city of port phillip report

CITY OF PORT PHILLIP REPORT
STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
ITEM 1
ADDRESS: 200-204 WELLS STREET, SOUTH
MELBOURNE
PROPOSAL: USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE FOR
CONVENIENCE RESTAURANTS, SHOPS,
AND DWELLINGS IN A 12 STOREY BUILDING
WITH BASEMENT LEVELS, ASSOCIATED
CAR PARKING REDUCTION, AND WAIVING
OF THE LOADING BAY REQUIREMENTS.
WARD: EMERALD HILL
NEIGHBOURHOOD SOUTH MELBOURNE
TRIGGER FOR DETERMINATION BY 16 OR MORE OBJECTIONS
COMMITTEE
APPLICATION NO: 950/2010
APPLICANT: FULCRUM URBAN PLANNING
EXISTING USE: RETAIL PREMISES, SHOWROOM AND
OFFICES
ABUTTING USES: OFFICES, SHOPS AND DWELLINGS
ZONING: MIXED USE ZONE
OVERLAYS: DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (DDO3-
5)
STATUTORY TIME REMAINING FOR EXPIRED
DECISION AS AT DAY OF COUNCIL:
RESPONSIBLE MANAGER: GEORGE BORG, MANAGER, CITY
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHOR: AARON HEWETT
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1. This application is affected by a recent amendment to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
by the Minister for Planning (Amendment C86) that brought in interim mandatory height
controls over land covered by DDO 3 & 4 bordered by Kings Way (west and south),
Dorcas Street (north) and St Kilda Road (east).
1.2. The original proposal was for a 22-storey (64m) building containing ground level
entrance, convenience restaurants, a shop, upper level car parking and 19 levels of
one and two bedroom dwellings. This application was advertised and 106 objections
were received.
1.3. The permit applicants lodged an Application for Review with VCAT pursuant to Section
79 (failure to determine the application within the statutory timeframe) prior to the
introduction of Amendment C86. The matter will be considered at a mediation
scheduled for 29 April 2011. If the mediation is unsuccessful, the matter would then
proceed to a scheduled hearing for 26 May 2011.
1.4. Revised plans were provided to Council by the permit applicant on 23 February 2011
showing a reduction in the height of the building to 35m (plus plant). All objectors and
all originally notified owners and occupiers were also notified of the substituted plans in
line with the order of the Tribunal and the relevant practice notes. Electronic copies of
the plans were also provided on Council’s website. As far as Council is aware, there
1

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
are no additional parties to the proceedings and no objection has been received from
any party in relation to the substitution of plans.
1.5. The revised scheme proposes to demolish the existing buildings on the subject site,
and to construct a 12-storey building plus two basement levels, ground level entrance,
convenience restaurants and a shop, and 11 levels of one and two bedroom dwellings.
The overall height of the building would be a maximum of 35m (plus roof top services
and lift overruns).
1.6. Despite an application for review having been lodged, Council is still required to advise
the Tribunal the decision it would have reached if the matter had been determined
within the prescribed period.
1.7. The officer recommendation, having regard to the matters as set out for consideration
in Clause 65 of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme and Section 60 of the Planning &
Environment Act 1987, is to advise the Tribunal that the Responsible Authority would
have issued a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit subject to conditions.
KEY ISSUES
1. Setbacks & compliance with DDO
2. Traffic and car parking
3. Amenity impacts
Subject Property � Objectors X Supporters b
2

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
3

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
4

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
5

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
6

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
7

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
8

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
9

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
10

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
11

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
12

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
13

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
14

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
15

2. RELEVANT HISTORY
STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
2.1. The application was lodged on 21 September 2010 for the use and development of the
site for convenience restaurants / shops, and dwellings in a 22 storey building with
basement levels, associated car parking dispensation, dispensation from the loading
bay requirements and variation from the height & setback requirements of the Design &
Development Overlay (DDO3-5). The application was advertised for 14 days
commencing on 13 October 2010, and a consultation meeting was held on 8 December
2010. The application attracted 106 objections, including 90 objections from owners
and occupiers of apartments in the nearby Royal Domain Tower.
2.2. The permit applicants lodged an Application for Review with VCAT on 16 December
2010 pursuant to Section 79 of the Act (failure to determine the application within the
statutory timeframe. The application was placed on the Major Cases List as the cost of
the development exceeded $5 million. All applications on this list are automatically
allocated dates for a practice day hearing, a mediation and a full hearing date.
2.3. On 20 January 2011, the Minister for Planning advised Council in writing of his intention
to prepare, adopt and approve Amendment C86 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.
This amendment sought to amend schedules 3 & 4 to the Design & Development
Overlay to provide interim mandatory height controls in sub-precincts 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8
and 4-1. The amendment has the effect of making the previous discretionary height
controls mandatory. The amendment was formally gazetted on 27 January 2011.
2.4. A practice day hearing was held on 28 January 2011, one day after the formal gazettal
of the amendment, and it was acknowledged that the proposal in its current form was
prohibited as it exceeded the mandatory height of 35m. The Tribunal made orders to
remove the application from the Major Cases List, vacated the allocated mediation and
hearing dates, and allowed a set period of time (i.e. no later than 28 February) for the
applicants to prepare revised drawings. A mediation date was later set for 29 April 2011
and a full hearing for 26 May 2011.
2.5. Revised plans were provided to Council by the permit applicant on 23 February 2011,
and all objectors and all originally notified owners and occupiers were notified of the
substituted plans in line with the order of the Tribunal and the relevant practice notes.
Electronic copies of the plans were also provided on Council’s website. As far as
Council is aware, there are no additional parties to the proceedings and no objection
has been received from any party in relation to the substitution of plans.
2.6. It is this revised scheme that Council needs to form a decision on and advise the
Tribunal accordingly.
3. PROPOSAL
3.1. It is proposed to demolish the existing buildings on the subject site. This does not
require planning approval.
3.2. It is proposed to construct a 12-storey building plus two basement car parking levels,
ground level entrance, convenience restaurants and a shop, and 11 levels of one and
two bedroom dwellings. The overall height of the building would be a maximum of 35m
(plus roof top services and lift overruns, which are allowable encroachments).
3.3. The proposal incorporates glazed frontages to the ground level on the Wells Street and
Park Street interfaces. Canopies are also provided along this perimeter. The tower
levels commence from Level 2 and the walls are set back from the front and rear
boundaries 5.6m and 6.5m respectively. The walls and windows to the dwellings are
set back between 4.2m and 5.1m from the side boundaries. Balconies are proposed to
be set back between 2.3m and 3.8m from the side boundaries, between 2.7m and 4.5m
from the front boundary and between 4.4m and 5.4m from the rear boundary. The floor
plate is the same for Levels 5, 6, 7, 11 & 12 and is reversed for Levels 3, 4, 8, 9 & 10.
16

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
3.4. Framing is used above the podium level to a height of 7m to provide enclosure to the
Level 2 terraces, and provide a heavier base to the building. The framing is punctured
to provide visibility to Wells and Park Streets from the terraces. Patterned concrete is
used for the Little Bank Street and western boundary podium façades. This differs from
the previous scheme, which incorporated a heavier and taller podium levels and used
these levels for car parking.
3.5. The design incorporates a split tower level divided north-south, which incorporates
three levels of a lightweight appearance on the east side and a heavier, framed
appearance on the west side. This is then reversed for the next three levels and so on.
A frame is incorporated to the eastern edge and top of the western section, which
otherwise contains a lighter weight appearance. This differs from the previous scheme
in that this design approach for the tower was used only on the eastern half of the
tower. The western edge of the tower incorporated a more organic design to the
balconies.
3.6. The main entrance to the building is proposed centrally on the Park Street elevation,
although both cafés and the shop have their own respective entrances. Vehicle access
is provided off Wells Street immediately adjacent to the entrance to Little Bank Street.
3.7. Apartment sizes range from 45 – 47m² for one bedroom dwellings and 64m² for twobedroom
dwellings. Balconies / terraces to each dwelling range from 6m² to 90m² with
the median size balcony at 9m².
3.8. The table below summarises the proposed development:
Level Dwellings Retail & Cafés Car Spaces Bike & MC
Spaces
Lower Basement - - 46 90
Upper Basement - - 46 90
Level 1 (Ground) - Café 1 - 67m² (32
seats)
Café 2 – 185m²
(81 seats)
Shop – 47m²
Level 2 12 x 1BR;
2 x 2BR
Levels 3-12 120 x 1BR;
20 x 2BR
TOTALS 154 dwellings
(132 x 1BR; 22 x
2BR)
21 74 + 2 MC
- - -
- - -
252m² / 113 seats
(cafés); 47m²
(shop)
113 spaces 254 (bikes); 2
(motorcycles)
3.9. The proposal represents a reduction of 107 dwellings (83x 1-bedroom; 24x 2-bedroom),
118 bike spaces, 81 car spaces and 8 motorcycle spaces from the previous scheme.
3.10. Materials include a mix of precast concrete panels (painted or with an integrated
pattern finish), metal and timber cladding and a mix of tinted and clear glass.
3.11. It should also be noted that the applicants have foreshadowed a further reduction to the
amount of car parking, reducing the rate to 0.55 spaces for the 1 bedroom dwellings
(down from 0.65), in consultation with the objector parties to the Application for Review.
17

4. SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS
STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
4.1. The subject site is located at the north west of the intersection of Wells and Park
Streets. It is generally rectangular in shape, with frontages to Wells Street of 51.24
metres and Park Street of 30.2 metres, equating to an overall site area of
approximately 1,543m².
4.2. The subject site is bound by Little Bank Street to the north, Park Street to the south,
Wells Street to the east and a double storey retail/office building to the west. It is
developed with a part single storey, part two storey building containing offices / sound
studio (1055m²) and a shop (215m²). Vehicle access to the site is currently provided via
a crossover and roller door directly from Wells Street.
4.3. Surrounding development displays a varied character and mix of uses, ranging from
single storey commercial buildings to several large scale residential towers.
4.4. North of the site is Little Bank Street, a narrow one way road (laneway) which runs in a
east-west direction and extends from Wells Street to Park Street/Kings Way. On the
opposite side of Little Bank Street is a single storey brick building containing a
collection of commercial/retail premises, with an open lot car park to the rear. A multilevel
public car park (6-7 levels) is located to the northwest of the subject site.
4.5. East of the site is Wells Street, which generally travels in a north-south direction
between Grant Street and Park Street. Metered parking (both short and long term) is
provided along both sides of the street. Further east is a multi-storey office building at
No.376 – 384 St Kilda Road and the ‘Royal Domain Tower’ 42 level apartment building
at No.368 St Kilda Road.
4.6. South of the site is Park Street, a collector road with parallel parking on both sides and
a central tram line, which extends between St Kilda Road to Nelson Road. Across Park
Street are a collection of commercial, retail and residential buildings of varying heights.
4.7. Immediately abutting the site’s western boundary is a two storey office and commercial
building (including a local IGA supermarket) at No.36-38 Park Street. It is noted that
further west (at No.52 Park Street) a planning permit has been granted to construct a
46.6m high (15 storey) residential apartment building.
4.8. On a broader scale, the area is dominated by larger buildings along St Kilda Road and
Kings Way, as well as the roadways themselves. The subject site is well serviced by
public transport and has ready access to various parks and gardens (including the
Royal Botanic Gardens and Albert Park) and shopping facilities.
5. PLANNING SCHEME PROVISIONS
5.1. Permit Triggers
Zone or Overlay Why is a permit required?
Clause 32.04
Mixed Use Zone
Clause 43.02
Design &
Development
Overlay
Schedule 3-5
Clause 52.06
Car Parking
A permit is required to:
o Construct two or more dwellings on a lot; and
o Construct a building, construct or carry out works associated with a Section 2 use;
o Use of the land for a convenience restaurant
o Use of the land for a shop
A permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works pursuant to
Clause 43.02-2. A permit cannot be granted to vary any height requirements in Table 2
to Schedule 3 of the DDO.
A new use must not commence or the floor area of an existing use must not be
increased until the required car spaces have been provided on the land pursuant to
Clause 52.06-1. If no rate is listed, car parking is to be provided to the satisfaction of
the Responsible Authority.
The table at Clause 52.06-5 states that a dwelling requires a rate of 2 car spaces to
each dwelling and a rate of 8 spaces per 100m² of leasable floor area for shops. There
is no rate listed for convenience restaurants, therefore car parking is to be provided to
the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
18

Clause 52.07
Loading &
Unloading of
Vehicles
Clause 52.34
Bicycle Facilities
Clause 52.35
Urban Context
report and Design
response for
residential
Development of
four or more
storeys
Clause 52.36
Integrated Public
Transport Planning
STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
Moreover, as per Council’s resolution of May 1998, the car parking assessment for
buildings of four storeys or more should be based on ResCode rates which would
require one car space per one and two bedroom dwellings, two car spaces per three or
larger bedroom dwellings and one space per five dwellings for visitors.
A permit is required to reduce or waive the loading bay requirements associated with
uses which sell, store or manufacture goods and where there are new buildings and
works.
A new use must not commence or the floor area of an existing use must not be
increased until the required bicycle facilities and associated signage has been provided
on the land pursuant to Clause 52.34-1.
The table at Clause 52.34-3 states, in developments of four or more storeys, rates of:
- 1 space to each 5 dwellings is required for residents;
- 1 space to each 10 dwellings is required for visitors;
- 1 space to each 25m² of convenience restaurant floor area available to the public for
employees; and
- 2 spaces per convenience restaurant for visitors.
The proposed shop has a leasable floor area of

� Built form
STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
� Neighbourhoods
The changes proposed under Amendment C62 implement the recommendations in the
Port Phillip Housing Strategy (October 2007) and identify the area including the subject
site as a ‘substantial growth area’ compared with an area which is earmarked for
opportunities for residential growth as defined in the current MSS.
5.5. Amendment C78
6. REFERRALS
Amendment C78 introduces a new local policy, Stormwater Management (Water
Sensitive Urban Design) into the planning scheme. The Amendment was exhibited and
subsequently adopted by Council. It is now with the Minister for Planning for final
approval. The Amendment is now considered ‘seriously entertained’.
The policy requires applications for new buildings to be accompanied by a Water
Sensitive Urban Design Response and requires Council to consider the impact that
proposed developments have on stormwater quality.
6.1. Internal referrals
The application was referred to the following areas of Council for comment. The
comments are discussed in detail in the officer’s assessment section of this report.
� Heritage & Urban Design
� Traffic, Transport & Parking
� Development Engineer
� Sustainable Design
� Strategic Planning
� Street tree co-ordinator
� Waste Management
� Open Spaces
6.2. External referrals
The application was referred to the following external agency under Section 55 of the
Act:
Referral Authority Response Conditions
Director of Public No objection subject to Refer to Conditions 29-33
Transport
conditions.
20

7. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/OBJECTIONS
STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
7.1. It was determined that the proposal may result in material detriment, therefore Council
gave notice of the proposal by ordinary mail to the owners and occupiers of
surrounding properties within 100m of the site and directed that the applicant give
notice of the proposal by posting two (2) notices on the site for a 14 day period, in
accordance with Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
7.2. The application received 106 objections. Ninety (90) objections were received from the
residential towers at No. 368 St Kilda Road (“Royal Domain Tower”); 7 objections from
residents in No. 350 St Kilda Road (“St James Apartments”); 3 objections and 1 petition
were received from residents in the former tramways development at No’s 28, 38 Park
Street, 39-69 Dorcas Street & 148 Wells Street; 3 objections were received from the
residents in the building at No. 2-14 Albert Road (“Hallmark”); one objection from a
property owner of No. 1-13 Bank Street and one from No. 50 Park Street.
7.3. A consultation meeting was held on 8 December 2010 and was well attended. The
issues associated with the application were discussed, however, no resolution or
compromise was reached.
7.4. The concerns raised by the objections (to the original scheme) are discussed below.
7.5. Height. All objectors raised the issue of the proposed height of the building and
considered that at 22 storeys, it exceeded the then discretionary height articulated in
the Design & Development Overlay by approximately 10 storeys. The proposal in its
current revised form has been modified to comply with the maximum 35m height
control, and would therefore now appear to satisfy the concerns that the objectors
raised with respect to height.
7.6. Traffic impacts. Objectors raised the issue of increased traffic generation on Wells
Street by the proposal. The traffic engineering report provided by the applicant’s
consultants took a liberal approach to the amount of traffic generation from the original
proposal. Council’s Traffic, Transport & Parking Unit took a more conservative
approach, however, concluded that the traffic generation is unlikely to reach the upper
limit of the vehicle capacity of Wells Street during peak times. As the revised scheme
reduces the amount of on-site car parking, the traffic generation from the proposal
would be significantly less than the previous scheme and remains supportable.
7.7. Car parking dispensation. Many objectors who raised the issue of increased traffic
generation also raised the issue of the car parking dispensation that is being sought for
the proposal. It is acknowledged that there is additional car parking pressure during the
evenings on weekdays and on weekends when car parking restrictions are no longer
applicable. Council’s Traffic, Transport & Parking Unit was supportive of the level of car
parking dispensation for the dwellings in the previous scheme, subject to the inclusion
of 2 car share spaces but not the level of dispensation associated with the convenience
restaurants. These matters are discussed in Section 8.5.
7.8. Other issues. Some objectors raised issues relating to impact on views and
overshadowing. There is substantial precedent in relation to the right to views and there
is no legal right to a view. The orientation of the subject site results in no
overshadowing to any nearby residential properties.
7.9. The revised scheme was advertised to all original objectors and all owners and
occupiers whom were originally notified of the application. No responses to the revised
scheme were received and no objections were withdrawn. However, Council is aware
that the objectors and the permit applicant have been in discussions and it appears
that, subject to a further reduction in car parking, the objectors are generally satisfied
with the revised scope of the proposal.
21

