future melbourne committee 2 february 2016 - agenda item 6 · 2016-04-22 · report to the future...

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

Ministerial Referral: TPM-2015-30 111-125 A’Beckett Street, Melbourne

2 February 2016

Presenter: Evan Counsel, Acting Planning Coordinator

Purpose and background

1. The purpose of this report is to advise the Future Melbourne Committee of a Ministerial Planning Application lodged on 29 June 2015 for land at 111-125 A’Beckett Street, Melbourne (refer to Attachment 2 – Locality Plan). The applicant is Urbis Pty Ltd, the owner is Feature Alpha Investment Pty Ltd and the architect is Ellenberg Fraser.

2. Melbourne City Council received formal notice of the application under Section 52(1)(c) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 as directed by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) on the basis that the proposal is not exempt from notice and review rights under the Heritage Overlay.

3. The subject site is located within the Capital City Zone Schedule 1 and is affected by the Heritage Overlay 994 (former Commonwealth Motors Building), Design and Development Overlay Schedule 1 (Active Street Frontage) and Parking Overlay Schedule 1.

4. The application seeks approval for partial demolition of the existing B graded heritage building and construction of a 65 level (210 metre) building. The development has a gross floor area of 46,905sqm including 1171sqm of retail/commercial space, 632 residential apartments, 130 car parking spaces, 310 bicycle spaces, on-site loading, waste compaction and associated facilities.

5. The Minister for Planning is the responsible authority for determining the application as the gross floor area of the building proposed exceeds 25,000m2. The majority of the works are exempt from third party notice and review rights with the exception of demolition and carrying out of works to the B-graded building (Heritage Overlay 994).

Key issues

6. Key planning considerations include heritage, particularly the extent of demolition of the B graded heritage building and the relationship of the retained portions of the building to the proposed tower, and built form, including height, setbacks, internal amenity and equitable development of adjacent properties.

7. Subject to conditions requiring further clarification of the heritage fabric to be removed and re-installed and the conservation works to be undertaken, including a structural report and a bond, it is considered that the heritage significance of the building will be protected.

8. The form and location of the tower is well considered and has several advantages in terms of the amenity of future occupants, providing separation from the most sensitive interfaces and allowing for the future redevelopment of adjoining sites.

9. The proposed height is acceptable in the context of the controls applicable to the site at the time of lodgement and will not introduce additional adverse wind impacts in the area.

Recommendation from management

10. That the Future Melbourne Committee resolves that a letter be sent to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning advising that:

10.1 The Melbourne City Council supports the proposal subject to the conditions set out in the Delegate Report (refer to Attachment 4).

Attachments 1. Supporting Attachment 2. Locality Plan 3. Selected Plans 4. Delegate Report

of 38

haneis

Text Box

(page 2 of 38) (page 3 of 38) (page 4 of 38) (page 17 of 38)

haneis

Text Box

1

Supporting Attachment

Legal

1. The Minister for Planning is the Responsible Authority for determining this application.

2. Amendment C262 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme was gazetted on 4 September 2015. It applies to land in the Central City and Southbank on an interim basis and includes transitional provisions. The amendment inserted changes to the Capital City Zone Schedules 1, 2 and 3, changes to Clause 22.01 (Urban Design Policy within the Capital City Zone), a new Schedule 10 to Clause 43.02 Design and Development Overlay and makes City of Melbourne a recommending referral authority at the Schedule to Clause 66.04.

3. Amendment C266 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme was gazetted on Monday 16 November 2015. This amendment was required to ensure that applications lodged prior to the gazettal of Amendment C262 are assessed against the version of the scheme in operation at the time an application was lodged (including the former Clauses 22.01 and 22.02). Previously it could have been interpreted that only the provisions of the relevant schedules benefit from the transitional provisions, which was not the intention of Amendment C262.

4. This application was lodged on 29 June 2015 and consequently, policy and controls introduced by Amendment C262 do not apply to this application.

Finance

5. There are no direct financial issues arising from the recommendations contained within this report.

Conflict of interest

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

Stakeholder consultation

7. Council officers have not advertised the application or referred this to any external referral authorities. This is the responsibility of the DELWP acting on behalf of the Minister for Planning who is the responsible authority.

Relation to Council policy

8. Relevant Council policies are discussed in the attached delegate report (refer to Attachment 4).

Environmental sustainability

9. Pursuant to Clauses 22.19 and 22.23 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme, an environmentally sustainable design statement was submitted with the application confirming that the development has the preliminary design potential to achieve a Five Star Green Star Rating and to comply with the Stormwater Management Policy.

Attachment 1Agenda item 6.1

Future Melbourne Committee 2 February 2016

of 38

Locality Plan

111-125 A’Beckett Street, Melbourne

Attachment 2 Agenda item 6.1


of 38

1 0 1

A ' B E C K E T T S T R E E T

GROUND FLOOR RETAIL 2 NLA 437 GFA 1710

1 Cn«irt Ii!W

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

14105 TP

J 2 6 . 2 0 1 5 - 2 : 0 6 p m

of 38

haneis

Text Box

Attachment 3 Agenda item 6.1 Future Melbourne Committee 2 February 2016

26. 2015 - fcOtpfll

of 38

Ju« 26. 2015 - 2.06pm

of 38

o © A) (5) (6 X_ T 5125 T

1 2 7 - 1 4 1

A 1 B E C K E T T S T R E E T

A ' B E C K E T T S T R E E

i o 1


SCALE@A3

cb ELENBERG FRASER LEVEL 1,160 QUfEN STREET

MELBOURNE VICTORIA 3000 AUSTRALIA

1 1 1 - 1 2 5 A'BECKETT STREET MELBOURNE

LEVEL 07 SERVICES

PRtLIIVllNARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TEL +61 3 9600 2260 FAX +61 3 9600 2266 EMAIL MAIL0tLENBERGFRASER.COM

WVM.ELENBERGFRASER.COM anna mm

14105 Criain|NufT(Wf

A0107 'iw-rt <>mm utf t: zctk intup tl £5«ai ea ut*. 5»c«t Mr is i v iKSita fo» IJKIVSS e*f*r »i* i* •«*.

TEL +61 3 9600 2260 FAX +61 3 9600 2266 EMAIL MAIL0tLENBERGFRASER.COM

WVM.ELENBERGFRASER.COM anna mm

TP H'

of 38

1 0 1


TYP. TOWER LOW RISE LEVEL 09-31, 23

APT UNITS IB 6 [50%] APT UNITS 2B 6 [50%] TOTAL UNITS 12 GFA 827 APT NSA 664 EFFICIENCY 80%

LEVEL 09-31 FLOOR PLAN LOW RISE APARTMENTS

14105 TP

» 26. 2015 - 2:09pm

of 38

J-. 26. 2015 - 7.0**"

of 38

\ \

\

\ \

\ 1

\ \

\ \

\ \

\ \ \ \

\ \ \

1 2 7 - 1 4 1 \

A ' B E C K E T T | STREET T

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I J

18450 SETBACK 9355

2 BED + 2 BTH

2 BED +2BTH NSA. 74m'

2 BED +2BTH

NSA; 69m?

