Save Dimmeys. Swan ST Structure Draft Attachment 2 - Summary of Submissions

ATTACHMENT 2 SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS Draft Swan Street Structure Plan August 2011 Name
1 Resident
Address
Mary Street Richmond
Summary of Submission
Against installation of bicycle lane in Mary Street as parking is already an issue and there are designated bike lanes on Coppin Street. Bikes already use Mary Street in both directions without incident so no need to make changes. Wants proper resident consultation before any action is taken under the Structure Plan.
Officers Response
Mary Street is shown as having a bicycle focus with the aim being to improve safety for cyclists and strengthen the connection to the Capital City Trail. Council has no intention of installing a two-way on road bicycle lane in Mary Street or of removing on street car parking spaces. The plan does not detail specific actions. Further investigation on how particular strategies might be achieved would be undertaken as part of the implementation stage along with community consultation. Information has since been distributed to residents of Mary Street between Swan St & Bridge Rd by Council officers to provide reassurance that Council is not removing car parking and installing a 2-way bicycle lane. Recommended Change: Delete bicycle focus on Mary Street and apply a strengthened bicycle focus along Coppin Street from Alan Bain Reserve to the northern edge of the Study Area.
Resident
Supports the idea of the structure plan to shape the future of the area. Has noticed an increase in traffic, lack of parking and a feeling of overcrowding without enough Council support. Concerned about the bike focus on Mary Street due to loss of parking and conflict with bikes travelling the wrong way down the one way street. Important to continue to protect the residents from rat-runners and to acknowledge their right to own and park a car near their house. Coppin Street would be a viable alternative for bikes. Would like to see increased green space as high density living reduces gardens and trees. Increased green space should be given priority over other public space uses.
See response to 1. The plan includes enhanced street greening on nominated streets as reflected in the Public Spaces Action Plan Recommended Change: See Submission 1.
Page 1 of 52
Name
3 Resident
Address
Gwynne Street
Objects to whole Cremorne area being designated for 5-6 storeys. Need to protect the residential area south of Balmain Street and views to the Nylex sign and city. 5-6 storeys appropriate for area adjacent to both sides of the South Yarra railway line, and east of the railway line to Church Street. Remaining area should be 2-3 storeys.
Officers Response
The Cremorne area includes preferred heights that vary from 7-10 storeys at the Maltings site, 2-3 storeys in existing residential areas and an area designated as 4 storeys to the west of Church Street and bordering the Bryant & May site. The preferred heights act as a guide. Any future development proposal would have to be assessed against the context of the site, and considered against relevant local and State planning policy. Active forms of transport are promoted in the Plan as reflected in Figure 12, Access & Movement Action Plan. A pedestrian focus and priority area are included in the Cremorne area. Car parking associated with future development would be considered under the provisions of the Yarra Planning Scheme and is not dealt with in detail in the structure plan. Opportunities for new public open space in Cremorne are consistent with opportunities shown in the Cremorne & Church Street Urban Design Framework. Conversion of existing properties for new public open space would require further investigation. The exploration of opportunities to manage traffic flows in a more efficient and safer manner is included as Strategy 1.5 under Access & Movement. The Structure Plan does not deal with issues at this level of detail but the comments received have forwarded to Councils Strategic Transport Unit for consideration and action. Improved cycling and pedestrian connectivity with the River have been included as a consideration in the Plan. (Strategy 3.1 under Access & Movement) Strategy 3.4 under Access and Movement is to investigated a new pedestrian crossing point across Punt Road at Blanche Street which be further investigated at the implementation stage. Page 2 of 52
Need to widen the footpaths in Cremorne to allow for increased pedestrian use by narrowing the road or transfer of land when developments occur. Need bicycle lanes on the road and developments should not be provided additional on site car parking.
Supports the proposal for additional public open space in Cremorne but suggests that it should be moved closer to Balmain Street. Paved area at 35-41 Balmain Street and property at 45 Balmain Street should be converted to a reserve. Need to protect residential areas in Cremorne from industrial traffic movements to reduce noise, amenity and safety impacts. Particular concerns around the Rosella complex.
Resident
Mitchell Street Richmond
Identifies a long list of issues for cyclists along Swan Street and made very specific suggestions as to how these issues could be addressed and the conditions improved for cyclists. Supports the overall direction of the Plan, particularly the initiatives around access to fresh produce. Would also like to see easier access to the Yarra and safer ways to cross Punt Road between Swan Street and the river.
Resident
Name
Address
Would also like space for community gardens.
