Proponent was concerned an active transport only option would not achieve outcomes required to achieve delivery of public transport outcomes identified in the FB Framework (bus route).
All DCP experts agreed the Ingles Street bridge is an eligible DCP project type, a key connection linking Sandridge and Lorimer precincts, identified as a strategic cycling corridor in the FB Framework and will include a bus route. Mr Ainsaar referred to the explanation for the selection of transport projects in the FBDCP, which demonstrated the following attributes:
He said he was not qualified to comment on whether the project is fundamental to the movement network.
Ms Hodyl supported including both the Ingles Street bridge and the active transport link across the West Gate Freeway (Hartley Street alignment) in the FBDCP. She said:
Melbourne City Council expressed concern that removal of PT04 from the FBDCP signals uncertainty for delivery of an active transport connection in the Hartley Street area and said the need for active transport connections arises independently of public transport projects.
Port Phillip City Council submitted the Salmon Street bridge is an expensive project with little immediate impact, no impact on the public realm and bridges over freeways should be funded by the Victorian government. It said the Salmon Street design should be more advanced before including the bridge in a DCP so that the contingency amount should be reduced to a more reasonable level.
Melbourne City Council submitted that the Salmon Street bridge upgrade project should be retained but not at the expense of the upgrade of the Ingles Street bridge or an active transport connection over the freeway at the Hartley Street alignment.
The FB Framework aspires to offer "unprecedented levels of walking, cycling and public transport connectivity that will set a new benchmark for Melbourne". It sets a target for 80 percent of trips made by sustainable transport.
The Committee agrees with submissions that active transport connections over the West Gate Freeway will be very important in achieving this vision.
The Salmon Street bridge upgrade and the Ingles Street bridge upgrade have a similar function to perform in the active transport network, providing key pedestrian links and forming part of a Strategic Cycling corridor alongside an existing roadway. Their role in the overall transport network lends itself to having a wider function than infrastructure classified as Local.
It is noted that the final version FBDCP refers to new and upgraded bridges over the West Gate Freeway as Catalytic infrastructure except where they are included in the FBDCP. This explanation does not make sense; either a bridge upgrade over the freeway is Catalytic or it is not. Inclusion in the FBDCP is not a distinguishing feature that justifies a different classification.
The Committee considers a new bridge is Catalytic because it is providing a new connection which will have a 'transformational effect on the urban renewal of the area'. It is not an upgrade or improvement, but rather a new connection. Upgrading the Ingles Street bridge to improve the active transport connection is not considered Catalytic in the same way, but rather an Essential project to promote active transport modes of travel over the bridge.
The Committee accepts Ms Hodyl's evidence that the Ingles Street bridge is pivotal in connecting Lorimer Street to the south. There is a clear aspiration in the FB Framework to create a strong connection between Lorimer and the commercial centre in Sandridge. There is no evidence to suggest the Ingles Street bridge is less important to the movement network for Fishermans Bend than the Salmon Street bridge. They should both be considered priorities for inclusion in the FBDCP.
Bridge construction costs are high. The Committee notes the Jacobs report finding which identifies an opportunity to investigate upgrade options for the Ingles Street bridge rather than constructing an entirely new bridge. This should be further scoped and costed and included in the FBDCP.
In contrast, the Hartley Street bridge and active transport connection would accommodate a tramway and require the construction of a new bridge. This is a Catalytic project and should not be funded through the FBDCP.
For completeness, the Committee does not support submissions that the Hartley Street bridge should proceed ahead of the future tram project. If this were to occur, it could have a detrimental impact on the future provision of the tram project.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the draft Amendment:
Amend the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan, as shown in Report Volume 2 Appendix I, to:
The issues are whether the FBDCP should be amended to:
The Proponent explained new roads and upgrades were prioritised for funding through the FBDCP based on their function, importance to the network and overall urban structure, and nexus to FBURA-wide development. Key criteria for selection of road projects included:
At the Hearing, Ms Fisher provided a step-by-step explanation of road project selection using these criteria.
Port Phillip City Council submitted that many of the projects funded by the FBDCP are for arterial roads, which serve a broader role and should not be included.
The Proponent agreed to the removal of Montague Street and Normanby Road on the basis that they were arterial roads. Graham Street was retained on the basis that while it was currently an arterial road, it is proposed to be downgraded. The active transport components of these projects were retained and referred to as separate projects MN_TR01, MN_TR02 and expansion of projects SN_TR02 and SN_TR03.
Goodman sought removal of the following road projects from the FBDCP:
The Proponent did not support removal of these projects and suggested the request to remove them was based on a conflation of the means of acquisition with the funding mechanism proposed. It said the fact land may be compulsorily acquired does not prevent a DCP being used to raise funds for the acquisition.
Submissions requested removal of mid-block roads from the FBDCP, suggesting they could be delivered as developer works. The Proponent explained the mid-block roads included in the FBDCP had a through block collector function.
Port Phillip City Council sought the inclusion of numerous additional road projects, identifying several as 'Priority Streets', and submitted the improvement of local streets is critical to the success of the FBURA.
Ms Bauer stated that local roads are vital to the success of Fishermans Bend and should be classified as Essential infrastructure.
Port Phillip City Council submitted Priority Streets have the following functions and roles:
Other local roads were said to have a supportive but still critical role in the network.
Port Phillip City Council submitted local roads, including Priority Streets, should be funded by the FBDCP because:
The Proponent submitted two of the requested priority projects, COPP_W_TR01 (new street between Smith and Salmon Street) and COPP_M_TR12 (Ferrars Street), had already been partly delivered or committed in a way that deprioritises them. A third, the Bridge Street north extension, contains only a short length of cycling infrastructure that is a dead-end road to the north and therefore difficult to characterise as having a key linkage function.
Port Phillip City Council explained the FB Framework identifies the full length of the Bridge Street north extension which leads into a future connection across the West Gate Freeway. It submitted it has strategic importance in setting the foundations for the future pedestrian bridge / cycling connections within the core activity centre. It noted that part of the street is located within a large development site.
Port Phillip City Council did not agree with the Proponent's approach to nexus. It submitted the correct test is whether the network of roads provides broad benefit across a catchment. Having well designed local roads that encourages people to use active transport benefits the whole road network by reducing the volume of vehicles.
The Proponent agreed with a network approach but did not agree that this supports funding of lower order roads. It submitted the network approach is appropriate where items of infrastructure operate to distribute demand more evenly over the whole network and this extends to higher order roads which have the effect of taking traffic off the broader network.
The Proponent explained funding of intersection projects is based on an 'agent of change' principle and prioritised for inclusion in the FBDCP where:
Port Phillip City Council requested the inclusion of six additional signalised intersections, five additional pedestrian operated crossings and two unsignalised intersections in the FBDCP to provide for adequate safety for pedestrians and cyclists. It noted that safety is paramount to achieve modal shift goals and necessitates consideration of all intersection treatments and linkages, not just priority routes. Port Phillip City Council submitted these intersections were consistent with the first dot point above and were justified to support safe and efficient movement. It noted that the Proponent has advised that four intersections would be funded by the Victorian government and therefore not included in the FBDCP.
The Proponent revised the location of intersection W_IT02 to the preferred location identified as COPP_W_IT07 (intersection of Williamstown Road and Smith Street) and explained it is currently working with Port Phillip City Council to deliver priority road safety upgrades in this area. The Proponent submitted it had not seen any information that would support full signalisation in this location.
The Proponent did not support other intersection projects requested by Port Phillip City Council. It submitted other requested intersection or crossings served only a local function and may be delivered as part of development of the area around them.
Melbourne City Council submitted a signalised intersection was required at, or near, the intersection of Lorimer Street and Hartley Street. This new intersection was supported by the Proponent as LN_IT01.
The future transport network is crucial in achieving the vision of the FB Framework. That is reflected in the amount of funding allocated towards transport projects in the FBDCP (roads and intersections make up approximately 48 percent of all project costs included in the FBDCP).
The FB Framework envisages significant transformation of the road network and the Committee understands there is no commitment to funding all the required road projects through the FBDCP, although all projects may demonstrate some level of nexus. The Committee agrees a broad approach to nexus is needed where there are many competing demands for funding. It is reasonable to include higher order road projects that are likely to provide a greater overall benefit to the FBURA. Ms Fisher's explanation of the criteria used for road project selection was clear and consistent with the broader network approach.
The Committee agrees that in this circumstance it is appropriate to remove arterial road projects from the FBDCP. While they meet the selection criteria and are eligible for inclusion in the FBDCP, their benefits extend well beyond the FBURA catchment and there has been no attempt to determine external apportionment for these projects. The Committee supports the inclusion of Boundary Street and Munro Street upgrades to replace the active transport functionality that may otherwise be lost by removal of the arterial road projects.
The Committee is not persuaded that projects W_TR08, S_TR01, S_TR03 or S_TR04 should be removed from the FBDCP as requested by Goodman. These projects are all part of a proposed 'Neighbourhood Street' connection, which will include a strategic off-road protected cycling route with a linear open space function. The projects are clearly consistent with the criteria specified for road projects, as are mid-block roads with a collector function.
Other road projects requested for inclusion by Port Phillip City Council have been considered against the criteria outlined for the selection of road projects. The Committee appreciates Port Phillip City Council is anticipating the need for additional cycling infrastructure beyond that outlined in the FB Framework and understands work to identify these needs is occurring through the Montague PIP process. However, the Committee does not recommend changes to the FBDCP project selection as part of this Amendment based on yet to be agreed outcomes.
The Committee considers two of Port Phillip City Council's projects meet the selection criteria:
Requests for additional intersections are primarily sought to improve pedestrian safety. While the intersection criteria do not specifically mention safe movement, the Committee notes the general project selection criteria in section 2.5 of the FBDCP includes:
The Committee does not have sufficient information or evidence to consider the safety implications of the requested intersection treatments or crossings. Whether those intersections are required for safety reasons should be further explored through the development of PIPs.
The Committee has no concerns with the inclusion of the proposed new intersection treatment at the corner of Hartley Street and Lorimer Street, which is supported by the Proponent.
The Committee concludes the FBDCP should be revised to:
The Committee recommends the following changes to the draft Amendment:
Amend the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan, as shown in Report Volume 2 Appendix I, to:
The exhibited FBDCP included 34 open space projects, of which:
The exhibited FBDCP states that funding for open space under the FBDCP will be directed to:
Ms Fisher explained funding for open space projects was prioritised based on:
5.5.2 District open space - North Port Oval and Prohasky Street Reserve
Port Phillip City Council requested FBDCP funding for the following projects:
Port Phillip City Council identified five sites which form the Sandridge Recreation Precinct, as shown in Figure 12.
Figure 12 Sites forming the Sandridge Recreation Precinct
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 12 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
3.6.1 Redesign and/or expand Westgate Park, JL Murphy Reserve and North Port Oval to incorporate more active uses, multi-functional spaces and improved interface design
3.6.5 Increase the degree of use and range of activities held to provide public access to existing sports fields.
Port Phillip City Council submitted it is seeking to integrate planning, funding and delivery of infrastructure across the five sites to create an integrated open space and recreation precinct (Sandridge Recreation Precinct). It outlined existing constraints associated with the North Port Oval site:
The Proponent referred to the increase in the scope of projects at the Sandridge Recreation Precinct, S_OS09A and S_OS09B, combining them into one project (S_OS09 Recreation reserve - community use - land and embellishment) in the final version FBDCP. It submitted the project extent already provides for one hectare more open space land and active recreation embellishment than the Framework anticipated and did not support the additional scope sought by Port Phillip City Council.
Regarding Elder Smith Reserve, funding for four netball courts was included in the exhibited FBDCP but is removed in the final version FBDCP because according to the Proponent, the Victorian government had already given Port Phillip City Council funding towards the construction of four netball courts at Elder Smith Reserve. The Proponent tabled Document 228 The Elder Smith Reserve Netball Facility Port Melbourne - Community Engagement Summary Report, May 2023, a Port Phillip City Council document showing a concept for four netball courts on the site.
Port Phillip City Council sought an integrated design for the Prohasky Street playing fields and Elder Smith Reserve and requested project W_OS01:
The Proponent believed the outcome Port Phillip City Council seeks for Elder Smith cannot be achieved at Elder Smith Reserve or on the adjoining Prohasky Street reserve. It submitted:
Mr Panozzo stated there are shortages in active open space, noting that early planning did not plan the areas proposed for open space. He recommended that available land and facilities be developed intensely to meet additional demand.
A District open space generally serves a community beyond its catchment area. This is most evident in low density greenfield sites where open space users are drawn from a large region beyond those paying the DIL. For fairness and equity reasons, such district open spaces are usually excluded from a DCP.
The FBDCP categorises District open space in a different context and way. The FBURA will be a high density environment where open space will be at a premium. Many of the District open space projects seek to make existing and expanded open spaces accessible to members of the FBURA community. This is clearly an outcome sought by the FB Framework for North Port Oval which is identified as one of the sites that should incorporate more active uses, multi-functional spaces and improved interface design. The additional embellishment works sought by Port Phillip City Council are consistent with this objective and development in the FBURA should therefore contribute towards these open space projects.
Nonetheless, as discussed in Chapter 4.1, the Proponent should assess the extent of external demand for all District open space projects to ensure only FBURA-related demand is attributed to the DIL.
The Committee is unclear whether four additional netball courts can be accommodated on either Elder Smith Reserve or the Prohasky Reserve site. Both Port Phillip City Council and the Proponent agree further design work is required. Given the uncertainty around whether the additional courts can be accommodated, the Committee does not recommend they be prioritised for inclusion in the FBDCP.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the draft Amendment:
Amend the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan, as shown in Report Volume 2 Appendix I, to:
5.5.3 Neighbourhood and Linear open space - Sandridge
The issue is whether it is appropriate for the FBDCP to include open space projects (S_OS01, S_OS04, S_OS05, S_OS06, S_OS07 and S_OS08) proposed in the Sandridge precinct.
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 13 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Port Phillip City Council requested the following open space projects not be funded through the FBDCP:
All DCP experts except Mr Hrelja considered it is appropriate to the FBDCP to fund land for public transport because:
Mr Hrelja believed it is important to fund land for public transport as early as possible, but the source of funds is a funding strategy decision. He stated DCP levies do not have to source funds for public transport land.
The Committee agrees with the Proponent that the FBDCP should include S_OS01 because it is open space is associated with the abutting Sandridge Arts and Culture hub.
The FB Framework identifies land for future state transport projects including their associated public spaces. The DCP Guidelines refer to the ability for a DIL to fund state infrastructure, however this will not be appropriate in every circumstance.
Projects S_OS04 and S_OS08 should be removed from the FBDCP because their primary function is to provide access to the associated public transport project, the proposed Sandridge Metro 2 station. While these projects are classified as Neighbourhood parks, they are unlikely to be neighbourhood open spaces in which the FBURA community would seek to recreate. Rather, they will be transient public spaces needed to support state level public transport.
The projects should not be included in the FBDCP solely to protect the land from inconsistent development until the projects are delivered, or as an expression of a commitment to public transport projects. In line with the evidence of Mr Hrelja, these are not strategic reasons to include projects in the FBDCP and the DCP Guidelines do not include such reasons as part of the methodology for selecting projects.
The Committee considers that the land is sufficiently protected because it is identified as future open space in the relevant planning scheme maps (subject to making the Committee's recommended changes discussed in Chapter 5.3). If there are concerns that this is insufficient, the Proponent could apply a PAO which has as one of its purposes to "reserve land for a public purpose and to ensure that changes to the use or development of the land do not affect this" (Clause 45.01).
It is less clear to the Committee that the primary function of S_OS05, S_OS06 and S_OS07 is to provide access to public transport. Projects S_OS06 and S_OS07 are linear open spaces located on a strategic cycling corridor with connection to a broader network of streets with a linear open space function. This is a critical part of the future FBURA structure, and these projects are therefore appropriately included in the FBDCP.
The Committee does not have sufficient information to determine the primary function of S_OS05 and notes this project is to be delivered as works-in-kind through an existing development approval. The type of embellishment for the park as identified in the project sheets is typical for a Neighbourhood park.[15] The Committee finds no reason to exclude it from the FBDCP.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the draft Amendment:
Amend the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan, as shown in Report Volume 2 Appendix I, to:
The Committee concluded in Chapter 3.2 that Turner Street should be 40 metres wide, including a 10-metre landscape strip on private land, consistent with how the Turner Street Linear Park is specified in the current CCZ4 and the FB Framework.
Figure 14 shows the current '10-metre landscape setback' in the CCZ4 and the affected sites, namely sites 90, 94, 96 ('96' is covered by the label L-IT02) and 98.
Figure 14 Existing layout for Turner Street Linear Park and location of parcels 90, 94, 96 and 98
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 14 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Source: existing layout: Document 15; location of parcels 90, 94, 96 and 98: Document 136
Ms Hodyl and Mr McNeill supported the 10-metre landscape strip being funded through the FBDCP.
The Proponent submitted that if the Turner Street Linear Park spatial layout specified in the FB Framework is retained, the 10-metre linear open space for:
The Proponent provided built form modelling to illustrate how the affected sites could accommodate the uplift.
Melbourne City Council supported including the 10-metre open space in either the FBDCP, the OSU (land and remediation) or a combination of both. It submitted:
Melbourne City Council submitted the embellishment of the 10-metre open space should be classified as an open space project rather than a transport project and:
the embellishment of the Turner Street linear spine including for active transport, amenity and integrated water management functions (as well as distributed storage functions - see drainage submissions) should be funded by the DCP.
The Proponent sought the Committee's recommendation on whether the 10-metre strip of open space for Turner Street should be funded by the FBDCP or the OSU.
As discussed in Chapter 3.2, the Turner Street Linear Park, as envisaged by the FB Framework is crucial for achieving the Lorimer vision. As local public open space, it meets criteria for inclusion in the FBDCP.
It would not be practical to deliver the Turner Street Linear Park through the OSU, or a combination of existing approvals and the OSU, including the park in the OSU. This is because:
Given the Turner Street Linear Park is important to achieving the Lorimer vision as identified in the FB Framework, the Committee considers it should be included in the FBDCP to provide certainty that it can be delivered in an orderly way.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the draft Amendment:
Amend the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan, as shown in Report Volume 2 Appendix I, to:
Port Phillip City Council requested FBDCP funding for land, embellishment or additional embellishment for several open space projects as follows:
Its strategic rationale for the additional funding was:
Port Phillip City Council supported revisions to the CCZ1 (version 2) to show the Salmon Street Linear open space and submitted it should be included in the FBDCP as its provision is not possible without FBDCP funding.
The Proponent did not support additional land funding for Wirraway North Park because it did not support the increased size of the park, as discussed in Chapter 3.2.5.
The Proponent partly supported requests for embellishment funding for all FBDCP open space projects, in the form of funding for demolition and remediation, to make land safe for public access at the time of acquisition.
It indicated it was considering a range of other options for open space projects where embellishment funding was not included in the FBDCP, including opportunities to redeploy funding from OSU embellishment projects if these are included in the OSU ratio and for councils to use their own revenue.
The Committee has recommended the size shown in the current CCZ1 for Wirraway North Park be retained (Chapter 3.2.5). As a result, it also supports FBDCP funding for the reinstated land component of Wirraway North Park (W_OS05).
The Committee supports funding for remediation of all FBDCP open space projects, so they are made safe for public use at the time of acquisition. Regarding additional embellishment funding, the Committee accepts the Proponent's position not to include further costs at this time given the constrained funding environment and with detailed design not established for many of the open spaces in the FBDCP. The Committee encourages the Proponent to continue to explore possible options for embellishment funding of projects in finalising the Amendment.
The Committee is satisfied that the selection of public open space projects for inclusion in the FBDCP has focussed on securing land for future open space, essential for the proposed urban structure, subject to recommendations about specific projects referred to in this Report. The Committee does not support the inclusion of the additional linear open space project in Salmon Street on this basis.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the draft Amendment:
Amend the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan, as shown in Report Volume 2 Appendix I, to:
The issue is whether it is appropriate and justified for the FBDCP to fund a contribution to the land component of active open space in the NEIC.
Melbourne City Council referred to the following evidence given by Ms Joanna Thompson, an open space expert, during the GC81 Panel hearing:
Additional District open space for sporting use will be required in the Employment Precinct [NEIC] to cater to the forecast population in the Lorimer and Montague Precincts, where it is not feasible to provide larger open space that can accommodate sports fields.
The Proponent submitted it inappropriate to include funding in the FBDCP for NEIC open space. It submitted open space provision will be a matter dealt with in the separate process of planning for the NEIC. It provided Supplementary Information Note 08[16] which stated that the PIP process would include a separate plan for the NEIC and would be progressed in 2025.
The Committee acknowledges that the GC81 Panel's recommendations for open space in the FBURA were made in the context of a significant provision of open space in the NEIC that would be used by the FBURA community, especially from Lorimer and Montague where large scale active open spaces are not feasible.
It accepts the Proponent's assurance that planning for open space in the NEIC will be progressed in 2025 as part of planning for the NEIC precinct and foresees the possibility that as part of that process, and any resulting DCP for the NEIC, there may be an external apportionment to the FBURA to account for demand for open space from the FBURA.
That said, it is not possible as part of this Amendment to make any provision for this demand in the FBDCP. Planning for open space in the NEIC has not progressed sufficiently to understand what open space is proposed and how it might be used, no estimated costings have been provided and no analysis of an appropriate apportionment of demand to the FBURA undertaken.
The Committee concludes it is not appropriate or justified for the FBDCP to fund a contribution to the land component of active open space in the NEIC.
The exhibited FBDCP included four community projects, comprising:
The issues are whether the FBDCP should be amended to:
The Proponent explained there were 14 community hub projects in the initial list arising from the FB Framework. Art and cultural hubs, and sport and recreation hubs were prioritised for inclusion in the FBDCP because the health and well-being, and education hubs will be funded by the Victorian government. The scope of community hubs was further refined during the FBDCP selection process as follows:
Port Phillip City Council noted there has been a complete reorganisation of the hubs compared to the FB Framework. It generally supported prioritising sport and recreation and art and cultural hubs as Essential infrastructure for DCP funding and submitted the following projects should be included in the FBDCP:
Melbourne City Council submitted land and construction of the Lorimer Art and Cultural Hub should be included in the FBDCP together with one of:
Mr Panozzo undertook a detailed analysis of community hub requirements including an assessment of the proposed DCP community hub projects with:
Mr Panozzo recommended a significant increase in infrastructure provision for community hubs and pavilions to be included in the FBDCP, most of which was not pursued by submitters. Regarding the Sandridge Sport and Recreation Hub, Mr Panozzo strongly supported the inclusion of Stage 2 in the FBDCP based on population threshold grounds, which would allow for the construction of eight indoor courts as recommended in the FB Framework. This was a lesser number of courts than recommended for provision in the Fishermans Bend Community Infrastructure Plan. Mr Panozzo also supported inclusion of the Montague Art and Cultural Hub based on an assessment of library needs.
Melbourne City Council supported an increase in the number of courts in the Sandridge Sport and Recreation Hub to eight courts and associated spaces (i.e. Stage 2 of the development) to service the residents of Lorimer if land for a Lorimer sport and recreation hub in not included in the FBDCP. However, support was on the proviso that it would be coupled with an active transport upgrade to the Ingles Street bridge to provide better accessibility between Lorimer and Sandridge.
Ms Fisher supported funding a Lorimer sport and recreation hub through the FBDCP, noting it is a project in the FB Framework and of a kind that would be funded by a DCP.
Port Phillip City Council submitted the FBDCP should include funding for the Montague Art and Cultural Hub, consistent with expectations of the FB Framework, and noted its inclusion was supported by Ms Fisher and Mr Panozzo. It identified a potential site for the Hub, in an existing building owned by the Victorian government and therefore did not seek funding for a land component through the FBDCP.
The Proponent agreed that the Montague Art and Cultural Hub was Essential infrastructure but submitted there was no capacity to include it as a DCP project due to DCP funding limitations and CIL caps.
Melbourne City Council noted the FB Framework identified five key community infrastructure projects for Lorimer and the FBDCP only includes funding for the construction component of one project, the Lorimer Art and Cultural Hub, and that this is "hopelessly deficient". It sought additional funding for land component of the Lorimer Art and Cultural Hub using an appropriate methodology, recognising that it would be contained in a mixed-use building. Funding was also sought for an increase in construction costs to allow a floorspace component of 3,000 square metres. It noted the size and scope of the facility was based on its own document, but identified changes over time that require a larger facility including:
Melbourne City Council said an increase was supported by Mr Panozzo's evidence which identified the need for additional general community meeting space and a Level 2 community centre in the Lorimer precinct, preferably co-located with the Lorimer Art and Cultural Hub.
The Proponent agreed that additional floorspace was warranted.
Melbourne City Council did not accept the Proponent's submission that funding of community hub projects by the FBDCP were severely constrained by the need to rely on a capped CIL because:
Melbourne City Council submitted the land and construction component for the Lorimer Art and Cultural Hub meet the FBDCP criteria for project inclusion, and development provided in a mixed-use development (strata title) will still have a 'land component'.
Mr Ainsaar and Mr McNeill both supported identification of a funding source for a land component, with a preference for an incentive scheme for developers to provide the land or if not feasible, inclusion in the FBDCP.
Art and culture, and sport and recreation, community hub projects are Essential infrastructure according to the FBDCP classification and will be very important to the amenity and liveability of the FBURA.
Criteria used to select community hub projects from the FB Framework for inclusion in the FBDCP is less transparent to the Committee than for other infrastructure categories. It appears the primary reason for the consolidation of facilities and the exclusion of others was to reduce costs. With the scale of infrastructure projects identified for the FBURA this is understandable, but makes it difficult for the Committee to recommend the inclusion of one project over another when they all qualify as Essential infrastructure and meet the selection criteria set out at Chapter 2.5 of the FBDCP.
Land for hub projects is relatively scarce in urban renewal areas. The Committee accepts that the need for the community hubs was established through the Amendment G81 process. It notes that if uplift schemes are effective, the resident population is likely to be higher than the forecast of 80,000 people, generating even further need for the community hubs. All hub projects would qualify for inclusion in a DCP, with land components as DIL projects and construction components as CIL projects (noting an exemption from the CIL may be sought).
The proposed provision of community hubs in the FBDCP is quite different to that envisaged in the FB Framework. Mr Panozzo's evidence provided a contemporary assessment of proposed community infrastructure provision by the FBDCP.
In a constrained funding environment, with a scarcity of available land, it makes sense to consolidate facilities where possible and therefore pursue Stage 2 of the Sandridge Sport and Recreation Hub as a multi-level facility rather than pursue an additional stand-alone hub in Lorimer as a FBDCP project. The Committee recommends in Chapter 5.4.2 that an active transport upgrade of the Ingles Street bridge be included in the FBDCP. This would provide Lorimer residents improved access to the Sandridge facility.
A 'land component' to accommodate 3,000 square metres of floorspace is required for the Lorimer Art and Cultural Hub to be delivered as part of a mixed-use development. It should be included in the FBDCP.
