This report is submitted on behalf of a coalition of residents associations within the municipality of Melbourne following a meeting to co-ordinate response to the Panel report on Amendment C20. The coalition comprises the Carlton Residents Association, the North and West Melbourne Association, the Parkville Association and the Southbank Residents Group representing the groups affected by the proposed changes.

The common position of the coalition is to endorse the majority of C20, including its height limits, as exhibited and to reject the majority of the Panel recommendations. In comparison with the Panel Report which appears to adopt the more centralised Department of Infrastructure (DOI) view of planning to the disregard of the interests of the affected communities, Amendment C20 is the product of an extensive consultative process, taking account of the input of community and other stakeholders. C20 strikes an appropriate balance between development opportunity and community expectation about level of change and preservation of the existing situation, and between state capital goals and local goals. It by no means slavishly follows community desires. Through its height limits C20 provides greater clarity, efficiency and certainty for residents, investors and developers alike. These balances and attributes are not delivered in the report and recommendations of the Panel.

1.2 Strategic Planning Framework

The Victoria Planning Provisions (VPPs) are the product of the development-driven “planning reform agenda” of the previous Government. The strategic framework of the previous Panel Report and recommendations of the New Format Melbourne Planning Scheme, and consequently of this "follow up” Panel Report manifests the previous Government's strategic priorities. The critical question is whether these are still the priorities of the Victorian Government. We understand that the current Government has moved away from the previous Government’s centralised and high handed approach and aims to strike “A Sensible Balance”. It also recognises the importance of local amenity and neighbourhood character, as evidenced by the new ResCode and the neighbourhood character amendments to the VPPs.

The strategic priorities in the Panel Report are those of the previous Panel and Government and do not reflect the important endorsement by the electorate for a cultural change towards the “sensible balance”priority of the present Government.

1.3 Mutual Support of Department of Infrastructure (DOI) and Panel

The Panel Report gives overwhelming weight to the views put to the Panel by DOI, where these diverge from the views of the community. The allegation [at page 13] that “the Council appears to have a set agenda that does not easily accommodate alternative views that might result in different outcomes” is equally true of DOI. The views of the previous Panel and the DOI are cited in such a way as to legitimise one another and suggest that the Council has in some sense colluded with its constituency. In fact the C20 proposals reflect a truce between residents' wishes and a development agenda for the city, and respond to the competing pressures in a detailed and particularised way informed by local experience.

The collective approach of the DOI and the Panel lacks this particularity and is driven by an ideological view of the VPPs and urban transformation which does not take appropriate account of the real needs of the city’s inhabitants.

1.4 State and Local Objectives

At page 9 the Panel notes, and by implication endorses, DOI’s view that the Council in preparing C20

“… has not appropriately balanced the dual roles of capital city and local issues and has given undue weight to local issues at the expense of the municipality’s strategic significance.”

Clause 14.02-2 of the SPPF is where the capital city role is addressed (in one sentence):

“The Capital City role of the City of Melbourne as the major Victorian focus of activity in finance, retail, commerce, tourism, culture and entertainment is to be strengthened in planning for inner Melbourne.”

The Panel report does not address in any detail which of the elements of the above Capital City role are not accommodated by C20, nor how its proposed changes assist in achieving them. The DOI 's submission to the Panel referred quite generally to urban consolidation, education and research institutions and key interfaces with Docklands and metropolitan infrastructure such as Citylink. There is no evidence presented that C20 will not substantially accommodate these objectives. In fact under C20 there are height increases proposed across most of the area covered by the amendment, for the purpose of educational institution expansion and urban consolidation which are already demonstrably and substantially taking place with the existing controls. Many proposed C20 height limits are higher than the existing controls being beyond the medium-density limit of 4 storeys and allowing for high-density development.

The onus should be on the Panel to demonstrate specifically how the C20 proposals fail to accommodate capital city objectives. There is no evidence that C20 cannot deliver the desired outcomes.

In making its recommendations, the Panel has placed little emphasis on the positive aspects of heritage and liveability which underpin Melbourne as the world’s most liveable city and are key MSS goals. This carries the threat of transforming Melbourne into a conceptual urban development, rather than recognising its special attributes.

We do not accept the dichotomy between state capital and local goals. A city prospers on the basis of the amenity it offers residents, business and visitors. The roles are complementary and mutually reinforcing.

1.5 Strategic Planning for the Capital City

The Capital City strategy for Melbourne includes extending the CBD and high-density high-rise residential, commercial and tourism development into Docklands. All stakeholders – government, developers residents – have an interest in the development of the Docklands. A false assumption is made in the Panel report that the C20 amendment area provides inner Melbourne’s only major zone of development opportunity. Contrary to this perception, extensive high-density opportunity in the C20 amendment area could distract and detract from the successful development of the Docklands. The extensive brownfields Docklands area immediately adjacent to the CBD with desirable waterfront views is being developed substantially for high-density development during the next decade. It is clearly strategically counter-productive to direct major high-density development opportunity into adjacent established areas where existing assets and character will be adversely impacted.

In this context C20 already offers significant development opportunity, as shown by the following examples:

· Most of West Melbourne bounded by Dudley St, King St and the railway is predominantly one and two storey houses and warehouses. This area would have a height limit of four storeys.

· Along both sides of Elizabeth St from Victoria St to the Haymarket roundabout a height limit of 8 storeys is allowed. Most of this area is currently 2-3 storeys, with one exception of 8 storeys. Some of it is ground level used as car-yards.

· West of Flagstaff Gardens C20 allows 8 storeys with a podium. Most of this area is currently 2-4 storeys, with four exceptions of 6, 9 and 14 storeys

· Swanston St C20 allows 35m, 10 storeys. Most of the sites remaining for redevelopment are currently 2-6 storeys.

1.6 Function of Design and Development Overlays

The Panel recognises [at pages 25-28] the legitimacy of using Design and Development Overlays for height controls in four situations:

(1) establishing preferred future character, for areas undergoing significant transformation (e.g. Southbank, Elizabeth St and Swanston St);

(2) achieving a particular outcome, where development above a certain height would invariably be damaging (e.g. to limit height to prevent visual intrusion around the perimeter of Royal Park);

(3) achieving a general built form outcome, a “good example” of which, the Panel says [at page 26], “would be to establish the stepped contrast between the concentration of tall buildings in the CBD and Southbank, intermediate buildings in fringe locations and the lower built form of surrounding areas; and

(4) to maintain an existing character, where height is a defining element of character.

We accept this analytical framework, but find ironic the Panel’s complaint [page 12] that “most of the municipality of the City of Melbourne, especially where any development potential exists, is now [i.e. under C20] covered by height controls”. The major reason for the extent of the proposed DDO’s is the breadth of the area in which development opportunities are being created and in which DDOs are being used to specify future built form, i.e., for purposes (1) and (3). The implication that DDOs under Amendment C20 are primarily used for purpose (4) is not correct.

Also ironic is the Panel’s complaint [again page 12] that “only in small parts of Southbank are really tall buildings contemplated”, with 10 storeys in Swanston St, 8 in Elizabeth St, South Carlton and CBD fringe and 2 or 3 in the majority of Carlton and North Melbourne – precisely the “graduated development” contemplated by (3).

However, what is most alarming is the Panel’s refusal to apply a DDO for purpose (4) anywhere in the C20 area (as indicated by the absence of examples under (4)in the Panel’s report). The distinction the Panel pretends exists between the “village scale” of Queenscliff and the historic villages of Carlton and North Melbourne is spurious. Queenscliff is every bit as susceptible to protection under Heritage Overlay controls as the C20 historic villages, and the C20 historic villages are as frequently subject to inappropriate development pressure as Queenscliff. The application of DDOs to maintain the historic 2-3 storey scale of the core areas of Carlton and North Melbourne is no less warranted than for Queenscliff or equivalent areas (including Heritage Overlay areas) in Port Phillip over which DDOs were imposed by amendment C5 and C15 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme. Indeed the Panel [at pages 137-138] acknowledges that North Melbourne central “is clearly an area where context and the heritage qualities of the area should guide built form outcomes.” The primary reference to context and to built form outcomes rather than preservation of heritage values per se leads logically to a DDO of type (4).

It is vital to the preservation of the character of Carlton and North and West Melbourne that the height of new development is controlled by DDOs which maintain their scale as historic villages.