8. OFFICER’S ASSESSMENT
8.1. Strategic Issues
STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
8.1.1. State Planning Policy Framework
Policy Officer’s Assessment
Clause 15 – Built Environment
& Heritage, 21.05-4 – Urban
Design (MSS) & Clause 22.06
– Urban Design Policy for
Non-Residential Development
and Multi-Unit Residential
Development
Context: Development must
take into account the natural,
cultural and strategic context of
its location.
The design process and
consideration of height, scale
and massing of new
development should be based
on a comprehensive site
analysis.
The Public realm:
Developments should protect
and enhance main pedestrian
spaces, streets, squares, parks,
public spaces and walkways.
Landmarks, views and vistas:
Landmarks, views and vistas
should be protected and
enhanced, or where appropriate,
created by new additions to the
built environment.
Pedestrian spaces: Design of
the relationships between
buildings and footpaths and
other pedestrian spaces,
including the arrangement of
adjoining activities, entrances,
windows and architectural
decoration, should enhance the
visual and social experience of
the observer.
Heritage: New developments
should respect, but not simply
copy, historic precedents and
create a worthy legacy for future
generations.
Consolidation of sites and
empty sites: New development
should contribute to the
‘complexity’ and diversity of the
built environment.
Site consolidation should not
result in street frontages that are
out of keeping with the
‘complexity’ and ‘rhythm’ of
Achieved. The application was accompanied by an urban
context report. The subject site is located in an area
containing a diverse range of building stock with a hard
edge to the street, and is located in an area which will
undergo substantial change in the short to medium term.
The proposal represents a good model for future
development in this (largely underdeveloped) block and
provides good tower separation.
Achieved. There are no public areas proposed and, for a
development of this size, the provision of public areas
would be considered unnecessary. The public realm is
activated through the provision of ground level tenancies (a
shop and 2 cafés) and the provision of a canopy over the
footpath on Park Street and Wells Street.
Achieved. Key vistas, including to the Shrine of
Remembrance, are not hindered by the proposed
development. The proposed development is significantly
smaller than surrounding buildings, particularly to the east
of the site. There are adequate setbacks to the tower levels
to reinforce the pedestrian scale to Park Street. The lesser
setbacks to Wells Street are consistent with this street as
principally an interface for the rear of buildings fronting St
Kilda Road, and containing a much harder edge character.
Achieved. The public realm is activated through the
provision of a ground level shop to Park Street and 2 cafés
to Wells Street. There is provision of a canopy over the
footpath on both Park Street and Wells Street.
Not Applicable. There are no adjoining or nearby heritage
buildings or places.
Achieved. The subject site is on one title and is of a
sufficient size to accommodate a high density
development. The rhythm of the streetscape at ground
level is maintained through a recessed frontage that breaks
up the bulk of the façade into three main panels which
simulate the narrower lot subdivision pattern further west
on Park Street.
22

existing streetscapes.
STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
The development process
should be managed so that sites
are not in an unattractive
neglected state for excessive
periods and the impacts from
vacant sites are minimised.
Light and shade: Enjoyment of
the public realm should be
enhanced by a desirable
balance of sunlight and shade.
This balance should not be
comprised by undesirable
overshadowing or exposure to
the sun.
Energy and resource
efficiency: All buildings,
subdivision and engineering
works should promote more
efficient use of resources and
energy efficiency.
Architectural quality: New
development should aspire to
the high standards in
architecture and urban design.
Any rooftop plant, lift over-runs,
service entries, communication
devices, and other technical
attachments should be treated
as part of the overall design.
Landscape architecture:
Recognition should be given to
the setting in which buildings are
designed and the integrated role
of landscape architecture.
Fences: Front fences should be
compatible with fencing in the
surrounding area and relate to
the architectural style and use of
the building and any adjacent
open space areas.
Front and side fences are
discouraged on St Kilda Road.
Daylight and Sunlight: Allow
daylight and sunlight into open
spaces and onto windows of
main living rooms or new and
neighbouring dwellings
Achieved. Overshadowing from the development largely
falls on public areas which are already substantially
overshadowed by larger buildings to the east of the subject
site.
Partially Achieved. A Sustainability Statement was
provided with the application, and was mostly acceptable
from an energy perspective except for the lack of solar
control to the north facing windows. Due to the scaling
down of the building, a revised statement would need to be
provided and a condition of any permit would require this in
addition to solar control measures to the north facing
windows. The preference would be for pull down external
blinds or external sun shades, rather than simply relying on
high performance glazing. (Refer to Condition 1b)
Achieved. The proposed development is architecturally
interesting, uses quality materials and finishes, and has a
solid design ethos. Plant and equipment to the roof are
appropriately screened and integrated into the roof top
area.
Achieved. The subject site currently contains no
landscaping and no landscaping is proposed. An existing
street tree is proposed to be removed (and replaced with a
new tree further to the south) to allow for the construction
of a new vehicle crossover. A separate permit would be
required under Local Laws to undertake this but it is
supportable, providing the costs are borne by the
developer.
Not Applicable. There are no proposed front fences.
Achieved. The proposal is adequately set back from all
sides to allow sufficient separation from future tower
developments (including to the west). The subject site has
the benefit of three street frontages so most living and
bedroom windows would have sufficient access to daylight
and views. The nearest residential building is 20m to the
north east and daylight to existing windows and balconies
up to those on the twelfth level would not be perceivably
affected by the proposed development.
23

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
Private and Communal Open
Space: Encourage location and
design of open space areas to
take advantage of solar access,
enjoy reasonable levels of
privacy and be of sufficient size
to be useable and pleasant
spaces.
Visual and Acoustic Privacy:
Limit views into neighbouring
private open spaces and
habitable rooms and protect
residents and occupants of
existing and new buildings from
external noise and contain noise
sources in developments
Car Parking and Pedestrian
Access: Ensure streets,
footpaths and driveways provide
safe, manageable and
convenient access, pedestrian
access is safe, attractive and
convenient to use, bicycle
storage is provided adjacent to
vehicle access and vehicle
access is via an existing or new
single crossing, and loss of onstreet
parking is minimised
Loading Facilities: New
development should allow for
loading facilities which do not
cause detriment to pedestrians
or traffic
Site Facilities: New
development should provide for
the efficient management and
maintenance of developments,
and have well designed and
easily maintained site facilities
adequate for the needs of the
occupants, well lit main entries
to buildings, pedestrian areas
and car parking that do not
detract from the amenity of the
surrounds, and mailboxes to
Australia Post Standards
Clause 16 – Housing & Clause
22.09 – Housing
To locate new housing in or
close to activity centres and
employment corridors and at
other strategic redevelopment
sites that offer good access to
services and transport.
To identify strategic
redevelopment sites for large
residential development in
Metropolitan Melbourne.
Achieved. There are no communal areas other than the
entrance lobby and circulation spaces. Private open spaces
are orientated to take advantage of solar access and all
dwellings on the southern side of the tower have balconies
which extend around the west or east corners.
Achieved. The terraces and balconies are designed to
allow a certain degree of protection from views on the
upper levels. There is no overlooking within 9m to any
existing nearby residential buildings.
Partially Achieved. The pedestrian access to the lobby is
convenient, safe, attractive and easily identifiable. Each
shop or café on the ground level has its own entrance or
entrances. Vehicle access to the basement and ground
level parking areas is via a proposed crossover to Wells
Street immediately adjacent to Little Bank Street. A
condition of any permit issued would require the proposed
crossover to comply with the Vehicle Crossing Guidelines,
including the need to provide pedestrian priority. (Refer to
Condition 14)
Not Applicable. There are no proposed loading areas and
due to the size of the shop and cafés it is not considered
reasonable to require loading facilities on-site.
Loading/unloading could be undertaken on the street and
there is sufficient short term parking availability during
normal business hours to accommodate this.
Partially Achieved. The entrance, circulation, parking and
service areas are well laid out and can be easily
maintained. Vehicle access to and within the site is
acceptable, however, mirrors would need to be installed
near the ramps due to the width of the ramps being at a
minimum. This would be required by a condition on any
permit issued. (Refer to Condition 1c)
Mail boxes are accessible to Australia Post just beyond the
lobby but prior to the secured lift area. The entrance to the
building and each of the ground level tenancies has shelter
and the capacity to be lit.
Achieved. The subject site is located in an area identified
in the current MSS as an area for increased opportunities
for residential growth, and has been identified as a
‘substantial growth area’ in the proposed MSS in
Amendment C62 to the planning scheme and in the
adopted Port Phillip Housing Strategy 2007.
24

