Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 20

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

IN THE VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL! PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LIST AT MELBOURNE BETWEEN: RICHMOND ICON PTY LTD! ! - and CITY OF YARRA! ! - and ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Applicant Responsible Authority Objectors

SAVE DIMMEYS & ORS !

VCAT REFERENCE NO. P2732/2012!! Subject Land: ! ! ! ! !

Permit Application No. PLN11/0953 1-3 Railway Place, CREMORNE. VIC 3121

SUBMISSION

S AV E D I M M E Y S
[ T H E A S S O C I AT I O N ]

! ! ! ! ! !

VCAT Reference No: ! ! Address:! ! ! !

! !

! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

P2732/2012 PLN11/0953 1-3 Railway Place, Cremorne

Planning Permit Application No:! !

_________________________________________________________________________________ ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1.0! ! !

CONTENTS! !

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!

Page
2

VCAT ORDER - PRACTICE HEARING! Notice and Review Issues

Preface - Save Dimmeys [The Association] Objects! Responsible Authority - Grounds for Refusal! !

! !

! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

3 3 4

Relevant planning scheme provisions! ! ! ! ! What factors should the Tribunal decision making follow? ! ! ! ! ! !

2.0 ! A Human Scale - 1:1 Ratio of Building Height! ! 3.0 ! Urban Form! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

4-6 6-9 9

5.0 ! Use of the land for dwellings (Clause 34.01-1)! ! ! ! The Tower Height

6.0 ! Waiver of car parking spaces (Clause 52.06.-2) !!

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

9 - 12 12 12 13 - 17!

7.0 ! Loading and unloading of vehicles (Clause 52.07) ! ! 8.0 ! CONCLUSION! ! ! ! ! !


! !

! ! !

APPENDIX A! ! ! ! ! ! ! Proposed East Richmond Station Improvements!

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

OMISSION: 7.4 - 7.6 Text inadvertently omitted during editing process of this document. ! Loading and Unloading of vehicles (Clause 52.07) continued! ! Contact: Save Dimmeys! ! ! !
1

18

19

VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LIST VCAT REFERENCE NO. P2732/2012! ! ! Permit Application no. PLN11/0953

! APPLICANT! !
! RESPONDENTS!

! !

! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

Richmond Icon Pty Ltd Yarra City Council Michael Parker & Others The Greenburg Super Fund Pty Ltd Allan Harris (Save Dimmeys) HRG Nominees Pty Ltd Valerie Johnstone 1 3 Railway Place, Cremorne Melbourne Jeanette G Rickards, Senior Member Practice Day Hearing 26 October 2012 26 October 2012

! RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY!

!!
! ! ! ! ! !

!
! ! !

!
! ! !

!
! ! !

!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! SUBJECT LAND! ! ! ! WHERE HELD!!


! BEFORE! ! ! ! HEARING TYPE! ! DATE OF ORDER!

! DATE OF HEARING!!

ORDER
1. ! ! 2.! ! 3. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! The application will proceed to mediation as listed on 23 November 2012 commencing at ! 10.00am at 55 King Street, Melbourne. An additional day is listed for the hearing of the matter on 18 January 2013. Only issues not exempt under the provisions of the planning scheme from the provisions of notice and review can be raised by the respondents at the mediation for hearing they are: ! ! ! ! ! Use of the land for dwellings (Clause 34.01-1) Waiver of car parking spaces (Clause 52.06-2) Loading and unloading of vehicles (Clause 52.07)

P R E FA C E

1. This submission is made on behalf of Save Dimmeys, an unincorporated association and group objector, to the Application for Review brought against Yarra Councils Notice of Decision to Refuse a Planning permit for 1-3 Railway Place, CREMORNE. 2. Save Dimmeys is a residents group formed in late 2008 with the specic objects:! To be a non-prot association formed to lobby and protect the integrity and heritage of the Dimmeys Model Store in Swan Street, Cremorne; To Save Dimmeys from any inappropriate development proposed for the State Heritage Listed ! building; To inform the community of any adverse development proposal for the Dimmeys Model Store ! ! which may have a detrimental effect on the building and its heritage listing. !