1.7 Mandatory Versus Discretionary Height Limits

Mandatory height limits in C20 serve two purposes:

(1) to prevent development above a specified height in contexts where development above that height will invariably be damaging (e.g. cause visual intrusion into parkland); and

(2) to manage change, both politically and psychologically, in a context of substantial and possibly rapid transformation, by offering existing communities certainty about the limits of the transformation. This has the “net community benefit” of securing development opportunity while minimising social cost.

In the extensive consultations leading to C20, communities within the municipality were prepared to “trade-off” increases in heights (most often to the limit of their tolerance) for the certainty of mandatory height limits. There is likely to be a significant community backlash if this trade-off is not honoured.

The Panel does not reject mandatory limits as unacceptable within the VPP framework. It says [at page 31] that a mandatory control is appropriate in circumstances where:

· a strategic assessment or study has identified that in the vast majority of cases buildings not in accordance with the building height would detract from the essential character of the area or other built form outcome the design objectives are seeking to achieve; and

· in the vast majority of cases such buildings would not be supported by Council after application of its design objectives and any relevant guidelines.

The Panel goes on to say that “in such circumstances the Panel considers that to allow discretion for all applications, merely to accommodate the opportunity of granting a permit in ‘exceptional’ circumstances, serves no useful purpose, especially where the demand for development exceeding the building requirements is great”. However, it then states that there was no evidence presented to the Panel that “these circumstances would be found anywhere in the City of Melbourne” [page32].

On the Panel’s own criteria, this conclusion is untenable. One example, North Parkville on the fringe of Royal Park provides a clear case where the criteria are satisfied. This view is seemingly supported by the Panel’s strong remarks on page 32 to the effect that if the “limited parameters” in that area are too constraining “then potential developers should go elsewhere”.

The Panel also acknowledges that mandatory height limits have been imposed in areas within Port Phillip and applauds their application in Queenscliff. It concedes that, provided a DDO is appropriate to achieve certain design objectives, “demand for development may be relevant in deciding if the control should be mandatory or discretionary” [page 29].

The Panel has failed to apply this principle within the C20 area. Given that it acknowledges the appropriateness of a range of DDOs, and that it apparently accepts the evidence of Mr Paul Lachal concerning pressure for high rise residential development in “areas overlooking parks or water, or with city views” [see page 29], there is clearly a basis for the application of mandatory limits in some high pressure areas (including the perimeter of Royal Park)

1.8 Ambit of the Discretion

As the Panel acknowledges, one of the drivers of mandatory height limits is severe concern in sections of the community about the extent of “the discretion” in the VPPs. It is not only the Council which “has no qualms about regularly considering applications exceeding specified height….[where] height [is] regarded as no more than a guide”, unless the controls are mandatory (see page22). The same is true of VCAT. The end-result is that hard fought-for planning policy becomes a mockery, with “maximum heights” acting as the baseline from which the ambit claims commence.

In this respect, we welcome the Panel’s comments on page 22 to the effect that

…an overlay specifying a building height requirement should only be applied when it is clear that the height specified will be acceptable in the majority of circumstances and will meet the design objectives. It should be clearly understood that a building height requirement will not be departed from unless there are very good reasons for doing so. This applies particularly when the building height is expressed numerically, rather than being performance based.

These and other comments (e.g. that "it weakens the status of a building height requirement if it is departed from too regularly” and that “building height requirements should be regarded as the general rule only to be departed from in exceptional circumstances” – page32) appear to provide a level of comfort about the ambit of the discretion to be exercised where there are specified height limits.

However, the issue is not only the number of exceptions to the height rules (relevant though that is), but the extent by which the height limit is exceeded in a particular case. Because approvals have in the past been given to developments which greatly exceed preferred height limits, discretionary height limits lack credibility in the community (and among developers). If developers are able to “design” their way around the desired built form outcomes, the built form outcomes must be based on poor expectations of design . This issue is at the heart of strong community discontent with the VPPs. If it is not addressed through mandatory height limits, it should be addressed through a directive that even in exceptional cases where height limits are exceeded, they may not be exceeded by more than 10%.

1.9 DDOs and Heritage Overlay Areas

The Panel advances the view that

One of the principles underlying the planning reform program and the VPPs is that each overlay or control has a separate purpose. But where the same set of characteristics is involved, then only one overlay is required. Care must be exercised in selecting the most appropriate tool…[page 28].

On this basis, the Panel rejects the use of DDOs with mandatory height limits to give added protection to Heritage Overlay areas (although it noted broad complaint that the Heritage Overlay controls and Local Policy are currently insufficient to the task of Heritage protection).

The call to apply DDOs to reinforce heritage controls is a product of present weaknesses in the Heritage Overlay controls and Local Policy and the absence of Statements of Significance from the Heritage Overlay Schedules. If the Panel’s view is to prevail, these deficiencies must be addressed as a matter of urgency, before the present DDOs are removed. Where DDOs are recommended under C20 over areas not presently covered by DDOs, these should be implemented at least as interim controls.

An argument can also be made that the urban character of areas such as North Melbourne Central, Central Carlton, and the “park villages” of South and West Parkville, though intimately related to heritage values, constitute a separate set of characteristics appropriate for protection under a DDO. Again there is an analogy with Queenscliff where the “village character” is protected by a DDO separate from the protection offered by the Heritage Overlay.

A further and very significant issue arises where both a DDO and a Heritage Overlay are applied to meet different objectives, and effectively set up conflicting criteria which may be exploited by developers. A simple example is Gatehouse Street in Parkville, where the Panel recommends a DDO limiting development to 12m (to avert visual intrusion into Royal Park), but where no building in the heritage streetscape currently exceeds 9.5m. If the policy at Clause 22.05 of the planning scheme is applied, the 12m height limit should be totally redundant. However, since it is a policy, its application is discretionary. Will the fact that the DDO limits height to 12m perversely encourage applications at variance with heritage policy, by creating a new “grey zone” of conflict between the two overlays?

More extreme cases are in North and West Melbourne (other than the ‘heritage core’ precinct), where the Heritage Overlay applies to isolated sites or small clusters of buildings ‘marooned’ in a DDO redefining built form to 6 or more storeys, and in Drummond Street in Carlton where a Panel recommended DDO permitting development to 8 storeys would put intolerable development pressure on some of Australia's finest heritage housing.

Placing DDOs with maximum heights between 24 to 36 metres over heritage buildings in Heritage Overlays will turn heritage buildings into development opportunities of sufficient dollar value to send the battle for heritage back into the 60s and 70s.

One of the decision guidelines at Clause 43.02-5 (DDO) requires the Council to consider “whether the design, form, layout, proportion and scale of any proposed building and works is compatible with the period, style, form, proportion, and scale of any identified heritage places surrounding the site”. However, it is not made clear anywhere in the scheme the weighting to be given to this consideration when there is effectively a future character built form designated by the DDO. Nor does the criterion refer to the heritage building on the site (as distinct from the surrounding sites).

To prevent a wholesale destruction of heritage in areas covered by DDOs defining future built form, the Planning Scheme must make clear throughout the LPPF that the heritage value of heritage buildings is a first priority and that heritage values are to prevail over any height available under a DDO, in that the DDO is not to be seen as conferring a right to develop to the height limit at the cost of heritage.

1.10 Operation of the Mixed Use Zone

When approving the new format Melbourne Planning Scheme, the former Minister for Planning and Local Government specifically required the Council to review the Local Policy at Clause 22.13 relating to Mixed Use Zones “in light of recent developments, changes in land use pressure and a reassessment of development opportunities” [Attachment 2 to letter from the Minister to the Lord Mayor of Melbourne dated 3 March 1999]. There was no parallel directive to alter the direction of the MSS.

There is considerable synergy between C20 and the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) for the Mixed Use areas. The coalition believes that Part 2 of the MSS which details strategies for individual parts of the Municipality is an integral part of the MSS. Without such detail, and with the main part of the MSS being a series of very broad statements, it is impossible to discern the detailed strategic framework for each Mixed Use area.

Changes to the MSS revisiting the core role and future direction of each Mixed Use area was not the part of task the City of Melbourne was required to undertake and the Panel’s recommendations in this respect go well beyond the scope of the subject for review.

The Mixed Use Zones are applied to the diverse areas of Carlton, North and West Melbourne and Southbank. These areas are diverse in terms of built form and they service diverse needs and communities. The MSS identifies the opportunity for significant residential and non-residential redevelopment for each area, together with employment opportunities built upon the strengths identified for each area, and the Local Policy addresses key objectives.