Although the Montague Art and Cultural Hub meets the criteria for inclusion for the FBDCP, it could make a good candidate for external funding if housed in an existing Victorian government owned building as suggested by Port Phillip City Council.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the draft Amendment:
Amend the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan, as shown in Report Volume 2 Appendix I, to:
The exhibited FBDCP included $11 million for the construction of distributed water storage that was identified in the Water Sensitive Technical Report 2019 and reflected in the Water Sensitive City Strategy. Because distributed storage is to be delivered as part of streetscape and open space projects listed elsewhere in the FBDCP, costs associated with DR01 were limited to excavation.
The issue is whether the scope and application of the distributed storages project (DR01) is appropriate.
Melbourne City Council submitted the distributed storages project is not properly scoped and significantly under-costed. It sought six key recommendations for distributed storage.
Recommendations which the Proponent did not accept (or only partly accepted) included (summarised):
The Proponent supported changes to the maps subject to further refinement and prioritisation ahead of a delivery plan.
The Proponent submitted further refinement of the project scoping and plans can be undertaken as part of the FBDCP review, once updated modelling is completed, and following the detailed planning required to be undertaken as part of the PIP process.
The Proponent did not support funding for distributed storage projects in non-FBDCP streets, and submitted these should be funded by council or developer works.
Port Phillip City Council sought to clarify integrated water management and distributed storage requirements, how costs were allocated across projects and a significant increase in funding for DR01.
The Proponent submitted that DR01 is not intended to fully fund the cost of distributed storages that may be located in non-FBDCP streets, open space or arterial roads, noting the Fishermans Bend Water Sensitive City Strategy identifies local distributed storage as a shared responsibility. It explained that further work is required to determine the locations of the local distributed storages and will work further on this with Melbourne City Council and Port Phillip City Council.
Notwithstanding, the Proponent proposed to increase funding for DR01 by $20 million to cover drainage connections, bioretention, overland flow channel, tree pits, and soil and gravel drainage layers included in construction costs. This is reflected in the final version of the FBDCP.
The Committee generally supports the proposed approach in the FBDCP to distributed storage through open space and road projects, as this is when works are most appropriately undertaken. As further work is required to determine the exact locations and approach to distributed storages, it is not appropriate to include the exhibited Map 7 in the FBDCP.
Given final locations of distributed storage assets are yet to be determined, and to ensure opportunities are not missed, it is appropriate to include a condition in the CCZ1 and CCZ4 schedules which would require new and upgraded roads to provide this infrastructure. However, the Committee does not consider this needs to be tied to FBDCP funding as sought by Melbourne City Council. There may be circumstances where it is entirely appropriate for a developer to undertake the works as part of works normal to development. The Committee supports the proposed wording of the relevant condition in the CCZ schedules (final version).
The Committee supports the increase in funding allocated to the distributed storage project which makes allowance for a more specific range of costs that will be associated with provision of this infrastructure.
The Committee concludes the scope and application of the distributed storage project (DR01) is appropriate subject to:
The exhibited FBDCP showed the River Esplanade Pump Station (REPS) project (DR02) located on the edge of the Yarra River, outside the FBURA. The FBDCP Final version showed the REPS located within Hartley Street Park (L_OS05).
The issue is whether the River Esplanade Pump Station (DR02) should be located within the Hartley Street Park (L_OS05).
Melbourne City Council requested that if the REPS is to be in Hartley Street Park (contrary to their position):
The Proponent provided Supplementary Information Note 15[17] to outline urban design principles that would be used to guide development of the REPS to ensure the facility complements its location in a new future high quality open space, high density setting.
Melbourne City Council submitted it was unclear how the design principles would be applied, and whether they are binding.
The Proponent suggested wherever the pump station is ultimately located, a thorough urban design review process will be undertaken to ensure that the pump station integrates with its surroundings.
The Committee accepts Melbourne Water's submission that several sites were investigated for location of the REPS and the preferred location for operational reasons was ultimately found to be Hartley Street Park.
It is not unusual for a facility such as the REPS to be located in parkland, although such facilities are not always successfully integrated with the park. The Hartley Street Park makes an important contribution to the overall open space provision in Lorimer and the Committee considers there is opportunity to design a facility to minimise the amount of land occupied and land restricted for public use.
The Committee agrees with Melbourne City Council that land required for the facility that is not open to the public should be included in the FBDCP as part of the drainage project, rather than the open space project. Melbourne Water has identified an approximate area of between 530 square metres and 710 square metres that will be required for "exclusive space" and this is the amount that should be included as the land component of DR02.
It is unclear how the guiding principles set out in SN-15 are intended to be applied, but the Committee encourages Melbourne Water, Melbourne City Council and the Victorian government to work together on the detailed design of the REPS to ensure these urban design principles are considered.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the draft Amendment:
Amend the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan, as shown in Report Volume 2 Appendix I, to:
The issue is whether timings for delivery of FBDCP projects are appropriate.
Submissions requested changes to timeframes for specific projects, usually to bring them forward or, where projects were identified as being delivered in stages, to deliver the project in a single stage.
The Proponent explained the indicative project delivery timeframes in the exhibited FBDCP (Figures 9, 10 and 11 of the exhibited FBDCP) had been determined having regard to "existing development activity and anticipated development fronts, based on a consideration of community needs and orderly planning, and balancing cash flow considerations". The timeframes are indicative only and subject to change, including in response to:
In response to submissions, the Proponent provided Table X (replacing Figures 9, 10 and 11 of the exhibited FBDCP) (Document 99k) with revised timeframes for some FBDCP projects.
Port Phillip City Council submitted key open space land acquisitions and upgrades should occur before 2032, with priority given to North Port Oval expansion. Port Phillip City Council largely agreed with the Table X revised open space timeframes with Council still requesting a small number of open space projects be delivered earlier.
Melbourne City Council requested more information on the timing of open space delivery, particularly open space delivered via the OSU. It also identified errors in indicative delivery figures in the exhibited FBDCP.
The Committee is satisfied that the Proponent's Table X revisions to project delivery timeframes have been determined having regard to an appropriate balance of factors and have, at least in part, responded to submitter concerns. Section 3.2 of the final FBDCP makes clear the timeframes are indicative only and states:
All items in the DCP will be provided as soon as practicable and as soon as sufficient contributions are available, ... and acknowledging the Development Agency's capacity to provide the balance of funds not recovered by the DCP.
The scope of the periodic review of the FBDCP is sufficient to allow appropriate adjustments to delivery timeframes over the life of the FBDCP to ensure that FBDCP projects are delivered in an orderly manner consistent with the growing needs of the FBURA.
Because the OSU sits outside the FBDCP, timings for delivery of OSU parks are not included in Table X. The FB Framework contains indicative timing priorities for delivery of these parks. Because the OSU is voluntary, the timing of actual delivery of OSU parks will be dependent on developer decisions unless the Victorian government steps in to acquire and deliver any of these parks (either to ensure early delivery or where the OSU is not taken up). The scope of the periodic review of the OSU is sufficient to monitor the rate and location of OSU parks being delivered using the OSU.
The Committee concludes the timings for projects set out in Table X of the final FBDCP (final version) are appropriate.
6.1 Background and Open space uplift terminology
Mandatory maximum dwelling densities currently apply to land in the FBURA (referred to as 'the base density'). Under existing provisions, they can only be exceeded where a developer chooses to provide social housing, at no cost, through the SHU mechanism. The proposed OSU would provide a second way to increase development yield above the maximum dwelling densities.
The OSU is implemented through the CCZ schedules. It is intended to incentivise developers to provide land for open space, without cost to the Victorian government, in exchange for additional permitted dwelling density (that is, above the base density) on adjacent land. The additional dwelling density is referred to as the 'OSU uplift' or 'the uplift' and the additional dwellings permitted under the OSU are referred as 'OSU uplift dwellings'.
By way of example, Figure 15 depicts five areas of open space proposed to be delivered by the OSU (OSU parks). The OSU parks are shown in light spotted green with the relevant OSU park identifier marked in dark green with a letter and a number. In the relevant CCZ Schedule maps, OSU parks are identified as 'Public open space site - eligible for Open Space Uplift'.
Figure 15 Example of OSU parks and related OSU candidate sites
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 15 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The OSU parks are located within OSU candidate sites. The entire development site, including the OSU park and the adjacent developable area, is referred to as 'the OSU candidate site'. In the above example, the boundary of each OSU candidate site are shown on Figure 15 in red (parcels 70 and 80).
The OSU dwellings would be delivered on the balance of the OSU candidate site, that is, the land remaining after the OSU park and any other land identified for public purposes (such as a road) is excised (referred to as 'the developable area').[18]
In the example depicted in Figure 15:
A development using the OSU must comply with all other applicable provisions. OSU candidate sites were identified as suitable for the OSU because they have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional OSU uplift dwellings on the developable area while complying with all existing CCZ built form provisions.
Transfer of the OSU park to the Victorian government will be secured by an agreement under section 173 of the PE Act.
Other attributes of the OSU include:[19]
The number of OSU uplift dwellings is calculated using the following formula:
The total number of dwellings permitted on the developable area is calculated by adding the number of uplift dwellings (calculated using the above formula) to the base dwelling density calculated for the whole OSU candidate site (that is, the total site area including the OSU park).[20]
The Amendment includes a new public open space policy (in Clause 11.03) which refers to the OSU together with various other provisions relating to the OSU including a map and list of OSU parks, OSU-related application requirements and OSU-related decision guidelines. The Melbourne Planning Scheme provisions are shown with Port Phillip variations in square brackets:
To encourage the provision of land for public open space, where identified as Open Space Uplift in Map 4 [7] of Schedule 4 [1] to the Capital City Zone, by allowing an Open Space Uplift in accordance with Schedule 4 [1] of the Capital City Zone.
To facilitate the provision of precinct and neighbourhood open space (including linear open space) identified in the Fishermans Bend Framework ... via a combination of development contributions, open space uplift and other government-led measures.
Generally, land and remediation costs for OSU parks were not included in the exhibited FBDCP. As originally conceived, the OSU did not include park embellishment costs as part of the ratio calculations. However, in some cases (but not all), OSU park embellishment costs were included in the exhibited FBDCP as separate projects.
The FBDCP funds the delivery of other public open space identified in the FB Framework (which are not OSU parks).
The OSU ratio is the OSU dwelling uplift yield divided by the 'base case' dwelling yield (as permitted under the existing applicable maximum dwelling densities which vary across core and non-core areas of the four FBURA precincts).[21]
The OSU ratio is used to calculate the OSU uplift dwelling density that appears in the CCZ schedule provisions. The OSU uplift dwelling density is used to calculate the number of OSU uplift dwellings permitted to be delivered on the developable area of an OSU uplift site in exchange for the provision of the OSU park for nil consideration.
The higher the OSU ratio, the greater the number of OSU uplift dwellings are permitted per area of OSU park land provided.
The exhibited OSU ratios did not include 'below the line' additions to OSU park land values to allow for:
The issues are whether the OSU ratios are appropriate and justified including whether:
Mr Costin of Ernst & Young (EY) explained how EY calculated and tested the OSU ratios:
The Proponent undertook built form modelling for each OSU candidate site to test whether the maximum number of uplift dwellings generated by the proposed ratio could be accommodated on the developable area within the built form envelope set by the planning provisions. With two exceptions, Lorimer Central Park and 299 Bridge Street (discussed further in Chapters 7.3 and 7.5), the modelling demonstrated the developable area of all OSU candidate sites have the physical capacity within the built form envelope to achieve the uplift available using the exhibited ratios.
At the conclave, Mr Mackintosh, Mr Costin and Mr Haines supported adopting different ratios for each precinct because it would result in "a more balanced distribution of benefit, given that the ratio calculation is based on underlying land value which varies across the four precincts". The Proponent accepted this.
The land valuation experts agreed that the 'before and after' approach is appropriate, consistent with the valuation approach for FBDCP land (referred as the 'Land Value Based Approach'). This approach estimates the increase in land value potentially available to a landowner taking up the OSU and provides a preliminary sense of the amount of uplift incentive proposed. Mr Ainsaar supported a consistent approach for valuing FBDCP funded land and OSU park land.
Mr Costin explained that sites that are subject to strata title had been valued as if they were in single ownership because valuations are undertaken assuming the land is ready for development and in the case of strata title this would be when all landowners agree to sell.
Mr Haines generally supported EY's method of calculating the OSU ratios but did not support the assumption that when deciding whether to take up the OSU a developer would consider the notional percentage increase in the dollar value (over the base case) for the additional dwellings. He said a developer would instead compare the estimated profit for the additional dwellings allowable under the OSU against the lump sum that the developer would receive by not taking up the OSU (that is, for selling the OSU park to the Victorian government or as compensation for compulsory acquisition of the OSU park).
Mr Haines analysed whether the exhibited OSU ratio for Lorimer would provide an incentive by calculating the potential development profit of additional dwellings based on comparable sales data in Lorimer and assuming:
He described his method as the 'Developers Profit Based Approach' and gave evidence that this is one method, and but not the only method, to establish an appropriate ratio.
Mr Haines said the Developers Profit Based Approach (or another developer-centred method adopted after consultation with developers) should be used to check whether the OSU provides a sufficient incentive as part of regular reviews and before adopting a final ratio for the Amendment.
Mr Haines concluded that for Lorimer an uplift incentive which adds 25 to 35 percent to the base land value would be unlikely to provide a sufficient incentive. Instead, an incentive of at least 50 percent would be required. During questions, Mr Haines stated that he saw no harm in adopting a ratio at the higher end of the range provided that the impact of the additional population on infrastructure can be managed. The difference in ratios calculated using a 45 percent incentive and a 50 percent incentive would not make a substantial difference to the number of dwellings at a precinct level but could make a crucial difference to a developer of a particular site and act as an incentive to take up the OSU.
Mr Costin considered a 45 percent incentive would be sufficient. During questions, he agreed the difference between using a 45 percent incentive and 50 percent incentive could be a deciding factor in whether a particular developer used the OSU or not. Mr Costin stated that to maximise the uptake of the OSU, the ratios can be raised as high as the capacity of the relevant precinct to accommodate additional density.
Ms Hodyl gave evidence the ratios should not be set so high as to negatively impact built form outcomes. Mr Woodland stated it is important that the ratio is high enough to provide sufficient incentive for a developer to take up the uplift opportunity.
The experts highlight that the practical difference between ... an assumed +45% uplift (in the land value based approach) and +50% ... in many cases is a very small increase in the number of additional residences able to be supported. The experts consider this difference to be marginal.
The Proponent submitted there is not much difference between a 45 percent and 50 percent incentive and that a 45 percent incentive is sufficient for developers to take up the OSU.
During the Hearing, the Proponent provided work by EY to demonstrate how the ratios would change based on various positions put by submitters. EY recalculated and tested the ratios:
It also undertook sensitivity testing on increased land values of 10 and 50 percent.
The Proponent undertook further built form modelling based on the recalculated ratios and other relevant changes (such as site reconfigurations). The Proponent submitted the further work demonstrated:
Another submission echoed Melbourne City Council's concerns about reliance on the Proponent's further OSU modelling (Document 208) because it was provided late in the Hearing process and unable to be tested.
The Proponent accepted OSU parks would be required to be remediated to a condition that is suitable for use as a children's playground. This would be required in the section 173 agreement.
Port Phillip City Council supported including the cost of embellishment of all OSU parks in the OSU ratios. It submitted that open space in its municipality should be embellished to its standards and the provisions should be amended to require "any embellishment of open space under the OSU scheme to be in accordance with a park masterplan which is prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority in consultation with the council of the relevant municipality".
The Proponent submitted a landscape plan is already a permit application requirement under the CCZ and no change is required.
The Committee considers the general approach to setting and testing the ratio is appropriate with one exception, discussed below.
For the OSU to be effective, the ratio must be high enough to incentivise developers to take up the scheme, delivering public open space ready for use for the growing population of the FBURA. At the same time, the ratio must not be so high as to cause unacceptable impacts for the future development of the FBURA (impacts of the OSU are discussed in Chapter 6.4).
There was general agreement between the experts on a range of matters including:
The Committee accepts the evidence that for Lorimer, an incentive of 50 percent over the base case is required to ensure the OSU provides a sufficient incentive for its uptake, noting it was based on analysis of comparable sales data. It also accepts that the difference in ratios calculated using a 45 percent incentive and a 50 percent incentive could make a crucial difference to a developer in deciding whether to use the OSU.
The ratio testing demonstrates the viability of using a 50 percent incentive across all FBURA precincts and the Committee concludes in Chapter 6.4 that the impacts of the OSU, using the recalculated ratios, are acceptable. Therefore, although sales-based analysis has not been undertaken for the other three precincts, the Committee recommends that the ratios be recalculated for all FBURA precincts using a 50 percent incentive. In the period before the first periodic review of the OSU and thereafter, analysis of comparable sales data for the other precincts (and an update for Lorimer) can be undertaken and used in the review process to test the attractiveness of the OSU and ratios modified as necessary.
The Committee supports a requirement that OSU parks transferred to the Victorian government be made safe and suitable for public access. This is in line with Ministerial Direction 1 (Potentially Contaminated Land). Inclusion of relevant remediation costs as a below the line addition to the assessed underlying unencumbered value of the OSU park land in the OSU ratio calculations is appropriate.
The ratio testing also demonstrates that OSU park embellishment costs can be added as a below the line addition to the ratio calculations without adversely impacting the viability of the incentive. The embellishment costs used by EY to calculate the final proposed ratios, provided by Mesh, were calculated using a mix of per square metre costings and costs of the actual embellishments required. The Committee considers the Mesh figures are sufficient for calculating the ratios. The extent of embellishment of OSU parks will be determined at the design stage for each site. To the extent that embellishment costs can be more accurately estimated before the Amendment is finalised, those updated figures should be used to calculate the final ratios, but the Amendment should not be held up for this purpose.
If OSU park embellishment costs are included in the ratio calculations, as recommended by the Committee, OSU parks will be delivered as embellished open space. This means that there is no need for OSU park embellishment projects to be included in the FBDCP and they should be removed.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the draft Amendment:
Recalculate the open space uplift ratios for all four precincts in the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area:
Amend all proposed Melbourne Planning Scheme and Port Phillip Planning Scheme provisions to reflect the revised open space uplift ratios.
Amend the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan, as shown in Report Volume 2 Appendix I, to:
The Department of Transport and Planning should apply the Developers Profit Based Approach (or other similar method) as part of the five-yearly reviews of the open space uplift to test whether the open space ratios result in an open space uplift that is a genuine incentive.
Mr Woodland gave evidence that because the OSU because is relatively new, it should be limited to residential development and should not include other types of uses. He said the merits of extending the OSU beyond its current scope could be considered in the future.
Mr Milner believed limiting the OSU to residential uses is a structural weakness of the mechanism. He said 50 Salmon Street provided an example where the OSU would offer no benefit to a developer because commercial development would be more likely to be the highest and best use of the site. 50 Salmon Street is discussed further in Chapter 7.7.
Mr Woodland said including commercial development in the OSU would necessitate a mandatory density limit on commercial development which is not supported by existing policy and would require considerable further work to set an appropriate ratio. He stated:
Numerous submissions supported expansion of the OSU to non-residential development, sites which include land required for transport projects and all proposed open space land in the FBURA.
The Proponent submitted it would be inappropriate to expand the OSU to commercial development given the clear policy position of unrestricted commercial development in the FBURA.
The existing CCZ provisions do not include a mandatory maximum density for commercial uses. Therefore, the OSU as currently conceived cannot be applied to commercial development without significant changes to the CCZ schedules and supporting policy, such as applying a mandatory limit on commercial development. Such a change would have considerable implications that have not been canvassed before the Committee or tested. The GC81 Panel carefully considered these issues, and there is no evidence before this Committee to warrant departing from its conclusions and the current planning scheme provisions.
As outlined above, considerable work has been undertaken to select and test the proposed OSU candidate sites. Crucially, sites have been selected if the developable area has the physical capacity for uplift dwellings within the built form provisions. This is not the case for all development sites where part of the site is proposed for public open space. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to expand the OSU to include all sites in the FBURA with proposed public open space.
Given the OSU is new, it would be wise to commence with a limited scope. Early learnings can be captured as part of the periodic reviews of the OSU. Further, expanding the type of land coming within the scheme, for example to sites that include public transport land, would require substantial further work which could delay the Amendment.
However, the Committee sees no reason why, if the OSU successfully delivers public open space as part of residential developments, that it could not be expanded in the future. The appropriateness of expanding the scope should be considered at the periodic reviews of the OSU.
The Department of Transport and Planning should consider the appropriateness of expanding the scope of the open space uplift as part of the five-yearly reviews of the open space uplift.
Submissions expressed concern the OSU would not deliver public open space, either at all or in a timely manner, because:
The experts acknowledged that the OSU involves uncertainties, but said they would reduce over time as the OSU became more understood.
If over time it becomes clear that landowners are opting not to take up the OSU, then the Planning Authority could elect to either amend the DCP or apply PAOs to the relevant sites as part of the periodic review of the planning provisions.
Mr Milner said that the OSU's shortcomings meant that there could be a minimal delivery of open space using the OSU.
The valuation and OSU experts said further clarification is required about how landowners would receive compensation for OSU parks when not taking up the OSU. This is required:
Ms Hodyl gave evidence the Victorian government's guarantee to deliver OSU parks where the OSU is not taken up is "critical" to the scheme. She said:
If sufficient open space is not delivered, and delivered early in the renewal process, then the base densities allowable across the Lorimer precinct are not supportable, which undermines the overall urban renewal strategy of Fishermans Bend.
The Proponent submitted the OSU is voluntary, both in its design and in practice. This is clear in Factsheet 2 and in the Planning Scheme provisions. The Proponent explained that when not taking up the OSU, permit conditions could require that OSU park land be fenced and made safe to a basic level until the Victorian government purchased or acquired the site.
The Proponent submitted the reference in Clause 11.03 to "other government-led measures" as the alternative to FBDCP and OSU funded open space was sufficient to clarify the Victorian government's commitment to deliver OSU parks and nothing further is required in the Planning Scheme. The FBDCP (final version) states that the Victorian government is responsible for securing OSU parks not delivered by the OSU.
Port Phillip City Council's support for the OSU was subject to:
While generally supporting the OSU, Melbourne City Council expressed concern about the uncertainty created by the Victorian government's lack of commitment to the timing of acquisition where the OSU is not taken up.
Goodman submitted due to the uncertainty of the OSU, identification of land as an OSU park makes the scheme "all but mandatory". Landowners not taking up the OSU would be faced with undeveloped, unattractive pockets of land within development sites while waiting for the Victorian government to purchase or compulsorily acquire the open space land, essentially forcing them to opt into the scheme. It submitted:
Future market dynamics may not support developers to deliver the some or all of the housing uplift that would justify the provision of land for the OSU. What would then remain might be the worst of all worlds, with projects that ought otherwise have been included in the DCP - and hence identified, scoped, costed, funded and delivered with all of the rigour that comes with that - instead being left to a voluntary mechanism, but still subject to the prospect of compulsory acquisition and a compensation dispute under the LAC Act.
Goodman also submitted that where a permit application for an OSU candidate site does not use the OSU, the responsible authority will be confronted with a conflict of interest. In granting the permit it would forgo the opportunity to receive the OSU park at no cost and "in that circumstance there would be an incentive for a responsible authority to refuse a permit application on the basis of a pretext, rather than for the true planning reason".
Port Phillip City Council submitted there is a potential conflict of interest for the responsible authority in administering the OSU due to the additional development contributions levies that would be raised by the uplift dwellings. To avoid this, it submitted the levies from OSU dwellings should be used to fund additional projects rather than the 'funding the gap' under the FBDCP.
Overall, the Proponent submitted adopting the OSU will have significant benefits. For example, if all OSU sites are delivered using the OSU, the OSU will:
The Committee acknowledges that many submitters, including the two councils, have a genuine concern about the uncertainties of the OSU, not just because it is untested. This concern is largely driven by the importance of delivering suitable open space in the FBURA to meet the growing demands of what will be a very densely populated area. The GC81 Panel made clear that the large increase in density and public realm transformation must go together. Without this, the intent of the Framework will not be achieved.
There is, undoubtedly, a level of uncertainty associated with the OSU mechanism. It is not possible to predict how many OSU parks will be delivered using the mechanism and when. That will depend on market dynamics. The Committee has discussed the need for the OSU ratios to be set at a level that provides a genuine incentive for uptake of the scheme. It also acknowledges that there will be situations where the OSU is not currently applicable (for example, commercial development) or not attractive (for example, a low density development).
The Committee agrees that the Victorian government's commitment to deliver all open space identified in the Framework, including all OSU parks not delivered using the OSU, is crucial. The statement in the FBDCP (final version) that the Victorian government is responsible for "securing" OSU parks not delivered by the OSU should be strengthened by adding the words "and delivering". The Committee recommends that this commitment also be explicitly stated in the Governance (Implementation) and Funding (Finance) Strategy but considers no changes to the planning scheme provisions are required.
Overall, the Committee considers that the uncertainties of the OSU are not so great that it should not be progressed. The OSU offers clear benefits where used. OSU parks will be delivered as open space alongside the development of the adjacent land, embellished and in a safe and suitable condition ready for use. The periodic review process should be used to assess whether the OSU is delivering the open space required as the population grows over time.
The OSU is clearly intended to be voluntary. To achieve this intent, its design must ensure a developer can freely choose either to take up the OSU or to develop without using the uplift. To do this, developers must be able to assess the merits of taking up the OSU and to that extent, the pathways for taking up the OSU and not taking it up need to be clear. This includes clarity on the method of acquisition of OSU parks by the Victorian government where the developer chooses not to use the OSU, including compensation for the OSU park land.
In this respect, Factsheet 2 (or other relevant guidance material) should be amended to clearly state methods (including land valuation methods) that will be used for the purchase (by negotiation) or compulsory acquisition of OSU parks. The periodic reviews should include consultation with developers to better understand how developers are assessing the benefits and disbenefits of using the OSU and barriers to uptake of the OSU.
On the issue of conflicts of interest, the Committee is confident the existing legal framework is sufficient to ensure that the responsible authority acts according to law and there is redress if it does not. Responsible authorities are faced with similar potential conflicts of interest daily, such as a local council considering a permit application for a substantial development that would deliver a significant number of rateable properties and therefore considerable additional rate revenue.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the draft Amendment:
Amend the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan, as shown in Report Volume 2 Appendix I, to:
The Department of Transport and Planning should:
The issue is whether the potential impacts of the additional dwellings delivered through the OSU are acceptable including:
Some submissions expressed concern about the built form impacts of the OSU. The Proponent submitted the urban design impacts of the OSU are managed through the Planning Scheme provisions because any additional development (uplift dwellings) obtained through the OSU are subject to the same provisions, including the same mandatory overshadowing provisions, as other developments in the FBURA.
Mr Woodland said the current and proposed planning scheme provisions provide an appropriate framework to ensure the OSU does not adversely impact urban design and amenity outcomes.