3. Responsible Authority - Grounds for refusal


At its 29 August 2012 meeting,Yarra Council'sInternal Development Approvals Committeeresolv-! ed that a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit be issued for the proposal on the following grounds: The proposal does not provide an appropriate transition in height with the surounding building ! ! ! stock, contrary to Clause 15.01-2 (Urban Design Principles) and Clause 22.10 (Built form and ! design policy) of the Yarra Planning Scheme.

The proposal would unreasonably impact the amenity of the dwellings to the west by virtue of overshadowing, contrary toclause 15.01-2 (Urban Design Principles) and!Clause 22.10 (Built form and design policy) of the Yarra Planning Scheme. The proposal would unreasonably impact the development potential for adjoining sites due to the proximity of windows to the boundary, contrary toclause 15.01-2 (Urban Design Principles) of the Yarra Planning Scheme. The absence of an on-site loading bay for the cafe would unreasonably impact car parking and ! ! trafc conditions in the area.

1.0 RELEVANT PLANNING SCHEME PROVISIONS

1.1!

The site itself is located in a Business 1 Zone. Pursuant to Cl 34.01-1 of the Yarra Planning !

Scheme a permit is required to construct or carry out works in this zone. The relevant purpose of the Business 1 Zone is: To encourage the intensive development of business centres for retailing and other complementary commercial, entertainment and community uses.

What factors should the Tribunal decision making follow? Based on similar proposals: i. The physical context of the site and surrounds including the Railway Place (Swan Street Major ! Activity Centre); ii. The State and local planning policies in the Yarra Planning Scheme; iii. The opportunity to address broader Metropolitan issues such as population imperatives; and iv. The relevance of other VCAT and Supreme Court of Victoria decisions.

Reason(s) Permit Required Clause 34.01-1 To use land for the purpose of a dwelling as the ground oor frontage is greater than 2 metres in width in B1Z

A Human Scale
2.0 We believe that a 1:1 ratio of building height to building setback should be adopted because it will maintain a human scale relevant to the public realm of this section of Railway Place, Green Street & Swan Street. We feel the height to street width relationship is important to the public appreciation and perception of a street, and it involves a qualitative appreciation of weighing up the public realm versus the development potential of land. 2.1 In Abbotsford Joint Venture Pty Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2012] VCAT 146 (7 February 2012) Mr Hutson (Architect) and witness for the Responsible Authority referred to the document Transforming Australian Cities as it contains images of potential development that suggests building height based on a 1:1 ratio. 2.2 We contend that a 1:1 ratio in Railway Place is warranted because the precinct surrounding it has a much ner grain and a signicant greater presence of low-rise Victorian and Edwardian era buildings - both commercial and residential - the maximum height of which are conned to two storeys.
4

