report to the future melbourne (planning) committee agenda …€¦ · north, st andrews place to...

1

Report to the Future Melbourne (Planning) Committee Agenda item 6.1

City of Melbourne submission regarding Planning Scheme changes to the Former Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute

15 August 2017

Presenter: Emma Appleton, Manager Urban Strategy

Purpose and background

1. The purpose of this report is to seek the Future Melbourne Committee’s endorsement of a Council submission to the Government Land Standing Advisory Committee regarding planning scheme changes affecting the former Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute at 2 St Andrews Place, East Melbourne (the Site).

2. The Site has been declared surplus to Government requirements. The Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) is responsible for the sale on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services in compliance with the Victorian Government Landholding Policy and Guidelines. The planning scheme changes will be facilitated through the Fast Track Government Land Service, which is an initiative to deliver changes to planning provisions for land owned by the Victorian Government. This particular change to planning provisions was prepared by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP).

3. The Site is located in East Melbourne and bounded by Lansdowne Street to the east, Cathedral Place to the north, St Andrews Place to the south and the Park Hyatt site at 10 St Andrews Place to the west (Attachment 2). The Victorian Heritage listed Fitzroy Gardens is located to the east of the Site across Lansdowne Street.

4. The Site is currently zoned Public Use Zone 3 and subject to a Design and Development Overlay (DDO) Schedule 13-A23. A 15 metre discretionary height control currently applies under this DDO. This request seeks to rezone the land to a Mixed Use Zone and to amend the DDO, in order to allow more flexibility in land use and greater height than is currently allowed.

5. Adjoining and nearby landowners and occupiers were notified by DELWP (Attachment 3) and invited to make a submission. The exhibition period closes on Friday 18 August 2017.

Key issues

6. The planning scheme change is sought to ensure that any increase in development capacity is realised prior to the sale of the land and to thus provide certainty of development capacity for prospective purchasers. The nature of the future land use is not known at this stage.

7. A draft submission to the Advisory Committee (Attachment 4) has been prepared and expresses the following:

7.1. Support for a redevelopment of the Site in a way which extends the valued landscape and built form characteristics of the surrounding precinct and achieves an exemplary outcome commensurate with its civic setting. The current approach will not secure this.

7.2. The proposal does not respond appropriately to the vision for the area in the Municipal Strategic Statement, nor does it respond to the unique context of the area.

7.3. The proposed 9:1 Floor Area Ratio, overall height (91m AHD) and street wall height (36m) and continuous profile to Lansdowne Street are inappropriate in this visually sensitive context.

7.4. The Management’s preference is to use a master planning mechanism such as a Development Plan Overlay to secure an integrated development outcome with a mix of buildings, connections and open space. If a DDO control is to be used, further prescription and focus on quality is required to achieve a high-quality redevelopment of the Site.

7.5. The disposal of any Government land should signify expectations of the highest standard of urban design and include a requirement to provide a proportionate rate of affordable housing if residential is to be included in the future mix of uses on the site.

Recommendation from management

8. The Future Melbourne Committee:

of 15

Attachments: 1. Supporting attachment 2. Site location 3. Area of notification 4. Draft submission to the Government Land Standing Advisory Committee

2

8.1. Determines to make a submission to the Government Land Standing Advisory Committee advising that the City Council does not support the proposed Amendment in its current form for the reasons outlined in the submission (Attachment 4).

8.2. Authorises the Director City Strategy and Place to make any further minor editorial changes to the submission documents prior to submitting to the Government Land Standing Advisory Committee.

of 15

katbro

Text Box

(Page 3 of 15)

katbro

Text Box

(Page 7 of 15)

katbro

Text Box

(Page 6 of 15)

katbro

Text Box

(Page 4 of 15)

1

Supporting Attachment

Legal

1. The proposed Amendment is the responsibility of DELWP. The Council is entitled to make a submission.

Finance

2. The costs associated with the need to respond to this proposal are not currently included within the Council endorsed budget for 2017–18. Management will seek to accommodate the additional costs within the existing budget.

Conflict of interest

3. No member of Council staff, or other person engaged under a contract, involved in advising on or preparing this report has declared a direct or indirect interest in relation to the matter of the report.

