From: Katakouzinos, SotiriosTo: AmendmentC221Subject: Amendment C221 - West Melbourne WaterfrontDate: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 3:43:24 PM

Attention: Robyn Hellman, Coordinator Planning Scheme Urban Strategy - City of Melbourne Dear Robyn, The proposed planning scheme amendment affects land abutting VicTrack land in WestMelbourne. The VicTrack land includes property which is currently leased along the northernboundary of the proposed amendment. The exhibited Development Plan Overlay Schedule 12 refers to rail noise intrusion levels that arenot to be exceeded, and requires an Acoustic and Vibrations Assessment prepared by a suitablyqualified engineer identifying and assessing nearby acoustic emitters including the rail line to thenorth. The Report must identify and detail how future development will meet the acousticrequirements in Section 2 of this DPO Schedule. Is there a background acoustic report that was provided to Council which informs the acousticrequirements of the DPO? How have the recommended treatments been established and whatwas the methodology used by the investigators? Are these available and can they be provided toVicTrack please? The Built Form requirements do not specify any setback to the VicTrack land, or any particulartreatment. At least one cross section and preferably a cross section for each building where itcomes close to the VicTrack land should be included in the Development Plan to establish thebuilt form relationship with VicTrack land. Buildings which come up to the rail corridor boundarycan impact upon rail corridor operations and VicTrack needs to ensure that issues such as sightlines for train drivers, glare from reflective building surfaces, clearances for electrical overheadservices and the like need to be properly maintained. If there are balconies, there need to besafeguards in place to avoid projectiles affecting rail operations. Any additional information that you may have which can assist us in responding to the exhibitedamendment will be greatly appreciated. regards Sotirios KatakouzinosPlanning Manager (Acting)VicTrackLevel 8, 1010 LaTrobe StreetDocklands Vic 3008Tel: (03) 9619 0222Fax: (03) 9619 8851Mobile: 0419 89 00 32E-mail: Sotirios.Katakouzinos@victrack.com.auWeb: www.victrack.com.au

Attachment No.1 Extract From AS 2885.1-2012 Definitions of Pipeline Location Classes

Attachment No.1 Extract From AS 2885.1-2012 Definitions of Pipeline Location Classes

Attachment No.1 Extract From AS 2885.1-2012 Definitions of Pipeline Location Classes

Section of PL-203 along Hobsons Road & Childers Street

Area impacting Pipeline Location Class

Issue 22 March 2015 1 of 2 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED

Technical Standard 2607.2

CONDITIONS FOR WORKS NEAR GAS TRANSMISSION PIPELINES

This information is provided by AusNet Services, the Gas Distribution Company whose assets may be affected by the proposed works.

Damage to a Transmission Pipeline could result in:

Gas escaping at pressures up to 2800 kPa

Loss of gas to thousands of consumers

Possible explosion and fire

Substantial damage repair, gas restoration and legal liability costs to the authority or principal responsible

Injury to persons and damage to property

It is the responsibility of the person(s) carrying out the works to have the utmost regard for the safety of property and life.

AusNet Services provides these minimum Conditions for Works which must be complied with by the person(s) carrying out

works.

NOTE 1

Under no circumstances will AusNet Services accept liability for the acts or omissions of person(s) carrying out works. If

in doubt contact DownerTenix, AusNet Services’s Primary Service Provider on (03) 9931 2076 or Fax: (03) 9931 2078.

An email address is also available under: gas.transmission@DownerTenix.com

If damage occurs to any property that is owned by AusNet Services, AusNet Services will assert its legal rights. These

legal rights include, but are not limited to:

Seeking compensation for tortious damage to property; and

Asserting statutory entitlements, including prosecution under the Gas Industry Act (Vic) 2001, as amended.

NOTE 2

Pursuant to the conditions of the Gas Safety Act 1997, large penalties can be imposed for unauthorised works in the

vicinity of AusNet Services -owned gas assets and interference with:

Gas company pipelines (other than transmission).

Transmission pipelines and,

Any other gas company installation or facility.

Minimum Conditions for Work Near Transmission Pipelines

1. It is essential that prior to any work being carried out, detailed design plans of the proposed construction work in the vicinity of a gas transmission pipeline are forwarded to the Engineering Section of DownerTenix, (03 9931 2090), for impact assessment. Only after DownerTenix have considered and approved the proposal will a work

permit be issued.

2. In cases where further assessment is required, AusNet Services may require the responsible proponent of works to carry out a Safety Management Study (aka Risk Assessment) in compliance to the requirements of AS 2885.1 and AusNet Services Technical Standards. All recommendations of the study will need to be completed to AusNet Services satisfaction prior to the development.

3. Upon receiving a work permit, DownerTenix Pipeline Security is to be contacted on (03) 9931 2041 or fax: (03) 9931 2065 prior to any excavation and/or construction work in the vicinity of a transmission pipeline.

Issue 22 March 2015 2 of 2 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED

4. Normally, a minimum of 2 working days’ notice is required to enable a Pipeline Inspector to be on site during the proposed work. Usually no fee is charged for this service.

5. Final construction plans approved by DownerTenix, together with any relevant gas plans supplied by them are only to be used for the proposed works. Updated gas plans must again be obtained for any further works in the future.

NOTE 3

For After Hours Contact:

1. For DownerTenix Pipeline Security, telephone number is Mobile: 0428 534 817

2. For Gas Emergencies telephone 13 67 07

6. To determine the exact location of a pipeline prior to commencement of design and/or construction work, HAND EXCAVATED provings must be carried out, and only under the supervision of a Pipeline Inspector. This will

require making a booking through the Pipeline co-ordinator on 0428 534 817.

7. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT must not be used within 1 metre of the pipeline even after the pipeline has been

proven, except under explicit direction of the Pipeline Inspector. Under no circumstances is mechanical equipment to be used within 300 mm of the pipeline.

8. When a bore is to pass under or over a pipeline, the position of the pipeline must be proven by excavation. All or part of this excavation must be by hand as directed by the Pipeline Inspector. The excavation must be extended 1 metre from the pipeline on the side from which the bore will approach. The position and direction of the bore head must be checked when it reaches this excavation to ensure the required minimum clearance of 300mm between the bore and the pipeline will be maintained. Progressive measurement of the bore length must be made to ensure that the bore head has not missed the excavation.

9. Any alteration to the surface level over the pipeline must only be carried out with the prior written approval of the Engineering Manager, DownerTenix.

10. Blasting must be in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2187, and TS 2607.3 - “Conditions for the Use of Explosives near Gas Mains and Transmission Pipelines”, and only in the presence of a Pipeline Inspector. Restrictions must only be modified upon the explicit approval from the Engineering Manager, DownerTenix.

11. Under Section 120 of the Pipelines Act 2005, you are advised that no temporary or permanent structures (except basic approved fencing) are permitted within three (3) metres of a transmission pipeline. This condition must be complied with. Structures placed outside this zone but within the remainder of gas easement may be permitted if both approved by the Engineering Manager, DownerTenix and if in accordance with AusNet Services Technical Standard TS 4078 - “Management of Transmission Pipeline Easements”.

12. Proposed works more than 3m from the pipeline but which may cause earth movement, or vibration, e.g. earthworks, pile driving, etc. must also be referred for advice and/or approval.

Minimum Clearances for Design or Construction Purposes

As an aid to your design and / or construction, the following minimum clearances from AusNet Services Transmission Pipelines are necessary and must be observed:

300 mm from the top of the pipeline to the underside of road pavement boxing.

300 mm between the pipeline and installations up to 1500 mm wide or OD (Outside Diameter) crossing the

pipeline.

500 mm between the pipeline and installations over 1500 mm wide or OD crossing the pipeline.

500 mm between the pipeline and installations laid parallel to the pipeline.

3000 mm between the pipeline and a structure (pit, pole, footing etc.).

3000 mm between the pipelines and an installation that could require underpinning should the need to expose the

pipeline arise.

AusNet Services may require the contractor, authority or principal to install protective concrete slabbing over or

between the pipeline and new installation.

Note: The above minimum clearances shall not be used as design basis for designing/constructing other utilities and

structures in the vicinity of AusNet Services assets unless all other possible design alternatives have been considered and deemed unreasonable. AusNet Services may seek validation on what process has been undertaken to proposed clearances between AusNet Services assets and the proposed development.