-2BEfr* 2BTH

L37-PARAPFT

1JED NSAJOm'

2BED + 2BIII NSA; 72m?

2BED + 2BTH r.?A: G3i:i

111-125 A'BECKETT STREET MELBOURNE

SCAIE@A1 1:10 SCALE@A3

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

ELENBERG FRASER LEVEL 1, ISO QUEEN STREET

MELBOURNE VICIORIA 3000 AUSTRALIA

ILL »61 3 9600 2260 FA* +6! 3 9600 2266 EMAIL [email protected]

WWW.EIERBERGFRASER.COM A9N9745S18S 726

12BED + 2BTH

1 0 1


TYP. TOWER HIGH RISE LEVEL 33-62 30

APT UNITS IB 3 [27%] APT UNITS 2B 8 [72%] TOTAL UNITS 11 GFA 875 APT NSA 719 EFFICIENCY 82%

J I LEVEL 33-62 HIGH RISE APARTMENTS

14105 A0133 Hilm Rftiusn

TP L J*» 26. 2015 - 2:0»pm

of 38

(

\

ELENBERG FRASER LEVEL 1,160 QUEEN S[REET


TEL +61 3 9600 2260 FAX +61 3 9600 2266 EMAIL MAIL0EIENBERGFRASER.COM

WVW.ELERBERGERASER.COM AM u r n m m


SCALEOAl 1:500 SCALE@A3

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION fi|orf c-ovcss UK cAKttftfce la uafc V*-f, :l s« iif«.

STREETSCAPE A'BECKEn STREET

UJJl I ! JIJJJIJ !! RL 15.5

ELIZABETH STREET

JUn 26. 2015 - 2:10pm

of 38

(

f

MI »MJOIS issa ic# cisisn PCVU*

11Jill mill I ill

•••• ••••

ODD aaai •aaa aaaD

DDDDDDDDDDD

SCAIE@A1 1:500 SCAIE@A3


ELENBERG FRASER LEVEL 1.160 QUEEH STREET

MELBOURNE VICTORIA 3000 AUSFRALIA

TEl .SI 39600 2260 FAX .61 3 9600 2266 EMAIL MAIL0ElENBERGfRASER.COM

WMVELENBERGERASER.COM 13«8)$HI Dig


STREETSCAPE LA TROBE STREET

14105 TP

QUEEN STREET

im m m m m . m i mi mi in in

mi mi i l l in

EUZABETH STREET

A a 2 6 . 2 0 1 5 - 2 : 10pm

of 38

- A BECKETT STREET ELEVATION 1:100

RffN 71KJ01S BMC fW CCSIH hit** In lb. Dm

SCALEOAl 1:100

SCALE0A3

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 'ifurtd fliBbMiflw 1a»e piecefl*ec« is wale iwdinp. Verily al totAiim w wle. Kcjal an, fliwiepjiuiM I" "e Archilecl tv Heaven befere ecce«itin|«f h trie muk

ELENBERG FRASER LEVEL ], 160 QUEEN STREET


TEL +SI 3 9600 2260 TAX+61 3 9600 2206


NORTH ELEVATION A'BECKEn STREET INTERFACE

RffN 71KJ01S BMC fW CCSIH hit** In lb. Dm

sr - — —-

SCALEOAl 1:100

SCALE0A3


ELENBERG FRASER LEVEL ], 160 QUEEN STREET


TEL +SI 3 9600 2260 TAX+61 3 9600 2206


''•|K1 IbfXA 0ia«i»| Runtm

14105 A0910 Cvaumi Valtn RAIMA

TP H —~

SCALEOAl 1:100

SCALE0A3


VAVW.ELENBERGERASER.COM ABN97 5SS IIS 7ti

''•|K1 IbfXA 0ia«i»| Runtm

14105 A0910 Cvaumi Valtn RAIMA

TP H XA 26. 2015 - 2:10pm

of 38

-IU1EPER RL 21.88

_ V _ _ J

I K E K 1 N 1 I K E K 1 N 1 B I K E P A R K I I G

A R G U S C E N T R E C A R P A P K E N T R Y / E X I T

GRD LEVEL RL 15.66

_V _

C A R P A R K E N T R Y / E X I T

L O A D I N G / U N L O A D I N G

H 1 K F Pi K K 1 II

t T A 1 1

R I K F P / R K I IG

R E T A I L

& <?•

D E M O L I S H & R E I N S T A T E E X I S T I N G

R ET IL \ /

R t l A I L

:: FIRE BOOSTER LOCATON

R E T A I N E X I S T I N G

- LANEWAY ELEVATION - 1:100

LEVEL 10 RL 53.88 V_ -

LEVEL 09 RL 50.88 y_ _

LEVEL 08 RL 46.38

_ _

RL 43.22

LEVEL 07 RL 40.38

LEVEL 06 RL 37.38

_ _ _

LEVEL 05 RL 34.38 y_ _

LEVEL 04 RL 31.38

_

LEVEL 03 RL 28.38 V_ _

r

LEVEL 02 RL 24.78

_ V_ _

LEVEL 01 RL 20.88 V

RL 42.71


GRD LEVEL RL 16.38

_ _ _ V _ 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _

lev* 76.0S.ZIIS ISSUEFCIBESIM(EY1EW SCAIE@A1 1:103 SCALE@A3


ELfNBERGFRASER LEVEL 1.160 QUEEN STREET


TEL +61 3 9600 2260 FAX +61 3 9600 2266 EMAIL [email protected]

WmELENBERGFRASER.COM ASK 67 SS6 163 7Z6


U N I L O D G E

PLANNING

2 7 NOV 2015

EAST ELEVATION LANEWAY STREET INTERFACE

14105 ftj-'i suuis

TP 2015 - 11:13cm

of 38

0

0—

©

0-

©_

0-

(EH

0-

PLANNING

2 7 NOV 2015

R« A 2IXSJ015 ISSUE FOR OESWN REV1FW tU.*)* Out Rtnaiirhirt hU

*'* Rt.Hx DM* Uvjtlt. SCALE0A1 1:300

SCALE0A3 1:150 ELENBERG FAASER »t«l TB:

111-125 A'BECKETT STREET DfsMf^TJar

EAST ELEVATION ' ~.''^'.Z!-"TS^ZZ7"..Z. „„

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 'Ifurtd ihrentbnt •*»* ptttdex* to icjfc iud|n(t. Vctf* *9 dimcukm on tfe. Srpsrt vr ihct is ttw NtNiM t« cwtkn tctwe ptocredhf »nn the «crt. c«wrtt»t©

LEVEL 1,160 QUEEN STREET MELBOURNE PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 'Ifurtd ihrentbnt •*»* ptttdex* to icjfc iud|n(t. Vctf* *9 dimcukm on tfe. Srpsrt vr ihct is ttw NtNiM t« cwtkn tctwe ptocredhf »nn the «crt. c«wrtt»t©

IEL *61 3 9600 2260 FAX +61 3 9600 2266 EMAIL MAILeELENBERGFRASER.COM

WWW.ELENBERGFRASER.COM ASNS/SS6II1H6

TniKt N^iWf

14105 Outfall SUIji

TP

ASK-041

of 38

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION fcpst i'f Cwtiftir. to !•« *•

:* lo y.Ht rfff ij;.