Officers Response
In June 2011, Council adopted guidelines to help identify and manage new opportunities for different kinds of urban agriculture activities. To encourage a collaborative approach, Council will employ a Community Gardens Facilitator who will be responsible for liaising with residents and groups wishing to establish Urban Agriculture projects. Strategies 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 2.2, 2.5 under Public Spaces address the issue raised. The plan denotes the area fronting Punt Road (Punt Road edge) and extending from Swan Street to the river as being mixed commercial with a residential component. Built form objectives included as part of Precinct 6 respond to amenity & safety concerns. Noted. Councils Communications Unit has responded to this matter The Land Use framework plan shows an area to the west of Church Street as being suitable for land uses that include an office focus with a residential component in recognition that strategic redevelopment sites are likely to be identified in this locale into the future given the size of the sites and decline in manufacturing in this area. Parking is considered under relevant Planning Scheme provisions in relation to individual development applications. Heritage controls apply over parts of the study area and the important contribution of existing heritage fabric is acknowledged in the Plan. Any changes to existing zoning would be considered at the implementation stage. The Land Use Framework Plan identifies the Richmond Station as a key revitalisation area in which underutilised land would be developed; active ground floor uses encouraged to provide Page 3 of 52
Resident
Brighton Street Richmond
Richmond Station and corner of Punt Rd and Swan Street is the biggest area requiring improvement. Intersection and corner need to be improved visually. Shops down western end are poor with high turnover. Punt Road from the river to Swan Street should be developed into business and office buildings as its too busy for residential. Development of office buildings would improve the streetscape and bring in commercial revenue.
Resident
Specific concerns about the fonts and layout of the fact sheet.
Business
Balmain Street Cremorne
Supportive of the objectives. Current zoning is preventing significant investment in the Cremorne area. Inability to have mixed use and high rise (10 storeys) Commercially unviable to redevelop land. Proposed 5-6 storeys would result in the area remaining underutilised and reduce potential local employment and incremental residential properties in a well serviced area. More height is required as a trade off to rejuvenate Cremorne. Need for parking, respect for heritage overlays, access issues and the need for contamination work means redevelopment potential should be set by the tallest building in the area (ERA building at 10+ storeys). Multi-purpose zoning would facilitate the right balance and fit with the strategic intent of the structure plan.
Resident/Business
Tennyson Street Richmond
Plan recognises the significance and pivotal importance of Richmond Station but this is not matched in the ideas presented. Also does not address the magnitude of the challenges but also the upside of the redevelopment, which
Name
Address
would need to address the Punt Road traffic issues and connectivity to the MCG. The precinct has had very poor quality design and construction of residential and office buildings in recent years. Better management of anti-social behaviour is required to improve the amenity of the area, particularly drunken and violent behaviour, broken bottles and rubbish on the street. Encourages the greening of streets. Would like to see the retaining wall at Stewart Street greened with a creeper to preclude graffiti and cool the surface in summer. Need to ensure the railway uses confirm with EPA noise regulations. Endorse the idea of the arts trail but would like it extended to recognise the established galleries north of Swan Street including on Tennyson Street, Tanner Street, Punt Road and Church Street.
Officers Response
vibrancy and vitality; a range of activities encouraged that support the use of an active transit node; and safe, active and convenient entry and exit provided. Detailed design is not an issue which is addressed in a structure plan. Strategy 3.3 under Land Use relates to the issue of management of late night venues.
The Plan includes enhanced street greening on nominated streets. Noise associated with the railway is outside Councils jurisdiction. Recommended Change: That the arts trail be extended to include the existing galleries on Tennyson Street, Tanner Street, Punt Road and Church Street. Council continues to advocate where possible for improved connectivity between different modes of public transport.
10
Resident
Punt Road Cremorne
Richmond Station revitalisation requires a more detailed study by Council to be presented to the State Government, to improve transition between modes and allow for future expansion as required. Feasibility of podium level with airrights sold to private developers or traded for their nearby land should be investigated. Supports objectives around local independent retailers and access to fresh food but sceptical about how Council can achieve this. Should consider options such as reduced rates for greengrocers etc Wants night time activity supported and managed, doesnt want existing venues restricted due to new residents complaining. Encourage Council to look at ways to implement a social housing requirement in new large developments to better integrate it in high density areas and locations with good access to services. Large developments are suitable due to their communal areas such as roof gardens etc Opportunities for signature buildings should be encouraged
Noted. Rate reductions are outside the scope of a structure plan Strategy 3.3 under Land Use relates to the issue of management of late night venues. Objective 5 under the Land Use theme encourages a diversity of living opportunities in relation to housing.
The Plan does not include this level of detail which is more appropriately considered at implementation stage. Page 4 of 52
Name
Address
but further identification of what is considered suitable for a signature or gateway building needs to be done to ensure the design is of a high standard. Punt Road should have smaller style developments rather than large mass blocks to better activate the street. Therefore a higher built form should be encouraged for smaller style developments. Height limits should be increased along Punt Road, Church Street (south of Swan Street) and along the railway lines as this will not impact on current heritage areas and will provide a better edge.
