PROPOSED PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT FOR FORMER CARLTON AND UNITED BREWERIES SITE, CARLTON

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 57 PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT Agenda Item 5.4 PROPOSED PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT FOR FORMER CARLTON AND UNITED BREWERIES SITE, CARLTON 4 September 2007 Division Sustainability and Regulatory Services Presenter John Noonan, Manager Regulatory Services (Building & Planning) Purpose 1. To provide the Committee with an assessment of the key issues relating to the proposed planning scheme amendment for the former Carlton and United Breweries ( CUB ) site in Carlton. Recommendation from Management 2. That the Committee resolve to advise the Minister for Planning of the Council s support for the proposed planning scheme amendment for the former Carlton & United Breweries Site, Carlton and process under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, subject to the following: 2.1. that there be a public process that enables an independent review of the proposed amendment and provides opportunity for interested parties to comment on the proposal; 2.2. that a consultation process be confirmed for approval of the subsequent planning permit applications for individual buildings on the site; 2.3. the preferred maximum height at the northern part of the site (buildings 1, 2 and 3) should be limited to 40 metres at the street edge; 2.4. Building 4 at the south western corner of the site and the RMIT building at the south eastern end, being the most prominent buildings on the site, need to be of exemplary design; 2.5. the proposed relationship between Building 4 and the historic bluestone building needs to be improved; 2.6. that solar access to the key open spaces should be improved; 2.7. that an explanation needs to be given to justify the significant increase in height and floor area for the development compared to the project currently approved in the Planning Scheme; 2.8. that Council should be responsible for managing the key public spaces created in this development and by subdivision; 2.9. that the applicant be required to discuss the public transport capacity implications of the redevelopment of the site with relevant government and public transport agencies; that the proposed zone provisions be amended to require a planning permit for a hotel and tavern use;

2 Page 2 of that the proposed exemption from the need for a permit for the sale and consumption of liquor be deleted from the amendment; that the proposed provision which exempts applications seeking to exceed the preferred building heights from notice and review rights be deleted from the amendment; that the applicant explore opportunities for the provision of community infrastructure on the site in consultation with the City of Melbourne; and other matters of detail contained in Attachment 4. Key Issues Proposal 3. The former CUB site is bounded by Victoria, Swanston, Queensberry and Bouverie Streets, Carlton and is zoned Comprehensive Development Zone ( CDZ ) in the Melbourne Planning Scheme. It has an area of approximately hectares and is currently owned by RMIT (refer to Attachment 1 for the Locality Plan). It is noted that the site on the corner of Swanston and Queensberry Streets, the Queensberry Hotel and another site further west on Queensberry Street do not form part of the CUB site. 4. In late 2006, Grocon and RMIT entered into a land sale agreement on the basis of a masterplan and vision prepared for the site by Grocon and NH Architecture. Grocon has now requested a planning scheme amendment to facilitate the redevelopment of the site in accordance with the masterplan and the outlined vision for the site. A change to the planning scheme is required to replace the current controls (which reflect a 1995 scheme for the site) with provisions that reflect the current Grocon and RMIT proposal. Specifically, Grocon has requested that the Minister for Planning approve the amendment using Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 ( the Act ) which exempts an amendment from the giving of notice. 5. In summary the master plan provides for the following: new high-rise buildings, including the RMIT Design Hub on the corner of Swanston and Victoria Streets which together total about 286,00sqm in floor area; 5.2. retention and re-use of the heritage structures on the site; 5.3. a broad mix of land uses including, office, residential, retail (supermarket), education (RMIT Design Hub) and entertainment; 5.4. built form massing diagrams including preferred maximum building heights; and 5.5. a network of diverse publically accessible spaces through the site. Proposed Planning Scheme Amendment 6. The specific purpose of the proposed amendment is to facilitate development of the site generally in accordance with the Comprehensive Development Plan and the masterplan for the site. In summary, the amendment: 6.1. incudes the Masterplan document as a reference document in the Planning Scheme. This outlines the concepts and principles underpinning the development of the site; 2

