Planning and Environment Act 1987
Panel Report
Port Phillip Planning Scheme
Amendment C103
Bay Street Structure Plan implementation
6 June 2014
Planning and Environment Act 1987
Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103
Bay Street Structure Plan implementation
Lester Townsend, Chair
Ross Ramus, Member
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
Contents
Page
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................1
1
Introduction..............................................................................................................3
2
The Proposal .............................................................................................................4
2.1 The subject site and surrounds ............................................................................... 4
2.2 Background to the Amendment .............................................................................. 5
2.3 The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 5
3
Identification of Issues ............................................................................................ 10
3.1 Summary of issues raised in submissions ............................................................. 10
3.2 Issues dealt with in this Report ............................................................................. 11
4
Strategic justification .............................................................................................. 12
4.1 The Issue ................................................................................................................ 12
4.2 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 12
4.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 12
4.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 12
5
Activity Centre boundary issues .............................................................................. 13
5.1 Changes to planning controls outside of Activity Centre ...................................... 13
5.2 Eastern and western boundaries of the Activity Centre ....................................... 14
5.3 Proposed rezoning of 316-342 Bay Street (and 55 Lyons Street) from a
Residential 1 Zone to a Commercial 1 Zone .......................................................... 14
5.4 Proposed rezoning of 374-420 Bay Street from a Residential 1 Zone to a
Mixed Use Zone ..................................................................................................... 15
5.5 Land use conflicts at rear of Bay Street shopping strip in Heath Street ............... 16
6
Strategic sites ......................................................................................................... 18
6.1 Corner of Bay and Liardet Streets (Coles supermarket) ....................................... 18
6.2 40 Bay Street (Naval Drill Hall and Former Post Office – ‘Circus Oz’ site) ............ 19
6.3 160-162 Bay Street (Church and Manse buildings) ............................................... 20
6.4 Better protection of residential amenity .............................................................. 21
7
Built form issues ..................................................................................................... 23
7.1 General concerns over impacts of new development .......................................... 23
7.2 Proposed rear-of-strip development in Lalor and Heath Street ........................... 24
7.3 Opportunity Precinct 3: Town Hall Business Precinct ........................................... 26
7.4 Site specific - 7-33 Bay Street (Office of Housing development identified
as an opportunity site) .......................................................................................... 27
7.5 Site specific – Protection of views of the Port Melbourne Town Hall .................. 28
8
Revised Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 1 (DDO1) ............................... 29
8.1 Apparent removal of DDO1 from Beach Street .................................................... 29
8.2 Removal of ‘Key views’ Design Objective from DDO1 .......................................... 29
8.3 Post exhibition changes ......................................................................................... 31
8.4 Proposed deletion of ‘Preferred maximum heights’ in DDO1 .............................. 32
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
8.5
8.6
Precinct extension north-west along Rouse Street to include 286 Rouse
Street. .................................................................................................................... 33
Revised DDO1 – site specific boundary issue (241 - 247 Graham Street) ............ 34
9
Proposed Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 25 (DDO25) ......................... 35
9.1 Precinct issue – built form controls proposed in Design and
Development Overlay - Schedule 25 (DDO25) ...................................................... 35
10
Other issues ............................................................................................................ 40
10.1 Heritage ................................................................................................................. 40
10.2 Traffic ..................................................................................................................... 40
10.3 Established residential precincts ........................................................................... 41
10.4 Site specific: inclusion of 190 Graham Street in Residential Precinct 3:
Graham Street (north) ........................................................................................... 42
10.5 Residential Precinct 4: Princes and Stokes Street ................................................. 43
11
Non-submitter changes to the Amendment ............................................................. 44
Appendix A
List of Submitters
Appendix B
Panel version
List of Tables
Page
Table 1
Amendment Summary ............................................................................................ iv
Table 2
Panel Process ...........................................................................................................iv
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1:
Extent of Structure Plan .......................................................................................... 4
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
List of Abbreviations
BSMAC
Bay Street Major Activity Centre
CAD
Central Activities District
DSE
Department of Sustainability and Environment
DTPLI
Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure
EPA
Environment Protection Authority
EVC
Ecological Vegetation Class
GAA
Growth Areas Authority
GWMP
Green Wedge Management Plan
LPPF
Local Planning Policy Framework
MAC
Major Activity Centre
MMBW
Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works
MPA
Melbourne Planning Authority
MSS
Municipal Strategic Statement
NAC
Neighbourhood Activity Centre
SPPF
State Planning Policy Framework
UGB
Urban Growth Boundary
VPP
Victoria Planning Provisions
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
Amendment Summary
Table 1
Amendment Summary
The Amendment
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103
Purpose of Amendment
The purpose of the Amendment is to implement the planning
scheme changes recommended in the draft Bay Street Major
Activity Centre Structure Plan
Planning Authority
This Amendment has been prepared by the City of Port Phillip,
which is the planning authority for this Amendment
Authorisation
Authorisation was initially provided on 18 April 2013 (Authorisation
number AO2517)
Council revised the Amendment following the introduction of the
new commercial zones. A revised authorisation was provided on 24
July 2013 (under the original authorisation number of AO2517)
Exhibition
Public exhibition of Amendment C103 occurred for a one month
period commencing 5 September 2013, with submissions closing on
7 October 2013
Panel Process
Table 2
Panel Process
The Panel
Lester Townsend (Chair) and Ross Ramus
Directions Hearing
1 April 2014 at Planning Panels Victoria
Panel Hearing
2 May 2014 at Planning Panels Victoria
Site Inspections
Various unaccompanied site inspections were made.
Appearances

Port Phillip City Council represented by Nic Drent

35, 37-53, 67, 75 and 83 Crockford Street represented by
Marjorie Kennedy, SJB Planning

Port Melbourne Historical and Preservation Society represented
by Janet Bolitho

Barbara Mullen

Jill Maddox

Owners Corporation Committee of 190 Graham Street
represented by Daniel Vosti
Submissions
A total of fifty-five submissions to the Structure Plan and
Amendment C103 were made to Council
Date of this Report
6 June 2014
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
Executive Summary
Amendment C103 seeks to introduce planning controls and update existing controls for the
Bay Street, Port Melbourne Major Activity Centre, based generally on the (draft) Bay Street
Major Activity Centre Structure Plan (2013) which has been prepared by Council.
Council has adopted a strategic approach towards the planning of its activity centres and
surrounding areas, and has undertaken considerable strategic work to establish a sound
framework for future growth and development of the Bay Street, Port Melbourne Activity
Centre.
The changes proposed by Amendment C103 will assist in achieving Council’s vision for the
Bay Street Activity Centre (and maintain the currency of scheme provisions) through:
 Revisions to the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and the introduction of a new
local planning policy, to implement the strategic directions and broader objectives
and strategies of the draft Structure Plan. The new local policy will guide decision
making in relation to new land use and development proposals.
 Rezoning four precincts to give effect to key land use strategies, including providing
for the renewal of residual industrial land along Crockford Street and improving
land use connections and activity clusters along Bay Street.
 Revising the existing development and heritage controls applying south of Graham
Street, to provide greater clarity on future development potential. This includes
implementing a review of the existing Design and Development Overlay - Schedule
1 (DDO1) and of the existing Heritage Overlay (HO1 – Port Melbourne).
 Introducing built form controls to guide future development of residual industrial
land along Crockford Street precinct.
 Introducing ‘Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statements’ to guide future
development within established residential precincts.
Council’s submission has addressed the Strategic Assessment Guidelines and demonstrated
how Amendment C103 provides an appropriate statutory framework to implement the
Structure Plan. The Amendment is consistent with and implements both the State and Local
Planning Policy Frameworks. The (draft) Bay Street Major Activity Centre Structure Plan
(2013) provides a clear strategic justification for Amendment C103.
While fifty-five submissions were received to the Structure Plan and Amendment, the limited
number of objecting submissions that specifically relate to the detail and content of
Amendment C103 suggests that the Amendment is an appropriate statutory framework.
Council has given detailed consideration to all submissions, and a series of changes to the
Structure Plan and Amendment in response to submissions is recommended (including a
number of necessary ‘non-submitter’ changes). This report draws heavily on Council’s
detailed response.
For the reasons outlined in this report, the Panel recommends that Port Phillip Planning
Scheme Amendment C103 be adopted, as exhibited, subject to the following changes:
1.
Amend Table 1 in Clause 22.12-03 to change the wording of the ‘Desired Future
Outcome’ for the corner of Bay and Liardet Streets to include:
Page 1 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
a)
b)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
the retention of the existing car parking provision, and
the provision of additional car parking to cater for new floor-space relevant to
the proposed land use.
Amend Table 1 in Clause 22.12-03 to change to the wording of the ‘Desired Future
Outcome’ for 40 Bay Street to include:
a)
Potential land uses could include cafe/restaurant, education or community
purposes.
Modify existing policy at Clause 22.06 to read:
a)
Encourage new development to maintain and enhance important views and
vistas in the municipality including, but not limited to:
•
along St Kilda Road, particularly towards the Shrine of Remembrance
•
the Shrine Vista
•
from the foreshore and the Bay towards the Melbourne CAD skyline
•
from Station Pier and other piers towards the Melbourne CAD skyline.
Amend the proposed Schedule 1 to the Design and Development Overlay by
deleting:
a)
‘Design objectives’ relating to amenity protection (overshadowing, height and
setbacks)
b)
‘Buildings and Works’ requirement under the heading ‘Interfaces with
residential properties adjacent to the growth area’.
Change the proposed DDO1 boundary to exclude 241-247 Graham Street.
Change the ‘Preferred Character Statement’ for Residential Precinct 4: Princes and
Stokes Streets (in the Design Manual) to include 241-247 Graham Street.
Amend DDO25 as set out in Appendix B.
Modify the Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statement for Precinct 3 as
proposed in the Port Phillip Design Manual to specify a preferred building height for
Graham Street of three storeys.
Modify the Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statement for Precinct 4 as
proposed in the Port Phillip Design Manual to specify a preferred building height for
Graham Street of three storeys.
Refine the expression in the Amendment based on the post exhibition changes
agreed by Council at its meeting of 25 February 2014 except where the Panel has
made an explicit recommendation to the contrary.
Apply the Neighbourhood Residential Zone to 124-136 Heath Street.
Correct references to non contributory properties Preferred Neighbourhood
Character Statements in the Port Phillip Design Manual.
Correct errors relating the relative development capacity of the northern and
southern sides of Garton Street.
Page 2 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
1
Introduction
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103 (the Amendment) was prepared by the Port
Phillip Council as Planning Authority. As exhibited, the Amendment proposes to implement
the planning scheme changes recommended in the draft Bay Street Major Activity Centre
Structure Plan (the ‘Structure Plan’).
The Amendment applies to land identified as the Bay Street, Port Melbourne Major Activity
Centre (the ‘Activity Centre’) and surrounding residential precincts, being the area generally
bound by Boundary, Pickles, Beach, Princes Streets and the light rail reserve along Evans
Street, Port Melbourne.
The Amendment was authorised by the Department of Transport, Planning and Local
Infrastructure (DTPLI) on 24 July 2013.
The Amendment was placed on public exhibition between 5 September 2013 and 7 October
2013, with 55 submissions received as follows:
 Two submissions gave unqualified support
 Eight submissions stated overall support but also identified specific issues or offered
comments.
 Forty-three submissions raised concerns based on specific issues.
 Two submissions did not support the draft Structure Plan overall.
At its meeting of 25 February 2014, Council resolved to refer all submissions to a Panel. As a
result, a Panel to consider the Amendment was appointed under delegation from the
Minister for Planning on 12 March 2014 and comprised Lester Townsend (Chair) and Ross
Ramus.
A Directions Hearing was held in relation to the Amendment on 1 April 2014. Following the
Directions Hearing, the Panel undertook an inspection of the subject site and its surrounds.
The Panel then met in the offices of Planning Panels Victoria on 2 May 2014 to hear
submissions in respect of the Amendment. Those in attendance at the Panel Hearing are
listed in Table 1.
In reaching its conclusions and recommendations, the Panel has read and considered the
submissions and a range of other material referred to it. This includes written submissions,
evidence and verbal presentations. The following chapters of this report discuss the issues
raised in submission relating to the Amendment in further detail, with the Panel’s
conclusions and recommendation provided in Chapter 4.
Page 3 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
2
The Proposal
2.1
The subject site and surrounds
Bay Street, Port Melbourne is identified as a ‘Major Activity Centre’ under State Planning
Policy. Preparing a structure plan is a key response to this policy and directions in the LPPF,
and provides an integrated framework for guiding change and development through
planning controls.
Figure 1:
Extent of Structure Plan
Page 4 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
2.2
Background to the Amendment
The Bay Street Major Activity Centre (BSMAC) has undergone a substantial transformation as
a result of significant residential growth over the last 15 years. The ‘mixed use’ precinct
south of Graham Street has transitioned from a low-rise industrial area to an area of
medium-rise residential apartments. 2,060 dwellings have been constructed in this area
over this period (with a further 600 approved since 2006). The majority of major
development opportunities have now been realised.
The structure plan provides a strategic context and framework for delivering public realm
improvements, traffic management, and provision of community services to support the
integration of the centre in order to strengthen its activity mix, place identity, accessibility
and sense of community.
2.3
The Amendment
2.3.1 The exhibited Amendment
Amendment C103 proposes to make the following specific changes to the Port Phillip
Planning Scheme:
Local Policy
1.
Modifies Clause 21.06 – Neighbourhoods of the Municipal Strategic Statement to reflect
the vision and strategic directions of the Bay Street Activity Centre Structure Plan (2013)
and makes minor consequential changes to Clause 21.04.
2.
Introduces a new local planning policy at Clause 22.12 - Bay Street Major Activity Centre
of the Local Planning Policy Framework to reflect the intent of the Bay Street Activity
Centre Structure Plan (2013).
Zone controls
3.
Rezones land at 35 – 83 Crockford Street from an Industrial 3 Zone to a Mixed Use Zone
to facilitate renewal of the precinct and provide opportunities for new housing and
commercial development within the BSMAC.
4.
Rezones land at 316 - 342 Bay Street and 55 Lyons Street from a Residential 1 Zone to a
Commercial 1 Zone to support an office-based business services land use niche and
facilitate an improved north – south active land use connection at the northern end of
Bay Street.
5.
Rezones land at 374 - 420 Bay Street from a Residential 1 Zone to a Mixed Use Zone, to
act as a transitional precinct and facilitate commercial and residential development.
6.
Rezones land at 124 - 136 Heath Street from a Commercial 1 Zone to a Residential 1
Zone, to redress a Business 1 Zone boundary anomaly and ensure that the amenity of
residential properties is not detrimentally affected by commercial development.
7.
Amends the Schedule to Clause 52.28-4 – Gaming to prohibit installation or use of
gaming machines on land at 316 – 348 Bay Street (even numbers) and 55 Lyons Street,
Port Melbourne.
Page 5 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
8.
Applies an Environmental Audit Overlay to land at 35 – 83 and 86 Crockford Street, Port
Melbourne to ensure that potentially contaminated land is suitable to be used for
sensitive uses.
Built form controls
9.
Inserts a new schedule, Schedule 25 to Clause 43.02 - Design and Development Overlay
to guide renewal of Opportunity Precinct 1 - Crockford Street Precinct. The new
schedule will guide the form of new development on land at 35 – 83 Crockford Street,
Port Melbourne.
10. Inserts a revised Schedule 1 to Clause 43.02 - Design and Development Overlay (DDO1)
to implement the recommendations of the Port Phillip DDO1 Review (2010). This
includes simplifying the Schedule and providing clearer controls, implementing new and
revised design objectives and development requirements, clarifying intended outcomes
in relation to neighbourhood character and heritage, and removing the overlay from
identified areas.
11. Removes the Design and Development Overlay 1 (DDO1) from land in the Residential 1
Zone in Stokes and Princes Streets (south of Graham Street), Dow and Graham Streets
and Esplanade West, and Beaconsfield Parade and Pickles Streets, to protect the
heritage and character of fine grain and low scale residential areas adjacent to the
activity centre.
12. Introduces a revised ‘Design Objective’ and an additional ‘Buildings and Works
Requirement’ to Design and Development Overlay 1 (DDO1), to provide clearer
guidance to manage development adjacent to individually significant heritage places.
13 Includes the Port Phillip DDO1 Review (2010) as a reference document in Schedule 1 to
Clause 43.02 - Design and Development Overlay of the planning scheme.
Heritage controls
14. Replaces the existing precinct based Heritage Overlay 1 (HO1) applying to land south of
105 Bay Street in Bay, Beach, Dow, and Rouse Streets with individual heritage overlay
controls to places with heritage significance, to ensure that heritage places are
protected by clear and relevant heritage controls.
This implements the
recommendations of the Review of Heritage Overlay 1 Port Melbourne – Stage 2 Review
(Lovell Chen, 2012).
15. Updates the schedule to the Heritage Overlay (Clause 43.01) and corresponding
Heritage Overlay Maps (2HO) to:
 Modifies the description of the boundaries of HO1 – Port Melbourne to refer to
Graham Street as generally being the western boundary of the precinct.
 Introduces new individual heritage overlays for:
- 1 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (Pier Hotel) - (HO454).
- 22 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (Local Hotel) - (HO455).
- 39 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (Exchange Hotel) - (HO451).
- 79-85 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (four shops) - (HO459).
- 95 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (former WJ Carr Warehouse) - (HO449).
Page 6 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014