Stakeholder consultation

4. It is the responsibility of DELWP to consult with key stakeholders. All information and documents are available on the DELWP website.

Relation to Council policy

5. The Melbourne Planning Scheme encourages high quality urban design outcomes that respond to its context, as stated in Clauses 11, 15, 21.03, 21.04, 21.06 and 21.07.

Environmental sustainability

6. The proposed amendment is the responsibility of DELWP. However any development will be required to comply with the Energy, Water and Waste Policy in the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

Attachment 1Agenda item 6.1

Future Melbourne Committee 15 August 2017

of 15

Attachment 2: Site location and photos


Future Melbourne Committee15 August 2017

of 15

View of subject site, looking north west from Lansdowne Street with Park Hyatt building in background

View from Fitzroy Gardens looking south-west with the highest building of subject site on left and St Patricks Cathedral

Attachment 2: Site location and photos

View of subject site, looking south-east from St Patricks visual axis View looking west from opposite side of Lansdowne Street (Fitzroy Gardens)

of 15

Legend

Amendment C271 Guildford and Hardware Laneways Heritage

Area to be noti�ed

PPRZ Public Park and Recreation ZonePUZ Public Use ZoneSUZ Special Use ZoneGRZ Residential Growth ZoneNRZ New Residential ZoneMUZ Mixed Use ZoneCCZ Capital City ZoneCZ Commerical ZoneRDZ Road Zone

of 15

katbro

Text Box

Attachment 3 Agenda item 6.1 Future Melbourne Committee 15 August 2017

SUBMISSION FOR PLANNING SCHEME CHANGES TO FORMER PETER MACCALLUM CANCER INSTITUTE

The City of Melbourne welcomes the opportunity to make a submission regarding the proposed Planning Scheme changes for the former Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute Project, East Melbourne.

1. Executive summary o A well‐considered redevelopment which extends the valued landscape and built form characteristics of the

surrounding precinct is supported. o The rezoning to Mixed Use Zone, the addition of a new Environmental Audit Overlay and retention of the

Parking Overlay 12 are supported. o A master planning mechanism such as a Development Plan Overlay (DPO) is the most appropriate planning

control to achieve an integrated development on the site over time. If a Design and Development Overlay (DDO) is to be utilised, it should provide further detail and prescription to achieve a high‐quality redevelopment of this significant site.

o The proposed DDO will allow development which does not align with the character or vision for the area. Instead, the proposed changes will likely result in a uniform tower/podium, bulky built form and high site coverage which is out of character with, and will detrimentally affect, the amenity of Fitzroy Gardens and surrounding area and potentially dominate key vantage points throughout the area. Specifically:

The proposed Floor Area Ratio of 9:1 is excessive. The proposed 36m street wall height along Lansdowne Street would have an unacceptable visual

impact when viewed from Lansdowne Street and the Victorian Heritage Registered Fitzroy Gardens.

The proposed ‘wedding cake’ indicative massing envelope is not an appropriate response to the context.

The proposed DDO does not provide for public movement through the site. The proposed height and the location of the higher built form on the site is out of context.

Existing DDO potential outcome Proposed DDO potential outcome

NB. Additional 18.4m is indicative of maximum height which does not overshadow Fitzroy Gardens Comparison of existing DDO with DDO proposed as part of the Planning Scheme changes

Category

Existing DDO control Proposed DDO control

Design objectives To encourage development to be compatible with the Victorian character and scale of the area. To minimise the visual impact of new buildings and works within the vicinity of the Fitzroy Gardens and the surrounding public spaces.

To achieve a site responsive, well‐designed and high quality architectural and urban design outcome for the former Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre site. To manage the visual impact of new building mass, height and bulk in a manner that is respectful of the site context including the public realm, Fitzroy Gardens, St Patrick's Cathedral Precinct, Parliament House and Treasury Reserve Precinct. To maintain the heritage significance, values,


Future Melbourne Committee 15 August 2017

1.

of 15


character and visual prominence of the adjacent buildings and places including Parliament House and St Patrick's Cathedral. To encourage a visually engaging pedestrian experience around the site and where relevant within the site. To maintain sunlight access and avoid overshadowing to adjoining properties including Fitzroy Gardens and Treasury Reserve Precinct. To provide a high level of internal amenity for building occupants.