Application of a 1:1 ratio to any development proposed on the subject site would ensure that the scale of the future development sits comfortably in its surrounds, given that the site is bounded on two sides by a Heritage Overlay area, and would integrate well with its surrounds therefore dominate neither its context nor setting.!! 2.3 We acknowledge the site is close to a train station, however the subject site has not been identied as a redevelopment site because of its size, nor as a response to its location. In Abbotsford Joint Venture Pty Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2012] VCAT 146 (7 February 2012) [1] the Presiding Member Rachael Naylor and Member Gary Chase acknowledged the legitimacy of the 1:1 ratio has along long corridors, a circumstance of location identical in this development Application. 2.4 We believe the 1:1 ratio has legitimacy along linear corridors such as Swan Street and Railway Place, when considering the merits of this proposals design. We believe there is logic in the principle of adherence to a 1:1 ratio that will consolidate the human scale of built form extent along Railway Place, and thereby enhance not only the public realm, but the experience of those residents ultimately choosing to reside in this proposed building. 2.5 The existing Heritage listed DIMMEYS buildings nearby and adjoining residential units which face Green Street, indeed all existing development along Railway Place, are helpful in this regard as their respective heights are similar to the width of the Green Street and Railway Place roadways. That is, they generally achieve the 1:1 ratio. They provide a readily visible example of the approximate scale that could be achieved in the future on the Northern side of Railway Place, based on that 1:1 ratio. 2.6 Utilising this methodology is a divergence from the existing and commonly applied 1-3 storey building scale, but it would be a degree of change which could be contemplated in this locality and would sit comfortably within the existing strategic framework of the Planning Scheme. As such, we believe the height along the Railway Place frontage should ideally be no more than ve storeys, with an allowance for roof plant (stepped back on all boundaries) making a maximum of six storeys in the centre. The rear of any future building on the subject site should be treated in a manner consistent with achieving a transition in heights to the neighbouring and adjoining structures, as well as minimising overshadowing to the residences located to the West. 2.7 A simple such treatment would be the stepping down of each level on new dwellings. We shall call this the Ziggurat effect, to provide an idea of the concept. The benet to each new dwelling proposed on this site would therefore be substantial in terms of solar access and light penetration, ventilation, private open space (terrace/balconies) rainwater harvesting and noise mitigation/sound reectivity. 2.8 Utilising this Ziggurat effect would markedly contribute to the proposed residential tower achieving a higher than ve star sustainablility rating. Surely this must be considered a benecial side effect for both Yarra Council and the Applicant, in addition to future residents on the subject site? 2.9 A nine storey development (plus rooftop equipment and plant) as proposed, cannot achieve these on site benets, nor can it prevent off site undesirable effects, such as overshadowing. In essence, !
[1]

Abbotsford Joint Venture Pty Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2012] VCAT 146 (7 February 2012)
5

!!

we believe the proposed development tower is excessive in height and will impact on the amenity of the existing adjoining residents whose apartments face Green Street, and will continue to impact amenity of every subsequent or future resident in those units. We further believe the public realm treatment needs much revision and further consideration.

Urban Form
3.0 The separation between the proposed tower adjacent to East Richmond Station is inadequate for a critical pedestrian and visual link with the development and broader urban context. The proposed residential tower will dominate the area through both its height and bulk and will restrict, if not obliterate, views to the Heritage-listed landmark Dimmeys Clock Tower, from not only East Richmond station, but also from Church St and beyond. 3.1 The famous Clock Tower has a height of around 37m and has stood unopposed as the dominant feature of the Swan St precinct since 1910.The nine storey residential tower proposed for the subject site, at a proposed height of approx. 30m, will effectively privatise the view to one of Melbournes much-loved features. The future occupants of the new dwellings proposed may not fully appreciate the deleterious effect this private view will have on the context and setting of their building, and the urban form of the neighbourhood. 3.2 The degree of overshadowing of the public area within the site itself and the streetscape it fronts results equally from the height of, and the siting of, the proposed residential tower at the Southern portion of the subject site. 3.3 Proposed habitable rooms of dwellings facing Railway Place will not have the benet of any direct sunlight, only daylight, and yet the dwellings in the Residentially zoned land directly opposite will repeatedly have glints of sunlight reected off windows of the new South-facing apartments each and every time a train passes the proposed building, as the trains many windows catch the midday sun glare and bounce it around. 3.4 This strobe effect is known to be dangerous for triggering seizures in susceptible persons. Perhaps there should be a health risk warning for occupants of these proposed apartments facing Railway Place? Yet another reason to both support and justify a reduction in height proposed for any new structure on the subject site, and to revisit the treatments used to minimize sound and light reectivity of the new structure. 3.5 The proposed development is situated too close to the habitable rooms of all the existing apartments, which face Green St.A narrow (10 ft.) right of way provides the only separation between the existing apartments and the ones proposed. The new structure incorporates windows along this right of way, on each of its nine oors.This proposed form creates an unwelcome precedent of design error, whereby visitors and residents in the proposed tower are permitted to overlook private balcony areas and habitable rooms of the nearby units.