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
8.1.2. Local Planning Policy Framework
Policy Officer’s Assessment
Clause 21.05-1 – Residential
Land Use (MSS)
Protect the important heritage
and streetscape characteristics
of the established residential
areas.
Ensure a high level of amenity
for residents, including adequate
open space, privacy, sunlight
and daylight, parking and
transport options.
Achieve a constant residential
population level by
compensating for losses caused
by falling household sizes with
population growth.
Encourage the retention and
construction of larger dwellings
to cater for larger households.
Encourage design excellence for
all residential development, with
an emphasis on preserving and
enhancing the built and natural
environment of Port Phillip, and
conserving resources & energy.
Encourage a range of housing
types to suit the diverse needs
of Port Phillip’s community and
to provide reasonable access to
low-cost housing for low-income
households.
Clause 21.05-11 – Traffic &
Transport (MSS)
Increase the use of
environmentally friendly forms of
transport such as walking,
recreational and commuter
cycling, public transport and car
pools to achieve greater mobility
and safety for the community
and positive outcomes for the
environment.
Encourage the provision of
adequate parking facilities which
are convenient, safe and
sustainable.
Achieved. Development of higher density housing, close to
public transport and within areas identified for housing
growth reduces the pressure on established residential
areas (many containing heritage buildings) to
accommodate this growth.
Achieved. The proposal provides good daylight access to
living and bedroom areas within each of the dwellings and
no habitable rooms rely on borrowed light. The balconies to
the dwellings vary in size with the minimum allocation being
a 6m² balcony with a depth of 1.2m – however, most
balconies are considerably larger than this and the median
size is 9m² and therefore larger than the minimum normally
required under ResCode for buildings under 4-storeys.
There is adequate provision of relatively secluded private
open space to part of each balcony or terrace. There is
sufficient provision of car parking, consistent with the rate
of car parking for similar developments in this area.
Achieved. The proposal accommodates for some of the
population loss associated with falling household sizes,
would accommodate single professionals, couples without
children and (downsizing) elderly singles or couples. The
municipality accommodates a larger percentage of single
person households (41%) than the metropolitan average
(24%) (Source: 2006 Census).
Partially Achieved. There are no dwellings currently on
the subject site and there is no provision of larger
apartments within the development.
Achieved. The proposed development is architecturally
interesting, uses quality materials and finishes, and has a
solid design ethos. Plant and equipment to the roof are
appropriately screened and integrated into the roof top
area.
Partially Achieved. Overall, the residential towers in the
area accommodates a mix of studio, 1-bedroom, 2bedroom
and 3-bedroom dwellings. The proposed
development is designed for the middle of the market,
compared with the larger (marketed as “luxury”) apartments
found in other buildings such as the Royal Domain Tower
and The Hallmark, which targets the higher end of the
market. Dwellings without an allocated car space and of
smaller internal dimensions would be more affordable,
however, these are not social housing dwellings and would
be sold at market rates.
Achieved. The proposed development provides a
reasonable level of on-site car parking spaces without
providing an over-supply. There is a generous amount of
bicycle spaces and there are 2 scooter / motorcycle spaces
provided.
Partially Achieved. As previously discussed, the car
parking facilities are adequate, however, some convex
mirrors should be provided near the ramps to allow safer
access for vehicles.
25

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
Require all applications that will
result in an increase in car
parking requirements and
through traffic in the area, or that
will seek a dispensation in car
parking, to be accompanied by a
parking analysis prepared by a
suitably qualified consultant.
Clause 21.05-12 – Mixed Use
Areas (MSS)
New land uses are compatible
with existing nearby land uses
and that a mix of land uses coexist
without significant amenity
impacts upon residential uses
and areas.
New uses support the strategic
role of the Mixed Use zone in
providing an opportunity for
increased residential use that
supports urban consolidation
objectives and addresses issues
of population growth.
New use and development
provides adequate on site
parking and where appropriate,
loading/unloading and storage
facilities.
High quality and innovative
architecture and urban design to
create a high quality pedestrian
environment in these growth
areas.
Encourage new development to
provide options for future
flexibility and change in land
use.
Kings Way and Albert Road
Commercial and Residential
Area
Encourage the use of ground
floor frontages in Kings Way,
Park Street, Dorcas Street,
Albert Road and St Kilda Road
as convenience shops, food and
drink premises, and offices that
have a customer service area
accessible to the public such as
banks, real estate agencies and
travel agencies.
Achieved. A traffic report was provided with the application
– although this was provided to justify the previous
scheme. However, the revised scheme does not propose
any additional car parking restrictions or change the mix of
uses other than to reduce the number of dwellings and
relocate the car parking areas to basement levels.
Achieved. The proposed land uses are similar and
compatible with the nearby land uses – including shops
and convenience restaurants. The hours of operation for
the proposed uses have not been advised, however, it
would be appropriate to limit the hours of operation to 7am
to 10pm in order to alleviate sleep disturbance to the
proposed dwellings on the subject site and existing
dwellings nearby.
Achieved. The proposed uses on the ground floor provide
street level activity but the proposed building is
predominantly residential. The proposal includes 154
dwellings, increasing the amount of dwellings within this
substantial growth area and alleviating housing pressure in
established low-rise residential areas.
Achieved. Refer to Section 8.5
Achieved. The proposed development is architecturally
interesting, uses quality materials and finishes, and has a
solid design ethos. Plant and equipment to the roof are
appropriately screened and integrated into the roof top
area.
Partially Achieved. The ground level tenancies could be
used for a variety of uses in the future, subject to planning
approval if required. The floor to ceiling heights are not
overly generous but this is reasonable given the relatively
small size of these tenancies. It is likely that the tower
levels would be retained for dwellings into the long term
and for the life of the building.
Achieved. The proposal includes a small shop and a large
convenience restaurant on Park Street.
26

