Stage 2 Wirrawayprecinct Closing Submission on Behalf of the City of Port Phillip

Date: 17May 2018

Proposed Amendment GC81 to the
Port Phillip Planning Scheme

Fishermans Bend

Stage 2 –WirrawayPrecinct Closing Submission on behalf of the City of Port Phillip

Contents

Introduction

Response to Key Issues

Response to the evidence

[7496354: 21554449_1]

Introduction

Overview

These closing submissions only address matters that are specific to Wirraway.
Matters that apply more broadly across the various precincts and the main contentions made by landowners will be dealt with in the Council’s overall closing submissions.
So far as Wirrawayis concerned, Council’s WirrawayUrban Design Report (WirrawayReport) is a comprehensive document that builds on the Council’s endorsed submission of 13 December 2017. The Wirraway Report critically assesses Amendment GC81 against the Vision and further develops the ideas within the Framework. It is a refinement of work that the Taskforce has done. It represents work completed over the last 6 months by Council officers who are highly experienced urban designers, place makers and strategic planners.
The WirrawayReport,coupled with the Overarching Urban Design Report prepared by Council,does what no other party has done in the totality of this hearing. That is, to set out clearly both diagrammatically and in text form the changes that are sought to Amendment GC81.
The matters contained within the WirrawayReport were carefully crafted having regard to the Terms of Reference to assist the Review Panel in completing its brief. Most importantly, they have been formulated to be practical changes that are not only mindful of their purpose, but also their practicality.
For this reason, Councilencourages the Review Panel to be mindful of the WirrawayReport in relation to every aspect relating to properties in Wirrawaythat have been raised. In some instances, the WirrawayReport has no implication on a property. In others, it has a material implication,particularly in relation to:

the properties on either side of Plummer Street where a different approach to the traditional street wall and upper level setback approachwhich results in tower-podium development. We call this the ‘tooth and gap’ approach and it is designed to bring about a better outcome for the Plummer Street Civic Boulevard;
land owned by the Jane Property Group at 21 Smith Street, Port Melbourne which Council identifies as an appropriate site for a primary school based Education and Community Hub; and
The Goodman owned land where the Development Plan Overlay is proposed to be applied and two community hubs are proposed by Council to be located.

We respectfully submit that while many parties have an understandably narrow interest in the outcomes, apart from the Minister, Council is the only submitter which has weighed all the various issues in considering what they meanto the creation of the Wirrawayprecinct within the broader Fishermans Bend.
The WirrawayReport contains 7key recommendations which areset out throughout the report but also summarised at pages 44 and 45. Those 7 recommendations provide very clear direction on what Council submits should,and needs tobe done. The key recommendations are also illustrated in the body of the report where the recommendation requires a map or plan change.
As proposed by Council, the Urban Structure Plan overlays and draws out the key interactions between:

Core areas with a more refined Core Retail Area within it;
Primary and Secondary Frontages;
the proposed open space network;
proposed key boulevards, streets andlaneways;
the Art and Cultural Hub;
the Sports and Recreation Hub; and
the Education and Community Hubs.

The Urban Structure Plan provides a better (indeed we would say the only) fulsome visual representation of the collection of initiatives set out in the Framework for Wirraway.

Response to Key Issues

Mid-rise development

Wirraway is identified as a precinct where a perceptibly different urban character to Sandridge or Montague is sought by the Vision. That is to say, it is intended to be an area where mid-rise development is encouraged. It follows that that the relevant planning controls to give effect to this Vision would seek to create a different setting to those two precincts. Mr Sheppard agreed under cross-examination that mid-rise means between 5 – 12 with some examples of up to 15 storeys. It follows from this that 24 storeys proposed for the core of Wirraway is not mid-rise. Therefore, Council reiterates its view that the planning controls should not send mixed signals to decision makers.
We accept that there may be some taller (hopefully slender) forms. However, that does not necessitate setting heights at a level that is incongruous with the Vision. One does not draft for the exception but rather for the predominant form, especially when the 15-storey height proposed by Council is a discretionary one that could be exceeded if the relevant built form outcomes are achieved.
Accordingly, we reiterate the need toclearly describethe Wirraway that is sought in the future character statements and then ensure that the planning controls align with that description.