- Land bounded by Beach, Rouse, Dow Streets and Esplanade West except the
north western corner (former Australasian Sugar Refining Company complex) (HO456).
- 49 Beach Street, Port Melbourne (former Mission to Seamen) - (HO453).
- Part 100-128 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (shop) - (HO458).
- Part 100-128 Bay Street, Port Melbourne - fronting Dow Street (former Army and
Navy Hotel, 95 Dow Street) - (HO457).
- 183-187 Rouse Street, Port Melbourne (three houses) - (HO460).
Retains existing heritage overlays over:
- 2-6 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (Coal Depot) (HO38).
- 40 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (Drill Hall and Post Office) (HO39).
- 111-115 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (Court house, police station and lock up)
(HO40).
- 96 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (Former National Bank) (HO452).
- Part 70-146 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (Bluestone warehouse) (HO115).
Removes the existing precinct based Heritage Overlay (HO1 – Port Melbourne) from
properties in Bay, Beach, Dow, Nott and Rouse Streets and Mitchell Crescent.
Incorporated Documents
16. Amends the Port Phillip Heritage Review (Incorporated Document to the Port Phillip
Planning Scheme) to:
 Introduces new citations for:
- 1 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (Pier Hotel) - (Citation 608).
- 22 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (Local Hotel) - (Citation 2359).
- 39 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (Exchange Hotel) - (Citation 2358).
- 79-85 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (four shops) - (Citation 2357).
- 95 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (former WJ Carr Warehouse) - (Citation 2356).
- Land bounded by Beach, Rouse and Dow Streets and Esplanade West except the
north western corner (former Australasian Sugar Refining Company complex) (Citation 2360).
- 49 Beach Street, Port Melbourne (former Mission to Seamen) - (Citation 2177).
- Part 100-128 Bay Street, Port Melbourne (shop) - (Citation 248).
- Part 100-128 Bay Street, Port Melbourne - fronting Dow Street (former Army and
Navy Hotel, 95 Dow Street) - (Citation 266).
- 183-187 Rouse Street, Port Melbourne (three houses) - (Citation 277).
 Replaces Citation 689 (2-6 Bay Street), Citation 693 (96 Bay Street), and Citation 637
(part 70-146 Bay Street) with updated citations.
 Replaces the Port Melbourne Precinct (HO1) heritage citation with a revised citation
to reflect changes to the extent of the heritage precinct.
 Alters the City of Port Phillip Heritage Policy Map and City of Port Phillip
Neighbourhood Character Policy Map (Incorporated Documents to the Port Phillip
Planning Scheme) to:
- Removes 181 and 193 Rouse Street and 31-33 Bay Street as ‘Contributory
heritage places’ from the Heritage Policy Map, and include them as ‘Contributory
outside HO’ on the Neighbourhood Character Policy Map.
Page 7 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
(i)
Reference Documents
17. Amends all references in the planning scheme to the updated version of the Port Phillip
Heritage Review, the City of Port Phillip Heritage Policy Map and the City of Port Phillip
Neighbourhood Character Policy Map (affects Clauses 21.07, 22.04 and the Schedule to
Clause 81.01).
18. Includes the Review of Heritage Overlay 1 Port Melbourne – Stage 2 Review as a
reference document at Clause 22.04 (Heritage Policy) of the planning scheme.
19. Introduces Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statements for four established
residential areas adjacent to the activity centre, to provide for incremental housing
growth.
20. Modifies the existing Reference Document ‘Port Phillip Design Manual, 2000’ to include
an additional chapter titled ‘Chapter 8 - Bay Street Activity Centre Environs Neighbourhood Character Statements for Established Residential Areas (2012)’, and
amend all references in the planning scheme to the updated version (affects Clauses
22.04, 22.06 and 22.11).
21. Includes the Bay Street Activity Centre Structure Plan (2013) as a Reference Document
to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme in the Local Planning Policy Framework (Clauses
21.07 and 22.12) and the schedule to Clause 43.02 - Design and Development Overlay.
2.3.2 Amended documentation
Council proposed a number of changes to the Amendment:
Part 1 – MSS and LPP documents
Changes to the following:
 Clause 21.06 – New heading inserted following Local Strategy 6.4.32 (p12).
 Clause 22.06 – Modifications under the heading ‘Landmarks, Views and Vistas’ (p2)
relating to views and vistas of the CAD skyline.
 Clause 22.12 – Modifications to Table 1 (p3) of Clause 22.12-03 relating to the
‘Desired Future Outcome’ for Strategic Sites, and to Clause 22.12-08 to clarify policy
on public realm outcomes.
Part 2 – Design and Development Overlay Ordinances and Planning Scheme Maps
Changes to the following:
 Changes to Schedule 1 to Design and Development Overlay (DDO1) - Deletes
proposed ‘Amenity’ Design Objectives (p2) and ‘Interface’ standards (p3) for
buildings and works.
 Changes to Schedule 25 to Design and Development Overlay (DDO25) - Introduces a
new heading ‘1.0 Preferred Character’, and modifies particular Buildings and Works
requirements to become mandatory requirements (NB: This is the same version as
previously circulated).
 Zone Map 2 & 3 – Reflects a change in the zone proposed for 124-136 Heath Street,
being from Residential 1 Zone to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.
Page 8 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014

