INTRODUCTION
On 10 November 2010, Alexford Pty Ltd - the owners of 3-5 St Kilda Road, St. Kilda
submitted a planning permit application to Port Phillip Council for a 26 storey building
containing 272 dwellings, a shop, showroom, artist studio and associated basement
car parking containing 346 car spaces
3-5 St Kilda Road
Following the Council’s failure to determine the application within the 60 day
statutory timeframe, the applicant applied for review by the Victorian Civil and
Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). A total of 7 submitters became parties to the review,
with their main grounds for objection being related to building height and bulk,
amenity impacts such as overshadowing and overlooking and traffic and parking
impacts on the surrounding area. A three day hearing was set by VCAT to
commence 24 May 2011.
On 4 April 2011, the Minister for Planning wrote to VCAT advising he had formed
the view that the proceeding raised a major issue of policy and that its determination
may have a substantial effect on the achievement or development of planning policy
objectives. The Minister ‘called’ in the application under clause 58(2)(a) of Schedule
1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 and authorised a senior
officer of the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) to hear
and consider submissions from the parties on his behalf.
On 11 May 2011, an inspection of the land and its surrounds was carried out by the
authorised DPCD officer, Ms Jane Monk, Director State Planning Services. Mr Mark
Keane, Senior Planner with DPCD’s Priority Projects team was also present at the
site inspection.
On 16 May 2011, a meeting was convened by Ms Monk to hear from the parties to
the application for review, on behalf of the Minister. Mr Keane, as case manager for
the call-in, was also present.
A number of parties to the proceeding and other interested people were present and
in total five parties presented submissions to the meeting. In addition to their
submission a number of experts were engaged by the permit applicant and Council,
their written advice having been circulated to all parties prior to the meeting. Although
all experts were present at the meeting only three were called upon during the
meeting to explain their advice and answer questions.
The tables below list the parties and experts present at the meeting.
Parties attending Position/Interest
Representing (if not
the meeting
themselves)
Chris Canavan QC
Barrister
For the applicant
Alexford Pty Ltd
Sally MacIndoe
Norton Rose Solicitors
Applicant Alexford Pty
Ltd
Ian Pitt SC
Senior Counsel
Port Phillip Council
Tania Cincotta
Best Hooper Solicitors
Port Phillip Council
Kaye O’Connor
Local resident
Junction Area Action
Group (JAAG)
Virginia Browne
Local resident.
JAGG
Brendan Hill
Resident at 1 St Kilda Road
Richard Schuster
Statutory Planning Coordinator Port Phillip Council
Matt Spencer
Planning Officer
Port Phillip Council
Katrina Terjung
Strategic Planning Coordinator Port Phillip Council
Andrew Rice
Alexford Pty Ltd
Applicant
Ian Davidson
Architectus
Applicant
John Graves
VicRoads
Table 1. Parties Attending Meeting
Other parties who
did not attend
Craig Cole
Gretta D Kishere
James Noy
Positions/Interest
Objector
Local resident
Department of Transport
Representing
themselves)
(if
not
Director of Public
Transport
Table 2. Parties who did not attend
Experts
John Kirakidis
Tim Biles
Jamie Govenlock
Mark Jacques
Rob Milner
Organisation
GTA Consultants
Message Consultants
Urbis
Oculus Landscape
Architecture and Urban Design
10 Consulting Group
Area of Expertise
Traffic Engineer
Urban Design & Planner
Urban Planner
Landscape Architect
Urban Design & Planner
Table 3. Experts Engaged by the Applicant and Council
MEETING PROCESS
At the beginning of the meeting the parties exchanged copies of their written
submissions. Prior to the meeting, the parties had been required to exchange the
reports of any expert to be relied upon in their submission. To provide background for
the purpose of the site inspection, executive summaries of the submissions were
required to be provided to the Department 7 days prior to the meeting.
The meeting commenced with Mr Pitt, representing Port Phillip Council outlining the
state and local policies affecting the proposal and the key contentions on behalf of
the Council.
Mr Graves of VicRoads made a brief presentation, requesting that the comments and
proposed permit conditions put forward by VicRoads prior to the meeting be applied
in the event of a permit issuing.
The objector parties, Ms O’Connor, Ms Browne and Mr Hill, followed and presented
their key concerns in relation to the proposal.
Mr Canavan made a brief opening submission, prior to his and Council’s experts
being made available to outline their advice and answer questions. He also made a
brief closing submission.
With the agreement of the parties only three of the experts in attendance were asked
to present to the meeting, these being Mr Biles and Mr Milner who, sitting together,
participating in a round table discussion related to urban design considerations, and
Mr Kirakidis who presented his expert opinions on traffic issues.
SUBMISSIONS
Mr Pitt SC, on behalf of Council, made the following key points:










