panel report - portphillip.vic.gov.au · web viewthe long-term proposal to discourage freight...

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report

Port Phillip Planning Scheme

Amendment C103

Bay Street Structure Plan implementation

6 June 2014

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act

Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103

Bay Street Structure Plan implementation

Lester Townsend, Chair Ross Ramus, Member

Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103 Panel Report 6 June 2014

ContentsPage

Executive Summary.............................................................................................................1

1 Introduction...............................................................................................................3

2 The Proposal..............................................................................................................42.1 The subject site and surrounds...............................................................................42.2 Background to the Amendment.............................................................................52.3 The Amendment.....................................................................................................5

3 Identification of Issues.............................................................................................103.1 Summary of issues raised in submissions.............................................................103.2 Issues dealt with in this Report.............................................................................11

4 Strategic justification................................................................................................124.1 The Issue...............................................................................................................124.2 Evidence and submissions....................................................................................124.3 Discussion.............................................................................................................124.4 Conclusion............................................................................................................12

5 Activity Centre boundary issues................................................................................135.1 Changes to planning controls outside of Activity Centre......................................135.2 Eastern and western boundaries of the Activity Centre.......................................145.3 Proposed rezoning of 316-342 Bay Street (and 55 Lyons Street) from a

Residential 1 Zone to a Commercial 1 Zone..........................................................145.4 Proposed rezoning of 374-420 Bay Street from a Residential 1 Zone to a

Mixed Use Zone....................................................................................................155.5 Land use conflicts at rear of Bay Street shopping strip in Heath Street................16

6 Strategic sites...........................................................................................................186.1 Corner of Bay and Liardet Streets (Coles supermarket)........................................186.2 40 Bay Street (Naval Drill Hall and Former Post Office – ‘Circus Oz’ site).............196.3 160-162 Bay Street (Church and Manse buildings)...............................................206.4 Better protection of residential amenity..............................................................21

7 Built form issues.......................................................................................................237.1 General concerns over impacts of new development..........................................237.2 Proposed rear-of-strip development in Lalor and Heath Street...........................247.3 Opportunity Precinct 3: Town Hall Business Precinct...........................................267.4 Site specific - 7-33 Bay Street (Office of Housing development identified

as an opportunity site)..........................................................................................277.5 Site specific – Protection of views of the Port Melbourne Town Hall...................28

8 Revised Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 1 (DDO1)................................298.1 Apparent removal of DDO1 from Beach Street....................................................298.2 Removal of ‘Key views’ Design Objective from DDO1..........................................298.3 Post exhibition changes........................................................................................318.4 Proposed deletion of ‘Preferred maximum heights’ in DDO1..............................32


8.5 Precinct extension north-west along Rouse Street to include 286 Rouse Street....................................................................................................................33

8.6 Revised DDO1 – site specific boundary issue (241 - 247 Graham Street).............34

9 Proposed Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 25 (DDO25).........................359.1 Precinct issue – built form controls proposed in Design and

Development Overlay - Schedule 25 (DDO25)......................................................35

10 Other issues.............................................................................................................4010.1 Heritage................................................................................................................4010.2 Traffic....................................................................................................................4010.3 Established residential precincts..........................................................................4110.4 Site specific: inclusion of 190 Graham Street in Residential Precinct 3:

Graham Street (north)..........................................................................................4210.5 Residential Precinct 4: Princes and Stokes Street.................................................43

11 Non-submitter changes to the Amendment..............................................................44

Appendix A List of Submitters

Appendix B Panel version

List of TablesPage

Table 1 Amendment Summary........................................................................................... iv

Table 2 Panel Process......................................................................................................... iv

List of FiguresPage

Figure 1: Extent of Structure Plan..........................................................................................4


List of Abbreviations

BSMAC Bay Street Major Activity Centre

CAD Central Activities District

DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment

DTPLI Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure

EPA Environment Protection Authority

EVC Ecological Vegetation Class

GAA Growth Areas Authority

GWMP Green Wedge Management Plan

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

MAC Major Activity Centre

MMBW Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works

MPA Melbourne Planning Authority

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

NAC Neighbourhood Activity Centre

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

UGB Urban Growth Boundary

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions


Amendment SummaryTable 1 Amendment Summary

The Amendment Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103

Purpose of Amendment The purpose of the Amendment is to implement the planning scheme changes recommended in the draft Bay Street Major Activity Centre Structure Plan

Planning Authority This Amendment has been prepared by the City of Port Phillip, which is the planning authority for this Amendment

Authorisation Authorisation was initially provided on 18 April 2013 (Authorisation number AO2517)Council revised the Amendment following the introduction of the new commercial zones. A revised authorisation was provided on 24 July 2013 (under the original authorisation number of AO2517)

Exhibition Public exhibition of Amendment C103 occurred for a one month period commencing 5 September 2013, with submissions closing on 7 October 2013

Panel ProcessTable 2 Panel Process

The Panel Lester Townsend (Chair) and Ross Ramus

Directions Hearing 1 April 2014 at Planning Panels Victoria

Panel Hearing 2 May 2014 at Planning Panels Victoria

Site Inspections Various unaccompanied site inspections were made.

Appearances Port Phillip City Council represented by Nic Drent 35, 37-53, 67, 75 and 83 Crockford Street represented by

Marjorie Kennedy, SJB Planning Port Melbourne Historical and Preservation Society represented

by Janet Bolitho Barbara Mullen Jill Maddox Owners Corporation Committee of 190 Graham Street

represented by Daniel Vosti

Submissions A total of fifty-five submissions to the Structure Plan and Amendment C103 were made to Council

Date of this Report 6 June 2014


Executive SummaryAmendment C103 seeks to introduce planning controls and update existing controls for the Bay Street, Port Melbourne Major Activity Centre, based generally on the (draft) Bay Street Major Activity Centre Structure Plan (2013) which has been prepared by Council.

Council has adopted a strategic approach towards the planning of its activity centres and surrounding areas, and has undertaken considerable strategic work to establish a sound framework for future growth and development of the Bay Street, Port Melbourne Activity Centre.

The changes proposed by Amendment C103 will assist in achieving Council’s vision for the Bay Street Activity Centre (and maintain the currency of scheme provisions) through:

Revisions to the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and the introduction of a new local planning policy, to implement the strategic directions and broader objectives and strategies of the draft Structure Plan. The new local policy will guide decision making in relation to new land use and development proposals.

Rezoning four precincts to give effect to key land use strategies, including providing for the renewal of residual industrial land along Crockford Street and improving land use connections and activity clusters along Bay Street.

Revising the existing development and heritage controls applying south of Graham Street, to provide greater clarity on future development potential. This includes implementing a review of the existing Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 1 (DDO1) and of the existing Heritage Overlay (HO1 – Port Melbourne).

Introducing built form controls to guide future development of residual industrial land along Crockford Street precinct.

Introducing ‘Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statements’ to guide future development within established residential precincts.

Council’s submission has addressed the Strategic Assessment Guidelines and demonstrated how Amendment C103 provides an appropriate statutory framework to implement the Structure Plan. The Amendment is consistent with and implements both the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks. The (draft) Bay Street Major Activity Centre Structure Plan (2013) provides a clear strategic justification for Amendment C103.

While fifty-five submissions were received to the Structure Plan and Amendment, the limited number of objecting submissions that specifically relate to the detail and content of Amendment C103 suggests that the Amendment is an appropriate statutory framework.

Council has given detailed consideration to all submissions, and a series of changes to the Structure Plan and Amendment in response to submissions is recommended (including a number of necessary ‘non-submitter’ changes). This report draws heavily on Council’s detailed response.

For the reasons outlined in this report, the Panel recommends that Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103 be adopted, as exhibited, subject to the following changes:1. Amend Table 1 in Clause 22.12-03 to change the wording of the ‘Desired Future

Outcome’ for the corner of Bay and Liardet Streets to include:

Page 1 of 51


a) the retention of the existing car parking provision, andb) the provision of additional car parking to cater for new floor-space relevant to

the proposed land use.2. Amend Table 1 in Clause 22.12-03 to change to the wording of the ‘Desired Future

Outcome’ for 40 Bay Street to include:a) Potential land uses could include cafe/restaurant, education or community

purposes.3. Modify existing policy at Clause 22.06 to read:

a) Encourage new development to maintain and enhance important views and vistas in the municipality including, but not limited to:• along St Kilda Road, particularly towards the Shrine of Remembrance • the Shrine Vista • from the foreshore and the Bay towards the Melbourne CAD skyline • from Station Pier and other piers towards the Melbourne CAD skyline.

4. Amend the proposed Schedule 1 to the Design and Development Overlay by deleting:a) ‘Design objectives’ relating to amenity protection (overshadowing, height and

setbacks)b) ‘Buildings and Works’ requirement under the heading ‘Interfaces with

residential properties adjacent to the growth area’.5. Change the proposed DDO1 boundary to exclude 241-247 Graham Street.6. Change the ‘Preferred Character Statement’ for Residential Precinct 4: Princes and

Stokes Streets (in the Design Manual) to include 241-247 Graham Street.7. Amend DDO25 as set out in Appendix B.8. Modify the Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statement for Precinct 3 as

proposed in the Port Phillip Design Manual to specify a preferred building height for Graham Street of three storeys.

9. Modify the Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statement for Precinct 4 as proposed in the Port Phillip Design Manual to specify a preferred building height for Graham Street of three storeys.

10. Refine the expression in the Amendment based on the post exhibition changes agreed by Council at its meeting of 25 February 2014 except where the Panel has made an explicit recommendation to the contrary.

11. Apply the Neighbourhood Residential Zone to 124-136 Heath Street.12. Correct references to non contributory properties Preferred Neighbourhood

Character Statements in the Port Phillip Design Manual.13. Correct errors relating the relative development capacity of the northern and

southern sides of Garton Street.

Page 2 of 51


1 IntroductionPort Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103 (the Amendment) was prepared by the Port Phillip Council as Planning Authority. As exhibited, the Amendment proposes to implement the planning scheme changes recommended in the draft Bay Street Major Activity Centre Structure Plan (the ‘Structure Plan’).

The Amendment applies to land identified as the Bay Street, Port Melbourne Major Activity Centre (the ‘Activity Centre’) and surrounding residential precincts, being the area generally bound by Boundary, Pickles, Beach, Princes Streets and the light rail reserve along Evans Street, Port Melbourne.

The Amendment was authorised by the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI) on 24 July 2013.

The Amendment was placed on public exhibition between 5 September 2013 and 7 October 2013, with 55 submissions received as follows:

Two submissions gave unqualified support Eight submissions stated overall support but also identified specific issues or offered

comments. Forty-three submissions raised concerns based on specific issues. Two submissions did not support the draft Structure Plan overall.

At its meeting of 25 February 2014, Council resolved to refer all submissions to a Panel. As a result, a Panel to consider the Amendment was appointed under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 12 March 2014 and comprised Lester Townsend (Chair) and Ross Ramus.

A Directions Hearing was held in relation to the Amendment on 1 April 2014. Following the Directions Hearing, the Panel undertook an inspection of the subject site and its surrounds.

The Panel then met in the offices of Planning Panels Victoria on 2 May 2014 to hear submissions in respect of the Amendment. Those in attendance at the Panel Hearing are listed in Table 1.

In reaching its conclusions and recommendations, the Panel has read and considered the submissions and a range of other material referred to it. This includes written submissions, evidence and verbal presentations. The following chapters of this report discuss the issues raised in submission relating to the Amendment in further detail, with the Panel’s conclusions and recommendation provided in Chapter 4.

Page 3 of 51


2 The Proposal2.1 The subject site and surroundsBay Street, Port Melbourne is identified as a ‘Major Activity Centre’ under State Planning Policy. Preparing a structure plan is a key response to this policy and directions in the LPPF, and provides an integrated framework for guiding change and development through planning controls.