25 Baulderstone Walk Kensington 3031 30 April 2016 Robyn Hellman, Coordinator Planning Scheme, Urban Strategy, City of Melbourne, GPO Box 1603, Melbourne VIC 3001 SUBMISSION Re Planning Scheme Amendment C221: I wish to raise a concern in relation to the the new Schedule 12 to the Overlay (DPO12) of the Development Plan Overlay (DPO) provision in respect of the staged development comprising four mixed use buildings ranging in height from three to fourteen storeys. I ask that the following factors be taken into consideration in relation to the draft Planning Scheme Amendments: 1. The development plan needs to address the impact on the surrounding community of the new dwellings and increased commercial activity.

2. There is already an oversupply of apartments in the Melbourne City Council precinct, notably in Docklands. Any new developments should consider the overall requirements for additional high/medium density housing. 3. Although the plan states that the preferred height of the tallest building is ten stories, the option of fourteen stories would no doubt be a more financially attractive option and thus more likely to proceed. 4. Even the 9 storey buildings are much higher than the surrounding buildings and may set a precedent affecting the character of the highly livable, very dense yet high amenity townhouse development of Kensington Banks; which has won prizes for its innovative design. 5. Although the plan states that “analysis of the anticipated car parking demand for the various uses indicates that the parking provision has the capacity to exceed the demand by more than 100 spaces at all times across a typical week” previous planning approvals in the area have waived the minimum car park provision, creating congested streets 6. The community and other commuters currently struggle with peak hour congestion on local roads and crowding on public transport: has adequate consideration has been given to traffic and transport in the proposal? 7. The blocks would punctuate the skyline and irreversibly change the appearance and character of the area. The height of the building being constructed at 1 Ascot Vale Road should be regarded as a mistake or an anomaly but not a precedent. 8. The scale and bulk of the buildings on the site would overwhelm the nearby low-level residential areas. 9. While inclusion of ‘affordable’ housing is laudable, Kensington already has its fair share of public housing that must be balanced with the viability of market value housing, local community values and livability.

Signed: Pamela Ruth Frost pamelafro@gmail.com

1

Kaye Oddie 50 Shiel Street North Melbourne VIC 3051 koddie@bigpond.com May 3, 2015

MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C221 WEST MELBOURNE WATERFRONT

SUBMISSION

A key component of urban renewal must be a positive outcome for the public domain. For this amendment, this relates particularly to the Maribyrnong River frontage open space and amenity and to the Kensington Road street frontage. Also, quite different built outcomes for this urban renewal area could result due to discrepancies between the Schedule 12 to the Development Plan Overlay and the accompanying document West Melbourne Waterfront (WMW) Development Plan. These concern ‘storeys’ and built form heights. Site Description Existing street numbers for the site start at 156 Kensington Road; the amendment Schedule states 160; clarification is required. It is understood that a public right-of-way exists through the amendment site – with a gate onto the Maribyrnong River Trail. The status of this right-of-way in the amendment needs clarification. Clarification is also required regarding the status of 240 Kensington Road (Paddy’s Bricks) as this site includes/included a road reservation. Is this site included in the amendment and what is the status of the road reservation? 3.0 Requirements for development plan It is unclear from the Schedule wording whether the “7.06% of the site frontage along the Maribyrnong River” designated to be public open space is a horizontal measure or a percent of the total site area. Suggested rewording to clarify is: The provision of not less than 7.06% of the total site area as public open space along

the Maribyrnong River frontage. Built Form 1. ‘Storeys’ can typically range from 3 - 3.5m for residential and 4.5+m for

commercial/retail. So there could be significant differences in building height between 3 - 14 ‘residential’ storeys and 3 - 14 ‘commercial/retail’ storeys. How will the amendment address these potential differences and their impacts?

2. The area comes within a Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO1) and the Schedule

specifies under 2.0 Flood Mitigation: The finished floor level of any residential building be constructed to a minimum of 600mm above the applicable 1-in-100 year flood level of

2

2.46AHD. This means buildings on the site could be required to be up to ~2m higher. This requirement will add further height to the buildings, exacerbating their visual bulk and domination and impacts on open space and amenity. Buildings should designed to reflect a height reduction commensurate with the flood level requirement.

3. Schedule 12 Figure 1 shows building heights at the Maribyrnong River frontage of 3-4

storeys. The Built Form diagrams (4.6) from the West Melbourne Waterfront Development Plan show 4-storeys and 6-storeys at the river frontage. Given the very narrow river corridor, and despite the proposed setback of a minimum of 15 metres, it is important that buildings do not dominate/“overwhelm” the river frontage and public open space. A maximum of three storeys should be mandated for the river frontage.

4. Similarly, the Schedule 12 Figure 1 specifies 3-6 storeys along the Kensington Road

frontage but the WMW Development Plan diagrams (4.6, 4.7) only show 6 storeys. This discrepancy must be clarified to preference 3 storeys along Kensington Rd frontage so that “the bulk of new buildings must provide for a comfortable pedestrian environment and not overwhelm the public domain.” [Schedule 12 – 3.0 Built Form]

5. The Figure 1 – Indicative Framework Plan in the Schedule shows varying heights (in

storeys) for the four building complexes on the site. However, the Schedule text only applies a general height requirement: “The preferred maximum building height on the land is 10 storeys. Additional height up to 14 storeys may be achieved where it can be demonstrated that meets the above objectives …”. This means the four building complexes could be not 3-8 storeys, 3-9 storeys, 3-10 storeys and 3-14 storeys as shown BUT 3-14 storeys, 3-14 storeys, 3-14 storeys and 3-14 storeys respectively. This discrepancy must be fixed by appropriate amendment to the Schedule text, so that building heights are not left to the discretion of VCAT (which, if true to form, would likely approve 14 storeys in all instances).

6. The above height discrepancies could have significant detrimental amenity impacts,

including overshadowing, wind and visual, of private and public open space, particularly the Maribyrnong River public open space.

7. The meaning of the point ‘Be setback at a ratio of 3:5 from the top of the Maribyrnong

River bank’ is unclear; it needs rewording to be more explicit: ‘Be setback at a height:setback ratio of 3:5’. [see Maribyrnong River Valley Design Guidelines 2010, page 76, Figure 6.]

Urban Design and Public/Private Realm 8. A second point should be added: ■ The design of the public realm along the Maribyrnong River corridor should be consistent with the Maribyrnong River Valley Design Guidelines 2010 The Guidelines also are applicable to landscape, vegetation, character, etc. pertaining to the riverside corridor, not just to the built form of the development site. 9. The framework plan in both the Schedule Figure 1 and the WMW Development Plan as

well as the Open Space sketch, show little communal open space at grade on site. Green coloured areas on the Development Plan Open Space sketch are designated as car parking areas (cf Development Plan 4.5 Land Use). Does the Development Plan properly reflect Council’s statutory and strategic communal and private open space requirements?

3

10. The Schedule should specify the minimum percent (30%) of pervious surface to be

provided on site, which will compliment open space provision and meet environmental sustainability guidelines.

11. The WMW Development Plan’s 4.8 Urban Design and Public Realm does not give

sufficient weight to the Maribyrnong River Valley Design Guidelines 2010 for the public realm plantings. Use of local (indigenous) plants is to be encouraged, rather than a mix of native/indigenous/exotic. It is of concern that the illustrative diagram of the site interface with the public open space/Maribyrnong River is a high paved embankment (assumedly to meet 100-year flood levels for the site), which forms a barrier instead of integrating and enhancing the public open space of the River corridor.

12. The Schedule specifies: “Enhance the role of the Maribyrnong River as a pedestrian and

cycle route” and “Tree canopy of 41% at maturity should be achieved in the public realm …”. The Schedule should also specify “Indigenous and native vegetation and biodiversity should be protected and enhanced” (cf Maribyrnong River Valley Design Guidelines 2010).