The land is in an area of Moderate Residential Growth under Amendment
C62.
The height and scale of the proposal is inconsistent with both current local
policy and policy as proposed under amendment C62, which has been
approved by Council and is with the Department for approval.
In the absence of a DDO applying to the site the preferred building height for
the site and the surrounding St Kilda Junction is to be derived from DDO
schedules 4.2, 4.3, 6.1 and 13.
The proposal is about 27 metres above the maximum building height of DDO
4.3, 42 metres above the maximum height of DDO 4.2, 61 metres for DDO
6.1 and 75 above the maximum height of DDO 13.
The proposal is approximately 43 metres above the VCAT approved Maxx
building on the corner of Alma Road and is about 23 metres above the height
of the Cadbury Building and 38 metres higher than the Marquis building, both
of which lie to the north of St Kilda Junction on St Kilda Road.
The podium element of the proposal has no relationship with the built form
context
The proposal does not exhibit architectural excellence.
The proposal would impede a line of sight to the church spire to the south
when viewed from the north and north east.
The proposal would create unacceptable overshadowing.
Issues of car and bicycle parking remain unresolved

The proposal’s height and scale are inappropriate and unnecessary
Mr Canavan SC, on behalf of the applicant, made the following key points in
support of his clients
 The proposal:
 Has strong strategic policy support;
 Will not be contrary to existing or preferred neighbourhood character;
 Has excellent access to public transport
 Will provide a very high level of amenity for future occupants;
 Will have no unreasonable amenity impacts on adjoining properties;
 Provide an appropriate mix of uses;

The site is:
 of a significant size to accommodate a building of this scale;
 without any significant, physical development constraints;
 within the Business 2 zone, and not affected by any overlay;
 located within two major activity centres;
 close to the CBD;
 well located with excellent access to public transport;
 in an area where substantial built form change is appropriate;
 readily accessible to a wide range of facilities and services, including the
St Kilda foreshore, significant parklands and open space, the Fitzroy
Street and Chapel Street entertainment/retail precincts; and
 located and orientated so that the offsite amenity impacts from a
significant development can be mitigated by a thoughtful and skilled
design.

There is no specific state or local policy or structure plan which would suggest
that a building of this type cannot be contemplated.

There is nothing in Amendment C62 which would require this proposal to be
refused, even assuming Amendment C62 is eventually adopted by the
Minister without change.

The height of the proposal should not be the determining factor in whether
this building is approved. The quality of the design is the critical factor.

The proposed development activates the streets, and contributes positively to
the public and private realm.

The building will significantly lift the standard of architecture in this area.
Ms O’Connor and Ms Browne as members of the JAAG made the following key
points:
 JAAG represents residents of the St Kilda junction area (the ‘island’ bounded
by St Kilda Road, Dandenong Road, Chapel Street and Alma Road) to the
east of the site.

JAAG prepared a recent petition, signed by 348 residents’ calling for
mandatory height limits and on-site parking requirements and, in the interim,
a moratorium on planning applications for its area.

The proposal will reduce available street parking relied upon by residents and
local businesses who have no parking spaces of their own.

The proposal is inconsistent with Amendment C62.

The gazettal of Amendment C62 in its present form would help to address
JAAG’s concerns.

The proposal is a monumental departure from the existing built form and
inconsistent with the emerging scale of St Kilda Road South.

The proposed building is 13 storeys higher than any existing or proposed
(and approved) building south of St Kilda Junction.

