HOME Council Performance NEWS & VIEWS PRESIDENT'S REPORT PROFILES LINKS MEMBERSHIP CURRENT ISSUES SUBMISSIONS LETTERS TO THE EDITOR LETTERS TO COUNCIL VIEWS ABROAD SITE MAP
Closing Submissions on behalf of Monash City Council
The following is a copy of the Closing Submissions presented on behalf of Monash City Council by Ian Lonie - Clayton Utz.
The Monash Ratepayers Association has fully supported Monash City Council in its opposition to “The Peak” development proposal at the corner of Jells and Ferntree Gully Roads.
The Advisory Committee is due to make its recommendation to the Minister for Planning in early February, and we sincerely hope that this recommendation will reject the proposed development.
This closing submission by Clayton
Utz succinctly summarises the arguments as to why it should not proceed.
CLAYTON UTZ
Closing Submissions on behalf of
Monash City Council
21 December
2004
Introduction
The Council presents these closing submissions by way of a reply or response to issues that have come up during the course of the hearing. In doing so, it does not repeat, but relies upon the oral and written submissions presented on behalf of the Council and the evidence called. It also proceeds on the basis that all of the information the Advisory Committee has requested of the Council has been provided during the course of the hearing.
Population Growth
2.1 How realistic are the population projections forming part of Melbourne 2030? The reality is that at this stage they are only projections and increase in household density would be related not only to population increase, but also possible changes in household densities. While Melbourne 2030 quite properly, in the context of the urban growth boundary, contemplates increasing residential density, this is not a blueprint for allowing inappropriate developments which do not reflect and enhance neighbourhood character and amenity.
2.2 Market forces (guided by planning policy and not government decisions) will decide where development occurs and in what form. Dr Bob Birrell as part of his submission on behalf of the Monash Ratepayers Association made two strong points. The first was that he thought there would be limited demand for the wheelers Hill “empty nesters” to purchase apartments in a high rise development and that it was more likely that demand for the apartments would come from professional people or migrants who were not necessarily living in the immediate area. Secondly, that much of the projected population growth in an area like Monash would be accommodated in dual occupancy/townhouse type development within residential areas and that the demand for high rise residential development was more likely to be satisfied by developments in or adjacent to major activity centres such as Glen Waverley and Oakleigh where there was a far wider range of facilities and services and the added advantage of good public transport links.
2.3 Three growth areas identified under the Housing Strategy are Glen Waverley, Oakleigh and Monash University Medical Centre Precinct. Two of those are excellently served by railway line and bus transport interchanges.
3. Proponent’s Submission
3.1 The provision of the MSS and LPPF referred to by Chris Canavan mirror to a large extent those referred to by the council in its opening submission.
3.2 Neither excellent design nor architectural quality overcome inappropriate development in terms of h\eight, bulk and visual impact on neighbourhood character. What has been described as the landmark design elements of this development are more appropriate in an inner suburban area.
3.3 The reason for the exclusion of the subject site from the Urban Character Study has been outlined. The exclusion is not a reason to favour urban consolidation over neighbourhood character as is suggested in paragraph 24 of Chris Canavan’s submission. It also conflicts with the approach taken by VCAT in paragraph 29 of the Mordialloc case.
3.4 The second dot point in paragraph 28 of Chris Canavan’s submission is not correct. The only tall building in the area (outside of the Novotel in the Glen Waverley District Centre) is the Police Academy building.
4. Minister’s Letter
The Minister’s letter to the Priority Development Panel of 22 October 2004 refers to, as one of the matters to be considered, by the committee, inter alia:
· The scale of the proposal outside a major activity centre.
It is not clear what this means, but it may well highlight that the Minister wants the advice of the Committee in relation to the differentiation of high rise high density development between a neighbourhood activity centre on the one hand and a major activity centre on the other.
Indeed, Dr Bob Birrell in his presentation argued that most of the projected 41% increase in population would be accommodated in major activity centres rather than neighbourhood centres.
5. Evidence on behalf of Proponent
5.1 There are a number of unresolved design issues in relation to the project, including:
· Landscaping, fencing, levels and excavation along the southern abuttal with the aged care hostel to the south. At this stage, there has been no discussion with the owners of that facility by the designers of the project.
· Lack of provision of on-site car parking and, in particular, ground level parking for visitors, service vehicles, etc.
· The extent of use and application of materials, particularly colours and finishes. In that regard, there is a significant difference between the photo montages provided by the architects’ elevation of the initial proposal and the amended elevation plans, particularly in terms of colours.
5.2 Responses to questions in cross-examination of Andrew Hutson elicited the following:
· The proposed development will be quite different to the neighbourhood character in the area.
· The building will be very visible as a landmark building.