Design and Development Overlay Map 2 & 3DDO – Reflects removal of 241-247
Graham Street from DDO1.
Part 3 – Reference Documents
Changes to the following:
 Draft Bay Street Major Activity Centre Structure Plan – Modified to reflect changes
endorsed in Councils resolution.
 Draft Precincts and Projects – Modified to reflect changes endorsed in Councils
resolution.
 Port Phillip Design Manual (Chapter 8) – Modified to include Preferred
Neighbourhood Character Statements consistent with changes to Precincts and
Projects document.
Page 9 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
3
Identification of Issues
3.1
Summary of issues raised in submissions
The key issues raised in the submissions of the various parties are briefly summarised as
follows:
 The key aspects of the Structure Plan and / or Amendment that were supported by
submitters were:
- The seven Strategic Directions underpinning the draft Structure Plan.
- Acknowledgement of the residential growth that has already occurred south of
Graham Street.
- The introduction of site-specific heritage controls.
- Removal of the DDO1 from smaller residential lots in Princes and Stokes Streets,
and Esplanade West.
- Proposed rezoning of 35-83 Crockford Street (Industrial to Mixed Use).
- Infill development opportunities identified for Lalor and Heath Streets.
- Improvements to the pedestrian environment and reduction of speed limit in Bay
Street.
 Issues raised in submissions generally relate to specific aspects of the plan /
amendment rather than outright objection. The major issues raised were:
- The proposed rezoning of land along specific sections of Bay Street (rezoning of
two sub-precincts from a Residential 1 to a Commercial 1 Zone, and a Residential
1 to a Mixed Use Zone) raising the potential for amenity conflicts between
residential and commercial activities.
- Support for the proposed rezoning of 35-83 Crockford Street (Industrial 3 to
Mixed Use Zone), with changes sought to the proposed Design and Development
Overlay Schedule 25 (DDO25) controls.
- Specific changes to Design and Development Overlay Schedule 1 (DDO1)
including the revision to ‘Design Objectives’ highlighting the need to retain
protection of key viewlines and the impact of boundary changes reducing the
development potential of individual properties.
- The proposed ‘Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statements’ for established
residential areas, with some submitters concerned that the Statements are too
restrictive.
- The long-term proposal to discourage freight traffic along Bay and Graham
Streets specifically feasibility of Port operations and potential for consequential
traffic impacts elsewhere.
- The need to address sensitive interfaces between residential and commercial
zones.
- The appropriate scale / level of development potential for specific sites and the
centre overall. Mixed views were expressed including that development
potential is excessive whilst other submissions suggest greater densities are
appropriate.
Page 10 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
- The potential redevelopment identified for the Coles supermarket - highlighting
the importance of retaining existing car parking and the need for more parking
on this site.
- The defined activity centre boundary (south of Graham Street) - specifically
questioning the inclusion of some residential properties.
3.2
Issues dealt with in this Report
The Panel considered all written submissions, as well as submissions presented to it during
the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been
assisted by the information provided to it as well as its observations from inspections of
specific sites.
This report deals with the issues under the following headings:
 Strategic justification
 Activity Centre boundary issues
 Strategic sites
 Built form issues
 Revised Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 1 (DDO1)
 Proposed Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 25 (DDO25)
 Other issues
- Heritage
- Traffic
- Established residential precincts
- Site specific: inclusion of 190 Graham Street in Residential Precinct 3: Graham
Street (north)
- Residential Precinct 4: Princes and Stokes Streets
 Non-submitter changes to the Amendment.
Page 11 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
4
Strategic justification
4.1
The Issue
A Planning Authority is required to provide a strategic assessment of any amendment.
Submission 20 believed that the Amendment does not satisfy the State Policy Planning
Framework.
4.2
Evidence and submissions
Council submitted that the Explanatory Report demonstrates how the Amendment satisfies
the SPPF by providing a strategic assessment of the Amendment including how The
Amendment implements the objectives of planning in Victoria, complies with the Ministerial
Direction No 9, and implements the SPPF.
4.3
Discussion
Council provided a detailed assessment of the Amendment against State and Local policy in
its written submissions. The Panel has reviewed the policy context of the Amendment.
The Amendment has strong policy support because it builds on a long history of strategic
planning in the area and is a refinement of existing policy settings.
4.4
Conclusion
The Panel concludes:
The Amendment is supported by, and implements, the relevant sections of the
State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks.
Page 12 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
5
Activity Centre boundary issues
5.1
Changes to planning controls outside of Activity Centre
5.1.1 The Issue
Amendment C103 proposes changes to planning controls outside of the Activity Centre
including:
 removing the DDO1 from land in Princes, Stokes, and Dow Streets.
 applying ‘Preferred Character Statements’ to established residential areas defined
for ‘incremental change’ (ie ‘infill’ housing development).
Submission numbers 3, 26, 28, 29, 31, 34, and 36 question the basis for changes to planning
scheme controls that would apply to land south of Graham Street (between Stokes and
Princes Street) given that area is outside of the Activity Centre.
5.1.2 Evidence and submissions
The Structure Plan defines the Activity Centre which contains commercial, retail and mixed
uses and is the focus for activity and future development.
The Activity Centre boundary excludes established residential areas, as Council does not
consider these to be a focus for public activity. Areas directly adjoining and surrounding
activity centres will experience development pressures and planning policy and controls are
required to define and manage development.
Some of the residential areas surrounding Bay Street (especially areas south of Graham
Street including Princes, Stokes, and Dow Streets) are covered by planning scheme controls
(ie: DDO1) that imply greater development potential than is considered desirable. The
Structure Plan has identified the desired outcomes for these areas: to respect remaining
heritage places and to protect the character values of the low rise, fine grain residential
areas. This is the strategic basis for planning scheme controls proposed in Amendment
C103.
5.1.3 Discussion
While the areas are outside of the Activity Centre, it is appropriate to pursue changes to the
planning controls to properly reflect the future planning outcomes sought. The Panel agrees
that proposed changes are appropriate to reinforce a distinction between the Activity Centre
and the adjacent residential areas, and are considered a positive approach to retaining
valued elements of the local area.
5.1.4 Conclusion
The Panel concludes:
The proposed changes outside of the activity centre are appropriate.
Page 13 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
5.2
Eastern and western boundaries of the Activity Centre
5.2.1 The Issue
Submission numbers 22, 24, 33, 39, and 40 submit that the properties south of Graham
Street between Nott St and Dow Street should be excluded from the Activity Centre.
5.2.2 Evidence and submissions
Council submitted that based on their development and zoning these areas are
appropriately defined as being within the Activity Centre.
5.2.3 Discussion
Characteristics that make the sites part of the Activity Centre; include:
 the Mixed Use Zone, that allows a mixed-use function (including commercial land
uses)
 functional relationship with Bay Street in terms of commercial activity and
residential growth
 some development capacity
 important pedestrian connections to the foreshore.
The panel accepts that Council’s approach is consistent with the Planning Practice Note for
Activity Centres - Note 58 (DTPLI, 2010).
5.2.4 Conclusion
The Panel concludes:
The properties south of Graham Street between Nott St and Dow Street should not
be excluded from the Activity Centre.
5.3
Proposed rezoning of 316-342 Bay Street (and 55 Lyons Street) from a
Residential 1 Zone to a Commercial 1 Zone
5.3.1 The Issue
Submission 14 objects to the rezoning 316 to 342 Bay Street (and 55 Lyons Street) from a
Residential 1 Zone to a Commercial 1 Zone on amenity grounds based on future impact of
non-residential uses on existing residential amenity. Heritage issues were also raised.
5.3.2 Evidence and submissions
The subject properties are an isolated section of Residential 1 zoning within the Activity
Centre along Bay Street. They are located between two areas currently in the Commercial 1
Zone.
The draft Structure Plan includes the subject properties within Opportunity Precinct 3: Town
Hall Business Precinct (Precincts and Projects document, p15). The proposed strategic role
of the precinct is to strengthen the existing north-south connection of ‘active’ commercial
land uses along Bay Street, and to create a business services niche as part of a
complementary land use cluster around the Town Hall.
Page 14 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
Properties at 316-342 Bay Street are affected by Heritage Overlay and graded as ‘significant’
heritage places. Council submitted that the rezoning is not envisaged to lead to significant
changes to or redevelopment of the existing buildings, but rather the change in zoning will
enable a broader range of uses within the established buildings.
Submissions raised the potential for amenity issues associated with commercial uses allowed
under the proposed Commercial 1 zoning.
5.3.3 Discussion
The properties are located on a main road and are already within an established commercial
strip where intensive development and activity is occurring, amenity conditions are not
expected to significantly alter. In any area of ‘mixed use’ activity, the level of amenity
expected would differ from broad scale established residential areas.
The Commercial 1 Zone would provide opportunities for a broader range of commercial uses
than the current residential zone, including office-based activity appropriate to the location
with the Activity Centre. Preferred land uses include office-based business services
(particularly at street level) as well as opportunities for on-going residential uses.
5.3.4 Conclusion
The Panel concludes:
The rezoning of 316-342 Bay Street (and 55 Lyons Street) from a Residential 1 Zone
to a Commercial 1 Zone should proceed.
5.4
Proposed rezoning of 374-420 Bay Street from a Residential 1 Zone to
a Mixed Use Zone
5.4.1 The Issue
Submission numbers 15 and 17 object to the proposed rezoning, based on the potential
amenity impact of non-residential uses – including within an existing apartment building),
impact on property values, and impact on carparking.
Submission 17 requests that:
 the Mixed Use Zone apply only to Bay Street (not Lyons Street).
 the property at 410-416 Bay Street be excluded from the Mixed Use Zone.
 a planning permit be required for all potentially detrimental commercial land uses.
5.4.2 Evidence and submissions
The properties comprise a section of Residential 1 zoning, located immediately north of and
opposite land in the Commercial 1 Zone.
The properties have a mixture of commercial and residential use. Commercial activities
include a service station/motor repairs, restaurant, hairdresser and two art galleries. The
properties are opposite retail activity along the north-western side of Bay Street.
The draft Structure Plan includes the properties within Opportunity Precinct 3: Town Hall
Business Precinct.
Page 15 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
Council submitted that the strategic role of the precinct is to strengthen the north-south
connection of ‘active’ commercial land uses along Bay Street, and to create a business
services niche as part of a complementary land use cluster around the Town Hall.
The Mixed Use Zone would recognise the existing land use mix and provide opportunities for
a broader range of commercial uses, including office-based activity. Preferred land uses
include office-based business services (particularly at street level) and residential uses.
Retail land uses would be discouraged north of Spring Street through proposed planning
policy.
5.4.3 Discussion
The Mixed Use Zone is a residential zone, but provides for a range of commercial uses which
are regarded as being compatible with adjoining residential uses. A range of new land uses
do not require a planning permit subject to meeting maximum floor area limits, and this
facilitates smaller scale commercial activity which is appropriate in this part of the Activity
Centre.
The Panel agrees that it is unlikely that there would be significant land use change within an
existing residential apartment building, given the layout of buildings, ownership patterns,
body corporate controls, and the need to satisfy the car parking requirements of the
planning scheme.
Having inspected the area the suggestion to limit the Mixed Use Zone to the Bay Street side
is not feasible given the configuration of land parcels (which extend from Bay Street through
to the Lyons Street frontage). Applying the Mixed Use Zone to the front of Bay Street
properties and retaining the Residential 1 Zone at the rear would create a complex zoning
regime that would lead to on-the-ground difficulties in managing uses and development.
Car parking is a relevant consideration when any new development or change of land use is
proposed. New land uses including retail and residential development are required to satisfy
the car parking provisions of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme. The draft Structure Plan also
sets an expectation that new land use is ‘self-sufficient’ in on-site car parking, which is also
contained in proposed policy at Clause 22.12-07 – Sustainable access and movement of
Amendment C103.
5.4.4 Conclusion
The Panel concludes:
The rezoning of 374-420 Bay Street from a Residential 1 Zone to a Mixed Use Zone
should proceed.
5.5
Land use conflicts at rear of Bay Street shopping strip in Heath Street
5.5.1 The Issue
Submissions sought that properties fronting Heath Street (between Raglan and Spring
Streets) be rezoned from a Commercial 1 Zone to a Residential 1 Zone. Issues with waste
management and social amenity issues relating to commercial properties in Bay Street.
Page 16 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
5.5.2 Evidence and submissions
The existing Commercial 1 Zone applies to commercial properties fronting Bay Street, as well
as a mixture of residential and commercial properties fronting Heath Street.
Council submitted that the current zoning reflects historical zone boundaries and land use
patterns, although this section of Heath Street is now predominantly occupied by dwellings
(many which have occurred through developments to the ‘rear’ of commercial properties
fronting Bay Street).
The Commercial 1 Zone recognises dwellings as a legitimate use, with the purpose of the
zone being to ‘provide for residential uses at densities complementary to the role and scale