13. The amendment fails to recognise the importance of, and need to protect, the Kensington

Road streetscape, which has mature plane trees on either side of this section of the street. The amendment and resultant development of the land must ensure the trees are protected against removal or damage and that infill plane trees are planted where required.

oOo

Port Phillip Region

PO Box 137

Heidelberg Victoria 3084

DX211902

Telephone: 136 186

portphillipregion.planning@delwp.vic.gov.au

Your Ref: C221 Our Ref: SP456382 & LA/03/3343 4 May 2016 Sarah Lowcock Strategic Planning City of Melbourne sarah.lowcock@melbounre .vic.gov.au Dear Ms Lowcock MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT: C221 Thank you for your correspondence dated 7 October 2015, referring details of the above amendment in accordance with Section 19(1)(c) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, to the Minister for Environment as the Minister prescribed under Regulation 8(b) of the Planning and Environment Regulations 2005. This amendment was referred internally to DELWP Agency Partner Parks Victoria (PV) who manages Crown land on DELWP’s behalf. The Amendment applies to land abutting the Maribyrnong River and a small parcel of land managed PV as part of the Lower Maribyrnong River Land. Parks Victoria is the appointed waterway manager for the waters of the Maribyrnong River and is responsible for specific functions and powers set out in Section 216 of the Marine Safety Act 2010. These functions and powers include the management of vessel activities on the waterway waters, the provision and maintenance of navigation aids, the altering and dredging of channels for navigation and the removal or marking of obstructions in the waterway waters. Parks Victoria notes that the Draft Development Plan and indicative framework plan does not have any direct impacts on the Maribyrnong River with no provision for access to the waterway and minimal shadowing effects. Parks Victoria also notes that development plan references the Maribyrnong River Valley Design Guidelines (DPCD 2010) in regard to the opportunity to achieve the urban waterfront objective and regeneration of the river frontage. Section 4.9 of the development plan references the use of a design materials platter associated with the industrial heritage of the site. This section should also reference the need to address the 2010 Design Guidelines for building design and particularly design guideline 21 to ensure that materials and design details respond to the natural setting of the river. As specified in the guidelines the buildings should not include reflective materials, which will ensure minimal potential impacts on river users. Should you have any queries, please contact Kevin Yorke, Regional Planner (Land Use and Statutory) on 59869106 or email kevin.yorke@parks.vic.gov.au. Yours sincerely

Emile Kyriacou Senior Statutory Planner- Regional Planning Port Phillip Region

Planning & Environment

Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd

18 Little Cribb Street

Milton 4064

Australia

ABN 87 099 732 297

Phone +61 7 3364 2800

www.holcim.com.au

Strength. Performance. Passion.

May 13, 2016

Dear Robyn,

Re: Amendment C221 Melbourne Planning Scheme

I refer to the exhibited Amendment and wish to make a submission about it.

Holcim operates a concrete batching plant at 8–22 Sims Street, West Melbourne.

Council records would show that planning permits for this use were issued in 1988 and 2005. More recently, in 2011 a planning permit was issued for a major redevelopment of the site, with amended plans being approved in 2014. Holcim has expended substantial money on redeveloping the site as it proposes long term use of the site.

As the Holcim site is a concrete batching plant, for planning purposes it is an industrial use with adverse amenity potential. Clause 52.10 of the Planning Scheme provides that such a use should be at least 300m from land in a residential zone.

The proposal the subject of this Amendment would appear to involve land being rezoned to a Residential Zone (Mixed Use) without that necessary buffer being provided. Holcim is therefore concerned that land use conflicts may occur in the future between its industrial use and residential use. This potential issue needs to be addressed at this stage of the process, the conflict avoided or the rezoning abandoned.

I note that there are some issues arising from the new controls which need to be considered. They are as follows:

1 There are potential land use conflicts between the industrial operation of our site and residential use and amenity. There is a great deal of heavy vehicle traffic associated with our site, commencing at 6.00am Monday – Saturday. Conflicts may arise between the current heavy vehicle use from Holcim trucks on surrounding streets, and any potential increase in residential use and amenity. Holcim is also concerned that there may be complaints about noise from its operations. Its operations should not be curtailed by a new inappropriate use being introduced.

2 The Council report supporting the Amendment states that the subject land is in a Potential Urban Renewal Area. However, the map in clause 21.15-1 of the Planning Scheme does not show it as hatched and therefore does not show it as such an area. The Amendment must therefore not be assessed on the basis that the Scheme and

Robyn Hellman, Coordinator Planning Scheme

Urban Strategy

City of Melbourne

GPO Box 1603

Melbourne VIC 3001

By Email: AmendmentC221@melbourne.vic.gov.au

2/3

policy support urban renewal of the land. Similarly, the Holcim land is not shown as a Potential Urban Renewal Area and therefore it should not be considered as such. To the contrary, policy supports the continuation of industrial uses in the area, and a proposal should not be approved which may threaten this.

3 There is a draft Development Plan as part of the exhibited documents. However, none of the reports the Overlay provides must accompany a Development Plan were made available (though they "informed" the Development Plan). This includes an "Integrated Transport and Access Plan", an "Acoustic and Vibration Assessment" and an odour report. Holcim would like the opportunity to review and comment on such reports. Such a review may be valuable for the Council's assessment.

4 I note that the Overlay provides that the Development Plan is to be displayed and the Council must take into account any comments on it. It does not provide any certainty that Holcim, an interested and affected neighbour, will know that the plan is displayed, where it is displayed and when comments should be made. The Overlay should provide for parties such as Holcim to be notified and have the opportunity to comment (particularly as it has no rights in relation to permit applications).

5 The Overlay provides that an Integrated Transport and Access Plan must accompany a Development Plan. This is supported. However, given the industrial nature of surrounding land uses, it should specify that the traffic generation and routes used by existing industrial uses be analysed and assessed in the context of the Development Plan.

6 The Overlay provides that an Acoustic and Vibration Assessment must accompany a Development Plan and must identify how future development will meet the acoustic requirements set out in the Overlay. These acoustic requirements are supported. However, it is noted that the built form requirements state that floorplates are to be designed to maximise opportunities for natural cross-ventilation and passive heating and cooling. The acoustic requirements are not consistent with this as they involve closed or half closed windows and closed doors. More consideration needs to be given to how the potential noise issue is dealt with, particularly for those residences closest to industrial uses.

7 The Overlay provides that an odour report providing details of odour distance thresholds and odour mitigation measures must accompany the Development Plan and all buildings must be designed to protect themselves from odour. This is supported, but the latter should refer to any design measures being in accordance with any recommended mitigation measures in the report. Once again, the floorplate recommendation may conflict with this.

8 The Overlay provides that all buildings must be designed to protect themselves from dust emissions from surrounding uses. This is supported, but the floorplate recommendation may conflict with this.

I ask that these issues be taken into account in assessing the Amendment. The Council should give great weight to policy supporting the ongoing industrial use in the area and should not allow proposals which will lead to land use conflicts in the future without sufficient safeguards. Careful drafting of safeguarding provisions is critical.

3/3

Please keep me informed of the progress of this amendment. If you should require any further

information please do not hesitate to contact me either by phone: 07 3259 1709 or email:

rebecca.clemmey@lafargeholcim.com .

Yours sincerely

Rebecca Clemmey

Planning Approvals Manager – QLD

Ph: (07) 3259 1709

Email: rebecca.clemmey@lafargeholcim.com

Page 1

241273_614755_359914.pdf

17 May 2016

Ms Robyn HellmannCity of MelbournePO Box 1603Melbourne, VIC 3001

Dear Ms Robyn Hellmann

Amendment: Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C221 - WestMelbourne Waterfront

Property: 160-196 Kensington Road West Melbourne 3003Melb Water Ref: 241273

Thank you for your letter of 07 April 2016 and for the opportunity to comment onMelbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C221 and the associated Development Plan.Melbourne Water provides the following comments and advice for your consideration.

Overall, Melbourne Water is supportive of the proposal to rezone land alongside theMaribyrnong River from commercial to residential as this would create opportunities toimprove the waterway and amenity outcomes in the area.

Background Information

Melbourne Water would like to emphasise that although this location of the River ishighly urbanised, we and the local community are involved in ongoing initiatives toimprove water quality and waterway amenity in the area. This development proposalpresents a rare opportunity to unlock frontage to the Maribyrnong River that ispresently constrained and degraded. As this urban renewal precinct transitions from acommercial to a busy central city residential precinct, there will be increasing attentionof improving conditions along the River. It is our vision that by 2030 there will havebeen a paradigm shift in stormwater management, as part of a broader move towardsintegrated water management (IWM). This shift is driven in part by recognition acrossgovernment, industry and community of the importance of healthy waterways to thelife and liveability of our city.

Amenity

Melbourne Water would like to see more native vegetation planted along the River,consistent with our ‘Amenity’ value guidelines. Amenity is described in MelbourneWater’s Healthy Waterways Strategy as “the pleasantness of a waterway to visitorsand the ability of the waterway to provide a restorative escape from the urbanlandscape”. The West Melbourne Waterfront Draft Development Plan does not depict apleasant restorative escape from the surrounding urban landscape, given it is more anextension of an urban environment. To address this, we recommend introducing

Page 2

241273_614755_359914.pdf

greater coverage of indigenous canopy trees, grassed open spaces, integrated watertreatment solutions and a more graduated river edge that will support riparian andintertidal zone plantings.