Figure 1: Extent of Structure Plan

Page 4 of 51


2.2 Background to the AmendmentThe Bay Street Major Activity Centre (BSMAC) has undergone a substantial transformation as a result of significant residential growth over the last 15 years. The ‘mixed use’ precinct south of Graham Street has transitioned from a low-rise industrial area to an area of medium-rise residential apartments. 2,060 dwellings have been constructed in this area over this period (with a further 600 approved since 2006). The majority of major development opportunities have now been realised.

The structure plan provides a strategic context and framework for delivering public realm improvements, traffic management, and provision of community services to support the integration of the centre in order to strengthen its activity mix, place identity, accessibility and sense of community.

2.3 The Amendment

2.3.1 The exhibited AmendmentAmendment C103 proposes to make the following specific changes to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme:

Local Policy

1. Modifies Clause 21.06 – Neighbourhoods of the Municipal Strategic Statement to reflect the vision and strategic directions of the Bay Street Activity Centre Structure Plan (2013) and makes minor consequential changes to Clause 21.04.

2. Introduces a new local planning policy at Clause 22.12 - Bay Street Major Activity Centre of the Local Planning Policy Framework to reflect the intent of the Bay Street Activity Centre Structure Plan (2013).

Zone controls

3. Rezones land at 35 – 83 Crockford Street from an Industrial 3 Zone to a Mixed Use Zone to facilitate renewal of the precinct and provide opportunities for new housing and commercial development within the BSMAC.

4. Rezones land at 316 - 342 Bay Street and 55 Lyons Street from a Residential 1 Zone to a Commercial 1 Zone to support an office-based business services land use niche and facilitate an improved north – south active land use connection at the northern end of Bay Street.

5. Rezones land at 374 - 420 Bay Street from a Residential 1 Zone to a Mixed Use Zone, to act as a transitional precinct and facilitate commercial and residential development.

6. Rezones land at 124 - 136 Heath Street from a Commercial 1 Zone to a Residential 1 Zone, to redress a Business 1 Zone boundary anomaly and ensure that the amenity of residential properties is not detrimentally affected by commercial development.

7. Amends the Schedule to Clause 52.28-4 – Gaming to prohibit installation or use of gaming machines on land at 316 – 348 Bay Street (even numbers) and 55 Lyons Street, Port Melbourne.

Page 5 of 51


8. Applies an Environmental Audit Overlay to land at 35 – 83 and 86 Crockford Street, Port Melbourne to ensure that potentially contaminated land is suitable to be used for sensitive uses.

Built form controls

9. Inserts a new schedule, Schedule 25 to Clause 43.02 - Design and Development Overlay to guide renewal of Opportunity Precinct 1 - Crockford Street Precinct. The new schedule will guide the form of new development on land at 35 – 83 Crockford Street, Port Melbourne.

10. Inserts a revised Schedule 1 to Clause 43.02 - Design and Development Overlay (DDO1) to implement the recommendations of the Port Phillip DDO1 Review (2010). This includes simplifying the Schedule and providing clearer controls, implementing new and revised design objectives and development requirements, clarifying intended outcomes in relation to neighbourhood character and heritage, and removing the overlay from identified areas.

11. Removes the Design and Development Overlay 1 (DDO1) from land in the Residential 1 Zone in Stokes and Princes Streets (south of Graham Street), Dow and Graham Streets and Esplanade West, and Beaconsfield Parade and Pickles Streets, to protect the heritage and character of fine grain and low scale residential areas adjacent to the activity centre.

12. Introduces a revised ‘Design Objective’ and an additional ‘Buildings and Works Requirement’ to Design and Development Overlay 1 (DDO1), to provide clearer guidance to manage development adjacent to individually significant heritage places.

13 Includes the Port Phillip DDO1 Review (2010) as a reference document in Schedule 1 to Clause 43.02 - Design and Development Overlay of the planning scheme.

Heritage controls

14. Replaces the existing precinct based Heritage Overlay 1 (HO1) applying to land south of 105 Bay Street in Bay, Beach, Dow, and Rouse Streets with individual heritage overlay controls to places with heritage significance, to ensure that heritage places are protected by clear and relevant heritage controls. This implements the recommendations of the Review of Heritage Overlay 1 Port Melbourne – Stage 2 Review (Lovell Chen, 2012).

15. Updates the schedule to the Heritage Overlay (Clause 43.01) and corresponding Heritage Overlay Maps (2HO) to: Modifies the description of the boundaries of HO1 – Port Melbourne to refer to

Graham Street as generally being the western boundary of the precinct. Introduces new individual heritage overlays for:

- 1 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (Pier Hotel) - (HO454).- 22 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (Local Hotel) - (HO455).- 39 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (Exchange Hotel) - (HO451).- 79-85 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (four shops) - (HO459).- 95 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (former WJ Carr Warehouse) - (HO449).

Page 6 of 51


- Land bounded by Beach, Rouse, Dow Streets and Esplanade West except the north western corner (former Australasian Sugar Refining Company complex) - (HO456).

- 49 Beach Street, Port Melbourne (former Mission to Seamen) - (HO453).- Part 100-128 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (shop) - (HO458).- Part 100-128 Bay Street, Port Melbourne - fronting Dow Street (former Army and

Navy Hotel, 95 Dow Street) - (HO457).- 183-187 Rouse Street, Port Melbourne (three houses) - (HO460).

Retains existing heritage overlays over:- 2-6 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (Coal Depot) (HO38).- 40 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (Drill Hall and Post Office) (HO39).- 111-115 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (Court house, police station and lock up)

(HO40).- 96 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (Former National Bank) (HO452).- Part 70-146 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (Bluestone warehouse) (HO115).

Removes the existing precinct based Heritage Overlay (HO1 – Port Melbourne) from properties in Bay, Beach, Dow, Nott and Rouse Streets and Mitchell Crescent.

Incorporated Documents

16. Amends the Port Phillip Heritage Review (Incorporated Document to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme) to: Introduces new citations for:

- 1 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (Pier Hotel) - (Citation 608).- 22 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (Local Hotel) - (Citation 2359).- 39 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (Exchange Hotel) - (Citation 2358).- 79-85 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (four shops) - (Citation 2357).- 95 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (former WJ Carr Warehouse) - (Citation 2356).- Land bounded by Beach, Rouse and Dow Streets and Esplanade West except the

north western corner (former Australasian Sugar Refining Company complex) - (Citation 2360).

- 49 Beach Street, Port Melbourne (former Mission to Seamen) - (Citation 2177).- Part 100-128 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (shop) - (Citation 248).- Part 100-128 Bay Street, Port Melbourne - fronting Dow Street (former Army and

Navy Hotel, 95 Dow Street) - (Citation 266).- 183-187 Rouse Street, Port Melbourne (three houses) - (Citation 277).

Replaces Citation 689 (2-6 Bay Street), Citation 693 (96 Bay Street), and Citation 637 (part 70-146 Bay Street) with updated citations.

Replaces the Port Melbourne Precinct (HO1) heritage citation with a revised citation to reflect changes to the extent of the heritage precinct.

Alters the City of Port Phillip Heritage Policy Map and City of Port Phillip Neighbourhood Character Policy Map (Incorporated Documents to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme) to:- Removes 181 and 193 Rouse Street and 31-33 Bay Street as ‘Contributory

heritage places’ from the Heritage Policy Map, and include them as ‘Contributory outside HO’ on the Neighbourhood Character Policy Map.

Page 7 of 51


(i) Reference Documents

17. Amends all references in the planning scheme to the updated version of the Port Phillip Heritage Review, the City of Port Phillip Heritage Policy Map and the City of Port Phillip Neighbourhood Character Policy Map (affects Clauses 21.07, 22.04 and the Schedule to Clause 81.01).

18. Includes the Review of Heritage Overlay 1 Port Melbourne – Stage 2 Review as a reference document at Clause 22.04 (Heritage Policy) of the planning scheme.

19. Introduces Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statements for four established residential areas adjacent to the activity centre, to provide for incremental housing growth.

20. Modifies the existing Reference Document ‘Port Phillip Design Manual, 2000’ to include an additional chapter titled ‘Chapter 8 - Bay Street Activity Centre Environs - Neighbourhood Character Statements for Established Residential Areas (2012)’, and amend all references in the planning scheme to the updated version (affects Clauses 22.04, 22.06 and 22.11).

21. Includes the Bay Street Activity Centre Structure Plan (2013) as a Reference Document to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme in the Local Planning Policy Framework (Clauses 21.07 and 22.12) and the schedule to Clause 43.02 - Design and Development Overlay.

2.3.2 Amended documentationCouncil proposed a number of changes to the Amendment:

Part 1 – MSS and LPP documents

Changes to the following: Clause 21.06 – New heading inserted following Local Strategy 6.4.32 (p12). Clause 22.06 – Modifications under the heading ‘Landmarks, Views and Vistas’ (p2)

relating to views and vistas of the CAD skyline. Clause 22.12 – Modifications to Table 1 (p3) of Clause 22.12-03 relating to the

‘Desired Future Outcome’ for Strategic Sites, and to Clause 22.12-08 to clarify policy on public realm outcomes.

Part 2 – Design and Development Overlay Ordinances and Planning Scheme Maps

Changes to the following: Changes to Schedule 1 to Design and Development Overlay (DDO1) - Deletes

proposed ‘Amenity’ Design Objectives (p2) and ‘Interface’ standards (p3) for buildings and works.

Changes to Schedule 25 to Design and Development Overlay (DDO25) - Introduces a new heading ‘1.0 Preferred Character’, and modifies particular Buildings and Works requirements to become mandatory requirements (NB: This is the same version as previously circulated).

Zone Map 2 & 3 – Reflects a change in the zone proposed for 124-136 Heath Street, being from Residential 1 Zone to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

Design and Development Overlay Map 2 & 3DDO – Reflects removal of 241-247 Graham Street from DDO1.

Page 8 of 51


Part 3 – Reference Documents

Changes to the following: Draft Bay Street Major Activity Centre Structure Plan – Modified to reflect changes

endorsed in Councils resolution. Draft Precincts and Projects – Modified to reflect changes endorsed in Councils

resolution. Port Phillip Design Manual (Chapter 8) – Modified to include Preferred

Neighbourhood Character Statements consistent with changes to Precincts and Projects document.

Page 9 of 51


3 Identification of Issues3.1 Summary of issues raised in submissionsThe key issues raised in the submissions of the various parties are briefly summarised as follows:

The key aspects of the Structure Plan and / or Amendment that were supported by submitters were:- The seven Strategic Directions underpinning the draft Structure Plan.- Acknowledgement of the residential growth that has already occurred south of

Graham Street.- The introduction of site-specific heritage controls.- Removal of the DDO1 from smaller residential lots in Princes and Stokes Streets,

and Esplanade West.- Proposed rezoning of 35-83 Crockford Street (Industrial to Mixed Use).- Infill development opportunities identified for Lalor and Heath Streets.- Improvements to the pedestrian environment and reduction of speed limit in Bay

Street. Issues raised in submissions generally relate to specific aspects of the plan /

amendment rather than outright objection. The major issues raised were:- The proposed rezoning of land along specific sections of Bay Street (rezoning of

two sub-precincts from a Residential 1 to a Commercial 1 Zone, and a Residential 1 to a Mixed Use Zone) raising the potential for amenity conflicts between residential and commercial activities.

- Support for the proposed rezoning of 35-83 Crockford Street (Industrial 3 to Mixed Use Zone), with changes sought to the proposed Design and Development Overlay Schedule 25 (DDO25) controls.

- Specific changes to Design and Development Overlay Schedule 1 (DDO1) including the revision to ‘Design Objectives’ highlighting the need to retain protection of key viewlines and the impact of boundary changes reducing the development potential of individual properties.

- The proposed ‘Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statements’ for established residential areas, with some submitters concerned that the Statements are too restrictive.

- The long-term proposal to discourage freight traffic along Bay and Graham Streets specifically feasibility of Port operations and potential for consequential traffic impacts elsewhere.

- The need to address sensitive interfaces between residential and commercial zones.

- The appropriate scale / level of development potential for specific sites and the centre overall. Mixed views were expressed including that development potential is excessive whilst other submissions suggest greater densities are appropriate.