He gave evidence that when considering suitable sites for the OSU, there must be sufficient gap or 'headroom' on the developable area of OSU candidate sites between the building height (when uplift dwellings have been added to the base case) and the maximum building height under the planning provisions to allow for use of the OSU over time. He explained that as land values go up and the ratio is recalculated, more uplift will become available. He did not express a view on how much headroom is needed, but it is a matter to be considered.
Ms Hodyl generally supported the OSU in Lorimer cautioning that "uplift schemes should not be positioned as a 'trade-off' between financing and amenity/liveability". She said:
For the OSU to be effective there needs to be sufficient capacity above the base allowable densities to enable its operation, while not undermining broader design objectives such as housing diversity and high levels of amenity.
The Proponent undertook built form modelling to demonstrate that the maximum OSU uplift can occur within the permitted building envelope on the developable area of all but two OSU candidate sites. The built form envelope used for the modelling included:
The developable areas on the following OSU candidate sites cannot accommodate the maximum uplift offered by the OSU within the building envelope:
The specifics of these two sites are discussed further in Chapter 7. Generally, the Proponent submitted that where uptake of the OSU would result in a discretionary building height being exceeded, a permit application would be required, and the responsible authority would have the ability to assess whether the built form impacts of the development were acceptable.
Melbourne City Council was satisfied that urban design impacts of the OSU can be managed except for Lorimer Central, which it submitted should not be an OSU candidate site.
Port Phillip City Council expressed concern about the limited 'headroom' in the building envelope over time for parks at:
There are two principal means of managing the built form impacts of the OSU.
The first is through the selection of OSU candidate sites. With the exceptions noted, the developable areas of all OSU candidate sites have the physical capacity to accommodate the maximum OSU uplift within the built form envelope implied by the planning provisions. The Committee acknowledges that the 'headroom' available is more limited on some sites than others. This should be considered in the periodic review of the OSU and any adjustments made as necessary.
The second is application of the planning provisions. Where a discretionary provision would be exceeded by a development incorporating OSU uplift dwellings (such as a discretionary height limit), a permit will be required. In that case, the responsible authority can ensure that either the built form impacts are acceptable or refuse the permit. If a mandatory provision is not met, an OSU development cannot proceed. Further, the Committee has concluded the master planning process must not be able to change key mandatory built form provisions and the Proponent's final drafting reflects this. This will ensure that built form impacts of the OSU are appropriately managed through the Planning Schemes.
Submissions queried whether the OSU would negatively impact delivery of social housing under the SHU because the OSU would be the first uplift likely to be taken up by developers, leaving less incentive (or room within the built form envelope) for SHU uplift dwellings.
Mr Woodland gave evidence it is reasonable to prioritise the OSU over the SHU because:
The OSU is only available on a relatively limited number of strategic sites, whereas the SHU is available to all sites across the precinct, and
There is a broader challenge in keeping the overall DCP costs as low as possible in order to achieve development feasibility across the precinct. Incentivising the delivery of open space on these sites via the OSU mechanism is an important part of the overall infrastructure delivery strategy.
Mr Costin stated that the OSU would be more attractive to developers than the SHU because typically a developer would prefer a product that is not restricted.
The Proponent submitted the OSU will not adversely impact the likely uptake of the SHU. The built form modelling demonstrates there is ample space remaining in the building envelopes to accommodate both OSU and SHU uplift dwellings, except for the two sites identified (Lorimer Central and 299 Bridge Street).
Melbourne City Council submitted the potential impacts on the SHU are acceptable given:
The Proponent's modelling demonstrates the OSU will not adversely impact on the availability and uptake of the SHU when considered at the level of the FBURA. The SHU applies to all sites across the FBURA while the OSU applies to relatively few. The Committee is satisfied that for the sites where the OSU applies, the Proponent's modelling demonstrates sufficient capacity for SHU dwellings after OSU dwellings are considered except for Lorimer Central and 299 Bridge Street.
Some submissions expressed concern about the impact of the additional population that would result from take up of the OSU.
Mr Woodland noted that the OSU, if fully taken up, would result in an additional 1,200 dwellings based on the exhibited ratios or approximately 2,300 dwellings (based on the version 2 precinct-based ratios). He said that the potential increase in population from these additional OSU dwellings would be relatively minor in the context of the potential population of the FBURA of up to 120,000 residents. He considered that the impacts of the additional population delivered through the OSU should be monitored and reviewed regularly.
The Proponent's modelling estimated 3,148 additional OSU dwellings (based on version 2 ratios with remediation and embellishment costs added to the ratio calculations) and between 9,739 and 19,000 SHU dwellings assuming:
The Proponent submitted the modelling demonstrated that even using the highest level of uptake of the SHU, the cumulative population increases of the two uplifts would not push the expected total population beyond the 120,000 upper bound suggested by the GC81 Panel as being supportable based on existing infrastructure planning. Therefore, the additional population resulting from OSU uplift dwellings can be accommodated and would be reviewed as part of the regular reviews of the FBDCP.
Melbourne City Council accepted the population impacts of the OSU can be managed through the regular review process.
The FB Framework contemplates a population in the range of 80,000 to 120,000 people (depending on the extent of take up of the SHU). In the context of the FBURA's proposed population of up to 120,000, the population impacts of the OSU are relatively minor, even when considering the Proponent's revised estimate of 3,148 dwellings (a figure based on the conservative assumption that all OSU candidate sites are developed to the maximum uplift available).
The FBURA population may grow faster or slower than forecast and the contribution of the OSU to that growth is hard to predict. The impact of the OSU on population growth in the FBURA should be monitored and be part of the periodic reviews of the FBDCP and the OSU.
The Committee concludes the potential impacts of the open space uplift are acceptable, although population impacts should be monitored.
The Department of Transport and Planning should monitor the impacts of open space uplift dwellings on population growth in the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area as part of the five-yearly reviews of the Fisherman Bend development Contribution Plan.
It was common ground that regular review of the OSU will be required to understand whether the scheme delivers its intended outcomes. The issue is what scope of review would be appropriate.
Mr Woodland recommended the following matters be reviewed:
Melbourne City Council submitted that the OSU should be reviewed as follows:
It submitted that appropriately worded policy generally reflecting this review process should be included in Clause 11.03. The Proponent agreed that Clause 11.03 should contain a general policy (which is reflected in the final version of the provision) but submitted Factsheet 2 should be updated to outline indicative scope of the OSU review.
A periodic review of the OSU should be used to assess its success in delivering OSU parks and whether that is occurring in a timely way given actual FBURA population increases over time. The review should occur every five years except for land valuations which should be reviewed annually. For the first review, the Proponent should consider starting two to three years after the Amendment is gazetted to capture early learnings.
The scope proposed by Melbourne City Council is appropriate with the following additional considerations (noting that the impact of the OSU on population growth is included the review of the FBDCP):
The Committee considers the planning scheme provisions should reflect that ongoing review of OSU will be required to ensure that it remains a genuine incentive over time. This is an essential element of the OSU. The Committee considers Clause 11.03 (final version) achieves that and informally recommends that Factsheet 2 (or other guidance material) be updated to outline the indicative scope of the OSU review.
The Committee concludes it is appropriate for the open space uplift to be reviewed as follows:
The Department of Transport and Planning should revise Factsheet 2 (or other relevant guidance material) to reflect that the open space uplift will be reviewed as follows:
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 16 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Figure 17 Montague, Sandridge and Wirraway OSU parks (exhibited)
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 17 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The following were all exhibited as OSU parks except for the Hartley Street Park and 18-22 Salmon Street park (which were included in the FBDCP):
7.3 Lorimer Central Park (L_OS03 and OSU_L3 & 4)
As exhibited, Lorimer Central Park was proposed to be funded by the:
As discussed in Chapter 3.2.2, exhibited FBDCP showed a reconfigured area of open space for Lorimer Central Park as compared to the current planning provisions, which were based on the FB Framework and the GC81 Panel Report. During the Hearing, the Proponent agreed to revert to the current open space configuration shown in the CCZ4.
The Lorimer Central Park OSU candidate site (874-886 Lorimer Street and 338-356 Ingles Street, Port Melbourne) is a strata title development known as 'Lorimer Place'. Lorimer Place includes 25 lots and the common property on Plan of Subdivision PS602537Y (owned by the Lorimer Place Owners Corporation). The common property includes a strip of land that bisects the OSU candidate site, currently used as an access road for lot owners.
The 25 lots are generally developed as warehouses and offices.
The Proponent's OSU modelling, based on the current open space configuration of Lorimer Central Park, demonstrated that the developable area of the OSU candidate site cannot accommodate any OSU uplift, as shown in Figure 18.
Figure 18 OSU modelling for OSU uplift on Lorimer Central Park OSU candidate site
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 18 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Ms Hodyl stated Lorimer Central Park should not be included in the OSU because the developable area cannot accommodate any OSU uplift (assuming the current open space configuration). Under questioning, she conceded that the current open space configuration was potentially not the only one that could produce good urban design outcomes, but it had been reached after much consideration and was supported by the GC81 Panel. From an urban design perspective, there was no good reason to depart from that configuration. Mr Haines also considered Lorimer Central Park is not suitable for inclusion in the OSU.
... if it is established that the OSU mechanism is unable to deliver open space in a manner consistent with the Framework, the acquisition of land, along with demolition, asbestos removal and contamination remediation costs, should be included as a DCP project.
Mr Woodland supported Lorimer Central Park as an OSU park. However, he had not considered the modelling that showed that the developable land could not accommodate any uplift.
The Proponent accepted that the current configuration of the Lorimer Central Park (that is, as shown in the current CCZ4) makes it impossible to deliver even the base level of density contemplated by the CCZ. Despite this, it maintained that Lorimer Central Park should remain an OSU park because it is a master planning site which "means that there is scope to review the siting and configuration of the site to achieve OSU, satisfy shadow requirements and produce good urban design outcomes". Built form modelling for an alternative configuration of the park (including the exhibited configuration) demonstrated that an uplift is possible.
Melbourne City Council submitted Lorimer Central Park is not suitable for the OSU because:
Melbourne City Council submitted Lorimer Central Park should be funded by the FBDCP because:
The Lorimer Place Owners Corporation (owner of common property on Plan of Subdivision PS602537Y at 874-886 Lorimer Street and 338-356 Ingles Street, Port Melbourne) submitted Lorimer Central Park is not suitable for inclusion in the OSU because:
VCHQ2 Pty Ltd, a Lorimer Place lot owner, made similar submissions on the impracticability of the lot owners acting in concert. It supported retention of the existing configuration of the open space and submitted it should not be an OSU park and instead funded by the FBDCP.
With the current configuration, there is no OSU uplift capacity available. The built form modelling demonstrates that the allowable built form envelope cannot accommodate even the base dwelling density, let alone any uplift, including when the discretionary height limit is exceeded. The principal restriction is the overshadowing provision.
The modelling demonstrates that it is possible to reconfigure the open space in a way that provides sufficient capacity for the OSU to operate and potentially meet the overshadowing controls. Therefore, the master planning process could, at least theoretically, achieve a reconfiguration of the site that:
Ms Hodyl conceded that this is at least a possibility.
However, the overshadowing testing provided by the Proponent[24] provides little comfort that an alternative configuration that allows for an OSU uplift will result in acceptable overshadowing impacts. The Committee considers this is crucial because Lorimer Central is the only park in Lorimer with winter sunlight provisions.
On balance, there is insufficient evidence before the Committee to conclude that there is a realistic prosect of a suitable alternative configuration for Lorimer Central Park being found through the master planning process that allows for the OSU without compromising urban design outcomes. The Committee considers it would be an inefficient use of resources to undertake a task that has already been through the rigorous testing of the GC81 process.
Further, the fact that the OSU candidate site is strata titled makes the prospect of delivering the Lorimer Central Park through the OSU extremely unlikely. In this respect, the Committee agrees with the submissions of Melbourne City Council and the Lorimer Place Owners Corporation that the practicalities of such a large number of individual lot owners agreeing to a single course of action are almost insurmountable.
For these reasons, Lorimer Central Park should not be included in the OSU.
Lorimer Central Park meets the criteria for funding by the FBDCP and should be included in the FBDCP (land, remediation and embellishment) as an open space project.
The Committee notes Melbourne City Council has requested purchase of the site be prioritised in the staging plan as a strategic land purchase in conjunction with delivery of the tram project. As the Committee does not have confirmation of timing for the delivery of the tram, it makes no recommendation in relation to proposed timing for purchase of the land.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the draft Amendment:
Amend the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan, as shown in Report Volume 2 Appendix I, to:
The exhibited Amendment did not identify Hartley Street Park as an OSU park, but the Proponent indicated it could be.
The Hartley Street Park (L_OS05) (0.64 hectares) is shown in Figure 19 and consists of:
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 19 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The exhibited FBDCP funded acquisition of the land and remediation for L_OS05, but not embellishment. The FBDCP (final version) includes park embellishment.
The Proponent submitted Hartley Street Park could be included in the OSU (and removed from the FBDCP) because its further built form modelling demonstrates that the developable area of the OSU candidate site has substantial uplift capacity, although the precise amount depends on which parcels are included in the OSU candidate site.
Although the principal position of the landowner of parcel 111, Claric 178 Pty Ltd (Claric), was that the PAO should apply to the site (further discussed at Chapter 8.4), in the alternative it did not object to all three parcels being in the OSU. It submitted:
The owner of parcel 112, South Wharf Towers Pty Ltd, queried why the parcel was not included in the OSU. It submitted the site could benefit from the uplift if the current permit was not acted on.
Ms Hodyl's evidence was the layout of the open space pre-dated GC81, was confirmed through that process and its reconfiguration should not be opened up for debate.
The Proponent's built form modelling shows there is ample capacity for the required OSU uplift dwellings if:
The entirety of parcel 111 is identified for future open space. There is no balance land in parcel 111 to accommodate dwellings (either base density dwellings or uplift dwellings).
The relevant landowners have no objection to the land being included in the OSU.
If Hartley Street Park is included as an OSU park and the existing approvals for parcels 110 and 112 are both acted on, parcel 111 would be left as an OSU candidate site without any developable area to accommodate an uplift. It is also possible that this could occur if parcels 110 and 112 are both developed independently as OSU projects or if they are developed without taking up the OSU. In these scenarios, the Victorian government would need to purchase or acquire parcel 111 (in the same manner as any other OSU park not delivered using the OSU).
As its principal position, the owner of parcel 111 requested a PAO be applied. The Committee discusses (in Chapter 8.2) appropriate criteria for applying a PAO in the FBURA, one of which includes that the whole of the site is identified for a future public purpose. As discussed further in Chapter 8.4, the Committee considers that if it transpires that both parcels 110 and 112 are developed without delivering parcel 111 as public open space, then the PAO should be immediately applied to parcel 111 (95-97 Lorimer Street).
The Committee recommends the following changes to the draft Amendment:
Amend the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan, as shown in Report Volume 2 Appendix I, to:
The exhibited Amendment identified 299 Bridge Street open space as an OSU park. The built form modelling demonstrated that the developable area of the OSU candidate site cannot accommodate the OSU uplift required to deliver the OSU park unless the discretionary height limit of 24 levels is exceeded, as shown in Figure 20.
Figure 20 Built form modelling for 299 Bridge Street
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 20 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The Proponent submitted that 299 Bridge Street, Port Melbourne (OSU_S12) is suitable for inclusion in the OSU because:
There was no real opposition to including 299 Bridge Street park in the OSU despite it being one of the two exceptions to the selection criterion that the developable area of the OSU candidate site must be able to accommodate the dwelling uplift within the built form envelope.
Although the Proponent's alternative built form modelling showed a differently configured project could achieve the uplift within the built form envelope, it was based on a much smaller park being delivered - 500 square metres as compared to 1,696 square metres. The Proponent provided no justification for what would be a material change to the outcome sought for the park in the FB Framework. The Committee found this modelling unhelpful.
That said, where a discretionary height is nominated in the planning scheme, the modelling assumed it to be mandatory (as explained in Chapter 6.4.2). Therefore, an OSU development on this site would require a permit (to exceed the discretionary height control). The Committee has concluded that in these cases, the built form impacts of the OSU can be appropriately managed through the permit application process.
The Committee therefore considers it is appropriate for the 299 Bridge Street park to be identified as an OSU park.
The Committee concludes it is appropriate to include 299 Bridge Street, Port Melbourne (OSU_S12) in the OSU mechanism (land, remediation and embellishment).
The exhibited FBDCP includes funding for delivery of 900 square metres of open space and embellishments (W_OS07) at 18-22 Salmon Street, Port Melbourne (total site area of 9,700 square metres).
During the Hearing, the Proponent provided built form modelling showing that open space of 871 square metres could be delivered using the OSU. Four hundred OSU dwellings could be accommodated on the developable area within the implied built form envelope (above a base density of 178 dwellings).
No submission was received from the landowner (who was not a party to the Hearing).
The built form modelling demonstrates the site at 18-22 Salmon Street has capacity for a considerable uplift, more than twice the base case, if the open space on the site was an OSU park. This would appear to offer sufficient incentive for a developer to consider using the OSU.
However, the open space was exhibited as a FBDCP project, and no submission was received from the landowner.
Procedural fairness requires that the owner of 18-22 Salmon Street (and potentially the occupier if a long term lease applies) be given an opportunity to be heard before changing the status of the open space from FBDCP funded to an OSU park. If the Proponent wishes to include this site in the OSU, it must give the owner and occupier an opportunity to provide a submission and consider that submission before reaching a final position.
The Committee concludes that while the site at 18-22 Salmon Street, Port Melbourne (which contains W_OS07) has sufficient capacity to accommodate OSU uplift dwellings, it would not be appropriate to change it to an OSU candidate site without consulting with the landowner and occupier (if required).
7.7 50 Salmon Street Park (W_OS06 and OSU_W3)
The site at 50 Salmon Street (4,890 square metres) is situated on the corner of Salmon and Plummer Streets. It has a warehouse building, tenanted and currently used for a go kart business.
Figure 21 50 Salmon Street as shown in the exhibited FBDCP
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 21 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The owner, One Smarter Pty Ltd, submitted OSU_W3 should be funded by the FBDCP and the PAO applied. It submitted the OSU is inappropriate to deliver the park because:
Relying on its built form modelling, the Proponent submitted it is appropriate to include 50 Salmon Street as an OSU candidate site because there is sufficient uplift available on the developable area.
The Committee accepts that the site at 50 Salmon Street is constrained. The pipeline buffer which covers the south-west corner of the site (not the whole site) adds complexity. However Mr Milner accepted that development of land within a pipeline buffer for residential use is not uncommon.
After the land for PT01 (assuming a 10-metre-strip) and the open space are excised, 3,522 square metres of developable area remains. The Committee is not convinced a non-residential development will necessarily be more attractive to a developer than residential (and that the OSU is therefore unlikely to be able to be taken up).
The revised built form modelling using a 50 percent incentive (and all relevant inclusions such as remediation and embellishments) identifies the balance of the site (after PT01 has been delivered) can accommodate:
This demonstrates that the site can accommodate the OSU uplift without exceeding the built form envelope.
No crossovers are permitted along the Plummer Street frontage. The Salmon Street frontage will be lost if the park is delivered as shown on the FBDCP maps. It appears that a six-metre laneway proposed on the western side of the site would become the site's only access. However, the site will be subject to master planning and the issue of potential 'land locking' can be addressed in that process. This is not a reason to exclude the site from the OSU.
The Committee concludes it is appropriate to include 50 Salmon Street park (OSU_W3) in the OSU mechanism (land, remediation and embellishment).
The Proponent proposed that five parks in Port Phillip be delivered by the OSU. The parks are:
Port Phillip City Council submitted the OSU is too uncertain to deliver the parks because all are:
The Committee has addressed the uncertainties of the OSU elsewhere in this Report and concluded that notwithstanding the uncertainties, the OSU should be progressed subject to regular reviews. The Proponent's built form modelling demonstrates that the developable areas on the five OSU candidate sites can accommodate the uplift within the implied built form provisions and no other reasons for their exclusion from the OSU were advanced.
The Committee concludes it is appropriate for the five parks to remain as open space uplift land (land, remediation and embellishment).
The exhibited Amendment does not propose to apply the PAO to any land.
Section 5(4B) of the LAC Act provides that declared 'special project land' can be acquired without the need for reservation (that is, without applying a PAO). Under Part 9A of the PE Act, the Secretary of the Department may declare land required for a 'project of state significance' to be 'special project land' for the purposes of section 5 of the LAC Act. The FBURA is a declared 'project of state significance' within the meaning of Part 9A of the PE Act.
... parks in conjunction with (or immediately after) the Precinct plan process, when the final boundaries of the land required are resolved.
... the future tram alignments, the future Metro stations and any arterial road widening as soon as practicable once there is a degree of certainty as to the boundaries and dimensions of the land required.
The Attorney-General has a discretion to declare land to be proposed to be reserved for public purposes if satisfied that the value of the land may be substantially affected by a proposal to reserve land for public purposes (section 113 of the PE Act).
In this chapter the term 'reservation' of land refers to applying a PAO to land.
The issue is whether it is appropriate to apply the Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO) to land in the FBURA.
Mr Milner stated that for reasons of fairness and equity "the PAO should be applied to all land where a substantial portion or the entire holding is required for a future public reservation" in the FBURA. The PAO should be applied now.
Mr Milner considered applying the PAO would address these issues and allow affected owners to claim compensation for losses experienced while awaiting land acquisition by the Victorian government.
During questions, Mr Milner conceded the PAO was not required in the FBURA and that a landowner can seek a declaration under section 113 of the PE Act from the Attorney-General to trigger an avenue for compensation.
Mr Woodland thought the PAO to be just one tool for acquiring land for a public purpose and is not always used.
The Proponent submitted it is not appropriate to apply the PAO in the FBURA because:
Accepting that the GC81 Panel had recommended the PAO be applied in certain circumstances, the Proponent submitted:
Some submissions requested the PAO be applied to land identified as required for a public purpose under the FB Framework. They submitted:
Submitters requested the PAO be applied to the following sites:
In addition to the general reasons for applying the PAO set out above, each landowner made site-specific submissions (discussed further below in this chapter).
The Committee accepts the PAO is not needed to acquire land identified in the FBURA for a future public purpose because Part 9A of the PE Act applies. If a PAO were to be applied in the FBURA, it would be for another reason.
The Committee agrees with Mr Milner that in some situations the PAO will need to be applied to achieve fairness as required by section 4(1)(a) of the PE Act because the PAO enables the possibility of obtaining compensation before the land is acquired. These are situations where the landowner bears an unusually high burden compared to general landowners facing a restriction on use of their land. This includes where the whole site (or a very substantial portion) is to be acquired for a public purpose and the strategic planning process has progressed to the point where, in the words of the GC81 Panel, "there is a degree of certainty as to the boundaries and dimensions of the land required".
In the FBURA, it would be inappropriate, therefore, to apply the PAO to:
The Committee does not believe that the 2021 amendments to the PE Act are a valid reason to depart from the GC81 Panel's PAO recommendations.
The Planning and Environment Amendment Act 2021 amended section 98(1)(a) of the PE Act to clarify that compensation may only be claimed where a planning scheme expressly reserves land with the words "to reserve land for a public purpose". Currently, the PAO is the only available mechanism that achieves this.
The amending Bill's second reading speech and statement of compatibility made clear that Parliament's intention in making the amendment was that compensation would not be available where a DCP (amongst other strategic planning instruments) "indicates an intention that the land may be used for a public purpose in the future" and that intention has not been formalised by applying the PAO to a particular site.
Therefore, it is now clear that the formal reservation of the land for a public purpose by applying the PAO is the trigger that enlivens compensation rights under section 98(1)(a) of the PE Act. Where there is no PAO, a landowner whose land is identified for acquisition for a public purpose must rely on the land being acquired by the Victorian government, voluntarily or compulsorily (unless it is an OSU park in which case the landowner may be able to obtain a benefit through that scheme) or seek a declaration under section 113.
However, the 2021 amendment says nothing about the appropriateness of applying the PAO in particular cases where a DCP indicates certain land may be used for a public purpose in the future, that is, it says nothing about the decision to apply the PAO.
In this regard, the Committee disagrees with the Proponent's characterisation of the 2021 amendments as having changed the general notion of fairness regarding 'planning blight'. There will continue to be situations where the notion of fairness embedded in section 4(1)(a) of the PE Act requires a PAO to be applied. These include where the identification of the land as being required for a public purpose will cause the landowner a high degree of disadvantage, perhaps occurring well before the proposed acquisition. In some cases, and particularly in the context of a 30-year timeframe for the FBDCP, fairness will require that the landowner has access to compensation for losses suffered in the short term while awaiting acquisition of land identified for public purposes. Each case must be assessed on its merits.
The Committee concludes it is appropriate to apply the Public Acquisition Overlay in the FBURA where each of the following is satisfied:
The issues whether it is appropriate and justified to apply the PAO to Lorimer Central Park.
The Lorimer Central Owners Corporation (Owners Corporation) submitted that Lorimer Central Park (L_OS03/OSU_L3 & 4) is not suitable to be an OSU park. Instead it should be funded by the FBDCP and a PAO applied to the identified open space and any area required for a road or tram corridor.
It submitted a PAO is required to achieve fairness because the affected land is effectively sterilised. It is an undue burden on individual landowners to require them to seek a declaration from the Attorney-General, as suggested by the Proponent, and a "waste of resources" where the PAO can readily be recommended and put in place.
The Owners Corporation also submitted that the site should be subject to master planning and accepted that applying the PAO requires a final position on the location and area of the required open space and any road or tram corridor.
The Committee has concluded that IPO Area B, which includes Lorimer Central Park, is appropriate for master planning. Therefore, it is inappropriate to apply the PAO until the master planning process is completed and the boundaries of land required for public purposes are finalised.
If after the master planning process is complete, there are entire lots within Lorimer Central (or a very substantial proportion) required for public purposes it would be appropriate to apply the PAO to those lots without delay (provided the landowner can demonstrate disadvantage).
The background to 95-97 Lorimer Street (parcel 111), part of the Hartley Street Park, is set out in Chapter 7.4.
The issue is whether it is appropriate and justified to apply the PAO to 95-97 Lorimer Street (parcel 111), which is identified as required for future open space as part of the Hartley Street Park.
As its principal position, the owner of 95-97 Lorimer Street, Claric 178 Pty Ltd (Claric), sought a PAO as part of the Amendment (and not after the Lorimer PIP process).
Claric submitted since the entire the site was identified as future public open space in the draft Vision for the FBURA in 2013, it has suffered significant disadvantages such as:
Claric supported the site being part of an OSU candidate site because it did not consider applying the PAO to be a likely outcome of the Amendment.
The Committee has concluded that it is appropriate to include the entire Hartley Street Park (L_OS05) (parcels 110, 111 and 112) in the OSU and the sites will be subject to master planning. Therefore, it is inappropriate to apply the PAO as part of this Amendment.