3 Page 3 of maintains the zoning of the site as the Comprehensive Development Zone and inserts a Comprehensive Development Plan as an Incorporated Document, which sets out the design and built form parameters for the site and which will guide the assessment of individual applications for buildings and works; and 6.3. maintains the Minister for Planning as the Responsible Authority for the site. 7. The changes effectively delete reference to the current development proposal prepared in 1995, known as the Pacific Central development that has not proceeded and replace it with reference to the proposed development. 8. The new schedule to the Comprehensive Development Zone to be known Former CUB Site, Swanston Street, Carlton includes a new purpose and new table of uses; makes the masterplan a reference document; and includes provisions relating to the use of land; decision guidelines; permit exemptions for minor buildings and works; application requirement for buildings and works; exemptions from notice and third party review; preferred maximum building height for new buildings; preferred maximum number of car parking spaces and advertising sign controls. Refer to Attachment 2 for a copy of planning scheme amendment documentation, including key site and building envelope plans. 9. Following the approval of the revised zone and site provisions, planning permit applications will be required to be lodged with the Minister for approval of individual buildings and other components of the development. These applications would be assessed against the decision guidelines in the schedule and comprehensive development plan for the site. There will be no notice and appeal rights. Amendment Process 10. The applicant has requested that the Minister for Planning approve the amendment without the requirement to exhibit or give public notice of the amendment. This process was used to approve the previous controls and proposals for the site dating back to the early 1990 s on the basis that the redevelopment of the site was of state significance. In accordance with the Ministerial Powers of Intervention in Planning and Heritage Matters Practice Note, the applicant is required to provide reasons why the Minister should intervene in this way to facilitate the proposal. In summary, Grocon has stated that the development of the site qualifies as a project of genuine State significance for the following reasons: providing some 286,000sqm of floor area, the development will transform, revitalise and enhance the northern section of Melbourne s CBD; the development will involve a major investment that will have substantial flow-on effects for the Victorian economy; it will generate major construction activity as well as permanent jobs in the retail, commercial and education sectors; it will make a significant contribution to tertiary education facilities in Carlton; and the development raises major issues of State policy and public interest. 3

4 Page 4 of It is considered that these points are valid and that there is justification for the project to be exempt from the standard notification requirements of a planning scheme amendment. However, given that it has been over 10 years since the current scheme for the site was approved and that the new scheme proposes a number of differences, including increased heights and floor area, it is considered that there is justification for the Minister to require some type of review process that enables interested parties to put their views forward and provides for a report back to the Minister for consideration. Comparison between former and proposed scheme for the site 12. The key differences between the development currently approved in the Planning Scheme and the Grocon proposal (now the former proposal) relate to the overall concept for the site in relation to floor area, built form and pedestrian spaces as well as the actual preferred building heights that are greater than those in the current proposal. Refer to Attachment 3 for diagram showing extent of former scheme compared to the Grocon proposal. Some of the key differences in relation to built form are: The current proposal included a building envelope that extended across the Victoria Street frontage at a height of approximately 150m, whilst the proposed development includes two separate building envelopes on the south-west and south-east corners with the first being of iconic scale at a maximum height of 230m (approx. 52 storeys) The former proposal included a building above the historic Maltstore building and setting new built form back from the bluestone buildings, whilst the proposed development takes the opposite approach The new development includes a framework for open space and pedestrian circulation that seeks to set aside space for these purposes. This is not specifically dealt with in the former proposal. 13. This latter point is a significant benefit as it places focus on the issue of open space on the site and the way it relates to the built form, the levels across the site (there is a 5m fall from Swanston to Bouverie Streets) and the pedestrian connections with the CBD and Carlton. 14. The new development also includes design objectives to assess new applications and an emphasis on sustainable development, both of which are absent from the former scheme. Comments on new Comprehensive Development Zone, Incorporated Document and Masterplan 15. These documents have been reviewed and the following key issues and concerns have been identified for submission to the Minister The amendment proposes that hotel and tavern uses be permit not required uses in the zone provisions. This would effectively result in a situation where the controls on such uses were more lenient than in the Capital City Zone, where a planning permit is required for these uses. Given the intensity of development proposed for the site and the mix of uses sought, it is considered critical that the responsible authority have the ability to assess the amenity impacts on such uses and impose appropriate conditions. As such, it is recommended that these uses be included in the permit required section of the zone provisions. 4