It is also considerably higher than buildings north of the junction, where the
maximum building height now permitted is 60 metres.

The proposal is out of character with all existing or approved developments in
the area and will obliterate views of the church at the corner of Alma Road
and Barkly Street and may be visible from the Shrine.

The onsite parking is grossly inadequate. There is limited, if any, scope for
existing on-street capacity to accommodate future parking overflow

Inadequate on site loading facilities are provided for delivery vehicles and
moving vans.

The entry driveway is inadequate for a building of this size

The proposal will significantly add to local traffic, particularly during peak
hours.

The access arrangements limit the movements of traffic around the site and
will detrimentally affect other traffic in the area.
Mr Hill, a neighbouring resident to the north raised the following concerns in
relation to the proposal:




Overlooking of habitable room windows
Overshadowing of properties and their open space
Loss of property values
Increase in traffic volumes
The Director of Public Transport, although a party to the proceeding, was not
represented at the meeting. Standard permit conditions had been forwarded for
inclusion in the event of a permit being granted.
A number of other parties were absent but had also advised prior to the meeting that
their grounds for contesting the application be taken into consideration.
Ms Kishere, a local resident, raised the following concerns.
 Excessive building heights
 Nearby heritage considerations
 Increase in traffic volumes
 Insufficient parking and effects of the proposal on parking in the vicinity of the
site.
Mr Cole raised the following concerns:
 Proposal is too high and does not comply with the character of the area or the
preferred building heights for the area
 Surrounding streets will be unable to cope with the increase in traffic volumes
 Overlooking of habitable room windows
 Loss of property values
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
The key questions raised related to;
 the local policy context relevant to the proposal; and
 the proposal’s built form and its impact on surrounding properties and the
wider area.
The latter requires examination of a number of other issues, such as;
 the urban design and streetscape presentation;
 overshadowing impacts;
 potential overlooking of neighbouring properties;
 impacts on on-street car parking;
 level of car/bicycle parking provided; and
 access and loading facilities.
THE POLICY CONTEXT
The site is within a Business 2 Zone, the purpose of which includes ‘to encourage the
development of offices and associated commercial uses’. Accommodation is a
section 2, permit required, use and the mix of lower level office, with dwellings above
was not suggested to be inconsistent with the zoning, more at issue was the extent of
residential.
With an absence of any overlay controls affecting the site there is arguably some
flexibility in terms of what can be developed. Overlay controls such as the Design
and Development Overlay (DDO) “identify areas which are affected by specific
requirements relating to the design and built form of new development”. Two nearby
examples are DDO13 and DDO6-1. The latter, which runs along the south-east side
of Fitzroy Street between St Kilda Road and Grey Street, specifies building heights
no greater than 25.5 metres (approximately 8 storeys). The former, which extends
east of St Kida Road between the south side of Queens Way and the north side of
Wellington Street provides an open vista or backdrop to the Shrine when viewed from
the north along St Kilda Road. No such parameters apply to the subject site.
There is also a notable absence of any framework or structure plan for the St Kilda
Junction area. This is despite a number of references in the local policy section of the
planning scheme to the desirability of a structure plan or framework plan. And indeed
all parties to the proceeding agreed that the subject site is a strategic site in the
context of St Kilda Junction and would benefit from such a plan. Conversely, without
a framework plan the junction area lacks the direction that precincts such as Beacon
Cove and St Kilda Road (north of St Kilda Junction) enjoy in terms of preferred
development outcomes.
The widening of St Kilda Road in the late 1960s to create a Queens Way connection
to Dandenong Road required the demolition of numerous residential and commercial
buildings including much of High Street, once regarded as St Kilda's centre. In doing
so, site consolidation gave rise to new sites of more generous proportions and
redevelopment potential. After four decades and with the gradual filling up of St Kilda
Road north and regeneration of Fitzroy /Acland Street these larger sites, created
after the road widening, show promise as potentially ripe for redevelopment at this
important transport node.
The state planning policy framework at Clause 11.01-2 of the Port Phillip Planning
Scheme includes the following strategies to activity centre planning