of the commercial centre’.
Within the draft Structure Plan, Heath Street is located within Opportunity Precinct 2: Lalor
and Heath Street Edge. The strategic role of this precinct is to accommodate further
residential development. The Structure Plan proposes that this be achieved through
retention of the existing zone and encouraging residential development through local policy.
At the hearing the submitter showed a detailed video of the street and the Panel has also
benefitted from a site inspection.
5.5.3 Discussion
Due to the remaining configuration of lots, applying a residential zone to allotments fronting
Heath Street would result in some commercial land uses being within a residential zone.
This is not desirable; it would create a complex zoning regime that could lead to on-theground difficulties in managing uses and development.
The Panel agrees that residential properties at the rear of commercial premises within a
commercial centre can give rise to amenity impacts. It is difficult to see how these amenity
impacts can be effectively managed by planning given the pattern of uses that has already
established.
In any case, the rezoning requested is not part of the Amendment and such a rezoning could
not proceed without appropriate notice to affected land owners.
5.5.4 Conclusion
The Panel concludes:
It would not be appropriate to rezone land at the rear of Bay Street shopping strip
in Heath Street.
Page 17 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
6
Strategic sites
6.1
Corner of Bay and Liardet Streets (Coles supermarket)
6.1.1 The Issue
Submission numbers 22, 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, 33, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 47, 51, 52, and 53
express concern that the structure plan makes no specification for providing car parking as a
part of any redevelopment.
6.1.2 Evidence and submissions
Submissions:
 objected to the identification of this site as having potential for redevelopment
without specifying retention of the existing publicly accessible car parking area.
 objected to any redevelopment of the site.
 sought that any redevelopment of the site include the same amount or more
parking than already provided with the first one or two hours provided free.
 felt that Amendment C103 should include a statutory or legal mechanism to ensure
that the site continues to be used as a supermarket and that sufficient publicly
accessible parking with a free period is provided.
 Requested that Amendment C103 apply a ‘Car Parking Overlay’ to the site.
Council submitted that the draft Structure Plan seeks to ensure that supermarkets continue
to anchor the centre’s retail offer, and expresses a preference that the existing retail anchor
(Coles supermarket) be retained.
The site is identified in the Structure Plan as a ‘strategic site’ recognising it as one of the
largest sites within the Activity Centre. Despite being protected as a heritage place and set
in a low scale development context, this large site has potential to accommodate some
limited (and recessed) upper storey development. The Structure Plan envisages that the
supermarket (an important retail ‘anchor’) be retained, and any future development
comprise residential or additional commercial floor space.
The existing roof top car park provides free customer parking for two hours. The car park is
privately owned and managed.
6.1.3 Discussion
Large sites within the Activity Centre that could accommodate a full size supermarket are
limited and the Panel agrees with Council that given the significant demand for daily and
weekly groceries within Port Melbourne it is unlikely that the existing supermarket will be
replaced by any alternate use.
It is up to the owners of the land how they might develop the land in accordance with
planning controls. It is not possible or appropriate to force the owner to enter into a Section
173 Agreement to ensure that the site continues to be used as a supermarket (or associated
car parking conditions).
Page 18 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
The car park is provided as part of a commercial venture and is directly associated with the
use of the land as a supermarket. Free parking is a typical component of a competitive and
commercially viable supermarket offer. This decision is made by the land owner and
planning cannot force someone to make their land available to third parties.
Applying a ‘Parking Overlay’ is not part of the Amendment and such an overlay could not
proceed without appropriate notice to affected land owners.
Council proposed to amend the Structure Plan to recognise the role that this site has in
providing parking, and to amend the desired outcome in Clause 22.12-03.
The Panel can see merit in specifying the desired outcome for the site, but cautions that any
public car park would need to make commercial sense to the developer or be some sort of
joint venture with Council. A future developer should not be ‘held to ransom’ to provide a
public service that has no nexus with the development they are undertaking.
6.1.4 Recommendation
The Panel concludes:
Planning cannot retrospectively mandate public access to a private car park.
The Panel recommends:
1.
6.2
Amend Table 1 in Clause 22.12-03 to change to the wording of the ‘Desired Future
Outcome’ for the corner of Bay and Liardet Streets to include:
a) the retention of the existing car parking provision, and
b) the provision of additional car parking to cater for new floor-space relevant to the
proposed land use.
40 Bay Street (Naval Drill Hall and Former Post Office – ‘Circus Oz’ site)
6.2.1 The Issue
Submissions 28, 29, 39, 40, and 47 express concern that the Structure Plan provides
insufficient guidance as to future preferred land use outcomes, and more specifically that:
 The ‘Desired future outcomes’ expressed in the draft Structure Plan (p23) require
better guidance.
 The site should be used for education facilities (Submission 39) or community
indoor sports centre (Submission 40), or a community facility (Submission 47).
6.2.2 Evidence and submissions
The Naval Drill Hall and former Post Office buildings at 40 Bay Street are collectively
identified as a ‘Strategic Site’ in the Structure Plan. The ‘Desired Future Outcome’ for the
site is to:
Facilitate reuse and sensitive adaptation of this heritage building to increase
interaction with / activation of the street frontage.
Council submitted that this outcome would contribute to the broader ambition of achieving
a more vibrant gateway and pedestrian environment at the southern end of Bay Street.
Page 19 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
The site is identified as a ‘Key opportunity site’ as part of Opportunity Precinct #4: Bay Street
Southern Gateway (Precincts and Projects, p.21), which has a future strategic role of
supporting:
… street activity and connections, which leverages off its location adjacent to the
foreshore area, through land use change and public realm improvements.
The two buildings are significant heritage places located on the south-eastern corner of
Rouse and Bay Streets. The buildings were occupied by Circus Oz.
6.2.3 Discussion
The Structure Plan does not recommend any specific future land use for the site, but rather a
broader objective to be achieved: street activation, active edge at street level.
The Structure Plan could play a role in suggesting a range of preferred land uses (possible
under the Mixed Use zoning) which can include and reflect community aspirations for
educational and /or community uses on this site. Other suitable uses would include ‘food
and drink premises’ such as a café or restaurant.
The Panel agrees that Clause 22.12-03 could better reflect the agreed aspirations for the
site.
6.2.4 Recommendations
The Panel recommends:
2.
6.3
Amend Table 1 in Clause 22.12-03 to change to the wording of the ‘Desired Future
Outcome’ for 40 Bay Street to include:
a) Potential land uses could include cafe/restaurant, education or community purposes.
160-162 Bay Street (Church and Manse buildings)
6.3.1 The Issue
Submission 38 and 39 submit that the draft Structure Plan needs to make suitable provision
for vehicle access, and specifically that the Structure Plan does not include provisions to
ensure that any redevelopment behind the church and manse buildings has suitable
provisions for car parking access.
6.3.2 Evidence and submissions
Council submitted that the Church and Manse buildings at 160-162 Bay Street are
collectively identified as a ‘Strategic Site’ in the Structure Plan. The ‘Desired Future
Outcome’ for the site recognises the:
 Potential to achieve office or residential uses to the rear of the existing place of
worship and manse.
6.3.3 Discussion
The site is identified as an ‘Opportunity site’ on the Activity Centre Housing Opportunities
Framework Plan. The two existing buildings are significant heritage buildings and are an
important part of the streetscape along Bay Street and are envisaged as being retained in
any redevelopment.
Page 20 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
The Panel supports the policy position to limit new crossovers in Bay Street. It is recognised
that that vehicle access at the rear of the site may be limited. These concerns are noted but
the Panel agrees with Council that it is beyond the scope of the Structure Plan to include
specifications as to how suitable vehicle access to an individual site should be provided. This
would need to be resolved as part of a more detailed access analysis prepared to inform a
future redevelopment proposal/permit application.
6.3.4 Conclusion
The Panel concludes:
No change to Amendment C103 to address detailed access issues at 160-162 Bay
Street is warranted.
6.4
Better protection of residential amenity
6.4.1 The Issue
Submission 55 refers to Strategy 2.5.1 (and related Action) and seeks that a more quantified
approach towards residential amenity be provided (such as through a scoring system), citing
a range of impacts relating to traffic and parking, streetscape design, land use and
compliance.
6.4.2 Evidence and submissions
Council submitted that Strategy 2.5.1 (p29) proposes to:
Adopt a ‘preventative approach’ to noise and other impacts as new residential
uses establish within and at the edge of the activity centre through noise
attenuation and managing amenity expectations.
The related Action on p32 is to:
Manage the amenity expectations of residents, acknowledging that the level of
amenity experienced within the activity centre and in mixed use areas will be
lower as a consequence of proximity to business operations.
The submitter references traffic, parking and streetscape design issues as impacting on local
amenity. The draft Structure Plan addresses these issues separately in Strategic Direction 5:
Sustainable Access and Movement and Strategic Direction: An Integrated Public Realm. Key
strategies include:
Strategy 5.1.1 (p52) proposes to:
Reduce traffic speeds throughout the activity centre and its environs including:
 A 40km/hour speed limit through the Bay Street retail precinct, between
Graham Street and Ingles Street as an immediate priority.
 A 40km ‘precinct’ speed limit on residential streets connecting to and
surrounding the activity centre to improve pedestrian safety and amenity
and encourage walking.
Page 21 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
Strategy 6.1.3 (p58) proposes to:
 Ensure safe, convenient and amenable pedestrian access along defined
‘priority pedestrian streets’ and at key intersections throughout the activity
centre through:
 Providing crossings at regular intervals and allow pedestrians to be able
to cross all legs of the intersection.
 Using traffic calming techniques as an integral part of all streetscape
designs, to reduce vehicle speeds, the volume of through traffic and give
priority to pedestrians.
 These non-planning strategies are part of an integral approach to managing
the Activity Centre and surrounds, with a view to improving the amenity of
local streets.
6.4.3 Discussion
The Panel agrees that the Structure Plan sets out a realistic approach to amenity given the
diversity of activity within the Activity Centre. The existing residential and commercial zones
provide statutory controls to ensure amenity impacts are managed effectively, and Council’s
compliance powers are in place to ensure amenity impacts are not unreasonable.
6.4.4 Conclusion
The Panel concludes:
No change to Amendment C103 to provide more guidance around residential
amenity is warranted.
Page 22 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
7
Built form issues
7.1
General concerns over impacts of new development
7.1.1 The Issue
Submission numbers 4, 27, 33 and 35 express concerns about:
 the heritage character of Port Melbourne and that the area should be protected
and should not turn into an extension of the CBD (Submission 35).
 potential for loss of urban character, or loss of village atmosphere due to influx of
high rise buildings (Submission 27).
 new development having a positive impact on the public realm (Submission 33).
 existing wind tunnelling and overshadowing (Submission 27).
7.1.2 Evidence and submissions
Council submitted that the draft Structure Plan acknowledges that the Activity Centre has
already transformed as a result of substantial new development, particularly within the
‘mixed use’ precinct south of Graham Street, and that future development/growth
opportunities are more limited and not the primary driver of the Plan. This is expressed in:
Strategic Direction 4 of the draft Structure Plan - Reinforcing Urban Character –
seeks to:
 Maintain and reinforce the distinct and contrasting urban character of
different precincts to form a sequence of urban experiences across the
activity centre.
This Direction recognises that change has occurred within parts of the activity centre, in the
form of new contemporary development, but that the centre’s traditional heritage
streetscapes provide an important and valued contrast which need to be protected. More
specific objectives under this Direction seek to:
Protect Bay Street’s ‘village’ feel through reinforcing the low scale, fine grain
heritage character of the traditional retail strip north of Graham Street.
Consolidate the new contemporary higher-rise character of the Port Melbourne
Mixed Use area, south of Graham Street (whilst respecting significant heritage
buildings and the amenity/character of adjoining residential areas).
Council submitted that the draft Structure Plan establishes a balanced approach to providing
for new development whilst retaining and protecting the traditional built form elements of
the activity centre which are fundamental to its history and sense of place.
Submitters seek that new development should have a positive impact on the public realm.
Submitters also regard the higher scale of development south of Graham Street as a poor
outcome in terms of wind tunnelling and overshadowing impacts on the public realm, and
seek that new development avoid these impacts in the future.
DDO1 which covers new development in the area south of Graham Street does not cover
wind impacts and the DDO1 Review did not make any specific recommendations in this
regard. Wind tunnel effects are most commonly an issue associated with high-rise buildings,
Page 23 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
particularly those without podiums and verandas, and less so with the medium-scale
buildings typical of Bay Street. Given the location of the Activity Centre adjacent to the
foreshore it would be difficult to substantially mitigate against general wind impacts,
although design features such as verandas can assist.
7.1.3 Discussion
Existing design policies in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme already establish objectives