5 Page 5 of Similarly, the amendment proposes to exempt the site from the provisions of the Clause in the Scheme that requires a permit to use land to sell and consume liquor. There appears to be no justification as to why this exemption should be applied on this site and it is considered that at the very least the site should have similar provisions to those that apply in the Capital City Zone in respect to the proposed licensed premises. Therefore, it is recommended that this proposed exemption be deleted from the amendment As part of the new zone provisions, the amendment proposes to exempt all applications from the notice requirements and third party review rights if the application is consistent with the Comprehensive Development Plan ( CDP ) and Masterplan. This is considered acceptable and is consistent with the current zone provisions that apply to the site. However, the amendment also proposes to apply a similar exemption to applications that propose to exceed the preferred maximum heights nominated in the CDP and Masterplan. This is considered unacceptable in that it extends the degree of flexibility sought to unreasonable levels. A key purpose of having a CDP and Masterplan document which sets some parameters and guidelines for development is to provide some certainty in the redevelopment and approval process. Having a situation where the heights can be exceeded without a further public process tips the balance between flexibility for the applicant and certainty for the community too far in the direction of the development. Therefore, it is recommended that this provision be removed from the proposed zone It is recommended that the preferred maximum height adjoining streets around the northern part of the site be limited to 40 metres (heights could step up where set back appropriately from the street boundary.). This would provide a more sympathetic interface with development in the immediate area, where 10 and 8 storey height limits apply The height of Building 4 (about 230 metres) will make it a uniquely prominent presence just outside the Capital City Zone an exceptional form demanding exceptionally high design standards. The relevant design objectives need to make it clear that a building of exemplary design is required in the event that an application seeks to achieve the preferred maximum height with no setbacks to the street Building 4 has an overbearing relationship to the historic bluestone building based on the images presented in the Masterplan. It is very difficult to successfully design a tower cantilevered above a small building and normally the tower would be required to be set back 10 metres from each street frontage. While it is possible for cantilevered forms to achieve a dramatic composition, the solid Level 2 floor plate as indicated in the Masterplan is likely to compromise that potential The objectives within the Incorporated Document will be an important tool for achieving quality in the final design. To that end, it is recommended that specific mention be made of the need for the most prominent buildings (Building 4 and RMIT) to be of exemplary design and the need for structures visible at the north end of the Swanston St axis to provide an impressive termination to the vista Whilst the network of public spaces through the site is supported, it is noted that the spaces are substantially overshadowed, apart from short limited short periods during the day, primarily due to the scale of built form proposed. In order to improve the quality of the key spaces, it is recommended that changes should be made to the built form framework to improve this situation. 5