The MSS clearly

gives preference in these zones to residential use
emphasises improving amenity
states that Council will rezone to Residential 1 the areas which become predominantly residential
encourages other uses which support residential development

Until there is a review of the MSS and the strategic priorities for the municipality are re-established it is unrealistic to expect a review of the local policy as it applies specifically to each area. The Panel generally itself commends a top-down approach.

While the coalition sympathises with the view that there is an unresolved tension in expectations of the Mixed Use Zones – between maintaining a mix of uses and transition to residential use – and consequently agrees with the recommendation that the DOI review their operation and intent, the C20 height limits should not have to await such an extensive and far reaching review.

Great care must be taken in considering the implications of an implied rezoning which will occur if there is any substantial shift in the nature of the zone.

1.11 Urban Design Outside the Capital City Zone Policy

The Panel [at pages 66-67] recommends that the policy proposed in C20 for adoption in relation to all areas outside the Capital City Zone should include a section on areas in transition which would exempt those areas from the need to have regard to built form context. These areas include South Carlton, the CBD fringe, Southbank and the area around North Melbourne Station.

While the coalition understands that to achieve abrupt transition there must be some capacity to side-step strict contextual considerations, the foreshadowed extent of non-application of the guidelines within the policy is alarming in its implications for overall built-form consistency and the fate of individual and small pockets of heritage buildings to which developers will be effectively encouraged to pay very little regard.

1.12 Storeys Versus Metres and Floor-To-Floor Height

During the Built Form Review the appropriate way to define height limits was discussed at length. The height of a floor was presented early on in the review as 3.5m per floor, and did not receive any challenge until the DOI presented the 4m per floor model at the Panel hearing. This was a fundamental change to the heights as expressed in metres. In addition Council agreed to delete the reference to storeys from the DDOs, again under pressure from the DOI. The loss of reference to storeys is unfortunate because these reflect a design element intended to promote consistency with adjacent built form. The Parkville Urban Design guidelines for example specify heights in storeys not metres to promote alignment between balconies, parapets and windows in significant streetscapes and to prevent the squashing in of extra storeys of the sort of which the Panel complains in discussing 355 Rathdowne St Carlton [pages 101-103].

The 4m floor-to-floor height reflects a commercial/industrial/institutional model and as applied by the Panel does not include roof furniture and lift overruns which under C20 were accommodated within the overall height calculated on the basis of 3.5m/storey. The effect is a significant overall increase in height allowances for taller buildings without reassessment against the benchmark buildings with which they were designed to be compatible. The translation of 4m per storey produces a noticeable difference particularly in building envelopes in low building height areas up to 8 storeys. The difference between a 3.5m and a 4m translation for an 8 storey building is 4m, ie, an additional storey.

We note that Council’s 3.5m/floor gives an 8m height for a two storey building, which is similar to the scale of two storey Victorian terrace. At 8m residential and non-residential uses can be accommodated. Above this, there is a danger that heights based on 4m storeys will generate additional storeys at the cost of good design. The Panel itself is critical of this practice, and discusses an example of “the meanness of the floor-to-floor height … made necessary to squeeze 3 storeys into the front whilst still complying with the height limitation” (page 101).

The position of the coalition is that the 3.5m storey height must remain in place and where any height is established as a result of estimating storeys, 3.5m/storey is applied. Specifications in terms of storeys should be revisited to promote not only height consistency but harmonious streetscapes in terms of alignment of design elements.

1.13 Environmentally Sustainable Development

The proposed Urban Design Outside the Capital City Zone Policy states “all buildings should be designed on the principles of energy efficiency and sustainable development”. The principles to apply to any development are listed - passive solar design, thermal performance, recycling of buildings, collection of rainwater and solar energy etc. Beyond requirements for an individual development, Amendment C20 does not consider the application of ESD principles within the framework of an increase in scale of an existing area. There is no analysis of how these principles become progressively more difficult to deliver as building height increases without attention to building spacing and how this issue is addressed in changes proposed by C20.

The Australian Conservation Foundation made a comprehensive submission to the Panel hearing, including the presentation of a case study in South Carlton of the shadowing effect of higher built form on a building with ESD features including solar collection for hot water and heating, maximisation of natural light, and high level analysis of embodied and operational energy. In response, the Panel concluded that the submission did not raise issues which may influence the built form outcomes of South Carlton other than to constrain its potential as an area for growth and substantial change.

The MSS and to a greater extent, Draft City Plan 2010, emphasise the importance of an environmentally responsible city. Draft City Plan 2010 sets high aims in terms of greenhouse gas emission reductions by the year 2010. “The urban form and the design and construction of the built environment, particularly in the high density City of Melbourne, critically influence the city’s sustainability. Incorporation of ESD principles throughout the processes of building design, development and construction are important, particularly the adoption of practices to minimise the impact on, and improve the natural environment and its systems.” [Draft City Plan 1 March 2002]

Development potential is given a higher priority by the Panel Report than working towards a sustainable built form. This appears inconsistent with the greater priority being afforded to ESD principles by both the State Government and the Council.

1.14 Exceptions to C20

While the coalition accepts and supports amendment C20 it agrees that the C20 proposals for some areas in Carlton are undesirable and that some amendment of these should occur. In particular:

· The height of buildings proposed for South Carlton

· The boundary for the DDO area bounded by Swanston, Victoria, Rathdowne and Queensberry Street in Carlton

· The heights of buildings proposed for the Eastern Precinct in Carlton

· The exclusion of an area along Rathdowne Street opposite the Carlton Gardens from a DDO

In addition the coalition supports a park perimeter DDO for Gatehouse Street and the relevant part of West Parkville at a height of 9m mandatory.

1.15 The Way Forward

After the time and effort which has been spent on C20 including two Panel reports in connection with the introduction of the new format planning scheme the coalition considers taking account of the exceptions listed above,it is essential that C20 progress without substantial alteration or re-exhibition. The Panel recommendations represent such a variation to C20 that a redraft which accommodated them would be so different that natural justice would require re-exhibition.

Part B. Individual Area Responses

B1. Carlton.

B2. North and West Melbourne.

B3. Parkville.

B4. Southbank.

B1. Carlton

1. The Carlton Residents Association Inc. strongly supports the Panel's recommendations (pages 78-9) that the Carlton 2010 local area plan replace the section on the Carlton precinct in Part 2 of City Plan, or becomes an incorporated document in the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

2. Area A Elizabeth Street (as shown in C20, the Panel report and Carlton 2010)

Amendment C20 proposes to change the DDO11 height limit of 24m to 28m (8 storeys, based on 3.5m per storey). The rationale for encouraging higher new development is to "reinforce Elizabeth Street as a major civic space and boulevard entrance to the CBD" (page 4/9). As the Panel (page 116) notes, "the predominant current height is around 3 storeys, the change to 8 storeys provides significant potential for the future". The Panel recommends a 32m height limit (based on 4m per storey).

Response: Note that in this area there are ten buildings listed as heritage buildings in their own right in the 6HO Heritage Overlay map in the Melbourne Planning Scheme. It is assumed that the heritage policy would be applied for these buildings when new developments are considered for this area. In terms of a maximum height limit, the Association has concluded that a 3.5m per storey measure should be used as a general rule for new developments. As well, we accept the Panel's recommendation (page92) that roof elements should not be included in estimates of maximum height limits. Given these assumptions, the choice for a maximum height limit for this area is between about 6 storeys (DDO11), 8 storeys (C20) and about 9 storeys (Panel).

Conclusion: Given that C20 has already been through a public consultation process, and given the heights proposed for Swanston Street, the Association accepts the C20 recommendation for a 28m height limit. This will allow for more intense development than at present, but given the boulevard context it appears acceptable, with the proviso that the heritage policy is applied to protect the listed heritage buildings.

2. Area B South Carlton (as shown in C20, and including 200 Victoria Street) and Carlton 2010. In the Panel report the area east of Swanston Street is shown as a separate area extending to Rathdowne Street)

In the Melbourne Planning Scheme (Map 2), the preferred height limits for this area range from 2-3 storeys (9m) in the northern HO1 heritage overlay area; 3-5 storeys (15m) in the central section; and 6-8 storeys (25m) south of Queensberry Street and around the perimeter. In the area to the east of Swanston Street and south of Queensberry Street, DDO6 has height limits ranging from 9, 15 to 25m, with the higher limits being in the middle of blocks. The area in the block bounded by Lygon, Drummond, Rathdowne and Victoria Streets is included in DDO6 with height limits varying from predominantly 8m with some sections at13.5, 16 and 25m.