8.2. Design & Development Overlay
STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
Design & Development
Overlay 3
Design Objectives
To provide for medium to high
rise development in the area
zoned Business 5 to the north
east of Kings Way, and the
area zoned Mixed Use that
supports the strategic role of
these areas as a location for
office development in the
municipality, and residential
developments at a higher
density and larger scale than
in established residential areas
of the municipality.
To create a stepping down in
built form as a transition
between the high rise buildings
in St Kilda and Queens Roads,
and the residential scale of the
surrounding neighbourhood.
To minimise amenity impacts
upon Albert Park, streets and
other open space and public
places in the area as a result
of overshadowing, wind
tunnelling or visual bulk.
To enhance the role of Kings
Way as an important
commercial precinct and
gateway to the municipality
and the central city area by
improving the quality of built
form and landscaping.
To protect the setting,
appearance and significance
of heritage places by:
� Ensuring that the height
of new development on
sites adjoining a heritage
place provides a
transition between the
height of the heritage
place and any higher
surrounding buildings.
� Ensuring that frontage
setbacks of new
development
complement the frontage
setbacks of a heritage
place on the same site or
an adjoining site.
To maintain and consolidate
the landscaping as an
important and distinctive
feature of the area by requiring
consistent front and side road
boundary setbacks and high
quality landscaping.
Officer’s Assessment
Achieved. The proposal provides for a high rise
development in the Mixed Use zoned area and supports the
strategic role of this area for larger scale residential
development.
Achieved. The proposal represents a dramatic stepping
down in scale between the existing buildings fronting St Kilda
Road in DDO3-7 & DDO3-8 (60-154m in height) and this
block of buildings between Kings Way, Wells Street, Park
Street and Bank Street. The proposal is lower in height (by
11.6m) than other approved developments in this precinct
closer to Kings Way (and closer to the low rise residential
area) at 41-49 Bank Street and 50 Park Street.
Achieved. It is considered that the proposal, due to its
setbacks from Park and Wells Street, would not cause wind
tunnelling. Furthermore, the tower is well articulated to
eliminate visual bulk, and overshadowing is to Park Street
which is already substantially overshadowed by taller
buildings in the area.
Achieved. The proposal would not be visible along Kings
Way.
Not Applicable. There are no heritage properties adjoining
the subject site.
Achieved. There is a consistent zero lot setback along the
northern side of Park Street within this block and this is
maintained by the proposal.
27

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
Design & Development Overlay 3-5
Requirements
Distance from Preferred
Outcome
boundary
maximum height
Less than 5 metres 9 metres A pedestrian scale
from a road
exists at the street
boundary
frontage and amenity
impacts as a result of
overshadowing,
visual bulk or wind
tunnelling are
minimised.
5 metres or more
from a road
boundary
35 metres Building height forms
as a transition
between St Kilda
Road and Kings Way.
Proposed
See assessment below.
The tower levels are set
back 5.6m from the Park
Street boundary, are set
back between 4.2m &
5.2m from the Wells
Street boundary and
6.5m from the Little Bank
Street boundary.
Balconies and other
architectural features
project between 1.5m to
2.7m into the setbacks.
Achieved. The height of
the building does not
exceed 35m (excluding
plant).
8.2.1. Council has sought legal advice on the issue of the structures protruding within
5m from each of the road boundaries. It was confirmed that as the 9m height is
mandatory and that Council has no power to vary or waive these requirements
– even if the design objectives in the DDO are met, then no part of the building
above 9m from natural ground level can protrude within 5m from each of the
three road boundaries – Park Street, Wells Street and Little Bank Street.
8.2.2. This would impact on the revised scheme through a decrease in balcony sizes
on the north, east and south elevations, and shifting of the tower levels further
to the north (approximately 0.6m) and further to the west (approximately 1.4m –
1.8m) – or a comparable internal reduction in the tower size.
8.2.3. A condition on any permit issued must require a minimum setback of 5m from
all road boundaries of all structures above 9m in height from natural ground
level. Refer to Condition 1(a).
8.3. Urban Design
8.3.1. The application (in its original form only) was referred to Council’s Heritage &
Urban Design Advisor and the following comments were provided.
• The subject site is located on the corner of Park St and Wells St – a
precinct characterised by commercial and high rise residential
development.
• The architectural composition is proposed as a three storey podium and
a 19 storey tower above. The tower massing is then further reduced
through an inset to separate the tower into two separate forms. This
central recess separates the tower into two and allows an independent
aesthetic to each section. The architectural aesthetic is predicated upon
a hard edged modular form to the eastern tower reflecting a “city edge”
theme whilst to the western half of the tower is a more organic wave form
reflecting its orientation to the Bay;
• There is a marginal setback to levels 21 and 22 on the western façade
an attempt to create a transition in scale from Kingsway, however it
would be relatively discrete from street level;
• The massing seeks to create a transition between Park St and buildings
that front onto St Kilda Rd such as Royal Domain Apartments. The
proposed height at RL 67.8 AHD would be commensurate with the
immediate context. Royal Domain Apartments are at 158.0 AHD, St
28

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
James Apartments 107.8 AHD, Hallmark Apartments (2 Albert Rd) at
72.1 AHD, 67.9 AHD at 376 St Kilda and 48.5 AHD to the approved
(unconstructed) Aero Residential Apartments, 41 Bank St. The building
height proposed forms a transition in accordance with DDO 3-5 between
St Kilda Road and Kings Way.
• At street level the design provides activation to Wells St with retail and
café use. The Park St interface includes retail and café use coupled with
the apartment lobby.
• A clear sense of address is provided with a street canopy that protects
occupants below and then further enhanced through a triple height
space;
• The proposal offers significant benefits for the public realm and
streetscape condition introducing a higher level of activation to Wells St
and a mixed use development.
• The floor to floor dimension is proposed at 2.9m resulting in a floor to
ceiling height of 2.6m.
• The setbacks to the perimeter of the tower are far greater than the
outcome that was proposed at 52 Park St and will ensure a greater level
of protection for future amenity to apartments;
• The introduction of apartments to the podium is a major benefit for the
scheme as it provides activation to the façade where typically screening
would dominate to above ground car parking;
• The interface to Wells St would be primarily associated with the podium
which is composed of external lighting, cladding, ventilation louvres and
the position for the urban art;
• In terms of DDO 3 the following Design Objective would be met. “To
provide for medium to high rise development in the area zoned Business
5 to the north east of Kings Way, and the area zoned Mixed Use that
supports the strategic role of these areas as a location for office
development in the municipality, and residential developments at a
higher density and larger scale than in established residential areas of
the municipality.”
• Clarify if a wind study forms part of the submission given the expectation
of DDO3-5 is designed to ensure “A pedestrian scale exists at the street
frontage and amenity impacts as a result of overshadowing, visual bulk
or wind tunnelling are minimised.”
• In terms of the building program the development should aim to provide
shared community areas. eg. YVE with its pool and conference/meeting
area to the ground floor.
• In terms of the one bedroom apartment layout the glass sliding doors
and walls should in a design sense allow for views out from the bed itself
to reduce the sense of enclosure. This could be achieved through a
review of layouts, a low height slot window or use of liquid crystal
switchable glass.
8.3.2. In response to these comments, the applicant prepared a desktop wind
assessment and it concluded that wind generation at ground level as a result of
the proposed development would not exceed the recommended rates. A
reduction in the building height and compliance with similar setbacks would
obviously not result in any increased wind generation.
8.3.3. The comments in relation to daylight to bedrooms have been addressed in the
revised scheme. However, there has been no provision of communal open
space within the development. Whilst communal open space would be
29

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
desirable, the subject site is within short walking distance of abundant public
parks and other recreation opportunities. In this respect, it is likely that if
communal open space were provided, it is likely that it would be under-utilised.
8.4. Residential Amenity
8.4.1. As discussed above in Section 7.4, residential amenity impacts on surrounding
buildings are negligible given the separation is greater than 20m to the nearest
residential property (“Royal Domain Tower”). The tower of the proposed
development is set back from all sides to provide adequate tower separation to
any future developments on adjoining sites (No. 36-38 Park Street & 1-13 Bank
Street). There would be no additional shadow to private open space at the
equinox (September 22), no overlooking potential within 9m and no detrimental
loss of daylight access. There would be some loss of views from nearby
apartment buildings, but that is not something that can be considered, having
regard to the planning case law on the right to a view.
8.4.2. The applicant has not provided proposed hours of operation for the shop and
the convenience restaurants. It is noted that some of the convenience
restaurants in the building to the north generally have permission to open
between 8am and 10pm every day. In at least one case, the permitted hours of
operation are 7am to 11pm every day. It is considered that opening hours of
7am to 10pm would reasonably protect the amenity of surrounding residents,
particularly as there are no direct abuttals to residential properties (other than
on the subject site itself) and the closest dwellings are on the ninth floor of the
Royal Domain Tower – a significant vertical distance from the proposed
convenience restaurants. Furthermore, the application does not include
provision for a liquor licence for either of the convenience restaurants.
8.4.3. Whilst most of the dwellings are small at between 45-47m² internally, they are
comparable size to other approved developments in the area, and all bedrooms
are provided with direct access to daylight. It is noted that the mandatory
setback requirements result in a reduction to the size of the balconies to a
minimum (1.2m in width and a minimum of 5m² in area), in place of spaces
which were considered generous in the context of other recent approvals in the
area.
8.5. Traffic, Car Parking & Bicycle Facilities
8.5.1. An empirical assessment of parking demand has been undertaken for the
municipality and the applicable empirical rates are as follows:
Use Empirical Rate Required No. of
Spaces
Dwellings 1 per 1-2 bedroom
dwelling
Convenience
Restaurants
Provided
Spaces
Shortfall /
Credit
154 109 -45
0.3 spaces per seat 34 3 -31
Shop (