Buildings and

works

Buildings or works should not exceed the maximum building height specified in the table to this schedule.

A permit must not be granted for buildings and works which exceed the Maximum Building Height set down in Table 1 A permit must not be granted for buildings or works on land with a frontage to Lansdowne Street which exceed the Maximum Street Wall Height and Minimum Upper Level Setback.

Maximum building

height

15 metres 91 metres AHD

FAR A permit must not be granted to construct a building or construct or carry out works with a floor area ratio in excess of 9:1 for the whole of the land subject to this Schedule

Outcomes The amenity of the Fitzroy Gardens is protected from additional overshadowing between 11.00 am and 2.00 pm on 22 March and 22 September.

Development that:

protects views of the skylines immediately above the building profiles of Parliament House when viewed from Bourke Street, St Patrick's Cathedral when viewed from the north west corner of the junction of Albert and Gisborne Streets and Old Treasury Building when viewed from Collins Street in accordance with the sightline viewpoints identified in Figure 2.

maintains sunlight access and does not overshadow adjoining properties, including Fitzroy Gardens between 11am and 2pm on 22 September.

respects and creates an environment with high quality pedestrian amenity.

Maximum Street

wall height

Cathedral Place 20m

Lansdowne street 36 metres

Affected land As shown on the attached map Only the Peter Mac site

2.

of 15

Th

2.

ThPa

OnsiteDean

In curthepu

DTapArc

ThUsis t

DEforheexp

SUBMIFORME

ese and othe

Backgroun

e site was usrkville in 201

n 11 July 201e has been department ofd Guidelines

preparing thrrent Public e benefit of crchasers.

TF appointedpropriate plachitecture to

e proposed Pe Zone and Eto remain.

ELWP’s new Fr the site. Tharings by thepected by De

SSION FER PETE

er planning a

nd

sed as the Pe16. Prior to t

6 Council recdeclared surpf Health and s.

he Peter MacUse Zone 3 –changed plan

Message Coanning contro provide tes

Planning SchEnvironment

Fast Track Gois includes ae Standing Aecember 201

FOR PLAR MACC

and design m

eter MacCallhis, it was oc

ceived a lettplus to GoveHuman Serv

cCallum Canc– Health andnning schem

onsultants torols over thesting of a ran

heme changetal Audit Ove

overnment L public exhib

Advisory Com17.

ANNINGCALLUM

matters are d

um Cancer Iccupied by th

er from the rnment requvices (DHHS)

cer Institute d Communityme controls in

o undertake a land. As parnge of contex

es for the suberlay. The cu

Land Service bition periodmmittee from

G SCHEMM CANCE

discussed in t

nstitute for 2he St Andrew

Departmentuirements. Tin complian

site for sale,y, is no longen order to pr

a planning art of this proxtual and bu

bject site incurrent Parkin

(FTGLS) is bd of six weekm 4 Septembe

ME CHANER INSTI

this report.

22 years priows Hospital f

t of Treasury he DTF is resce with the V

, Planning Scer appropriatrovide param

ssessment incess, Messagilt form outc

clude a Designg Overlay, P

eing used tos from 10 Juer 2017 unti

NGES TOITUTE

or to its relocfrom 1925 to

and Financesponsible forVictorian Go

cheme changte. The site ismeters for de

n order to dege Consultancomes.

gn and DevelPO12, permit

facilitate anly until to 18l 15 Septemb

O

cation to 305o the 1990s.

e (DTF) confir its sale on bovernment La

ges are requis intended toevelopment f

eliver rezoninnts engaged

opment Ovetting one spa

n expedited p8 August 201ber 2017 wit

5 Grattan Str

rming that thbehalf of theandholding P

red as the o be sold witfor prospecti

ng and Tessellate

erlay, a Mixeace per dwel

planning pro17, and publith a decision

reet,

he e Policy

th ive

d ling

cess c

3.

of 15


3. Subject site

The site has area of approximately 8200sqm, is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 100.77 metres to Lansdowne Street and 81 metre frontages to both St Andrews and Cathedral Place.