ELJENBERG FRASER LEVEL 1,160 QUEEN SIREEI


'EL 161 3 9600 2 260 TAX +61 3 9600 2266 EMAIL MAIL0ELENBERGFRASER.COM

WAVflENBERGFRASER.COM annswmm


SECTION A-A

14105

> 2®. 2015 - 2 10pm

of 38

PLANNING REPORT

MINISTERIAL REFERRAL

Application number: TPM-2015-30

DTPLI Application number: 201536328

Applicant / Owner / Architect: Urbis Pty Ltd / Feature Alpha Investment Pty Ltd / Elenberg Fraser

Address: 111-125 A’Beckett Street, MELBOURNE VIC 3000

Proposal:

Cost of Works:

Partial demolition of the existing building and construction of a mixed use multi-storey building comprising dwellings and retail premises (other than adult sex bookshop, department store, hotel, supermarket and tavern).

$50,000,000

Date received by City of Melbourne:

13 October 2015

Responsible officer: Josephine Lee

1. SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS

1.1. The site

The subject site is a square block with a 40 metre wide frontage located on the south side of A’Beckett Street, between Elizabeth Street and Queen Street. The site has an overall site area of approximately 1,730 square metres and abuts a private lane on the east side.

The existing two storey commercial building on the site has a site specific heritage overlay (HO994) and is identified as a B-graded building in a Level 2 streetscape in the Heritage Places Inventory 2014. Currently occupied by a motor cycle sales and repair business (Harley Heaven), the building was constructed in 1936 for Commonwealth Motors.

1.2 Surrounds

This stretch of A’Beckett Street is characterised by a mixture of commercial built form and land uses. The site abutting to the west is currently being developed for the 64 storey ‘EQ Tower’, which has a built form similar to the subject proposal.

Attachment 4Agenda item 6.1


of 38

Diagonally to the north of the site at 151-165 Franklin Street and extending through to A’Beckett Street is a development known as ‘Fulton Lane’. This built form includes a 27.5 metre high podium (eight stories) with a 6 metre tower setback from A’Beckett Street to a maximum building height of 45 stories (excluding plant). Opposite the site are buildings at 100, 106 and 120 A’Beckett Street of 3-4 storeys.

Abutting the subject site to the south at 300 La Trobe Street is a 34 level office development constructed in 1991 known as the Argus Centre. Adjoining this at the corner of La Trobe and Elizabeth Streets is the former Argus newspaper offices now occupied by the Melbourne Institute of Technology.

To the southwest in La Trobe Street is the Urbanest 25- level student housing development adjacent to the historic Welsh Church.

Private Lane 522 which provides vehicle access to the subject site is owned by the Argus Centre and provides a pedestrian link to La Trobe Street through the building. This 8.9m wide lane also serves the rear of the Argus Building, which includes a ten-level commercial car park. The title submitted with the application confirms that the subject site enjoys carriageway rights over this lane.

Location Plan

The site east of PL 522 at the southwest corner of A’Beckett Street and Elizabeth Street is the former Rhodes Motor Car building dating from the interwar period with a recent three level addition, now used as serviced apartments and ground level retail.

of 38

View from A’Beckett Street 15 September 2015

2. THE PROPOSAL

It is proposed to construct a 65 storey residential tower (210 metres excluding plant) comprising 632 apartments and 1171 square metres of retail at ground to second floor level. Details of the application are as follows:

The two-storey Commonwealth Motors Building is retained across the full footprint of the site with a seven level ‘transitional podium’ that provides apartments facing A’Beckett Street and parking, residential amenities and services at the rear.

The proposal utilises the historic entrance point (vertical entrance feature at west end of the street frontage noted in the heritage study) for access into the residential above. The internal lobby space and stair located immediately behind the pedestrian entry will also be retained.

The east elevation to the side lane will be retained to a depth of one bay, with the remaining bays to the south demolished, and then reinstated to their current appearance, including the reinstallation of the original metal-framed windows to provide activation of the retail floor space along the laneway.

The remainder of the building comprising the internal volume, the south and west perimeter walls and the roof structure is proposed to be demolished.

The street shopfront windows are retained and up to five separate retail tenancies are to be provided within the front portion of the ground, first and second floors. The podium is setback eight metres behind the front parapet creating an outdoor terrace of approximately 280 square metres serving the upper retail level.

The podium is comprised of six levels with the northern edge having four apartments on each floor, providing outlook over the street.

of 38

The tower form comprises levels 8-64 and is separated into residential facilities, ‘Low Rise’ (levels 9- 31), ‘Mid’ (residential facilities and plant level) and ‘High-Rise’ (levels 33-62). Level 63 has penthouse suites. Additional building services are located on level 64.

The built form from Level 8 onwards generally forms a ‘bow-tie’ shape enabling improved apartment amenity and providing outlook for apartments and responding to the sensitive interfaces surrounding the site.

Parking and building services are located at the rear. Vehicular access to the site will be provided south of the 28 metre return wall (off the laneway) allowing for both loading and car parking for the residents.

Summary

Dwelling Total number of dwellings: 632

One bedroom dwellings/apartments: 252

Two bedroom dwellings/apartments: 378

Three or more bedroom dwellings/apartments: 2

Retail (ground level etc.) Leasable Floor Area 1171sqm, plus approximately 280 sqm outdoor terraces.

The specific details of the proposal are as follows:

Building height 210 metres

Podium height 30 metres

Front, side and rear setbacks

North – Average 8m to podium, average 7m to tower.

South –Average 7m

East -0m to 5m

West –Average 7.3m

Gross floor area (GFA) 46,905sqm

Car parking spaces 130

Bicycle facilities and spaces

310

Motor Cycle parking 14

Loading/unloading On site

Vehicle access Two-way off Private Lane

3. BACKGROUND

3.1. Pre-application discussions and process

After discussions with DELWP officers in the first half of 2015, the proposal was presented to City of Melbourne planning officers and a heritage advisor just prior to lodgement on 29 June 2015. In response to feedback from Council officers on

of 38

heritage, urban design and traffic engineering issues, DELWP sought further information from the applicant.