“Undertake strategic planning for the use and development of land in and
around the activity centres”. and
Encourage a diversity of housing types at higher densities in and around
activity centres.
Clause 16 of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme seeks to “locate new housing in or
close to activity centres and employment corridors and at other strategic
redevelopment sites that offer good access to services and transport.” Similarly the
policy contained in Clause 19 of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme seeks to “ensure
that strategic planning should facilitate efficient use of existing infrastructure and
human services.”
While not located within the Acland / Fitzroy Streets Major Activity Centre the site is
clearly within its close sphere of influence. It is also clearly a strategic redevelopment
site being as well, if not better served by public transport options than the activity
centre itself.
Amendment C62, which seeks to replace Clause 21.01 Municipal Strategic
Statement (MSS) identifies the site as being within an area of ‘moderate residential
growth’, encourages new housing in the form of shop top type residential
development or to the rear of existing commercial properties, with only larger
development opportunities as identified as strategic sites within the relevant Activity
Centre Structure plans.
In relation to the St Kilda Junction area a height of two to three storeys consistent
with the built form along the never widened, east side of St Kilda Road is
recommended, however, no heights have been suggested for 3-5 St Kilda Road
(other than the preferred residential redevelopment outcomes e.g. shop top or rear).
As suggested by Mr Canavan for the permit applicant, this absence of a framework
or any clear strategic direction for the junction area leaves a policy vacuum and
subject to the proposed development being acceptable in terms of its physical
context there are no compelling reasons to refuse the application on policy grounds.
PHYSICAL CONTEXT
Without clear policy direction in terms of acceptable built form for the junction as a
whole, reliance for setting built form parameters must be had on the physical
constraints and opportunities of the site and its impact on the surrounding area.
Subject Site
The site is irregular in shape comprising two separate lots and covers an area of
approximately 2,845 sqm. Each lot contains an existing two storey office building.
Vehicle access to the buildings is provided from Barkley Street and both sites
accommodate on site parking.
Adjoining to the north is a three storey block of 1960’s style, walk up flats with a
driveway to the south adjoining the subject site. Adjoining to the south is a three
storey inter-war apartment building, which is one of four such buildings to the south
on Barkley Street. St Kilda Road, on the site’s eastern boundary, consists of eight
lanes with two tram lanes in the median. Barkley Street comprises two lanes and
there is a hotel and function centre located directly opposite the site.
The Proposal
The application is for a 26 storey mixed use building comprising 272 apartments, an
office, artist studio, a café, four levels of basement car parking, bicycle parking and
vehicle access from both Barkley Street and St Kilda Road. The development can be
divided into two distinct elements – a four storey podium and a 22 storey tower.
The Podium
The podium comprises four levels of basement car parking and four above ground
levels with apartments a communal courtyard and recreation area on the second and
third levels, an office on the first floor level and a mix of apartments, office and
showroom space, office parking, a retail space and artist studio on the ground and
mezzanine levels.
The St Kilda Road frontage would be mostly devoted to the office /showroom use
and residential foyer at ground level, with an office level above extending through to
Barkley Street. Above the office level the remainder of the podium to St Kilda Road
would comprise apartments.
Barkley Street by contrast would be activated at ground level by split level
apartments with direct access to the street and ‘bookended’ at the north by a retail or
café premises and to the south by a two storey town house. The office level would be
sandwiched between these and a set of two level town house style apartments
above. These would provide the perimeter to an open, top of podium, landscaped
communal open space for residents, with northern exposure.
A pedestrian link between Barkley Street and St Kilda Road, on the site’s northern
side, would give access to the shop/café and artist studio/gallery to ensure active
uses along this common short cut between streets. The approximately 3 metre wide
southern set back would accommodate driveways from Barkley Street into the main
basement car park and below ground services parking/loading area. A driveway off
St Kilda Road would open into a ground level parking area for the office use.
The materials proposed for the podium include concrete veneer, zinc and timber
cladding, grey glass and a combination of timber and steel fencing. Combined with
the articulation provided by the dwellings and office level, the podium provides a well
proportioned response to its neighbours.
The Tower