relating to design impacts on the public realm:
 Existing design policy at Clause 22.06 seeks to achieve high quality architecture
which protects and enhances pedestrian spaces, and minimises adverse microclimatic impacts. This policy will be retained.
 Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (2004) which form part of
the Port Phillip Planning Scheme do include general design guidance on wind
impacts and these can continue to be used in assessing the design and built form of
residential development of five or more storeys where appropriate.
In relation to solar access, Strategy 4.5.1 of the draft Structure Plan seeks to:
Ensure that new development does not diminish sunlight access to Bay and Rouse
Street, and the foreshore area.
This strategy is translated to Amendment C103 as a new local policy requirement in Clause
22.12-06 - Reinforcing urban character.
More specifically, DDO1 currently seeks to protect solar access to Bay and Rouse Streets and
the foreshore area through a ‘Design objective’ relating to solar access and an equivalent
‘Buildings and works’ requirement. The Panel concludes that the existing scheme and the
Amendment have are adequate controls to manage the impact of new development.
7.1.4 Conclusion
The Panel concludes:
No change to Amendment C103 is needed.
7.2
Proposed rear-of-strip development in Lalor and Heath Street
7.2.1 The Issue
Submission numbers 6, 46, and 55 raise the following concerns relating to the potential for
infill development at the rear of Bay Street properties:
 four storey development is considered excessive, and associated vehicle access
would cause the loss of on-street parking spaces (Submission 55).
 lack of reference to the Special Building Overlay (SBO) (Submission 6).
 potential parking and servicing issues (Submission 46).
Submission 46 expresses broad support for rear of strip development.
Page 24 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
7.2.2 Evidence and submissions
Strategic Direction 2: Housing Opportunities identifies that there are opportunities for some
further housing growth within the Activity Centre, including shop-top housing and ‘infill’
development at the rear of the retail strip. Strategy 2.1.2 (p28) encourages infill
development as identified on the Activity Centre Housing Opportunities Framework Plan
(p30), and the plan shows land fronting Lalor and Heath Street as having potential for such
development.
Further direction for development in this area is articulated in Strategy 4.2.3 (p44), and most
particularly in the form of precinct scale built form and land use directions in Opportunity
Precinct 2: Lalor and Heath Street Edge (Precincts and Projects, p11).
The preferred precinct built form outcome is for ‘rear of strip’ residential development to a
scale of three storeys (10.5 metres) with limited potential for a recessed fourth storey (to a
maximum overall height of 14 metres).
One submitter notes that the draft Structure Plan does not acknowledge that the Special
Building Overlay (SBO) applies in Lalor Street, and that the SBO will have an impact on
development outcomes by requiring the finished floor levels of new development to be
raised to maintain passage of floodwaters. This is noted but no change to the preferred
building heights as expressed in policy are recommended.
7.2.3 Discussion
Guidance on built form in the Amendment seeks to ensure that new development fronting
Heath Street provides a two storey street wall, with third and fourth floor levels being
recessed. This responds to the scale of existing development on the eastern side of Heath
Street, and the Panel considers that this is appropriate to the built form interface with the
western side of Heath Street.
In relation to the SBO the Panel notes that development will need to accommodate finished
floor levels to be consistent with the preferred built form objectives, noting that heights are
not mandatory provisions (rather are expressed as policy) and some flexibility is available to
respond to the SBO.
Parking access and servicing issues would be addressed through statutory planning
processes where site layout planning will need to respond to the need to provide access to
retail premises and car parking as well as minimised the loss of on-street parking.
7.2.4 Conclusions
The Panel concludes:
No change to Amendment C103 is needed.
Page 25 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
7.3
Opportunity Precinct 3: Town Hall Business Precinct
7.3.1 The Issue
Submission numbers 16 and 17 object to:
 The draft Structure Plan encouraging development of four storeys for properties at
400-406 Bay Street, citing amenity and impacts on heritage (Submission 16).
 Multi-storey development and associated detrimental impacts as a consequence of
rezoning (Submission 17).
7.3.2 Evidence and submissions
400-406 Bay Street are located in Opportunity Precinct 3: Town Hall Business Precinct
(precincts and Projects, p15). The role of future development in the precinct is to reinforce a
sense of arrival to the centre and deliver consistent street wall heights within a heritage
context. Policy will be applied achieve a maximum overall height of four storeys as
contained in Amendment C103 (proposed policy at Clause 22.12-10).
Council submitted that the draft Structure Plan provides clear parameters for change in land
use and development but does not give rise to more intensive development than could be
achieved under existing planning provisions. Strategic Direction 2: Housing Opportunities
identifies opportunities for further housing growth and Strategy 2.1.1 (directs new
development to underutilised sites on the south-eastern side of Bay Street north of Spring
Street, including 400-406 Bay Street.
Strategies 4.2.2 and 4.2.4 (p44) provide principles for new development in this location,
including respecting heritage places and creating a strong built form connection across
underutilised sites.
Land at 374–420 Bay Street is proposed to be rezoned from Residential 1 Zone to a Mixed
Use Zone, which allows for a broader range of commercial land uses including offices. The
Mixed Use Zone is a residential zone and has the same permit triggers and design
requirements for residential buildings as the existing Residential 1 Zone (and successor new
residential zones).
Council submitted that there is broader scope under the Mixed Use Zone to construct a
building associated with a Section 1 use, however these would be limited in size due to floor
area restrictions and would be consistent with the existing built form character of the
precinct.
Properties at 400-406 Bay Street are not affected by heritage controls and therefore are not
recognised as having heritage characteristics needing protection. The broader heritage
context has been considered in defining the future built form parameters.
Page 26 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
7.3.3 Discussion
Pressure for development will exist regardless of the applicable zone. The Panel agrees that
the Mixed Use Zone will support the strategic intent of the draft Structure Plan, including
active land uses at ground level.
The Panel agrees that a preferred built form outcome of four storeys (with a lower three
storey street wall) is appropriate due to the existing streetscape between Ingles Street and
Spring Street East, which comprises recent development to a scale of four storeys and older
two storey buildings (including tall terraces at 378-382 Bay Street) equivalent to a modern
three storey building. A height of four storeys would create a more defined and consistent
street-edge condition contributing to the sense of arrival at this entry to the Activity Centre.
The amenity impact of new development on adjoining properties is an important planning
consideration which occurs through the statutory planning process.
7.3.4 Conclusion
The Panel concludes:
No change to Amendment C103 is needed.
7.4
Site specific - 7-33 Bay Street (Office of Housing development
identified as an opportunity site)
7.4.1 The Issue
Submission 38 seeks:
 A mandatory requirement for an outdoor area which is protected by a winter
solstice solar access provision.
 The same number and size of public housing units be provided.
7.4.2 Evidence and submissions
The Office of Housing development site is nominated as a ‘Strategic site’ as well as an
‘Opportunity Site’ (p46), due to its apparent underutilisation and ability to contribute to the
desired outcomes for Opportunity Precinct 4: Bay Street Southern Gateway.
The ‘Desired future outcome’ expressed for the site (p23) includes:
Redevelopment should include social housing on upper levels / to rear of site, and
result in no net loss of social housing.
Potential to accommodate future retail anchor on this large site and ensure
active land uses at the street frontage to Bay Street, as part of any
redevelopment (medium or long term prospect).
The ‘Desired future outcome’ states that redevelopment should result ‘in no net loss of
social housing’ and redevelopment will need to respond to this. Council submitted that it is
not appropriate that the draft Structure Plan address the size of housing units as this would
be addressed by the service provider.
Page 27 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
7.4.3 Discussion
On-site private open space provision would be resolved through a site planning process for
any redevelopment proposal, and regulated through the statutory planning process. To
justify site specific controls for this site would require a detailed study of the opportunities
and constraints of the site, and the development typologies that it could support.
7.4.4 Conclusion
The Panel concludes:
No change to Amendment C103 is appropriate.
7.5
Site specific – Protection of views of the Port Melbourne Town Hall
7.5.1 The Issue
Submission 55 seeks to protect the view of the flagpole and clocktower elements of the
Town Hall from tall and bulky buildings.
7.5.2 Evidence and submissions
Council submitted that Strategy 4.1.4 seeks to protect key public view lines, in particular the
view of the Port Melbourne Town Hall. This is reflected in Amendment C103 (proposed
Clause 22.12).
7.5.3 Discussion
View protection cannot always be achieved, but the Panel agrees that protecting views is a
worthwhile aspiration, and is supported by broader state policy. The impact of preserving a
view on a specific development proposal would need to be considered on its merits and
balanced against other policy aspirations.
7.5.4 Conclusion
The Panel concludes:
No change to Amendment C103 is needed.
Page 28 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
8
Revised Design and Development Overlay Schedule 1 (DDO1)
8.1
Apparent removal of DDO1 from Beach Street
Submission numbers 3, 23, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34, and 36 object to the apparent proposed
removal of the Design and Development Overlay (DDO1-1a) from Beach Street (between
Princes and Stokes Streets).
The Amendment does not propose removing DDO1-1a from Beach Street. This is reflected
in the Built Form Framework Plan and Building Heights Framework Plan in the draft
Structure Plan, which shows that DDO1 will continue to be applied to properties fronting
Beach Street.
While this section of Beach Street has largely been developed, there are several sites
remaining which may have some development capacity and DDO1-1a will be retained to
ensure that any future development protects and enhances the foreshore environment.
Future development within the DDO1-1a sub-precinct is limited to an absolute maximum
height of 25.5 metres 8 storeys (as per the existing height limit) which would be consistent
with existing built form outcomes along this section of Beach Street.
8.2
Removal of ‘Key views’ Design Objective from DDO1
8.2.1 The Issue
Twenty three submissions object to the proposed removal of existing ‘Design Objectives’
relating to protection of key views.
Submission 38 objects to the proposed removal of the buildings and works requirement for
buildings to have ‘gaps to allow views of the CBD from Station Pier and the Bay’ (Building
Design, dot point four).
Submission 6 identifies a lack of reference to view lines on north-south streets to
monuments and structures.
8.2.2 Evidence and submissions
Amendment C103 proposes a revised DDO1, with the following ‘Key view’ objectives
proposed to be removed (indicated in struck out text):
To protect and enhance key views, in particular:
From Station Pier and the Bay to the Melbourne Central Activities District.
Along Bay Street towards the Melbourne Central Activities District.
Along Bay Street to Port Phillip Bay, and in particular to maintain an open sky
view or ‘view cone’ when looking towards the Bay from Bay Street at its
intersection with Rouse Street.
Along Beach Street towards the foreshore in both directions.
Along side streets towards Port Phillip Bay and local parks.
Page 29 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
Towards landmark buildings and structures on and adjacent to the foreshore,
including piers, beacons, and monuments.
The existing DDO1 is also proposed to be removed from land in Princes, Stokes and Rouse
Streets to ensure development is consistent with the low scale existing character of the area.
The majority of the larger former industrial sites south of Graham Street have already been
developed. Accordingly, there is little opportunity for future development in the revised
DDO1 area to impact on the view to the CBD regardless.
Council submitted that the review of DDO1 has recommended deleting these Design
objectives and requirements on the following basis:
The view to the Melbourne CBD from Station Pier is west of the DDO area (hence
not affected by development within the DDO1 area).
The view to the Melbourne CBD from the Bay is already compromised by
development (in the DDO1 area).
The view to the Melbourne CBD from Bay Street is already confined to the road
reserve by buildings on either side of that street. Therefore, it will not be
adversely affected by further development.
Views towards the foreshore from Beach Street are not affected by development
within the DDO area.
Views along side streets towards the Bay and local parks are already confined to
the road reserves by buildings on either side of those streets. Therefore, they will
not be adversely affected by further development.
Views towards landmark buildings and structures on and adjacent to the
foreshore are either from Beach Street or already confined to the road reserve of
north-south streets (and therefore unaffected by development within the DDO1
area).
The review of DDO1 also recommended the design requirement that buildings ‘have gaps to
allow views of the CBD from Station Pier and the Bay’ be removed.
The draft Structure Plan seeks to protect views to Port Phillip Bay, the CBD and Port
Melbourne Town Hall from within the Bay Street road reserve (Strategy 4.1.4 p44 / Built
Form Framework Plan p46). This Strategy is reflected as a local policy requirement in
Amendment C103 (proposed Clause 22.12) which would apply to all new development
triggering a planning permit (ie: not limited to the DDO1 area).
The review of DDO1 recommended that the ‘Design objective’ protecting key views of
‘landmark buildings and structures on and adjacent to the foreshore, including piers,
beacons and monuments’ be removed from the DDO1. Views of locally significant
monuments along north-south streets adjacent to the foreshore include the Band Rotunda
along Stokes Street and the Bi-centennial Memorial along Nott Street.
The rationale for removing the provision is that those views are either from Beach Street or
confined to the road reserve and therefore unaffected by development in the DDO1 area.