3.6 Nowhere in the Railway Place precinct, or the general area in which the subject site is located does this form currently exist, and therefore we believe it is completely out of context with the surrounding urban form, and similarly does not respond appropriately to the existing conditions of its setting. 3.7 The proposed residential tower in this location will result in overshadowing to the existing apartments which face Green St, to the extent that is far greater than the overshadowing caused from other adjoining buildings, which is non-existent or negligible. The proposed apartment tower has minimal setback where it interfaces directly with Railway Place. 3.8 The proposed tower form along Railway Place is inadequate in its front setback relative to the East and West viewpoints along the roadway, particularly as there is no transition in scale to respond to the heights of existing buildings to the East and West. 3.9 The relationship between the ground level of the proposed building and its setting in the streetscape remains one of the most critical concerns in the site planning which has fundamental impact on the function and amenity of the place, and the context of its surrounds. 4.0 There does not appear to be a singular signicant and credible public open space contribution from the proposed residential tower and its lower oor caf area, but rather the development proposal seems to make an attempt to utilize the existing nearby public open space areas, capitalizing on or taking advantage of a feature within its setting that is not for this residential developments exclusive use and enjoyment. 4.1 The building height proposed in this planning application is inconsistent with both the Yarra Planning Scheme MSS and the Draft Swan Street Structure Plan, both of which provide for a building height in the gateway or Activity Centre a maximum of 17 metres (i.e. 5 -6 storeys)The subject site has not been identied in either of these documents as a location where a variation of the prescribed heights is desirable, may, or should, be permitted. That is, it is not a landmark or signature site.There is no credible planning justication for the residential tower proposed to be at odds with the prescribed heights and far exceed them. 4.2 The planning application of this residential tower is decient in that there is a lack of sufcient response to address the following design objectives: To provide human-scale pedestrian-friendly and landscaped paths and roads throughout the site. To achieve a sensitive transition to the surrounding low built form and existing neighbourhood character of adjoining residential areas by providing lower built forms at the edges of the site. The proposal will adversely impact on its neighbours, including the parks through visual bulk, height and overlooking. To provide a signicant area of public open space within the site that is publicly accessible, and integrates successfully to the area.

4.3 The sites proximity to established Public open space (White St Park and Railway Crescent /Adolph St pocket parks) and the soon-to-be constructed East Richmond Station Council car parks landscaped shared use areas some 30m eastward, should not invoke a borrowed landscape. The proposed residential tower and associated caf use relies on the surrounding parklands to provide what is essentially borrowed amenity.The rooftop gardens as proposed do not constitute and cannot be construed to provide Public open space, accessible to the Public.Similarly, the rooftop gardens do not integrate in any meaningful way to the area. The Objective of requiring Open Space within new developments is to provide a signicant area of public open space within the site that is publicly accessible, and integrates successfully to the area. The sites proximity to public open space (White St & Railway Crescent) should not invoke a borrowed landscape. The proposal relies on the surrounding parkland for borrowed amenity. The proposal results in poor amenity on-site due to the extent of overshadowing and lack of quality open space.! The proposed development fails to appropriately respond to all applicable provisions of the Safer Design Guidelines and Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development. The proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of the site. The proposed development provides an unsatisfactory layout and design for vehicular entry and exit from the site. 4.4 The proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of the site. Prior to the 1990s construction of the existing asphalted car park (for use of Dimmeys Staff) the site supported two single storey singlefronted WB dwellings, one occupied by Dimmeys cleaner/caretakers family and the other Dimmeys handyman- who also acted as Santa at Christmas time. The site itself is some 580sqm, and contains some signicant mature trees at its frontage, which visually soften the boundary line. In addition, they provide shade to the roadway, pleasant sounds and scents, and provide habitat/refuge for wildlife. In other words, they contribute substantially to the amenity of the site and its setting, their benets being available unhindered to the Public. 4.5 The proposed residential tower and associated ground oor caf, by essentially being constructed boundary to boundary on all four sides, with a sheer vertical thrust on all sides for 9 storeys and containing 43 households (around 86 100 residents), requires all vegetation to be stripped from the site. When seen from this perspective, the proposal is not only an overdevelopment of a small site; it is overwhelming, unreasonable and ill conceived. 4.7 The proposed development provides an unsatisfactory layout and design for vehicular entry and exit from the site.The vehicular ingress and egress points provide no pedestrian refuge, nor adequate separation or other protective devices/treatments for bicycle users entering and or leaving the proposed developments bicycle parking areas. 4.8 Vehicular and bicycle access into the proposed development via a narrow dead-end right of way which not only has no turning circle at its head, but is shared by at least 4 shopfronts/combined dwelling along Swan St and 3 units facing Green St, means that two vehicles cannot pass in that
8