3.2. Site history

The following planning permits issued for this site and surrounding sites are considered relevant to this application:

TP number Description of Proposal Decision & Date of Decision

TP-2008-354/A

Second storey addition to the existing building Permit issued on 10 July 2008 and amended 3 April 2009. Development did not proceed and permit has expired.

TP-2008-1010 Installation of four business identification signs Permit 20 January 2009.

4. PLANNING SCHEME PROVISIONS

The following provisions of the Melbourne Planning Scheme apply:

State Planning Policies

Clause 11.01 - Activity Centres

Clause 15.01 - Urban Design

Clause 15.02 - Sustainable Development

Clause 16 - Housing

Clause 18.02 - Movement Networks

Municipal Strategic Statement

Clause 21.02 - Municipal Profile

Clause 21.03 - Vision and Approach

Clause 21.04 - Settlement

Clause 21.06 - Built Environment and Heritage

Clause 21.07 - Housing

Local Planning Policies

Clause 22.01 - Urban Design within the Capital City Zone

Clause 22.02 – Sunlight to Public Places

Clause 22.04 – Heritage Places within the Capital City Zone

Clause 22.19 - Energy Waste and Water Efficiency

Clause 22.23 – Stormwater Management

Statutory Controls

Clause 37.04

Capital City Zone Schedule 1

Pursuant to Clause 37.04, a permit is required to construct a building and carry out works.

A dwelling and a retail premises are both Section 1 Uses (permit not required).

Clause 43.01 Pursuant to Clause 43.01 a permit is required to construct a building or

of 38

Heritage Overlay

to construct and carry out works.

Clause 43.02

Design and Development Overlay Schedule 1

Pursuant to Clause 43.02 a permit is required to construct a building or to construct and carry out works.

Schedule 1 relates to active street frontages in the Capital City Zone.

Clause 45.09

Parking Overlay Schedule 1

Pursuant to Schedule 1 a permit is required to provide car parking spaces in excess of the car parking rates in Clause 3.0 of this schedule.

The proposal does not exceed the maximum parking rate.

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.06

Car Parking

Pursuant to Clause 52.06 a permit is required to reduce the number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 or in a schedule to the Parking Overlay.

The Parking Overlay specifies a maximum rate rather than a minimum and is the relevant control for the assessment of this application.

Clause 52.07

Loading and Unloading of Vehicles

Pursuant to Clause 52.07 no building or works may be constructed for the manufacture, servicing, storage or sale of goods or materials unless space is provided on the land for loading and unloading vehicles.

A permit may be granted to reduce or waive these requirements.

The proposal exceeds the requirements of this provision and a permit is not required.

Clause 52.34

Bicycle Facilities

Pursuant to Clause 52.34 a permit is required to reduce or waive the bicycle facilities required.

The proposal exceeds the requirements of this provision and a permit is not required.

Clause 52.35

Urban Context Report and Design Response for Residential Development of Four or More Storeys

Pursuant to Clause 52.35 an application for a residential development of five or more storeys must be accompanied by an urban context report and a design response.

Clause 52.36

Integrated Public Transport Planning

An application for in excess of 60 dwellings must be referred to PTV for comment.

DTPLI as the Responsible Authority is responsible for administering this referral.

General Provisions

Clause 61.01

Administration and enforcement of

The Minister for Planning is the responsible authority for this planning permit application as the total floor area of the development exceeds 25,000 square metres (Proposed 46,905sqm GFA).

of 38

this scheme

Clause 65

Approval of an application or plan

Before deciding on an application or approval of a plan, the responsible authority must consider the decision guidelines of Clause 65.

5. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

The DELWP has given notice of the application to City of Melbourne and to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land under Clause 43.01, Heritage Overlay, which does not exempt the proposal from the notification and review rights of Clause 52.

Pursuant to Clause 37.04-4 and Schedule 1, an application for buildings and works is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52 (1) (a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64 (1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82 (1) of the Act.

6. REFERRALS

The application was referred to the following internal departments whose comments are summarised:

6.1. Urban Design

Context

The subject site offers considerable heritage and architectural value with the existing B graded heritage building fronting on to A’Beckett Street and the Laneway. The Argus Centre tower south of the subject site has minimal setbacks from the common boundary and currently benefits from access to sunlight and views to the north. The proposed development located at 127 A’Beckett Street includes a significant number of habitable rooms directly overlooking the proposed development.

Together with the proposed towers at 346-376 Queen St and 127 A’Beckett Street, the cumulative impact of the proposal would be to create a perceived wall of towers, overwhelming the pedestrian and unduly limiting the penetration of sun, views and light between towers. We support the retention of the existing heritage building, but the proposed development threatens to overwhelm it.

Building height and scale

With a parapet height of about 209m, the proposal is considered to be an overly intensive development of the site. The plot ratio far exceeds the 12:1 maximum plot ratio design standard for the block (MPS 22.01).

The proposed height and mass would result in overshadowing impacts of La Trobe Street which is contrary to the objectives of the Sunlight to Open Spaces policy (MPS 22.02).

Tower setbacks and spacing

The proposed average front tower set-back is 8.0m from the northern site boundary. This is not considered adequate; for a tower of this scale, there should be no compromise on the design standard in Clause 22.01, and the average tower setback should be increased to 10m.

of 38

The proposed tower’s west and south set-backs average approximately 7.3m and 7.9m, resulting in limited sky views or solar penetration between towers. These should be no less than 12m (consistent with the 24m tower separation standard in 22.01), given that habitable rooms will face both sides.

To the east, the tower setback averages about 1.8m, tapering to zero at each end; if 101 A’Beckett St (across the lane) were similarly developed, the average separation between the two towers would be about 13.6m – well under the design standard of 24m. To improve this relationship, as well as to separate the tower from its host heritage building and to limit this large building’s impact on daylight to existing residences, the average tower setback should be increased to 12m from the centre of the lane. This would also help to achieve the human scale called for in the laneways policy (MPS 22.02), although we note that this is a private lane.

The podium proposed between the existing building and the tower has an awkward relationship to each of them, and does not present well in its own right. Lacking a side setback from the existing building, it sits heavily upon it. We therefore recommend that the floor plate of Levels 3 to 7 be amended to match that of the tower above – particularly on the north and east sides. This would result in a simple two-part composition of tower and plinth, and a clearer relationship between new and existing.

Public Realm

The extent of the proposed car parking ramps and bicycle storage fronting the laneway diminishes the quality and activation of the laneway and the architectural value of the existing building.

The existing footpath on the laneway is very narrow and partially obstructed by the existing bollards and therefore pedestrians tend not to use the footpath. The proposed increase in vehicular traffic using the laneway may potentially increase conflict between cars and pedestrians.

6.2. Heritage

Heritage Assessment

As part of the Central City (Hoddle Grid) Heritage Review, 2011, a comprehensive assessment, which acknowledged damage previously caused by the sandblasting to part of the exterior brick and terracotta facings, found the building grading to be unchanged as B. The building is assessed as significant historically and aesthetically to the Melbourne Capital City Zone.