Amendment C20 (page 5/9) proposes several design objectives for South Carlton. These include "to accommodate new development and encourage the creation of a new character as a result of institutional, commercial and residential demand"; "to encourage development that will provide a transition between existing higher buildings and the lower building forms remaining in this area"; "to ensure that new development protects any adjoining residential uses from unacceptable amenity impacts"; "to ensure that building heights maintain a contrast with CBD scale and form"; to protect University and Lincoln Squares from overshadowing, and to improve the transitions "between University buildings and lower scale, fine grain heritage buildings". To support these objectives, a maximum height limit of 28m (8 storeys) is proposed. Most of the block bounded by Lygon, Queensberry, Rathdowne and Victoria Streets is omitted from C20, with large sections on Rathdowne Street already excluded from the HO1 Heritage Overlay.

The Panel accepted the proposed C20 height limit, but using the 4m per storey proposes a 32m height limit (page119). The Panel sees South Carlton as a transitional area in which the context of existing buildings should not be taken into consideration by new developments (page118). The Panel recommended the deletion of the design objective "to encourage development that will provide a transition between existing higher building forms remaining in the area" (page119). An Australian Conservation Foundation submission argued that the proposed C20 height limits would not allow adequate solar and light access, and that a 17m (5 storeys) height limit should be substituted. This submission was dismissed by the Panel with the explanation that the 60-66 Leicester Street site "demands a landmark building, which will be very tall" (page 120). In contrast, a submission for a 21storey (70 metres) residential complex at 200 Victoria Street was supported with the Panel recommending that the site be omitted from the C20 Amendment area in order not to constrain the development (page 120).

Response: The buildings in this area west of Swanston Street consist of a mixture of 2 and 3 storey Victorian residential and commercial buildings, warehouses and more recent developments including the 8 to 11 storey buildings of the University of Melbourne. There are many individually listed heritage buildings, and part of the HO1 Heritage Overlay in the northern section. There is considerable public concern about the impact of the recent University buildings around University Square on the area. The 8 storey building on Barry Street is causing overshadowing of University Square in the late afternoons. The heritage buildings along Barry Street have been severely demolished leaving less than one room intact at the front in some cases to the consternation of the National Trust who negotiated with the University on the relationship of the heritage buildings to the University Square development.

Given the area's objectives and the existing scale and nature of the buildings, Area B could become an "urban village" of the sort discussed by Mr Biles and the Panel (pp. 111-112). The evolvement of a unique and charming village area that incorporates ESD principles as envisaged in Carlton 2010 strategy plan is more likely to occur with a development framework that encourages new buildings that take account of existing buildings and laneways, and promotes the recycling of existing buildings for functions relating to the objectives for the area, rather than a blanket 32m maximum height limit with a proviso that the existing context should be disregarded. In addition, the experience of the new University buildings around University Square suggests that there may not be the demand for the amount of space which would be encouraged by the relaxed regulations. More research is required to demonstrate the demand for space, and also to plan the public amenity and infrastructure that will support the proposed large-scale development in the area.

The proposed exclusion of the 200 Victoria Street site is not supported. Victoria Street is seen as a boundary between South Carlton and the CBD, as recognized by the Panel (page 90). Allowing a 70m building on the northern side of Victoria Street would disrupt this visually defined boundary, and change the relationship of the two areas. The proposed development on the CUB site is considered different given its landmark site and relationship with the vista of the Shrine and Swanston Street.

The Panel (pages 47- 50) questions the limitation of RMIT University development to west of Lygon Street in the area south of Queensberry Street. This point was agreed by stakeholders in Carlton 2010 strategy plan (see page 39), and provides more certainty about where in the mixed use zone there is going to be more development for educational purposes and where there will be more residential use. The term educational institutional development could be substituted for the more specific use of RMIT University.

In the Panel report (p121) there is a recommendation for a DDO to cover the area named as Victoria Street East of Swanston Street. The DDO includes the block bounded by Lygon, Victoria, Rathdowne and Queensberry Street. Most of this area was not included in the exhibited C20 Amendment. Given the sensitive heritage nature of the area with the highly valued Drummond Street area, the adjacent Carlton Gardens and Royal Exhibition Buildings and Trades Hall, we strongly support the inclusion of this block in a DDO with a reduced maximum height limit of 14m to respond to highly valued heritage buildings in or adjacent to the area. In our view this block is distinct in function and purpose to the block to the west being developed by RMIT University. This distinction is evident in the Carlton 2010 strategy plan.

Conclusions: The Association

a. accepts with reluctance a maximum height limit of 24.5m (plus roof elements) consistent with the exhibited C20 amendment when an adjustment is made for the roof elements included in the estimate of C20

b. rejects strongly the Panel's recommendation to delete the clause regarding taking the existing context into account in new buildings (pages 119 and 68- 69)

c. rejects the Panel's recommendation to exclude 200 Victoria Street from the area to allow for a 70m residential building

d. rejects the inclusion of "residential" proposed by the Panel on page 69 in the clause relating to active frontages

e. supports strongly the Australian Conservation Foundation's submission that a lower height limit is more appropriate to support ESD building principles

f. encourages a more detailed strategic report to be produced that details demand for high-density development in the area, and provides a masterplan for the development of public amenity to support the development of an "urban village" consistent with the design objectives

g. accepts the Panel's recommendation about not naming RMIT University in limiting its expansion north of Queensberry Street, with the proviso that "educational institution expansion" is substituted

h. accepts the Panel's recommendation for a DDO to include the block bounded by Lygon, Victoria, Rathdowne and Queensberry Streets, with the proviso that the maximum building height limit is 14m not 32m. Additionally the Association agrees with the Carlton 2010 strategy plan that this block belongs more with the Lygon Street area than the South Carlton educational area.

3. Area C Swanston Street (as shown in C20, and the Panel report)

The preferred height for Swanston Street south of Grattan Street (Map 2, Melbourne Planning Scheme) is 6-8 storeys (25m). Over the past 5 years, buildings of 10 storeys have been permitted: an example of discretionary exceptions becoming the norm. The C20 recommended height limit is 35m (10 storeys), with design objectives to encourage development along a major thoroughfare, minimize overshadowing of Lincoln Square, and provide transition in building height to Cardigan Street and adjacent areas (page 6/9). The Panel recommendation is for a 36m height limit (page 117).

The design of many of the high-density buildings recently built in Swanston Street is considered poor, and the negative impact on the amenity of residences in Cardigan Street regrettable. The new buildings provide no confidence that high maximum height limits yield buildings of exceptional design. The objective of "transition" to Cardigan Street has failed, and provides a telling example to other areas where radically higher building limits are proposed.

Conclusion: The Association

a. accepts a 31.5 m (plus 3.5 m for roof elements) height limit which equates to the C20 exhibited height, and is consistent with the development complexes built recently

b. supports strongly C20 objective of "transition" to Cardigan Street and adjoining areas

4. Area D University East:

In Map 2 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme the Royal Women's Hospital site on the corner of Grattan and Swanston Street is shown to have a 6-8 storeys (25m) height limit. North of that site there is a 3-5 storeys (15m) limit, with the Faraday St School site having a 2-3 storeys (9m) limit. In the block bounded by Swanston, Elgin, Cardigan, and Faraday Streets, there is a height limit of 3-5 storeys (15m) along Swanston Street and a 2-3 storey (9m) along Cardigan Street. In the C20 Amendment there is a 28m (8 storeys) maximum height with the proviso that "In areas to the north of Faraday Street or to the east of Cardigan Street lower building forms are required to respond to the design objectives for the Area" (page 7/9). The Panel recommends a 36m (10 storey) maximum height limit, and a change in the proviso to read "To ensure that new development provides a visual transition to the scale of remaining single and two storey heritage buildings and streetscapes along Dorrit, Faraday and Cardigan Streets" (page 123). The Panel supported the University of Melbourne's submission that there should be a similar 10 storeys height limit along Swanston Street, as for south of Grattan Street. Further it was argued that a ten storeys building height limit on the block bounded by Swanston, Elgin, Cardigan and Faraday Streets would not jeopardize the heritage residences along Faraday and Cardigan Streets. It is understood that during the Panel discussion, Council articulated that 7 storeys would be considered a satisfactory height limit to meet the qualifying objective on the exhibited C20 amendment height limit for this area.