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
8.5.3. The application (in its original form) was referred to Council’s Traffic, Transport
& Parking Unit and comments were provided in relation to the traffic
movements, access arrangements and car parking shortfall. It was considered
that the parking restrictions in the area would ensure reasonable turnover to the
ground level tenancies during normal business hours, however, the
convenience restaurant uses may have adverse impacts on weekends when
the walking mode is likely to be the primary mode compared to weekdays –
particularly as the parking restrictions apply only to 8am to 6pm weekdays.
8.5.4. Whilst the shortfall for both the convenience restaurants and residential visitors
is high (at a total of 62 spaces), the overall shortfall is reduced by around 21
spaces from the previous scheme due to the reduction in the number of
dwellings. This would allow some additional flexibility for demand on on-street
parking supply. Furthermore, the area is in a Mixed Use Zone and nonresidential
activities compatible with residential uses are encouraged. It cannot
be assumed that the current car parking restrictions would remain indefinitely
as the area develops and it is entirely feasible that weekend restrictions may
apply in future. Furthermore, the existing commercial uses on the site generate
car parking demand which would no longer be utilised when the building is
demolished. This amounts to a credit of 38 spaces based on empirical rates
and the floor areas listed in Section 4.2.
8.5.5. On balance, having considered the reduced impact of the revised scheme
overall, the officer is of the view that the existing uses on the site, the amount of
internal seating associated with the convenience restaurants and the car
parking shortfall would not result in detrimental loss of on-street parking during
weekdays or weekends. For amenity related reasons, the hours of operation for
the shop and convenience restaurants should be restricted to 7am to 10pm
every day, consistent with other permits issued in the area.
8.5.6. The rate of car parking associated with the dwellings was supported by
Council’s Traffic, Transport & Parking Unit, subject to the inclusion of 2 share
car spaces. This advice was given in relation to a shortfall of 71 dwellings not
being allocated car spaces. The revised scheme proposes 45 dwellings with no
allocated on-site car spaces.
8.5.7. The City of Port Phillip Parking Policy (2007) provides an option for Council to
consider reducing the car parking rates in special circumstances. The proposal
fulfils the following conditions in this policy:
� It is in a location with access to fixed rail public transport, close to local
shopping and subject to on-street parking restrictions.
� The new residential dwellings which require the reduced rate are ‘small’
and much less than 60sqm for 1 bedroom dwellings and there is provision
for motor scooter / motorbike parking on site (2 spaces).
� Occupants of all the proposed new developments would not be entitled to
resident or visitor parking permits.
8.5.8. The applicants have not allocated any share car spaces within the development
or entered into any agreements with a car share company to provide an onstreet
space. If the development at No. 41-49 Bank Street proceeds, a Flexicar
space would be provided within 200m of the subject site and could be utilised
by residents in the proposed building. The Tribunal has generally sought to
remove Council’s requirements for on-site car share schemes from planning
conditions in the past, particularly when there are on-street car share spaces
available in the locality. Given the size of this development, the very close
proximity to a proposed on-street share car space and extended walking
distance to other on-street share car spaces (600-750m) and the commitment
by Flexicar to provide at least one space in this immediate locality, the
provision of car share spaces on or off site is not justified.
31

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
8.5.9. Council’s Traffic, Transport & Parking Unit provided the following comments in
relation to traffic generation:
For residential trip generation, the usual 3-5 vehicle trips per dwellings are
usually implemented. Note that the car parking provision are much less than
those dwelling number, the trip generation are determined by the 194 car
spaces proposed. The trips generally varies between 582-970veh per day.
General AM/PM trip equates to 10-12% of the total daily trip, which varies
between 59-117veh/day. Existing traffic volume in Well Street is in the order
of 500-600veh/day during peak flow. This number may be considered at the
upper limit for a local road capacity. However with looking at the feasibility of
the site be supported by public transport, and the limit in parking the standard
trip generation may not be applicable in a conservative examination of the
proposal. Most importantly the flow is directed from Wells Street and the
direct impact to street network such as Park Street is reduced. Given the
condition of Park Street during AM and PM peak, there are more desirable
alternative routes for traffic exiting onto Wells Street whether their direction
are inbound or outbound.
8.5.10. It is considered that the revised proposal would vary between 339-565 vehicle
movements per day. It is worth noting that the upper end of these figures is
now less than the lower end of the figures associated with the original scheme.
On this basis, the proposed traffic flows in the revised scheme are considered
manageable.
8.5.11. Council’s Traffic, Transport & Parking Unit also considered the vehicle
movements within the site in the original proposal and recommended the
placement of convex mirrors given the ramp access dimensions are at the
minimum. This would be required by a condition on any permit issued – refer to
Condition 1(c). There is no perceivable difference between the car parking
layouts in the original and revised schemes, except that in the revised scheme
car parking is provided in two levels of basement (instead of at upper levels).
8.5.12. A total of 54 bicycle spaces are required, including 31 spaces for residents, 15
spaces for residential visitors, 6 spaces for convenience restaurant employees
and 2 spaces for convenient restaurant customers. A total of 254 spaces are
provided within the basement and ground levels. Seventeen of these spaces
would need to be easily accessible to visitors to the dwellings and assigned for
their use within the ground level car parking area. It would also be practical to
provide an allocation of at least 6 spaces within the ground level for ground
level tenancy employees. In lieu of providing 2 customer spaces for the
convenience restaurants within the ground level, which would be difficult to
access for security reasons, two bicycle spaces (in a single bike loop) should
be provided on the Wells Street footpath. This would be reflected as a condition
on any permit issued – refer to Condition 23.
8.5.13. As the bicycle spaces required for the convenience restaurants is greater than
5, one shower and changing facility is required. This has been provided and is
accessible from the larger convenience restaurant.
8.6. Sustainable Design
8.6.1. The application, including the provided Sustainability Statement was referred to
Council’s Sustainable Design Officer for comments. The content of the
statement was not considered to yet be of a standard which could be approved.
Among the criticisms was the need to increase water efficiency and re-use,
provision of external shading devices to north facing windows, and use of better
environmental performance materials. In any case, the proposal has been
substantially scaled down from the original and a new Sustainability Statement
would need to be prepared. A condition of any permit issued would require the
submission of a Sustainable Design Statement – refer to Condition 5.
32

8.7. Strategic Planning
STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
8.7.1. The application was referred to Council’s Strategic Planners for comments in
relation to the proposed height and setbacks. The proposal was generally
supported, subject to a reduction to the 22-storey height by 2-3 storeys in order
to provide a transition in height from St Kilda Road to Kings Way. The revised
scheme is reduced by 10 storeys and therefore would be consistent with this
advice.
8.8. Other Issues
8.8.1. Urban Art
In the original scheme, the applicant proposed to incorporate urban art in the
form of animated lighting to the podium level facing Wells Street.
The application was referred to Council’s Urban Art Officer, who provided the
following comments:
I advised the applicant that their proposal needed to more prominently
address the streetscape rather than simply being visible from the street. I
indicated that the lighting component originally indicated was problematic for
[amenity reasons] but also because it is probably more desirable that the
urban art at this site activate the streetscape at street level during daylight
hours. In looking at the plans it was clear that some good opportunities to do
this exist in the lower level glass exterior above the entrance, and in adjacent
areas at ground level (including potentially the narrow strip of paving in front
of the entrance). Everyone seemed satisfied that this was a better way to go
than the original proposal, which was not highly visible from the street.
In the revised scheme, the podium levels have been reduced in height by 3m
and form a frame to the upper level terraces rather than as walls to the car
parking levels. The ground level remains relatively similar to the previous
scheme and the comments from Council’s Urban Art Officer can be taken on
board. Conditions of any permit issued would require the location of urban art
to be nominated on the plans, detailed drawings to be submitted and for the
urban art contribution to be at least 0.5% of the overall cost of the development.
(Refer to Conditions 1d and 11)
8.8.2. Waste Management
The application, in its original form, was referred to Council’s Waste
Management Co-ordinator and Council’s Traffic, Transport & Parking Unit.
Subject to some minor changes to the Waste Management Plan, they were
satisfied with the plan. The revised WMP was provided on 17 January 2011.
Obviously, the reduction in the number of dwellings would result in a reduction
in bin numbers and the WMP would need to be revised again and this will be
required by condition on any permit issued. Refer to Condition 6.
8.8.3. Council Assets
Vehicle crossover. The application was referred to Council’s Development
Engineer, who was satisfied with the location of the proposed vehicle crossover
subject to conditions relating to compliance with the Vehicle Crossing
Guidelines and improved stormwater treatment. These conditions would be
included on any permit issued – refer to Conditions 8, 9 & 14.
Street Trees. There is one affected street tree on Wells Street which would
need to be removed to make way for the vehicle crossover. Council’s Street
Tree Co-ordinator was comfortable with the removal of the street tree, although
he stressed that the tree shouldn’t be relocated – instead a new tree should be
planted in a suitable location south of the proposed crossover. He also
recommended that a grass nature strip be planted along the road reserve
(adjacent to the kerb) and tree protection measures be utilised during
construction to safeguard the existing street trees, which are all in good health.
33