Integrity and condition

Careful inspection on site and comparison with 1937 photographs reveals the pointing to be recessed from the face of the bricks, but otherwise generally firm and sound. The bricks do not exhibit an “eroding” condition except where water appears to be associated with efflorescence in the localised area at the top of the stair “tower”.

of 38

Notwithstanding the less than desirable method used for the removal of paint, in its present condition the decorative use of brickwork and clay tiles remains impressive and an important component of significance as recognised in 2011. A proposal for replacement of the bricks and clay tiles would not be consistent with best conservation practice. The assessment by Raworth Pty Ltd that “the extent of damage is so major that the original effect cannot be fully recovered” (page 5), does not appear to be based on assessment of the available data and the site condition.

The copper windows are unusual for their curved elements, particularly fine examples of their type, and in excellent condition. One small area of impact damage was noted and the showroom entrance doors have been removed. The first floor openings and steel framed windows appear to be as constructed in 1937 and while the ground floor has 2 openings inserted, the original joinery and the original 4 bay divisions remain prominent. Overall the steel framed windows appear to be in good condition.

Removal or alteration to the copper windows and steel framed windows would diminish significance and would not be consistent with best conservation practice.

Both the A’Beckett Street and the east lane elevation contribute to the three-dimensional form and are an important component of significance. Demolition of the majority of the east elevation as proposed would diminish significance and is not consistent with best conservation practice.

Heritage assessment of the proposed redevelopment: fabric conservation issues:

Significance would be diminished by the proposed demolition of part of the B graded building including:

The majority of the east elevation,

All of the roof,

All the internal concrete floor slabs – “a feature of fireproofing”,

Perhaps part of the A’Beckett Street elevation, where inappropriate removal and reconstruction appears to be implied in the Raworth Pty Ltd report.

No Conservation Management Plan (CMP) has been prepared for the site. Clause 22.04 requires that a CMP be prepared consistent with the Burra Charter.

Heritage assessment of the proposed redevelopment: development proposal

The three-dimensional form of the B graded building has not been retained in the proposal. The setback to the proposed tower and podium on the east and the north is not sufficient to ensure that the development would conserve and enhance the heritage place. An appropriate setting would retain the strong horizontal emphasis of the 1937, streamlined design and its three-dimensional prominence addressing both the lane and A’Beckett Street.

of 38

Insufficient visual separation is proposed between the tower and the heritage building. To maintain an appropriate setting, any new “podium” or “tower” development should be setback the depth of the retained north hipped roof, and at least one metre from the Lane on the east. No parts of the development should overhang the retained building fabric.

The reflective elements proposed for the balustrades to the car park podium intended to direct light to lower levels, would be visually intrusive in relation to the B- graded building and are not supported

6.3 Engineering

6.3.1 Parking and Traffic

Access to the site is currently provided via a single crossover from A’Beckett Street and two crossovers from the privately-owned laneway, including a ramp to the first floor.

The proposal is to remove the A’Beckett Street crossing and to consolidate the two crossings from the lane to a single wide crossing to serve the car parking levels in the podium and the loading/ waste collection area.

The laneway has a pavement width of 8.9 metres with a raised footpath adjacent to the footpath of the subject site and bollards marking off bins storage and informal car parking.

The proposal is for 632 dwellings, 130 car parking spaces and 1171 sq m of retail floor area. The Traffic report submitted with the application indicates that the 130 car parking spaces will all be allocated to residential occupiers.

A total of 310 bicycle parking spaces and 14 motor-cycle spaces proposed for Level 1 are to be shared between residents, employees and visitors. This exceeds planning scheme requirements.

The provision of 130 car parking spaces complies with the planning scheme requirements. It is appropriate that visitor parking occur on-street or in nearby commercial car parks.

Parking space dimensions comply with the requirements of the AS/NZ standard and swept path diagrams show that two B99 vehicles can pass at the entrance to the site from the laneway.

No information is provide about access control/ entry doors, which must be set at least 5 metres inside the site to avoid vehicles overhanging the laneway.

The traffic generation rates adopted for the development are consistent with data held by Engineering Services for inner city developments. The rates are considered to be unlikely to cause adverse impacts on existing traffic conditions, including the additional movements in the laneway.

6.3.2 Waste Management

The Waste management Plan needs to be updated to show that Council will collect residential waste from the compactors weekly and the building will need to arrange a separate commercial waste collection.

Scaled drawings of the bin storage location, bin presentation space, typical residential floor plan and swept path diagrams for the collection vehicles will

of 38

need to show access for unloaded truck entry and loaded truck exit from the site for both compactors with the appropriate truck for each.

7 ASSESSMENT

The key issues in the consideration of this application are:

Built Form

Heritage

7.1 Built Form

7.1.1 Planning Scheme Amendments C262 and C264

Amendment C262 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme was gazetted on 4 September 2015. It applies to land in the Central City and Southbank on an interim basis and includes transitional provisions. The amendment inserted changes to the Capital City Zone Schedules 1, 2 and 3, changes to Clause 22.01 (Urban Design Policy within the Capital City Zone), a new Schedule 10 to Clause 43.02 Design and Development Overlay and makes City of Melbourne a recommending referral authority at the Schedule to Clause 66.04.

Amendment C266 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme was gazetted on Monday 16 November 2015. This amendment was required to ensure that applications lodged prior to the gazettal of Amendment C262 are assessed against the version of the scheme in operation at the time an application was lodged (including the former Clauses 22.01 and 22.02). Previously it could have been interpreted that only the provisions of the relevant schedules benefit from the transitional provisions, which was not the intention of Amendment C262.

This application was lodged on 29 June 2015 and consequently, policy and controls introduced by Amendment C262 do not apply to this application.

7.1.2 Height

The proposed height of the building is 210 metres. There are no height controls affecting the site. Clause 21.11 of the Municipal Strategic Statement identifies the site as being within the local area of the ‘Hoddle Grid’.

Clause 21.12 includes the following relevant objective for Built Environment and Heritage:

‘Ensure the area bounded by Latrobe and Victoria Streets and Elizabeth/Peel Streets has a lower scale than the Hoddle Grid and provides a contrast in built form scale between the lower scale of Carlton and North Melbourne and the higher scale of the Hoddle Grid.’

A’Beckett Street has seen the recent approval and development of many high rise residential buildings. The absence of height controls along the south side of A’Beckett Street when this application was lodged suggested that these blocks, which are bounded by A’Beckett Street to the north and La Trobe Street to the south, can accommodate higher built form, subject to other considerations such as the immediate context and impacts to the public realm.

The Design and Development Overlay Schedule 14 applies a number of height controls to the land around the Queen Victoria Market including directly to the north of the site across A’Beckett Street. Part of the rationale for other approvals in this

of 38

part of A’Beckett Street appears to have been that these height controls not only protect the heritage environs of the Queen Victoria Market, but also provide transition between the higher built form of the Hoddle Grid and the lower scale north of Victoria Street, as sought by clause 22.12 and Clause 43.02-14.