The tower element comprises 20 levels of apartments and is contained within a floor
plate covering approximately 30% of the site. It exhibits a form orientated primarily
along the St Kilda Road frontage, with only a shallow setback in part to St Kilda
Road. By contrast the tower is setback more than 20 metres from Barkley Street at
its north-west corner, increasing to over 30 metres at the south west corner.
The materials are similar to those on the upper two levels of the podium with precast
concrete, tinted and clear glazing, painted steel, sandstone, timber cladding . A
vertical copper insert up the north elevation, continues to the building top as a roof
sheeting.
Car parking
The proposal provides for 346 on site parking spaces, including 318 in basement
levels and 28 spaces at ground level.
The GTA traffic report suggests that the 272 apartments would reasonably require
between 286 and 305 car parking spaces, the retail component 2 spaces, the
commercial component 63 spaces and the artist studio 3 spaces, giving a total car
parking demand of 373 spaces.
Under Clause 52.06 of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme, in combination the
proposed uses generate a requirement for 640 spaces (including a ratio of two
spaces per dwelling). Accordingly a permit is required to reduce this requirement.
Parking demand surveys carried out by GTA indicate that the Clause 55 derived
shortfall of 27 spaces can be adequately accommodated in surrounding streets.
Additionally 2 “car share” spaces are proposed on site for use by residents as a
response to green travel planning and to reduce the need for more than one space
per household.
Considering the abundant public transport options available and the site’s proximity
to the Fitzroy / Acland Streets Activity Centre it is reasonable to assume a low need
or demand for resident, and worker parking. It can therefore be concluded that the
level of car parking provided by the proposal is adequate.
Bicycle parking
Exact details of the numbers of bicycle parking spaces to be provided is unclear. A
condition should be placed on any permit to ensure that bicycle parking and
associated shower and changing facilities are provided in accordance with the
requirements of Clause 52.34 of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.
Access/Loading
The access and loading arrangements for the building, which raised concern with
local residents, were considered by the applicant and formed the basis of revised
access plans. These plans were examined by VicRoads and in their letter of 19 June
VicRoads accept that the changes met their requirements subject to a number of
conditions. At the meeting VicRoads was given an opportunity to add to these
comments but did not see the need to elaborate further. A concern raised by JAGG
in relation to the use of surrounding streets for the loading and unloading of vehicles
can be controlled by permit conditions given that the proposal make provision for
these activities to be accommodated on site.
Is the building’s design appropriate?
The design of the building was the subject of some debate at the meeting with both
the applicant and Council engaging urban design experts; Mr Milner on behalf of
Council and Mr Biles on behalf of the permit applicant, to present their opinions on
the merits of the design.
Apart from presenting an argument against the proposal from a policy context, Mr
Milner expressed a need to protect views to the significant Uniting Church spire on
Barkley Street as a key constraint to developing a building of this height. Interestingly
his evidence did not suggest that the building’s design was without architectural merit
or that its design would detrimentally impact on residents to the north or south or on
the opposite side of Barkley Street or St Kilda Road.
The podium element, despite being of four storeys across the entire site, does not
present as a bulky form. Through its choice of materials and articulation it presents
as different elements, enclosing different uses and will read as an interesting
addition.
The tower’s design is responsive to the constraints placed on the site in terms of
overshadowing and in its form and orientation seeks to protect the significant
north/south views. By positioning the tower along the St Kilda Road frontage the
eight lane arterial road provides sufficient separation to mitigate any potential
amenity impact and present a significantly less overbearing built form. When
considering the more residential interface to Barkley Street the tower is sufficiently
setback (20-30 metres) to not be prominent at street level.
AMENITY CONSIDERATIONS
Overshadowing
Shadow analysis provided by the applicant demonstrates shadows cast by the
proposed development at 9am, 12pm and 3pm, including a comparison with
shadows cast by the building previously approved by VCAT. In the morning the
proposal will overshadow the function Centre on the opposite side of Barkley Street
and residential buildings to its south. However, by noon the shadow clears all
buildings across Barkley Street as well as a majority of the apartment blocks to the
immediate south of the subject site.
Mr Biles’ analysis described the shadow as being a ‘relatively thin band’ and at the
meeting he described the orientation of the building and its north south axis as