Planning and Environment Act 1987

The vision to improve river health amenity and establish a natural waterway corridorwithin this urban setting are included among the overall objectives of planning inVictoria; Sect.4 (1), (b) as outlined in the Explanatory Report for this application:

“The amendment provides for the protection of natural resources and the maintenanceof ecological processes and genetic diversity through increasing the provision of publicopen space along the Maribyrnong River, and the implementation of a range ofEnvironmentally Sensitive Design (ESD) and water and waste managementtechniques”.

Strategic Context - Plan Melbourne

The site forms part of the larger Dynon Road corridor, which will be an expandedcentral city urban renewal area. Plan Melbourne identifies Dynon Road as being apotential boulevard that could be implemented in the short term. Plan Melbourneacknowledges the limitations that exist in providing new open space in Melbourne’sinner areas. It seeks to identify opportunities for new and enhanced open space inurban renewal precincts, along waterways and on surplus government owned land.Plan Melbourne recognises that waterways are highly valued by the community in anumber of ways. It proposes to strengthen planning controls around Melbourne’s iconicwaterways and other waterways; and to balance the tourism, recreational and culturalvalues of Melbourne’s foreshore and waterways with development opportunities.

Feedback On Planning Scheme Amendment Documentation and DevelopmentPlan

Development Plan

A key site consideration identified in the report is to respond positively to theMaribyrnong River and contribute additional public open space that enhancesaccessibility to the Maribyrnong River.

Whilst being generally supportive of the proposal, Melbourne Water believes thatnumerous improvements can be made to strengthen river health and amenityoutcomes. These include:

- Bank enhancement works/macrophyte riparian zones: The waterway interfaceshould provide soft engineering solutions to prevent further erosion of thewaterway and design a treatment system that is sympathetic to the waterwayenvironment.

- Development setbacks/waterway corridor establishment: The proposal mustachieve an adequate development setback from the waterway embankment toestablish a core riparian zone or vegetated buffer. Space needs toaccommodate large trees, grassed areas, Water Sensitive Urban Design(WSUD) features and greater clearances to establish a meandering sharedpath with a varied setback that deviates further away from the banks of theRiver.

- Amendments to concept plan/reduction in impervious surfaces: The concept planshows too many hard urban surfaces and structures interfacing the waterway.

- Introduction of WSUD features: The concept plans don’t show any examples ofWSUD features within the development or near the River.

- Additional canopy trees and parkland settings: The proposal should deliver socialfamily or passive recreation opportunities along the waterway and shouldprovide enough space for the provision of mature shade trees at varying

Page 3

241273_614755_359914.pdf

densities along the River corridor.

Melbourne Water has no objection to the Planning Scheme Amendment andDevelopment Plan, subject to the following conditions:

1. Prior to the commencement of works, a detailed landscape plan must be submittedto Melbourne Water for approval. This plan must address the outcomes of any floraand fauna reports on the proposed works site and all areas potentially affected, bothupstream and downstream, and must show:

a) A survey of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed;b) The survey should include a weed management program, including the followinginformation: location; method of control and timing of control;c) Buildings and trees on neighbouring properties within three metres of the boundary;d) Details of surface finishes located on recreational pathways, maintenance access orany other pathways near waterways;e) A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including:quantities of each plant; planting density (plants per square metre); plantingzones/locations (in plan form). Local indigenous plants should only be used;f) Landscape treatments with specifications of products such as mulching, erosioncontrol matting, and rock beaching;g) Detailed site survey with details of current bank alignment, overlayed parcelboundaries, existing shared path, defined top of bank and existing native vegetation;h) Details of proposed bank treatments and assets below the shared path; andi) The plan must demonstrate the methods of connectedness to the between theshared path, the Public Use Zone and the private/commercial zone.

2. Prior to the commencement of works, justification for the shape and location of thepublic realm area abutting the Maribyrnong River and the types of landscapetreatments used in the open space area must be submitted to Melbourne Water forapproval.

3. Prior to the commencement of works, provision of detailed cross sections of thepoints where the buildings have a 15 metre setback, including the public /shared pathinterfaces with the buildings and the existing ground level, proposed/modified groundlevel and defined top of bank, must be submitted to Melbourne Water for approval.

4. Prior to the commencement of works, explanation of the average 25 metre setbackas shown in cross sectional form including the survey detail to the top of bank must besubmitted to Melbourne Water for approval. A site plan showing the 25 metre setbackfrom the top of bank must be submitted to Melbourne Water for approval.

5. Prior to the commencement of works, further detail of the public realm area is to besubmitted to Melbourne Water for approval, specifically where the developmentinterfaces with the Maribyrnong River. A detailed cross section is to be provided toMelbourne Water including survey details of the water level, top of bank, shared pathand Public Use Zone.

Overall Comments/Advice

Melbourne Water provides the following secondary feasibility advice in relation to theDevelopment Plan:

1. The Framework Plan indicates the river bank is to be realigned. If bank realignmentis proposed, a separate application and details regarding this realignment must beprovided to Melbourne Water for approval.

2. Any proposed jetties, pontoons, other floating assets or any other proposed worksbelow the top of bank would require further consideration by Melbourne Water.

Page 4

241273_614755_359914.pdf

3. Improvements to create a more natural setting along the River edge should beexplored, and opportunities to undertake WSUD as amenity features within thedevelopment, such as the use of bio-retention systems and swales.

4. Melbourne Water anticipates that the overall future landscape setting will favour anative vegetation theme; using upper, middle and lower storey plantings whereapplicable. We support the introduction of more shade trees along the MaribyrnongRiver corridor wherever there are opportunities to do so, and introducing greater treeplanting closer to the waterway.

5. It is anticipated that the volume of litter accumulating within the riparian zone fromadjacent development will increase as the use of the land intensifies and mitigationmeasures must be put in place to manage the detrimental environmental and aestheticimpacts of litter.

6. As identified in the Healthy Waterways Strategy (Melbourne Water, 2013), thisreach of the Maribyrnong River is identified as containing and requiring works thatcontribute to improving amenity values.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on Melbourne Planning SchemeAmendment C221 and the associated Development Plan.

If you have any enquiries, please contact me on telephone 9679 7517 or e-mailcon.gantonas@melbournewater.com.au.

Yours sincerely

Con GantonasLand Development

Port of Melbourne

Our ref: 17.05.2016 - PoMC Submission - CoM Amendment C221Document Barcode

Classification: Unclassified 201510158

24 May 2016

Robyn HeilmanCoordinator Planning Scheme and Policy City of Melbourne PO Box 1603 Melbourne VIC 3001

RECEIVEDInformation Management

2 6 MAY 2016DM#:_________

SR#:______________

Dear Robyn,

Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C221

Thank you for providing Port of Melbourne Corporation (PoMC) the opportunity to comment on Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C221 relating to land at 160-232 Kensington Road, West Melbourne.

The Amendment seeks to rezone the land from Commercial 2 Zone to Mixed Use Zone and apply a Development Plan Overlay (DPO) to facilitate a mixed use development ranging in height from three to fourteen storeys.

PoMC's interest in the Amendment arises due to the sites proximity to freight and logistics activities north of Dynon Road (to the south of the subject site), which includes a freight railway line, Intermodal Terminal for port and non-port freight and an empty container park.

PoMC has reviewed the Amendment documentation including the Preliminary Acoustic and Vibration Assessment prepared by Arup. While we do have some concerns about the potential for future occupants of the site to be exposed to noise and vibration associated with nearby freight activities, PoMC acknowledges that the proposed noise conditions for railway noise included within the draft Development Plan Overlay (DPO) are consistent with current best practice and several VCAT precedents. It is also noted that the draft Decision Guidelines contained within the DPO provide an opportunity for the Port of Melbourne to review and comment on any future Development Plan prepared for the site under the proposed controls. On this basis, PoMC considers that the proposed Amendment provides the necessary safeguards to ensure port-related issues are appropriately considered as part of the approval process for future development at the site.

Level 4 530 Collins Street Melbourne Victoria 3000 Australia Tel: +61 1300 857 662 Fax: +61 3 9683 1570 www.portofmelboume.com GPO Box 261 Melbourne VIC 3001 Australia

Should you wish to discuss this submission please do not hesitate to contact Kate O'Neill, Manager Land Use Planning, on 9683 1441 or kate.oneill@portofmelbourne.com.