As discussed in Chapter 7.4, the Committee acknowledges the concern of Melbourne City Council that if the current approvals for parcels 110 and 112 are acted on, parcel 111 will be left as an OSU site with no developable area. In Chapter 7.4, the Committee found it would be appropriate to apply the PAO in these circumstances, noting that the whole of parcel 111 is identified as future public open space. Claric's submission regarding the disadvantage it has suffered, and will continue to suffer, support this conclusion.
The Committee recommends that this issue be included in the periodic reviews of the OSU and if this situation arises, the PAO be applied to parcel 111 without delay (provided the landowner can demonstrate disadvantage).
The entirety of 35-37 Prohasky Street is identified for future public open space, being the northern-most part of W_OS01 (Prohasky Street recreation reserve) and as shown in Figure 22.
Figure 22 Prohasky Street recreation reserve as shown in the exhibited FBDCP
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 22 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 it is appropriate and justified to apply the PAO to 35-37 Prohasky Street.
The trustee of the owner of 35-37 Prohasky Street, CorVal Partners Limited (CorVal), requested a PAO be applied to the site. It submitted:
The entire site is identified for future open space.
The Committee considers that the current use can continue, at least in the short term, regardless of the identification of the land for future open space. No submission was made that the future open space is reducing the financial return on the land at present. However, the Committee accepts that this may not continue to be the case, and that as the locality becomes more urbanised, land use conflicts are likely to increase with the result that the current use may not be viable at some point in the future. If that occurs, it is likely the owner will experience disadvantage due to the identification of the whole the site for future public open space, because at that point it will be very likely that there will be limited alternative uses for the site and the owner unable to sell. Accordingly, at that time it would be appropriate to apply the PAO.
The FBDCP (final version) identifies all of W_OS01 will be delivered in the medium term, that is between 2035 and 2045.[29] This may alleviate some of the submitter's concerns.
The Committee concludes it is not appropriate to apply the PAO to 35-37 Prohasky Street as part of the draft Amendment.
The entirety of each of 6 Rocklea Drive (W_OS03) and 112 Salmon Street (W_OS05) are identified for future public open space, as shown in Figure 23.
Figure 23 6 Rocklea Drive (W_OS03) and 112 Salmon Street (W_OS05) as shown in the exhibited FBDCP
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 23 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 it is appropriate and justified to apply the PAO to 6 Rocklea Drive and 112 Salmon Street.
The respective owners of 6 Rocklea Drive and 112 Salmon Street submitted that because the entire area of each site is proposed as public open space (respectively W_OS03 and W_OS05), they each are experiencing considerable hardship of the kind referred to above in Chapter 8.2.
Specifically, in relation to 112 Salmon Street, Aquaino Pty Ltd (Aquaino) submitted:
The owner of 6 Rocklea Drive, Pendomer Pty Ltd (Pendomer), submitted it is in a similar position to the owner of 112 Salmon Street.
Both owners submitted in the absence of any certainty regarding the timing for acquisition, the "objective of fairness in subsection 4(1)(a) [of the PE Act] weighs in favour of applying a PAO to their land".
The entirety of each site is identified for future open space.
The Committee accepts Pendomer and Aquaino have experienced, and will continue to experience, significant disadvantage due to the identification of the whole of each respective site for future public open space.
There is sufficient certainty as to the boundaries of the land required for open space insofar as each property is affected. Although there is some uncertainty as to the northern boundary of Wirraway North Park (W_OS05), this only impacts 128 Salmon Street, not 112 Salmon Street which will be required in its entirety regardless of how that issue is resolved (see Chapter 3.2.5).
The Committee concludes it is appropriate and justified to apply the PAO as part of this Amendment to 6 Rocklea Drive (whole) and 112 Salmon Street (whole).
The Committee recommends the following changes to the draft Amendment:
Apply the Public Acquisition Overlay to 6 Rocklea Drive, Port Melbourne (whole) and 112 Salmon Street, Port Melbourne (whole).
The background to 50 Salmon Street is set out in Chapter 7.7.
The issue is whether it is appropriate and justified to apply the PAO to 50 Salmon Street (whole or in part).
The owner, One Smarter Pty Ltd, sought a PAO over the whole of the site or alternatively, over those parts of 50 Salmon Street affected by:
One Smarter Pty Ltd submitted 50 Salmon Street has been 'blighted' and it has suffered, and will continue to suffer, loss.
The Committee has concluded the 50 Salmon Street park is appropriate for inclusion in the OSU and the issues around the potential 'land locking' of the site can be resolved through the master planning process (see Chapter 3.3.3). Therefore, it is inappropriate to apply the PAO to the site, either in whole or in part.
The Committee concludes it is not appropriate to apply the PAO as part of this Amendment to 50 Salmon Street.
The exhibited FBDCP identifies the whole of 458 Graham Street as being required for a new local road (S_TR02). 458 Graham Street is the rectangular shaped land at the western-most end of S_TR02 (shown in blue), directly opposite W_IT09 (shown as orange and white stripes), as shown in Figure 24.
Figure 24 458 Graham Street as shown in the exhibited FBDCP
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 24 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 it is appropriate and justified to apply the PAO to 458 Graham Street (whole).
Foxhay Timber & Hardware Pty Ltd (Foxhay), owner of 458 Graham Street, submitted:
The landowner did not specifically request a PAO be applied.
The project sheet for S_TR02 identifies a proposed 30-metre-wide local street between Graham Street and Bridge Street south of Plummer Street together with a linear park which affects all, or if not all then the vast majority, of 458 Graham Street. The entire property will likely need to be acquired.
The Committee accepts Foxhay has experienced disadvantage due to the identification of the whole of the site for a future road. Given the long-term timeframe for S_TR02 (currently estimated between 2046 and 2055), this will continue for many years.
Based on the Committee's criteria as set out in Chapter 8.2, the site is eligible for applying PAO as part of this Amendment.
The Committee recommends the Proponent consult with Foxhay (and any future tenant) about applying the PAO to provide the option of compensation before the road is acquired. If the landowner agrees, the PAO should be applied as part of this Amendment.
The Committee concludes it is appropriate and justified to apply the PAO as part of this Amendment to 458 Graham Street (whole), subject to consultation with the landowner and occupier.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the draft Amendment:
Apply the Public Acquisition Overlay to 458 Graham Street, Port Melbourne (whole) subject to consulting with the landowner and occupier (if required).
Drafting should be consistent with current guidance including the Practitioner's Guide to Victoria's Planning Schemes (Department of Transport and Planning). The provisions should be drafted in plain English, with clear and concise language and avoid the passive voice.
9.2 Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan
The FBDCP (final version) did not include most of the Tables and Figures that were included in the exhibited version. A range of updated maps and tables were provided throughout the Hearing. The Proponent will need to ensure the maps and tables in the final FBDCP reflect the Committee's recommended changes to the FBDCP.
Report Volume 2 contains the Committee's recommended versions of the following Amendment provisions:
The changes shown in Appendices G and H reflect the Committee's recommendations in Report Volume 1, as well as some minor corrections. Other consequential changes will be required to give effect to the Committee's recommended changes to the FBDCP. These are not included in Appendices G and H.
The issue is whether the provisions in the CCZ schedules achieve the intent of the OSU.
Melbourne City Council requested a Dwelling be changed from not requiring a permit (Section 1 use in the current and exhibited versions of the CCZ4) to requiring a permit (Section 2 use) so that the OSU provisions operate as intended. It submitted:
Port Phillip City Council noted the issue does not impact the precincts in its municipality because a permit is required for a Dwelling use in the 'Core' areas of the three FBURA precincts in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme. It submitted in practice all development will require a building and works permit.
The Proponent initially agreed to revise CCZ4 to require a permit for a Dwelling. In response to questions from the Committee, the Proponent submitted:
Regarding procedural fairness, the Proponent and Melbourne City Council submitted no further notification is required because no one is likely to be materially adversely affected by requiring a use permit for Dwelling. The Proponent preferred a solution to the drafting issue that did not risk the need for future notice or any delay to the Amendment.
The CCZ Schedules (final version) retained Dwelling as a Section 1 use and retained the drafting of the definition of 'total site area' (with the reference to the 'application').
The provisions needed to implement the OSU evolved considerably during the Hearing and the final versions reflect a high degree of agreement between the Proponent and the two Councils.
Introducing a change to the provisions that would require a use permit for a Dwelling as suggested by Melbourne City Council raises procedural fairness concerns. Further, the suggested change was raised late in the Hearing process and had not been the subject of any expert evidence. Because it had not been fully explored at the Hearing, there could be unintended consequences.
In any event, the Committee considers the final versions of the CCZ schedules achieve the intent. An OSU development will generally require both a building and works permit and a use permit, due to:
If in the future the Melbourne Planning Scheme amenity buffer provisions were to change (including Map 3), it may no longer be the case that all sites in Lorimer are covered by the amenity buffer. Therefore, there would be no 'application', with the result that the CCZ4 provisions would no longer operate as intended. Similarly, there could be future changes to permit requirements under the Port Phillip Planning Scheme that cause issues with the operation of the OSU provisions.
Any future planning scheme amendments will need to ensure that the dwelling density and OSU provisions continue to operate as intended.
The Committee concludes the final versions of the CCZ schedules achieve the intention of the OSU scheme.
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.
Urban Development Institute of Australia (Victoria)
Department of Transport and Planning Precincts (Proponent)
Susan Brennan SC and Rupert Watters of Counsel, instructed by Kate Morris, Aaron Shrimpton and Evie Atkinson-Willes of Harwood Andrews. The Proponent called expert evidence on:
Proponent presentation: Mr Dragmoir on OSU ratio modelling
Emily Porter SC and Jennifer Trewhella, instructed by Jane Hall and Sophie Osborn of Ashurst, who called expert evidence on:
Juliet Forsyth SC and Alex Guild of Counsel, instructed by Ann-Maree Drakos of Melbourne City Council, who called expert evidence on:
Terry Montebello of Maddocks, who called expert evidence on:
Ian Munt, instructed by Tamara Brezzi of Norton Rose Fulbright
Prime Port Melbourne Pty Ltd, One Smarter Pty Ltd, Aquaino Pty Ltd, and Pendomer Pty Ltd (Gadens Clients)
Tom Ellicott of Counsel, instructed by Andrew Towson of Gadens Lawyers, who called expert evidence on planning and drafting from Rob Milner of Milner Planning Advisory
The following parties withdrew as a party to the Hearing:
The following parties no longer sought to present at the Hearing but remained as a party and provided a further written submission:
Fishermans Bend Development Contribution Plan (DCP), November 2023 - Consultation version
DTP Factsheet 1 (Approach to Infrastructure Funding in Fishermans Bend) - Consultation version
DTP Factsheet 2 (Open Space Uplift) - Consultation version
Exhibited Infrastructure Contributions Overlay (ICO) Map (Melbourne)
Exhibited Incorporated Plan Overlay (IPO) Map (Melbourne)
Exhibited Clause 11.03 (Melbourne) - tracked changes
Exhibited Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO) Schedule 1 (Melbourne)
Exhibited Capital City Zone (CCZ) Schedule 4 (Melbourne) - track change version
Exhibited Design and Development Overlay (DDO) Schedule 67 (Melbourne) - tracked changes
Exhibited Clause 53.01 Schedule (Melbourne) - tracked changes
Exhibited Clause 66.04 Schedule (Melbourne) - track changes
Exhibited Clause 72.01 Schedule (Melbourne) - track changes
Exhibited Clause 72.03 Schedule (Melbourne) - track changes
Exhibited Clause 72.04 Schedule (Melbourne) - track changes
Exhibited Clause 11.03 (Port Phillip) - track changes
Exhibited Clause 53.01 Schedule (Port Phillip) - tracked changes
Exhibited Clause 72.03 Schedule (Port Phillip) - tracked changes
Exhibited Clause 72.04 Schedule (Port Phillip) - tracked changes
Documents that informed Amendment GC81 and the Fishermans Bend Framework:
a) Integrated Transport Plan (Transport for Victoria Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, 2017)
b) Improving connectivity in Fishermans Bend (Jacobs, 2017)
c) Fishermans Bend Baseline Utility Assessment Report (GHD, Sep 2016) Final Report & Appendices
d) Fishermans Bend Community Infrastructure Plan (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Sep 2017)
e) Public Space Strategy (Planisphere, 2017)
f) Fishermans Bend Baseline Drainage Plan Options: Final Report and Appendices (GHD, 2017)
Documents prepared after the approval of Amendment GC81 and the Fishermans Bend Framework to inform the draft DCP:
g) Fishermans Bend Water Sensitive City Strategy (Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions, May 2022)
h) Engineering Costs background: Intersection quantities (GHD, 2019)
j) Fishermans Bend Update of Infrastructure Costs - Memorandum of Preliminary Advice (Slattery, 2023)
k) Fishermans Bend Valuation Services - Updated June Scenario - Reliance Restricted, 9 August 2023
Documents after Amendment GC81 and the Fishermans Bend Framework that have informed that draft DCP but have not been published on the Fishermans Bend Document Library:
m) Engineering costs background: Street quantities (GHD, 2019)
n) Letter from Golder Associates, Contamination Cost Information to Support Infrastructure Contribution Plan, Fishermans Bend Redevelopment (2 Dec 2018)
a) submission from City of Port Phillip City Council replacing Submission 1
b) Submission 63 (late) from APA VTS Australia (Operations) Pty Ltd
c) Submission 64 (late) from South East Water
Committee Directions and Distribution List (version 1)
Background documents the Proponent seeks to rely on:
a) Fishermans Bend, Open Space Uplift Study, April 2024
b) CCZ Tables - Proposed updates to align with addresses and OSU modelling pack
a) DTP Precincts
b) Port Phillip City Council
c) Melbourne City Council
d) Lorimer Place Owners Corporation
e) Kador Group
Submitter map (provided to Committee only, in line with Direction 5)
DCP Appendix 2 - Open Space Classifications (Corrections) tracked changes
Table specifying costing source for each individual project included in the draft DCP
Table identifying land with planning permits, the Special Controls Overlay and section 173 agreements
Maps identifying affected properties (Fishermans Bend Taskforce, Apr 2024)
Existing planning approvals, specific controls and section 173 agreements:
Permit 2010964 2. L02 - 150-160 and 162-188 Turner Street, Port Melbourne - Special Controls Overlay (SCO) Schedule 36 3. L03 - 850-858 Lorimer Street, Port Melbourne - SCO27 4. L04 - 111 Lorimer Street, Docklands - SCO28 5. A) L05 - 85-93 Lorimer Street Docklands - Permit MPA140006
section 173 agreement 201526404-3 4. M02 -202-214 Normanby Road Southbank -
Permit 201535404 5. M03 - 272-280 Normanby Road, South Melbourne - SCO26 6. M05 - 256-262 Normanby Road, South Melbourne - SCO21 7. M06 - 240-246 Normanby Road, South Melbourne - SCO38 8. M07 - 203-205 Normanby Road, Southbank - SCO23 9. M07 - section 173 Agreement - 203-205 Normanby Road, Southbank 10. M08 - 199-201 Normanby Road, Southbank - section 173 agreement - 2013-009628-2 11. M08 - 199-201 Normanby Street Southbank -
Permit 2013009628-2 12. M09A and M09B- 253-273 Normanby Road South Melbourne - Permit PA170223-2 13. M09A and M09B- 253-273 Normanby Road South Melbourne - Permit PA170223-2 14. M10 - 245 Normanby Road, South Melbourne -
section 173 agreement - PA15-00028 15. M10 - 245-251 Normanby Road, South Melbourne -
Permit PA1500028 16. M13 - 179 Gladstone Street South Melbourne -
Permit 10492017 17. M14 - 165-167 Gladstone Street South Melbourne - Permit 11402014 18. M14 - section 173 Agreement - 165-167 Gladstone Street, South Melbourne 19. M15- 89-103 Gladstone Street - Permit 2013002601 20. M15 -Section 173 Agreement - 89-103 Gladstone Street, South Melbourne 21. M16 - 91-95 Montague Street, South Melbourne - SCO37 22. M17 - 15-85 Gladstone Street, South Melbourne
Permit 2013005951-2 24. M19 - 6-78 Buckhurst Street, South Melbourne -
Permit 2013005499-2. 25. M20 - 67-69 Buckhurst Street, South Melbourne -
Permit PA2101152 26. M21 - 11-41 Buckhurst Street, South Melbourne - SCO28 27. M23 - 134-142 Ferrars Street - Permit 2013000088 28. M23 - 134-142 Ferrars Street, South Melbourne -
section 173 agreement 2013000088 29. M24 - 2-14 Thistlethwaite Street, South Melbourne - SCO30 30. M25 - 144-148 Ferrars Street, South Melbourne -
section 173 agreement 951-2017 31. M25 -144-148 Ferrars Street South Melbourne -
Permit 9512017 32. M26 - 15-35 Thistlethwaite Street, South Melbourne
Permit 392015B 36. M28 - 51-59 Thistlethwaite Street, South Melbourne - section 173 agreement 436-2019-A 37. M30 - 508-510 City Road - permit 2122018 38. M30 - 508-510 City Road, South Melbourne -
section 173 agreement 212-2018 39. M32 - 6 and 8 Boundary Street, South Melbourne - SCO39 40. M33 - 10-16 Boundary Road South Melbourne - Permit 2932016A 41. M33 - 10-16 Boundary Street, South Melbourne -
section 173 agreement 293-2016-A 42. M34 -156-162 Thistlethwaite South Melbourne -
Permit 242018B 43. M35-161 Buckhurst Street, South Melbourne 44. S01 - 118 Bertie Street, Port Melbourne - SCO24 45. S02 - 261, 277-289 Ingles Street, Port Melbourne SCO29 46. S03 - 14 Woodruff Street, Port Melbourne -
Permit 640-2017 47. S04 - 220 Ingles Street Port Melbourne - Permit 2013001464 48. S05 - 164 Ingles Street, Port Melbourne - Permit 2-2016-A 49. S05 - section 173 agreement - 164 Ingles Street, Port Melbourne 50. S05 - 164 Ingles, Port Melbourne - section 173 agreement 51. S06 - 60-82 Johnson Street South Melbourne - Permit MPA140003-1 52. S07 - 276 Ingles Street, Port Melbourne - SCO41 53. S09 - 501 Williamstown Road Port Melbourne - Permit 4892017B 54. SO9 - Bunnings, 501 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne - s173 agreement 55. W01 - 320 Plummer Street Port Melbourne -
Permit MPA140005 56. W01 - 320 Plummer Street Port Melbourne -
section 173 agreement 57. W02 - 187-201 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne - section 173 agreement P0307-2017 58. W02 -187-201 Williamstown Road Port Melbourne -
Permit 3072017 59. W03 - 477-481 Plummer Street, Port Melbourne - SCO27 60. W03 - 477-481 Plummer Street, Port Melbourne - section 173 agreement SCO27 61. W05 - 22 Salmon Street, Port Melbourne - SCO35 62. W06 - 365-391 Plummer Street, Port Melbourne - SCO36 63. W07 - 1-101 Salmon Street Port Melbourne - NOD - 2014002000 64. W07 - 101 Salmon Street Port Melbourne -
Permit 2014002000 65. W08 - 17 Rocklea Drive, Port Melbourne - SCO31 66. W09 - 10, 11, 12, 339 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne 67. W09 - Lots 10, 11 and 12, 339 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne - section 173 agreement 201534829 68. W10 - 9A-339 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne -
Permit 201534829 69. W11 - 343 Williamstown Road Port Melbourne -
Permit 10602016A 70. W11 - 343 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne - 71. section 173 agreement 1060-2016-A 72. W12 - 19 Salmon Street - Permit 201534819 73. W12 - 19 Salmon Street, Port Melbourne -
section 173 agreement 74. W13 - 5-7 Prohasky Street, Port Melbourne -
Email - notifying parties of an urgent Directions Hearing
Letter - to Committee requesting an urgent Directions Hearing
Letter - to Committee with late request to be heard
Letter - detailing its position for the Directions Hearing
Email - to Committee with matters to be raised at Directions Hearing, with attachments:
a) Email from Council to DTP regarding further follow up request for OSU information
b) Email from Council to DTP requesting overshadowing analysis work
Correspondence from parties regarding third Directions Hearing:
a) DTP Precincts
b) Melbourne Water
c) City of Port Phillip
d) City of Melbourne (with attached procedural steps)
e) Gadens Clients
f) Goodman Ltd
g) Kador Group Holdings Pty Ltd
h) APA VTS Australia (Operations) Pty Ltd
j) 99 Lorimer Street Project Pty Ltd & CBQ Corporation Pty Ltd
k) Lorimers Place Owners Corporation
Proponent's proposed Hearing Directions (with tracked changes)
Committee directions and Distribution list (version 2)
Fishermans Bend - Open Space Uplift Analysis (EY, 9 December 2021)
a) Email - from Melbourne City Council to Committee
b) Email - from Proponent to Committee with response to Melbourne City Council
a) Email - from Proponent to Committee with Proposal for joint expert meetings
b) Email - from Port Phillip City Council to Committee with request to have observer at joint expert meetings
c) Email - from Proponent to Committee with response to Port Phillip City Council
Letter - to Committee regarding Melbourne Water main submission in timetable
Fishermans Bend DCP Valuation Report (EY, 9 August 2023, Version 2.0)
a) Attachment 1 - Differences between the extent of DCP between draft FBURA DCP and Planning Scheme Maps
b) Attachment 2 - Open Space Uplift Ratios
c) Attachment 3 - Fishermans Bend Proposed Spatial Changes from GC81 to Draft Planning Scheme Amendment GC224
d) Attachment 4 - Relationships between the Fishermans Bend Framework and projects funded by the DCP
e) Attachment 5 - Existing development applications and approvals
f) Attachment 6 - Summary of Public Engagement Activity
g) Attachment 7 - Register of Submissions
h) Attachment 8 - Public Transport
Expert report - Luke Mackintosh of EY (land valuation)
Joint Expert report on land valuation - Luke Mackintosh and Ryan Costin of EY
Letter - to Committee regarding Land Valuation evidence
OSU Shadow Analysis Modelling (Melbourne City Council) (correct 10 July 2024)
Expert reports - Les Brown of M3 Property (land valuation) for:
a) 6 Rocklea Drive, Port Melbourne
b) 19 Salmon Street (360 Plummer Street, Port Melbourne)
c) 50 Salmon Street, Port Melbourne
d) 112 Salmon Street, Port Melbourne
Prime Port Melbourne Pty Ltd, One smarter Pty Ltd, Aquaino Pty Ltd, and Pendomer Pty Ltd (Gadens Clients)
Expert report - Nick Haines of Matheson Stephen Valuations (MSV) (land valuation)
Expert report - Andrew Kinnaird of Urbis (land valuation)
Joint land valuation expert report - Luke Mackintosh and Ryan Costin of EY, Les Brown of M3, and Andrew Kinnaird of Urbis
Joint OSU report - Luke Mackintosh and Ryan Costin of EY, Nick Haines of MSV
Expert report - Matt Ainsaar of Urban Enterprise (development contributions)
Expert report - Jo Fisher of Mesh Planning (development contributions)
Expert report - Mark Woodland of Echelon Planning (strategic planning and open space)
DCP (Version 1) - costing sheets provided by Melbourne Water
a) Figure 1 - Overall DCP Projects Plan
b) Figure 3 - Land to which the DCP applies
c) Figure 4 - Overall simplified plan
d) Figure 5 - Transport projects plan
e) Figure 6 - Community and Open Space projects plan
f) Figure 8 - Major Drainage and Flood Mitigation projects plan
g) Figure 12abc - Overall DCP Projects Plan - Precincts Scale
h) Figure 13 - Constructions Projects Plan
a) DCP (Version 1) - Table 1
b) DCP (Version 1) - Table 2
c) DCP (Version 1) - Table 3
d) DCP (Version 1) - Table 4
e) DCP (Version 1) - Table 5
f) DCP (Version 1) - Table 6
g) DCP (Version 1) - Table 7
h) DCP (Version 1) - Table 8
j) DCP (Version 1) - Table 10
k) DCP (Version 1) - Table X
a) Clause 11-03 map 1 - v2 (Version 1)
b) Clause 11-03 map 2 - v2 (Version 1)
c) Clause 37-04 map 1 - v2 (Version 1)
d) Clause 37-04 map 2 - v2 (Version 1)
e) Clause 37-04 map 3 - v2 (Version 1)
f) Clause 37-04 map 4 - v2 (Version 1)
g) Clause 43-02 map 1 - v2 (Version 1)
h) Clause 43-02 map 2 - v2 (Version 1)
j) Clause 43-02 map 4 - v2 (Version 1)
k) Clause 43-02 map 5 - v2 (Version 1)
a) Clause 11-03-6L-04 map 1 - v2 (Version 1)
b) Clause 11-03-6L-04 map 2 - v2 (Version 1)
c) Clause 11-03-6L-06 map 1 - v2 (Version 1)
d) Clause 11-03-6L-06 map 2 - v2 (Version 1)
e) Clause 11-03-6L-07 map 1 - v2 (Version 1)
f) Clause 11-03-6L-07 map 2 -- v2 (Version 1)
g) Clause 37-04 map 1 - v2 (Version 1)
h) Clause 37-04 map 2 - v2 (Version 1)
j) Clause 37-04 map 4 - v2 (Version 1)
k) Clause 37-04 map 5 - v2 (Version 1)
m) Clause 37-04 map 7 - v2 (Version 1)
n) Clause 43-02 map 1 (Version 1)
o) Clause 43-02 map 2 (Version 1)
p) Clause 43-02 map 3 (Version 1)
q) Clause 43-02 map 4 (Version 1)
r) Clause 43-02 map 1 (Version 1)
s) Clause 43-02 map 2 (Version 1)
t) Clause 43-02 map 3 (Version 1)
u) Clause 43-02 map 4 (Version 1)
y) Clause 43-02 map 4 (Version 1)
z) Clause 43-03 map 1 - v2 (Version 1)
Expert report - Chris De Silva of Mesh Planning (development contributions
a) Adrian Yeung Report
b) Sam Schuppan Report
c) Levee Typology Study
d) Table of Updated Costs
Expert report - John Glossop of Glossop Town Planning (planning)
Expert report - David Quincey of WT Partnership (infrastructure costing)
Expert report - Leanne Hodyl of Hodyl & Co (urban design), with attachments:
a) City of Melbourne Memorandum - Active Transport Links
b) City of Melbourne Memorandum - Turner Street Linear Open Space
c) 99-109 Lorimer Street, Docklands - Urban Context Report
d) 99-109 Lorimer Street, Docklands - Proposed Architectural Plans
e) 99-109 Lorimer Street, Docklands - Draft Incorporated Document
Fishermans Bend Public Open Space Strategy, Stage 3 Final Gap Analysis Report, Planisphere June 2017
Expert report - Robert Panozzo of ASR Research (community and open space)
Expert report - Kristen Bauer of Aspect Studios (public realm works)
Expert report - Chris McNeill of Ethos Urban (development contributions plan)
Expert report - Alex Hrelja of Hill PDA Pty Ltd (development contributions plan)
Reply expert report - Fisher of Mesh Planning (development contributions plan)
Reply expert report - Mark Woodland of Echelon Planning (strategic planning and open space)
Reply expert report - Chris De Silva of Mesh Planning (development contributions plan)
Reply expert report - Matt Ainsaar of Urban enterprise (development contributions)
Joint expert statement - Matt Ainsaar, Alex Hrelja, Chris McNeill, Chris De Silva, Jo Fisher (development contributions)
Joint Letter - to Committee regarding classification and Day 1 Amendment documentation, with attachments:
Letter - from Melbourne City Council to Proponent regarding DCP project classification (26 Sep 2024)
Framework Infrastructure Delivery from Proponent (10 Oct 2024)
Melbourne City Council and Port Phillip City Council
Email - to Committee and Parties with response to joint request from Melbourne and Port Phillip City Councils
Email - to Parties with Directions for the Proponent
Email - to Committee regarding extension of time for parties to respond to DTP's Day 1 version
Email - to Parties to notify them of the extension of the due date for Direction 19
Letter - to Committee regarding further documents and corrections to tabled documents, with attachments:
a) Corrected Document 98a
b) Corrected Document 93
c) Further OSU Memorandum (EY, 7 October 2024)
d) Further OSU Testing October 2024
Letter - to Committee withdrawing from Hearing process
Explanatory Document in response to Committee's directions of 17 October 2024, with attachments:
a) Higher resolution Figures 1-12
b) Higher resolution Figures 13-20
a) IPO2 (Port Phillip)
b) CCZ1 (Port Phillip)
c) CCZ4 (Melbourne)
d) Clause 11.03 (Port Phillip)
e) Clause 11.03 (Melbourne)
f) IPO7 (Melbourne)
Updated DCP Project reference list, with attachment:
Email - to Committee confirming it is withdrawing from the Hearing
Email - to Committee confirming it is withdrawing from the Hearing and will provide a further written submission
a) Fishermans Bend Integrated Water Management Infrastructure Plan, Wave Consulting, December 2022
Email - to Committee detailing proposed changes to Version 1 amendment
a) EY Memorandum - Valuation - 816 Lorimer Street
b) Updated DCP Figure 1
c) Updated DCP Table 1
d) Updated DCP Table 10
e) Updated Appendix 1 to the Explanatory Document (D129)
f) Comparison of Construction Project costs in draft DCP, Day 1 DCP and Part B submission
g) Comparison of Land Project Costs in the draft DCP, Day DCP, and Part B submission
h) Summary of total project costs and apportioned project costs in the draft DCP, Day 1 DCP and Part B submission
Part B submission - Port Phillip Planning Scheme ordinance:
a) DDO30
b) Clause 11.03 - Document 130d base
c) Clause 66.04 Schedule
d) IPO2 - Document 130a base