It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that from a broader cityscape context, the height proposed to this site is considered appropriate as it assists in defining the stepping up in scale between the low rise market and mid- rise city north precincts, and the higher scale experience of this and other parts of Melbourne’s central city. This change in scale is demonstrated in the relationship of this project to the Fulton Lane towers. Collectively these will read as heights increasing from approximately 29 levels, to 45, levels, to 63 levels moving away from the market precinct, the closest point of which is at least 200m away (as the crow flies) from the subject site.

Urban Design initially raised concerns with the overshadowing of the south side of La Trobe Street. Clause 22.12 includes the following relevant objective:

‘Ensure sunlight penetration in the middle of the day to key public spaces, appropriate to their role and function.’

It is noted that the south side of La Trobe Street opposite the Argus Centre is included in Area 2 under Design Development Overlay 1 and therefore identified as a ‘key pedestrian route’, however it is already significantly shadowed by the Argus Centre and recently completed Urbanest development.

Additional shadow studies provided in response to the further information request confirm that the majority of the new shadows will fall within existing shadows in adjacent streets.

Clause 22.02 provides specific protection regarding sunlight to public spaces, including the following:

‘Development should not reduce the amenity of public spaces by casting any additional shadows on public parks and gardens, public squares, major pedestrian routes including streets and lanes (including all streets within the retail core of the Capital City Zone), and privately owner plazas accessible to the public between 11.00 am and 2.00 pm on 22 September.’

The south side of La Trobe Street is not identified in this policy. The extent of overshadowing caused by the proposal is therefore not a reason in its own right to require a reduction in the building height.

The proposed building height could be supported based on the pattern of development in the streetscape including the lower scale building (‘Fulton Lane’) recently completed diagonally to the north of the site, the 63-level EQ tower under construction to the west and the twin tower proposal (up to 79 levels) at 346-376 Queen Street recently supported by the City of Melbourne, together with the lack of height controls on the south side of A’Beckett Street at the time that this application was lodged.

of 38

7.1.3 Setbacks and Interface Considerations

Diagram showing average set-backs and relationship to EQ Tower at 127 A’Beckett Street.

Source: Ellenberg Fraser

A’Beckett Street (Northern) Setback

The proposal includes an average eight metre setback from A’Beckett Street at levels 3 to 7 above the retained heritage façade. Clause 22.01 Urban Design within the Capital City Zone seeks a 10 metre setback from street frontages for towers above the podium. Urban Design referral comments recommend a similar setback.

Developments along A’Beckett Street currently under construction or recently completed within close proximity to the site include varying setbacks, including 0-2 metre tower setbacks, typically at corners. The EQ tower adjoining to the west has a 4.5m setback above the 30 metre podium.

The proposed average setback of eight metres to A’Beckett Street for the podium element is considered to allow an equitable development potential within the street, providing access to light and views whilst forming a pattern of development between the 0 metre setbacks further east on A’Beckett Street and the preferred 10 metre setbacks sought by Clause 22.01 and the urban design and heritage advisers.

The full height of the tower has an average setback of seven metres, and the architects have explained the chosen set-backs and the ‘bow-tie’ footprint of the tower as follows:

‘This approach brings with it numerous urban design advantages, and perhaps more importantly enables a tower footprint with amenable apartment configurations whilst not unduly compromising outlook, surrounding sites or microclimatic considerations. The positive outcomes of this design include:

Significant side setbacks between the western interface, resulting in a maximum 20 metre separation at the most sensitive interface between the proposed tower and the EQ tower, addressing overlooking issues between the two forms.

A rear tower setback of an average 7.932 metres. Resulting in a 10.03 metre separation to the commercial Argus Centre (Level 9 and above). This

of 38

is considered an acceptable outcome given the residential to commercial interface.

Provision of individual sightlines, mitigating overlooking to EQ tower, Argus Centre and 101 A’Beckett Street.

No apartments require saddleback arrangements.

Provision of angled and glazed façade, providing daylight penetration to apartments.

Favourable façade wind analysis’.

As discussed in more detail below, the advantages of the side and rear set-backs associated with the ‘bow-tie” footprint are a positive outcome of this proposal.

West Setback

Clause 21.12 seeks to:

‘Ensure tower buildings are well spaced and sited to provide equitable access to an outlook and sunlight for all towers.’

Pursuant to Clause 22.01, it is policy that:

‘Towers should be well spaced to equitably distribute access to an outlook and sunlight between towers and ensure adequate sun penetration at street level as follows:

- Development above 45 metres be setback 24 metres from any surrounding podium tower development.

- Tower separation setbacks may be reduced where is can be demonstrated that towers are offset and habitable room windows to not directly face one another and where consideration is given to the development potential of adjoining lots.

The western interface is the EQ Tower that was approved in 2013, which was designed by the same architects with the consideration for an equitable development opportunity and acceptable amenity outcomes for future residents of both properties.

The subject proposal provides a setback of 9.095 metres at the centre point of the western interface (most sensitive) to the title boundary and a tower separation of a maximum 19.59 metres between the towers. Other design outcomes claimed by the applicants include:

The interface continues the bow-shape design that allows ‘pinch points’ with increased setbacks and angled orientation to mitigate overlooking to EQ.

The proposed setbacks to the boundary decreases to a minimum of 5.475 metres where corner apartments are proposed. For these apartments, they have been designed with only bedrooms and rooms with secondary aspect provided with an interface to EQ. Furthermore, these pinch-points are designed to ensure a shallower floor plate (than EQ), allowing a greater front and rear setback and overall greater spacing to the built form.

Urban Design referral recommends recommend increased setbacks of the lower floors to allow 24 metre tower separation, however the tower shape is supported.

In this case it is considered that the reduced separation can be accepted as habitable room windows do not directly overlook and the future development potential of the adjoining site to the west is not an issue.

of 38

Rear (Southern) Setback

The Argus Centre office building is setback three metres from its north boundary and the south wall of the Commonwealth Motors Building that is to be retained. The podium up to Level 8 is proposed to be constructed to this boundary

From levels 9 to 31 the proposal provides a minimum 7.9 metre setback from the glazed façade of the 34 level Argus Centre office building.

It is submitted by the applicant that the design minimises the number of apartments orientated solely toward the southern interface to two apartments per level, which will have oblique views afforded by a 10m minimum spacing between the built forms.

It is unlikely that any future residential redevelopment of the Argus Centre will involve a conversion of the existing built form given its depth and shape, which provides an unsuitable residential floor plate. Any future development to residential will likely require a redevelopment that would provide a greater setback (matching setback) which could be considered as an acceptable tower separation outcome.