Yours sincerely

Shannon Pedrotti

Acting General Manager Port Community and Risk

Page 2

Level 11 Rialto South Tower 525 Collins Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia GPO Box 4190 VIC 3001 Australia

www.hallandwilcox.com.au

T +61 3 9603 3555 F +61 3 9670 9632 DX 320 Melbourne

MELBOURNE | SYDNEY | NEWCASTLE | PERTH | CANBERRA 9635048_2

Dear Robyn

Submissions on Amendment C221 - West Melbourne Waterfront

We act for the Melbourne Seafood Centre, the occupier of land at 133 Kensington Road, West Melbourne. Our client's site is zoned Commercial 2 and it is included in a Land Subject to Inundation Overlay. The Commercial 2 zone encourages a range of commercial uses such as those conducted on our client's land and described further below.

We are instructed to make the following submission in respect of amendment C221.

Our client objects to the amendment in its current form on the basis that:

the rezoning from Commercial to a Mixed Use zone and the proposed redevelopment involves the establishment of a significant residential community, which could conflict with the existing commercial land uses in the immediate vicinity, including our client’s wholesale seafood centre and the cold storage facility adjacent;

the hours of operation of our client's commercial activities will conflict with the activities proposed under the amendment. The seafood centre is at its peak operation in the early hours of the morning from approximately 12.00 am to 9.00 am, where significant traffic is generated resulting in activity in the open lot car park and associated noise. The cold storage operates 24 hours' per day, 7 days per week; and

our client is concerned that noise, traffic and odour generated by the commercial uses in the area including those on our client's site, could conflict with the uses proposed on the subject land and could adversely impact their ongoing operations. It is not clear whether, and to what extent, consideration has been given to these issues. It does not appear at this stage, that the proponents have considered these implications sufficiently.

The Role and Purpose of the Melbourne Seafood Centre To provide context to this submission, and highlight the significance of the potential threat to the viability of our client's business, it is helpful to understand the history of the Melbourne Seafood Centre and its crucial role in meeting the State’s fish needs.

20 May 2016

Robyn Hellman Coordinator, Planning Scheme Urban Strategy City of Melbourne By email: Amendmentc221@melbourne.vic.gov.au

Our Ref: NLB MEL382-113641

Natalie Bannister Partner natalie.bannister@hallandwilcox.com.au +61 3 9603 3566

© Hall & Wilcox Urban Strategy 29 April 2016 2

9635048_2

The Melbourne Seafood Centre (the Centre) has an important history dating back to the 1890s and is Victoria’s only seafood wholesale centre, providing a central point that meets the fish produce needs of Melbourne, Victoria with strong ties to other wholesale markets across Australia. Starting in 1958 as the Melbourne Wholesale Fish Market, the Centre operated from a site on Footscray Road, West Melbourne adjacent to the Fruit and Vegetable and Flower Market. The building from which the Centre operated, was controlled by the Melbourne City Council under long term leasing arrangements. Very recently, following State and Local Government policy changes which identified the Footscray Road market site as a strategic redevelopment area for metropolitan Melbourne, the Centre was required to relocate to its current location. Unlike the Fruit and Vegetable Wholesale Market which is controlled to some extent by the State Government, the Centre was required to find another site to trade from without State Government assistance and support. After much planning and collective work between its key stakeholders, the Centre relocated to 133 Kensington Road in 2012. The location was driven by a need to retain its centrality to Melbourne, close to airports and key road network spines as these are integral to the retailers (buyers) which come each morning not only from the suburbs of Melbourne, but from across the State. A significant private investment was made in the design of the purpose-built facility and it is occupied under a long-term lease with a term of up to 25 years. In total, 12 private wholesale businesses operate under the collective banner of the Melbourne Seafood Centre. These businesses include:

- Mclaughlin Consolidated Fishermen Ltd, - Clamms Seafood Pty Ltd - Regal Seafoods Pty Ltd - Sea Merchant Seafoods - Jack Miriklis Pty Ltd - S & J Seafood Supply No2 Pty Ltd - Aquabest Pty Ltd - Bellco Fresh Fish Pty Ltd - Tim & Terry Oyster Supply Pty Ltd - Ash Bros Kensington Pty Ltd - ANZ Fisheries & - Sea Quest Seafoods Pty Ltd

The new Melbourne Seafood Centre represents an evolution in the Victorian seafood industry and facilitates a greater volume of seafood to be traded more efficiently, meaning that seafood can be on the shelves of retailers within days of being caught. Approximately $200+M worth of fresh and frozen seafood was traded through the Melbourne Seafood Centre in its first year of operation, representing about 15,000 tonnes of product. The market supports a local industry that facilitates the sale of between 70-80% of Victoria’s finfish. The Centre also acts as an important hub for the industry, gathering product from the south east Fishery Zones of Australia and distributing to the east coast primarily to Sydney and Brisbane. The centre currently employs approximately 150 staff and there are 280 buyers registered to trade (from the local fish shops to supermarkets, local retail markets, restaurants and other food-related industries). Fish delivered to the centre (often between the hours of 9pm-4am) is offered for sale between 4.30am and 7am, six days a week. Buyers arrive early (via trucks, vans and other vehicles) to inspect the day's offering from the different traders, a system that promotes competition

© Hall & Wilcox Urban Strategy 29 April 2016 3

9635048_2

and ensures traders have the highest quality product available. This means that there is a significant amount of vehicle and other activity during the very early morning hours, which is critical for the market to function. The members of the Melbourne Seafood Centre believe a sustainable, competitive and successful commercial seafood industry can only be achieved through competition and the promotion of quality seafood from a centralised location. Notably, given the significance of the Centre as the State’s central wholesale fish market, retailers have also relocated to be in proximity to the Centre, along Kensington Road and other nearby areas, as is the importance of the site and industry more broadly.

Submissions

Our client is very concerned that the viability of their future operations will be threatened by the proposed change in zoning and residential development. Our client is not opposed in principal to the idea that the area is suitable for some form of mixed use development, however change must be managed in a way that is cognisant and respectful of the existing commercial activities.

The introduction of a mixed use development in such close proximity to these significant commercial activities would infringe the threshold distance recommended under clause 52.10 of the planning scheme. This should not be permitted unless it can be established that the uses can successfully co-exist. There is a real risk that development of the kind contemplated, would ultimately result in pressure being bought to bear on our clients and their current and ongoing operations. Such an outcome would be contrary to State and local planning policy.

As canvassed at a recent consultation meeting between our clients, the Council and Contour Planning, our clients wish to explore the potential for traffic, noise and odour issues to be carefully assessed and addressed in the planning scheme amendment and the form of use and development which it would permit. The work done to date has very little regard to existing commercial activities including our client's operations and further analysis is warranted to avoid future tension between this important commercial precinct and the new neighbourhood contemplated by the amendment.

Conclusion The Melbourne Seafood Centre is a vital industry servicing Melbourne and Victoria. We ask that Council take this into account in assessing the proposed amendment, and take steps to ensure that adequate assessment and analysis is undertaken to protect our client's long-term, strategically significant, operations. Following further empirical assessment, Council may consider:

• introducing a separation distance between sensitive uses on the site and the existing commercial area;

• specifying appropriate acoustic standards be incorporated into built form; • reviewing traffic and access arrangements to identify ways to avoid conflict between

residential and commercial traffic; • how to brief and prepare future residents about the level of amenity that can be anticipated

having regard to the close interface with commercial activity; • regulating built form on the site to minimise impacts form off-site activities; and • controlling the location of uses to avoid obvious potential conflicts.

© Hall & Wilcox Urban Strategy 29 April 2016 4

9635048_2

If these matters are addressed properly in this strategic planning phase, our clients and indeed the Council, may be able to avoid future land use conflicts giving rise to amenity complaints.

Yours faithfully Natalie Bannister Hall & Wilcox

Perri Projects Pty Ltd Level 10, 60 Albert Road South Melbourne Vic 3205, AU PO Box 7411 St Kilda Road Vic 8004, AU

+61 3 8609 9060 info@perriprojects.com perriprojects.com

20 May 2016 Robyn Hellman Coordinator Planning Scheme, Urban Strategy City of Melbourne GPO Box 1603 Melbourne Vic 3001 Via email: robyn.hellman@melbourne.vic.gov.aul; AmendmentC221@melbourne.vic.gov.au Dear Robyn, Re: Amendment C221 Melbourne Planning Scheme:

156–232 Kensington Road, West Melbourne

Perri Projects Pty Ltd are part of the proponent team that has worked collaboratively with the City of Melbourne preparing draft Amendment C221 (the Amendment) to the Melbourne Planning Scheme. Perri Projects supports Amendment C221 insofar as it seeks to rezone the subject land to the Mixed Use Zone, and apply a Development Plan Overlay and Environmental Audit Overlay. The Amendment will facilitate redevelopment of the land in accordance with an approved Development Plan. Amendment C221 is a logical step in the renewal of the West Melbourne and Dynon area and the ultimate redevelopment will deliver a range of community benefits, including the provision of additional public open space adjacent to the Maribyrnong River, mitigation of potential flooding impacts, employment opportunities and urban consolidation. To this end, the Amendment is entirely consistent with Plan Melbourne and the Municipal Strategic Statement within the Melbourne Planning Scheme. Notwithstanding the above, there are elements of the drafting of the proposed Schedule 12 to the Development Plan Overlay (the DPO Schedule) that we consider require further consideration and potential revision, each of which is discussed below.