6 Page 6 of It is noted that generally the heights of the proposed new buildings have increased from those in the Grocon document that formed the basis of the agreement with RMIT and that have been subject to discussions over recent months. For example building 4 has increased by close to 30m, building 2 has increased by approximately 20m and building 1 has increased by some 17m. When the increases for all buildings are considered, the additional height and floor space is quite considerable. No explanation or justification has been given for these increases across the site Additional matters of detail are included in Attachment 4. Parking and Traffic Management 16. A traffic and parking management report has been prepared by Grocon in support of its Masterplan. A total of 1500 car spaces are proposed to be provided in basement car parks, however this number can be exceeded with a planning application. The former proposal also provides for 1500 on site spaces. The number of spaces has been questioned by Council traffic engineers on the basis that the development is likely to generate a greater parking demand in the order of The 1500 figure is based on significantly reduced State-wide parking rates that would technically apply to the site. From a planning and sustainability perspective this approach is supported given the sites location on the edge of the CBD (where parking limitation applies) and its good accessibility to public transport. 17. In respect to public transport, Council engineers have expressed concerns with the ability of the public transport network to cater with the likely demand. The addition of some 500 new public transport users in each peak hour will requires major consideration by the appropriate public transport organisations. It is recommended that the applicant liaise with the Department of Infrastructure and Yarra Trams in relation to this issue as soon as possible. 18. Further comments on the detailed design of the car park will be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Community Development ( DPCD ) and the applicant for consideration. Implications of proposed heights on surrounding areas 19. The surrounding areas to the east, north and west are affected by discretionary height controls that have been in place since late 2002 and resulted from an extensive review of built form as part of Planning Scheme Amendment C20. The area to the west and north is in an 8 storey area and the area to the east is generally in a 9 storey area, with specific heights likely to vary between 28 and 36 metres. Given the discretionary nature of these height controls, applications can be made to exceed these heights if it can be demonstrated that the proposal continues to meet the specified design outcomes for the areas. 20. The assessment undertaken as part of C20 was fully cognisant of the heights proposed on the CUB site which were higher than those proposed in the surrounding areas and it was acknowledged that in all likelihood the site would continue to have specific controls unique to it. The planning scenario affecting the CUB site has been in place since the early 1990 s, therefore adjoining and nearby property owners have been aware of these circumstances for over 10 years. 21. This being the case it is unlikely that the proposed built form outcomes sought for the site will put pressure on surrounding sites for additional height. This will also be constrained by site ownership patterns as well as the existing height controls that provide guidance on what heights are considered appropriate for the surrounding South Carlton area. 6

7 Page 7 of 57 Corporation Lane 22. The CUB title includes a Corporation Laneway (CL 1619) located at the North West corner and which according to the masterplan is proposed to be built over. The commercial property (not part of the site) has access rights to use the laneway. The scheme appears to propose that the ground level be publicly accessible and that buildings be constructed above. In order for this to occur the formal road status of the laneway would need to be removed. This can be achieved through a Council discontinuance process; a planning scheme amendment or a consolidation process. To date the applicant has not provided any information on this matter. There is unlikely to be any objection to the laneway being discontinued if the adjoining property is provided with on-going access arrangements to their site. Public Open Space 23. The proposed scheme sets aside approximately 1.2 ha of publicly accessible spaces. These spaces do not necessarily follow traditional forms and include a network of laneways, circulation spaces and meeting spaces at different levels. Grocon has indicated that it does not intend to hand over open space to Council and wishes to retain the ownership and management role. 24. Council would in most cases prefer that the required open space contribution (under the Subdivision Act) be managed by the Council. Although the QV site is an example of where this has not occurred subject to Council being satisfied that the spaces would be fully publicly accessible at all times. 25. Whilst acknowledging that the network of spaces proposed is complex, there appears to be no reason why Council should not manage and maintain the key spaces and laneways in the same way it would do in any other part of the city. Community Infrastructure 26. Grocon has had preliminary discussions with Council s Community Development area in respect to the issue of the provision of community infrastructure within the site. In line with Council s Community Infrastructure Policy and Planning Framework, Council is committed to working with developers to identify opportunities for the provision of community facilities to serve the needs of both new residents and the broader community. Given the scale of the proposed CUB redevelopment, its location on the edge of the CBD and its proximity to the universities there are likely to be opportunities to provide community infrastructure that provides for community participation and facilitates partnerships and relationships that can assist in building social cohesion. 27. As such, it is recommended that Council continue to have discussions with Grocon in order to identify opportunities to support Council s infrastructure planning for the area. Time Frame 28. The amendment has been referred to the City of Melbourne by the Department of Planning and Community Development and is required to submit a response by the 6 September Relation to Council Policy 29. The Municipal Strategic Statement ( MSS ) as it relates to Carlton includes a number of statements pertaining specifically to the former CUB site. It is noted that the current MSS was formulated at a time when RMIT had ownership of the site and as such the policies reflect the vision for the site at that time. 7