Page 10 of 51


- The potential redevelopment identified for the Coles supermarket - highlighting the importance of retaining existing car parking and the need for more parking on this site.

- The defined activity centre boundary (south of Graham Street) - specifically questioning the inclusion of some residential properties.

3.2 Issues dealt with in this ReportThe Panel considered all written submissions, as well as submissions presented to it during the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been assisted by the information provided to it as well as its observations from inspections of specific sites.

This report deals with the issues under the following headings: Strategic justification Activity Centre boundary issues Strategic sites Built form issues Revised Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 1 (DDO1) Proposed Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 25 (DDO25) Other issues

- Heritage- Traffic- Established residential precincts- Site specific: inclusion of 190 Graham Street in Residential Precinct 3: Graham

Street (north)- Residential Precinct 4: Princes and Stokes Streets

Non-submitter changes to the Amendment.

Page 11 of 51


4 Strategic justification4.1 The IssueA Planning Authority is required to provide a strategic assessment of any amendment. Submission 20 believed that the Amendment does not satisfy the State Policy Planning Framework.

4.2 Evidence and submissionsCouncil submitted that the Explanatory Report demonstrates how the Amendment satisfies the SPPF by providing a strategic assessment of the Amendment including how The Amendment implements the objectives of planning in Victoria, complies with the Ministerial Direction No 9, and implements the SPPF.

4.3 DiscussionCouncil provided a detailed assessment of the Amendment against State and Local policy in its written submissions. The Panel has reviewed the policy context of the Amendment.

The Amendment has strong policy support because it builds on a long history of strategic planning in the area and is a refinement of existing policy settings.

4.4 ConclusionThe Panel concludes:

The Amendment is supported by, and implements, the relevant sections of the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks.

Page 12 of 51


5 Activity Centre boundary issues 5.1 Changes to planning controls outside of Activity Centre

5.1.1 The IssueAmendment C103 proposes changes to planning controls outside of the Activity Centre including:

removing the DDO1 from land in Princes, Stokes, and Dow Streets. applying ‘Preferred Character Statements’ to established residential areas defined

for ‘incremental change’ (ie ‘infill’ housing development).

Submission numbers 3, 26, 28, 29, 31, 34, and 36 question the basis for changes to planning scheme controls that would apply to land south of Graham Street (between Stokes and Princes Street) given that area is outside of the Activity Centre.

5.1.2 Evidence and submissionsThe Structure Plan defines the Activity Centre which contains commercial, retail and mixed uses and is the focus for activity and future development.

The Activity Centre boundary excludes established residential areas, as Council does not consider these to be a focus for public activity. Areas directly adjoining and surrounding activity centres will experience development pressures and planning policy and controls are required to define and manage development.

Some of the residential areas surrounding Bay Street (especially areas south of Graham Street including Princes, Stokes, and Dow Streets) are covered by planning scheme controls (ie: DDO1) that imply greater development potential than is considered desirable. The Structure Plan has identified the desired outcomes for these areas: to respect remaining heritage places and to protect the character values of the low rise, fine grain residential areas. This is the strategic basis for planning scheme controls proposed in Amendment C103.

5.1.3 DiscussionWhile the areas are outside of the Activity Centre, it is appropriate to pursue changes to the planning controls to properly reflect the future planning outcomes sought. The Panel agrees that proposed changes are appropriate to reinforce a distinction between the Activity Centre and the adjacent residential areas, and are considered a positive approach to retaining valued elements of the local area.

5.1.4 ConclusionThe Panel concludes:

The proposed changes outside of the activity centre are appropriate.

Page 13 of 51


5.2 Eastern and western boundaries of the Activity Centre

5.2.1 The IssueSubmission numbers 22, 24, 33, 39, and 40 submit that the properties south of Graham Street between Nott St and Dow Street should be excluded from the Activity Centre.

5.2.2 Evidence and submissionsCouncil submitted that based on their development and zoning these areas are appropriately defined as being within the Activity Centre.

5.2.3 DiscussionCharacteristics that make the sites part of the Activity Centre; include:

the Mixed Use Zone, that allows a mixed-use function (including commercial land uses)

functional relationship with Bay Street in terms of commercial activity and residential growth

some development capacity important pedestrian connections to the foreshore.

The panel accepts that Council’s approach is consistent with the Planning Practice Note for Activity Centres - Note 58 (DTPLI, 2010).


The properties south of Graham Street between Nott St and Dow Street should not be excluded from the Activity Centre.

5.3 Proposed rezoning of 316-342 Bay Street (and 55 Lyons Street) from a Residential 1 Zone to a Commercial 1 Zone

5.3.1 The IssueSubmission 14 objects to the rezoning 316 to 342 Bay Street (and 55 Lyons Street) from a Residential 1 Zone to a Commercial 1 Zone on amenity grounds based on future impact of non-residential uses on existing residential amenity. Heritage issues were also raised.

5.3.2 Evidence and submissionsThe subject properties are an isolated section of Residential 1 zoning within the Activity Centre along Bay Street. They are located between two areas currently in the Commercial 1 Zone.

The draft Structure Plan includes the subject properties within Opportunity Precinct 3: Town Hall Business Precinct (Precincts and Projects document, p15). The proposed strategic role of the precinct is to strengthen the existing north-south connection of ‘active’ commercial land uses along Bay Street, and to create a business services niche as part of a complementary land use cluster around the Town Hall.

Page 14 of 51


Properties at 316-342 Bay Street are affected by Heritage Overlay and graded as ‘significant’ heritage places. Council submitted that the rezoning is not envisaged to lead to significant changes to or redevelopment of the existing buildings, but rather the change in zoning will enable a broader range of uses within the established buildings.

Submissions raised the potential for amenity issues associated with commercial uses allowed under the proposed Commercial 1 zoning.

5.3.3 DiscussionThe properties are located on a main road and are already within an established commercial strip where intensive development and activity is occurring, amenity conditions are not expected to significantly alter. In any area of ‘mixed use’ activity, the level of amenity expected would differ from broad scale established residential areas.

The Commercial 1 Zone would provide opportunities for a broader range of commercial uses than the current residential zone, including office-based activity appropriate to the location with the Activity Centre. Preferred land uses include office-based business services (particularly at street level) as well as opportunities for on-going residential uses.


The rezoning of 316-342 Bay Street (and 55 Lyons Street) from a Residential 1 Zone to a Commercial 1 Zone should proceed.

5.4 Proposed rezoning of 374-420 Bay Street from a Residential 1 Zone to a Mixed Use Zone

5.4.1 The IssueSubmission numbers 15 and 17 object to the proposed rezoning, based on the potential amenity impact of non-residential uses – including within an existing apartment building), impact on property values, and impact on carparking.

Submission 17 requests that: the Mixed Use Zone apply only to Bay Street (not Lyons Street). the property at 410-416 Bay Street be excluded from the Mixed Use Zone. a planning permit be required for all potentially detrimental commercial land uses.

5.4.2 Evidence and submissionsThe properties comprise a section of Residential 1 zoning, located immediately north of and opposite land in the Commercial 1 Zone.

The properties have a mixture of commercial and residential use. Commercial activities include a service station/motor repairs, restaurant, hairdresser and two art galleries. The properties are opposite retail activity along the north-western side of Bay Street.

The draft Structure Plan includes the properties within Opportunity Precinct 3: Town Hall Business Precinct.

Page 15 of 51


Council submitted that the strategic role of the precinct is to strengthen the north-south connection of ‘active’ commercial land uses along Bay Street, and to create a business services niche as part of a complementary land use cluster around the Town Hall.

The Mixed Use Zone would recognise the existing land use mix and provide opportunities for a broader range of commercial uses, including office-based activity. Preferred land uses include office-based business services (particularly at street level) and residential uses. Retail land uses would be discouraged north of Spring Street through proposed planning policy.

5.4.3 DiscussionThe Mixed Use Zone is a residential zone, but provides for a range of commercial uses which are regarded as being compatible with adjoining residential uses. A range of new land uses do not require a planning permit subject to meeting maximum floor area limits, and this facilitates smaller scale commercial activity which is appropriate in this part of the Activity Centre.

The Panel agrees that it is unlikely that there would be significant land use change within an existing residential apartment building, given the layout of buildings, ownership patterns, body corporate controls, and the need to satisfy the car parking requirements of the planning scheme.

Having inspected the area the suggestion to limit the Mixed Use Zone to the Bay Street side is not feasible given the configuration of land parcels (which extend from Bay Street through to the Lyons Street frontage). Applying the Mixed Use Zone to the front of Bay Street properties and retaining the Residential 1 Zone at the rear would create a complex zoning regime that would lead to on-the-ground difficulties in managing uses and development.

Car parking is a relevant consideration when any new development or change of land use is proposed. New land uses including retail and residential development are required to satisfy the car parking provisions of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme. The draft Structure Plan also sets an expectation that new land use is ‘self-sufficient’ in on-site car parking, which is also contained in proposed policy at Clause 22.12-07 – Sustainable access and movement of Amendment C103.


The rezoning of 374-420 Bay Street from a Residential 1 Zone to a Mixed Use Zone should proceed.

5.5 Land use conflicts at rear of Bay Street shopping strip in Heath Street

5.5.1 The IssueSubmissions sought that properties fronting Heath Street (between Raglan and Spring Streets) be rezoned from a Commercial 1 Zone to a Residential 1 Zone. Issues with waste management and social amenity issues relating to commercial properties in Bay Street.

Page 16 of 51


5.5.2 Evidence and submissionsThe existing Commercial 1 Zone applies to commercial properties fronting Bay Street, as well as a mixture of residential and commercial properties fronting Heath Street.

Council submitted that the current zoning reflects historical zone boundaries and land use patterns, although this section of Heath Street is now predominantly occupied by dwellings (many which have occurred through developments to the ‘rear’ of commercial properties fronting Bay Street).

The Commercial 1 Zone recognises dwellings as a legitimate use, with the purpose of the zone being to ‘provide for residential uses at densities complementary to the role and scale of the commercial centre’.

Within the draft Structure Plan, Heath Street is located within Opportunity Precinct 2: Lalor and Heath Street Edge. The strategic role of this precinct is to accommodate further residential development. The Structure Plan proposes that this be achieved through retention of the existing zone and encouraging residential development through local policy.

At the hearing the submitter showed a detailed video of the street and the Panel has also benefitted from a site inspection.

5.5.3 DiscussionDue to the remaining configuration of lots, applying a residential zone to allotments fronting Heath Street would result in some commercial land uses being within a residential zone. This is not desirable; it would create a complex zoning regime that could lead to on-the-ground difficulties in managing uses and development.

The Panel agrees that residential properties at the rear of commercial premises within a commercial centre can give rise to amenity impacts. It is difficult to see how these amenity impacts can be effectively managed by planning given the pattern of uses that has already established.

In any case, the rezoning requested is not part of the Amendment and such a rezoning could not proceed without appropriate notice to affected land owners.


It would not be appropriate to rezone land at the rear of Bay Street shopping strip in Heath Street.

Page 17 of 51


6 Strategic sites6.1 Corner of Bay and Liardet Streets (Coles supermarket)

6.1.1 The IssueSubmission numbers 22, 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, 33, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 47, 51, 52, and 53 express concern that the structure plan makes no specification for providing car parking as a part of any redevelopment.

6.1.2 Evidence and submissionsSubmissions:

objected to the identification of this site as having potential for redevelopment without specifying retention of the existing publicly accessible car parking area.

objected to any redevelopment of the site. sought that any redevelopment of the site include the same amount or more

parking than already provided with the first one or two hours provided free. felt that Amendment C103 should include a statutory or legal mechanism to ensure

that the site continues to be used as a supermarket and that sufficient publicly accessible parking with a free period is provided.

Requested that Amendment C103 apply a ‘Car Parking Overlay’ to the site.

Council submitted that the draft Structure Plan seeks to ensure that supermarkets continue to anchor the centre’s retail offer, and expresses a preference that the existing retail anchor (Coles supermarket) be retained.