e) Clause 72.01 Schedule
f) Clause 72.03 Schedule
g) Clause 72.04 Schedule
h) DDO33
Part B submission - Melbourne Planning Scheme ordinance:
a) Clause 72.01 Schedule
b) Clause 53.01 Schedule
c) Clause 72.04 Schedule
d) Clause 66.04 Schedule
e) DCPO1
f) IPO7 - Document 130f bas
g) Clause 11.03 - Document 130e base
h) CCZ4 - Document 130c base
a) Memo - Part B response to submission on DCP projects
b) Memo - DCP Population Projections (2021-2022) and Uplift
a) OSU Memo
b) Comments on drafting issues in relation to DTP's 'Day 1'
c) Clause 11.03
d) Melbourne CCZ4
e) Melbourne DD067
f) Melbourne IPO7
g) DCPO1
h) List of proposed changes to DCP project list
Supplementary information note - Land Valuation and Open Space Uplift
a) 99 Lorimer Street - OSU modelling Framework Layout
b) Analysis of Lorimer Central
c) Analysis on main street widths
d) Architectural Plans - 111 Lorimer Street Docklands
e) Evolution of Planning in Lorimer over time
f) Pre-Application discussion urban design review - 99-109 Lorimer Street
g) Urban Design Review - Amendment C363melb - 111 Lorimer Street Docklands
Amendment GC81 (Fishermans Bend) Expert report - Leanne Hodyl
Infrastructure Contributions and Development Coordination Mechanism for Fishermans Bend Options Paper (Echelon and Mesh Sep 2020)
Supporting documents in response to Melbourne City Council request:
a) email instructions to David Quincey (14 June 2024)
b) Costing Excel Rev 1
c) email instructions to David Quincey attaching costing spreadsheet (5 Jul 2024)
d) Fishermans Bend Drainage and Food Strategy Concept Design - Pump Station and Levee Option Evaluation Report
Costing information for bridges from Lorimer Precinct across the West Gate freeway
Email - to Committee withdrawing from Hearing process
a) Committee questions on notice
b) Fishermans Bend Maximum Dwelling Yield Calculations
a) Outline of legal Submission
b) Submission
a) Updates to tabled document 74d
b) Open space provision and funding in FBURA and attachments
c) Attachment 1 - Precinct Open Space Detail amps
d) Attachment 2 - Open Space Summary Table
e) Attachment 3 - Additional embellishment costs
a) Sydney Morning Herald article, 'The maps that show the tree-free heat islands in your city'
b) Mapping the 3+30+300 rule in Melbourne - View to 3+ trees
c) Mapping the 3+30+300 rule in Melbourne - 30 per cent canopy cover
d) Mapping the 3+30+300 rule in Melbourne - 300 metre walk to park
Port Phillip Public Open Space Strategy Technical Report
draft Montague Draft Precinct Implementation Plan (Part 2)
Maribyrnong Planning Scheme Amendment C145 Panel report - Joseph Road Precinct Development Contributions Plan (May 2019)
Forrest Hill Precinct Draft Development Contributions Plan - Development Contributions Rate and Explanatory Information
Joseph Road Precinct Development Contributions Plan
Amendment GC81 (Fishermans Bend) Expert report - Joanna Thompson (Mar 2018)
Fishermans Bend Planning Review Panel Report 1 - Volume 1
Fishermans Bend Planning Review Panel Report 2 - Lorimer Precinct
Development Contribution Guidelines, 6 Jun 2003 (as amended Mar 2007)
Fishermans Bend Advisory Committee - Report to the Minister for Planning on Draft Fishermans Bend Framework, October 2017
Memo explaining November 2023 changes to consultation DCP
Jo Fisher clarification on indexation of open space projects
Supplementary information note - Wirraway North and Montague North Open Space
Supplementary information note - Bridge Street Modelling
Supplementary information note - Lorimer additional built form modelling
Supplementary information note - Response to Committee questions, with attachments:
D169b varied to update OSU ratio & additional dwelling density
Supplementary information note - table of project costs, with attachments:
Supplementary information note - River Esplanade Pump Station Urban Design Principles
Supplementary information note - Fishermans Bend DCP Project Reference List Cost sources
St Luke Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC [2024] VCAT 1148
The Trust Company (Australia) Ltd v Port Phillip CC [2023] VCAT 738
Supplementary information note 12 - Additional OSU ratio analysis and testing
Guidelines for Development in Flood Affected Areas (DELWP, 2019)
Benchmark and Infrastructure Costs Guide (VPA, 2019)
Port Phillip Heritage Review - Citation 2122 (Gunnersens Pty Ltd, 112 Salmon Street, Port Melbourne)
Advancing Manufacturing: the Fishermans Bend Opportunity
Port of Melbourne: 2050 Port Development Strategy (2020 Edition)
Email - to Committee withdrawing from Hearing process
Memorandum - Fishermans Bend Lorimer Arts and Cultural Hub, 12 Dec 2024
Memorandum - Fishermans Bend Street Cross-Sections, 12 Dec 2024
Memorandum - Turner Street Linear Open Space including response to Document 159c, 12 Dec 2024
Plans - 150-188 Turner Street, Port Melbourne, 22 Jun 2022
Plans - 13-33 Hartley Street, Docklands, 24 Sep 2021
Extract from 80 Cecil Street - Architectural Town Planning Report
Elder Smith Reserve Netball Facility - Community Engagement Summary Report
Supplementary information note - Local distributed storage, with attachments:
a) City of Port Phillip - IWM Planning - Distributed storages and treatment measures report GHD
b) City of Port Phillip - appendices to GHD report
Email - to Committee withdrawing from Hearing process
Hansard 53 LC V437 Dec 1997
Planning Permits and section 173 Agreements - 19 Salmon
Victorian Planning Authority Projects Standing Advisory Committee - Referral 3 Final Report (AC) [2022] PPV 54
Land Acquisition and Compensation - Report to the Minister for Planning by Stuart Morris (1983)
Fishermans Bend Advisory Committee Report (October 2015)
Equity Trustees Executors and Agency Co Ltd and ORS v Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works
South Yarra Urban Forest Precinct Plan, City of Melbourne
East Melbourne Urban Forest Precinct Plan, City of Melbourne
Central City Urban Forest Precinct Plan, City of Melbourne
Carlton Urban Forest Precinct Plan, City of Melbourne
Supplementary information note 3 - Local Street Prioritisation Criteria
Supplementary information note 2 - FB DCP Funding gap for Powerlines
Letter - to Committee withdrawing from Hearing process and reiterating matters raised in written opening submission
Email - to Committee confirming it is withdrawing from the Hearing and will provide a further written submission
Minister for Planning v Sb Partitions Pty Ltd (2009) 35 VPR 325
Kilpatrick v Wyndham CC [2022] VCAT 474
Head, Transport for Victoria v Kilpatrick & Anor [2024] VSC 686
Supplementary information note - Lorimer Arts and Cultural Hub Valuation
Supplementary information note - Ordinance mapping changes
Supplementary information note 4 - Sandridge Recreation Reserve and North Port Oval Upgrades
Submission report (corrected version of document 170a)
Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021 section 98(2A)
Response to Port Phillip City Council recommendations
Amendment documents and updates to Part D submission (D311)
Assessment of potential cost impacts to DCP and OSU value
Letter - to Committee detailing proposed amendments
Part D submission with:
Letter - to Committee detailing proposed amendments
Notes on submitters' Part D drafting changes
Notes on submitters' Part D DCP changes
Response to Port Phillip's Attachment A to Part D submission
Places Victoria, in collaboration with the Victorian government, Melbourne and Port Phillip City Councils and the Office of the Victorian Government Architect published the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area Draft Vision (Draft Vision)
Amendment GC7 incorporated the Fishermans Bend Strategic Framework Plan July 2014 (non-mandatory design guidance including discretionary maximum building heights) into the Melbourne and Port Phillip Planning Schemes
Amendment GC29 designated the Minister for Planning the responsible authority for permit applications in the FBURA above certain thresholds and introduced mandatory maximum building heights
The Minister for Planning appointed the Fishermans Bend Ministerial Advisory Committee
The Fishermans Bend Ministerial Advisory Committee completed its Stage 1 report on future planning for FBURA, including 40 recommendations
The Victorian government fully or partially supported the recommendations
The Fishermans Bend Taskforce was established as an administrative office in the (then) Department of Environment, Water, Land and Planning to lead planning for Fishermans Bend
Responding to the Fishermans Bend Ministerial Advisory Committee's recommendations, the Taskforce updated the 2013 Draft Vision to reflect current approaches to planning in FBURA
Amendment GC50 introduced interim mandatory built form provisions and policy changes to encourage employment uses, dwelling diversity and affordable housing in Fishermans Bend. These included mandatory street wall heights, tower setbacks and separation distances. These were set to expire on 31 March 2018, but were subsequently extended. The Strategic Framework Plan was updated to reflect this (Fishermans Bend Strategic Framework Plan July 2014 (Amended September 2016)
Plan Melbourne: 2017-2050 was endorsed, released and designated Fishermans Bend a 'Major Urban Renewal Area' and identified the Employment Precinct as a National Employment and Innovation Cluster
Draft Fishermans Bend Framework (which was intended to supersede the Strategic Framework Plan) and draft Amendment GC81 to the Melbourne and Port Phillip Planning Schemes were placed on exhibition
The Fishermans Bend Ministerial Advisory Committee prepared a second report that endorsed the 2016 Vision and included 75 recommendations on matters including the draft Framework, statutory and strategic planning, transport, housing and implementation mechanisms and processes
The Minister for Planning appointed the Fishermans Bend Planning Review Panel (GC81 Panel) as an Advisory Committee pursuant to section 151 of the PE Act to consider and report on the draft Fishermans Bend Framework and draft Amendment GC81 to the Melbourne and Port Phillip Planning Schemes which implemented the Framework
The Fishermans Bend Development Board was established to provide an advisory role to guide initial phase of implementation of the Fishermans Bend Framework
The Victorian government endorsed a finalised Fishermans Bend Framework
The Fishermans Bend Framework (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 2018) was published
The current planning provisions for the FBURA were introduced through Amendment GC81
The Taskforce considered a range of potential infrastructure contributions and innovative complementary funding mechanisms to support infrastructure delivery in Fishermans Bend. This included targeted engagement with key industry stakeholders.
DTP Precincts developed a strategic approach to fund infrastructure including a Victorian government administered DCP based on a single integrated levy for all infrastructure, including public open space, and complementary development incentive-based uplift mechanism
The Taskforce, in collaboration with DELWP, the Councils, Melbourne Water, South East Water, Water Sensitive Cities Australia, and the Office of Victorian Government Architect released the Fishermans Bend Water Sensitive Cities Strategy 2022. The strategy and supporting document were used to inform infrastructure planning in Fishermans Bend
The Victorian government and Melbourne Water collaborate on an integrated approach to fund drainage and flooding infrastructure through the FBDCP
The Minister for Planning appointed the Precincts Standing Advisory Committee
All submissions were referred to the Advisory Committee
This Appendix identifies planning context relevant to the Amendment. For the purposes of Table 4, the following apply:
State policy objectives set out in section 4 of the PE Act which seek:
(a) to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land
(c) to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria
(e) Protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co-ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community
(f) to facilitate development in accordance with the objectives of planning in Victoria.
Part 3B of the PE Act by enabling Development Infrastructure Levy and Community Infrastructure Levy for the development of land in the municipality.
Table 5 legend: State policy | Regional policy | Local policy
02.03-1 (Settlement - Activity centres) - Melbourne PS, Port Phillip PS
To facilitate the sustainable grown and development of Victoria and deliver choice opportunity for all Victorians through a network of settlements
11.01-1R (Settlement - Metropolitan Melbourne) - Melbourne PS, Port Phillip PS
Maintain permanent urban growth boundary around Melbourne to create a more consolidated, sustainable city and protect the values of non-urban land
11.03-6L-05 (Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area) - Melbourne PS
To support the development of the Fishermans Bend Employment Precinct as Australia's leading design, engineering and manufacturing precinct
11.03-6L-05 (Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area - Montague Precinct) - Port Phillip PS
To establish Montague as a diverse and well-connected mixed use neighbourhood with its own distinct character and identify celebrating its significant cultural and built heritage, and network of gritty streets and laneways
11.03-6L-06 (Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area - Sandridge Precinct) - Port Phillip PS
To establish Sandridge as a premium office and commercial neighbourhood with diverse housing and retail opportunities, and its own distinct character and identify
11.03-6L-06 (Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area - Lorimer Precinct) - Melbourne PS
To establish Lorimer as vibrant mixed use precinct close to the Yarra River and connected to the Central City and Fishermans Bend Employment Precinct that supports investment and growth knowledge, creative, design, research, education, innovation, engineering, advanced manufacturing and service sectors
11.03-6L-07 (Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area - Wirraway Precinct) - Port Phillip PS
To establish Wirraway as a family-friendly inner city neighbourhood and place for innovation and creativity with its own distinct character and identity
To protect community amenity, human health and safety while facilitating appropriate commercial, industrial, infrastructure or other uses with potential adverse off-site impacts
To create urban environments that are safe, healthy, functional and enjoyable and that contribute to a sense of place and cultural identity
To facilitate well-located, integrated and diverse housing that meets community needs
To encourage development that meets the community's needs for retail, entertainment, office and other commercial services
To facilitate access to social, cultural and economic opportunities by effectively integrating land use and transport
To facilitate an efficient and safe walking network and increase the proportion of trips made by walking
The Outcomes are supported by Directions and Policies, which outline how the Outcomes will be achieved. The Explanatory Report discusses the relevant Outcomes and Directions. The Committee has included these in Table 6.
1: Melbourne is a productive city that attracts investment, supports innovation and creates jobs
1.1: Create a city structure that strengthens Melbourne's competitiveness for jobs and investment
1.1.1: To support the central city to become Australia's largest commercial and residential centre by 2050
1.1.2: To plan for the redevelopment of Major Urban Renewal Precincts in and around the central city to deliver high quality, distinct, and diverse neighbourhoods offering a mix of uses
A common zone and overlay purpose is to implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework. Other purposes for zones and overlays relevant to the Amendment are shown in Table 7.
To enhance the role of Melbourne's central city as the capital of Victoria and as an area of national and international importance
To recognise or provide for the use and development of land for specific purposes as identified in a schedule to this zone
To create through good urban design an attractive, pleasurable, safe and stimulating environment
To identify areas which are affected by specific requirements relating to the design and built form of new development
To identify land in urban areas liable to inundation by overland flows from the urban drainage system as determined by, or in consultation with, the floodplain management authority
To ensure that development maintains the free passage and temporary storage of floodwaters, minimises flood damage, is compatible with the flood hazard and local drainage conditions and will not cause any significant rise in flood level or flow velocity
To protect water quality and waterways as natural resources by managing urban stormwater, protecting water supply catchment areas, and managing saline discharges to minimise the risks to the environmental quality of water and groundwater
To ensure that potentially contaminated land is suitable for a use which could be significantly adversely affected by any contamination
To identify areas which require the preparation of a development contributions plan for the purpose of levying contributions for the provision of works, services and facilities before development can commence
To facilitate an appropriate provision of car parking spaces in an area
To identify areas and uses where local car parking rates apply
To identify areas where financial contributions are to be made for the provision of shared car parking
To identify the area where an infrastructure contributions plan applies for the purpose of imposing contributions for the provision of infrastructure
To identify the infrastructure contribution imposed for the development of land
Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C384 proposes to introduce contemporary flood risk information for various City of Melbourne catchments by introducing new planning provisions into the Melbourne Planning Scheme. It does this by updating the application of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and the Special Building Overlay and introducing new area-based schedules to these planning provisions. Melbourne City Council prepared Amendment C384 in partnership with Melbourne Water Corporation. It was gazetted on 31 July 2018, after the Amendment was exhibited. VC148 made substantial changes to the structure and content of the planning policy framework, as well as other provisions in the Planning Scheme.
Melbourne Water is a Determining Referral Authority where the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay or the Special Building Overlay applies pursuant to Clause 66.03 of the Victorian Planning Provisions.
Amendment C384 was considered by a Panel in 2022, which provided a Panel report dated 20 December 2022, recommending Amendment C384 proceed, subject to changes.
Melbourne and Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment GC81 proposed to implement the Fishermans Bend Framework, September 2018, by introducing new planning provisions into the Melbourne and Port Phillip Planning Schemes for the four Capital City zoned precincts, Lorimer, Wirraway, Sandridge, and Montague.
The provisions aimed to guide the urban renewal of Fishermans Bend and its transition to a mixed use area comprising four distinct and diverse neighbourhoods.
Amendment GC81 was considered by a Panel in 2017, which provided a Panel report dated 19 July 2018, recommending Amendment GC81 proceed, subject to changes.
The Ministerial Directions, Planning Practice Notes and guide in Table 8 are relevant to the Amendment.
Table 8 Ministerial Directions, Practice Notes and guides
Seeks to ensure that potentially contaminated land is suitable for a use which is proposed to be allowed under an amendment to a planning scheme and which could be significantly adversely affected by contamination
Seeks to ensure that a planning scheme amendment has regard to the Metropolitan Planning Strategy (Plan Melbourne 2017-2050)
Ministerial Direction 11 (Strategic Assessment of Amendments)
Seeks to ensure a comprehensive strategic evaluation of a planning scheme amendment and the outcomes it produces
Sets out the general requirements for consideration of the impacts of climate change within coastal Victoria as part of an amendment which would have the effect of allowing non-urban land to be used for an urban use and development
Seeks to ensure that any planning scheme amendment in the environs of a commercial trading port has regard to protecting the operations and development of the port from the encroachment or intensification of sensitive uses described under section 3 of this Direction
Sets times for completing steps in the planning scheme amendment process
Preparation and content of Development Contributions Plans
Directs planning authorities in relation to the preparation and content of a development contributions plan
Provides a consistent framework for preparing and evaluating a proposed planning scheme amendment.
A Practitioner's Guide to Victorian Planning Schemes
Sets out key guidance to assist practitioners when preparing planning scheme provisions, and seeks to ensure:
3. The purpose of the Committee is to provide timely and independent advice on the following referrals:
Having regard to the referral letter, any issues raised in submissions on draft precinct plans, including draft planning scheme amendments, that have not been resolved by the precinct planning lead, and in respect of which the Minister for Planning has sought advice.
Having regard to the referral letter, any other strategic or statutory precinct planning matters as decided by the Minister for Planning.
9. In providing independent advice, the Committee must consider:
11. The Minister for Planning may refer precinct planning matters to the Committee for independent advice.
12. To facilitate timely advice, the Committee may:
22. The Committee is not expected to carry out additional public consultation or referrals.
25. The Minister for Planning's referral letter to the Committee should specify:
26. The letter of referral will be a public document.
35. Documents may be made available for public inspection electronically.
36. The Committee must produce a written report, which includes:
as soon as practicable but no later than 20 business days from the last day of its proceedings.
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Appendix F2 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Appendix G Committee recommended version of the Melbourne Planning Scheme clauses
Recommended changes are shown on the final version of Amendment documents provided to the Standing Advisory Committee.
For all Melbourne Planning Scheme provisions in the Amendment, revert to the urban structure shown in the current planning scheme except for:
This policy applies to use and development of all land within Fishermans Bend affected by Schedule 4 to the Capital City Zone.
To support diverse employment opportunities across all precincts that build on proximity to the Central City and Port of Melbourne.
Promote employment generating floor space that supports jobs growth including, but not limited to, the knowledge, creative, design, innovation, engineering, and service sectors.
Table 1: Minimum plot ratio not used for Dwelling
Minimum plot ratio not used for Dwelling (Core Areas)
To ensure housing diversity, and the provision of community infrastructure and an open space network that supports a diverse and inclusive community.
Encourage a diversity of dwelling typologies and sizes within each precinct and within development sites.
Facilitate Affordable Housing within a range of built form typologies.
Support development that delivers a range of housing types suitable for households with children through:
Support the delivery of adaptable floor plates including the opportunity to combine one and two-bedroom units to form larger apartments.
Encourage the early delivery of community infrastructure hubs.
Affordable Housing including Social Housing objective
To encourage the provision of Affordable Housing including Social Housing.
Encourage development to provide a social housing uplift Social Housing Uplift equivalent to eight additional private dwellings of equivalent size for each Social Housing dwelling, in addition to the provision of six per cent Affordable housing.
To facilitate the provision of all land designated for public open space.
To encourage the provision of land for public open space, where identified as open space uplift Open Space uplift in Map 4 of the Schedule 4 to the Capital City Zone, by allowing an open space uplift Open Space uplift in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Capital City Zone.
To facilitate the provision of precinct and neighbourhood public open space (including linear public open space) identified in the Fishermans Bend Framework (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, September 2018) via a combination of development contributions, open space uplift and other government-led measures.
To facilitate the delivery of local public open space via a combination of works normal to the development of sites and local government-led measures.
Where an Open Space Uplift is sought, the responsible authority, in consultation with the Secretary, will consider as appropriate:
To create a place of design excellence, with a distinct identity and character.
Encourage varied built form typologies that align with the preferred character sought in any applicable incorporated plan or if no incorporated plan applies, the preferred precinct character specified in Schedule 67 to the Design and Development Overlay.
Encourage fine grain, pedestrian scale environments.
Ensure buildings contribute to a high quality public realm.
Ensure developments deliver spaces, including open spaces, for people to meet, gather, socialise, exercise and relax.
Ensure developments deliver variation in massing, building height, and roof forms and the staggering or offsetting of tower footprints.
Achieving a climate adept, water sensitive, low carbon, low waste community objectives
To achieve a climate adept, water sensitive, low carbon, low waste community.
To build resilience against the impacts of sea level rise and flooding from storm events without compromising the urban form at the ground level.
To create a low waste community that is designed to provide best practice waste and resource recovery management.
Achieving a climate adept, water sensitive, low carbon, low waste community strategies
Design development to incorporate renewable energy generation, on-site energy storage, and opportunities to connect to a future precinct-wide or locally distributed low-carbon energy supply.
Raise internal ground floor level above street level as a last resort, except where the implementation of other measures coupled with an evidence based approach to risk management reasonably necessitates raising internal floor levels above street level.
Where internal floor levels are raised, maintain a strong physical and visual connection between the street and internal floor levels through building design.
Achieving a climate adept, water sensitive, low carbon, low waste community policy guidelines
To encourage residential development that includes private and communal spaces that cater for a range of users.
Create private and communal spaces within developments with a range of facilities, garden and recreation areas to supplement the public open space network.
Ensure development with an interface to existing or proposed open space avoids unreasonable impacts, including through vehicle movement to or from the development on the:
Support internal and external communal spaces within the same development to connect to one another and be designed as multifunctional, adaptable spaces.
Support the provision of additional publicly accessible areas at ground level that contribute to the creation of a network of passive, formal and informal recreational spaces.
Ensure communal open space is designed to meet the needs of a range of potential users.
Ensure the location, design and layout of publicly accessible open space areas at ground level is integrated with adjoining areas of open space.
To ensure developments provide landscaping in all areas of open space including public open space, communal open space and private open space.
Incorporate green facades, rooftop, podium or terrace planting into development that is water efficient, responds to micro-climate conditions and is located and designed to be sustainable and resilient.
New streets, laneways and pedestrian connections objective
To create a network of new streets and laneways that provide permeability and accessibility through all precincts.
New streets, laneways and pedestrian connections strategies
Facilitate streets, laneways and pedestrian connections that provide direct access to existing or proposed public transport stations and routes, and existing or proposed public open space.
Prioritise pedestrian movement and safety in shared streets or shared laneways.
Provide new streets, laneways or paths to create mid-block through links and define and separate buildings on sites of more than 3000 square metres.
New streets, laneways and pedestrian connections policy guidelines
To create a connected, permeable and accessible community that prioritises walking, cycling, and public transport use.
Ensure development does not compromise the delivery of future public transport including new tram, train and bus routes.
Reduce impacts of new vehicle access points on pedestrian, public transport and bicycle priority routes.
Design internal connections to give priority to pedestrian and bicycle movements. Provide easy access to bicycle parking facilities, including end of trip change rooms, showers and lockers.
Encourage developments to provide less than the preferred maximum number of car spaces.
Encourage developments to provide for future conversion of car parking to alternative uses.
To facilitate the transition from a primarily industrial area to a high-density mixed use area.