9. COVENANTS
STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
These requirements would be reflected as conditions on any permit issued.
Refer to Conditions 12 & 13.
8.8.4. Construction Management
Due to the size of the development and the potential conflicts (e.g. traffic and
pedestrian safety, noise, etc) which may occur within and surrounding the site
during demolition and construction, it is considered prudent for a construction
management plan (CMP) to be prepared to Council’s satisfaction in addition to
the requirements under the Building Regulations and Local Laws. The CMP will
be required by condition on any permit issued.
9.1. The applicant has completed a restrictive covenant declaration form declaring that
there is no restrictive covenant on the title for the subject site known as Crown
Allotments 19, 20 & 21 Section 99 City of South Melbourne Parish of Melbourne South
[parent titles Volumes 3776 Folio 32 & Volume 8677 Folio 292].
10. OFFICER DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST
10.1. No officers involved in the preparation of this report have any direct or indirect interest
in the matter
11. OPTIONS
11.1. Approve as recommended
11.2. Approve with changed or additional conditions
11.3. Refuse - on key issues
12. CONCLUSION
12.1. The subject site is located within an area designated for increased residential
development.
12.2. The overall height of the proposed building does not exceed the mandatory height in
the Design & Development Overlay of 35m. However, in considering the legal advice
that was sought in relation to the setbacks from the road boundaries, it is concluded
that there are structures (including walls, balconies and other features) which are
prohibited by the provisions of the DDO. On this basis, a condition is required to
increase the setbacks from each road boundary to a minimum of 5m. Refer to
Condition 1(a).
12.3. The proposal is considered to represent design excellence, would activate the street
frontage to both Park and Wells Streets, and provide visual interest and surveillance to
the public realm. Furthermore, a contribution to urban art is applicable and can be
provided within the ground level of the building.
12.4. The mixed use development is highly consistent with the surrounding mixed
commercial and residential area and would not cause detrimental amenity impacts to
surrounding residential buildings.
12.5. The level of car parking dispensation is considered appropriate and a reduced rate,
given the location of the subject site and the facilities provided on site, is considered
acceptable. This would apply to the further reduction to 0.55 spaces per 1 bedroom
dwelling foreshadowed by the applicants.
12.6. Sustainable design initiatives were forthcoming but are still not up to an acceptable
standard for the original scheme. Conditions on any permit issued would require a
revised Sustainable Design Statement to be submitted.
12.7. Overall, it is considered that the proposal is worthy of support, subject to conditions,
having regard to all the matters for consideration under Clause 65 of the Port Phillip
Planning Scheme and Section 60 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987.
34

13. RECOMMENDATIONS
STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
Recommendation A – Notice of Decision
13.1. That the Responsible Authority, having caused the application to be advertised and
having received and noted the objections, advise the Victorian Civil and Administrative
Tribunal (VCAT) that had the application been decided in the Statutory timeframe of the
Planning and Environment Act 1987, it would have determined to issue a Notice of
Decision to Grant a Planning Permit.
13.2. That the Responsible Authority advise VCAT that a Notice of Decision to Grant a
Planning Permit would have been issued for the use and development of the site for
convenience restaurants, shops, and dwellings in a 12 storey building with basement
levels, associated car parking reduction, and waiving of the loading bay requirements at
200-204 Wells Street, South Melbourne.
13.3. That the decision be issued as follows:
1. Amended Plans required
Before the use and/or development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible
Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the
permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be
provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the amended plans
substituted at the Tribunal dated 14/02/2011 drawn by Artisan Architects and numbered
TP01 Rev A, TP02 Rev A, TP03 Rev A, TP04 Rev A, TP05 Rev A, TP06 Rev A, TP07
Rev A, TP08 Rev A, TP09 Rev A, TP10 Rev A and TP11 Rev A but modified to show:
a) All walls, balconies or architectural features above 9m from natural ground level to
be set back a minimum of 5m from any road boundary (including Little Bank
Street).
b) Solar control measures to all north facing windows.
c) Convex mirrors installed to the entrance/exit to each ramp within the car parking
areas.
d) The incorporation of Urban Art in the development, in accordance with Council’s
Urban Art Strategy, viewable from the Wells Street frontage/public realm.
e) Modifications necessary to comply with Condition 17 (DDA Access) and any
additional requirements under the Premises Standards (2011) applicable from 1
May 2011.
f) Provision of 6m³ of storage to each dwelling.
g) A full schedule of materials, finishes and paint colours, including colour samples
(colour samples in a form that is able to be endorsed and held on file)
2. No Alterations
The development and the layout of the uses as shown on the endorsed plans must not
be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. Satisfactory continuation
Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. No change to external finishes
All external materials, finishes and colours as shown on the endorsed plans must not
be altered without the written consent of the responsible authority.
35

5. Sustainable Design Statement
STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
Before the development commences a Sustainable Design Statement that outlines
proposed sustainable design initiatives must be submitted to and approved by the
Responsible Authority. Upon approval the statement will be endorsed as part of the
planning permit and the project must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives
listed.
6. Waste Management Plan for Higher Density Residential Development.
Prior to the commencement of the development, a Waste Management Plan based on
the draft “Best Practice Guidelines for Kerbside Recycling at Multi-Occupancy
Residential Developments (Sustainability Victoria June 2006) must be prepared by a
Waste Management Engineer or Waste Management Planner to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority and endorsed as part of this permit. The Plan must include
reference to the following:
• The estimated garbage and recycling generation volumes for the whole
development.
• The garbage and recycling equipment to be used and the collection service
requirements, including the frequency of collection.
• The location of, proximity, screening of and space allocated both to the
garbage and recycling storage areas and collection points.
• The path of access for both users and collection vehicles.
• How noise, odour and litter will be managed and minimised.
• Approved facilities for washing bins and storage areas.
• Who is responsible for each stage of the waste management process.
• How tenants and residents will be regularly informed of the waste management
arrangements.
The owner and occupier of the site must ensure that the endorsed Waste Management
Plan is complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7. Construction Management Plan
Prior to the commencement of the development allowed by this permit, a construction
management plan must be prepared, including a works program, with the objective of
minimising the impact of construction works on the nearby residential properties to the
satisfaction of the responsible authority. The plan must specify the means of reducing
the construction impact (at the cost of the applicant) of dust and noise on the nearby
properties, and must provide that hours of work be in accordance with any relevant
Local Law.
Stormwater Drainage (Conditions 8-9)
8. Prior to the commencement of the development, a stormwater drawing showing the
method of stormwater treatment and discharge to the nominated point must be
prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The drawing must be
prepared by a qualified person, show all details of the proposed stormwater to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
9. The development of the site must be provided with stormwater drainage to improve
stormwater runoff quality and retain on site the increase in stormwater runoff as a result
of the approved development. The use of a suitably sized rainwater tank connected for
toilet re-use will meet this requirement.
10. Number of Dwellings
Without the written consent of the Responsible Authority, no more than 154 dwellings
may be constructed on the land.
36