Perri Projects Pty Ltd Level 10, 60 Albert Road South Melbourne Vic 3205, AU PO Box 7411 St Kilda Road Vic 8004, AU

+61 3 8609 9060 info@perriprojects.com perriprojects.com

Acoustic Considerations

We are generally support the inclusion of the requirement to include conditions on future planning permits in relation to ‘Noise, odour and dust protection’. However the conditions in

relation to acoustic considerations should be amended to reflect the enclosed letter of advice prepared by ARUP. The advice suggests that the proposed acoustic provisions exceed the requirements of the applicable Australian Standards. The DPO Schedule should also include separate criteria for Traffic noise in accordance with the ARUP advice. Wind

We are generally support the inclusion of the requirement to include conditions on future planning permits in relation to wind including the preparation of a Wind Assessment Report. However the criteria to be met should be amended to have regard for the prevailing existing conditions on the land. In this regard, enclosed is a copy of a letter of advice prepared by Windtech identifying Comfort Criteria in response to the draft Development Plan, and it includes wind criteria for inclusion in the draft DPO Schedule. Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP)

We note the inclusion of the requirement for a planning permit application to include a CHMP. In our view the requirement is unnecessary as it repeats other statutory requirements. Internal Amenity

The current draft of the DPO Schedule in relation to internal amenity is too detailed for inclusion in a Development Plan. Instead, this type of detail will be assessed as part of future planning permit applications and is appropriately detailed elsewhere within the Melbourne Planning Scheme. As foreshadowed above, enclosed is the following: • 1 x copy of Acoustic and Vibrations Advice prepared by ARUP; and • 1 x copy of Wind Statement prepared by Windtech.

Perri Projects Pty Ltd Level 10, 60 Albert Road South Melbourne Vic 3205, AU PO Box 7411 St Kilda Road Vic 8004, AU

+61 3 8609 9060 info@perriprojects.com perriprojects.com

In summary, we confirm our support for proposed Amendment C221 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme, and we trust that the enclosed information will assist in the City of Melbourne’s consideration of the Amendment. If there are any questions or you wish to meet

to discuss our submission, please contact our office. Yours sincerely,

David Scalzo Managing Director

J:\237000\237450-00 WEST MELBOURNE

WATERFRONT\WORK\EXTERNAL\DOCUMENTS\RESPONSE TO COM.DOCX

Arup Arup Pty Ltd ABN 18 000 966 165

Your ref

Our ref 237450-00

File ref AAc_L001

Level 17 1 Nicholson Street

Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia

t +61 3 9668 5500 d +61 3 9668 5564 f +61 3 9663 1546

frank.butera@arup.com www.arup.com

Lucy Simms

WMW Developments Pty Ltd

Level 10, 60 Albert Road

South Melbourne VIC 3205

11 September 2015

Dear Lucy

West Melbourne Waterfront Precinct, Land: 156 – 232 Kensington Road, West Melbourne Summary of Proposed Acoustic Criteria.

Arup has undertaken a noise and vibration assessment of the West Melbourne Waterfront Precinct Project (WMW). It is proposed to redevelop the land to a mixed use zone consisting of commercial and residential developments and an urban waterfront precinct.

Based on noise measurement surveys and preliminary noise modelling results, it has been shown that the WMW site can address transportation noise by appropriate design and use of acoustic and architectural design and building materials. The use of such methods will control transportation noise inside the building. The bulk and form of the buildings is expected to adequately shield the open areas of the development.

The rail corridor is the dominate noise source in the vicinity of the subject site. Rail noise predominately impacts the northern end however other areas of the site may also be affected by rail noise. The integration of noise mitigation into the design of the development will assist in controlling rail noise to meet the project noise limits.

The acoustic requirements of the façade of the proposed developments along the western interface adjacent to Kensington Road (major road) can be achieved by “conventional” construction. It is our understanding that Kensington Road is not governed by VicRoads, hence VicRoads noise guidelines or policies do not apply.

A summary of recommended noise criteria is presented below:

Train Noise

Control the noise intrusion of railway and associated infrastructure noise sources to

residential buildings to:

55 dBLAmax (bedrooms)

60 dBLAmax (living room areas)

237450-00

11 September 2015 Page 2 of 3

J:\237000\237450-00 WEST MELBOURNE

WATERFRONT\WORK\EXTERNAL\DOCUMENTS\RESPONSE TO COM.DOCX

Road Traffic Noise

Control the noise intrusion of road noise sources, in accordance with the internal design criteria specified by relevant Australian Standards, including AS2107-2000: Acoustics - Recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors; VicRoads Requirements for Developers has been reviewed however it does not apply to this development, as it is not adjacent to a freeway under VicRoads control. As a result it is common practise to consider Australian Standards to control road traffic noise. It is suggested to consider the following standards:

AS 2107 – 2000 Acoustics – Recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors

AS 3671 – 1989 Acoustics – Road traffic noise intrusion – Building siting and construction.

AS36711 recommends that satisfactory indoor sound levels should be determined from AS21072. AS 2107 provides guideline design criteria for conditions affecting the acoustic environment within occupied spaces. The ambient sound levels recommended take into account the function of the area(s) and apply to the sound level measured with the space unoccupied but ready for occupancy. The Standard also provides methods of measuring the ambient sound level and reverberation time in occupied spaces in new and existing buildings.

The purpose of AS3671 is to achieve compliance with AS2107. Demonstrating compliance with AS2107 is therefore equivalent to conformance with AS3671.

An extract of some of the recommended levels that are applicable to the proposed development is provided in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Recommended design sound levels for different areas of occupancy in buildings

Type of occupancy/activity Recommended design sound level, LAeq, dB(A)

Satisfactory Maximum

Houses and apartments near minor roads-

Living areas 30 40

Sleeping areas 30 35

Work areas 35 40

Apartment common areas (e.g. foyer, lift lobby)

45 55

Houses and apartments near major roads-

Living areas 35 45

Sleeping areas 30 40

Work areas 35 45

Apartment common areas (e.g. foyer, lift lobby)

45 55

Office Buildings

Board and conference rooms 30 40

General office areas 40 45

1 AS3671-1989 Acoustics – Noise traffic Noise Intrusion – Building Siting and Construction. 2 AS2107-2000 Acoustics - Recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors

237450-00

11 September 2015 Page 3 of 3

J:\237000\237450-00 WEST MELBOURNE

WATERFRONT\WORK\EXTERNAL\DOCUMENTS\RESPONSE TO COM.DOCX

Mechanical Noise Sources Mechanical noise emitted by the Subject Site will be designed to comply with the noise limits in accordance with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1.

Noise from nearby industries may adversely impact the Subject Site. During the detail design phase of the project it is recommended that an appropriately qualified acoustic consultant be engaged to review noise emitted to noise sensitive receivers. Typically, the façade of the development will designed and/or may include balconies as noise barriers to control noise emissions from nearby commercial noise sources.

Summary

It is suggested that a site wide acoustic management plan be considered for commercial noise sources that may impact on future residential areas.

Should you require additional information please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours sincerely

Frank Butera

Associate

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd ABN 72 050 574 037

Sydney (Head Office) | Abu Dhabi | London | Melbourne | Mumbai | New York | Shanghai | Singapore

Windtech Consultants have undertaken a wind environment assessment for the proposed West

Melbourne Waterfront development precinct, with consideration for the existing wind conditions

affecting the site and any potential impact of the subject development on local wind conditions.

The results of the assessment have been outlined in Windtech report ref: WC721-01F02(rev2),

dated September 15, 2015.

It is initially noted that the areas along the waterfront, are currently exposed to the prevailing

northerly and westerly winds. This is due to the exposure over the water in these directions.