Page 30 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
8.2.3 Discussion
There is existing policy at Clause 22.06 – Urban Design Policy for Non Residential
Development and Multi Unit Residential Development which seeks to:
Encourage new development to maintain and enhance important vistas in the
municipality including, but not limited to:
 along St Kilda Road, particularly towards the Shrine of Remembrance,
 the Shrine Vista,
 from the foreshore and its piers and the Bay towards the Melbourne CAD
skyline,
 along the beach front roads and boulevards, towards the foreshore and Port
Phillip Bay in both directions,
 along local roads and streets to Port Phillip Bay, the Melbourne CAD, Albert
Park Reserve and local parks and gardens,
 the built form edge of key open spaces, including the foreshore.
This existing policy applies to all new non-residential development, and multi-unit residential
development (of four storeys or more). The policy acknowledges the importance of the vista
towards the CBD from the ‘foreshore and its piers’ which includes Station Pier, but does not
specifically reference the view from Station Pier.
Key views are clearly valued by the community. The removal of requirements relating to
maintaining view lines from DDO1 is not reflective of a change in aspiration or desire to
facilitate additional medium to higher scale development, but rather that these views are
not existing, or alternately, not at risk from future development. Their removal is to simplify
DDO1 through deleting superfluous design objectives/requirements.
The Panel agrees that the policy at Clause 22.06 could be improved. Station Pier has a
special role as a gateway to Melbourne and it is appropriate to recognise this.
8.3
Post exhibition changes
Council advised that the Port Phillip DDO1 Review (2010) recommended that new controls
be added to the ‘Buildings and Works’ requirements of the DDO1 requiring development to
meet ResCode’s (Clause 55) overshadowing and side and rear setbacks objectives in relation
to any adjoining secluded private open space within Residential 1 zoned properties.
This recommendation was carried into a revised DDO1 (in Amendment C103) by introducing
‘Design objectives’ relating to amenity protection (overshadowing, height and setbacks), and
a specific ‘Buildings and Works’ requirement under a new heading ‘Interfaces with
residential properties adjacent to the growth area’.
The proposed ‘Buildings and Works’ requirement reflected the Clause 55 standards for
overshadowing and side and rear setbacks.
The Minister for Planning introduced reforms to the residential zones in July 2013 which
include changes to the existing Mixed Use Zone that introduce these amenity standards:
Any buildings or works constructed on a lot that abuts land which is in a General
Residential Zone, Residential Growth Zone, Neighbourhood Residential Zone or
Page 31 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
Township Zone must meet the requirements of Clauses 55.04-1, 55.04-2, 55.04-3,
55.04-5 and 55.04- 6 along that boundary.
This requirement in the Mixed Use Zone sets amenity standards which are equivalent to the
amenity controls sought through the revised DDO1 process. Accordingly these can be
removed from the exhibited version of DDO1.
8.3.1 Conclusion
The Panel recommends:
3.
Modify existing policy at Clause 22.06 as follows:
a) Encourage new development to maintain and enhance important views and vistas in
the municipality including, but not limited to:
• along St Kilda Road, particularly towards the Shrine of Remembrance
• the Shrine Vista
• from the foreshore and its piers and the Bay towards the Melbourne CAD skyline
• from Station Pier and other piers towards the Melbourne CAD skyline.
4.
Amend the proposed Schedule 1 to the Design and Development Overlay by deleting:
a) ‘Design objectives’ relating to amenity protection (overshadowing, height and
setbacks)
b) ‘Buildings and Works’ requirement under the heading ‘Interfaces with residential
properties adjacent to the growth area’.
8.4
Proposed deletion of ‘Preferred maximum heights’ in DDO1
Submission numbers 3, 6, 26, 28, 31, 34, 36, and 38 raised the following specific issues:
 Retaining the ‘preferred maximum heights’.
 Affirming existing height and setback controls for remaining sites in the mixed use
growth area.
 Expressing some support for retention of absolute maximum height limits, but seek
that the overshadowing criteria must be obeyed.
 Noting that the absolute maximum height limits in certain areas will result in
overshadowing of the foreshore and the south-eastern side of Bay Street, such that
greater setbacks than 5 metres will be needed for upper storeys.
Changes to DDO1 schedule are based on Port Phillip DDO1 Review (2010) prepared by David
Lock Associates.
Based on the review of DDO1, the Structure Plan proposes that the existing DDO1 height
controls be simplified by removing the ‘preferred’ maximum height controls but retaining
the ‘absolute’ maximum height controls (Strategy 4.3.4, related Action on p48).
This relates to overall building heights for upper levels setback behind the street wall. A
‘preferred front setback’ and ‘preferred maximum height less than 5 metres from any road
boundary’ will be retained to control the design of the front part of the building.
The current DDO provides both ‘preferred’ and ‘absolute’ maximum height controls at two
or three different setbacks from the street which is considered to be unnecessarily complex.
Page 32 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
The ‘preferred’ heights are regarded as a ‘deemed to comply’ provision whereas the
‘absolute’ maximum height limit can be achieved where:
 all relevant design objectives are met;
 all design outcomes are achieved; and
 there is no additional detriment to the amenity of any surrounding public realm or
private residential areas as a result of the additional height above the preferred
maximum.
Council submitted that the application of DDO1 to date has seen the vast majority of
development built to the ‘absolute’ maximum height limit. Further, the review of DDO1
highlights the importance of all development being assessed against the relevant design
objectives and design outcomes. The Panel agrees that the ‘preferred’ maximum height
provisions (for overall building height behind the street wall) are not considered to provide
any additional value.
Submitters refer to the particular overshadowing impacts of development in the following
DDO1 sub-precincts:
 DDO1-3 – Bay Street (between Rouse and Graham Streets).
 DDO1-1a – Beach Street (between Nott and Princes Streets).
Submitters seek either that a mandatory overshadowing provision be provided, or that more
stringent upper storey setback requirements are provided.
The revised DDO1 provisions will maintain Council’s discretion in relation to permitting
development up to the absolute maximum height limit, and this includes having regard to
local policy and design objectives / requirements relating to overshadowing.
The Panel concludes:
The changes proposed in Amendment C103 are appropriate.
8.5
Precinct extension north-west along Rouse Street to include 286
Rouse Street.
Submission 11 seeks to extend the proposed DDO1-2 sub-precinct north-west along Rouse
Street to include 286 Rouse Street.
286 Rouse Street is located on the corner of Rouse and Princes Streets. It is not included in
the Activity Centre boundary and is proposed to be excluded from the revised DDO1. The
site itself does not have any neighbourhood character or heritage value. A planning permit
application has been made for a 5-storey residential development.
Council submitted that rationale for removing the site from DDO1 is based on the review of
DDO1 and the intent to remove sensitive existing residential areas which includes Princes
and Stokes Street from the DDO. Collectively these areas form part of a precinct scale
approach and reflects the need to avoid isolated pockets of intensification around those
sensitive areas which could result on the subject property if retained in DDO1.
The Panel agrees that extension of proposed DDO1-2 sub-precinct along Rouse Street would
create an anomaly in that the DDO1-2 would only apply to properties fronting Rouse Street
Page 33 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
between Stokes and Princes Street, which generally have little capacity for more intensive
development.
8.6
Revised DDO1 – site specific boundary issue (241-247 Graham Street)
Submission 13 seeks to remove properties at 241-247 Graham Street from the revised
DDO1.
Properties at 241-247 Graham Street are within the Residential 1 Zone and comprise single
dwelling development. The buildings are not affected by Heritage Overlay controls but are
identified as ‘Contributory outside of the Heritage Overlay’. Collectively they display a
consistency in building scale, lot size, fence height and front setbacks. They are
characteristic of the low scale residential character of development in Stokes and Princes
Streets. The Structure Plan seeks to protect this area of Stokes and Princes Streets by
removing them from the DDO1 area.
The Port Phillip DDO1 Review (2010) proposed that the sites at 241-247 Graham Street be
retained within a revised DDO1 on the basis that they have a lower level of development
constraint.
Given that the properties are more characteristic of the existing low scale established
residential character it would be appropriate to exclude them from the DDO1 area.
As proposed by Council future development should be consistent with preferred character
outcomes, and these properties should also be included in Residential Precinct 4: Princes and
Stokes Streets and subject to a preferred building height of three storeys (as per the above
change) to create a consistent building scale along Graham Street.
8.6.1 Recommendations
The Panel recommends:
5.
Change the proposed Schedule 1 to the Design and Development Overlay boundary to
exclude 241-247 Graham Street.
6.
Change the ‘Preferred Character Statement’ for Residential Precinct 4: Princes and
Stokes Streets (in the Design Manual) to include 241-247 Graham Street.
Page 34 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
9
Proposed Design and Development Overlay Schedule 25 (DDO25)
9.1
Precinct issue – built form controls proposed in Design and
Development Overlay - Schedule 25 (DDO25)
9.1.1 The Issue
Submission 7 supports the intent of The Amendment, including the rezoning of land to a
Mixed Use Zone as well as the discretionary controls in DDO25, but seeks specific changes to
the DDO25 including:
 consolidation and wording changes to design objectives.
 refinement and deletion of repetitive buildings and works requirements.
 changes to building design requirements at the interface with adjacent residential
development, including boundary wall heights and upper floor setbacks.
9.1.2 Evidence and submissions
SJB on behalf of the owners submitted:
… it is unclear why an area that which has been specifically identified as an
opportunity area, within a Major Activity Centre, strategically located adjacent to
Fishermans bend Urban renewal Area and South Melbourne Major Activity
centre, could be regarded as so ‘special’ as to warrant the use of exceptional
planning controls
This precinct is an opportunity to establish a new character of development along
the northern side of Croxford Street; it is not burdened by a valued existing
character which is sought to be retained.
The submitter opposed a number of changes proposed by Council (discussed below) and
proposed instead a different set of changes.
The built form controls contained in DDO25 are derived from the draft Structure Plan
(Strategy 4.4.2) and Opportunity Precinct 1 – Crockford Street (Precincts and Projects p7):
The strategic role of the Precinct is to provide new opportunities for office and
residential activity at the northern end of the activity centre. Built form renewal
of the precinct will create an improved ‘gateway’ to the activity centre through a
moderate scale of high quality development. Land use change is to be facilitated
through rezoning the precinct from Industrial 3 Zone to the Mixed Use Zone
through Amendment C103.
Council submitted that built form controls are needed to ensure that an appropriate design
response occurs in the context of heritage areas and the surrounding lower scale residential
context (ie: Garton and Bay Streets, south-eastern side of Crockford Street) and to create an
improved interface between the activity centre and residential properties.
The controls have been prepared having regard to the outcomes sought through the
Montague Precinct Structure Plan, which relates to land immediately north of the Precinct
Page 35 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
(on the north side of Boundary Street). For the Crockford Street Precinct, the overall height
(5 storeys) and upper floor setback above three storeys (5 metres from Crockford Street) are
consistent with the built form framework for the City Road Corridor / Boundary Street
precinct.
Council also submitted that:
 Given the interface with the low scale residential environment in Garton Street,
care needs to be taken as to how future development along Crockford Street
addresses this ‘rear’ interface comprising to the single and double storey dwellings.
 The draft Structure Plan acknowledges that properties on the south side of Garton
Street have some development capacity, due to the physical context of older
warehouse buildings and newer apartment and townhouse development of
between 2 and 4 storeys. However under a scenario of redevelopment on the
south side of Garton Street (eg: single dwelling or townhouse style buildings) there
would still be a need to provide a reasonable interface at the rear, potentially for
secluded private open space, daylight and sunlight.
 The draft Structure Plan seeks to limit development on the common boundary to a
general height of two storeys (or taller if the same height as an existing boundary
wall) to protect the amenity of the rear of Garton Street properties.
Further changes to DDO25 were proposed by Council at its meeting of 25 February 2014.
These include changing the ‘Buildings and works requirements’ to mandatory controls to be
consistent with the intent and expression of the draft Structure Plan.
Council summarised the changes sought by the submitter as follows:
 Design objectives
- Replacing the word ‘ensure’ with ‘encourage’ in design objectives 1, 2 and 9.
- Replacing the word ‘create’ with ‘encourage’ in design objective 3.
- Deletion of the words ‘maximise the northern orientation of potential
development sites’ from design objective 6.
 Buildings and works requirements
- Deletion of dot point 7, being a repetition of design objective 3, and also being
reflected in dot point 8.
- The preferred building height of 9 metres at the interface with Garton Street
properties (dot point 8) should be amended to 11 metres to reflect the 11 metre
streetwall height sought at the front of the site.
- Dot point 9 be revised to require that third and fourth levels ‘should be set back
from the northern boundary to avoid unreasonable visual bulk impacts’, rather
than an arbitrary setback of 10 metres.
Council responded:
 Replacing the word ‘ensure’ with ‘encourage’ in design objectives 1, 2 and 9 would
reduce the strength of these objectives and imply a ‘discretion’ as to whether
development should achieve these outcomes. The changes are not supported.
 Replacing the word ‘create’ with ‘encourage’ in design objective 3 would soften this
objective, which is seen as key design imperative given the sensitive interface to the
north, and is therefore not supported.
Page 36 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014