8 Page 8 of The South Carlton area is considered to be a key centre for education, research and development and innovative business. The CUB site is specifically identified as one that can support education and research uses and limited student accommodation. Parts of the South Carlton area, including the CUB site is identified as an area of built form change. In support of this, the area around the CUB site is subject to Design and development Overlays that generally provide for an 8 storey preferred height limit, acknowledging that the subject site has its own specific built form controls that enable higher built form. 31. In terms of structure and character the MSS seeks to maintain a strong contrast in scale between built form and character of the Central City and Carlton and the Victoria Street interface. It also states that future development on the subject site should create a landmark building of public significance which contributes to the civic spine of Swanston Street when viewed through the Central City from the Shrine of Remembrance. 32. In addition, there are numerous statements that require that new development makes a positive contribution to streetscapes and the pedestrian environment. Consultation 33. To date there has been no formal public consultation process undertaken. Grocon has been meeting regularly with key government stakeholders, including Council, to discuss progress on the preparation of the Masterplan since early in the year. Finance 34. To date there are no direct financial implications resulting from this report. If the Minister decides to instigate a panel or similar review process for the development, then this will generate expenses relating to representation at such a panel. 35. Ultimately, once the development is completed Council will be able to charge rates. Legal 36. The Minister for Planning is the Responsible Authority for the site. Section 20(4) of the Act provides that the Minister may exempt himself from the requirements of the Act which govern the normal statutory process for amending a planning scheme. Section 20(5) of the Act states that the Minister may consult with the responsible authority or any other person before exercising this exemption power. Sustainability 37. The Masterplan for the CUB site includes ESD initiatives as well as a Water Efficiency Plan. Grocon has stated that it proposes to set high standards that can be measured and monitored for continual improvement. It is proposed that detailed ESD analysis and reporting is undertaken for each building element that is part of the redevelopment. The following rating tools will be applicable and used in reporting on the development: GBCA Greenstar Rating tool; ABGR rating scheme; and Docklands ESD guide and City of Melbourne ESD policies. 38. The Masterplan includes specific performance outcomes relating to offices, residential, retail and car park uses. The Water Plan focuses on rainwater capture, stormwater collection and re-use of waste water. 8

9 Page 9 of 57 Background 39. The Minister for Planning is the responsible authority for the site. This has been the case since the early 1990 s when the first overall redevelopment plans for the site were approved. 40. The subject site is currently subject to a Comprehensive Development Zone ( CDZ ) and specific schedule to the zone which provides for the development of the entire site in accordance with an Incorporated Document known as the Pacific Central Development dated The schedule and the Incorporated Document provide a framework for the redevelopment of the site as well as specific provisions to assess individual proposals for buildings and other components of the development. Under these existing provisions a Development Plan is required to be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plan or plans must be generally in accordance with the documents included in the Incorporated Document, in terms of the concept plan and building envelope control plan. 42. Under the zone and schedule all applications for use and development are generally exempt from notice and review rights if the plans are consistent with the Incorporated Document. Attachments: 1. Locality Plan 2. Planning Scheme Amendment Documentation 3. Comparison between current scheme for site and proposed scheme 4. Additional comments on Zone, Incorporated Document and Master Plan 9

10 Page 10 of 57

11 Page 11 of 57

12 Page 12 of 57

13 Page 13 of 57

14 Page 14 of 57

15 Page 15 of 57

16 Page 16 of 57

17 Page 17 of 57

18 Page 18 of 57

19 Page 19 of 57

20 Page 20 of 57

21 Page 21 of 57

22 Page 22 of 57

23 Page 23 of 57

24 Page 24 of 57

25 Page 25 of 57

26 Page 26 of 57