East (Laneway) setback

The podium utilises the full width of the site to achieve an efficient car park layout that retains the historic car entry ramp up to the upper floors and on-site loading facilities. The result is a zero setback from the east side (laneway) boundary which, was a concern from both a heritage and urban design perspective

Of greater concern was the apparent overhang of the tower levels which also have a zero setbacks from the east elevation at critical points and achieve an average setback of 6.8 metres calculated to the centre line of the laneway. This matter was raised with the applicants, who arranged for further studies of the laneway relationship, as shown below.

of 38

These images illustrate the proposed relationship of the three forms, with the rebuilt heritage façade providing a strong horizontal base. Concerns about the reflectivity of the podium screening can be addressed by a change in materials.

The architectural drawings confirm that the tower will not overhang the laneway boundary and it is also notable from these images that the Argus Centre podium and tower extend further to the east and are the dominant visual form in views to the south.

It is therefore accepted that the siting and design of the tower will have minimal visual and pedestrian impact given the characteristics of the laneway and that there is sufficient separation from the buildings to the east.

7.1.4 Façade Treatment

Pursuant to Clause 22.01 it is policy that:

‘All visible sides of a building should be fully designed.

Visible service areas (and other utility requirements) should be treated as an integral part of the overall design and fully screened from public areas.’

The treatment of the A’Beckett Street façade, which involves the retention of the existing building façade, is appropriate subject to the carrying out of approved conservation and restoration works.

The highly visible first bay of the eastern façade is also retained and restored at ground and first floor level. The rest of the eastern elevation of the existing building

of 38

is to be demolished and rebuilt to match existing, apart from the alterations required for the vehicle entry to the loading area. It should be noted that vehicle access from the laneway via a ramp to the upper floor, historically the service centre for Commonwealth Motors, is to be retained for the podium level car and bicycle parking. A balance therefore needs to be struck between the access and service requirements of the new building, include sufficient vertical clearance for waste collection vehicles, and the preference for having a pedestrian-friendly privately owned laneway.

7.1.5 Through-block link

The private lane abutting the east boundary of the site also acts as a through-block pedestrian link for occupiers of the Argus Centre and the Melbourne Institute of Technology at 300 and 284 La Trobe Street respectively. As the access is through the buildings, it is generally only open during business hours.

This lane is not recognized in the local Laneway Policy, Clause 22.02, however general support for maintenance and activation of through block links is found elsewhere in relevant planning scheme policy.

Clause 21.12 seeks to:

‘Ensure high quality and robust public space design in arcade and laneway upgrades.

Encourage arcade and laneway links between streets and public spaces.’

Clause 22.01 includes the following relevant policy:

‘Streets and public spaces should be fronted by active uses to increase interest, use, and the perception of safety.’

There is consensus between the traffic engineers that the additional vehicle movements in the laneway to be generated by this proposal are unlikely to create adverse impacts for other users. The applicants have stated that they expect to work with the owners of the lane to improve safety and amenity. Retention of the full- large steel-framed windows to the retail space in the rebuilt east façade will maintain activation of approximately half of the laneway frontage.

7.2 Heritage Impact

The proposed development is supported by a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Bryce Raworth. This statement concludes that the retention of the existing A’Beckett Street frontage, including the full three-dimensional entry structure at the west end and the first return bay to the laneway, would allow the building to be understood as a three-dimensional form. As summarised in the Part 6.2 of this report, Council’s adviser does not agree with aspects of this assessment, particularly in relation to fabric retention and the scale of the proposed additions.

The submitted drawings do not document any conservation works and it can be inferred that the proposal seeks to remove significant visible fabric from the ‘B’ graded two storey heritage building on the site. A very detailed analysis of the current condition of the building, including the windows and cladding proposed to be removed, has concluded that the fabric is sound and there is no basis for the removal.

Relevant objectives of Clause 22.04, Heritage Places within the Capital City Zone are:

of 38

To conserve and enhance all heritage places, and ensure that any alterations or extensions to them are undertaken in accordance with accepted conservation standards.

To consider the impact of development on buildings listed in the Central Activities District Conservation Study and the South Melbourne Conservation Study.

It is therefore necessary to include specific permit conditions to ensure that the conservation works are clearly shown on the endorsed plans, that the technical requirements for the support and conservation of the retained parts are approved prior to any demolition and that a bond is held to ensure that the reinstatement is carried out satisfactorily.

The proposed removal of the roof is considered to be acceptable because it is concealed behind the parapet. Reconstruction of the less ornate eastern wall bays is also a reasonable compromise provided that original windows and other elements are retained and re-used.

Increases in the side setback from the eastern lane would require significant changes to the design and are not considered to be necessary, as discussed in Section 7.1.1 above.

7.3 Residential Amenity and Housing

In terms of individual apartment and communal amenities, the design provides the following:

All apartments to have natural light access to all bedrooms, and view-lines, while the slender tower form and north-south bias of the floor plates assist in achieving a high degree of solar access to the apartments.

Apartment sizes are a minimum of 50sqm for 1 bedroom apartments, 2 bedroom (1 bathroom) at 60 sqm, 2 bedroom (2 bathroom) at 74 sqm and 3 bedroom apartments at 106 sqm. It is noted that apartment areas are inclusive of terrace areas, which are provided up to Level 31.

The proposal provides a variety of housing stock, with a mixture of one bedroom (46%), two bedroom (51%) and three bedroom (3%) apartments.

Primary outlooks are typically treated with full height glazing to maximise natural light penetration and add a perception of spaciousness to the dwellings.

Residents will have access to a wide range of on-site facilities, including swimming pool, spa, gymnasium, event/function dining spaces, and retail on site.

310 bicycle and 14 motor cycle parking spaces facilities at level 1 are conveniently accessible to ground level.

7.4 Parking and Traffic

The proposed provision of car, bicycle and motorcycle parking is acceptable. The layout of the car park and bicycle parking is acceptable subject to conditions to manage use of the access ramps and protect pedestrians in the laneway. This will include setting any doors or barriers at least five metres inside the site boundary to ensure that waiting vehicles do not intrude into the laneway.

The proposed on-site loading area exceeds the requirements under Clause 52.07 of the Planning Scheme and should cater for waste collection in accordance with the

of 38

City of Melbourne’s waste management guidelines. A revised WMP is required to clarify some aspects of the operation of the waste area.

7.5 Wind

A wind tunnel assessment of the environmental wind conditions at ground level was undertaken by MEL consulting. The slender and curved form of the tower delivers beneficial effects in terms of wind mitigation and minimising down drafts.

The site has been found to benefit from surrounding development which has a ‘shielding’ effect on the proposed building. The tower is exposed to some degree to north westerlies, however this will be lessened by the construction of EQ Tower. The curved corners will also encourage air flow horizontally around the tower as opposed to drafting down. Based on the testing undertaken by MEL, the design of the building overall has ensured appropriate wind conditions are maintained in the public realm areas adjacent to the development. This includes the following:

A’Beckett Street North Side – was shown to be within the criterion for walking comfort for all wind directions. The majority of wind directions achieved the criterion for short term stationary activities.