The site is identified in the Structure Plan as a ‘strategic site’ recognising it as one of the largest sites within the Activity Centre. Despite being protected as a heritage place and set in a low scale development context, this large site has potential to accommodate some limited (and recessed) upper storey development. The Structure Plan envisages that the supermarket (an important retail ‘anchor’) be retained, and any future development comprise residential or additional commercial floor space.

The existing roof top car park provides free customer parking for two hours. The car park is privately owned and managed.

6.1.3 DiscussionLarge sites within the Activity Centre that could accommodate a full size supermarket are limited and the Panel agrees with Council that given the significant demand for daily and weekly groceries within Port Melbourne it is unlikely that the existing supermarket will be replaced by any alternate use.

It is up to the owners of the land how they might develop the land in accordance with planning controls. It is not possible or appropriate to force the owner to enter into a Section 173 Agreement to ensure that the site continues to be used as a supermarket (or associated car parking conditions).

The car park is provided as part of a commercial venture and is directly associated with the use of the land as a supermarket. Free parking is a typical component of a competitive and

Page 18 of 51


commercially viable supermarket offer. This decision is made by the land owner and planning cannot force someone to make their land available to third parties.

Applying a ‘Parking Overlay’ is not part of the Amendment and such an overlay could not proceed without appropriate notice to affected land owners.

Council proposed to amend the Structure Plan to recognise the role that this site has in providing parking, and to amend the desired outcome in Clause 22.12-03.

The Panel can see merit in specifying the desired outcome for the site, but cautions that any public car park would need to make commercial sense to the developer or be some sort of joint venture with Council. A future developer should not be ‘held to ransom’ to provide a public service that has no nexus with the development they are undertaking.

6.1.4 RecommendationThe Panel concludes:

Planning cannot retrospectively mandate public access to a private car park.

The Panel recommends:

1. Amend Table 1 in Clause 22.12-03 to change to the wording of the ‘Desired Future Outcome’ for the corner of Bay and Liardet Streets to include:a) the retention of the existing car parking provision, andb) the provision of additional car parking to cater for new floor-space relevant to the

proposed land use.

6.2 40 Bay Street (Naval Drill Hall and Former Post Office – ‘Circus Oz’ site)

6.2.1 The IssueSubmissions 28, 29, 39, 40, and 47 express concern that the Structure Plan provides insufficient guidance as to future preferred land use outcomes, and more specifically that:

The ‘Desired future outcomes’ expressed in the draft Structure Plan (p23) require better guidance.

The site should be used for education facilities (Submission 39) or community indoor sports centre (Submission 40), or a community facility (Submission 47).

6.2.2 Evidence and submissionsThe Naval Drill Hall and former Post Office buildings at 40 Bay Street are collectively identified as a ‘Strategic Site’ in the Structure Plan. The ‘Desired Future Outcome’ for the site is to:

Facilitate reuse and sensitive adaptation of this heritage building to increase interaction with / activation of the street frontage.

Council submitted that this outcome would contribute to the broader ambition of achieving a more vibrant gateway and pedestrian environment at the southern end of Bay Street.

The site is identified as a ‘Key opportunity site’ as part of Opportunity Precinct #4: Bay Street Southern Gateway (Precincts and Projects, p.21), which has a future strategic role of supporting:

Page 19 of 51


… street activity and connections, which leverages off its location adjacent to the foreshore area, through land use change and public realm improvements.

The two buildings are significant heritage places located on the south-eastern corner of Rouse and Bay Streets. The buildings were occupied by Circus Oz.

6.2.3 DiscussionThe Structure Plan does not recommend any specific future land use for the site, but rather a broader objective to be achieved: street activation, active edge at street level.

The Structure Plan could play a role in suggesting a range of preferred land uses (possible under the Mixed Use zoning) which can include and reflect community aspirations for educational and /or community uses on this site. Other suitable uses would include ‘food and drink premises’ such as a café or restaurant.

The Panel agrees that Clause 22.12-03 could better reflect the agreed aspirations for the site.

6.2.4 RecommendationsThe Panel recommends:

2. Amend Table 1 in Clause 22.12-03 to change to the wording of the ‘Desired Future Outcome’ for 40 Bay Street to include:a) Potential land uses could include cafe/restaurant, education or community purposes.

6.3 160-162 Bay Street (Church and Manse buildings)

6.3.1 The IssueSubmission 38 and 39 submit that the draft Structure Plan needs to make suitable provision for vehicle access, and specifically that the Structure Plan does not include provisions to ensure that any redevelopment behind the church and manse buildings has suitable provisions for car parking access.

6.3.2 Evidence and submissionsCouncil submitted that the Church and Manse buildings at 160-162 Bay Street are collectively identified as a ‘Strategic Site’ in the Structure Plan. The ‘Desired Future Outcome’ for the site recognises the:

Potential to achieve office or residential uses to the rear of the existing place of worship and manse.

6.3.3 DiscussionThe site is identified as an ‘Opportunity site’ on the Activity Centre Housing Opportunities Framework Plan. The two existing buildings are significant heritage buildings and are an important part of the streetscape along Bay Street and are envisaged as being retained in any redevelopment.

The Panel supports the policy position to limit new crossovers in Bay Street. It is recognised that that vehicle access at the rear of the site may be limited. These concerns are noted but the Panel agrees with Council that it is beyond the scope of the Structure Plan to include specifications as to how suitable vehicle access to an individual site should be provided. This

Page 20 of 51


would need to be resolved as part of a more detailed access analysis prepared to inform a future redevelopment proposal/permit application.


No change to Amendment C103 to address detailed access issues at 160-162 Bay Street is warranted.

6.4 Better protection of residential amenity

6.4.1 The IssueSubmission 55 refers to Strategy 2.5.1 (and related Action) and seeks that a more quantified approach towards residential amenity be provided (such as through a scoring system), citing a range of impacts relating to traffic and parking, streetscape design, land use and compliance.

6.4.2 Evidence and submissionsCouncil submitted that Strategy 2.5.1 (p29) proposes to:

Adopt a ‘preventative approach’ to noise and other impacts as new residential uses establish within and at the edge of the activity centre through noise attenuation and managing amenity expectations.

The related Action on p32 is to:

Manage the amenity expectations of residents, acknowledging that the level of amenity experienced within the activity centre and in mixed use areas will be lower as a consequence of proximity to business operations.

The submitter references traffic, parking and streetscape design issues as impacting on local amenity. The draft Structure Plan addresses these issues separately in Strategic Direction 5: Sustainable Access and Movement and Strategic Direction: An Integrated Public Realm. Key strategies include:

Strategy 5.1.1 (p52) proposes to:

Reduce traffic speeds throughout the activity centre and its environs including: A 40km/hour speed limit through the Bay Street retail precinct, between

Graham Street and Ingles Street as an immediate priority. A 40km ‘precinct’ speed limit on residential streets connecting to and

surrounding the activity centre to improve pedestrian safety and amenity and encourage walking.

Page 21 of 51


Strategy 6.1.3 (p58) proposes to: Ensure safe, convenient and amenable pedestrian access along defined

‘priority pedestrian streets’ and at key intersections throughout the activity centre through: Providing crossings at regular intervals and allow pedestrians to be able

to cross all legs of the intersection. Using traffic calming techniques as an integral part of all streetscape

designs, to reduce vehicle speeds, the volume of through traffic and give priority to pedestrians.

These non-planning strategies are part of an integral approach to managing the Activity Centre and surrounds, with a view to improving the amenity of local streets.

6.4.3 DiscussionThe Panel agrees that the Structure Plan sets out a realistic approach to amenity given the diversity of activity within the Activity Centre. The existing residential and commercial zones provide statutory controls to ensure amenity impacts are managed effectively, and Council’s compliance powers are in place to ensure amenity impacts are not unreasonable.


No change to Amendment C103 to provide more guidance around residential amenity is warranted.

Page 22 of 51


7 Built form issues7.1 General concerns over impacts of new development

7.1.1 The IssueSubmission numbers 4, 27, 33 and 35 express concerns about:

the heritage character of Port Melbourne and that the area should be protected and should not turn into an extension of the CBD (Submission 35).

potential for loss of urban character, or loss of village atmosphere due to influx of high rise buildings (Submission 27).

new development having a positive impact on the public realm (Submission 33). existing wind tunnelling and overshadowing (Submission 27).

7.1.2 Evidence and submissionsCouncil submitted that the draft Structure Plan acknowledges that the Activity Centre has already transformed as a result of substantial new development, particularly within the ‘mixed use’ precinct south of Graham Street, and that future development/growth opportunities are more limited and not the primary driver of the Plan. This is expressed in:

Strategic Direction 4 of the draft Structure Plan - Reinforcing Urban Character – seeks to: Maintain and reinforce the distinct and contrasting urban character of

different precincts to form a sequence of urban experiences across the activity centre.

This Direction recognises that change has occurred within parts of the activity centre, in the form of new contemporary development, but that the centre’s traditional heritage streetscapes provide an important and valued contrast which need to be protected. More specific objectives under this Direction seek to:

Protect Bay Street’s ‘village’ feel through reinforcing the low scale, fine grain heritage character of the traditional retail strip north of Graham Street.

Consolidate the new contemporary higher-rise character of the Port Melbourne Mixed Use area, south of Graham Street (whilst respecting significant heritage buildings and the amenity/character of adjoining residential areas).

Council submitted that the draft Structure Plan establishes a balanced approach to providing for new development whilst retaining and protecting the traditional built form elements of the activity centre which are fundamental to its history and sense of place.

Submitters seek that new development should have a positive impact on the public realm. Submitters also regard the higher scale of development south of Graham Street as a poor outcome in terms of wind tunnelling and overshadowing impacts on the public realm, and seek that new development avoid these impacts in the future.

DDO1 which covers new development in the area south of Graham Street does not cover wind impacts and the DDO1 Review did not make any specific recommendations in this regard. Wind tunnel effects are most commonly an issue associated with high-rise buildings,

Page 23 of 51


particularly those without podiums and verandas, and less so with the medium-scale buildings typical of Bay Street. Given the location of the Activity Centre adjacent to the foreshore it would be difficult to substantially mitigate against general wind impacts, although design features such as verandas can assist.

7.1.3 DiscussionExisting design policies in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme already establish objectives relating to design impacts on the public realm:

Existing design policy at Clause 22.06 seeks to achieve high quality architecture which protects and enhances pedestrian spaces, and minimises adverse micro-climatic impacts. This policy will be retained.

Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (2004) which form part of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme do include general design guidance on wind impacts and these can continue to be used in assessing the design and built form of residential development of five or more storeys where appropriate.

In relation to solar access, Strategy 4.5.1 of the draft Structure Plan seeks to:

Ensure that new development does not diminish sunlight access to Bay and Rouse Street, and the foreshore area.

This strategy is translated to Amendment C103 as a new local policy requirement in Clause 22.12-06 - Reinforcing urban character.

More specifically, DDO1 currently seeks to protect solar access to Bay and Rouse Streets and the foreshore area through a ‘Design objective’ relating to solar access and an equivalent ‘Buildings and works’ requirement. The Panel concludes that the existing scheme and the Amendment have are adequate controls to manage the impact of new development.


No change to Amendment C103 is needed.

7.2 Proposed rear-of-strip development in Lalor and Heath Street

7.2.1 The IssueSubmission numbers 6, 46, and 55 raise the following concerns relating to the potential for infill development at the rear of Bay Street properties:

four storey development is considered excessive, and associated vehicle access would cause the loss of on-street parking spaces (Submission 55).

lack of reference to the Special Building Overlay (SBO) (Submission 6). potential parking and servicing issues (Submission 46).

Submission 46 expresses broad support for rear of strip development.

Page 24 of 51


7.2.2 Evidence and submissionsStrategic Direction 2: Housing Opportunities identifies that there are opportunities for some further housing growth within the Activity Centre, including shop-top housing and ‘infill’ development at the rear of the retail strip. Strategy 2.1.2 (p28) encourages infill development as identified on the Activity Centre Housing Opportunities Framework Plan (p30), and the plan shows land fronting Lalor and Heath Street as having potential for such development.