To support the continued operation of existing uses which are of strategic importance to the urban renewal of Fishermans Bend.
Ensure new uses and the expansion of existing uses with potential adverse amenity impacts do not prejudice the urban renewal of Fishermans Bend.
Ensure new development addresses the amenity impacts of nearby existing uses.
11.03-6L-07 Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area - Lorimer Precinct
This policy applies to the use and development of land within Lorimer Precinct of the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area shown on Map 1 to this clause.
To establish the Lorimer precinct as vibrant mixed use precinct close to the Yarra River and connected to the Central City and Fishermans Bend Employment Precinct that supports investment and growth knowledge, creative, design, research, education, innovation, engineering, advanced manufacturing and service sectors.
Encourage mixed uses that create significant employment opportunities, particularly in aeronautical and automotive engineering and defence.
Support the ongoing operation of concrete batching plants located between Boundary and Rodgers Street and the West Gate Freeway in the transition of the precinct to a high density mixed used precinct, recognising their significance and role in urban renewal.
Encourage commercial uses within podium or lower levels of development.
Encourage visual and physical connectivity to the Yarra River through north-south laneways that will stitch the precinct across Lorimer Street through to the Yarra River.
Encourage a diversity of building types with high quality exterior finishes, materials and architectural detailing to form an attractive backdrop to the West Gate Freeway and to provide a buffer from the freeway.
Ensure towers are well spaced to provide for outlook and views through to the river.
Encourage higher street walls along the freeway interface, providing a buffer from freeway traffic.
Support the northern tram route along Turner Street and Lorimer Street, providing direct, high frequency public transport connection to Docklands and the Central City.
Support the creation of new or upgraded bridges over the Freeway at Ingles Street and Graham Street to provide public transport, bike and pedestrian access to Sandridge.
Facilitate the creation of a Lorimer Central Open Space located between Ingles and Boundary Street.
Support the Turner Street closure and widening to create Lorimer Parkway along the tram route, and an additional green link connecting to new open space at the intersection of Hartley and Lorimer Street.
Support a pop-up community hub adjacent to the Bolte Bridge.
Support an Education and Community Hub (primary) and an Art and Cultural Hub located in the north -central part of the precinct as shown on Map 2.
Encourage a Sports and Recreation Hub (or part of cluster) to serve the needs of Lorimer.
Map 1: Sub-precincts within the Sub-precincts within the Lorimer precinct
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Map 1 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Map 2: Community infrastructure within the Lorimer precinct
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Map 2 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Map 2: Community infrastructure within the Lorimer precinct
Recommended changes are shown on the final version of Amendment documents provided to the Standing Advisory Committee.
To create a thriving urban renewal area that is a leading example for design excellence, environmental sustainability, liveability, connectivity, diversity and innovation.
To create a highly liveable mixed-use area where the scale of growth is aligned with the provision of public transport and other infrastructure.
To create a world leading sustainable urban renewal area that incorporates best practice sustainable design into all developments and supports sustainable transport patterns.
To provide public benefit in the form of social housing or public open space where development exceeds the nominated Dwelling density.
To support the continued operation of strategically important existing uses and existing industrial uses that provide services to the construction industry, and ensure new development includes measures to mitigate potential amenity impacts from those industrial uses.
Accommodation (other than Dwelling, Corrective institution, Motel, Residential aged care facility and Residential hotel)
Must not be within an Amenity buffer shown on Map 3.
Must meet the requirements of Clause 52.13-3 and 52.13-5.
The gross floor area of all buildings must not exceed 50 square metres.
Must have a frontage to a Primary or Secondary active frontage street shown on Map 1.
Must not be within an Amenity buffer shown on Map 3.
Must be located in a Core area with frontage to a Primary or Secondary active frontage street shown on the relevant Urban Structure Map.
Must have a frontage to a Primary or Secondary active frontage street shown on Map 1.
Must not be within an Amenity buffer shown on Map 3.
Must not be within an Amenity buffer shown on Map 3.
Must not be within an Amenity buffer shown on Map 3.
Must not be within an Amenity buffer shown on Map 3.
Place of assembly (other than Function centre and Nightclub)
Retail premises (other than Bar, Hotel and Shop)
Must not exceed 1000 square metres gross leasable floor area.
Must not be within an Amenity buffer shown on Map 3.
Shop (other than Adult sex product shop, Department store, Supermarket and Restricted retail premises)
Must have a frontage to a Primary active frontage street shown Map 1.
Industry (other than Automated collection point)
Leisure and recreation (other than Informal outdoor recreation, Minor sport and recreation facility, Motor racing track and Racecourse)
Transport terminal (other than Airport and Railway station)
If an incorporated plan applies to land, the use of the land must be generally in accordance with that plan.
If an incorporated plan does not apply to land, the use of the land must be generally in accordance with Map 1 [and Map 2] of this schedule.
Consider whether this should 'enliven' Map 2: Transport infrastructure which currently has no related provision. This would ensure land associated with the future tram is protected from incompatible development.
The use of land for a dwelling must not exceed the Lorimer Dwelling Density in Table 1, unless:
If an incorporated plan which specifies a dwelling density for the total site area has not been incorporated:
339 dwellings per hectare applied to the total site area*
If an incorporated plan which specifies a dwelling density for the total site area has been incorporated:
The dwelling density specified in the incorporated plan
Additional 240 dwellings per hectare of open space provided*
*Where not a whole number, the total number of dwellings under each category should be rounded up to the nearest whole number.
Recalculate the OSU ratio and subsequent open space uplift rate for Lorimer:
These requirements do not apply to an application for the use of land in accordance with a planning permit for buildings and works granted before the approval date of Amendment GC81.
The following application requirements apply to an application for a permit under Clause 37.04, in addition to those specified in Clause 37.04 and elsewhere in the scheme and must accompany an application, as appropriate, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:
An application to use land which seeks to exceed the Dwelling Density in Table 1 in exchange for providing social housing or public open space land must be accompanied by a draft section 173 Agreement which addresses the matters in Clause 2.1.
Dwelling, Residential village or Retirement village
An application to use land for a Dwelling, Residential village or Retirement village must be accompanied by a report that addresses:
An application to use land within an Amenity buffer shown on Map 3 of this schedule, for Accommodation, Child care centre, Education centre, Residential aged care facility, Residential hotel or Informal outdoor recreation must be accompanied by an Amenity Impact Plan which includes, as appropriate:
An application to use land for an industry or warehouse must be accompanied by the following information, as appropriate:
An application for use of land must be accompanied by a Public Infrastructure Plan which addresses the following, as appropriate:
An application for the use of land is exempt from the notice requirements of section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of section 82(1) of the Act.
This exemption does not apply to an application to use land for a nightclub, bar, hotel or adult sex product shop.
The following decision guidelines apply to an application for a permit under Clause 37.04, in addition to those specified in Clause 37.04 and elsewhere in the scheme which must be considered, as appropriate, by the responsible authority:
The subdivision of land must be generally in accordance with Map 1 of this schedule, unless in accordance with an incorporated plan.
Car parking areas must be retained in a single or a consolidated title as common property, unless the responsible authority agrees otherwise.
These requirements do not apply to a subdivision of land in accordance with a planning permit for buildings and works granted before the approval date of Amendment GC81.
The following application requirements apply to an application for a permit to subdivide land under Clause 37.04-3, in addition to those specified in Clause 37.04 and elsewhere in the scheme and must accompany an application, as appropriate, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:
An application for subdivision must be accompanied by a Public Infrastructure Plan which addresses the following, as appropriate:
An application for the subdivision of land is exempt from the notice requirements of section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of section 82(1) of the Act.
The following decision guidelines apply to an application for a permit to subdivide land under Clause 37.04-3, in addition to those specified in Clause 37.04 and elsewhere in the scheme which must be considered, as appropriate, by the responsible authority:
These requirements do not apply to an application for subdivision associated with a continuing lawful use of land.
In considering whether a permit should be granted for the subdivision of land associated with an ongoing existing use of land, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:
No permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works for the following:
A permit is required to demolish or remove a building or works, except for:
The construction of a building, and the carrying out of works, must be generally in accordance with the relevant Map 1 of this schedule, unless in accordance with an incorporated plan. This does not apply to new road or laneway marked as indicative in Map 1.
This requirement does not apply to an application to amend a permit issued before the approval date of Amendment GC81.
A permit must not be granted to construct a building or construct or carry out works with a Dwelling Density in excess of the Dwelling Density in Table 1, unless an agreement under section 173 of the Act has been entered between the owner, the responsible authority and the local council (if not the responsible authority) under Clause 2.1 of this Schedule.
Developments must provide bicycle, motorcycle and car share parking space in accordance with Table 2, unless the responsible authority is satisfied that a lesser number is sufficient.
Developments with over 10,000 sqm non-residential floor space
For all developments with 120 or less car spaces: A minimum of 2 spaces
For developments with more than 120 car spaces: 1 per 60 car parking spaces
A permit must not be granted to construct a building or construct or carry out works where vehicle access points and/or crossovers (not including openings for a road) are located along roads designated as 'no cross overs permitted' in Map 1 of this schedule, unless no other access is possible, or in accordance with an incorporated plan.
A permit granted for subdivision must contain the following condition:
A permit granted to construct a building or to construct or carry out works for:
A permit granted to construct a building or to construct or carry out works must include the following conditions:
Where a new road or laneway is proposed on the land, and the road, street or laneway is not funded through the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan (date) a permit granted to construct a building or to construct or carry out works must include a condition requiring the following:
Where a new or upgraded road is proposed on or adjacent to the land, a permit granted to construct a building or construct or carry out works must include a condition requiring:
The following application requirements apply to an application for a permit under Clause 37.04, in addition to those specified in Clause 37.04 and elsewhere in the scheme and must accompany an application, as appropriate, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:
An application to construct a building or to construct or carry out works for a Dwelling must be accompanied by the following information, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:
An application to construct a building or to construct or carry out works, where an open space uplift is proposed, must be accompanied by the following information, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:
Plans demonstrating the suitability of the land for open space purposes including that the proposed public open space:
Amenity impacts from existing industrial uses, freight routes and transport corridors
An application for building and works associated with the use of land for Accommodation, Child care centre, Education centre, Residential aged care facility, Residential hotel or Informal outdoor recreation within an Amenity buffer shown on Map 3 of this schedule, must be accompanied by an Amenity Impact Plan which includes, as appropriate:
An application to construct buildings or to carry out works must be accompanied by a Public Infrastructure Plan which addresses the following, as appropriate:
An application to demolish or remove a building or to construct a building or construct or carry out works is exempt from the notice requirements of section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of section 82(1) of the Act.
The following decision guidelines apply to an application for a permit under Clause 37.04-4, in addition to those specified in Clause 37.04 and elsewhere in the scheme which must be considered, as appropriate, by the responsible authority:
Before deciding on an application to demolish or remove a building or works, the responsible authority must consider any need for a condition requiring an agreement under section 173 of the Act to be entered by the landowner and the responsible authority and the local council (if not the responsible authority) requiring:
The requirements of clauses 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 do not apply to an application for buildings and works associated with a continuing lawful use of land.
In considering whether a permit should be granted for buildings and works associated with an existing use of land for industry or warehouse, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:
A permit is required to construct and display a sign except for:
An application to construct and display a sign is exempt from the notice requirements of section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of section 82(1) of the Act.
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Map 1 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Map 2 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Map 2 currently has no corresponding provision in CCZ4 to 'enliven it'. It is unclear what its purpose is in the CCZ4. The Committee recommends that Map 2 be referred to at clauses 2.1, 3.2, 4.4 and 4.6 as shown above.
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Map 3 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Map 4 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
To reduce the electronic size of this document, the Table to Map 4 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The following definitions apply for the purposes of interpreting this schedule:
Affordable housing has the same meaning as in the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
Core area and Non-core area are those area identified on the relevant Map.
Dwelling density (dw/ha) means the number of dwellings on the site divided by the total site area (hectares).
Open space uplift means dwellings that exceed the number of dwellings allowable under the Dwelling density in Table 1 of this Schedule in exchange for the provision of open space.
Social housing has the same meaning as in the Housing Act 1983.
Social housing uplift means dwellings that exceed the number of dwellings allowable under the Dwelling density in Table 1 in exchange for the provision of social housing.
Total site area means the area of the land the subject of the application including any proposed roads, laneways, community infrastructure or public open space.
Recommended changes are shown on the final version of Amendment documents provided to the Standing Advisory Committee.
SCHEDULE 1 TO CLAUSE 45.06 DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN OVERLAY
FISHERMANS BEND URBAN RENEWAL AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN
1.0 Area covered by this development contributions plan
Actual cost contribution attributable to development $
Proportion of cost attributable to development %
Refer to details in the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan
Refer to details in the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan
Refer to details in the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan
Refer to details in the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan
Refer to details in the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan
Refer to details in the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan
Refer to details in the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan
Subtotal Transport, local distributed storages & community infrastructure
Refer to details in the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan
Refer to details in the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan
Refer to details in the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan
Subtotal Open space & recreation infrastructure
Actual cost contribution attributable to development $
Proportion of cost attributable to development %
Refer to details in the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan
Note: If a Ministerial exemption is granted from the requirement to use a community infrastructure levy, the above tables will need to be adjusted accordingly.
Note: The summary of cost in Clause 2 is applied across the municipalities of City of Melbourne and City of Port Phillip.
Transport, Local distributed storages & Community infrastructure
* The per square metre rate for residential development applies to land used for Accommodation where the development is not comprised of self-contained dwellings.
4.0 Land or development excluded from development contributions plan
The following land or development is exempt from payment of development contributions:
Note: This schedule sets out a summary of the costs and contributions prescribed in the development contributions plan. Refer to the incorporated development contributions plan for full details.
Recommended changes are shown on the final version of Amendment documents provided to the Standing Advisory Committee.
SCHEDULE 7 TO CLAUSE 43.03 INCORPORATED PLAN OVERLAY
FISHERMANS BEND - LORIMER INCORPORATED PLAN AREAS
For land in the areas shown as A or C in Map 1, aA permit may be granted to use or subdivide land, construct a building or construct or carry out works before an incorporated plan has been incorporated into this scheme.
For land in the area shown as B in Map 1, a permit must not be granted to use or subdivide land, construct a building or construct or carry out works before an incorporated plan has been incorporated into this scheme except for the following:
2.0 Permits not generally in accordance with incorporated plan
An incorporated plan may be prepared for each area shown in Map 1, and may be prepared and implemented in stages.
An incorporated plan must be generally in accordance with the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area Development Contributions Plan (DATE) and any approved Precinct Implementation Plan, except as able to be expressly varied by the below provisions.
An incorporated plan must show the distribution of the dwelling density across the plan area.
An incorporated plan (or stage of an incorporated plan) must not result in a dwelling density greater than 339 dwellings per hectare across the incorporated plan area or stage, not including additional residential density arising from social housing uplift Social Housing uplift or open space uplift Open Space uplift, as outlined in Schedule 4 to the Capital City Zone.
An incorporated plan may not re-distribute any open space uplift or social housing uplift dwellings.
An incorporated plan must not result in a net loss of open space or increased overshadowing of public open space.
An incorporated plan must include a report including maps and plans describing:
MAP 1 Fishermans Bend - Lorimer Incorporated Plan Overlay Areas
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Map 1 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Appendix H Committee recommended version of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme clauses
Recommended changes are shown on the final version of Amendment documents provided to the Standing Advisory Committee.
For all Port Phillip Planning Scheme provisions in the Amendment, revert to the urban structure shown in the current planning except for:
This policy applies to use and development of all land within Fishermans Bend affected by Schedule 1 to the Capital City Zone in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.
To support diverse employment opportunities across all precincts that build on proximity to the Central City and Port of Melbourne.
Promote employment generating floor space that supports jobs growth including, but not limited to, the knowledge, creative, design, innovation, engineering, and service sectors.
Table 1: Minimum plot ratio not used for Dwelling
Minimum plot ratio not used for Dwelling (Core Areas)
To ensure housing diversity, and the provision of community infrastructure and an open space network that supports a diverse and inclusive community.
Encourage a diversity of dwelling typologies and sizes within each precinct and within development sites.
Facilitate Affordable Housing within a range of built form typologies.
Support development that delivers a range of housing types suitable for households with children through:
Support the delivery of adaptable floor plates including the opportunity to combine one and two-bedroom units to form larger apartments.
Encourage the early delivery of community infrastructure hubs.
Affordable Housing including Social Housing objective
To encourage the provision of Affordable Housing including Social Housing.
Encourage development to provide a social housing uplift Social Housing upliftequivalent to eight additional private dwellings of equivalent size for each Social Housing dwelling, in addition to the provision of six per cent Affordable housing.
To facilitate the provision of all land designated for public open space.
To encourage the provision of land for public open space, where identified as open space uplift Open Space uplift in Map 7 of the Schedule 1 to the Capital City Zone, by allowing an open space uplift Open Space uplift in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Capital City Zone.
To facilitate the provision of precinct and neighbourhood open space (including linear open space identified in the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan) via a combination of development contributions, open space uplift and other government-led measures.
To facilitate the delivery of local open space via a combination of works normal to the development of sites and local government-led measures.
To create a place of design excellence, with a distinct identity and character.
Encourage varied built form typologies that align with the preferred character sought in any applicable incorporated plan, or if not incorporated plan applies, the preferred precinct character specified in the relevant Schedule to the Design and Development Overlay.
Encourage fine grain, pedestrian scale environments.
Ensure buildings contribute to a high quality public realm.
Encourage developments to deliver spaces, including open spaces, for people to meet, gather, socialise, exercise and relax.
Ensure developments to deliver variation in massing, building height, and roof forms and the staggering or offsetting of tower footprints.
Achieving a climate adept, water sensitive, low carbon, low waste community objectives
To achieve a climate adept, water sensitive, low carbon, low waste community.
To build resilience against the impacts of sea level rise and flooding from storm events without compromising the urban form at the ground level.
To create a low waste community that is designed to provide best practice waste and resource recovery management.
Achieving a climate adept, water sensitive, low carbon, low waste community strategies
Design development to incorporate renewable energy generation, on-site energy storage, and opportunities to connect to a future precinct-wide or locally distributed low-carbon energy supply.
Raise internal ground floor level above street level as a last resort, except where the implementation of other measures coupled with an evidence based approach to risk management reasonably necessitates raising internal floor levels above street level.
Where internal floor levels are raised, maintain a strong physical and visual connection between the street and internal floor levels through building design.
Where practicable, developments should create opportunities to:
Achieving a climate adept, water sensitive, low carbon, low waste community policy guidelines
To encourage residential development that includes private and communal spaces that cater for a range of users.
Create private and communal spaces within developments with a range of facilities, garden and recreation areas to supplement the public open space network.
Ensure development with an interface to existing or proposed open space avoids unreasonable impacts, including through vehicle movement to or from the development on the:
Support internal and external communal spaces within the same development to connect to one another and be designed as multifunctional, adaptable spaces.
Support the provision of additional publicly accessible areas at ground level that contribute to the creation of a network of passive, formal and informal recreational spaces.
Ensure communal open space is designed to meet the needs of a range of potential users.
Ensure the location, design and layout of publicly accessible open space areas at ground level is integrated with adjoining areas of open space.
To ensure developments provide landscaping in all areas of open space including public open space, communal open space and private open space.
Incorporate green facades, rooftop, podium or terrace planting into development that is water efficient, responds to micro-climate conditions and is located and designed to be sustainable and resilient.
New streets, laneways and pedestrian connections objective
To create a network of new streets and laneways that provide permeability and accessibility through all precincts.
New streets, laneways and pedestrian connections strategies
Facilitate streets, laneways and pedestrian connections that:
Provide new streets, laneways or paths to create mid-block through links and define and separate buildings on sites of more than 3000 square metres.
New streets, laneways and pedestrian connections policy guidelines
To create a connected, permeable and accessible community that prioritises walking, cycling, and public transport use.
Ensure development does not compromise the delivery of future public transport including new tram, train and bus routes.
Reduce impacts of new vehicle access points on pedestrian, public transport and bicycle priority routes.
Design internal connections to give priority to pedestrian and bicycle movements. Provide easy access to bicycle parking facilities, including end of trip change rooms, showers and lockers.
Encourage developments to provide less than the preferred maximum number of car spaces.
Encourage developments to provide for future conversion of car parking to alternative uses.
To facilitate the transition from a primarily industrial area to a high-density mixed use area.
To support the continued operation of existing uses which are of strategic importance to the urban renewal of Fishermans Bend.
Ensure new uses and the expansion of existing uses with potential adverse amenity impacts do not prejudice the urban renewal of Fishermans Bend.
Ensure new development addresses the amenity impacts of nearby existing uses.
11.03-6L-05 Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area - Montague Precinct
This policy applies to the use and development of all land within the Montague Precinct of the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area, as defined by the DDO30.
To establish Montague as a diverse and well-connected mixed use neighbourhood with its own distinct character and identity celebrating its significant cultural and built heritage, and network of gritty streets and laneways.
Support mixed use development that provides active street edges and establishes a high quality public realm.
Encourage the highest concentration and mix of uses in the defined core areas, located on public transport nodes and routes.
Support big box retail development that compliments existing and planned retail uses in its catchment.
Ensure the social impacts of developments accommodating more than 100 dwellings are considered and addressed through the preparation of a Social Impact Assessment.
Enhance the existing network of laneways with new laneways and through block links that provide permeability and connectivity through street blocks.
Support the establishment of Montague North as a gateway to Fishermans Bend from the Central City, Southbank and Docklands.
Support development that allows for sunlight access to the southern side of Normanby Road at September equinox.
Support buildings where parts of the street wall are setback from the street boundary at ground level to create forecourts, courtyards and landscaping at building entrances.
Support the transformation of Normanby Road into a landscaped, pedestrian friendly boulevard and civic spine defined by active edges that provides a key cycling connection through the precinct.
Support the provision of walking and cycling links that enhance connections to the eastern part of Sandridge and Montague South (M2-6).
Support the provision of commercial and some retail and community uses to be located within podium and upper levels of mixed use buildings.
Encourage businesses to locate in proximity to nearby cultural uses, and high quality, high amenity public realm.
Encourage development to provide active frontages to the new 'Montague North Park' open space located at the intersection of Montague Street and Munro Street.
Support the establishment of Buckhurst Street as the heart of the neighbourhood and the primary focus of commercial and civic amenity within Montague South anchored by community hubs.
Encourage new laneways to complete 'missing links' between primary and secondary active frontages/retail streets.
Encourage smaller building footprints to add to the existing the fine grain character.
Support the establishment of a high amenity, linear green spine along Buckhurst Street that accommodates the 'Bay to City' cycling connection.
Support the establishment of Buckhurst Street as a primary anchor for the precinct.
Support the creation of parks and community hubs, and high amenity streets that provide high quality social spaces to gather, relax and connect.
Encourage the establishment of a diverse range of small-medium sized businesses, co-working spaces, small creative businesses and studios that contribute to the identity of the area.
Support the delivery of an Art and Cultural Hub as part of a mixed use development or standalone within the 'investigation area' shown in Map 2.
Map 1: Sub-precincts within the Montague precinct
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Map 1 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Ensure final map reflects urban structure as shown in the current/GC81 Map 1 to Clause 11.03-6L-05, updated to reflect Committee recommendations as set out in Report Volume 1.
Map 2: Community infrastructure investigation areas within the Montague precinct
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Map 2 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Ensure final map reflects urban structure as shown in the current/GC81 Map 2 to Clause 11.03-6L-05, updated to reflect Committee recommendations as set out in Report Volume 1.
Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area - Sandridge Precinct
This policy applies to the use and development of all land within Sandridge Precinct of the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area, as defined by DDO32.
To establish Sandridge as a premium office and commercial neighbourhood with diverse housing and retail opportunities, and its own distinct character and identity.
Encourage development that integrates community facilities, larger format commercial offices and retail uses such as supermarkets and department stores within core areas.
Encourage the highest concentration and mix of uses in the defined core areas, located on public transport nodes and routes.
Support big box retail development that compliments existing and planned retail uses in its catchment.
Ensure the social impacts of developments accommodating more than 100 dwellings are considered and addressed through the preparation of a Social Impact Assessment.
Support tower development within core areas that produce a strong vertical form or landmarks.
Support low rise buildings with defined, active frontages around the perimeter of the North Port Oval.
Support the delivery of a centrally located underground metro rail station with transport interchange and public square, connecting directly to the Central City and to Melbourne's western region.
Support the delivery of a tram route along the future Fennell Street and Plummer Street civic spine that provides a direct, high frequency public transport connection to Docklands and the Central City and services the core area.
Support the delivery of a new and upgraded bridges over the Westgate Freeway at Ingles Street and Graham Street, and Hartley Street and Fennell Street, to provide public transport, cycling infrastructure and pedestrian access.
Enhance the planned network of public open spaces and plazas through strategic road closures to create new plazas and linear parks.
Support the delivery of an Arts and Cultural Hub as an integrated part of mixed use development, located within Map 2.
Support the delivery of a Sports and Recreation Hub shown on Map 2.
Integrate the North Port Oval into an expanded community, recreation and education cluster, including additional open space, an education centre, a community hub and a sports and recreation hub.
Map 1: Sub-precincts within the Sandridge precinct
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Map 1 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Ensure final map reflects urban structure as shown in the current/GC81 Map 1 to Clause 11.03-6L-06, updated to reflect Committee recommendations as set out in Report Volume 1.
Map 2: Community infrastructure within the Sandridge precinct
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Map 2 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Map 2: Community infrastructure within the Sandridge precinct
Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area - Wirraway Precinct
This policy applies to the use and development of all land within the within Wirraway Precinct of the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area, as defined by the DDO33.
To establish Wirraway as a family-friendly inner city neighbourhood and place for innovation and creativity with its own distinct character and identity.
Encourage the establishment of a neighbourhood centre that supports local cafes, restaurants, shops and businesses and a high degree of housing choice, including apartment buildings with a focus on family friendly housing.
Support the development of the precinct as a thriving arts scene and a place for innovation and creativity with small galleries, art and design centres and cultural facilities attract visitors from across Melbourne and beyond.
Support the development of industrial uses, including high technology uses including research and development, that are employment intensive, clean and sustainable and that limit amenity impacts.
Encourage the highest concentration and mix of uses in the defined core areas, located on public transport nodes and routes.
Support big box retail development that compliments existing and planned retail uses in its catchment.
Ensure the social impacts of developments accommodating more than 100 dwellings are considered and addressed through the preparation of a Social Impact Assessment.
Support mid-rise buildings with landscaped frontage around the perimeter of Wirraway North open space.
Support the provision of tree lined streets, small parks, plazas and playgrounds, with easy walking and cycling access to Westgate Park and Sandridge Beach.
Support the development of the intersection of Plummer Street and Salmon Street as the heart of Wirraway and focus of activity with an engaging pedestrian experience along Plummer Street Boulevard.