The words ‘maximise the northern orientation of potential development sites’ from
design objective 6 should be retained because the objective is specific to the
precinct and the opportunity to maximise natural light and solar access.
Design objective 3 expresses a preferred precinct outcome whereas the dot point 7
requirement is a site specific requirement, which also requires buildings ‘to
minimise off-site amenity impacts’. It should be retained.
The preferred building height at the interface with Garton Street properties
provision applies to new buildings adjacent to areas of secluded private open space,
and allows for a boundary wall up to nine metres to reflect the height of existing
boundary walls along the northern boundary of Crockford Street properties. A
context of secluded private open space justifies a more sensitive treatment than the
frontage to Crockford Street and an increase of 11 metres would potentially result
in a reduced amenity outcome. The change sought is not supported.
The 10 metre setback at third and fourth levels requirement applies specifically to
buildings adjacent to areas of secluded private open space and is an appropriate
requirement to mitigate visual bulk impacts and ensure upper floor levels would not
be visible from areas of secluded private open space.
Council submitted that it is important that new development fronting Crockford, Ingles and
Boundary Streets is appropriate to the gateway role of the precinct, delivers a human scale,
and relates to the scale of existing development. Development on the southern side of
Crockford Street is constrained to two and three storeys, and new development should
complement that scale. For these reasons (and other presented at the Hearing) Council
concluded the mandatory street wall provisions and upper floor setbacks were appropriate.
Council agreed that the rewording proposed of dot point 6 to read ‘The height of buildings
and works within five metres of the street frontage should not exceed 11 metres’ is an
appropriate clarification and does not change the intent of the requirement, and is
supported.
9.1.3 Discussion
The Panel accepts that Council has achieved successful built form outcomes through the use
of mandatory elements such as mandatory street wall heights in DDO1 at the southern end
of Bay Street. In these cases, Council has been careful to apply mandatory controls to the
most critical elements of the built form to achieve a human scale at street level.
The Panel agrees with the submitter that the precinct does not have a valued existing
character which is sought to be retained, but would not say that having a valued character is
a ‘burden’. In fact the reverse is true. While an existing valued character might limit those
with development aspirations for most others it would be seen a ‘blessing’ more than a
‘burden’.
The key issue is what should determine the preferred future character of the area. The
Panel considered whether the site is large enough to create its own character, or whether it
should be seen as part of:
 the more intensive urban renewal area.
 the balance of Bay Street.
Page 37 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
The Panel has inspected the site and surrounding area.
Bay Street has seen a great of development over the past 15 years or so and has, in the
main, managed the change well to achieve an attractive and functional area. The built form
outcomes have been guided by built form controls that have set parameters around
development to achieve a defined result.
The Panel does not see strong arguments to depart from the approach that has been
successful in managing the area to date and agrees with Council on the detailed wording
change sought by the submitter. The site is not part of the Fishermans Bend urban renewal
area. It should be managed as part of the Bay Street Activity Centre. Given the nature of the
surrounding and abutting uses there is no real prospect of achieving transition from a higher
build form in the renewal area (if indeed this is what transpires) to the lower forms along
Bay Street.
Changing the DDO to set out a clear preferred character for the precinct is a positive
approach, but the Panel considers that this involves a more editing (but not much more)
than simply relocating objectives and strategies as Council proposed.
This proposed redrafting of DDO25 with the mandatory provision of street wall heights and
setbacks of upper floor levels from the front and rear boundaries, but not overall height
remove debate about key development features required to fully implement the aspirations
of the Structure Plan without placing an absolute limit on the development potential of the
site.
The Panel agrees that it is important that new development fronting Crockford, Ingles and
Boundary Streets is appropriate to the gateway role of the precinct, delivers a human scale,
and relates to the scale of existing development. Development on the southern side of
Crockford Street is constrained to 2 and 3 storeys, and new development should
complement that scale.
Submitters quoted the conclusions of the panel for Melbourne C171 in relation to a
mandatory height and set back regime:
The use of such a mechanism seems to the Panel to be an attempt to
micro‐manage development and to make urban design a formulaic exercise in
Southbank. Not only does the Panel consider that there is little strategic basis for
such an approach, the Panel thinks that the outcome might be an inner urban
experience where design excellence and innovation are quashed in pursuit of a
pre‐determined outcome.
It is important to understand this quote in its context. That panel observed:
Southbank is an exciting urban renewal opportunity that is still somewhat
embryonic in its stages of development. As the Panel understands it, there is
common ground that in an area such as Southbank, innovation is to be
encouraged and celebrated. In that context, it seems to the Panel that if there is
one thing that is guaranteed to stifle innovation, it is slavish adherence to a
formulaic control regime where a built form envelope is mandated. The Panel
therefore does not support the proposed mandatory built form controls and has
recommended these be discretionary.
Page 38 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
The subject site cannot be described as part of an ‘exciting urban renewal opportunity that is
still somewhat embryonic in its stages of development’. Rather it is one of the last areas
available in a long term redevelopment that has achieved a good urban outcome within
clear development parameters. More broadly it is part of an established inner urban area
that has, across the precinct, a well-established and valued character.
9.1.4 Recommendation
The Panel recommends:
7.
Amend Schedule 25 to the Design and Development Overlay as set out in Appendix B.
Page 39 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
10
Other issues
10.1
Heritage
A number of submissions support the rationalisation of the general Heritage Overly with
more specific controls:
 Submission 6 supports replacing the existing precinct based Heritage Overlay 1
south of Graham Street with site specific heritage overlay controls.
 Submission 39 supports the ‘heritage overlay recommendations’.
 Submission 48 supports the application of proposed Heritage Overlay HO456 to 50
Dow Street ‘as it is a great part of Port Melbourne’s industrial history that should be
protected’ and ‘The character, history and stories that are a part of buildings such
as these make Port Melbourne what it is today’.
These expressions of support are acknowledged.
At the Hearing the possibility of further reviewing of 31 Bay Street was raised to determine
its possible heritage status. The building in question is a heavily modified Victorian Terrace.
At the hearing the Port Melbourne Historical and Preservation Society [PMH&PS] submitted:
PMH&PS questions why remnants such a this are not deemed worthy of
protection. They tell a powerful story in their own right of the earlier history of
Bay Street.
31 Bay Street has been assessed as part of previous heritage studies. The building has been
modified over the years and the surrounding development dates from the 1980s. The Panel
accepts that the building does not warrant heritage protection based on architectural
grounds. The Panel notes the interesting history of the building as the first Neighbourhood
House in Port Melbourne and meeting place of the Committee for Urban Research and
Action. Council may wish to review the social history aspects of the building.
10.2
Traffic
The arterial road function of Bay Street is currently recognised by:
 the existing Road Zone in the planning scheme (the purpose of which is to ‘To
identify significant existing roads’).
 the designation as a VicRoads declared arterial road.
 its nomination by VicRoads as an approved route for B-doubles and higher mass
limit trucks (where it forms part of the Bay / Graham Streets route).
The VicRoads Network Operating Plan Road User Hierarchy for Port Phillip acknowledges the
role of the Major Activity Centre. Other relevant parts of the Network Operating Plan
include:
 the section of Bay Street between Graham and Ingles Streets is defined as a
‘pedestrian priority area’.
 the entire length of Bay Street is recognised as a ‘bicycle priority route’.
 Bay Street between Graham and Ingles Streets is also listed as a ‘bus priority route’.
Page 40 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
Existing Clause 21.04-4 – Industry currently recognises the need to protect Port operations
and the associated rail and road network, and this is relevant despite lacking specific
reference to Bay Street.
Existing Clause 21-06-4 – Port Melbourne and Garden City also recognises the role of Station
Pier as a trade / freight gateway.
The application of the Road Zone to Bay and Graham Streets is not proposed to change; nor
will the existing strategies (above) relating to Port operations or the role of Station Pier.
The Amendment does not propose changes to planning controls and the Panel does not
believe any real case has been made for such changes as part of this Amendment process.
Any changes would require a new amendment.
10.3
Established residential precincts
Submission 6 expresses concerns regarding:
 the erosion of character particularly the loss of 1930’s housing.
 expresses doubt that the Preferred Character Statement will be strong enough to
guide future development.
Council submitted that there is a broad concern relating to the precinct, rather than one
individual site.
The Precinct is shown on the Established Residential Areas Housing Framework Plan (p31) as
an ‘Incremental change area’, with related Strategy 2.2.5 (p28) being:
Provide for incremental housing growth (replacement dwellings or well-designed
multi-unit development) in residential areas proximate to the activity centre that
have an existing diverse neighbourhood character (refer Established Residential
Areas Housing Framework Plan). Development is to respond to the Preferred
Neighbourhood Character Statements for Established Residential Precincts 1 to 4
(see Part 2 – Precincts and Projects).
This strategy is reflected in Amendment C103 at Clause 22.12–04 – Housing opportunities.
The Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statements are proposed to be included into the
Port Phillip Design Manual (existing Reference Document). The statements would be applied
(and provide planning guidance as to a preferred development outcome) at the permit
stage. Existing planning scheme requirements refer directly to respecting ‘preferred
neighbourhood character’ and accordingly this approach is considered sound.
Council recently undertook a review of the precinct-based heritage overlay applying to a
significant part of Port Melbourne (HO1 – Port Melbourne) which has an easterly boundary
along the edge of this Precinct. This boundary was not identified as warranting change
through the review. As this precinct is not covered by heritage controls the further loss of
original housing stock can not be prevented.
The preferred character statement seeks that development respond to identified character
buildings within the precinct as well as adjacent heritage places, and this is regarded as an
appropriate approach to neighbourhood character.
Page 41 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
10.4
Site specific: inclusion of 190 Graham Street in Residential Precinct 3:
Graham Street (north)
Submission 9 objects to the inclusion of 190 Graham Street in ‘Residential Precinct 3:
Graham Street (north)’ as the preferred character statement for the precinct limits
significant development of the site.
Council submitted that the subject site is immediately adjacent to the north-western corner
of Graham and Bay Streets, and has a primary frontage to Graham Street. The site is at the
rear of the Bay Street shopping strip and immediately adjacent to the designated Activity
Centre.
The site is shown on the Established Residential Areas Housing Framework Plan (p31) as
within an ‘Incremental change area’.
The subject site is in Residential Precinct 3: Graham Street (north) and any future
development of the site would need to respond to the preferred character statement,
including the ‘Design Response’ which articulates design requirements for new
development.
In this case, the character statement acknowledges that Graham Street properties can
accommodate some development, and specifies a building height of two storeys for the
precinct (with some variations in Princes and Turville Streets). This height allows for future
development but seeks to achieve precinct wide consistency in building scale where there is
a mix of single and double storey dwellings, including individual heritage places.
The submitter seeks to remove 190 Graham Street from the precinct as the preferred
character statement would limit future development.
The northern side of Graham Street has a diverse character, including some three storey (or
equivalent) building forms. The site has generous proportions, is well located and is
unencumbered by heritage controls. There is scope for development to exceed the
preferred building height but this would be constrained by the context of the site and the
surrounding lower built form north of Graham Street.
The Panel agrees it is reasonable to retain the site within the recommended precinct but it
would be appropriate to specify a preferred building height of three storeys to recognise the
site attributes, and to achieve consistency in scale along Graham Street. This is consistent
with proposed changes to Residential Precinct 4: Princes and Stokes Street (discussed
below). It would not be appropriate to extract the site from the precinct as it is not large
enough to warrant an individual approach.
10.4.1 Recommendation
The Panel recommends:
8.
Modify the Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statement for Precinct 3 as proposed
in the Port Phillip Design Manual to specify a preferred building height for Graham
Street of three storeys.
Page 42 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
10.5
Residential Precinct 4: Princes and Stokes Streets
Submission 10 seeks:
 A preferred height limit of three storeys for 279 Graham Street and the eight (8)
remaining properties on the southern side of Graham Street between Stokes and
Princes Streets.
The submission relates primarily to 279 Graham Street (south-eastern corner of Graham and
Princes Streets) which comprises a service station with associated buildings and substantial
hard standing areas. The submission also seeks a preferred outcome for the remaining
Graham Street properties in the precinct.
This site is shown on the Established Residential Areas Housing Framework Plan (p31) as
within an ‘Incremental change area’.
The site is in Residential Precinct 4: Princes & Stokes Street. The Preferred Neighbourhood
Character Statement for the precinct envisages that Princes and Stokes Street will retain a
low scale and fine grain of development, and that Rouse and Graham Streets have some
further propensity for change. A two storey building height is sought for Princes Street but
no height is specified for Graham Street.
The submitter queries the building height sought for Princes Street (two storeys) and the
lack of specification of a preferred height for Graham Street, given adjoining three storey
developments on both sides of the site at 279 Graham Street. The submitter seeks that a
preferred height of three storeys be applied to 279 Graham Street as well as the remainder
of Graham Street properties within Precinct 4.
A future development outcome expressed as a preferred building height of three storeys for
279 Graham Street is considered reasonable and would respond to the surrounding built
from context. The preference for a preferred height of three storeys for other properties in
Graham Street would also be appropriate to achieve a consistent building scale.
10.5.1 Recommendation
The Panel recommends:
9.
Modify the Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statement for Precinct 4 as proposed
in the Port Phillip Design Manual to specify a preferred building height for Graham
Street of three storeys
Page 43 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
11
Non-submitter changes to the Amendment
Council resolved at its meeting on 25 February 2014 to endorse a number of ‘non-submitter’
recommended changes to the Amendment. These were circulated to parties and discussed
at the Hearing:
Insert a new heading after subclause 6.4.32 and before 6.4.33 which reads
‘Sustainable Access and Movement’.
Change the proposed local policy at Clause 22.12-08 - An integrated public realm
to:
 Encourage use and development that enhances the amenity of streets
throughout the higher density ‘mixed use precinct’ south of Graham Street,
including:
 Proposals for land uses and new buildings activate existing laneways
south of Graham Street.
 Proposals that create new mid-block pedestrian links or extend existing
laneways in new development.
 Proposals that provide active land use edges and use the footpaths for
street trading activities in main streets south of Graham Street.
 The design of ground level premises along both sides of Bay Street south of
Bridge Street, and on the north-western side of Bay Street between Bridge
and Raglan Streets, provide an ‘Active Retail Edge’ (as described in the
BSACSP).
The Panel recommends:
10. Refine the expression in the Amendment based on the post exhibition changes agreed
by Council at its meeting of 25 February 2014 except where the Panel has made an
explicit recommendation to the contrary.
(i)
Changes to residential zones
In February 2013, Council endorsed the draft Structure Plan for the purposes of community
consultation and resolved to concurrently exhibit Amendment C103.
As well as reforms to commercial and industrial zones, the Minister for Planning introduced
reforms to the residential zones in July 2013 with the intention that the existing Residential 1
Zone be replaced with three new residential zones by July 2014.
Council is currently progressing the implementation of the new zones. It is likely that
Councils residential zones implementation process will occur in advance of the adoption of
Amendment C103.
Council should therefore establish a position as to which of the new residential zones should
be applied to 124-136 Heath Street in lieu of the Residential 1 Zone, which is likely to be
removed from the Port Phillip Planning Scheme around 1 July 2014.
Page 44 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
124-136 Heath Street consists of a row of low scale cottages. 126 Heath Street has had a
notable extension at the rear. The properties are included in a heritage overlay (Port
Melbourne – HO1), with 132, 134 and 136 being graded as ‘significant’ heritage places.
The Established Residential Areas Housing Framework Plan (p31) includes these properties,
and the adjoining/surrounding properties to the northeast and northwest, within a ‘Minimal
change area’. Housing growth is not envisaged in this area.
In line with the translation approach considered for the new residential zones across the City
of Port Phillip, areas covered by a heritage overlay (and identified for ‘minimal change’) will
be included in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ). Accordingly, the NRZ is considered
the most appropriate zone for 124-136 Heath Street.
The Panel recommends:
11. Apply the Neighbourhood Residential Zone to 124-136 Heath Street.
(ii)
Changes to Reference Documents
There are several references in the Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statements for all
‘Established residential Precincts’ to ‘non-contributory properties’. This was intended to
refer to ‘Contributory’ properties outside of the heritage overlay as shown on the City of
Port Phillip Neighbourhood Character Policy Map. The statements should be corrected.
‘Non-contributory properties’ are buildings that are included in a Heritage Overlay which are
neither significant nor contributory. None of the four residential precincts are affected by
precinct scale heritage overlays, hence there are no ‘Non-contributory properties’.
Council proposed the following changes to the Structure Plan:
Residential Precinct 1
Under ‘Future Development Statement’, amend fifth dot point to read:
Development on the northern side will respond to the existing low scale and
intimate residential environment made up of non-contributory properties
‘contributory’ properties outside of the heritage overlay (as shown on the
City of Port Phillip Neighbourhood Character Policy Map).
Residential Precinct 2
Under ‘Preferred Character Statement’, amend second dot point to read:
Non-contributory buildings ‘Contributory’ properties outside of the heritage
overlay (as shown on the City of Port Phillip Neighbourhood Character Policy
Map) are encouraged to be retained.
Residential Precinct 3
Under ‘Future Development Statement’, amend fourth dot point to read:
Properties in Graham Street have generous proportions and can
accommodate some development that respects heritage and noncontributory properties. ‘contributory’ properties outside of the heritage
Page 45 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
overlay (as shown on the City of Port Phillip Neighbourhood Character Policy
Map).
Residential Precinct 4
Under ‘Preferred Character Statement’, amend first dot point to read:
Period dwellings, including non-contributory properties ‘contributory’
properties outside of the heritage overlay (as shown on the City of Port
Phillip Neighbourhood Character Policy Map), are encouraged to be
retained, to protect the low scale, fine grain character of the precinct.
Council also identified an error in Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statement:
Established Residential Precinct 3 – Graham Street (north).
Under the column titled, ‘Development Statement’, the last dot point refers to ‘noncontributory properties’. This was intended to refer to ‘Contributory’ properties outside of
the heritage overlay as shown on the City of Port Phillip Neighbourhood Character Policy
Map.
Council proposed the following changes to the Structure Plan:
Amend the Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statement as follows:
Under ‘Development Statement’, amend fifth dot point to read:
Development on the northern side will respond to the existing low scale and
intimate residential environment made up of non-contributory properties
‘Contributory’ properties outside of the heritage overlay as shown on the
City of Port Phillip Neighbourhood Character Policy Map.
The Panel recommends:
12. Correct references to non contributory properties Preferred Neighbourhood Character
Statements in the Port Phillip Design Manual.
(iii)
Errors in Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statement: Established Residential
Precinct 1 – Garton Street
The Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statement (Precincts and Projects, p27) identifies
the relative development capacity of the northern and southern sides of Garton Street.
Under the column titled, ‘Development Statement’, the southern side is discussed as having
greater capacity than the northern side due to the southern side having an interface with
bulky commercial and industrial buildings. However, under the column titled ‘Preferred
Character Statement’, the northern side is discussed as having greater potential
(development of 3 to 4 storeys), and the southern side needing to be limited (to two
storeys). This is an error and should be corrected.
This error has carried over into the ‘Design response’ section in relation to Building height
and should also be corrected.
Page 46 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
Council proposed the following changes to the Structure Plan Structure Plan:
Amend the Preferred Neighbourhood Character Statement as follows:
Under ‘Preferred Character Statement’, amend third and fifth dot points to read:
Development on the northern southern side will be transitional in scale of 3
storeys (with scope for a 4th level if recessed from view). Townhouse style
buildings will be well articulated with punctuated openings and balconies
to the street.
Development on the southern northern side will respond to the existing low
building scale and front setbacks and be limited to two storeys.
Under ‘Design response’ amend Building height as follows:
North South side: 3 storeys (any 4th level must be recessed from view).
South North side: 2 storeys.
The Panel recommends:
13. Correct errors relating the relative development capacity of the northern and
southern sides of Garton Street.
Page 47 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
Appendix A List of Submitters
No.
Submitter
1
Port of Melbourne Corporation
2
Port Melbourne Yacht Club
3
Beacon Cove Neighbourhood Association
4
Inner South Community Health Service
5
Port Melbourne Neighbourhood Centre
6
Port Melbourne Historical and Preservation Society
7
SJB Planning for 35, 37-53, 67, 75 and 83 Crockford Street, Port Melbourne
8
Urbis for the Exchange Hotel
9
Owners Corporation Committee of 190 Graham Street
10
Keen Planning
11
Rouse 286 Pty Ltd
12
Stacy and Patrick Irwin
13
Raymond Supple
14
Zehra Ali
15
Jessica Dwyer
16
Jeff and Anne Cole
17
Helen Taylor
18
Barbara Mullen
19
David Rayson
20
Marcel Colman
21
Trevor Nink
22
Ian and Sue Whiting
23
Claire Britchford
24
Patricia Goldie
25
Ricki Ryan
26
David Viney
27
Ross Teitzel
28
Sharlene Viney
29
John Mortimore
30
Mary Gleeson
Page 48 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
31
Ruth Wraith
32
Christoula Nicolaou
33
Roger and Glenda Joyce
34
Sue Minshall
35
Joanna Thorpe
36
David Sonenberg
37
Elva Keily
38
Jill Maddox
39
Ian Evans
40
Ian Close
41
Marielle Neesham
42
James Wright
43
Justin Spangaro
44
Mirion Bearman
45
Richard Webb
46
John Peterson
47
Jacqueline O'Callaghan
48
Ruth McIlroy
49
Alix West
50
Port Melbourne Paint and Paper
51
Jillian Bird
52
Joan and George Mulvey
53
Cecilia Liang
54
Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI)
55
Jane Millar
Page 49 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
Appendix B Panel version
SCHEDULE 25 TO THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
Shown on the planning scheme map as DDO25
CROCKFORD STREET PRECINCT
1.0
Preferred character
The preferred character for the Crockford Street precinct is:
 A built form of moderate scale of development up to 5 storeys in height.
 A hard edge character to Crockford Street and Bay Street, with street facade heights of 3
storeys and recessed upper floors.
 Buildings connected to the public realm to support an improved pedestrian environment, with
active ground floor levels, including entrances, windows and openings in the principal facade.
 High quality design outcomes that recognises the precinct’s important gateway role.
 A sensitive interface with residential properties,
 Maximise northern orientation.
2.0
Design objectives