Further direction for development in this area is articulated in Strategy 4.2.3 (p44), and most particularly in the form of precinct scale built form and land use directions in Opportunity Precinct 2: Lalor and Heath Street Edge (Precincts and Projects, p11).

The preferred precinct built form outcome is for ‘rear of strip’ residential development to a scale of three storeys (10.5 metres) with limited potential for a recessed fourth storey (to a maximum overall height of 14 metres).

One submitter notes that the draft Structure Plan does not acknowledge that the Special Building Overlay (SBO) applies in Lalor Street, and that the SBO will have an impact on development outcomes by requiring the finished floor levels of new development to be raised to maintain passage of floodwaters. This is noted but no change to the preferred building heights as expressed in policy are recommended.

7.2.3 DiscussionGuidance on built form in the Amendment seeks to ensure that new development fronting Heath Street provides a two storey street wall, with third and fourth floor levels being recessed. This responds to the scale of existing development on the eastern side of Heath Street, and the Panel considers that this is appropriate to the built form interface with the western side of Heath Street.

In relation to the SBO the Panel notes that development will need to accommodate finished floor levels to be consistent with the preferred built form objectives, noting that heights are not mandatory provisions (rather are expressed as policy) and some flexibility is available to respond to the SBO.

Parking access and servicing issues would be addressed through statutory planning processes where site layout planning will need to respond to the need to provide access to retail premises and car parking as well as minimised the loss of on-street parking.

7.2.4 ConclusionsThe Panel concludes:


Page 25 of 51


7.3 Opportunity Precinct 3: Town Hall Business Precinct

7.3.1 The IssueSubmission numbers 16 and 17 object to:

The draft Structure Plan encouraging development of four storeys for properties at 400-406 Bay Street, citing amenity and impacts on heritage (Submission 16).

Multi-storey development and associated detrimental impacts as a consequence of rezoning (Submission 17).

7.3.2 Evidence and submissions400-406 Bay Street are located in Opportunity Precinct 3: Town Hall Business Precinct (precincts and Projects, p15). The role of future development in the precinct is to reinforce a sense of arrival to the centre and deliver consistent street wall heights within a heritage context. Policy will be applied achieve a maximum overall height of four storeys as contained in Amendment C103 (proposed policy at Clause 22.12-10).

Council submitted that the draft Structure Plan provides clear parameters for change in land use and development but does not give rise to more intensive development than could be achieved under existing planning provisions. Strategic Direction 2: Housing Opportunities identifies opportunities for further housing growth and Strategy 2.1.1 (directs new development to underutilised sites on the south-eastern side of Bay Street north of Spring Street, including 400-406 Bay Street.

Strategies 4.2.2 and 4.2.4 (p44) provide principles for new development in this location, including respecting heritage places and creating a strong built form connection across underutilised sites.

Land at 374–420 Bay Street is proposed to be rezoned from Residential 1 Zone to a Mixed Use Zone, which allows for a broader range of commercial land uses including offices. The Mixed Use Zone is a residential zone and has the same permit triggers and design requirements for residential buildings as the existing Residential 1 Zone (and successor new residential zones).

Council submitted that there is broader scope under the Mixed Use Zone to construct a building associated with a Section 1 use, however these would be limited in size due to floor area restrictions and would be consistent with the existing built form character of the precinct.

Properties at 400-406 Bay Street are not affected by heritage controls and therefore are not recognised as having heritage characteristics needing protection. The broader heritage context has been considered in defining the future built form parameters.

Page 26 of 51


7.3.3 DiscussionPressure for development will exist regardless of the applicable zone. The Panel agrees that the Mixed Use Zone will support the strategic intent of the draft Structure Plan, including active land uses at ground level.

The Panel agrees that a preferred built form outcome of four storeys (with a lower three storey street wall) is appropriate due to the existing streetscape between Ingles Street and Spring Street East, which comprises recent development to a scale of four storeys and older two storey buildings (including tall terraces at 378-382 Bay Street) equivalent to a modern three storey building. A height of four storeys would create a more defined and consistent street-edge condition contributing to the sense of arrival at this entry to the Activity Centre.

The amenity impact of new development on adjoining properties is an important planning consideration which occurs through the statutory planning process.



7.4 Site specific - 7-33 Bay Street (Office of Housing development identified as an opportunity site)

7.4.1 The IssueSubmission 38 seeks:

A mandatory requirement for an outdoor area which is protected by a winter solstice solar access provision.

The same number and size of public housing units be provided.

7.4.2 Evidence and submissionsThe Office of Housing development site is nominated as a ‘Strategic site’ as well as an ‘Opportunity Site’ (p46), due to its apparent underutilisation and ability to contribute to the desired outcomes for Opportunity Precinct 4: Bay Street Southern Gateway.

The ‘Desired future outcome’ expressed for the site (p23) includes:

Redevelopment should include social housing on upper levels / to rear of site, and result in no net loss of social housing.

Potential to accommodate future retail anchor on this large site and ensure active land uses at the street frontage to Bay Street, as part of any redevelopment (medium or long term prospect).

The ‘Desired future outcome’ states that redevelopment should result ‘in no net loss of social housing’ and redevelopment will need to respond to this. Council submitted that it is not appropriate that the draft Structure Plan address the size of housing units as this would be addressed by the service provider.

Page 27 of 51


7.4.3 DiscussionOn-site private open space provision would be resolved through a site planning process for any redevelopment proposal, and regulated through the statutory planning process. To justify site specific controls for this site would require a detailed study of the opportunities and constraints of the site, and the development typologies that it could support.


No change to Amendment C103 is appropriate.

7.5 Site specific – Protection of views of the Port Melbourne Town Hall

7.5.1 The IssueSubmission 55 seeks to protect the view of the flagpole and clocktower elements of the Town Hall from tall and bulky buildings.

7.5.2 Evidence and submissionsCouncil submitted that Strategy 4.1.4 seeks to protect key public view lines, in particular the view of the Port Melbourne Town Hall. This is reflected in Amendment C103 (proposed Clause 22.12).

7.5.3 DiscussionView protection cannot always be achieved, but the Panel agrees that protecting views is a worthwhile aspiration, and is supported by broader state policy. The impact of preserving a view on a specific development proposal would need to be considered on its merits and balanced against other policy aspirations.



Page 28 of 51


8 Revised Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 1 (DDO1)

8.1 Apparent removal of DDO1 from Beach StreetSubmission numbers 3, 23, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34, and 36 object to the apparent proposed removal of the Design and Development Overlay (DDO1-1a) from Beach Street (between Princes and Stokes Streets).

The Amendment does not propose removing DDO1-1a from Beach Street. This is reflected in the Built Form Framework Plan and Building Heights Framework Plan in the draft Structure Plan, which shows that DDO1 will continue to be applied to properties fronting Beach Street.

While this section of Beach Street has largely been developed, there are several sites remaining which may have some development capacity and DDO1-1a will be retained to ensure that any future development protects and enhances the foreshore environment.

Future development within the DDO1-1a sub-precinct is limited to an absolute maximum height of 25.5 metres 8 storeys (as per the existing height limit) which would be consistent with existing built form outcomes along this section of Beach Street.

8.2 Removal of ‘Key views’ Design Objective from DDO1

8.2.1 The IssueTwenty three submissions object to the proposed removal of existing ‘Design Objectives’ relating to protection of key views.

Submission 38 objects to the proposed removal of the buildings and works requirement for buildings to have ‘gaps to allow views of the CBD from Station Pier and the Bay’ (Building Design, dot point four).

Submission 6 identifies a lack of reference to view lines on north-south streets to monuments and structures.

8.2.2 Evidence and submissionsAmendment C103 proposes a revised DDO1, with the following ‘Key view’ objectives proposed to be removed (indicated in struck out text):

To protect and enhance key views, in particular:

From Station Pier and the Bay to the Melbourne Central Activities District.

Along Bay Street towards the Melbourne Central Activities District.

Along Bay Street to Port Phillip Bay, and in particular to maintain an open sky view or ‘view cone’ when looking towards the Bay from Bay Street at its intersection with Rouse Street.

Along Beach Street towards the foreshore in both directions.

Along side streets towards Port Phillip Bay and local parks.

Page 29 of 51


Towards landmark buildings and structures on and adjacent to the foreshore, including piers, beacons, and monuments.

The existing DDO1 is also proposed to be removed from land in Princes, Stokes and Rouse Streets to ensure development is consistent with the low scale existing character of the area. The majority of the larger former industrial sites south of Graham Street have already been developed. Accordingly, there is little opportunity for future development in the revised DDO1 area to impact on the view to the CBD regardless.

Council submitted that the review of DDO1 has recommended deleting these Design objectives and requirements on the following basis:

The view to the Melbourne CBD from Station Pier is west of the DDO area (hence not affected by development within the DDO1 area).

The view to the Melbourne CBD from the Bay is already compromised by development (in the DDO1 area).

The view to the Melbourne CBD from Bay Street is already confined to the road reserve by buildings on either side of that street. Therefore, it will not be adversely affected by further development.

Views towards the foreshore from Beach Street are not affected by development within the DDO area.

Views along side streets towards the Bay and local parks are already confined to the road reserves by buildings on either side of those streets. Therefore, they will not be adversely affected by further development.

Views towards landmark buildings and structures on and adjacent to the foreshore are either from Beach Street or already confined to the road reserve of north-south streets (and therefore unaffected by development within the DDO1 area).

The review of DDO1 also recommended the design requirement that buildings ‘have gaps to allow views of the CBD from Station Pier and the Bay’ be removed.

The draft Structure Plan seeks to protect views to Port Phillip Bay, the CBD and Port Melbourne Town Hall from within the Bay Street road reserve (Strategy 4.1.4 p44 / Built Form Framework Plan p46). This Strategy is reflected as a local policy requirement in Amendment C103 (proposed Clause 22.12) which would apply to all new development triggering a planning permit (ie: not limited to the DDO1 area).

The review of DDO1 recommended that the ‘Design objective’ protecting key views of ‘landmark buildings and structures on and adjacent to the foreshore, including piers, beacons and monuments’ be removed from the DDO1. Views of locally significant monuments along north-south streets adjacent to the foreshore include the Band Rotunda along Stokes Street and the Bi-centennial Memorial along Nott Street.

The rationale for removing the provision is that those views are either from Beach Street or confined to the road reserve and therefore unaffected by development in the DDO1 area.

Page 30 of 51


8.2.3 DiscussionThere is existing policy at Clause 22.06 – Urban Design Policy for Non Residential Development and Multi Unit Residential Development which seeks to:

Encourage new development to maintain and enhance important vistas in the municipality including, but not limited to: along St Kilda Road, particularly towards the Shrine of Remembrance, the Shrine Vista, from the foreshore and its piers and the Bay towards the Melbourne CAD

skyline, along the beach front roads and boulevards, towards the foreshore and Port

Phillip Bay in both directions, along local roads and streets to Port Phillip Bay, the Melbourne CAD, Albert

Park Reserve and local parks and gardens, the built form edge of key open spaces, including the foreshore.

This existing policy applies to all new non-residential development, and multi-unit residential development (of four storeys or more). The policy acknowledges the importance of the vista towards the CBD from the ‘foreshore and its piers’ which includes Station Pier, but does not specifically reference the view from Station Pier.

Key views are clearly valued by the community. The removal of requirements relating to maintaining view lines from DDO1 is not reflective of a change in aspiration or desire to facilitate additional medium to higher scale development, but rather that these views are not existing, or alternately, not at risk from future development. Their removal is to simplify DDO1 through deleting superfluous design objectives/requirements.

The Panel agrees that the policy at Clause 22.06 could be improved. Station Pier has a special role as a gateway to Melbourne and it is appropriate to recognise this.

8.3 Post exhibition changesCouncil advised that the Port Phillip DDO1 Review (2010) recommended that new controls be added to the ‘Buildings and Works’ requirements of the DDO1 requiring development to meet ResCode’s (Clause 55) overshadowing and side and rear setbacks objectives in relation to any adjoining secluded private open space within Residential 1 zoned properties.