· There are no other landmark buildings in the area (apart from the Police Academy).
· There were a number of design issues which had not been resolved including:
- the interface with the aged care building to the south;
- the extent of use of the display materials;
- screening/deletion of some of the balconies.
In doing so he had relied on the reputation of the architects to resolve these.
· The materials and finishes of the proposed development were quite different to those in the surrounding area.
· He had not done any study on neighbourhood character.
· The building had a substantial east/west built aspect.
5.3 Responses to questions in cross-examination of Yvonne von Hartel elicited the following:
· The building needed to address the crown of the hill and “crown of the hill deserves a crown. Special building for this location.”
In the Council’s submission, the design concept of the building was to create a landmark for what was considered to be a permanent site and it bears little, if any, relationship to the built form, neighbourhood character and context of the surrounding area, both immediate and further afield. Reference to the oblique aerial photographs as part of Attachment 7 demonstrates this. It is relevant to note that the sites on the other three corners of the intersection which are occupied by buildings with large footprints all have a topography which slopes down away from the intersection and, therefore, the built form and height is recessive compared to the subject site which is at the peak of the elevated ridge.
5.4 It is also significant the Yvonne von Hartel had not considered the provision of the Urban Character Study and the references to that in the Planning Scheme and, in particular, the fact that the immediate surrounding residential area was in a Character Area E. Yet, it is the character of that residential area which should also be responded to, conserved and enhanced in accordance with the Local Planning Policy Framework.
5.5 Yvonne von Hartel acknowledged the difficulty at the planning permit stage of ensuring that the design concept for the building would be carried through into the execution of the project. Indeed, this was an issue that she had written to the Minister for Planning about. There may be many reasons (whether because of change of ownership, change of consultants, changes in market demand, changes in economic conditions or otherwise) why what has been submitted as design excellence of this building may not be achieved.
6. Redevelopment of the Site
6.1 There has been no opposition to the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes, albeit that the Monash Ratepayers Association would also favour a community type of building. Residential development could be provided for in the form of low to medium rise development consistent with the built form in the neighbourhood area.
6.2 It is submitted that what Peck von Hartel has produced is a landmark building for a prominent site, but which does not respond to, conserve or enhance the neighbourhood character of Wheelers Hill. It is in some ways, as Andrew Hudson acknowledged in cross-examination, like putting the Novotel building on the subject site. It is just simply a sculptured landmark building which is in conflict with the neighbourhood character and context of the surrounding area. No matter how well designed the building may be, it simply does not fit the neighbourhood character of Wheelers Hill. The extent of the Neighbourhood Activity Centre at Wheelers Hill is yet to be defined. However, it is to be noted in this regard that Julie Katz in response to specific questions form the Advisory Committee identified that, in her view, the Neighbourhood Activity Centre would extend a distance of some 400m from the periphery of the Wheelers Hill Commercial Centre.
6.3 But on the other hand a well designed, well articulated building with appropriate setbacks, could not only be a suitable design response for the site and respect, conserve and enhance neighbourhood character, but also provide for higher density housing consistent with the objectives of Melbourne 2030, be in accordance with the Planning Policy Framework and be an appropriate outcome as far as the community is concerned.
7. Interim Height Controls
In the context of the Council’s request to the Minister for Planning for the introduction of a DDO schedule Interim Neighbourhood Centre Height Limit Area it would appear unlikely that the Minister will make a decision about the introduction of that DDO pending the Committee’s report on the call in of the VCAT Application for Review. Whilst the Tribunal in some cases has not seen the lack of a structure plan as being an impediment to directing the issue of a planning permit for a high rise development (see Golden Ridge Investments and Metaxas Architects), it is submitted that this Committee should adopt the approach in Bucherfield Architects not to approve the 6 storey development where the Council was part way through its structure plan process. The reason why it did so was that the proposed 6 storey building would be a radical departure from the existing built form and local policies, which would have the potential to significantly compromise the Structure Planning process underway for Mornington. It is submitted that that approach is equally applicable in this case. To allow a 9 storey development on the subject site which is so different to the existing built form and the policy directions of the MSS, LPPF and Direction 5 of Melbourne 2030 , would be to create a situation where the structure plan process would be compromised.
8. Conclusion
Having regard to all of the material presented to the Advisory Committee over the last 5 sitting days, it is submitted that the Committee should in its report to the Minister recommend that a planning permit not be granted for the proposed development, but that the Committee accepts the land is suitable for an increased density of residential development which can be accommodated in a well designed medium level development which responds to and enhances the neighbourhood character of the Wheelers Hill area.
21 December 2004
Ian Lonie
Partner – Clayton Utz
For and on behalf of Monash
City Council
To top of page Disclaimer Archives
mailto:mail@monshratepayers.com.au