Facilitate a key public transport spine and interchange node along Plummer Street to provide direct connections to Sandridge, the CBD, Docklands and the Fishermans Bend National Employment and Innovation Cluster with:
Support JL Murphy Reserve as a focus for active recreation with organised sports during the day and night.
Support the creation of new open space at Prohasky Reserve, and in Wirraway North (W1) and Wirraway East (W4), linked by green linear parkway and a network of smaller open spaces.
Support the delivery of new and upgraded bridges over the Westgate Freeway at Rocklea Drive, Salmon Street, Thackray Road and Graham Street that provide public transport, bike and pedestrian access to the Fishermans Bend Employment Precinct.
Support the delivery of an Education and Community Hub (primary) in the 'investigation areas' shown on Map 2, close to open space and the tram route.
Support the delivery of a centrally located Health and Wellbeing Hub within the 'investigation area' shown on Map 2.
Support the delivery of a Sports and Recreation Hub within the 'investigation area' adjoining Williamstown Road shown on Map 2.
Map 1: Sub-precincts within the Wirraway precinct
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Map 1 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Ensure final map reflects urban structure as shown in the current/GC81 Map 1 to Clause 11.03-6L-07, updated to reflect Committee recommendations as set out in Report Volume 1.
Map 2: Community infrastructure within the Wirraway precinct
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Map 2 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Recommended changes are shown on the final version of Amendment documents provided to the Standing Advisory Committee.
To create a thriving urban renewal area that is a leading example for design excellence, environmental sustainability, liveability, connectivity, diversity and innovation.
To create a highly liveable mixed-use area where the scale of growth is aligned with the provision of public transport and other infrastructure.
To create a world leading sustainable urban renewal area that incorporates best practice sustainable design into all developments and supports sustainable transport patterns.
To provide public benefit in the form of social housing or public open space where development exceeds the nominated Dwelling density.
To support the continued operation of strategically important existing uses and existing industrial uses that provide services to the construction industry, and ensure new development includes measures to mitigate potential amenity impacts from those industrial uses.
Accommodation (other than Dwelling, Corrective institution, Motel, Residential aged care facility and Residential hotel)
Must not be within an Amenity buffer shown on Map 4.
Must not be within 450m of the South Melbourne to Brooklyn or Dandenong to West Melbourne pipeline as shown on Map 5.
Must not be within 100m of the Port Melbourne to Symex Holdings pipeline as shown on Map 5.
Must meet the requirements of Clause 52.13-3 and 52.13-5.
The gross floor area of all buildings must not exceed 50 square metres.
Must be located in a Core area with frontage to a Primary or Secondary active frontage street shown on the relevant Urban Structure map.
Must not be within an Amenity buffer shown on Map 4.
Must not be within 450m of the South Melbourne to Brooklyn or Dandenong to West Melbourne pipeline as shown on Map 5.
Must not be within 100m of the Port Melbourne to Symex Holdings pipeline as shown on Map 5.
Must be located in a Core area with frontage to a Primary or Secondary active frontage street shown on the relevant Urban Structure Map.
Must not be within 450m of the South Melbourne to Brooklyn or Dandenong to West Melbourne pipeline as shown on Map 5.
Must not be within 100m of the Port Melbourne to Symex Holdings pipeline as shown on Map 5.
Must be located in a Core area with frontage to a Primary or Secondary active frontage street shown on the relevant Urban Structure map.
Must not be within an Amenity buffer shown on Map 4.
Must not be within 450m of the South Melbourne to Brooklyn or Dandenong to West Melbourne pipeline as shown on Map 5.
Must not be within 100m of the Port Melbourne to Symex Holdings pipeline as shown on Map 5.
Must not be within an Amenity buffer shown on Map 4.
Must not be within 450m of the South Melbourne to Brooklyn or Dandenong to West Melbourne pipeline as shown on Map 5.
Must not be within 100m of the Port Melbourne to Symex Holdings pipeline as shown on Map 5.
Must not be within an Amenity buffer shown on Map 4.
Must not be within an Amenity buffer shown on Map 4.
Place of assembly (other than Function centre and Nightclub)
Must not be within 450m of the South Melbourne to Brooklyn or Dandenong to West Melbourne pipeline as shown on Map 5.
Must not be within 100m of the Port Melbourne to Symex Holdings pipeline as shown on Map 5.
Retail premises (other than Hotel, Shop and Bar)
Must not exceed 1000 sq m gross leasable floor area, and be located in a Core area.
Must not be within 450m of the South Melbourne to Brooklyn or Dandenong to West Melbourne pipeline as shown on Map 5.
Must not be within 100m of the Port Melbourne to Symex Holdings pipeline as shown on Map 5.
Must not be within an Amenity buffer shown on Map 4.
Must not be within 450m of the South Melbourne to Brooklyn or Dandenong to West Melbourne pipeline as shown on Map 5.
Must not be within 100m of the Port Melbourne to Symex Holdings pipeline as shown on Map 5.
Shop (other than Adult sex product shop, Department store, Supermarket and Restricted retail premises)
Must be located in a Core area with frontage to a Primary active frontage street shown on the relevant Urban Structure map.
Must not be within 450m of the South Melbourne to Brooklyn or Dandenong to West Melbourne pipeline as shown on Map 5.
Must not be within 100m of the Port Melbourne to Symex Holdings pipeline as shown on Map 5.
Industry (other than Automated collection point)
Leisure and recreation (other than Informal outdoor recreation, Minor sport and recreation facility, Motor racing track and Racecourse)
Must not be within 450m of the South Melbourne to Brooklyn or Dandenong to West Melbourne pipeline as shown on Map 5.
Must not be within 100m of the Port Melbourne to Symex Holdings pipeline as shown on Map 5.
Transport terminal (other than Airport and Railway station)
If an incorporated plan applies to land, the use of the land must be generally in accordance with that plan.
If an incorporated plan does not apply to land, the use of the land must be generally in accordance with Map 1 [and Map 6] of this schedule.
As for CCZ4, need to 'enliven' the transport map showing public transport land.
The use of land for a dwelling must not exceed the specified Dwelling density in Table 1, unless:
Where not a whole number, the total number of dwellings under each category should be rounded up to the nearest whole number.
Recalculate the OSU ratios and subsequent open space uplifts for Montague, Sandridge and Wirraway:
These requirements do not apply to an application for the use of land in accordance with a planning permit for buildings and works granted before the approval date of Amendment GC81.
The following application requirements apply to an application for a permit under Clause 37.04, in addition to those specified in Clause 37.04 and elsewhere in the scheme and must accompany an application, as appropriate, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:
An application to use land which seeks to exceed the Dwelling Density in Table 1 in exchange for providing social housing or public open space land must be accompanied by a draft section 173 Agreement which addresses the matters in Cclause 2.1.
Dwelling, Residential village or Retirement village
An application to use land for a Dwelling, Residential village or Retirement village must be accompanied by a report that addresses:
An application to use land within an Amenity buffer shown on Map 4 of this schedule, for Accommodation, Dwelling, Child care centre, Education centre, Residential aged care facility, Residential hotel or Informal outdoor recreation must be accompanied by an Amenity Impact Plan which includes, as appropriate:
An application to use land for an industry or warehouse must be accompanied by the following information, as appropriate:
An application for use of land must be accompanied by a Public Infrastructure Plan which addresses the following, as appropriate:
An application for the use of land is exempt from the notice requirements of section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of section 82(1) of the Act.
This exemption does not apply to an application to use land for a nightclub, tavern, hotel or adult sex product shop.
The following decision guidelines apply to an application for a permit under Clause 37.04, in addition to those specified in Clause 37.04 and elsewhere in the scheme which must be considered, as appropriate, by the responsible authority:
The subdivision of land must be generally in accordance with the relevant Maps of this schedule, unless in accordance with an incorporated plan.
Car parking areas must be retained in a single or a consolidated title as common property, unless the responsible authority agrees otherwise.
These requirements do not apply to a subdivision of land in accordance with a planning permit for buildings and works granted before the approval date of Amendment GC81.
The following application requirements apply to an application for a permit to subdivide land under Clause 37.04-3, in addition to those specified in Clause 37.04 and elsewhere in the scheme and must accompany an application, as appropriate, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:
An application for subdivision must be accompanied by a Public Infrastructure Plan which addresses the following, as appropriate:
An application for the subdivision of land is exempt from the notice requirements of section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of section 82(1) of the Act.
The following decision guidelines apply to an application for a permit to subdivide land under Clause 37.04-3, in addition to those specified in Clause 37.04 and elsewhere in the scheme which must be considered, as appropriate, by the responsible authority:
These requirements do not apply to an application for subdivision associated with a continuing lawful use of land.
In considering whether a permit should be granted for the subdivision of land associated with an ongoing existing use of land, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:
No permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works for the following:
A permit is required to demolish or remove a building or works, except for:
The construction of a building, and the carrying out of works, must be generally in accordance with the relevant Maps of this schedule, unless in accordance with an incorporated plan. This does not apply to new road or laneway marked as indicative in the relevant Maps of this schedule.
This requirement does not apply to an application to amend a permit issued before the approval date of Amendment GC81.
A permit must not be granted to construct a building or construct or carry out works with a Dwelling density in excess of the Dwelling density in Table 1, unless an agreement under section 173 of the Act has been entered into between the owner, the responsible authority and the local council (if not the responsible authority) under Cclause 2.1 of this schedule.
Developments must provide bicycle, motorcycle and car share parking space in accordance with Table 3, unless the responsible authority is satisfied that a lesser number is sufficient.
Developments with over 10,000 sqm non-residential floor space
For all developments with 120 or less car spaces: A minimum of 2 spaces
For developments with more than 120 car spaces: 1 per 60 car parking spaces
A permit must not be granted to construct a building or construct or carry out works where vehicle access points and/or crossovers (not including openings for a road) are located along roads designated as 'no crossovers permitted' in the relevant Map of this schedule, unless no other access is possible, or in accordance with an incorporated plan.
A permit granted for subdivision must contain the following condition:
A permit granted to construct a building or to construct or carry out works for:
A permit granted to construct a building or to construct or carry out works must include the following conditions:
A permit granted to construct a building or to construct or carry out works on land within 50 metres of the high-pressure gas transmission pipelines shown on Map 5 of this schedule must include the following condition:
This condition is not required on a permit to construct alterations and additions to an existing building.
Footing and foundations near the proposed future Metro alignment
A permit granted to construct a building or to construct or carry out works on land within 50 metres of a potential future Metro alignment shown on Map 6 of this schedule must include the following condition:
This condition is not required on a permit to construct alterations and additions to an existing building.
Where a new road or laneway is proposed on the land, and the road or laneway is not funded through the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan (DATE) a permit granted to construct a building or to construct or carry out works must include a condition requiring the following:
Where a new or upgraded road is proposed on or adjacent to the land, a permit granted to construct a building or construct or carry out works must include a condition requiring:
The following application requirements apply to an application for a permit under Clause 37.04, in addition to those specified in Clause 37.04 and elsewhere in the scheme and must accompany an application, as appropriate, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:
An application to construct a building or to construct or carry out works for a Dwelling must be accompanied by the following information, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:
An application to construct a building or to construct or carry out works, where an open space uplift is proposed, must be accompanied by the following information, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:
Amenity impacts from existing industrial uses, freight routes and transport corridors
An application for building and works associated with the use of land for Accommodation, Dwelling, Child care centre, Education centre, Residential aged care facility, Residential hotel or Informal outdoor recreation within an Amenity buffer shown on Map 4 of this schedule, must be accompanied by an Amenity Impact Plan which includes, as appropriate:
An application to construct buildings or to carry out works must be accompanied by a Public Infrastructure Plan which addresses the following, as appropriate:
An application to demolish or remove a building or to construct a building or construct or carry out works is exempt from the notice requirements of section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of section 82(1) of the Act.
The following decision guidelines apply to an application for a permit under Clause 37.04-4, in addition to those specified in Clause 37.04 and elsewhere in the scheme which must be considered, as appropriate, by the responsible authority:
Before deciding on an application to demolish or remove a building or works, the responsible authority must consider any need for a condition requiring an agreement under section 173 of the Act to be entered into by the landowner and the responsible authority and the local council (if not the responsible authority) requiring:
The requirements of clauses 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 do not apply to an application for buildings and works associated with a continuing lawful use of land.
In considering whether a permit should be granted for buildings and works associated with an existing use of land for industry or warehouse, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:
A permit is required to construct and display a sign except for:
An application to construct and display a sign is exempt from the notice requirements of section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of section 82(1) of the Act.
Map 1 to Schedule 1 to Clause 37.04: Montague Urban Structure
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Map 1 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Map 1 to Schedule 1 to Clause 37.04: Montague Urban Structure
Replace Map 1 with a map showing the urban structure as shown in the current Map 1 to Schedule 1 to Clause 37.01, updated to reflect Committee recommendations as set out in Report Volume 1.
Map 2 to Schedule 1 to Clause 37.04: Sandridge Urban Structure
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Map 2 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Map 2 to Schedule 1 to Clause 37.04: Sandridge Urban Structure
Replace Map 2 with a map showing the urban structure as shown in the current/GC81 Map 2 to Schedule 1 to Clause 37.01, updated to reflect Committee recommendations as set out in Report Volume 1.
Map 3 to Schedule 1 to Clause 37.04: Wirraway Urban Structure
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Map 3 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Map 3 to Schedule 1 to Clause 37.04: Wirraway Urban Structure
Replace Map 3 as shown above with a map showing the urban structure as shown in the current/GC81 Map 3 to Schedule 1 to Clause 37.01, updated to reflect Committee recommendations as set out in Report Volume 1.
Map 4 to Schedule 1 to Clause 37.04: Amenity buffers
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Map 4 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Map 4 to Schedule 1 to Clause 37.04: Amenity buffers
Ensure final map reflects urban structure as shown in the current/GC81 Map 4 to Schedule 1 to Clause 37.01, updated to reflect Committee recommendations as set out in Report Volume 1.
Map 5 to Schedule 1 to Clause 37.04: Pipeline buffers
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Map 5 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Map 5 to Schedule 1 to Clause 37.04: Pipeline buffers
Ensure final map reflects urban structure as shown in the current/GC81 Map 5 to Schedule 1 to Clause 37.01, updated to reflect Committee recommendations as set out in Report Volume 1.
Map 6 to Schedule 1 to Clause 37.04: Transport Infrastructure
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Map 6 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Map 6 to Schedule 1 to Clause 37.04: Transport Infrastructure
The map included in the final version for Map 6 appears to be a repeat of Map 5. Replace the above map with the correct map (Document 101l) and:
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Map 7 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Update to include 18-22 Salmon Street, Port Melbourne as an open space uplift site subject to consulting with the owner and, if required, the occupier.
The following definitions apply for the purposes of interpreting this schedule:
Affordable housing has the same meaning as in the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
Core area and Non-core area are those areas identified on the relevant Map.
Dwelling density (dw/ha) means the number of dwellings on the site divided by the total site area (hectares).
Open space uplift means dwellings that exceed the number of dwellings allowable under the Dwelling density requirements in Table 1 of this Schedule in exchange for the provision of open space.
Social housing has the same meaning as in the Housing Act 1983.
Social housing uplift means dwellings that exceed the number of dwellings allowable under the Dwelling density requirements in Table 1 in exchange for the provision of social housing.
Total site area means the area of the land the subject of the application including any proposed roads, laneways, community infrastructure or public open space.
Recommended changes are shown on the final version of Amendment documents provided to the Standing Advisory Committee.
SCHEDULE 2 TO CLAUSE 45.06 DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN OVERLAY
FISHERMANS BEND URBAN RENEWAL AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN
1.0 Area covered by this development contributions plan
Actual cost contribution attributable to development $
Proportion of cost attributable to development %
Refer to details in the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan
Refer to details in the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan
Refer to details in the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan
Refer to details in the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan
Refer to details in the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan
Refer to details in the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan
Refer to details in the Fishermans Bend DevelopmentContributions Plan
Subtotal Transport, local distributed storages & community infrastructure
Refer to details in the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan
Refer to details in the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan
Subtotal Open space & recreation infrastructure
Actual cost contribution attributable to development $
Proportion of cost attributable to development %
Refer to details in the Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan
Note: If a Ministerial exemption is granted from the requirement to use a community infrastructure levy, the above tables will need to be adjusted accordingly.
Note: The summary of cost in Clause 2 is applied across the municipalities of City of Melbourne and City of Port Phillip.
Transport, Local distributed storages & Community infrastructure
* The per square metre rate for residential development applies to land used for Accommodation where the development is not comprised of self-contained dwellings.
4.0 Land or development excluded from development contributions plan
The following land or development is exempt from payment of development contributions:
Note: This schedule sets out a summary of the costs and contributions prescribed in the development contributions plan. Refer to the incorporated development contributions plan for full details.
Recommended changes are shown on the final version of Amendment documents provided to the Standing Advisory Committee.
SCHEDULE 2 TO CLAUSE 43.03 INCORPORATED PLAN OVERLAY
FISHERMANS BEND URBAN RENEWAL AREA INCORPORATED PLAN AREAS
For land in the areas shown as A or C in Map 1, aA permit may be granted for use or to subdivide land or to construct a building or to construct or carry out works before an incorporated plan has been incorporated into this scheme.
For land in the area shown as B in Map 1, a permit must not be granted to use or subdivide land, construct a building or construct or carry out works before an incorporated plan has been incorporated into this scheme except for the following:
2.0 Permits not generally in accordance with incorporated plan
An incorporated plan may be prepared for each area shown in Map 1, and may be prepared and implemented in stages.
An incorporated plan must be generally in accordance with the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area Development Contributions Plan (DATE) and any approved Precinct Implementation Plan, except as able to be expressly varied by the below provisions.
An incorporated plan must show the distribution of the dwelling density across the plan area.
An incorporated plan (or stage of an incorporated plan) must not result in a dwelling density greater than the dwelling density requirements in Table 1 of the Schedule 1 to the Capital City Zone across the incorporated plan area or stage, not including additional residential density arising from social housing uplift Social Housing uplift or open space uplift Open Space uplift, as outlined in Schedule 1 to the Capital City Zone.
An incorporated plan may not re-distribute any open space uplift or social housing uplift dwellings.
An incorporated plan must not result in a net loss of open space or increased overshadowing of public open space.
An incorporated plan must include a report including maps and plans describing:
MAP 1 Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area Incorporated Plan Areasd
Map 1 Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area Incorporated Plan Areas
Appendix I Committee recommended Development Contributions Plan
Infrastructure Funding in Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area
The Fishermans Bend Framework (the Framework) was endorsed by Government in 2018 and sets out how the vision for Fishermans Bend to accommodate 80,000 residents and 80,000 workers is planned to be achieved by 2050.
It outlines the key infrastructure required to support the urban renewal of the precinct, and the need for a detailed infrastructure plan and funding strategy. As Australia's largest urban renewal precinct, the scale and extent of transformational change is unprecedented.
Government endorsed strategic approach for infrastructure
Government has endorsed a strategic approach to infrastructure funding for Fishermans Bend, which includes a mix of funding sources including this DCP and supporting open space uplift mechanism, which will both be administered by the State.
This DCP funds some of the broad range of infrastructure required to unlock the development of the precinct.
Further detail as to how this strategic approach has been translated into the development of this DCP is provides in sections
This DCP provides detailed costings and indicative delivery timing of over 120 essential infrastructure projects across the precinct. The total value of these projects (including land and construction) is estimated at approximately $2.45 billion[30].
Note: update total number of projects and total value of projects in accordance with revised scope of projects, as recommended in Report Volume 1.
The DCP charge rate has been set at a level that ensures that development makes a reasonable contribution towards the cost of delivering essential infrastructure in Fishermans Bend, whilst also balancing development feasibility considerations. Land in Fishermans Bend is predominantly in private ownership. Successful delivery of the vision for Fishermans Bend will therefore depend on private development and investment occurring, as well as investment in public assets by both State and local government.
The DCP forecasts revenue from development contributions of approximately $1.7 billion[31] to 2055, with potential for additional revenue from open space uplift Open Space uplift and social housing uplift Social Housing uplift dwellings. DCP charges include:
Note: do not make reference to a separate community infrastructure levy if a Ministerial exemption is granted.
The balance of costs will be met by other Government sources over the life of the project.
The DCP timeframe has been extended from the original 2050 target date to 2055 due to the unforeseen impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on economic activity.
The DCP is administered by the State, which will be responsible for collections and lead delivery and coordination, in partnership with other State and local government agencies and the development sector. (Refer to Part Five Administration for further detail).
Complementary funding mechanism for public open space
The Framework recognises the importance of collaborative partnerships between all levels of government, landowners, and the not-for-profit sector in delivering the Fishermans Bend Vision. To complement the DCP an 'open space uplift Open Space uplift' (OSU) planning mechanism creates a development incentive to help fund land, and remediation [and embellishment] for parks.
The OSU enables a voluntary 'density bonus' on identified candidate sites, where a developer agrees to provide land designated in the relevant Capital City Zone schedule for a specified public open space project.
All sites in the precinct also remain candidates for the existing Social Housing Uplift (SHU) option that was approved in 2018.
The Schedules to the Capital City zone in the Melbourne and Port Phillip Planning Schemes include the planning controls regulating the OSU and SHU.
Together the DCP and OSU provide for combined use of standard and innovative methods for infrastructure funding.
The DCP and OSU replace the 'interim' development contribution arrangements in place in Fishermans Bend since 2014. This is a much needed and important step in providing planning certainty and investment confidence to community and industry about the delivery of essential infrastructure in the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area.
Note: do not make reference to a community infrastructure levy if a Ministerial exemption is granted.
The DCP funds only part of the necessary infrastructure for Fishermans Bend.
Table 1 provides an overview of the costs and charges for transport, open space and recreation, drainage and community infrastructure projects included in this Development Contributions Plan (DCP).
[Committee note: no table appears in the final version of the FBDCP]
Note: If a Ministerial exemption is granted from the requirement to use a community infrastructure levy, the table will need to be adjusted accordingly.
[Committee note: no figure appears in the final version of the FBDCP]
Amend Figure 1 to reflect the Committee's recommendations as set out in Report Volume 1.
Describe the strategic basis of the DCP and summarises its key components
Identifies and describes the infrastructure included in the DCP
Explains how the development contribution levies have been calculated
Explains the approach to the implementation and administration of the DCP
Part 6 - Appendices
Provides the detailed land budgets and project costing information
This DCP has been prepared in accordance with, and to implement, key aspects of the Framework which was approved by Government in October 2018. The Framework, together with the planning controls introduced as part of Amendment GC81 to the Melbourne and Port Phillip Planning Schemes sets out how land use and development is regulated in Fishermans Bend.
The Framework defines, but does not include costs for, the necessary infrastructure to service the future community including:
The Framework does not identify specific public realm drainage infrastructure beyond a future water recycling plant and requirements for third pipe plumbing and rainwater tanks as part of development.
The Framework does however contain 'Sustainability Goal 5 - A Water Sensitive City' containing targets, objectives, and strategies. One of these strategies commits to the preparation of a 'strategy to holistically mitigate the impacts of storms and sea level rise'. The Fishermans Bend Water Sensitive City Strategy, May 2022, was prepared in relation to this objective and is underpinned by detailed technical investigations informing the local distributed storages and major drainage infrastructure.
Fishermans Bend is unprecedented in terms of scale and the extent of transformational change that will occur.
The successful delivery of Fishermans Bend will require delivery of a significant amount of infrastructure over decades. The infrastructure will be funded by a range of sources, including the DCP, State government, local government and developers.
This DCP funds only part of the necessary infrastructure for Fishermans Bend
In relation to funding of infrastructure, there are four categories of infrastructure:
Other infrastructure will be funded by a range of sources, including Commonwealth, State and local government.
As a general principle, works on existing council assets will remain the responsibility of councils to be managed by the relevant council over time in line with their strategic and budget priorities. This includes upgrades and embellishment of some open spaces, maintenance and upgrades to some of the existing network of local streets and laneways, and delivery of some community facilities and services that are normally provided by local government.
Refer to Section 2.5 Guiding Principles for further detail on the approach to project prioritisation for DCP funding, and lists of items not funded by this DCP.
2.2.3. Background technical work**[32]**
Individual infrastructure projects have been identified based on the Framework and various background studies prepared prior to and following its approval. This includes:
Include cost apportionment work undertaken in accordance with the Committee's recommendations in Report Volume 1.
[Committee note: no figure appears in the final version of the FBDCP]
Amend Figure 2 to reflect the Committee's recommendations as set out in Report Volume 1
The DCP covers a total area of 243.96[33] hectares across the four FBURA precincts (Montague, Lorimer, Sandridge and Wirraway), as shown in Figure 3.
2.4. Method of preparing the DCP and compliance with statutory requirements
The DCP has been prepared in accordance with Part 3B of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act).
Include cost apportionment work undertaken in accordance with the Committee's recommendations in Report Volume 1.
Note: do not make the reference to the community infrastructure levy if a Ministerial exemption is granted.
[Committee note: no figure appears in the final version of the FBDCP]
Amend Figure 3 to reflect the Committee's recommendations as set out in Report Volume 1
2.5.1. Infrastructure Items included in the DCP
The infrastructure projects included in the DCP have been determined based on the Framework and all its supporting documents and giving regard to all relevant Ministerial Directions and guidance material. All infrastructure projects have been assessed to ensure they are consistent with the principles of the DCP system (need, nexus, apportionment, accountability, and transparency).
This DCP requires development to make a contribution towards the cost of funding essential infrastructure while also considering development feasibility.
The DCP projects were prioritised having regard to a range of considerations including:
The infrastructure projects that have been included in the DCP all have the following characteristics:
As charges on development need to be set at a level that considers development feasibility, not all infrastructure identified in the Framework can be included for funding by development and other funding sources will be required over time.
The four FBURA precincts are considered a single catchment area, as the projects required to be delivered are required to support development across all four precincts. The cost of the DCP projects has been attributed to the total development projections and, apart from CIL being levied only on residential development, a single (capped) charge per demand unit has been calculated for the entire area.
Note: do not make reference to the community infrastructure levy if a Ministerial exemption is granted.
Part Three Infrastructure project justification
This section provides a general description of the infrastructure projects that have been included in the DCP. The DCP has arranged the infrastructure projects into key categories and each project is assigned a unique sequential number in the tables and plans.
Figure 4 spatially depicts the following types of infrastructure projects included in the DCP:
[Committee note: no figure appears in the final version of the FBDCP]
Amend Figure 4 to reflect the Committee's recommendations as set out in Report Volume 1
The transport related infrastructure included in this DCP is illustrated in Figure 5 and is listed and described in Table 2. The transport infrastructure is based on the Framework and establishes the key street movement network for FBURA.
The following types of transport projects are included in the DCP:
Many of the street projects include linear open spaces and distributed water storage which will be delivered as part of the streetscape works when the respective street is upgraded/constructed.
The transport projects included in the DCP have been chosen because they have the following attributes:
The remainder of transport projects are not included in the DCP and will need to be funded by other sources as outlined below:
[Committee note: no figure appears in the final version of the FBDCP]
Amend Figure 5 to reflect the Committee's recommendations as set out in Report Volume 1
[Committee note: no table appears in the final version of the FBDCP]
Update Table 2 to reflect the Committee's recommendations in Report Volume 1 including:
The public open space projects included in the DCP are illustrated in Figure 6 and described in Table 3.