Yellow – ‘Loti and Victor Smorgon Wing’ 1970s brick and concrete render building ranging from 3‐10 storeys

Pink – ‘Smorgon Family Building, 1990s building

Blue – ‘Crank’ building, a three‐sectioned brick building constructed in stages in 1933 (1), 1940s (2) and late 1960s (3), with a more recent roof level addition that appears to be 1990s

There is an 8 metre fall across the land from the north‐west corner to the south‐east corner.

Development on the site comprises a number of buildings from a range of eras, with variable heights, setbacks and relationships to each of the three street frontages (see image above).

On the northern frontage is the five storey interwar ‘crank’ building with its splayed setback from the boundary. Moving east is a building of similar height located towards the middle of the site. The largest building on the site at the corner of Cathedral Place and Lansdowne Street abuts both street frontages and is 45.9 metres (79.25 AHD) high. To the south of this tall corner building, sited above a low plinth, is a second angled building, in the same alignment as the brick ‘crank’ building to Cathedral Place. On St Andrews Place, is a large building approximately 15m high with a colonnade and recessed ground level.

The siting of built form within the complex reflects the removal and addition of buildings over the years. From afar the complex is read as a series of distinct buildings, each with their own identity.

The alignment of the central angular building creates a notable visual axis running south‐east from St. Patricks Cathedral’s southern forecourt, extending along a tree lined path to Cathedral Place, and then, through the site to Fitzroy Gardens.

Vehicle access to the site is via crossovers on each of the frontages, with a prominent drop off / entry area on St Andrews Place. There is a service lane along the western boundary.

4.

of 15


4. Site context

The surrounds of the site with its parklands, monuments, religious and political buildings, all contribute to the distinct cultural, civic and aesthetic importance of the precinct.

This ‘civic triangle’ within which the site is located, is positioned between the well‐defined edge of the Hoddle Grid to the west, the Victorian Heritage listed Fitzroy and Treasury Gardens to the south and east, and the row of office and residential development along Albert Street to the north. This triangle contains the significant civic functions of Parliament House and the Treasury Building complex, in addition to St. Patricks Cathedral, and a range of smaller churches and parks.

The precinct is characterised by low‐scale built form with variable, street, side, and rear setbacks creating a garden setting for the heritage buildings. Buildings are frequently positioned on an axis other than the immediate street frontage, with a strong axial quality to complexes such as Treasury Place as well as St. Patricks and the Cardinal Knox Centre. In Treasury Place, MacArthur Street, Lansdowne Street and Cathedral Place there are consistent breaks and splays in the street wall character and the area is characterised by free standing civic buildings within a setting of mature trees, lawns and plazas.

Due to its topographic position, and openness of the parkland to the south and east, the Cathedral holds great prominence from many key vantage points in counterpoint to lower surrounding forms. Further, the terminal axes of Bourke Street and Collins Street are marked by the position of the Victorian Treasury Building and Parliament House, with clear sky visible above.

It is Council’s position that any planning controls need to be responsive to the character of the area and should:

1. Minimise shadow impacts, particularly to the Fitzroy Gardens; 2. Ensure appropriate height and built form to respond to the ‘buildings in a landscape setting’ which

characterises the precinct; 3. Protect key view lines and vistas, including views toward Parliament House and St Patricks Cathedral; and 4. Create opportunities for pedestrian connections and movement through the site. 5. Preference a number of buildings within the site that hold together as a civic composition, in line with the

site’s significant context.

5. Current Planning Controls

The site is within the Public Use Zone 3 – Health and Community (PUZ3), which seeks to recognise land use for public utility and community services and facilities and other associated uses. A planning permit for use and buildings and works within a PUZ3 is not required provided the use is for a health and community purpose. The use must be carried out by or on behalf of the public landowner.

5.

of 15


A use other than for health and community purposes requires a permit under the PUZ3. Any buildings and works associated with a Section 2 (permit required) use also require a planning permit.