11. Value of Urban Art
STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
The value of the urban art required by Condition 1(d) must be at least 0.5% of the total
building cost of the development to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The
urban art must be completed prior to the occupation of the development.
12. Tree protection during construction
Prior to the commencement of the development (including demolition), tree protection
measures should be incorporated to preserve the tree trunk and canopy of street trees
adjacent to the site on Park Street and Wells Street to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority. These areas are defined as ‘Tree Protection Zones’. Fences
must be constructed from Temporary fence panels to prevent intrusion into the tree
protection zone to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The tree protection
fence must remain in place until construction is completed.
13. Street tree replacement
The existing street tree proposed to be removed on Wells Street must be replaced by a
tree, the species, maturity and location of which must be to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority. The new tree must be planted and maintained for a period of 12
months to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority at no expense to the Council.
14. Vehicle crossings
Vehicle crossings must be constructed in accordance with Council’s current Vehicle
Crossing Guidelines and standard drawings. All redundant crossings must be removed
and the footpath, nature strip, kerb and road reinstated prior to the completion of the
development to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority
15. Car Parking Areas
Before the use of the development starts, the area(s) set aside for the parking of
vehicles and bicycles, and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be
constructed, line marked to indicate each car space and access lane, and clearly
marked to show the direction of traffic along access land and driveways, all to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
16. Walls on or facing the boundary
Prior to the occupation of the building(s) allowed by this permit, all new or extended
walls on or facing the boundary of adjoining properties and/or the laneway must be
cleaned and finished to a uniform standard. Unpainted or unrendered masonry walls
must have all excess mortar removed from the joints and face and all joints must be
tooled or pointed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Painted or rendered or
bagged walls must be finished to a uniform standard to the satisfaction of the
responsible authority.
17. DDA Access
The public access to the building (including to the entrance lobby, shop and
convenience restaurants) must be designed and constructed to provide convenient
access to all people to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
18. Mechanical exhaust
The kitchen(s) mechanical exhaust system must be constructed in accordance with the
Australian Standard number 1668 and/or to the satisfaction of the Regulatory Authority.
19. SEPP N-1
All air conditioning and refrigeration plant must be screened and baffled and/or
insulated to minimize noise and vibration to other residences to ensure compliance with
noise limits determined in accordance with State Environment Protection Policy
(Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No.N-1.
37

20. Piping and ducting
STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
All piping and ducting (excluding down pipes, guttering and rainwater heads) must be
concealed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
21. No equipment or services
Any plant, equipment or domestic services visible from a street (other than a lane) or
public park must be located and visually screened to the satisfaction of the responsible
authority.
22. Car Parking & Storage Allocation
Without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority, the car parking
allocation for this development must be:
� not less than 0.65 car spaces for each one bedroom dwelling;
� not less than one (1) car space for each two bedroom dwelling;
� not less than four (4) spaces for the ground level tenancies;
� each dwelling must be allocated 6m³ of storage.
23. Provision of bike rack on the pavement
Before the use commences one (1) circular stainless steel bike rack must be installed
at the developer's cost on the adjacent footpath on Wells Street to the satisfaction of
the Responsible Authority. Once the rack has been installed it will become a Council
asset and the developer will have no further ongoing obligations or responsibilities.
Prior to the installation the location of the bike rack must be approved by Council's
Traffic Engineer and two copies of a street layout plan must be submitted indicating the
agreed location of the bike rack to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
24. Storage of goods
No goods are permitted to be stored or left exposed outside the building so as to be
visible from any public area.
25. Lighting baffled
All lighting of external areas must be suitably baffled so as not to cause nuisance or
annoyance to nearby residential properties.
26. Amenity
The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected by the development through
the:
a) Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land
b) Appearance of any building, works or materials
c) Emissions of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, steam, soot,
ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil;
d) Presence of vermin;
e) Change to television and/or radio reception
f) In any other way
27. Hours of operation
Without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority, the ground level
convenience restaurants may operate only between the hours of 7am and 10pm
Monday to Sunday.
28. Number of seats
Without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority, no more than 115
seats may be provided in total within the convenience restaurants.
38

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
Director of Public Transport Conditions (29 to 33)
29. Before the use of the land commences, a Green Travel Plan must be prepared to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority following consultation with the Department of
Transport (Public Transport Division). The Plan must be prepared by a suitably
qualified person and must encourage the use of non-private vehicle transport modes by
the occupiers of the land. The Plan must include the following:
a) A description of the location in the context of alternate modes of transport and
objectives for the Green Travel Plan;
b) Outline Green Travel Plan measures for the development including, but not limited
to:
i. Household welcome packs – tram, train and bus timetables relevant to the
local area must be included in the pack of information provided to purchasers
upon a purchaser’s occupation of an apartment;
ii. Include a minimum of 10 by 2 hour metcard (zone one) within the household
welcome pack or a myki rail pass (of equivalent value) and registration
information;
iii. Bicycle parking and facilities available on the land
iv. Monitoring & review; and
c) A plan showing the bicycle parking areas to be provided for use by residents;
30. The Green Travel Plan must not be amended without written consent of the
Responsible Authority following consultation with the Department of Transport (Public
Transport Division).
31. Once approved the Green Travel Plan must form part of the planning permit and any
ongoing Management Plan for the land to ensure the Green Travel Plan continues to
be implemented by residents / owners to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
32. The permit holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure that disruption to tram
operation along Wells Street is kept to a minimum during the construction of the
development. Foreseen disruptions to tram operations during construction and
mitigation measures must be communicated to Metro and the Director of Public
Transport fourteen days (14) prior.
33. The permit holder must ensure that all track, tram and overhead infrastructure is not
damaged. Any damage to public transport infrastructure must be rectified to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Transport at the full cost to the permit holder
34. Time for starting and completion
This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
a) The development is not started within two (2) years of the date of this permit.
b) The development is not completed within two (2) years of the date of
commencement of works.
c) The use is not commenced within two (2) years.
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in
writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.
Notations
Building Approval Required
This permit does not authorise the commencement of any building construction works. Before any
such development may commence, the applicant must apply for and obtain the appropriate building
approval under the Building Code Australia.
39

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
20 APRIL 2011
Building Works to Accord With Planning Permit
The applicant/owner will provide a copy of this planning permit to any appointed Building Surveyor. It
is the responsibility of the applicant/owner and Building Surveyor to ensure that all building
development works approved by any building permit is consistent with this planning permit.
Due Care
The developer must show due care in the development of the proposed extensions so as to ensure
that no damage is incurred to any adjoining building and property.
Days and Hours of Construction Works
Except in the case of an emergency, a builder must not carry out building works outside the following
times, without first obtaining a permit from Council’s Local Laws Section:
- Monday to Friday: 7.00am to 6.00pm; or
- Saturdays: 9.00am to 3.00pm.
An after hours building works permit cannot be granted for an appointed public holiday under the
Public Holidays Act, 1993.
Drainage Point and Method of Discharge
The legal point of stormwater discharge for the proposal must be to the satisfaction of the responsible
authority. Engineering construction plans for the satisfactory drainage and discharge of stormwater
from the site must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority prior to the
commencement of any buildings or works.
Permit required for signs
This permit relates only to the use and development of the land and does not comprise an approval for
the erection of any advertising signs. The location and details of any advertising signs to be erected on
the land and not exempt pursuant to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme, must be the subject of a
separate planning permit application.
Laneways to be kept clear
During the construction of the buildings and works allowed by this permit, the laneway(s) adjacent to
the subject land (including Little Bank Street) must be kept free of parked or standing vehicles or any
other obstruction, including building materials, equipment etc. so as to maintain free vehicular passage
to abutting benefiting properties at all times, unless with the written consent of the Responsible
Authority.
Outdoor Seating Area Requirement
Any outdoor seating outside the Title boundary and associated with the premises is required to comply
with any permit issued by Council's Local Laws section.
Environmental Health
The premises must comply with the Food Act 1984 and the Food Standards Code and must be
registered with Council’s Health Department prior to use.
Street Trees
If tree health and structure of the Ulmus procera (English Elm) trees near the corner of Park and Wells
Streets are compromised the developer will be required to pay the sum of $3,455.50 per tree.
No resident or visitor parking permits
The owners and occupiers of the development allowed by this permit will not be eligible for Council
resident or visitor parking permits.
Recommendation B – Parking Consent
13.4. That the Responsible Authority consent to the provision of no less than 3 car spaces to
the convenience restaurant (café) uses in the proposed development at 200-204 Wells
Street, South Melbourne.
Recommendation C – Further Reduction in Parking
13.5. That the Responsible Authority consent to a further reduction to 0.55 spaces per onebedroom
dwelling in the proposed development at 200-204 Wells Street, South
Melbourne.
40