To ensure new development contributes to a more coherent edge to Crockford Street.

To ensure that new development reflects and emphasises the importance of the Crockford
Street precinct as a gateway to the Bay Street Activity Centre.

To create a transition down in scale to the adjoining low-rise residential area to the north.

To minimise overshadowing of adjoining residential properties.

To recess upper level development to minimise the visual impact of levels above the street
facade and protect solar access to the footpath on the southern side of Crockford Street.

To maximise the northern orientation of potential development sites and achieve high quality
design outcomes.

To enhance the pedestrian experience along Crockford Street, through encouraging street life
and activity, and passive surveillance of the public realm.

To discourage vehicle access from Crockford Street.

To ensure new development is consistent with the preferred character for the Crockford Street
precinct as follows:
 The built form character of the precinct will develop through a distinct and moderate scale
of development up to 5 storeys in height.
 New development will reflect the hard edge character of Crockford Street and Bay Street,
with street facade heights of 3 storeys and recessed upper floors.
 New buildings will connect to the public realm to support an improved pedestrian
environment, through active ground floor levels, including entrances, windows and
openings in the principal facade.
 Development will achieve high quality design outcomes, which recognises the precinct’s
important gateway role.
 New buildings will create a sensitive interface with residential properties, maximise
northern orientation.
Page 50 of 51
Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C103  Panel Report  6 June 2014
3.0
Buildings and works

Buildings should have a zero setback to the Ingles, Crockford and Boundary Street street
frontages at ground floor level.

The height of a wall along a street frontage should must not exceed 11 metres.

Walls along street frontages should must be built to the side property boundaries.

Where site is located on a street corner:
 The height of a wall along a street frontage may exceed 11 metres in height but should
must not exceed 14.5 metres for a maximum length of 5 metres along each street frontage
measured from the corner of the site at the street intersection. The height of the
remaining length of wall should must not exceed 11 metres.
 Buildings should must address both street frontages with entrances, windows or openings
at ground floor level.

The height of building and works should not exceed 18 metres.

The height of buildings and works between the street frontage and within a 5 metres of the
street frontage setback from that boundary should must not exceed 11 metres.

Buildings and works adjacent to residential development or land zoned for residential
purposes should must provide a transition down in scale and minimise off-site amenity
impacts.

Buildings and works at ground, first and second levels, adjacent to areas of secluded private
open space of dwellings within the Residential 1 Zone:
 Must meet the objectives and should meet the standards of:

Clause 55.04-1 Side and rear setbacks objective and Standard B17.

Clause 55.04-5 Overshadowing open space objective and Standard B21.
 Should not exceed 9 metres in height.
4.0

Buildings and works at third and fourth levels, adjacent to areas of secluded private open
space of dwellings within the Residential 1 Zone, should must be setback at least 10 metres
from the northern property boundary to minimise the visual impact to existing dwellings.

Buildings and works must meet the objective and should meet the standard of Clause 55.04-6
Overlooking objective and Standard B22.

Ground floor facades should be designed to facilitate visual interaction between the interior of
buildings and the street, through pedestrian entries and clear glazing. Upper floors windows
and balconies should be orientated to overlook the street.

Building facades on sites with a street frontage width greater than 10 metres should must be
well articulated through variations in forms, materials, openings and the inclusion of vertical
design elements.

Floor-to-floor levels at ground floor level should be a minimum of 4.5 metres in height.

The ground floor should be level with the footpath.

Vehicle access should be provided from the side or rear of lots. New vehicle crossovers along
the Crockford Street frontage are not encouraged.
Decision guidelines
Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the
Responsible Authority must consider, as appropriate:
 The Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and the
Urban Design Policy for Non Residential Development and Multi Unit Residential
Development.
Page 51 of 51