Response: These changes represent substantial changes from the expectations for the area. As recently as 1997, the University's proposal for a five storey residential complex on the block was rejected by MCC, and instead approval was given to construct a three to four storey complex. Development plans for this block have a long history, at least since 1973, when against MCC and community preferences, the University took over the block for "public use". The current University plan which was presented to the Panel includes a 10 storeys block, and as mentioned a request for a 10 storeys height limit along Swanston Street.

There are three related recent developments that suggest problems with this proposal. The first are the many 8 to 10 storeys buildings south of Grattan Street on Swanston Street. The effect on the residential amenity of people living in 2 storeys houses in Cardigan Street is very negative in the sense of overlooking, visual bulk and loss of sunlight access in the late afternoons. The second scenario is the University's recent building at University Square. No account was taken of the heritage residences along Barry Street as residences. There is no possibility that they will ever be used as residences given the juxtaposition of the 8 and 10 storeys buildings immediately behind truncated houses with just one or two front rooms retained. This should not be the fate of the heritage houses along Faraday and Cardigan Streets that have been the homes of families for more than 100 years, and reflect the function of this area of Carlton. Third, there are no 36m buildings on the west side of Swanston Street north of Grattan Street in the main University campus. The recent examples of the excellently designed Potter Museum and the Sidney Myer Asia Centre are both considerably lower than the 36m proposed by the Panel (about 6 storeys), and both buildings respond to the height of the institutional buildings on the campus. These are sensible heights. The context in the Eastern Precinct also differs from Swanston Street south of Grattan Street by being adjacent to the Residential 1 zone of Central Carlton, rather than the mixed use zone to the south of Grattan Street or the institutional use on the University campus. This difference is reflected in the lower height limits C20 proposes for DDO6F than DDO6E.

A similar, less immediate, threat is present for Dorrit Street. A series of 3 storey apartments have been built on the west side of Dorrit Street. These overshadow and dominate one of the last remaining Victorian lanes adjacent to Lygon Street, a level 1 streetscape. To have a 36m height limit for that area would be ludicrous if the heritage of Carlton is to be valued at all.

Conclusion: The Association

a. supports the C20 Amendment for this precinct as it stands with the proviso listed above, and strongly rejects the Panel's recommendation concerning height and proviso, and the apparent articulation by Council to the Panel that a 7 storeys limit would meet the proviso listed in the amendment for this area.

5. Areas E & F Central Carlton (as shown in C20 as DDO6E and DDO6F and as the Lygon Street Area in Carlton 2010 strategy plan).

These areas are covered by DDO6 and HO1 Heritage Overlays. Most of the Victorian buildings are 1 to 2 storeys, with a few 3 storeys in height. The DDO6 height limits range from 8, 10, and 13.5m with 16m on a section of Cardigan Street south of Grattan Street not covered by HO1. The C20 Amendment proposed a 14m (4 storeys) height limit in the area south of Grattan Street, and a mandatory 10.5m (3 storeys) with a preferred height of 8m (2 storeys) for the area north of Grattan Street. There is also a requirement for new developments in both areas to not exceed 8m (2 storeys) in height within 3m of the lane. The Panel proposed that there are sufficient other controls to meet the objectives for this area, and that there be no DDO for DDO6E and DDO6F.

Conclusion: Until there is a satisfactory statement of significance for the HO1 Heritage area that would protect the area as a whole from out of scale new development, the Association supports strongly the

a. C20 Amendment as exhibited for DDO6E and DDO6F

b. C20 recommended mandatory height limit for DDO6F

c. inclusion of the area presently in DDO6 in the block bounded by Grattan, Rathdowne, Queensberry and Drummond Streets into the DDO6E area

6. Overall, the Association supports the C20 Amendment in preference to the Panel Report's recommendations with the qualifications listed above. The attached map summarizes the main points of our submission.

B2. North and West Melbourne

1. Development Opportunity in North and West Melbourne

In their overview on page 12 the Panel states “In the majority of North and West Melbourne and Carlton, there is an 8m (2 storey) preferred and 10.5m (3 storeys) maximum.”

If this were the case then the Panel may well describe the C20 DDO areas as providing for little change to existing built form. However, this summary is wrong. In C20, for North and West Melbourne, 2-3 storey limits apply only to an estimated 1/8 of the total area covered by DDOs. In the areas covered by DDOs with these height limits the Panel agrees with the future scale of the built form, but disagrees with the need for DDOs to achieve this outcome.

Comparison between the existing built form and the proposed heights in C20 demonstrate that significant opportunity in North and West Melbourne is created by C20.

Although the Panel describes the height controls for the majority of North and West Melbourne as widespread and restrictive, the Department of Infrastructure in its submission for the most part recommended heights close to those in C20. The exceptions are the expression of 4m floor to floor heights, some boundary changes, and the West Melbourne Area heights.

2. Preferred and Maximum Heights

The Association in supporting the “preferred and maximum” expression of height did not believe that this expression limited heights in the precinct to the preferred height, rather that it conveyed a message that the maximum height will only be achievable based on context and the performance based approach.

3. The Importance of North and West Melbourne’s Heritage Areas

“North Melbourne Central”, is accepted by the Panel as worthy of preservation. The Panel “considers that the real value of North and West Melbourne relates to its overall heritage value as an area that represents a fully developed nineteenth century mixed-use suburb on the doorstop of Melbourne” [page 137]. The extent of the heritage area designated as HO3 occupies an area larger than the Panel defines as North Melbourne Central. The Panel excludes sections of the mixed use areas within the HO3 precinct from their description (the area north of the Flagstaff Gardens, the area south east of Hawke St, and north of the North Melbourne Station) stating “it should be acknowledged that these are areas in transition and where substantial change may be expected.”

The Panel’s comments regarding acknowledging the importance of the preservation of the scale of the heritage area is welcomed by the Association, particularly as the area is comprised predominantly of lower graded buildings and streetscapes. However the Association does not agree that in the course of this amendment, the Panel can summarily re-define the Heritage precinct boundaries to suit their transformation view.

4. NorthWest 2010 Local Plan

The Panel view that the NorthWest 2010 Local Plan (NW 2010) should not be referred to in the Planning Scheme suggests that a significant body of work carried out by the City of Melbourne at the request of the State Government, and with considerable stakeholder input, is required to be re-done.

Whilst dismissing the NW2010 document as inappropriate to include in the Planning Scheme as a reference document because it had not been through a Planning Scheme amendment process, the Panel readily accepts Carlton 2010 with no such requirement, going so far as to elevate its status ideally to an incorporated document. Although some of the material in the document is superseded by C20 there is important content which should be restated in the new context. NW2010 Local plan must be revised by Council to suit the framework required to be integrated into the Planning Scheme.

The preferred heights introduced in Clause 22.13, Development and Land Use in the Mixed Use Zone, further refined by the NW 2010 precinct heights and now the proposed Amendment C20 heights, have been welcomed by Council officers, developers, the community and VCAT as providing guidance on preferred heights. Since this time, by and large, planning applications have been submitted within these limits. The heights which have evolved through the various documents and are enshrined in C20 have been of demonstrable benefit in delivering certainty and efficiency in planning and there is a culture of acceptance of the controls which should not be disrupted.

5. Comments Regarding Panel Recommendations for DDO Areas

(To be read in conjunction with marked up versions of the Panel maps)

5.1 CBD Fringe

(Blue on the Panel map)

The Association considers the objectives relating to the C20 height controls for this area to be inextricably linked to the enjoyment of the Flagstaff Gardens, a precious and highly utilised public gardens. The Panel criticises the objective to retain “an openness to sky views to towards the north, west, and south west from the Flagstaff Gardens” [page 141], and suggests a better expression of such an objective may be that “the Flagstaff Gardens will not be hemmed in by tall buildings” [again at page 141]. Either way, the quality of the gardens is important, as is the ability to see to distant views of the docks from various vantage points within the gardens. It is these attributes the DDO sought to protect.

The Association supports the podium control, and the further study of desirable building height. It does not support the boundary change to Rosslyn St, nor the removal of the C20 control while the work is being done. Dudley St is a logical DDO boundary which will encourage an transition in scale between higher development in the CBD fringe and the lower scale in West Melbourne.