ROW and there is no provision made for banking up of private vehicles attempting to enter or leave the ROW, when there is another vehicle so occupied. Added to that, the development proposed hugs the boundary and its vehicular access points thus become blind-spots, where entering or leaving the subject site becomes perilous.

The Tower Height


5.1 We believe the setbacks of this proposal need to be mirrored as per the Green Street DIMMEYS building height in order to maintain a 1:1 ratio. We feel the height and setbacks of the proposed building would impact upon the development potential of the adjoining properties. 5.2 In Abbotsford Joint Venture Pty Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2012] VCAT 146 (7 February 2012) [2] the Tribunal found: it is the podium that has the direct relationship with the public realm, not the tower. 5.3 In the current proposal the tower and the building line collide, as the podium forms part of the one sight line along Railway Place. This affects the public realm where the tower and podium are one solid mass. 5.4 The area around the East Richmond train station is not a hub or nodal point in this Swan St Activity Centre.The proposed residential tower on the subject site is just one oor less in height than the proposed and approved, as yet uncommenced, DIMMEYS elliptical Glass Tower at 140-160 Swan St, however the subject site is considerably smaller in area and is further constrained by existing development adjacent to three of its boundaries there being a narrow dead end right of way between the proposal and the existing apartments facing Green Street. 5.5 The proposal has limited setback from Railway Place and is not in proportion to the proposed building height. Setbacks from the proposals other boundaries are largely non-existent. This contrasts sharply with the proposed, but unbuilt, DIMMEYS elliptical Glass Tower, which has by its footprint shape and positioning, guaranteed substantial setbacks from both Green St and Swan St, and almost imperceptibly impinges on its Byron St and the Railway corridor boundaries.The transition in scale down to the public realm has been achieved by maintaining the existing Heritage-listed DIMMEYS building height surrounding the new Glass Tower. 6.0 Waiver of car parking spaces (Clause 52.06.-2) The waiver of car parking spaces (clause 52.06.-2) is not supported for numerous reasons. 6.1The subject site currently accommodates approx. 30 vehicles in marked bays and with a ticketing machine in place. The parking area is uncovered, with good visibility and is accessed at a point via the right of way, close to its Railway Place interface.It is not uncommon to see vehicles doubleparked (presumably unpaid) in this car park at various times of day.This means that car parking is ! ! !
[2]

op. cit. p.5.