In addition, Design and Development Overlay Schedule 13‐Area 23 (DDO13‐A23) and the Parking Overlay Schedule 12 (requires maximum of one car space per dwelling) apply to the land. The DDO13‐A23 is a discretionary 15 metre height control that seeks to protect the amenity of Fitzroy Gardens from additional overshadowing between 11.00am and 2.00pm at the equinox.

The overarching objectives of DDO13 are to encourage development to be compatible with the Victorian character and scale of the area and to minimise the visual impact of new buildings and works within the vicinity of the Fitzroy Gardens and the surrounding public spaces. These objectives should be the context for any revised control.

6. The Proposal

The proposal seeks changes to the planning controls that guide the built form, development and use of land in order to permit much greater height and intensity than is currently preferred by the applicable DDO13‐A23 and much more flexibility in land use than is allowed under the PUZ3.

The proposal seeks a DDO allowing an approximately 60 metre high (mandatory 91m AHD) building, with 20 metre high street walls to the north and south frontages and a 36 metre high street wall to the eastern frontage. The setback to the 91m AHD form is a discretionary 10 metres to all frontages. The proposed DDO would also allow a maximum 9:1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR).

The proposal also involves rezoning from the existing PUZ3 to a Mixed Use Zone (MUZ).

There is also proposed to be a new Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) given the history of the site and associated medical waste. The Parking Overlay 12 (PO12) is to be retained.

The key sections of the DDO that will be the focus of discussion in this report are as follows:

The mandatory maximum 9:1 FAR. The legibility of the control including the indicative drawings on page 5 of 6 of the DDO. The maximum allowable height of 91 metres AHD. The discretionary maximum allowable street wall heights of 20 metres. The discretionary 10 metre minimum setbacks. The mandatory maximum 36 metre street wall to Lansdowne Street. There is insufficient guidance to achieve a site responsive, well‐designed and high quality architectural and

urban design outcome.

In addition, some discussion will focus on the Design Objectives, Design and Built Form Outcomes proposed by the control.

Source: Message Consultants report, page 19

6.

of 15


7. Strategic Justification

The City of Melbourne Growth Area Framework Plan (Clause 21.04) in the MSS does not identify the site as an urban renewal area, or proposed or potential urban renewal area. There is no strategic justification for the level of intensive development currently proposed in either Plan Melbourne or the MSS. Moreover, Clause 21.16‐2 (East Melbourne and Jolimont) recognises the area as low‐scale and seeks to ensure that any redevelopment respects the scale of the surrounding area, heritage buildings and Fitzroy Gardens by minimising the visual impact and overshadowing of buildings.

8. Key findings

The Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) will allow for more flexibility in land use. The area adjoining the site to the west is MUZ, so the rezoning is considered appropriate.

The Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) will ensure that the land is remediated as appropriate, consistent with the proposed use of the land.

The intensity of the development allowed by the DDO is excessive and the DDO lacks the specificity required to secure an acceptable standard of urban design and architectural excellence. The possibility of a singular mass permitted by the built form controls teamed with a high FAR value disregards the distinctive character of the area and significance of the site in the city.

The control needs to be redrafted to create a framework which promotes the delivery of high quality buildings within a landscape setting that will not cause unreasonable impacts to the historic character of the area.

Specific concerns with the built form controls in the proposed DDO include the following:

8.1 FAR

The proposed FAR of 9:1 is extremely high for this area with its garden character. A 9:1 FAR is will inevitably lead to any design maximising its footprint to meet the maximum allowable FAR. It promotes high site coverage, with a large, bulky form and likely diminishing internal amenity in lower levels of buildings.

A FAR control should be maintained within the DDO as this provision will enable development intensity to be managed. However the quantum must be commensurate with a high quality urban design outcome set by an envelope, which provides room for architectural form development, spatial separation, links and courtyard spaces. It is considered that a FAR of approximately 6:1 can achieve a built form outcome that is responsive to context. This FAR has been arrived at through Council testing using the K2VI modelling software.

8.1.1 Tessellate Architects testing

The consultant report concludes that a FAR of 9:1 was devised from testing done by Tessellate Architects in February 2017. Tessellate Architects tested a number of scenarios and landed on a 73,000sqm built form as a reasonable threshold to allow sufficient flexibility of land use.