This recommendation was carried into a revised DDO1 (in Amendment C103) by introducing ‘Design objectives’ relating to amenity protection (overshadowing, height and setbacks), and a specific ‘Buildings and Works’ requirement under a new heading ‘Interfaces with residential properties adjacent to the growth area’.

The proposed ‘Buildings and Works’ requirement reflected the Clause 55 standards for overshadowing and side and rear setbacks.

The Minister for Planning introduced reforms to the residential zones in July 2013 which include changes to the existing Mixed Use Zone that introduce these amenity standards:

Any buildings or works constructed on a lot that abuts land which is in a General Residential Zone, Residential Growth Zone, Neighbourhood Residential Zone or

Page 31 of 51


Township Zone must meet the requirements of Clauses 55.04-1, 55.04-2, 55.04-3, 55.04-5 and 55.04- 6 along that boundary.

This requirement in the Mixed Use Zone sets amenity standards which are equivalent to the amenity controls sought through the revised DDO1 process. Accordingly these can be removed from the exhibited version of DDO1.

8.3.1 ConclusionThe Panel recommends:

3. Modify existing policy at Clause 22.06 as follows:a) Encourage new development to maintain and enhance important views and vistas in

the municipality including, but not limited to:• along St Kilda Road, particularly towards the Shrine of Remembrance• the Shrine Vista• from the foreshore and its piers and the Bay towards the Melbourne CAD skyline• from Station Pier and other piers towards the Melbourne CAD skyline.

4. Amend the proposed Schedule 1 to the Design and Development Overlay by deleting:a) ‘Design objectives’ relating to amenity protection (overshadowing, height and

setbacks)b) ‘Buildings and Works’ requirement under the heading ‘Interfaces with residential

properties adjacent to the growth area’.

8.4 Proposed deletion of ‘Preferred maximum heights’ in DDO1Submission numbers 3, 6, 26, 28, 31, 34, 36, and 38 raised the following specific issues:

Retaining the ‘preferred maximum heights’. Affirming existing height and setback controls for remaining sites in the mixed use

growth area. Expressing some support for retention of absolute maximum height limits, but seek

that the overshadowing criteria must be obeyed. Noting that the absolute maximum height limits in certain areas will result in

overshadowing of the foreshore and the south-eastern side of Bay Street, such that greater setbacks than 5 metres will be needed for upper storeys.

Changes to DDO1 schedule are based on Port Phillip DDO1 Review (2010) prepared by David Lock Associates.

Based on the review of DDO1, the Structure Plan proposes that the existing DDO1 height controls be simplified by removing the ‘preferred’ maximum height controls but retaining the ‘absolute’ maximum height controls (Strategy 4.3.4, related Action on p48).

This relates to overall building heights for upper levels setback behind the street wall. A ‘preferred front setback’ and ‘preferred maximum height less than 5 metres from any road boundary’ will be retained to control the design of the front part of the building.

The current DDO provides both ‘preferred’ and ‘absolute’ maximum height controls at two or three different setbacks from the street which is considered to be unnecessarily complex. The ‘preferred’ heights are regarded as a ‘deemed to comply’ provision whereas the ‘absolute’ maximum height limit can be achieved where:

Page 32 of 51


all relevant design objectives are met; all design outcomes are achieved; and there is no additional detriment to the amenity of any surrounding public realm or

private residential areas as a result of the additional height above the preferred maximum.

Council submitted that the application of DDO1 to date has seen the vast majority of development built to the ‘absolute’ maximum height limit. Further, the review of DDO1 highlights the importance of all development being assessed against the relevant design objectives and design outcomes. The Panel agrees that the ‘preferred’ maximum height provisions (for overall building height behind the street wall) are not considered to provide any additional value.

Submitters refer to the particular overshadowing impacts of development in the following DDO1 sub-precincts:

DDO1-3 – Bay Street (between Rouse and Graham Streets). DDO1-1a – Beach Street (between Nott and Princes Streets).

Submitters seek either that a mandatory overshadowing provision be provided, or that more stringent upper storey setback requirements are provided.

The revised DDO1 provisions will maintain Council’s discretion in relation to permitting development up to the absolute maximum height limit, and this includes having regard to local policy and design objectives / requirements relating to overshadowing.

The Panel concludes:

The changes proposed in Amendment C103 are appropriate.

8.5 Precinct extension north-west along Rouse Street to include 286 Rouse Street.

Submission 11 seeks to extend the proposed DDO1-2 sub-precinct north-west along Rouse Street to include 286 Rouse Street.

286 Rouse Street is located on the corner of Rouse and Princes Streets. It is not included in the Activity Centre boundary and is proposed to be excluded from the revised DDO1. The site itself does not have any neighbourhood character or heritage value. A planning permit application has been made for a 5-storey residential development.

Council submitted that rationale for removing the site from DDO1 is based on the review of DDO1 and the intent to remove sensitive existing residential areas which includes Princes and Stokes Street from the DDO. Collectively these areas form part of a precinct scale approach and reflects the need to avoid isolated pockets of intensification around those sensitive areas which could result on the subject property if retained in DDO1.

The Panel agrees that extension of proposed DDO1-2 sub-precinct along Rouse Street would create an anomaly in that the DDO1-2 would only apply to properties fronting Rouse Street between Stokes and Princes Street, which generally have little capacity for more intensive development.

Page 33 of 51


8.6 Revised DDO1 – site specific boundary issue (241-247 Graham Street)Submission 13 seeks to remove properties at 241-247 Graham Street from the revised DDO1.

Properties at 241-247 Graham Street are within the Residential 1 Zone and comprise single dwelling development. The buildings are not affected by Heritage Overlay controls but are identified as ‘Contributory outside of the Heritage Overlay’. Collectively they display a consistency in building scale, lot size, fence height and front setbacks. They are characteristic of the low scale residential character of development in Stokes and Princes Streets. The Structure Plan seeks to protect this area of Stokes and Princes Streets by removing them from the DDO1 area.

The Port Phillip DDO1 Review (2010) proposed that the sites at 241-247 Graham Street be retained within a revised DDO1 on the basis that they have a lower level of development constraint.

Given that the properties are more characteristic of the existing low scale established residential character it would be appropriate to exclude them from the DDO1 area.

As proposed by Council future development should be consistent with preferred character outcomes, and these properties should also be included in Residential Precinct 4: Princes and Stokes Streets and subject to a preferred building height of three storeys (as per the above change) to create a consistent building scale along Graham Street.

8.6.1 RecommendationsThe Panel recommends:

5. Change the proposed Schedule 1 to the Design and Development Overlay boundary to exclude 241-247 Graham Street.

6. Change the ‘Preferred Character Statement’ for Residential Precinct 4: Princes and Stokes Streets (in the Design Manual) to include 241-247 Graham Street.

Page 34 of 51


9 Proposed Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 25 (DDO25)

9.1 Precinct issue – built form controls proposed in Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 25 (DDO25)

9.1.1 The IssueSubmission 7 supports the intent of The Amendment, including the rezoning of land to a Mixed Use Zone as well as the discretionary controls in DDO25, but seeks specific changes to the DDO25 including:

consolidation and wording changes to design objectives. refinement and deletion of repetitive buildings and works requirements. changes to building design requirements at the interface with adjacent residential

development, including boundary wall heights and upper floor setbacks.

9.1.2 Evidence and submissionsSJB on behalf of the owners submitted:

… it is unclear why an area that which has been specifically identified as an opportunity area, within a Major Activity Centre, strategically located adjacent to Fishermans bend Urban renewal Area and South Melbourne Major Activity centre, could be regarded as so ‘special’ as to warrant the use of exceptional planning controls

This precinct is an opportunity to establish a new character of development along the northern side of Croxford Street; it is not burdened by a valued existing character which is sought to be retained.

The submitter opposed a number of changes proposed by Council (discussed below) and proposed instead a different set of changes.

The built form controls contained in DDO25 are derived from the draft Structure Plan (Strategy 4.4.2) and Opportunity Precinct 1 – Crockford Street (Precincts and Projects p7):

The strategic role of the Precinct is to provide new opportunities for office and residential activity at the northern end of the activity centre. Built form renewal of the precinct will create an improved ‘gateway’ to the activity centre through a moderate scale of high quality development. Land use change is to be facilitated through rezoning the precinct from Industrial 3 Zone to the Mixed Use Zone through Amendment C103.

Council submitted that built form controls are needed to ensure that an appropriate design response occurs in the context of heritage areas and the surrounding lower scale residential context (ie: Garton and Bay Streets, south-eastern side of Crockford Street) and to create an improved interface between the activity centre and residential properties.

The controls have been prepared having regard to the outcomes sought through the Montague Precinct Structure Plan, which relates to land immediately north of the Precinct

Page 35 of 51


(on the north side of Boundary Street). For the Crockford Street Precinct, the overall height (5 storeys) and upper floor setback above three storeys (5 metres from Crockford Street) are consistent with the built form framework for the City Road Corridor / Boundary Street precinct.

Council also submitted that: Given the interface with the low scale residential environment in Garton Street,

care needs to be taken as to how future development along Crockford Street addresses this ‘rear’ interface comprising to the single and double storey dwellings.

The draft Structure Plan acknowledges that properties on the south side of Garton Street have some development capacity, due to the physical context of older warehouse buildings and newer apartment and townhouse development of between 2 and 4 storeys. However under a scenario of redevelopment on the south side of Garton Street (eg: single dwelling or townhouse style buildings) there would still be a need to provide a reasonable interface at the rear, potentially for secluded private open space, daylight and sunlight.

The draft Structure Plan seeks to limit development on the common boundary to a general height of two storeys (or taller if the same height as an existing boundary wall) to protect the amenity of the rear of Garton Street properties.

Further changes to DDO25 were proposed by Council at its meeting of 25 February 2014. These include changing the ‘Buildings and works requirements’ to mandatory controls to be consistent with the intent and expression of the draft Structure Plan.

Council summarised the changes sought by the submitter as follows: Design objectives

- Replacing the word ‘ensure’ with ‘encourage’ in design objectives 1, 2 and 9.- Replacing the word ‘create’ with ‘encourage’ in design objective 3.- Deletion of the words ‘maximise the northern orientation of potential

development sites’ from design objective 6. Buildings and works requirements

- Deletion of dot point 7, being a repetition of design objective 3, and also being reflected in dot point 8.

- The preferred building height of 9 metres at the interface with Garton Street properties (dot point 8) should be amended to 11 metres to reflect the 11 metre streetwall height sought at the front of the site.

- Dot point 9 be revised to require that third and fourth levels ‘should be set back from the northern boundary to avoid unreasonable visual bulk impacts’, rather than an arbitrary setback of 10 metres.

Council responded: Replacing the word ‘ensure’ with ‘encourage’ in design objectives 1, 2 and 9 would

reduce the strength of these objectives and imply a ‘discretion’ as to whether development should achieve these outcomes. The changes are not supported.

Replacing the word ‘create’ with ‘encourage’ in design objective 3 would soften this objective, which is seen as key design imperative given the sensitive interface to the north, and is therefore not supported.

Page 36 of 51


The words ‘maximise the northern orientation of potential development sites’ from design objective 6 should be retained because the objective is specific to the precinct and the opportunity to maximise natural light and solar access.

Design objective 3 expresses a preferred precinct outcome whereas the dot point 7 requirement is a site specific requirement, which also requires buildings ‘to minimise off-site amenity impacts’. It should be retained.

The preferred building height at the interface with Garton Street properties provision applies to new buildings adjacent to areas of secluded private open space, and allows for a boundary wall up to nine metres to reflect the height of existing boundary walls along the northern boundary of Crockford Street properties. A context of secluded private open space justifies a more sensitive treatment than the frontage to Crockford Street and an increase of 11 metres would potentially result in a reduced amenity outcome. The change sought is not supported.

The 10 metre setback at third and fourth levels requirement applies specifically to buildings adjacent to areas of secluded private open space and is an appropriate requirement to mitigate visual bulk impacts and ensure upper floor levels would not be visible from areas of secluded private open space.