5.2 West Melbourne

(Green and pink on the Panel map)

DOI in its submission presumed that the regeneration in this area would be led by commercial uses. However, developer interest in the area to date has been overwhelmingly residential, and conversions and adaptive reuse of the existing, substantial, yet low scale industrial buildings is being undertaken to heights of 3-4 storeys.

The Association rejects the notion that a 4 storey, 14m DDO in this area is “more of the same”, as the area is currently predominantly 1-2 storeys. Four storeys or a doubling of the existing height creates significant development opportunity, and will certainly create a new built form character.

5.2.1 Heritage

At least half of the Panel’s West Melbourne Area is covered either by heritage precinct HO3 or a significant number of individual heritage overlay controls. Recent planning scheme amendment C19 reconfirmed and in some cases upgraded the gradings of the heritage buildings outside the HO3 precinct.

The heritage buildings in the area are primarily 1-2 storeys. A DDO encouraging a preferred built form character of 24m, the equivalent of an 8 storey residential or 6 storey commercial development, will undoubtedly lead to the demolition of these heritage assets. This would undoubtedly lead to a loss of lower-scale heritage buildings which are contributers to the Heritage Precinct, or of individually significant buildings.

In order to preserve to maintain the objective of heritage protection in conjunction with a DDO promoting future higher built form there needs to be a clear statement in the LPPF that the DDO heights are not intended to prevail over heritage protection, but that as a principle heritage takes priority (see overview 1.9)

5.2.2 Recycling Buildings

The importance of recycling the significant number of buildings which are not listed as heritage buildings but nonetheless contribute positively to the character of the area through their architectural quality or industrial character should not be underestimated. These need to be retained and built on where possible, embracing ESD principles, as required by the Urban Design Outside the Capital City Zone Policy.

Keeping the DDO at 4 storeys will enable these buildings to be recycled rather than demolished in favour of meeting height objectives, rather than conforming to a higher future character which to which they cannot answer.

5.2.3 Retention Of Mixed Uses

The Association agrees with the Panel’s recommendation that the continuation of the long established mixed use function should continue. The existing businesses in the area are successfully operating, many of them would be quite compatible with nearby new residential uses, for example office furniture retailers, wholesalers, car service centres, sales offices and warehouses, production houses, set making workshops etc. The Panel’s states that “Maintaining their presence [business uses] will only be possible so long as the value of land for other purposes does not drive them out. This is one reason why it may be desirable to limit the potential height of development.” [page 142]. The Association is in agreement with this statement, however the statement is totally at odds with the Panel’s subsequent recommendation of a height limit of 24m, which is the equivalent of an 8 storey residential development. (Refer to 100 Queensberry St Carlton measured building height of 12.5m for a 4 storey contemporary commercial / residential development). 24m in this area for the majority of cases represents a 3-5 fold increase in height. With this change, land values will most certainly drive the smaller businesses out of the area.

For these reasons, the C20 height of 4 storeys14m is supported by the Association .

5.3 North Melbourne Station

(Red on Panel map)

There is widespread support for the environs of the North Melbourne station to intensify in the form of an urban village. As yet there is no agreement about the scale of this village. However a considerable number of residential conversions are under construction in the vicinity of the station - recycling buildings with some additional floors being added.

It is noted that 50% of the area defined by the Panel is covered by Heritage precinct HO3. Further, within a 400m radius of the station, (this distance being a key urban village determinant), the majority of the built form is covered by either HO3 precinct or individual heritage overlay controls.

The Association agrees with the Panel [at page 144], “Clearly more work is required to develop appropriate plans for the North Melbourne station area and an opportunity exists to undertake some urban design work in the public realm”.

A design and activity study is supported for this area. In the meantime the C20 height of 14m mandatory should apply.

5.4 North Melbourne Central

(Unshaded on Panel map)

The panel recognises this area of predominantly lower grade buildings and streetscapes to be nevertheless important as a fully developed 19century mixed use suburb and that it is to be protected against development pressure, for demolition and change which would see its essential character lost. The importance of Council producing Statements of Significance encapsulating the importance of this area cannot be underestimated. Until these are in place in statutory form, the Heritage Policy is strengthened, and the community is confident that the issue of scale in this area can be controlled by other means, mandatory height controls are needed. The relevant design objectives should be specified to encapsulate the Panel’s observations that “the heritage value of this area demands that new development should be absorbed within the existing urban fabric so far as possible and new development should be guided by its context” [page138]. This assessment qualifies the area to be included under a DDO by the Panel’s own analysis, refer Part A, 1.7 (4).

C20 controls must be imposed at least until the appropriate heritage controls and Statements of Significance are introduced. North Melbourne Central area should encompass all areas within the HO3 precinct.

5.5 Flemington Road

(Orange on the Panel map)

The Panel claims that little of the North and West Melbourne area is currently covered by DDOs. DDO 10 and 14 are mentioned, however no mention is made of DDO 11, Flemington Rd which has a height limit of 9m from Melrose St to Harcourt St, 24 metres from Harcourt St to Elizabeth St, and 24m in Elizabeth St to Victoria St.

The Panel has recommended the deletion of the current 9m DDO and the proposed C20 10.5m DDO from Melrose St to 13 storey Park Towers, (opposite the Children’s Hospital), arguing that the Res1 zone, Heritage controls, ResCode and the urban design policy are sufficient to deliver the proposed outcomes. Interim C20 3 storey 10.5m control should be applied until heritage guidelines and statements of significance are completed.

Between the Children’s Hospital and the Haymarket roundabout, a 24m height control is recommended by the Panel. Because the boundary of the proposed DDO is Park Towers rather than Harcourt St where the present 24m control commences, this has the effect of increasing the height available within the small section between Park Towers and Harcourt St. This appears to have no other rationale other than the presence of a 13 storey anomalous building at Park Towers. The presence of low scale heritage buildings in Flemington Rd and residential buildings to the south combine to make 24m an unrealistic DDO. DDO to remain as C20, 6 storey 21.5m, and boundary as per C20.

The boundary proposed by the Panel also extends further to the south than that exhibited in C20. The C20 boundary running with the streets, rather than mid block enabled the issues relating to Heritage Overlays, narrow streets becoming canyons, and an appropriate transition from the 24m height to the residential areas to the south are better resolved with the boundary in the C20 location.

This boundary change is not justified by the Panel Report and it is not supported by the Association. The Association supports the C20 DDO at 21.5m as exhibited.

5.6 Elizabeth St

(Purple on the Panel Map)

Incorporation of DDO 23F with DDO 6A into one DDO dealing with this section of Elizabeth St is appropriate.

In Urban Design terms a consistent built form of 8 storeys is considered by the Panel to provide significant development potential from the predominant existing 3 storey scale. Such a transformation will be in conflict with the retention of the Heritage buildings in Elizabeth St, the majority of which are graded A, B or C. The Planning Scheme is silent on how to assess an application to demolish or to create substantial additions to these graded buildings to achieve a consistent 8 storey scale – which overlay is to take precedence, the DDO or the Heritage Overlay?

The Association believes that a consistent 8 storey height will only be achieved at the expense of the Heritage Buildings which are and should be protected under heritage policy and that to maintain the appropriate level of heritage protection for the graded buildings the Planning Scheme must provide that heritage takes precedence over any assumption of a right to develop to height limits under a DDO (see overview 1.9).

B3. Parkville

(1) South Parkville

Amendment C20 proposes to remove the existing DDO along Royal Parade south of Gatehouse Street and along Gatehouse Street and Flemington Road, which currently limits heights to 9m within a distance of 10m from Gatehouse Street and otherwise 10m. As noted by the Panel, this DDO currently serves multiple objectives, including ensuring that new development reinforces the built form character of the area. Council's rationale for its removal was that the Heritage Overlay controls would be strengthened so as to make the DDO redundant, but this strengthening has not occurred.

The Panel Report accepts the removal of DDO 16 from Royal Parade south of Gatehouse Street, but recommends that Gatehouse Street be included in a 'Royal Park' DDO around the perimeter of the park. The proposed 'Royal Park' DDO has the single design objective of limiting views of development from Royal Park.

Response: (a) DDO 16 (including the present height limits) should be retained in South Parkville, given the intense development pressures along South Parkville’s three boundaries. Apart from the fact that the heritage controls have not been strengthened to enable them to meet the task currently performed by DDO16, the precinct is characterised by its stark interface (defined by a sudden shift in scale) with surrounding institutions and parkland, and its consistency of scale, deriving from its character as a 'parkland village' (as its name suggests). These characteristics deserve to be reflected in the design objectives of the DDO, as at present. There is no necessity for a DDO or DDOs around the perimeter of the park to be limited to a single objective.