already at a premium in this busy retail precinct. Once the proposed development is constructed, these 30plus car parking places available for public use cease to exist, yet the site is to accommodate 43 households and a caf the building is not being constructed as affordable housing or student accommodation (attracting people less likely to own a private vehicle) and so it follows that the new residents will have at least one private vehicle per household, and will expect to park close to home even if there is no private car space allocated to them. Compounding this issue is the caf, which will employ staff, sourced from outside the local area, and attracting patrons similarly located all of whom will expect or require vehicle parking especially when the hours of operation of this caf extend into night hours. Nett loss in public parking by virtue of construction on the site 30 plus places.Insufcient allowance & supply of private onsite parking for residents in this development proposal will result in further net loss of public parking, in the vicinity of 15 car spaces. 6.2 The subject sites street frontage of 19.2 m approx., and because it has no crossover, is always parked bumper to bumper with 4 or 5 small cars or the occasional tradesman vehicle.This part of Railway Place is unrestricted, untimed.Once the proposed development is constructed, all this frontage is lost for parking, a Nett loss of 5 car spaces.

6.3 Green St currently accommodates 16 vehicles on road between Swan St and Railway Place, in marked bays with Council parking meters and time restrictions in place. These parking spaces are 100% utilized and well turned over daily from 8.00am to approx. 9pm.Once construction begins at DIMMEYS 140 -160 Swan St, seven of these car parking spaces will be lost, both through provision of new driveways and neckings to its underground car park areas and a loading bay, and the removal of car parking spaces on the opposite side of Green St (outside the existing residential units) as a result of the Green St roadway at its interface with Railway Place being reduced in trafcable width by those neckings. Nett loss in publicly available parking 7 car spaces. 6.4 In 2009, Yarra Council adopted the East Richmond Village concept and worked consistently with the community and other stakeholders to identify desired improvements to the East Richmond Station area, on both sides of the railway lines. The subject site is included in the Village precinct, and as such the Applicant would not be ignorant of the ramications of this inclusion. 6.5 In October 2012 Yarra Council advertised its intentions to place permanent road barriers at Royal Place and Shakespeare Place at their junction with Swan St.The adjunct to precluding all vehicular access or egress from not only the Council car park but also all the private properties (Shops, dwellings, three Banks and multilevel ofces) facing Church St and Swan St, at a point just East of the subject site, is to reduce the amount of publicly available car parking in its Coles car park (as the community knows it) by 27 car spaces, to provide for some landscaping works and bicycle parking areas.Nett loss in publicly available parking in the area of 27 car spaces.

10

6.6 The same Yarra Council East Richmond proposal (in point 6.4 above) also legitimizes Railway Place as a two way carriageway into the Coles car park and all other properties surrounding it.Thus all waste service vehicles, deliveries & pick ups, street cleansing services, worker and client vehicles attending surrounding premises, road maintenance vehicles, parking enforcement ofcers, meter-coin collections, Public utility crews (water, power, gas). Metro staff and supermarket semitrailers, will have no other way to access or leave the Coles car park except via Railway Place, and these vehicle movements are in addition to the vehicles driven by customers and railway commuters. 6.7 The increases in vehicular movement up and down Railway Place necessitate the removal of the unrestricted car parking along the North side of Railway Place (currently accommodating approx. 15 vehicles) along its entire length, to provide safe passing of vehicles.Nett loss of publicly available car parking in this location 11 car spaces. 6.7.1 At the VCAT hearing for the Heritage listed DIMMEYS site 140 -160 Swan St, in June 2011, Vic Roads foreshadowed that they will require the removal of on-street metered parking places on the South side of Swan St, between Coles Supermarket and Green St, to provide a left turn slipway into Green St for a distance of some 30m.This slipway will result in the loss of a further 6 publicly available carspaces. 6.7.2 When adding the totals noted in each above point, it can be seen why the waiver sought is unwarranted, untenable and unacceptable: ! 6.1.) ! 30 + 15 insufciently supplied within development proposal ! ! ! ! 6.2.) ! 6.3.) ! 6.5.) ! 6.7.) ! 5 7 27 11