Council submitted that it is important that new development fronting Crockford, Ingles and Boundary Streets is appropriate to the gateway role of the precinct, delivers a human scale, and relates to the scale of existing development. Development on the southern side of Crockford Street is constrained to two and three storeys, and new development should complement that scale. For these reasons (and other presented at the Hearing) Council concluded the mandatory street wall provisions and upper floor setbacks were appropriate.

Council agreed that the rewording proposed of dot point 6 to read ‘The height of buildings and works within five metres of the street frontage should not exceed 11 metres’ is an appropriate clarification and does not change the intent of the requirement, and is supported.

9.1.3 DiscussionThe Panel accepts that Council has achieved successful built form outcomes through the use of mandatory elements such as mandatory street wall heights in DDO1 at the southern end of Bay Street. In these cases, Council has been careful to apply mandatory controls to the most critical elements of the built form to achieve a human scale at street level.

The Panel agrees with the submitter that the precinct does not have a valued existing character which is sought to be retained, but would not say that having a valued character is a ‘burden’. In fact the reverse is true. While an existing valued character might limit those with development aspirations for most others it would be seen a ‘blessing’ more than a ‘burden’.

The key issue is what should determine the preferred future character of the area. The Panel considered whether the site is large enough to create its own character, or whether it should be seen as part of:

the more intensive urban renewal area. the balance of Bay Street.

Page 37 of 51


The Panel has inspected the site and surrounding area.

Bay Street has seen a great of development over the past 15 years or so and has, in the main, managed the change well to achieve an attractive and functional area. The built form outcomes have been guided by built form controls that have set parameters around development to achieve a defined result.

The Panel does not see strong arguments to depart from the approach that has been successful in managing the area to date and agrees with Council on the detailed wording change sought by the submitter. The site is not part of the Fishermans Bend urban renewal area. It should be managed as part of the Bay Street Activity Centre. Given the nature of the surrounding and abutting uses there is no real prospect of achieving transition from a higher build form in the renewal area (if indeed this is what transpires) to the lower forms along Bay Street.

Changing the DDO to set out a clear preferred character for the precinct is a positive approach, but the Panel considers that this involves a more editing (but not much more) than simply relocating objectives and strategies as Council proposed.

This proposed redrafting of DDO25 with the mandatory provision of street wall heights and setbacks of upper floor levels from the front and rear boundaries, but not overall height remove debate about key development features required to fully implement the aspirations of the Structure Plan without placing an absolute limit on the development potential of the site.

The Panel agrees that it is important that new development fronting Crockford, Ingles and Boundary Streets is appropriate to the gateway role of the precinct, delivers a human scale, and relates to the scale of existing development. Development on the southern side of Crockford Street is constrained to 2 and 3 storeys, and new development should complement that scale.

Submitters quoted the conclusions of the panel for Melbourne C171 in relation to a mandatory height and set back regime:

The use of such a mechanism seems to the Panel to be an attempt to micro‐manage development and to make urban design a formulaic exercise in Southbank. Not only does the Panel consider that there is little strategic basis for such an approach, the Panel thinks that the outcome might be an inner urban experience where design excellence and innovation are quashed in pursuit of a pre determined outcome.‐

It is important to understand this quote in its context. That panel observed:

Southbank is an exciting urban renewal opportunity that is still somewhat embryonic in its stages of development. As the Panel understands it, there is common ground that in an area such as Southbank, innovation is to be encouraged and celebrated. In that context, it seems to the Panel that if there is one thing that is guaranteed to stifle innovation, it is slavish adherence to a formulaic control regime where a built form envelope is mandated. The Panel therefore does not support the proposed mandatory built form controls and has recommended these be discretionary.

Page 38 of 51


The subject site cannot be described as part of an ‘exciting urban renewal opportunity that is still somewhat embryonic in its stages of development’. Rather it is one of the last areas available in a long term redevelopment that has achieved a good urban outcome within clear development parameters. More broadly it is part of an established inner urban area that has, across the precinct, a well-established and valued character.

9.1.4 RecommendationThe Panel recommends:

7. Amend Schedule 25 to the Design and Development Overlay as set out in Appendix B.

Page 39 of 51


10 Other issues10.1 HeritageA number of submissions support the rationalisation of the general Heritage Overly with more specific controls:

Submission 6 supports replacing the existing precinct based Heritage Overlay 1 south of Graham Street with site specific heritage overlay controls.

Submission 39 supports the ‘heritage overlay recommendations’. Submission 48 supports the application of proposed Heritage Overlay HO456 to 50

Dow Street ‘as it is a great part of Port Melbourne’s industrial history that should be protected’ and ‘The character, history and stories that are a part of buildings such as these make Port Melbourne what it is today’.

These expressions of support are acknowledged.

At the Hearing the possibility of further reviewing of 31 Bay Street was raised to determine its possible heritage status. The building in question is a heavily modified Victorian Terrace.

At the hearing the Port Melbourne Historical and Preservation Society [PMH&PS] submitted:

PMH&PS questions why remnants such a this are not deemed worthy of protection. They tell a powerful story in their own right of the earlier history of Bay Street.

31 Bay Street has been assessed as part of previous heritage studies. The building has been modified over the years and the surrounding development dates from the 1980s. The Panel accepts that the building does not warrant heritage protection based on architectural grounds. The Panel notes the interesting history of the building as the first Neighbourhood House in Port Melbourne and meeting place of the Committee for Urban Research and Action. Council may wish to review the social history aspects of the building.

10.2 TrafficThe arterial road function of Bay Street is currently recognised by:

the existing Road Zone in the planning scheme (the purpose of which is to ‘To identify significant existing roads’).

the designation as a VicRoads declared arterial road. its nomination by VicRoads as an approved route for B-doubles and higher mass

limit trucks (where it forms part of the Bay / Graham Streets route).

The VicRoads Network Operating Plan Road User Hierarchy for Port Phillip acknowledges the role of the Major Activity Centre. Other relevant parts of the Network Operating Plan include:

the section of Bay Street between Graham and Ingles Streets is defined as a ‘pedestrian priority area’.

the entire length of Bay Street is recognised as a ‘bicycle priority route’. Bay Street between Graham and Ingles Streets is also listed as a ‘bus priority route’.

Page 40 of 51


Existing Clause 21.04-4 – Industry currently recognises the need to protect Port operations and the associated rail and road network, and this is relevant despite lacking specific reference to Bay Street.

Existing Clause 21-06-4 – Port Melbourne and Garden City also recognises the role of Station Pier as a trade / freight gateway.

The application of the Road Zone to Bay and Graham Streets is not proposed to change; nor will the existing strategies (above) relating to Port operations or the role of Station Pier.

The Amendment does not propose changes to planning controls and the Panel does not believe any real case has been made for such changes as part of this Amendment process. Any changes would require a new amendment.

10.3 Established residential precinctsSubmission 6 expresses concerns regarding:

the erosion of character particularly the loss of 1930’s housing. expresses doubt that the Preferred Character Statement will be strong enough to

guide future development.

Council submitted that there is a broad concern relating to the precinct, rather than one individual site.

The Precinct is shown on the Established Residential Areas Housing Framework Plan (p31) as an ‘Incremental change area’, with related Strategy 2.2.5 (p28) being:

Provide for incremental housing growth (replacement dwellings or well-designed multi-unit development) in residential areas proximate to the activity centre that have an existing diverse neighbourhood character (refer Established Residential Areas Housing Framework Plan). Development is to respond to the Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statements for Established Residential Precincts 1 to 4 (see Part 2 – Precincts and Projects).

This strategy is reflected in Amendment C103 at Clause 22.12–04 – Housing opportunities. The Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statements are proposed to be included into the Port Phillip Design Manual (existing Reference Document). The statements would be applied (and provide planning guidance as to a preferred development outcome) at the permit stage. Existing planning scheme requirements refer directly to respecting ‘preferred neighbourhood character’ and accordingly this approach is considered sound.

Council recently undertook a review of the precinct-based heritage overlay applying to a significant part of Port Melbourne (HO1 – Port Melbourne) which has an easterly boundary along the edge of this Precinct. This boundary was not identified as warranting change through the review. As this precinct is not covered by heritage controls the further loss of original housing stock can not be prevented.

The preferred character statement seeks that development respond to identified character buildings within the precinct as well as adjacent heritage places, and this is regarded as an appropriate approach to neighbourhood character.

Page 41 of 51


10.4 Site specific: inclusion of 190 Graham Street in Residential Precinct 3: Graham Street (north)

Submission 9 objects to the inclusion of 190 Graham Street in ‘Residential Precinct 3: Graham Street (north)’ as the preferred character statement for the precinct limits significant development of the site.

Council submitted that the subject site is immediately adjacent to the north-western corner of Graham and Bay Streets, and has a primary frontage to Graham Street. The site is at the rear of the Bay Street shopping strip and immediately adjacent to the designated Activity Centre.

The site is shown on the Established Residential Areas Housing Framework Plan (p31) as within an ‘Incremental change area’.

The subject site is in Residential Precinct 3: Graham Street (north) and any future development of the site would need to respond to the preferred character statement, including the ‘Design Response’ which articulates design requirements for new development.

In this case, the character statement acknowledges that Graham Street properties can accommodate some development, and specifies a building height of two storeys for the precinct (with some variations in Princes and Turville Streets). This height allows for future development but seeks to achieve precinct wide consistency in building scale where there is a mix of single and double storey dwellings, including individual heritage places.

The submitter seeks to remove 190 Graham Street from the precinct as the preferred character statement would limit future development.

The northern side of Graham Street has a diverse character, including some three storey (or equivalent) building forms. The site has generous proportions, is well located and is unencumbered by heritage controls. There is scope for development to exceed the preferred building height but this would be constrained by the context of the site and the surrounding lower built form north of Graham Street.

The Panel agrees it is reasonable to retain the site within the recommended precinct but it would be appropriate to specify a preferred building height of three storeys to recognise the site attributes, and to achieve consistency in scale along Graham Street. This is consistent with proposed changes to Residential Precinct 4: Princes and Stokes Street (discussed below). It would not be appropriate to extract the site from the precinct as it is not large enough to warrant an individual approach.


8. Modify the Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statement for Precinct 3 as proposed in the Port Phillip Design Manual to specify a preferred building height for Graham Street of three storeys.

Page 42 of 51


10.5 Residential Precinct 4: Princes and Stokes StreetsSubmission 10 seeks:

A preferred height limit of three storeys for 279 Graham Street and the eight (8) remaining properties on the southern side of Graham Street between Stokes and Princes Streets.

The submission relates primarily to 279 Graham Street (south-eastern corner of Graham and Princes Streets) which comprises a service station with associated buildings and substantial hard standing areas. The submission also seeks a preferred outcome for the remaining Graham Street properties in the precinct.

This site is shown on the Established Residential Areas Housing Framework Plan (p31) as within an ‘Incremental change area’.

The site is in Residential Precinct 4: Princes & Stokes Street. The Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statement for the precinct envisages that Princes and Stokes Street will retain a low scale and fine grain of development, and that Rouse and Graham Streets have some further propensity for change. A two storey building height is sought for Princes Street but no height is specified for Graham Street.

The submitter queries the building height sought for Princes Street (two storeys) and the lack of specification of a preferred height for Graham Street, given adjoining three storey developments on both sides of the site at 279 Graham Street. The submitter seeks that a preferred height of three storeys be applied to 279 Graham Street as well as the remainder of Graham Street properties within Precinct 4.

A future development outcome expressed as a preferred building height of three storeys for 279 Graham Street is considered reasonable and would respond to the surrounding built from context. The preference for a preferred height of three storeys for other properties in Graham Street would also be appropriate to achieve a consistent building scale.


9. Modify the Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statement for Precinct 4 as proposed in the Port Phillip Design Manual to specify a preferred building height for Graham Street of three storeys

Page 43 of 51


11 Non-submitter changes to the AmendmentCouncil resolved at its meeting on 25 February 2014 to endorse a number of ‘non-submitter’ recommended changes to the Amendment. These were circulated to parties and discussed at the Hearing:

Insert a new heading after subclause 6.4.32 and before 6.4.33 which reads ‘Sustainable Access and Movement’.