Sports and Recreation Hub

In relation to the new Prohasky Street Park proposed for the west end of Wirraway, Council has proposed (Recommendation 3) that the Sport and Recreation Hub should be co-located within this park. No witness disagreed with the notion of co-location either generally or in relation to this specific site (probably because its logic is near on impossible to argue with).
Per the Mesh Report, Council reiterates that the mixed-use approach proposed in the Framework and planning controls is unlikely to be feasible or deliver the benefits of co-location.
Furthermore, as we have noted in our opening submissions, the investigation area for the Sports and Recreation Hub includes only a couple of sites that are likely to be large enough to deliver this community facility, even in light ofthe Minister’s proposal to delete this as a Public Benefit to be achieved via the Floor Area Uplift scheme (as per its Part C planning controls tabled on 14 May 2018).
Council’s recommendation achieves multiple objectives with the one action. It is both a very practical outcome and one that is likely to deliver a major net community benefit.
Notwithstanding the above, Council accepts the Minister’s desire to retain the flexibility to deliver the Hub on another site should one prove feasible.
As a result, Council suggests that a good way of resolving this would be to nominate a preferred site (i.e. as proposed by Council) within a broader investigation area to retain the flexibility to continue to consider other sites. In the case of this particular hub, an extension to the investigation area would be required to include Prohasky Park.
The nomination of a preferred site could be deferred to the Precinct Planning process if the Panel was of the view that further consideration is required.

Art and Cultural Hub

In much the same manner as with the Sport and Recreation Hub, the logic of locating this facility to the north of the JL Murphy Reserve in a key location is consistent with the Vision for Wirraway which is to be a leading arts and precinct.
As with the Sport and Recreation Hub, Council considers that its preferred site has significant merits, but is content to nominate this as the preferred site within a larger investigation area. This would enable further discussion to occur with the State Government, Goodman, and others.
As per the Sports and Recreation Hub, the nomination of a preferred site could be deferred to the Precinct Planning process if the Panel was of the view that further consideration is required.

Building heightsand Plummer Street Boulevard

Council agrees with the building heights proposed in the Non-Core Areas of the precinct. However, it has recommended an alternative approach in Wirrawaynorth and south of Plummer Street Boulevard which is designed to balance the need for a strong and diverse built form presence that appropriately transitions to lower heights on the parallel street either side and the need to avoid overshadowing of the south side of Plummer Street (as required by the planning controls). In this regard Council’s tooth and gap approach will break up the building massing and achieve a fine-grained outcome.
Council’s proposition to limit discretionary building heights to 15 storeys (down from 24 storeys) is entirely consistent with the mid-rise typology sought for this area in the Vision. While we note that there may be some taller slender towers, identifying the whole area at 24 storeys simply sends the wrong message. Rather we submit that in the context of discretionary controls, identifying a 15-storey discretionary height limit is more likely to result in some limited taller forms without it being the general rule.

Identification of core retail area

The WirrawayReport identifies a core area for retail and proposed changes to Primary and Secondary Active Frontages which focus the key retail activity along Plummer Street and Salmon Street. This is more consistent with the Retail report commissioned by the Taskforce.
We continue to submit that the retail potential of these areas should be protected via the use of the Development Plan Overlay, which may, or may not become redundant once Precinct Plans are implemented into the Planning Scheme.
We note that the Minister does not intend to proceed with the Development Plan Overlay as originally proposed but is open to considering the alternative use of this tool as proposed by Council, and to a limited extent by Goodman.
Council plans to circulate such a control tomorrow as part of the Panel’s request for proposed revised planning controls from interested parties.

Urban structure

Council submits that the cumulative effect of its recommendations including the community hubs andbuilding heights, together with the proposed clustering of retail and commercial activity, provide some of the ‘meat’ on the ‘bones’ of the urban structure. This urban structure will clearly guide future development in Wirrawayand ensure it creates a markedly distinctive place as identified in the Vision.
Council notes that the revised position of the Minister is to include such a plan in the CCZ1. This is supported by Council, though we continue to support the version that was put forward in our previous submissions.