! 6.7.1.) ! 6 6.8 Total loss of publicly available car spaces (within 50 -100 metres of the site): 86-101. Unfortunately the development proposal and its combined use as dwellings and caf will most likely result in 80 to 100 new private vehicles requiring parking onsite daily. If they cant be accommodated onsite, they will park nearby.It is simply logic. 6.8.1 We, the residents of nearby streets have already witnessed the incursion by dozens of shoppers and ofce workers and even CBD commuters each day parking their private vehicles for protracted periods outside our homes or businesses, simply because they cannot park at their workplace, or nearby.With every increased-density-of-land use, out-of-scale and oversized development approved and constructed in the area, the parking availability gets worse, not better as most planning & development applications include similar car parking allowance waivers such as this.Despite proximity to public transport and encouragement of walking and cycling, the reality is that Australians are automobile dependent, or put another way: lazy. 6.9 On days when major sporting events or entertainment events occur nearby, no piece of land is safe from people attending those events parking their vehicles. No Standing areas, private home
11

driveways & crossovers, private car parking areas belonging to businesses, footpaths, nature-strips, laneways they are all smothered with vehicles.Parking ofcers are too few and too overstretched to police everything, everywhere. This developments proposed car parking waiver will only serve to compound the problem, not alleviate it. 7.0 Loading and unloading of vehicles (Clause 52.07) The development proposal makes no provision for any dedicated loading bay area for the use of the ground oor caf. Due to the size of the caf proposed, it is safe to assume that most goods available in that caf will be bought in, that is, not prepared onsite.This means that breads, cakes, deli, fruit & veg, dairy, confectionery & snacks, magazines & printed matter, in addition to cleaning products and services, waste removal and sanitation will all mostly have to be delivered to the site, or picked up.Without a dedicated loading area and unloading area within the site itself, specically set aside for that purpose, for the sole use and benet of the caf, then it follows that every vehicle engaged in setting down or picking up goods must park on-street, or will enter the adjacent Right of Way, effectively blocking it to all other vehicles both attending the Green St apartments, the four small Swan St shops and the subject site itself, until the loading or unloading has nished. 7.1 Given that under the Yarra Councils East Richmond Village project (adopted designs August 2012- see Council yer attached) Railway Place roadway will become a legitimized two way carriageway, being the singular and only vehicular access point to the Coles car park and every private yard or private car park surrounding it (all those buildings facing Swan St east of Royal place and Church St, North of the railway). Councils plans indicate the removal of currently unrestricted free parking (15 car spaces approx.) all along the North side of Railway Place, in addition to widening the pedestrian and bicycling pathways directly abutting the railway easement.

7.2 Thus, without a dedicated loading bay onsite at the proposed development, every vehicle engaged in setting down or picking up goods outside the subject site, will not only be contravening Councils parking bylaws, they will also be blocking free passage of many other vehicles heading East along Railway Place, or forcing those vehicles onto the wrong side of the road. This is clearly demonstrates the inadequacy of the site chosen to accommodate both high density residential and a commercial component, resulting in an off-site effect directly attributable to poor design at the subject site, and is undesirable both in terms of Town planning principles and public safety.

7.3 The volume of vehicular movements using Railway Place will, of necessity, be trebled after Councils permanent road barriers are installed at Royal Place (outwards only) and Shakespeare Place (inwards only), so this lack of dedicated loading area on site is ill conceived, impractical and unsafe to both the delivery drivers and the Public. 8.0 CONCLUSION The permit applicant will obtain a signicant benet if the permit is granted. It is not unreasonable to expect that a new development of this type should achieve high standards in architecture and urban design. The current proposal does not achieve this. 8.1 It is submitted that the Tribunal should refuse the application for review. 8.2 All new development should be of a good quality and designed in full appreciation of its surroundings and context .. well-designed solutions in the right places and appropriately designed, can even make positive contributions to our cities. A greater emphasis on the design and all its various components is needed in this instance, before it can be said to be making any contribution to improving the character and quality of the area.
12