A’Beckett Street South Side – was shown to be either on or within the criterion for walking comfort for all wind directions with many wind directions achieving the criterion for short term stationary activities.

Laneway – was shown to be well within the criterion for walking comfort for most wind directions, except west through to north-west directions which approached (within) the criterion for walking comfort.

In relation to wind it is noted that the actual conditions on A’Beckett Street are anticipated to be better than the test results given the benefit of existing mature street trees which have not been relied upon for modelling.

7.6 Energy, Water and Waste

The applicant has submitted as ESD report as required by Clause 22.19-2. The report identifies that the proposal is capable of achieving a 5-star green star rating, a 1 point for Wat-1 Green Star credit and will harvest rainwater for irrigation and toilet-flushing using a 35,000 litre storage tank to meet best practice for standard stormwater quality.

A Waste Management Plan (WMP) was submitted with the application material and was reviewed by Engineering Services. For the proposed number of apartments, on-site waste and recycling compaction is required and has been allowed for, however the WMP does not comply with current Council guidelines. A condition will require the provision of further information which, once satisfactory and approved, will become part of an endorsed WMP.

7.7 Other matters

Given the previous uses of the site for motor vehicle repairs, a preliminary Site Investigation report was submitted with the application. The findings suggested only a medium risk of contamination that did not warrant an environmental audit.

8. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That a letter be sent to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning advising that the Melbourne City Council supports the proposal subject to the following conditions:

of 38

Conditions

1. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, including demolition, the applicant must submit to the responsible authority three copies of plans drawn to scale generally in accordance with the places accompanying the application but amended to show:

a) Details of warning devices to alert pedestrians in the laneway of existing vehicles.

b) Details of the access control doors/barriers to the parking and loading areas, which must be located at least five metres inside the site boundary unless otherwise agreed in writing with the owner of the lane.

c) Any modifications required to the ground floor areas required by the WMP required by Condition 6.

d) Drawing A10010 to include a notation that the six steel-framed windows south of the first bay are to be carefully removed and stored for re-use.

e) Drawings A040 and A0901 with notations to show reinstatement of the stored windows in a wall reconstructed to match the original.

f) Documentation of the engineering works required by Condition 3.

g) Documentation of the conservation works required by Condition 8.

h) A schedule and samples of all external materials, colours and finishes of all external walls, roof, fascias, windows, balustrades, screens and vehicle entry doors, including a reflectivity assessment.

These amended plans must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and when approved shall be the endorsed plans of the permit.

2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Before the development starts, including any demolition, documentation by a suitably qualified Structural Engineer must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Responsible Authority. The documentation must demonstrate the means by which the retained portions of the building will be supported and protected during demolition and construction works to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and Melbourne City Council. The recommendations in the report must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and Melbourne City Council.

4. Prior to the commencement of any demolition, construction or works, a bank guarantee or bond to the value of $2.5 million must be deposited with the Melbourne City Council to ensure that the existing building at 111-125 A’Beckett Street, Melbourne is not demolished except to complete the development in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conservation documentation required by condition 7. The bank guarantee or bond will be returned when the works are completed to the satisfaction of the Melbourne City Council.

5. Prior to the commencement of the development, including demolition or bulk excavation, a detailed construction and demolition management plan must be submitted to and be approved by the Responsible Authority and Melbourne City Council. This construction management plan is to be prepared in accordance with the City of Melbourne - Construction Management Plan Guidelines and is to consider, but not be limited to, the following:

a) public safety, amenity and site security;

of 38

b) operating hours, noise and vibration controls;

c) air and dust management;

d) stormwater and sediment control;

e) waste and materials reuse; and

f) traffic management.

6. Prior to the commencement of development, a Waste Management Plan (WMP) shall be prepared and submitted to Melbourne City Council- Engineering Services. The WMP should detail waste storage and collection arrangements and comply with the City of Melbourne Guidelines for Preparing a Waste Management Plan 2015. Waste storage and collection arrangements must not be altered without prior consent of Melbourne City Council - Engineering Services.

7. All waste must be stored and handled within the site. Bins must not be placed outside the property boundary for collection.

8. Prior to commencement of any demolition or fabric removal from the site, detailed documentation for the removal, storage and conservation of all fabric to be retained and/or reinstalled must be prepared by a suitably qualified heritage architect and submitted to the Responsible Authority and Melbourne City Council for approval. The documented conservation works will form part of the planning permit. The documentation must identify the extent, materials and techniques for all works proposed for existing retained and/or reinstated fabric. The conservation works must be implemented prior to the occupation of the building, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and Melbourne City Council.

9. No advertising signs shall be erected, painted or displayed on the land without the permission of the Responsible Authority unless in accordance with the exemption provisions of the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

10. No architectural features and services other than those shown on the endorsed plans shall be permitted above the roof level unless otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority.

11. Existing street levels in A’Beckett Street and PL522 must not be altered for the purpose of constructing new vehicle crossings or pedestrian entrances without first obtaining approval from Melbourne City Council and the owner of PL522.

12. All street furniture such as street litter bins recycling bins, seats and bicycle rails must be supplied and installed on A’Beckett Street footpaths outside the proposed building to plans and specifications first approved by Melbourne City Council.

13. Prior to the commencement of the development, a stormwater drainage system, incorporating integrated water management design principles, must be submitted to and approved by Melbourne City Council – Engineering Services. This system must be constructed prior to the occupation of the development and provision made to connect this system to the City of Melbourne’s underground stormwater drainage system.

14. Prior to the occupation of the development, all necessary vehicle crossings must be constructed and all unnecessary vehicle crossings must be demolished and the footpath, kerb and channel in A’ Beckett Street reconstructed in sawn bluestone, in accordance with plans and specifications first approved by the Melbourne City Council – Engineering Services.

of 38

15. Existing public street lighting must not be altered without first obtaining the written approval of Melbourne City Council.

16. No street tree adjacent to the site may be removed, lopped, pruned or root-pruned without the prior written consent of Melbourne City Council.

17. Street trees adjacent to the site must be shown as retained and must be protected by barriers, to prevent damage or soil compaction in the root zone during building operations, to the satisfaction of Melbourne City Council.

18. All costs associated with the planting of new trees in the A’Beckett Street footpath, including selection, site preparation and planting by Melbourne City Council, must be met by the developer.

19. Landscape works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed within three months from the completion of the development to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and subsequently maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

20. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.

b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the permit if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within six months afterwards. The Responsible Authority may extend the time for completion of the development if a request is made in writing within 12 months after the permit expires and the development started lawfully before the permit expired.

of 38

future melbourne committee 2 february 2016 - agenda item 6 · 2016-04-22 · report to the future...

Documents