Response to the evidence

Those that gave evidence regarding Wirraway included Mr Sheppard, Mr Barnes,Mr Song and Mr McGurn.

Mark Sheppard

Inside of the Core area, Mr Sheppard appeared to agree with the expert evidence of Mr McPherson who recommended that the heights of buildings in Wirraway be reduced to between 14 and 16 storeys (with some opportunities for higher built form on key corners). Mr Sheppard described this as being more consistent with the two models he used as references for Wirraway namely the Vancouver Model and the Hybrid Model.
Council relies on the evidence of Ms Hodyl and Mr McPherson in relation to the appropriateness of the FARs noting that they have been compared to other similar redevelopment areas both in Australia and elsewhere and found to be comparable. We agree that the population density of Wirraway will be towards the lower end of the scale but still well within the range of 100 - 500 people per hectare contemplated by the report of Infrastructure Australia.

Stuart McGurn

Respectfully, Council has already commented on the credence that should be given to the evidence Mr McGurn in its Closing Submissions for both Montague and Sandridge. His evidence was very similar for sites across Fishermans Bend and, as a result, Council does not see the need to take the Panel to these criticisms again.

DavidBarnes

Mr Barnes’ assessment was not properly informed by a complete appreciation of the place that is envisaged by the Vision. Much of the analysis came down to sweeping views of what should be expected in a location such as this within a State Significant Area.
His site-specific assessment revealed a failure to keep the appropriate priorities of focussing on the creation of the place, first and then assessment of sites, second. His evidence regarding the removal of the new east west road that passed through one of his client’s sites is symptomatic of a wrong ordering of priorities. The resulting block size that would be created would be large and inconsistent with the endeavours right across Fishermans Bend to create a permeable grid based series of new precincts supplemented by laneways appropriately spaced.
Further, it is noted that the commentary did not seem to match the recommendations. For example, Mr Barnes supported the Vision and the need to be bold and look for innovative ways to create the place that is intended by it, but suggested that Amendment GC81 be abandoned because of the use of the Floor Area Ratio, which is indeed, a planning tool that most experts actually support the use of.
His evidence was on the one hand that heights should not go above the upper end of the proposed discretionary heights, but on the other hand opposed them being mandatory. This all while failing to undertake the relatively rudimentary task of assessing the issue of whether a control should be mandatory against the Practice Note that is intended to directly inform such a decision.
Council suggests that the absence of this from his evidence is telling. We encourage the Panel to consider this in their deliberations relative to setbacks, overshadowing, street walls, separation distances and indeed for Williamstown Road, heights.

Mr Song

Mr Song’s evidence is based off the springboard of his general evidence which we have already addressed in other places. In relation to the two specific issues that he raises in his evidence for Sandridge, but which seem common to Wirraway, namely overshadowing and transitional provisions, we make the following reply.
In relation to transitional provisions, we submit the Review Panel should give no weight to Mr Song’s opinion as it is not based on any analysis as to the impact of introducing transitional provisions. In his Sandridge evidence, on the general issue of transitional provisions, Mr Song asked the question “if you do not use transitional provisions here then where do you use them? We suggest that you use transitional provisions where their use does not defeat the purpose of the change that is being introducing. In this regard, Mr Song, while familiar with a number of applications, did not consider what the impact of permitting them would be via a transitional provision. Accordingly, he has no basis to express his opinion other than to express his general dislike of the absence of such provisions. Transitional provisions are not an accepted practice across the board. Transitional provisions have been used in the process of putting in place the new residential zones and other new zones but that example does not disclose the possibility of defeating the purpose of the new zones as would occur here at Fisherman’s Bend.
The Review Panel might also infer that from the Minister’s extraordinary course of calling in the recent tranche of applications.
That concludes Council’s closing remarks for Wirraway.

……………………………………………………………

Terry Montebello

Maddocks
Lawyers for Port Phillip City Council

[7496354: 21554449_1]