The architects conclude that a 9:1 FAR could not be realised ‘…because on a site of this size it would not provide sufficient space between buildings, which is most likely to have a residential function in whole or in part’

Tessellate then explain that ‘The foregoing yield analysis created floor space areas of between approximately 52,000sqm to 57sqm which is a floor area ratio of approximately 6.5:1 to 7:1.’

Council have prepared internal studies that present one possibility for a site responsive model for the development of the site. The Council testing concluded that a FAR of 6:1 could achieve a highly responsive development. The proposed 9:1 FAR outlined in the DDO is poorly founded and requires revision. It is our preference to maintain an FAR control within the DDO, configured in an appropriate manner to provide certainty, with a quantum which is commensurate with a high quality urban design outcome, within the envelope, providing room for architectural form development, spatial separation, links or courtyard spaces.

8.2 Legibility and interpretation of the draft control

There are concerns with the scope for misinterpretation of the diagrams and metrics used in the draft DDO. Testing of the controls by City of Melbourne yielded a range of widely divergent outcomes. This resulted in a varied maximum FAR of between 11:1 to 15:1 depending on where on the site the street wall height is measured from, or where within the allotment the higher form is positioned.

The three dimensional envelope of the DDO depicts a footprint and form that is clearly unacceptable in terms of height and bulk, yet it is still relatively consistent with the Built Form Outcomes of the control. This diagram should be removed and replaced with traditional sectional diagrams.

7.

of 15


8.3 Street wall to Lansdowne Street

The uniform allowance of 36 metre street wall height to Lansdowne Street could result in an uncharacteristic wall of built form for the length of the 100m + frontage, with only compositional relief. This would constitute a significant departure from the openness along the remainder of Lansdowne Street between Wellington Parade and Albert Street.

The only apparent reason for such a substantial street wall height of 36 metres for the entire frontage is that this the maximum height does not overshadow Fitzroy Gardens. The planning report states ‘This height is limited by prohibiting additional shadowing to the park at 22 September Equinox between the hours of 11am and 2pm’. Such a height, combined with the potential length, is completely inappropriate and not supported.

The overshadowing test is only one issue to consider in relation to street wall height, with the compatibility of any new development in relation to Fitzroy Gardens and the surrounding context also of high importance. A more varied street wall comprising clear breaks between a ‘village of buildings’ with a mix of building heights, forms and typology and variations in parapet height and, should be required by the control. Such an outcome would replicate the desirable condition of well‐spaced buildings along the remaining edges of the park to the north and east.

8.4 Built form

The proposed FAR along with the indicative massing of the building and the indicative setbacks will permit excessive development, and not provide for the level of amenity sought in the design objectives of the existing controls. While it is acknowledged that it only establishes a built form envelope, it establishes expectations of yield.

The potential size of floorplates and length of street walls and size of buildings envisaged by the indicative diagram is inconsistent with character and will have unreasonable impacts on Fitzroy Gardens, with the height and bulk detrimentally impacting the amenity of the area by way of visually intrusive and dominant street wall and tower forms completely at odds with the existing character.

The proposed building heights of approximately 60 metres (quadruple the preferred heights expected under current provisions) is similar to the expectation for built form in in proposed urban renewal areas, such as City North or Arden Macaulay, which are typically not as sensitive. A podium outcome explicitly promotes the use of above ground parking in a sleeved format, despite the discretionary provision in the DDO to the contrary.

Testing of the maximum envelopes of the street walls and tower shows that it would overshadow Fitzroy Gardens between 11am and 2pm on 22 September. If the tower was reduced to approximately 50 metres high (84m AHD), consistent with the height of the Hyatt, and confined to the middle of the site then there would be no overshadow affecting Fitzroy Gardens and the visual impacts would be substantially reduced.

Studies also show shadow impacts on the St Andrews Place Reserve on 22 September from midday until 2pm where over half the reserve is in shadow. This is considered an unreasonable impact on the reserve. It appears that the maximum height and not the street walls will cause the impact. The proposed building height should be reduced and limited to a small area adjoining the Hyatt tower.

The DDO must provide for multiple buildings, varying heights and clear breaks in street walls through pedestrian links. These changes coupled with a reduced 6:1 FAR would resolve many of the issues highlighted by Council while still allowing an appropriately scaled and responsive development.