Change the proposed local policy at Clause 22.12-08 - An integrated public realm to: Encourage use and development that enhances the amenity of streets

throughout the higher density ‘mixed use precinct’ south of Graham Street, including: Proposals for land uses and new buildings activate existing laneways

south of Graham Street. Proposals that create new mid-block pedestrian links or extend existing

laneways in new development. Proposals that provide active land use edges and use the footpaths for

street trading activities in main streets south of Graham Street. The design of ground level premises along both sides of Bay Street south of

Bridge Street, and on the north-western side of Bay Street between Bridge and Raglan Streets, provide an ‘Active Retail Edge’ (as described in the BSACSP).


10. Refine the expression in the Amendment based on the post exhibition changes agreed by Council at its meeting of 25 February 2014 except where the Panel has made an explicit recommendation to the contrary.

(i) Changes to residential zones

In February 2013, Council endorsed the draft Structure Plan for the purposes of community consultation and resolved to concurrently exhibit Amendment C103.

As well as reforms to commercial and industrial zones, the Minister for Planning introduced reforms to the residential zones in July 2013 with the intention that the existing Residential 1 Zone be replaced with three new residential zones by July 2014.

Council is currently progressing the implementation of the new zones. It is likely that Councils residential zones implementation process will occur in advance of the adoption of Amendment C103.

Council should therefore establish a position as to which of the new residential zones should be applied to 124-136 Heath Street in lieu of the Residential 1 Zone, which is likely to be removed from the Port Phillip Planning Scheme around 1 July 2014.

Page 44 of 51


124-136 Heath Street consists of a row of low scale cottages. 126 Heath Street has had a notable extension at the rear. The properties are included in a heritage overlay (Port Melbourne – HO1), with 132, 134 and 136 being graded as ‘significant’ heritage places.

The Established Residential Areas Housing Framework Plan (p31) includes these properties, and the adjoining/surrounding properties to the northeast and northwest, within a ‘Minimal change area’. Housing growth is not envisaged in this area.

In line with the translation approach considered for the new residential zones across the City of Port Phillip, areas covered by a heritage overlay (and identified for ‘minimal change’) will be included in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ). Accordingly, the NRZ is considered the most appropriate zone for 124-136 Heath Street.


11. Apply the Neighbourhood Residential Zone to 124-136 Heath Street.

(ii) Changes to Reference Documents

There are several references in the Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statements for all ‘Established residential Precincts’ to ‘non-contributory properties’. This was intended to refer to ‘Contributory’ properties outside of the heritage overlay as shown on the City of Port Phillip Neighbourhood Character Policy Map. The statements should be corrected.

‘Non-contributory properties’ are buildings that are included in a Heritage Overlay which are neither significant nor contributory. None of the four residential precincts are affected by precinct scale heritage overlays, hence there are no ‘Non-contributory properties’.

Council proposed the following changes to the Structure Plan:

Residential Precinct 1

Under ‘Future Development Statement’, amend fifth dot point to read:

Development on the northern side will respond to the existing low scale and intimate residential environment made up of non-contributory properties ‘contributory’ properties outside of the heritage overlay (as shown on the City of Port Phillip Neighbourhood Character Policy Map).


Under ‘Preferred Character Statement’, amend second dot point to read:

Non-contributory buildings ‘Contributory’ properties outside of the heritage overlay (as shown on the City of Port Phillip Neighbourhood Character Policy Map) are encouraged to be retained.


Under ‘Future Development Statement’, amend fourth dot point to read:

Properties in Graham Street have generous proportions and can accommodate some development that respects heritage and non-contributory properties. ‘contributory’ properties outside of the heritage

Page 45 of 51


overlay (as shown on the City of Port Phillip Neighbourhood Character Policy Map).


Under ‘Preferred Character Statement’, amend first dot point to read:

Period dwellings, including non-contributory properties ‘contributory’ properties outside of the heritage overlay (as shown on the City of Port Phillip Neighbourhood Character Policy Map), are encouraged to be retained, to protect the low scale, fine grain character of the precinct.

Council also identified an error in Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statement: Established Residential Precinct 3 – Graham Street (north).

Under the column titled, ‘Development Statement’, the last dot point refers to ‘non-contributory properties’. This was intended to refer to ‘Contributory’ properties outside of the heritage overlay as shown on the City of Port Phillip Neighbourhood Character Policy Map.

Council proposed the following changes to the Structure Plan:

Amend the Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statement as follows:

Under ‘Development Statement’, amend fifth dot point to read:

Development on the northern side will respond to the existing low scale and intimate residential environment made up of non-contributory properties ‘Contributory’ properties outside of the heritage overlay as shown on the City of Port Phillip Neighbourhood Character Policy Map.


12. Correct references to non contributory properties Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statements in the Port Phillip Design Manual.

(iii) Errors in Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statement: Established Residential Precinct 1 – Garton Street

The Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statement (Precincts and Projects, p27) identifies the relative development capacity of the northern and southern sides of Garton Street.

Under the column titled, ‘Development Statement’, the southern side is discussed as having greater capacity than the northern side due to the southern side having an interface with bulky commercial and industrial buildings. However, under the column titled ‘Preferred Character Statement’, the northern side is discussed as having greater potential (development of 3 to 4 storeys), and the southern side needing to be limited (to two storeys). This is an error and should be corrected.

This error has carried over into the ‘Design response’ section in relation to Building height and should also be corrected.

Page 46 of 51


Council proposed the following changes to the Structure Plan Structure Plan:

Amend the Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statement as follows:

Under ‘Preferred Character Statement’, amend third and fifth dot points to read:

Development on the northern southern side will be transitional in scale of 3 storeys (with scope for a 4th level if recessed from view). Townhouse style buildings will be well articulated with punctuated openings and balconies to the street.

Development on the southern northern side will respond to the existing low building scale and front setbacks and be limited to two storeys.

Under ‘Design response’ amend Building height as follows:

North South side: 3 storeys (any 4th level must be recessed from view).

South North side: 2 storeys.


13. Correct errors relating the relative development capacity of the northern and southern sides of Garton Street.

Page 47 of 51


Appendix A List of SubmittersNo. Submitter

1 Port of Melbourne Corporation

2 Port Melbourne Yacht Club

3 Beacon Cove Neighbourhood Association

4 Inner South Community Health Service

5 Port Melbourne Neighbourhood Centre

6 Port Melbourne Historical and Preservation Society

7 SJB Planning for 35, 37-53, 67, 75 and 83 Crockford Street, Port Melbourne

8 Urbis for the Exchange Hotel

9 Owners Corporation Committee of 190 Graham Street

10 Keen Planning

11 Rouse 286 Pty Ltd

12 Stacy and Patrick Irwin

13 Raymond Supple

14 Zehra Ali

15 Jessica Dwyer

16 Jeff and Anne Cole

17 Helen Taylor

18 Barbara Mullen

19 David Rayson

20 Marcel Colman

21 Trevor Nink

22 Ian and Sue Whiting

23 Claire Britchford

24 Patricia Goldie

25 Ricki Ryan

26 David Viney

27 Ross Teitzel

28 Sharlene Viney

29 John Mortimore

30 Mary Gleeson

Page 48 of 51


31 Ruth Wraith

32 Christoula Nicolaou

33 Roger and Glenda Joyce

34 Sue Minshall

35 Joanna Thorpe

36 David Sonenberg

37 Elva Keily

38 Jill Maddox

39 Ian Evans

40 Ian Close

41 Marielle Neesham

42 James Wright

43 Justin Spangaro

44 Mirion Bearman

45 Richard Webb

46 John Peterson

47 Jacqueline O'Callaghan

48 Ruth McIlroy

49 Alix West

50 Port Melbourne Paint and Paper

51 Jillian Bird

52 Joan and George Mulvey

53 Cecilia Liang

54 Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI)

55 Jane Millar

Page 49 of 51


Appendix B Panel versionSCHEDULE 25 TO THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY

Shown on the planning scheme map as DDO25

CROCKFORD STREET PRECINCT

1.0 Preferred character

The preferred character for the Crockford Street precinct is: A built form of moderate scale of development up to 5 storeys in height. A hard edge character to Crockford Street and Bay Street, with street facade heights of 3

storeys and recessed upper floors. Buildings connected to the public realm to support an improved pedestrian environment, with

active ground floor levels, including entrances, windows and openings in the principal facade. High quality design outcomes that recognises the precinct’s important gateway role. A sensitive interface with residential properties, Maximise northern orientation.

2.0 Design objectives

To ensure new development contributes to a more coherent edge to Crockford Street. To ensure that new development reflects and emphasises the importance of the Crockford

Street precinct as a gateway to the Bay Street Activity Centre. To create a transition down in scale to the adjoining low-rise residential area to the north. To minimise overshadowing of adjoining residential properties. To recess upper level development to minimise the visual impact of levels above the street

facade and protect solar access to the footpath on the southern side of Crockford Street. To maximise the northern orientation of potential development sites and achieve high quality

design outcomes. To enhance the pedestrian experience along Crockford Street, through encouraging street life

and activity, and passive surveillance of the public realm. To discourage vehicle access from Crockford Street. To ensure new development is consistent with the preferred character for the Crockford Street

precinct as follows: The built form character of the precinct will develop through a distinct and moderate scale

of development up to 5 storeys in height. New development will reflect the hard edge character of Crockford Street and Bay Street,

with street facade heights of 3 storeys and recessed upper floors. New buildings will connect to the public realm to support an improved pedestrian

environment, through active ground floor levels, including entrances, windows and openings in the principal facade.

Development will achieve high quality design outcomes, which recognises the precinct’s important gateway role.

New buildings will create a sensitive interface with residential properties, maximise northern orientation.

Page 50 of 51


3.0 Buildings and works

Buildings should have a zero setback to the Ingles, Crockford and Boundary Street street frontages at ground floor level.

The height of a wall along a street frontage should must not exceed 11 metres. Walls along street frontages should must be built to the side property boundaries. Where site is located on a street corner:

The height of a wall along a street frontage may exceed 11 metres in height but should must not exceed 14.5 metres for a maximum length of 5 metres along each street frontage measured from the corner of the site at the street intersection. The height of the remaining length of wall should must not exceed 11 metres.

Buildings should must address both street frontages with entrances, windows or openings at ground floor level.

The height of building and works should not exceed 18 metres. The height of buildings and works between the street frontage and within a 5 metres of the

street frontage setback from that boundary should must not exceed 11 metres. Buildings and works adjacent to residential development or land zoned for residential

purposes should must provide a transition down in scale and minimise off-site amenity impacts.

Buildings and works at ground, first and second levels, adjacent to areas of secluded private open space of dwellings within the Residential 1 Zone: Must meet the objectives and should meet the standards of:

Clause 55.04-1 Side and rear setbacks objective and Standard B17. Clause 55.04-5 Overshadowing open space objective and Standard B21.

Should not exceed 9 metres in height. Buildings and works at third and fourth levels, adjacent to areas of secluded private open

space of dwellings within the Residential 1 Zone, should must be setback at least 10 metres from the northern property boundary to minimise the visual impact to existing dwellings.

Buildings and works must meet the objective and should meet the standard of Clause 55.04-6 Overlooking objective and Standard B22.

Ground floor facades should be designed to facilitate visual interaction between the interior of buildings and the street, through pedestrian entries and clear glazing. Upper floors windows and balconies should be orientated to overlook the street.

Building facades on sites with a street frontage width greater than 10 metres should must be well articulated through variations in forms, materials, openings and the inclusion of vertical design elements.

Floor-to-floor levels at ground floor level should be a minimum of 4.5 metres in height. The ground floor should be level with the footpath. Vehicle access should be provided from the side or rear of lots. New vehicle crossovers along

the Crockford Street frontage are not encouraged.

4.0 Decision guidelines

Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the Responsible Authority must consider, as appropriate: The Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and the

Urban Design Policy for Non Residential Development and Multi Unit Residential Development.

Page 51 of 51