The wind conditions for these directions are expected to be in excess of the comfortable

walking criteria. With no opportunity to provide upstream protection from these wind directions,

little impact can be had on the existing conditions to mitigate these effects. It is also noted that

the comfort criteria along the waterfront is not a result of the building massing, which is

currently formed to minimise potential downwash (setbacks) from the exposure of the area. As

the design develops, it is recommended that the massing acts to enhance the wind conditions

where possible (ie from the easterly and southerly winds).

For the purpose of the Development Plan Overlay schedule it is recommended that the outdoor

areas within and around the West Melbourne Waterfront precinct be assessed to ensure that

wind conditions are suitable for the relevant intended uses. These conditions include the

following:

Accessible areas for either public or private use should satisfy the comfortable walking

criterion of 7.5m/s for the Weekly Gust Equivalent Mean Wind speeds, which

corresponds to 16m/s for the annual maximum gust wind speeds. This includes

walkways, private balconies, footpaths outside the waterfront zone.

WC721-01F03(rev1)- Letter

16 September 2015

Ms Lucy Simms

WMW Developments Pty Ltd

C/- Perri Projects Level 10, 60 Albert Road

South Melbourne VIC 3205

Dear Lucy

RE: WEST MELBOURNE WATERFRONT PRECINCT

Wind Comfort Criteria

© Windtech Consultants Pty Ltd West Melbourne Waterfront Precinct

Wind Comfort Criteria

WC721-01F03(rev1)- Letter WMW Developments Pty Ltd

16 September 2015 Page 2

All outdoor seating areas such as café seating and short duration stays, including

building entries, should satisfy the short exposure criterion of 5.5m/s for the Weekly

Gust Equivalent Mean Wind speeds, which corresponds to 13m/s for the annual

maximum gust wind speeds.

All areas to be used for long duration stay activities, such as restaurant use, should

satisfy the long exposure criterion of 3.5m/s for the Weekly Gust Equivalent Mean

Wind speeds, which corresponds to 10m/s for the annual maximum gust wind speeds.

All areas will also need to satisfy the Safety Limit Criterion of 23m/s for the annual

maximum gust wind speeds.

Note that the Weekly Gust Equivalent Mean wind speed corresponds to a 5% probability of

exceedance by a wind event in any given week. The annual maximum gust wind speeds

corresponds to a probability of exceedance of 0.1% during daylight hours which 1 storm will

exceed the criteria per annum.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Peddie

MsEM, BE Aero (Hons)

Associate Director

Windtech Consultants Pty Ltd

From: Natalie RossTo: AmendmentC221Subject: Amendment C221Date: Friday, 20 May 2016 4:55:49 PM

Dear Robyn, We refer to the Amendment C221 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme. We represent the landholders at 171 Kensington Road to 193 Kensington Road, WestMelbourne, this being Lauraville Pty Ltd and Ivory Park Pty Ltd. With respect to the rezoning application, we support this in full and wish to confirm that in duecourse will be making a similar application on behalf of the two abovementioned properties. Regards, John Wood | Director | ASADominionGroup | 191 Kensington Road West Melbourne Vic 3003t +61 3 9687 4955 | f +61 3 9687 4966 | +61 417 369 770e jwood@dominiongroup.net.au | w www.dominiongroup.net.auMELBOURNE SYDNEY BRISBANE ADELAIDE PERTH Paul GuyettH Leffler & Son | 171 Kensington Road West Melbourne Vic 3003T + 61 3 9090 4502e paulg@leffler.com.au Notice: The information in this email is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you must not distribute copy discloseor use the information or attached files in this email in any way. We do not guarantee that the integrity of this communicationhas been maintained. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Submitter 15. Diana Pawluk

Subject Land N/A

Submission I do not agree with the redevelopment of the Scalzo food site. Living in the area for 14 years I have noticed that both Altona and Kensington Roads have become very congested with traffic especially during peak times. This will be further exacerbated with the new Altona Road development currently commenced. The existing Kensington train service is unsatisfactory and this will become more so should any further developments be encouraged, not to mention the strain on schools and child care. I am totally opposed to this development and any further redevelopment in the future.

SUBMISSION ABOUT AMENDMENT C221 WEST MELBOURNE WATERFRONT I oppose Amendment C221 West Melbourne Waterfront in its current form, for the following reasons:

• Potentially too many additional residents. It is unclear exactly how many people will live and work in the development, but given the proposal is for four (up to) 14 storey buildings, I expect it will be a very large number. While I support medium density in Kensington, we need to ensure that local transport, facilities and services can cope with the expected number of residents.

• The buildings are too high. I believe that 14 storeys is out of keeping with the character of the neighbourhood, given the existing low height of other buildings in the immediate vicinity.

• Problems with peak hour congestion on Kensington Road. Many cars use this route to get to the city via Dynon Road and to get to South Kensington train station via Childers Street.

• Problems with overcrowding on the Werribee and Williamstown line trains. It is already almost impossible to fit onto the train during peak hours at South Kensington station.

• Problems with parking in the main shopping strip in Kensington, where parking is already in short supply.

• Pressure on other facilities and services in Kensington (e.g. the community recreation centre and primary schools).

• Pressure on local access to the internet. I have been living in Kensington Banks for two years and have been unable to get the internet connected at my home despite many attempts. I have been told that this is because there are insufficient ports at the local telephone exchange.

• No detailed plans for other new infrastructure. Apart from the open space on the riverfront, and a passing mention of some ‘artists spaces’, nothing else has been provided to compensate the existing community and/or cater for the addition of extra residents.

• No mention of preserving the existing graffiti along the riverfront. While it may not be to everyone’s taste, I understand that some of it has been done by well-known Melbourne artists over the past 20 years. Melbourne has built an international reputation for its graffiti, and it is important that we preserve our cultural and artistic heritage.

• There is no provision for low-cost housing. We need to preserve the socio-economic diversity of our community. If the only housing available is expensive apartments, we will end up with a mono-culture of middle class people in Kensington

FULL NAME: Ms Tonye SEGBEDZI ADDRESSS: 1/27 McAllister Mews KENSINGTON VIC 3031 EMAIL: tsegbedzi@gmail.com DATE: 3 May 2016

Submitter 17. Clint Walker

Subject Land N/A

Submission The open space along the Maribrynong river must remain publicly accessible along both sides from Yarraville right through to Braybrook. This would give pedestrians and cyclists better access to and from major pathways in the network, reducing conflict points with vehicle traffic.

The height of buildings adjacent to the rail corridor is excessive at 14 stories and should be limited to 10 stories.

Any construction below ground level other than stabilising foundations should be minimised to reduce the risk of inundation and slippage of the rive bank.

There are 150 years of 'putrid industry' as referred to by the Port of Melbourne along the banks of ther lower Maribrynong river. The cleanup and construction activity must ensure sufficient monitoring of the soils being removed and the water in the lower river to ensure contaminants are not mobilised to the detriment of local wildlife or people.

The additional people that this and similar local developments in the immediate area provide a large number of additional commuters using either the roads or public transport. Is there a plan for easy access to nearby train stations, or will a new one be built to satisfy demand??

The residential development must include a distribution of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments to ensure a diversity of residents across age groups and demographics to ensure a vibrant and healthy local community.

Thankyou for the opportunity.

Submitter 18. Rodgers

Subject Land N/A

Submission I would like to register my concern about the building heights in this proposed development: they're too high! With the exception of the known-fail-council flats on Derby St, there are no buildings in the area higher than 7 floors. Even the planning permission for Hobson Road development requires no more than 6 floors! This proposed development with buildings higher than 15 floors is ridiculously out of keeping with the area, will dwarf local buildings, and will severely impact the views and liveability feel of residents and users of Holland Park.

I would also like to register my serious concern about the misleading 'proposed upgrade to Metro links.' While there is (only) one entry about enhancing local facilities like JJ Holland park, there are at least two diagrams showing Metro improvements going directly through the park! This is very disconcerting as the park is an enormously valuable and extremely well-used centre of activity and sport, community gatherings, local activities, and individual green-space usage. The park is highly used, 24/7, and any disruption or diminishment or the park would do enormous damage to the liveability, health of local residents and to the community spirit and dynamic as a whole.

I urge you to please reconsider on both these points. High density (above 6 floors) outside of the CBD is inappropriate and damaging or decreasing existing green spaces and parks is completely against all of the environmental and liveability goals purported to be supported by Resiliant/Most-Liveable-City Melbourne.

Submitter 19. Andrew Gurney

Subject Land N/A

Submission Overall this looks like a good proposal in terms of the built form. The only issue appears to be a public transport discussion. Despite it's inner city location, it's a fair walk to south kensington station and moving the station would be a big job and not likely with melbourne metro works. So I believe reference needs to be made to a potential tram line down Dynon road, even if it's built further into the future in line with the remaining Dynon renewal project

Submitter 20. Maggie Reeves

Subject Land N/A

Submission Dear City of Melbourne Participate Team,

Thank you for the opportunity to peruse the C221 Planning Scheme Amendment for West Melbourne/Kensington.