(b) The Panel’s recommendation of a height of 12m under the proposed Royal Park DDO for “land fronting Gatehouse St” creates a conflict with heritage policy which says that new development may not dominate surrounding heritage buildings. There is concern that a height limit of 12m imposed over a largely intact heritage streetscape in which no building exceeds 9m may create a ‘grey zone’ between the two sets of overlay controls (DDO and HO) which in a practical sense would weaken the protection of the area against inappropriate development. Since the proposed 12m height limit applies specifically and exclusively to Gatehouse St, and the Panel has offered no rationale whatever for 12m as the appropriate height in this location to achieve the objective of limiting the view of development from Royal Park, the height under the DDO should be the returned to the height which currently applies under DDO16, which creates no conflict with the Heritage Overlay.

(c) Rather than accept a DDO with a height of 12m and the conflict with heritage policy, we would prefer to rely on the Heritage Overlay controls only, provided they are strengthened as recommended in Part A. As argued in Part A, if this is to be the approach, the existing DDO controls should be retained until the strengthening of heritage protection under the Heritage Overlay and the Local Policy at Clause 22.05 is complete.

(d) The Panel’s recommendation that Gatehouse St between Story St and Flemington Road should be excluded from the DDO “because it is opposite the Royal Children’s Hospital, not Royal Park” has no logically argued basis and therefore should be rejected. Although opposite the Royal Children’s Hospital, this area is equally visible from the park and thus relevant to the DDO design objective proposed by the Panel. Moreover, its proposed exclusion would remove protection exactly at the point where development pressure is most likely to occur (given the location opposite RCH and the fact that RCH owns some of the properties). If the DDO ceased at that point, that fact would undoubtedly be used at a later date to argue that that area was relieved of height constraints by virtue of its proximity to RCH. It is vitally important that the DDO over the properties facing Gatehouse Street extends right to the corner of Flemington Road.

(2) North Parkville

a) Parkville Research and Education Strip Policy

Amendment C20 proposes amending the above local policy at Clause 22.06 which applies to the Business 2 zone in Royal Parade. The Policy currently specifies plot ratios to restrict general commercial uses in order to preserve the limited opportunities for growth to the education and research sector and seeks to ensure that new educational and scientific research uses do not detract from the character of the area. The amendments proposed as part of C20 emphasise protection of the predominantly residential and open space character of the area, and limit encouragement of Research and Education uses to those uses “which do not detract from the character of the area”.

The Panel recommends that this local planning policy be deleted altogether on the basis that there is no sound basis for including restrictions on the floor area of educational and research activities and that the objectives of the policy can best be achieved by modifying the objectives for the Parkville precinct in Part 2 of the MSS.

Response: (a)

This local policy cannot be considered in isolation from the MSS.

There are a number of myths about this ‘strip’ which the current MSS perpetuates and which are fundamentally in need of a reality check. The situation is also muddied by the application of the Business 2 zone to institutional premises which do not have a primarily commercial character, which creates a need for a local policy to effectively re-direct the priorities of the zone (there being no really suitable zone in the suite of zones available under the VPPs). In the longer term, we accept that the Panel’s recommended deletion of the policy may be appropriate once uses in the strip are properly reviewed and changes are made to the MSS and possibly to the zoning. However, deletion of the policy in the absence of changes to the MSS and a proper strategic review would give encouragement to ordinary commercial development, which it is policy to discourage. Accordingly, the amendments proposed as part of C20 should be adopted, subject to the land use strategy for the area being reviewed as part of the forthcoming review of the MSS.

(b) The Panel’s suggested wording of the objective for the Parkville precinct in Part 2 of City Plan [see page 65] is not supported. As part of the balanced development of the area, the encouragement of residential accommodation associated with educational and research activity should be limited to accommodation directly associated with the Research or Educational activities located on the site, as proposed under C20.

b) North Parkville Urban Design Guidelines

Amendment C20 initially proposed that these guidelines, produced in the course of the Built Form Review, become an incorporated document. During the Panel hearing and in response to submissions from DOI, Council resolved to incorporate information from the guidelines into DDO24 and alter the status of the guidelines to a reference document.

While apparently supportive of the intent of the guidelines, the Panel identified several deficiencies leading to a recommendation that the guidelines be redrafted. The redrafted guidelines were then to be included in the decision guidelines of DDOs applying to Royal Parade and The Avenue. It is hard to see how this can be justified in the case of The Avenue if the objective of the Royal Park DDO is limited purely to protection of skyline views from the park. To justify application of the guidelines, the objectives of the DDO need to include a reference to ensuring that the built form of new development is appropriate to the area.

It is also questionable how the guidelines can apply effectively, when they are based on the concept of a 3.5m floor to ceiling height and mandatory height limits expressed in storeys – i.e. the underpinning C20 Amendment. By proposing the alteration of these variables, the Panel has undermined the foundations on which the North Parkville Urban Design Guidelines are erected.

Response: (a) We agree with the suggested re-drafting of the guidelines to incorporate objectives and comment on the relationship between The Avenue and the park, and between the permitted height of development in Royal Parade and the height of the tree canopy. We also agree that the guidelines should be directly referenced in the decision guidelines under the DDO The latter is necessary to make them properly effective. The objectives set out on page 82 should be incorporated into the detailed design objectives, but the objectives should also include maintenance of the built form character of the area. If setbacks are not included in the schedules to the DDOs, they must be retained in full in the guidelines;

(b) The re-drafted guidelines to which reference is made in the decision guidelines of the DDOs should then be listed as an incorporated document.

(c) We welcome the Panel’s recognition that the existing rhythm and pattern of The Avenue ‘has been rudely interrupted by a number of discordant buildings’ and that the detailed analysis undertaken by MCC has now established ‘what is a desirable urban form in North Parkville’. Given this, we question why the Panel has effectively rejected the translation of that form into the C20 controls and undermined the application of the guidelines, which assume the built form constraints imposed by C20.

Heights and setbacks

Amendment C20 proposes substituting DDO 24 for the existing DDO16. The new DDO has sub-sections 24A (The Avenue & Residential 1 area of Royal Parade), 24B (Business 2 area of Royal Parade) and 24C (Victorian Pharmacy College).

The building heights for these areas under the current DDO16 are broadly speaking (with the exception of the Pharmacy College) 9m within 30m of Royal Parade with 15m elsewhere in the Business 2 zone, 10m overall in the Residential I zone in the Avenue and Royal Parade, and in each case 8-9 m within 6m of Mile Lane. There are also setback requirements.

Under C20 the proposed heights and setbacks are:

DDO 24A (The Avenue&

Royal Parade north) height: 8m (mandatory) within a distance of 6m of Mile Lane and 14m (4 storeys) (mandatory) elsewhere.

Setback: 13.5m, with ability to reduce to 12m for max of 30% of façade length.

DDO 24B (Royal Parade

Business 2 zone, except

VPC) height: 8m (mandatory) within a distance of 6m of Mile Lane, 9m (mandatory) within 30m of Royal Parade and 17.5m (5 storeys) elsewhere.

Setback: 12m from Royal Parade and The Avenue for max of 30% of façade length.

DDO 24C (VPC) 9.5m within a distance of 6m of Mile Lane and 17.5m elsewhere.

Setback: 12m from Royal Parade. 4.5m from Walker St. 3m from the northern boundary.

The Panel has recommended that all areas around the perimeter of Royal Park (The Avenue, Gatehouse Street and West Parkville) be included in a single DDO with the key design objective of ensuring that new development does not intrude into the skyline above the dominant tree canopy. Its recommended building height for these areas under the DDO is 12m for land fronting Gatehouse Street and 16m elsewhere.