creating a ‘fast moving shadow’, particularly in the late morning and through to the
early afternoon.
From the site visit it was evident that the four apartment blocks to the south of the
site have their main outlook onto shared central courtyards. Of the four blocks two
face north into their respective shared courtyards. However these courtyards and
many of the principle living rooms facing onto them are already overshadowed so
that shadows cast by the proposal, apart from being thin and fast moving, will be
across areas already in shade, especially in winter.
Relevantly in Mr Milner’s written advice and in the question and answer session with
Mr Biles, Mr Milner did not raise serious concerns with the proposal’s shadowing
impact.
Overlooking
It is clear that properties adjoining the subject site will be overlooked by the proposed
development as they are by the current buildings on the site. Mr Hill expressed
particular concern with the potential to overlook his flat to the north of the site. Mr Hill
had presented similar concerns in relation to the five to six storey development
approved by VCAT in 2007.
At the call-in meeting the applicant acknowledged Mr Hill’s concerns and agreed to
the inclusion of permit conditions to ensure that potential overlooking is mitigated
through appropriate screening devices on relevant office windows and balconies and
courtyard.
Conclusions
Despite the proposed used being consistent with the site’s zoning and presenting an
appropriate urban design response in terms of street activation and surveillance, it is
the built form and its impact that are the key contentions with this application.
The proposed building is clearly a departure from the existing built form along this
section of St Kilda Road, a built form characterised by two and three storey
developments that can at best be described as unremarkable.
Recent decisions, particularly along Alma Road / St Kilda Road have brought about a
new departure from the established built form for this precinct. These include the 13
and 8 level developments on Alma Road to the south and the five to six level
developments on the subject site, all at the direction of VCAT.
The current proposal represents a further departure from even these developments.
The question is whether such a built form outcome is acceptable in a State and local
policy context and more particularly how it will affect nearby residents and the wider
area.
From a State planning policy perspective the proposal can be supported as it meets
the objectives of Clause 16 and 19 of the Planning Scheme by locating “new housing
in or close to activity centres and employment corridors and at other strategic
redevelopment sites that offer good access to services and transport” and by
ensuring that “strategic planning should facilitate efficient use of existing
infrastructure and human services.”
As detailed, at a local level there appears to be a lack of clear policy direction, or at
least a clear direction in terms of the St Kilda Junction area, a precinct which this site
is unquestionably part of. In the absence of any appropriate framework or policy
direction for the site and for the junction area it begs the question, why not allow for
such a development?
With no clear reason to refuse the proposal from a planning policy perspective the
building’s design and impact must determine the appropriateness of the proposal.
Design wise the proposed building has been more responsive to avoiding any
impacts on the amenity of neighbouring buildings than in seeking to make a grand
architectural statement. Notwithstanding this it is an intelligent design in that it
creates two distinct elements, which each serve to address the immediate
environment and the broader context when viewed from the junction and beyond.
The podium element uses good quality materials and is articulated to read as an
addition which has its place in the area but also improves the street level experience
along St Kilda Road and Barkley Street. The upper levels of the podium in their
choice of materials cleverly tie in the tower element above so that the building reads
as a whole when viewed from across St Kilda Road or from further a field.
The tower’s north south axis presents as a slim, elegant building when viewed from
the north or south and although not as well expressed when viewed from the east or
west it benefits, at least on the east side, from the separation afforded by the eight
lanes of St Kilda Road. Notably also these east west views are not as significant as
those afforded along the vista of St Kilda Road and the junction.
The obvious concern with a building of this scale, in terms of the amenity of
neighbouring residents, is the overshadowing impact. Yet this is relieved by the
buildings design and in particular the orientation and positioning of the tower
component. The shadow diagrams and the meeting’s urban design discussion
session addressed this concern. All other potential amenity impacts can be mitigated
by appropriate permit conditions.
Having considered all aspects of the proposal it is recommended that a permit be
granted for this proposed mixed-use development, generally in accordance with the
plans and elevations but with changes as set out in the attached permit conditions to
address overlooking, access and other issues.