Reducing the allowable height of the street wall to Lansdowne Street and the allowable maximum height which must be clearly confined to a small area towards the centre of the site adjoining the Hyatt, will ensure there are no unreasonable impacts on the area. Further, this will reduce the undesirable appearance of the adjoining east facing blank boundary wall of the Hyatt. Such a form would contribute to a skyline of well‐spaced forms with visual permeability through to the City beyond, when viewed from the east.

8.5 Design quality

It is essential that the controls facilitate high quality urban design and architecture given the buildings high visibility from Fitzroy Gardens and other key vantage points. In addition to the controls, the process adopted by the Victorian Government to enable the sale of the land should ensure that the development proposed for the site delivers an exemplary architectural and civic design. We would strongly recommend engagement with the OVGA Victorian Design Review Panel (VDRP) as part of the Amendment process as well as at key stages of the design process, to ensure high quality design. A design competition is recommended given the importance of the site and also the opportunities that such a large site presents.

8.

of 15


8.6 Affordable Housing

There are no references or formal commitments to public benefit through provision of affordable housing or development contributions. The disposal of any Government land should be bound with the provision of a proportionate rate of affordable housing. Given emerging work within comparable precincts close to the central city, a figure of between 6 and 10% appears to be well founded. Further detailed work around the precise figure should be explored by the planning consultant with reference to Council’s the Homes for People housing strategy.

9. Conclusions and recommendations

The proposed DDO in its current form is not supported. The following modifications are recommended:

a) The maximum height should be limited to the exact same AHD as the highest point of the Park Hyatt building wall adjoining to the west.

b) The extent of the site where the maximum height can be accommodated must abut the boundary wall on the Park Hyatt Hotel site with a more slender profile and east‐west orientation.

c) The splayed south eastern visual axis from the St Patricks Cathedral through the subject site should be retained. This will allow a small, well framed north orientated publicly assessable open space fronting Cathedral Place, creating a strong connection to the siting of St Patricks. This should be clearly sought in the Built Form Outcomes of the control.

d) A pedestrian movement and desire line diagram should be included within the control showing through links, activation and open space.

e) The proposed 20 metre street wall height for the north frontage appears reasonable subject to variation in the built form and facade, breaks (in the form of through pedestrian links) and activation being clearly sought in the Built Form Outcomes of the control.

f) The built form control should ensure that a building at the north‐east corner of similar proportions to what exists on the land can be achieved coupled with a lower maximum street wall height extending south down Lansdowne Street. In addition, Built Form Outcomes must require variable street wall heights, building heights and typologies, and building setbacks. Lastly, the Built Form Outcomes must require development to respond positively to the Fitzroy Gardens.

g) The street wall height to St Andrews Place should connect to the existing uniform street wall character to the west, with built form guided by the shadow limitations to St Andrews Place. Again breaks in the form of through links, entries, and forecourts should be explicitly required within the Built Form Outcomes.

h) The indicative images within the control on page 5 of 6 and the 3D graphic should be deleted and replaced with a series of sectional diagrams with AHD metrics employed throughout and accurate depiction of topography. These sections should clearly correlate with respective Built Form Outcomes around the break‐up of the site into a ‘village of built form’ within a landscape setting.

i) Above ground car parking should be prohibited, rather than avoided. In addition, the number of vehicle cross‐overs should be minimised.

j) A formal commitment to the inclusion of affordable housing should be provided. A figure of between 6 and 10% appear to be reflected in emerging proposals in other areas of the city.

k) In the sale of the land, it is recommended that a quality based selection is utilised by the Victorian Government, to secure the highest quality of development on the site, and to provide clarity and certainty about what will be delivered on the site. The engagement of a series of design architects, optimally through an AIA endorsed competitive design process is recommended to secure the requisite quality and diversity demanded by the site.

l) It is recommended that the OVGA’s Victorian Design Review Panel (VDRP) review the DDO proposition and any subsequent development application from the earliest possible stage.

9.

of 15

report to the future melbourne (planning) committee agenda …€¦ · north, st andrews place to...

Documents