Response: We understand the attractiveness of the proposed single DDO addressing the perimeter of Royal Park.. However, for the reasons outlined in the section on South Parkville, 12m in Gatehouse St is too high and creates a demonstrable conflict with heritage policy. It should be revised down to 9m as at present and thereby also address an additional design objective – namely, preserving the village scale of the park villages. This “park villages” DDO should apply to both Gatehouse St and the park perimeter in West Parkville (i.e. the area in West Parkville which the Panel proposes be included in the Royal Park DDO, coloured green on the attached map). The 16m limit elsewhere in the proposed Royal Park DDO is a translation of 4 storeys, based on a floor-to-floor dimension of 4m, in lieu of the 3.5 m standard adopted in C20. This should be revised down to 14m in line with the 3.5m standard and to enable the North Parkville Urban Design Guidelines to apply as intended in The Avenue. To give context to their application the Royal Park DDO as applied to The Avenue must include a design objective promoting appropriate built form. On the basis that buildings intruding above the tree canopy can never be acceptable, given the design objectives, the heights under thee DDO/s should be mandatory. The absence of reference to setbacks is acceptable, provided these are incorporated into the North Parkville Design Guidelines and they in turn are referenced in the decision guidelines and become an incorporated document.

The Panel then concludes that, with respect to Royal Parade (other than the Victorian Pharmacy College site), there should be no distinction in the building height requirements between the Business 2 zone or the Residential 1 zone at the northern end of the boulevard. In its view the combined effect of Heritage Overlay controls, the North Parkville Urban Design Guidelines and contextual decision-making should safeguard the highly significant heritage properties in the north. Accordingly, it recommends a common height limit of 12m within 30m of Royal Parade and 20m elsewhere, with no setback controls.

For the VPC site, it recommends the same controls modified to reflect the height of the building approved by VCAT, upon which a decision was then pending. This building exceeds the panel-recommended 20m limit elsewhere in Royal Parade by a margin of 3-4m. Again, there are no setback controls.

With respect to Mile Lane, the Panel found no justification for the proposed setbacks and height limits in the vicinity, on the basis that there was ‘no reason why it should be protected in terms of solar access or visual amenity as if it were a street‘. This is an aspect of the Panel’s limited approach to ESD issues, which is one of the defects of the Report. The contribution of the Mile Lane setbacks in creating spaces between building volumes which are essential to maintain the leafy, open-air character and open skyline of North Parkville, notwithstanding increased building densities, is also ignored.

Response:

(a) The recommended ‘standard’ height control of 12m within 30m of Royal Parade and 20m elsewhere (non-mandatory) will create development pressure on some of Parkville’s most significant heritage properties in the northern section of Royal Parade and threaten their dominance of the character of the area, which is integral to the significance of Royal Parade as a major boulevard retaining (especially in the northern section) much of its original ambience. Given the great significance of Royal Parade, recognised by the Panel, height limits in Royal Parade should be mandatory. The height limits should be calculated based on a floor to ceiling height of 3.5m to enable a proper application of the North Parkville Urban Design Guidelines, and the distinction between the residential and business zones, in terms of permissible heights, should be maintained. The maximum mandatory height in the residential area should be limited to 14m (or 4 storeys) as proposed in C20 and assumed in the North Parkville Urban Design Guidelines. This is already an increase of 4m over the present height limits.

(b) The relegation of setbacks to the North Parkville Urban Design Guidelines is acceptable, provided the setbacks are expressly included and the North Parkville Design Guidelines become an incorporated document.

(d) Requirements for Mile Lane should be incorporated into the North Parkville Design Guidelines and should reflect a considered approach to solar access and ESD generally, as recommended in section 1.14 of Part 1, together with safety issues and the contribution the setbacks make to open-weave development, consistent with the pattern of subdivision and development footprints in this area.

(3) West Parkville

Amendment C20 proposes to substitute DDO24D for the existing DD0 16 as it applies to West Parkville (currently with a preferred height of 9m). It imposes a mandatory height limit of 14m (or 4 storeys), consistent with that proposed for residential-zoned areas on the other side of Royal Park in North Parkville (as per the proposed DDO 24A).

The Panel Report rejects the aim of DDO 24D ‘to maintain the existing low-scale building form’ and wishes instead to incorporate the area on the park perimeter into its proposed Royal Park DDO, with a non-mandatory height limit of 16m meeting a single objective of protecting the park from visual intrusion.

In addition, the Panel proposes that the area with a frontage to Flemington Road located at the entrance to the Tullamarine freeway, which currently falls within DDO16 and is proposed under C20 to be covered by DD0 24D, be deleted from the Royal Park DDO and considered in a separate category as part of the ‘gateway entrance to Melbourne at the City Link portal. Its topographical feature as an area sloping down to Flemington Road is also used to justify ‘higher buildings being located in this area, subject to other relevant planning considerations’ [page 129].

Response: (a) This is another instance where the DDO proposed by the Panel sets a height limit that is at odds with the scale of heritage buildings and heritage streetscapes and is implicitly in conflict with heritage policy. West Parkville is in fact the earliest-developed part of Parkville and has a village scale and ‘isolated, integrated village-pocket’ character on a par with South Parkville. As with South Parkville’s boundary with the park, it is appropriate that the height limits in the DDO be directed to preserving the unique character of the park-side villages, as well as the visual intrusion of development into views from the park. This should be one of the design objectives of the proposed Royal Park DDO where it applies to Gatehouse Street and West Parkville (the latter being the area coloured green on the attached map) The park perimeter DDO for Gatehouse Street and the relevant part of West Parkville should maintain the height limit of 9m, as a mandatory height limit.

(b) The Gateway concept is not attractive as applied to West Parkville, where there is only a small pocket of development between City Link and the park. ‘Higher development’ – unless it were only marginally higher – would be likely to intrude upon views from the park, contrary to the priority objectives for the park. The proposal for higher development in a part of what is quite a small pocket would create an anomaly in the surrounding context of West Parkville and conflict with the Heritage Overlay objectives of preserving the scale of the West Parkville streetscapes. It is also unlikely to produce a convincing ‘gateway’ with development stepping towards the CBD, given its abrupt termination by the park. For this reason, the Panel’s proposal to excise the area on Flemington Road from the area covered by DDO16 and proposed to be covered by DDO 24D should be rejected and the area recommended for excision (coloured gold/brown on the attached map) should be covered by a DDO in accordance with DDO24D as proposed in C20 (i.e. 14m mandatory).

(c) Also with respect to the Gateway concept, it should be noted that the City Link noise barrier has been designed on the basis of existing low-scale building, not exceeding 14m. If higher development were permitted, noise-bounce from the higher buildings would negate the noise-attenuation currently achieved.

B4. Southbank

The Southbank Residents Group's response is contained the following letter dated 7 March 2002 which has been forwarded previously to the Council.

SOUTHBANK RESIDENTS

GROUP INC.

A0036364B

812/221 STURT STREET

SOUTHBANK 3006

9645 9373

Councillor Katherine Ng

Chair Planning and Development Committee

cITY OF MELBOURNE

GPO Box 1603M

Melbourne 3001

7 March 2002

Dear Councillor,

This letter will serve to summarise the view of the Southbank Residents Group in relation to the Panel report on amendment C20.

1. Unless the element of unlimited discretion is eliminated from controls regulating Built Form we have formed the view that the planning scheme will be unable to provide consistent and predictable outcomes.

2. It is essential that built form planning schemes clearly and unequivocally define the desired outcomes for the area it describes and include controls that provide consistent interpretation to ensure these outcomes.

3. We are totally opposed to the use of "performance based controls" in built form planning schemes because they are inherently subjective and allow outcomes to be manipulated.

4. It is clear that there is undeniable support throughout the City of Melbourne residential community for reinstating the use of non discretionary controls in built form.

5. Our position on C20 is that we reject the panel recommendations and with some reservation, support the original exhibited C20 amendments for the section of Southbank bounded by Moore-Miles-Sturt-Grant-Wells-Dorcas-Kings Way.

6. We would consider support for the panel recommendations if built form controls describing the relationship between building height and building separation could be clearly and unambiguously defined and the essential elements of the control agreed upon following extensive community consultation.

7. We SUPPORT THE NEED FOR URBAN CONSOLIDATION BUT DISAGREE WITH THE STATE GOVERNMENT'S CURRENT PHILOSOPHY OF ENCOURAGING AD HOC DEVELOPMENT DESPITE ITS POST ELECTION PLEDGE TO PROVIDE CERTAINTY AND CONSISTENCY AND TO RETURN TO VICTORIANS THEIR VOICE AND INFLUENCE BY REINSTATING LOCAL GOVERNMENT AS A LEAD DECISION MAKER IN PLANNING.

Sincerely, Ray McDonald

President Southbank Residents Group

Enclosed: copy of letter to John Thwaites re. C20.

Part C: Maps

Click on a map to enlarge


Carlton

North Melbourne	West Melbourne

North and West Parkville	South Parkville