These public open spaces are informed by the areas outlined in the Framework which include recreation reserves, passive parks, pocket parks, urban plazas, and linear reserves.
Embellishment costs for most linear open space projects that align with streetscape upgrade projects are included in the relevant transport project. Six linear parks are listed as Public Open Space projects in Table 3.
Refer to Appendix 2 for detail on open space inclusions factored into funded open space embellishment projects.
The DCP seeks to direct contributions towards the following components of the planned open space network:
Where the open space land is a DCP funded project, or where the open space land is planned in existing road reserves or on government land, remediation costs are:
Public open space projects not funded by the DCP:
The voluntary OSU development incentive applies to OSU candidate sites where development can occur in line with the Schedule to the Capital City Zones after open space is excised. The OSU proposes to provide the option of trading land for additional dwelling density above the amount that is currently capped in the Melbourne and Port Phillip Planning Schemes. For this reason, the cost of open space land for the OSU candidate sites has been excluded from the DCP. OSU candidate sites and incentives are set out in the Schedules to the Capital City Zone in the Melbourne and Port Phillip Planning Schemes.
The administration of the OSU mechanism, including the process for securing land and delivering the embellished park if the OSU is not taken up on these sites when the sites are developed], is the responsibility of the State government.
Where the DCP does not include embellishment funding for parks, these will need to be upgraded over time by local government.
The OSU development incentive is calculated to include the cost of land remediation (including demolition, asbestos removal and contamination remediation) [and embellishment]. Where land is proposed as an OSU candidate site, no remediation [or embellishment] costs are included in any corresponding DCP embellishment project.
The community facilities included in the DCP are illustrated on Figure 6 and described in Table 4. The approach to community facilities is informed by the Framework and considers facilities delivered to date and existing government delivery commitments. The Framework sets out an approach to clustered community hubs that combine complementary services. It identifies four hub categories:
Of these, two community and education hubs have now been delivered (South Melbourne Primary School and Port Melbourne Secondary College), and the new Fishermans Bend Primary School is committed to open in Wirraway in 2026. The Victorian Government commitment to deliver a new Community Hospital in the region addresses the need for the two health and wellbeing hubs. These projects are not included in the DCP.
Note: If a Ministerial exemption is granted to allow community infrastructure to be funded by the development infrastructure levy, insert a paragraph explaining this.
The DCP directs contributions towards the following community hubs, with land projects funded through the DIL and construction elements funded through the CIL:
As with other projects included in the DCP for funding, delivery of these projects is the responsibility of the State as the Collecting and Development Agency.
The following community hub projects are not included in the DCP and are the responsibility of the State:
The following projects and the associated services provision are the responsibility of local government to fund and deliver, however are considered key candidate projects for a partnership approach to funding from other State, local or Federal government sources, for example through special grant programs or bespoke funding arrangements.
[Committee note: no figure appears in the final version of the FBDCP]
Amend Figure 6 to reflect the Committee's recommendations as set out in Report Volume 1
[Committee note: no table appears in the final version of the FBDCP]
[Committee note: no table appears in the final version of the FBDCP]
Significant portions of Fishermans Bend are subject to flooding. The Fishermans Bend Framework plans to ensure reduced impact of storm and flood events, including sea level rise. The Fishermans Bend Water Sensitive City Strategy (May 2022) was prepared to holistically address the current and projected impacts of climate change. It outlines a range of infrastructure interventions to reduce the risk and mitigate the impact of stormwater, riverine and coastal flooding at various spatial scales across the public and private realm.
The DCP includes funding towards the construction of local distributed water storage infrastructure that was identified in Water Sensitive Technical Report (GHD, 2019) and reflected in the Water Sensitive City Strategy.
DCP funded distributed storage projects are proposed to be delivered through DCP funded road projects with linear open space and in some open space projects, which include land cost where applicable as well as costs for contamination remediation and embellishment and associated preliminaries and contingencies. In Lorimer, DCP funded distributed storage projects are proposed to be delivered through DCP funded road projects and not in open space projects. The project construction values for the distributed storage project is therefore limited to excavation costs, tree pits for high volume water storage, overland flow channel and drainage connections.
The DCP funds delivery of major drainage and flood mitigation projects, including major pipe upgrades, pump stations, and a levee, replacing any separate charges ordinarily charged on new development by Melbourne Water.
The levee is the main defence against sea level rise and will provide protection against storm surge and riverine flooding. The design of the levee is at a preliminary stage and will be further developed to be integrated into landscaping features and the design of buildings and streets where feasible.
Pump stations will be required to ensure stormwater can be pumped from Fishermans Bend during extreme events. Pumps will be designed to complement their surroundings.
New underground pipe infrastructure will be required for the pump stations.
The location of these projects and project costs have been identified by Melbourne Water.
[Committee note: no table appears in the final version of the FBDCP]
Amend Table 5 to reflect the Committee's recommendations as set out in Report Volume 1
Figure 7: Drainage Distributed Storage Projects Plan
[Committee note: no figure appears in the final version of the FBDCP]
Figure 7: Drainage Distributed Storage Projects Plan
Figure 8: Major Drainage and Flood Mitigation Projects Plan
[Committee note: no figure appears in the final version of the FBDCP]
Amend Figure 8 to reflect the Committee's recommendations as set out in Report Volume 1
Table X identifies DCP projects to be delivered in the short, medium, and long term. This timing is indicative only and is subject to change including where:
All items in the DCP will be provided as soon as practicable and as soon as sufficient contributions are available, consistent with Section 5 and acknowledging the Development Agency's capacity to provide the balance of funds not recovered by the DCP.
[Committee note: no table appears in the final version of the FBDCP]
This section explains how the DCP charges are calculated.
4.1.1. Development Projections and DCP Timeframe
The level of projected residential, and non-residential development is based on the Framework.
The Framework states that Fishermans Bend is to accommodate 80,000 residents and 80,000 (40,000 in FBURA and 40,000 in the Fishermans Bend National Employment and Innovation Cluster) jobs by the year 2050.
This DCP is intended to operate until the year 2055. Development projections indicate that by 2055 there will be 85,489 residents accommodated within 39,136 dwellings, and over 50,000 jobs will be provided within 1,581,844 m2 of commercial and 139,610 m2 of retail floorspace.
These development projections may be reached earlier as a result of the social housing upliftSocial Housing Uplift and open space upliftOpen Space Uplift.
Table 6 sets out the type of development and indicative yield anticipated by the year 2055 for the DCP area.
4.1.2. Common Demand Unit and Equivalence Ratios
In accordance with the DCP Guidelines 2007, equivalence ratios have been used because:
The common demand unit is one dwelling. Dwelling is as defined in Part 3B of the Act and includes independent living units within a retirement village.
The commercial equivalence ratios are applied to all non-residential development for transport, drainage, and other public realm infrastructure, as indicated in Table 7.
It is important to note that the DCP Guidelines 2007 do not attribute an equivalence ratio to commercial land uses for open space projects. This is considered an anomaly as it is common practice that non-residential land uses contribute towards open space through either Clause 53.01, Section 18 of the Subdivision Act 1988, a DCP or an Infrastructure Contribution Plan.
The DCP has applied the same equivalence ratio to open space and drainage as transport infrastructure. Table 8 sets out the total demand units for each land use by infrastructure category.
Consistent with the approach taken to the calculation of projected floorspace, demand for non-residential uses is calculated based on gross floor area.
Reinstate '4.1.3 Cost Apportionment' as it appears in the exhibited version and include a description of the cost apportionment exercise undertaken in accordance with the Committee's recommendations in Report Volume 1. Include reference to the 50% apportionment of BR01.
A parcel specific land budget has been prepared which identifies the individual land uses for each property including encumbrances, land required for future public purposes (DCP projects) and land available for development. Table 9 sets out the summary land use budget and the parcel specific land use budget is provided in Appendix 1.
[Committee note: no table appears in the final version of the FBDCP]
Amend Table 6 to reflect the Committee's recommendations as set out in Report Volume 1
[Committee note: no table appears in the final version of the FBDCP]
Amend Table 7 to reflect the Committee's recommendations as set out in Report Volume 1
[Committee note: no table appears in the final version of the FBDCP]
Amend Table 8 to reflect the Committee's recommendations as set out in Report Volume 1
[Committee note: no table appears in the final version of the FBDCP]
Amend Table 9 to reflect the Committee's recommendations as set out in Report Volume 1
When preparing the DCP, key risk areas associated with the delivery of the DCP projects were identified due to the context of Fishermans Bend.
In preparing cost estimates for the projects included in the DCP, the following areas of uncertainty were identified:
For each infrastructure project, a land and construction cost, where relevant, is specified. Construction costs and land costs are expressed in March 2023 dollars[34].
Update costs in accordance with Committee's recommendations in Report Volume 1.
Contingencies have been applied in the following manner:
Financing costs have not been included in this DCP.
Further detail regarding the calculation of costs is explained on the following pages. Project cost sheets are included in Appendix #.
Construction cost estimates include allowances for contamination based on earlier estimates prepared by Golder Associates (2018) and advice from the Environmental Protection Agency. These costs were peer reviewed by WT Partnership (2021) and updated by Slattery (2023).
Fishermans Bend is an existing urban area that contains a substantial amount of existing services. The upgrade, replacement and/or relocation of existing services can be very expensive. Therefore, it was important to assess the current services and determine which services require upgrade, replacement, or relocation and to quantify these requirements by DCP project.
GHD (2019) assessed the existing services and quantified the works required to deliver the future urban structure of Fishermans Bend. These works were integrated into the Slattery (2023) cost assessments for road and intersection construction projects.
Standardising infrastructure requirements in an urban renewal area such as Fishermans Bend is difficult due to its size and varying context. As a result, bespoke infrastructure solutions were adopted in relation to drainage and transport.
FBURA comprises a range of complex road and intersection projects. In the absence of detailed designs for the transport projects, DTP took a consolidated approach to costing the DCP transport projects, categorising projects under 12 road types and 22 intersection types.
DTP engaged GHD to quantify the construction components of each of these projects which were based on high level concept plans. These quantities were then costed by Plan Cost and reviewed by WT Partnership.
Costs were escalated to March 2023 dollars by Slattery, used to inform the project costs in the DCP. The Slattery report includes costs for both a Base Case and Alternative Case, which considered some early pre-precinct planning alternative concepts for parts of the area.
The DCP adopts costs for all projects from the Base Case, with the exception of STR14, STR15 and STR17 which are costed in the Alternative Case.
Jacobs developed a concept plan and estimate of cost for the Salmon Street bridge upgrade.
EY prepared property specific land valuations for all properties required to set aside land for public purposes under the DCP.
A 'direct comparison approach' of the underlying land value was undertaken in the following manner for each subject property:
The estimates of value is predicated on the following assumptions:
5. All services are available to the site but may require upgrade works.
The area of land to be secured for each DCP land project on each property is identified in the property specific land budget.
Table 10 sets out the land and construction costs for each project, total value apportioned to the DCP and the demand unit charge for each project.
Table 1 provides a summary of the charge per demand unit for each infrastructure category by land use type.
To ensure that the development infrastructure charges remain affordable the DTP have capped the residential and non-residential charges in March 2023$ (subject to annual adjustment). Charges are set out in Table 1: Summary of Charges. Indexation provisions are set out in Section 5.4 and 5.X.
[Committee note: no table appears in the final version of the FBDCP]
Amend Table 10 to reflect the Committee's recommendations as set out in Report Volume 1
This section sets out how the DCP will be administered and covers the timing of payment, provision of works and land in kind and how funds generated by the DCP will be managed in terms of reporting, indexation, and review periods.
The Minister for Precincts is the Collecting Agency pursuant to section 46K(1) (fa) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. As the Collecting Agency, the Minister for Precincts is responsible for the administration of the DCP and its enforcement pursuant to section 46QC of the Act.
The Secretary, Project Development (within the meaning of the Project Development and Construction Management Act 1994) is the Development Agency and is responsible for the provision of all infrastructure projects funded the DCP and the timing of all works. This is currently the Secretary, Department of Transport and Planning.
5.3. Payment of Contributions and Payment Timing
In accordance with the Act and the Ministerial Direction on the Preparation and Content of Development Contributions Plans and Ministerial Reporting Requirements for Development Contributions Plans (2016), the DCP makes a distinction between 'development' and 'community' infrastructure.
This DCP provides for the charging of a development infrastructure and a community infrastructure levy.
Note: do not make the reference to the community infrastructure levy if a Ministerial exemption is granted.
Each net additional demand unit shall be liable to pay the applicable levies (unless exemptions apply). This includes a new dwelling, new non-residential floorspace or an extension to an existing non-residential building.
Payment of development contributions is to be made in cash, unless otherwise agreed in accordance with section 5.3.3.
NEW 5.3.X Calculation and payment of development contributions
All development which produces net additional demand units is liable to pay development contributions.
The amount payable is determined by the purpose for which the land being developed is proposed to be used:
Note: remove references to the 'community infrastructure levy' in the above if a Ministerial exemption is granted.
Contributions are payable on the total development yield. This will include uplift dwellings realised through a SHU or OSU as well as the total gross non-residential floorspace provided. Contributions are not payable on social housing dwellings provided to realise a SHU.
The yields achieved will be monitored and reported on, and any changes required will be included in the scheduled 5-year review.
A development infrastructure levy, to be calculated as set out in 5.3.X Calculation and payment of development contributions, must be paid to the Collecting Agency in accordance with the provisions of the approved DCP for each demand unit prior to the commencement of any development, unless an alternative time is agreed between the Collecting Agency and a development proponent.
Where the Collecting Agency agrees to payment at an alternative time, and/or staged payments, a Schedule of payments must be included in an implementation agreement pursuant to Section 173 of the Act. The schedule must show the demand units, development type and development contributions payable (DIL and, where applicable, CIL if CIL payment is also proposed to be staged) as well as timing of payment and detail of any works or land provided in kind.
Note: do not include reference to the community infrastructure levy if a Ministerial exemption is granted.
Where no planning permit is required, a person who proposes to carry out that development of the land must pay the development contributions to the Collecting Agency within a time and in a manner specified by the Collecting Agency; or enter into an agreement with the Collecting Agency to pay the development contributions within a time specified in the agreement.
**NEW 5.3.**Y - Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
The community infrastructure levy is payable on residential development types, to be calculated as set out in 5.3.X Calculation and payment of development contributions.
The community infrastructure levy is not payable on non-residential development types.
The community infrastructure levy must be paid to the Collecting Agency by the applicant before a building permit may be issued, unless an alternative time is agreed between the Collecting Agency and the development proponent.
Before issuing a building permit, the building surveyor must be satisfied that the building permit applicant has:
Note: do not include this section in relation to the community infrastructure levy if a Ministerial exemption is granted.
5.3.3. Works or land in lieu of cash contributions
Under Section 46P of the Act, the Collecting Agency may accept the provision of land, works, services or facilities by the applicant in part, or in full, in lieu of the amount of levy payable pursuant to this DCP. However, this will only be possible if the Collecting Agency and Development Agency and the future asset owner agree to this arrangement.
The Collecting Agency should only accept the provision of works or land in kind if:
If the Collecting Agency and the Development Agency accept the provision of works or land in kind (subject to the arrangements specified above):
Temporary works are not considered as eligible for works in kind credits against this DCP.
It may be appropriate to deliver some DCP projects in a staged manner based on the needs of the development or the functionality of the asset, however any eligibility for these works to be credited as works in kind must be agreed to by the Collecting Agency and the Development Agency.
If the Collecting Agency agrees to accept works and/or land in kind and the value of those works and/or land is greater than the development infrastructure levy liability payable by the applicant, the applicant is entitled to be reimbursed the difference between the two amounts.
The details of a reimbursement, including staging and timing of payment, must be negotiated with, and agreed to by, the Collecting Agency and Development Agency.
Some types of development are exempt from paying infrastructure development levies. Where land is subdivided or developed for an exempt purpose and the land is subsequently used for a purpose other than as one of those exempt uses, the owner of that land must pay to the Collecting Agency infrastructure contributions in accordance with the provisions of this DCP. The levy must be paid within 28 days of the date of the commencement of the construction of any buildings or works for that alternative use.
5.3.7. Contributions made under existing Planning Permits or Infrastructure Agreements
There are existing development approvals (including incorporated plans) which are subject to interim development contributions arrangements. Typically, the interim contributions are levied subject to two different planning approvals:
The DCP intends for developments approved under this regime to be able to be developed under the interim contributions arrangements unless they lapse, or a new planning approval is required.
As the subdivision permit is typically only sought towards the end of the development process, there is the potential that some development proposals have the first but not the second approval creating the need for carefully crafted transitional provisions in the Schedule to Clause 53.01. The provisions in the Schedule to Clause 53.01 have been drafted to ensure that proponents do not get charged twice for the open space component of the contributions, and conversely, do not benefit from a loophole where they do not pay an open space contribution.
5.4. Construction and Land Value Costs Indexation
Capital infrastructure costs and land costs are in March 2023 dollars[35].
Update costs in accordance with Committee's recommendations in Report Volume 1.
These will be indexed annually on 1 March of the first year after the gazettal of the DCP into the Melbourne and Port Phillip Planning Schemes with the first indexation to cover the time elapsed the date of the estimates and that point in time. Whilst the construction and land costs are to be indexed annually on 1 March, the indexation is to be applied from 1 July.
Table 11 sets out the indexation method to be applied to the respective infrastructure categories.
[Committee note: no table appears in the final version of the FBDCP]
Amend Table 11 to reflect the Committee's recommendations as set out in Report Volume 1
5.5. Capped Development Infrastructure Levy Annual Adjustment
Following the annual indexation of the DCP project construction and land costs to calculate the total adjusted Total Cost of Projects Apportioned to the DCP (as per Section 5.4) the capped residential and non-residential DIL charge rates are to be annually adjusted.
The capped DIL levy rates must be adjusted according to the following method: -
NEW 5.X. Community Infrastructure Levy Annual Adjustment
The community infrastructure levy will be paid for at a 'per-dwelling' rate or per floorspace area rate for residential uses that where development is not comprised of self contained dwellings.
The Act currently stipulates that the amount that may be contributed under a community infrastructure levy is no more than $1,346 per dwelling for the 2023-24 financial year. The Governor in Council may from time to time by Order published in the Government Gazette vary the maximum amount that may be imposed as the community infrastructure levy.
If in the future the community infrastructure levy is amended, then the levy applicable to the release of the remaining dwellings will be adjusted in accordance with the revised legislative and regulatory approach as directed by the Minister for Planning.
All projects other than CIL projects are classified as development infrastructure projects.
Note: do not include references to the community infrastructure levy if a Ministerial exemption is granted.
This DCP adopts a long term outlook for development. It considers planned future development in the area. This DCP commences on the date it is gazetted into the Melbourne and Port Phillip Planning Schemes. This DCP is intended to operate until 2055 and will end when development within the DCP area is complete, or when this DCP is removed from the Melbourne and Port Phillip Planning Schemes.
This DCP is expected to be reviewed and updated every five years (or more frequently if required).
Reviews of the DCP will include a review of relevant policy and project requirements and costs as well as associated charges and extent of development activity.
a) achieved versus anticipated development yield (both type and quantum);
b) achieved versus anticipated resident and worker population;
d) additional development yield from the OSU/SHU (as committed to elsewhere in the DCP);
f) updated information about the infrastructure needs of the existing and forecast population;
g) any developments in relation to the provision of catalytic infrastructure;
h) any difficulties experienced with the delivery of local infrastructure via developer works;
j) updated confidence in cost estimates and the potential to update contingencies included in cost estimates;
k) refinement of design and timing for DCP projects;
l) the implications of approved or proposed precinct infrastructure plans;
m) the implications of approved incorporated plans;
n) consideration of input from Collecting Agency, Development Agency and relevant asset owners;
This review may result in no changes at all. Alternatively, this may require an amendment to both the Melbourne and Port Phillip Planning Schemes to replace the DCP with an alternative, revised DCP.
The infrastructure projects in the DCP have been costed to a sufficient level of detail, however all the projects will require a detailed design process prior to construction. As part of detailed design, the Development Agency, or a development proponent with the consent of the Development Agency and future asset owner may amend or modify some aspects of projects, so long as they are still generally in accordance with the Framework and any direction regarding the scope outlined in the DCP.
Where the Development Agency or another agency seeks to change the scope of a DCP infrastructure item to meet changing standards imposed by adopted policy or a public regulatory agency, such changes of standards and the resulting cost changes should normally be made through a change to the DCP at the time of a regular review of the DCP.
Appendix 1: Detailed parcel specific land budget and plans
[Committee note: no table appears in the final version of the FBDCP]
Figure 12a: Overall Projects Precincts Plan Wirraway
Figure 12b: Overall Projects Precincts Plan Sandridge and Lorimer
Figure 12c: Overall Projects Precincts Plan Montague
[Committee note: no figures appear in the final version of the FBDCP]
Update table and figures reflect the Committee's recommendations as set out in Report Volume 1
Table Z has been prepared to identify cost inclusions factored into DCP construction elements for embellishment projects.
Provision of infrastructure specific to the open space
Neighbourhood Park - Embellishment excluding demolition, asbestos removal, contamination remediation costs
Turner Street neighbourhood park - embellishment excluding demolition, asbestos removal, contamination remediation costs
Ingles Street precinct open space excluding demolition, asbestos removal, contamination remediation costs
Lorimer Street neighbourhood open space - embellishment excluding demolition, asbestos removal, contamination remediation costs
Hartley Street/Lorimer Street neighbourhood open space - land and demolition, asbestos removal, contamination remediation costs
Graham Street/underpass park - demolition, asbestos removal, contamination remediation (only)
• Sports field infrastructure (lighting, fencing, goal posts etc)
Neighbourhood park at Rocklea Drive - land and demolition, asbestos removal, contamination remediation (only)
Pocket park west of Salmon Street - land and embellishment
Precinct open space on corner of Salmon Street and Woolboard Road - land and demolition, asbestos removal, contamination remediation (only)
Urban plaza at the north-eastern corner of Salmon Street and Plummer Street - embellishment excluding demolition, asbestos removal, contamination remediation costs
Neighbourhood park on the south-eastern corner of Salmon Street and Plummer Street - embellishment
Linear open space between Salmon Street and JL Murphy Reserve - land and embellishment
Partial upgrade of existing JL Murphy Reserve - embellishment
Woolboard Road extension neighbourhood park - embellishment excluding demolition, asbestos removal, contamination remediation costs
• Surface treatments (e.g. bridging over potential water)
Plummer Street neighbourhood park - embellishment excluding demolition, asbestos removal, contamination remediation costs
• Surface treatments (e.g. bridging over potential water)
Plummer Street/ Bridge Street north corner neighbourhood park - land and embellishment
• Flexible outdoor furniture for outdoor working areas
Corner of Bertie Street and Woolboard Road extension neighbourhood open space - embellishment excluding demolition, asbestos removal, contamination remediation costs
Woolboard Road extension linear open space between Bertie Street and Ingles Street - land
Corner of Fennell Street and Bertie Street southern neighbourhood park - land and demolition, asbestos removal, contamination remediation costs
Corner of Fennell Street and Bertie Street northern neighbourhood park - land and embellishment
Ingles Street linear open space north of Fennell Street - land
Corner of Fennell Street and Ingles Street neighbourhood park - land and demolition, asbestos removal, contamination remediation (only)
Recreation reserve - community use - land and embellishment
(designated in the Fishermans Bend Public Space Strategy)
Gittus Street road closure and park - demolition, asbestos removal, contamination remediation (only)
White Street road closure and park - demolition, asbestos removal, contamination remediation (only)
Closure of southern end of Johnson Street to create neighbourhood park - embellishment
Montague North Park, corner of Montague Street and Munro Street - embellishment
• Two outdoor multi-purpose courts (designated in the Fishermans Bend Public Space Strategy)
Normanby Road/ Woodgate Street neighbourhood park - land and embellishment
Gladstone Street neighbourhood park - land and embellishment
Gladstone Street/ Buckhurst Street neighbourhood park - land and embellishment
Thistlewaite Street neighbourhood park - land and embellishment
Thistlewaite Street/ George Street neighbourhood park - land and embellishment excluding demolition, asbestos removal, contamination remediation costs
Whiteman Street neighbourhood park - embellishment excluding demolition, asbestos removal, contamination remediation costs
Include project costing sheets in the FBDCP as shown in Documents 301 and 303 updated to:
[1] Within the meaning of the Project Development and Construction Management Act 1994, which is currently the Secretary of the Department of Transport and Planning.
[8] DR02, DR03, DR05, DR06, DR07, DR09, DR10, DR11, DR12, DR13 and DR14 (Document 104d). DR04 and DR08 were included in the exhibited FBDCP but were later removed and do not appear in the final FBDCP.
[18] In the OSU modelling, the term 'net developable area' is used to refer to the area of land available for development after not only the OSU park, but also all other land required for public purposes (such as roads), is excised: Document 127d
[20] For the purposes of calculating the total number of dwellings permitted on the developable area, the total site area to which the base dwelling density is applied may or may not include other land required for public purposes (that is, in addition to the OSU park) depending on whether the OSU is taken up before or after that other land is excised, as the case may be.
[21] Document 65, updated by Document 86
[22] Document 208, updating the figures in Document 151b
[25] Provision of 1696 square metres of open space based on modelling under the August 2024 Open Space Uplift Study in which DTP Precincts OSU ratios of 1:1 and 1.42:11 are modelled (Document 93, page 46) and the October 2024 Open Space Uplift Study in which the DTP Precincts OSU ratio of 1.4:12 is modelled (Document 127d, page 46), which aligns with the ratio for Sandridge identified by EY as achieving 45 percent target uplift (Document 127c, Annexure 1)
[26] Further modelling provided in SIN-12 (Document 198) for provision of 500 square metres based on DTP Precincts OSU ratio of 1.4:1
[27] The Committee concludes in chapter 2.1 that this reduction is not strategically justified
[28] Built form modelling based on EY's revised core area ratio of 2.6:1.
[29] Document 99k (Day 1 version) not changed in the final set of documents provided by the Proponent.
[30] [NOTE: Total project value to be updated at DCP finalisation]
[32] [NOTE: List of background technical work to be updated at DCP finalisation. Refer to Document 093. Proponent - Letter to PSAC 8 April 2024 - Background Documents.]
[33] [NOTE: Precinct area to be updated in future version based on updated Figure 3 boundary to accord with DCPO map boundary. Refer to Document 074a. Attachment 1 - Differences between the extent of DCP between draft FBURA DCP and Planning Scheme Maps (Direction 6(d)).pdf]
[34] [NOTE: Melbourne Water costs are expressed as noted on Melbourne Water costing sheets tabled by DTP and included in this Version 1 submission.]
[35] [NOTE: Costs will be updated at finalisation prior to Gazettal]