A P P E N D I X A

EAS T RIC HMOND S TATION IMPROVEMENTS

Source: Yarra Council Website 30/12/2012

13

A P P E N D I X A

EAS T RIC HMOND S TATION IMPROVEMENTS

Source: Yarra Council Website 30/12/2012

14

A P P E N D I X A

EAS T RIC HMOND S TATION IMPROVEMENTS

Key features of the proposed design Shakespeare Place


Shakespeare Place is a narrow road that connects Swan Street to the car park located next to the rail lines beside

Coles. The street would become a shared zone for vehicles and pedestrians, which would be monitored to determine the impact on trafc movements around the precinct. Shakespeare Place to Royal Place A pedestrian crossing would be installed outside the entrance to Coles on Royal Place to provide safer access to the supermarket entrance. The crossing would link up with a dedicated pedestrian pathway from Shakespeare Place. Vehicles would still be able to use Royal Place to exit the precinct at Swan Street, while a new bluestone strip would be constructed on the western side of Royal Place to create a pedestrian zone.

Source: Yarra Council Website 30/12/2012

15

A P P E N D I X A

EAS T RIC HMOND S TATION IMPROVEMENTS

Source: Yarra Council Website 30/12/2012

A P P E N D I X A

EAS T RIC HMOND S TATION IMPROVEMENTS

Source: Yarra Council Website. 30/12/2012

17

OMISSION

The following text (below) was inadvertently omitted during the editing of this document. It was only discovered after distribution of the document to main parties, that the text had not been included. Ed.

Loading and unloading of vehicles (Clause 52.07) continued 7.4 When it is considered that the existing Coles supermarket (just 25m east of the subject site) currently receives semi-trailer deliveries via Railway Place to its dedicated loading area at the rear of the store, a couple of times per week mostly at very busy times, such as lunchtime or peak hour around 5pm then this aspect alone clearly demonstrates the proposed design of the structure on the subject site is decient by not including a dedicated loading bay within the connes of the proposed building, or site.Are the Coles Semi-trailers supposed to WAIT for the caf unloading or loading to be completed?Are the Coles semi-trailers supposed to swerve around the caf delivery vehicles, into the path of oncoming trafc, or into the pedestrian and bicycle pathway along the railway lines? Who will police the trafc jams? Who will be responsible for damages to property, vehicles, personal injury or death?

7.5 It has been touted that the Coles supermarket will relocate into the Heritage listed DIMMEYS building 140-160 Swan St, however no construction work has begun at this site as a todays date and to the casual observer construction does not seem imminent. Thus, the problem of Coles semi-trailers versus caf deliveries will remain as is (an impasse) for quite some time, unless a dedicated onsite loading bay is provided and used at the subject site.

7.6 We further understand that even if or when Coles Supermarkets do eventually occupy the Heritage-listed DIMMEYS building, another company within the Coles group will occupy the existing supermarket site and that other brand (Target or BI-LO) will require deliveries by semi-trailer also! It is shortsighted and compounds other planning errors in the proposed design, to allow a waiver of requirement in provision of a dedicated on site loading bay at the subject site. Put simply, it is bad planning. The waiver should therefore be disallowed.

18

!!

Contact: Save Dimmeys

Acknowledgement This submission document was written and prepared in collaboration with the Save Dimmeys Committee: For and on behalf of Save Dimmeys

Allan Harris! ! Secretary! ! ! on behalf of!! ! Save Dimmeys! ! [The Association]!!

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

Nelly Verstoep Community, Heritage, Environment & Planning Consultant

Email: ! SaveDimmeys@gmail.com ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! www.Scribd.com/SaveDimmeys www.Twitter.com/SaveDimmeys www.Issuu.com/SaveDimmeys

Copyright. Save Dimmeys 2012. All Rights Reserved.

30 December 2012

Parts of this document include material used for research & study, copyright & intellectual property owned by other parties.
xix