It is exciting to see this land rezoned for mixed residential and commercial use, and for plans to enhance the public open spaces along the Maribyrnong River front. I particularly like the photo on page 17 referencing Berge du Rhone, Lyons, where the cycling/footpaths are well maintained and landscaped along the waterfront. I'm delighted to read of plans to include fitness stations for public use, as well as public art works/sculptures. And I think the integration of artist workshops or collectives within the planned development space is exciting. My only concern - and I may not understand the development plans correctly - is that the proposed public space of 2,001 sqm or 7.06% is the bare minimum required, and it seems from the plans attached that the existing bike/pedestrian path along the river is that space. Is this correct? I am also concerned just how many units will be built with the proposed multi-storey (3-14) high-rises, and no net increase in public space accordingly. Perhaps this concern will be addressed in future. Otherwise, an exciting development.

SJB Planning

1 / 4

Level 1, Building D 80 Dorcas Street Southbank VIC 3006

info@sjbplanning.com.au sjb.com.au

T F

61 3 8648 3500 61 3 8648 3599

SJB Planning Pty Ltd ACN 007 427 554

5535

98L0

01

Attn: Ms Robyn Hellmann Coordinator Local Policy Strategic Planning Branch City of Melbourne By Email Date: 3 June 2016 Re: Proposed Amendment C 221 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme 156-232 Kensington Road, West Melbourne Dear Ms Hellman We act for Frances Fox as trustee for the Thomas John Beresford Will Trust, the owner of properties at 439-459 Dynon Road and 61-75 Sims Street, West Melbourne. It is respectfully requested that this letter be accepted as a ‘late submission’ to the amendment, as agreed in our telephone and email conversations on the 27th of May 2016. Our client has reviewed the documentation in relation to the proposed ‘West Melbourne Waterfront’ planning scheme amendment C221, which relates to the mixed use development of the land at 156-232 Kensington Road. It is understood that the amendment proposes the following changes to the affected land:

Change the land use zoning from a Commercial 2 zoning to a Mixed Use zoning, which will, in particular, provide opportunities for the use of the land for ‘sensitive’ uses such as dwellings as well as shops and other activities otherwise prohibited by the current zoning;

Impose a Development Plan Overlay (Schedule 12) to the land; Impose an Environmental Audit Overlay to provide for environmental contamination investigations

and decontamination works It is noted that the land is currently affected by the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay however it is unclear from the amendment documentation whether this is to be retained or deleted as part of the current request. Our client’s land is located to the south-west of the amendment land as shown on the aerial photograph below.

2 / 4

SJB Planning SJB Planning Pty Ltd ACN 007 427 554

5535

98L0

01

Figure 1: Fox landholdings and land affected by proposed Amendment C221 (Fox landholdings in red) Overall, our client’s land holding is equivalent to approximately 2.8 hectares of land, with all of it being located in the Industrial 1 Zone as affects all adjacent and surrounding land south of Dynon Road and being subject to the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay, as affects surrounding land, including that within the area affected by the proposed planning scheme amendment C221. Dynon Road is a Road Zone, Category 1, an arterial road that is managed by Vicroads. Under the Vicroads ‘Smart Roads’ policy it is identified as a Freight-carrying Traffic Route, a Bus Priority Route and Bicycle Priority route. In relation to each of our client’s sites, the following is noted:

439-459 Dynon Road, with a frontage of approximately 99 metres to Dynon Road (inclusive of four vehicle ingress and egress points) and a site area of approximately 1.6 hectares.

61-75 Sims Street, with a frontage of approximately 75 metres to Sims Street (inclusive of two vehicle ingress and egress points) and a site area of approximately 1.2 hectares

The frontage of the 439-459 Dynon Road property is approximately 220 metres to the south-west of 232 Kensington Road, which is the southernmost property affected by the proposed planning scheme amendment C221. It is also approximately 370 metres to the north-east corner of the property at 61-75 Sims Street. It is our client’s intention to maximise her sites’ useability for the purposes of industrial and related land use activities in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial 1 Zone at Clause 33.01 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme until such time as they become used for a higher and better use. In addition to on-site operations, which may necessitate both 24-hour access and 24-hour on-site noise generating activities, sites of this capacity typically generate substantial vehicle movements, including a large number made by trucks required for deliveries and collections. Further to this, her considerations

3 / 4

SJB Planning SJB Planning Pty Ltd ACN 007 427 554

5535

98L0

01

for the redevelopment of her land holdings must also take account of the requirements of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and the sites’ and wider area’s capacity for flood water management. Accordingly, our client’s key submissions relate to:

Effective management of floodwaters / site permeability to ensure that the 156-232 Kensington Road sites continue to effectively contribute to the management of floodwaters, inclusive of free passage and temporary storage, to an appropriate extent that is compatible with the likely flood hazard and local drainage conditions and will not cause any significant rise in flood level or flow velocity, which could be damaging to the surrounding environment including public land holdings and public roadways as well as private properties and private assets. In this regard, it is considered that the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay should continue to apply to the 156-232 Kensington Road land given its significant reach over land holdings proximate to the Maribyrnong River and the 156-232 Kensington Road land;

Ensuring the effective management of vehicle access to / from Dynon Road at Kensington Road,

taking account of the substantially increased traffic volumes which can be expected arising from the expanded resident, worker and visitor population and management of potential conflicts with both port-related traffic and truck movements associated with the industrial land use activities within the surrounding area; and

Effective management of potential amenity impacts by the ‘agent of change’ through the careful

design of buildings, their outdoor areas and open spaces to minimise impacts from exposure to surrounding Commercial 2 and Industrial 1 zoned land holdings, particularly with respect to dust and odour.

More specifically in relation to the proposed Schedule 12 to the Development Plan Overlay, the following queries are raised: Part 2.0 Conditions and requirements for permits Flood Mitigation The matters to be covenanted do not adequately take account of potential flood impacts on surrounding and ‘downstream’ land holdings where the area surrounding 156-232 Kensington Road land is substantially affected by the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay. It is submitted that an additional item that requires covenanting relates to ‘Mitigation works in the context of local conditions that do not prejudice potential future regional outcomes’ on the basis that these works will protect surrounding landholdings from significant rises in flood levels or flow velocity as a result of the changed conditions on the 156-232 Kensington Road land following redevelopment. Civil Infrastructure and Community Infrastructure Contributions The matters to be covenanted to do not adequately take account of likely modifications and improvements that will be necessary to Dynon Road in the vicinity of its intersection with Kensington Road, as well as the physical intersection arrangements of these streets. It is submitted that an additional item that requires covenanting relates to upgrade works to the Dynon / Kensington Road intersection to maintain its safe operation, as well as that of each roadway from the time that construction commences. It is expected that the additional daily traffic volumes and movements related to residents and workers travelling to and from the 156-232 Kensington Road land each day will place significant pressure on the

4 / 4

SJB Planning SJB Planning Pty Ltd ACN 007 427 554

5535

98L0

01

intersection’s capacity. In combination with heavy vehicle movements to the nearby port, freight terminals and industrial areas and without planned upgrades, the road system could quickly become inadequate and unsafe. Odour and dust protection There is inadequate detail regarding required outcomes, performance measures or standards to be achieved with respect to the protection of ‘buildings’ from odour and dust emissions from surrounding uses. It is unclear also whether this would relate to balconies terraces and outdoor areas associated with the ‘buildings’ and accordingly, the effect of this dot point is to create more, rather than less certainty in the decision making process (and with respect to potential enforcement action). It is submitted that this requirement should be more clearly explained to provide clear direction and manage the community’s expectations regarding potential impacts. Part 3.0 Decision Guidelines It is submitted that Vicroads, as the Managing Authority over Dynon Road, should be identified as an authority with an interest in the management of the Dynon Road / Kensington Road intersection, the operation of which will be affected by the redevelopment and intensification of land uses on the amendment land. Finally, it is requested that confirmation be provided as to whether the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay control is to remain in effect, or is proposed to be deleted from the amendment land. We trust that the above provides adequate detail for Council’s consideration of our client’s submissions in relation to the amendment request. I can be contacted on 8648 3522 to further discuss any matters raised in this letter. Yours sincerely

Kellie Burns Senior Associate kburns@sjbplanning.com.au