Officers Response
Massing of buildings would be considered at the permit application stage. The Plan specifies 5-6 storeys along Punt Road frontage, transitioning to 2-3 storeys at rear. This is to support a reinvigorated precinct comprising medium scale, well-designed development designed to support mixed commercial and residential uses that would enhance pedestrian amenity at street level and ensure development transitions in scale to adjoining residential areas fronting Wellington Street to protect amenity. The Maltings precinct is covered by an existing Comprehensive Development Zone that specifies the height of any future development on the site.
Council should go further with the Maltings precinct as it is appropriate for large scale development. It should also provide pedestrian and cyclist links to the river and encourage an arts precinct with public squares. 15-20 storeys would be appropriate if 60-80% of the ground floors were public spaces managed or owned by Council. An additional fee on large buildings should be initiated to have more funds for implementing public spaces outlined in the structure plan. Encourage Council to go further with the access and movement ideas such as limiting vehicle flow through dedicated vehicular routes, with other streets restricted to local residents/employees only and traffic islands to allow only pedestrian and cyclist traffic. Reductions in car parking requirements for new developments should be encouraged, with new residents ineligible for on street parking permits. 11 Resident Mary Street Richmond Believes a bicycle lane on Mary Street would impact on the amenity and would prefer it to occur on Coppin Street. Would like this to be discussed as part of a LATM process. Would like Mary Street closed adjacent to the primary school to stop the vehicles rat running at the corner of Church and Swan Street and improve the safety of the students.
Outside scope of Structure Plan
Active forms of transport are encouraged under Access and Movement in the Structure Plan. Strategy 1.5 is to explore opportunities to manage traffic flows in a more efficient and safer way which would occur at the implementation stage.
See response to 1.
Strategy 1.5 under Access and Movement is to explore opportunities to manage traffic flows in a more efficient and safer way which would occur at the implementation stage. Page 5 of 52
Name
12 Resident
Address
Rowena Parade Richmond
Would like the functionality retained and enhanced of pedestrian links north of Richmond Station and Tanner Street.
Officers Response
The objectives and strategies under Access and Movement support improvements to connectivity, accessibility and efficiency. Significant landmarks are identified in accordance with Councils Local Planning Policy 22.03 and include the Pelaco sign. The Land Use Framework Plan identifies the Richmond Station as a key revitalisation area in which underutilised land would be developed; active ground floor uses encouraged to provide vibrancy and vitality; a range of activities encouraged that support the use of an active transit node; and safe, active and convenient entry and exit provided. Detailed design is not an issue which is addressed in a structure plan.
AKM chimney is an existing significant landmark and should be identified as such in the Plan, as should the Pelaco sign.
Residential interface in the area north of Richmond Station and south of Tanner Street should be treated more sensitively, with a 4 storey height limit. More developments at a similar height to the AKM building will overcrowd the area and contrast too much from the low-rise residential area on the north side of Tanner Street. Would be more practical to have the new signature building on the south-east corner of Punt and Swan with underground links to the station. The north east corner should be enhanced as a green, civic space and used for a farmers market. Any development incorporating Richmond Station should be low rise given the engineering and logistic challenges it will involve. Pedestrian link between northern exit of Richmond Station and Tanner Street should be provided with greening and public art. Rowena Parade should have enhanced street greening as it is a major pedestrian link to and from the MCG and Yarra Park. It should also be upgraded as a pedestrian link but not at the expense of on street parking. Similarly, supports bicycle focus as long as on street parking, speed humps and trees are retained. Consider a cycle route along Richmond Terrace as traffic is calm. If a pedestrian priority zone is created along Swan Street near Richmond Station ensure traffic is not inadvertently pushed onto Rowena Parade as it is the only access into the area for traffic heading north.
Enhanced street greening and improved pedestrian links included in Plan under Public Spaces & Access & Movement. Rowena Parade is identified under the Access & Movement theme as having a bicycle focus.
Strategy 1.5 under Access and Movement is to explore opportunities to manage traffic flows in a more efficient and safer way which would occur at the implementation stage.
13
Resident
Mary Street
Pleased about the proposal to develop Mary Street as a 2-way bicycle lane. There has been an increase in traffic and more motorists are using local streets to avoid congestion and sharing the road is
See response to 1.
Page 6 of 52
Name
Address
getting increasingly dangerous. A bike path on Mary Street would provide a safe route and connect to important bike paths at the Yarra and Church Street and Bridge Road.
Officers Response
14
Resident
5-7 storeys fronting Church Street is appropriate as long as the buildings step down to 2-3 storeys at the rear where they meet the sensitive interface with properties fronting Brighton Street.
Figure 9: Built form, designates the interface of the commercial properties on Church Street with the residential properties on Church Street as a sensitive edge requiring appropriate built form treatment in accordance with relevant Local Policies. Parking will be considered in relation to the implementation of those strategies in the Plan which relate to improving the design and management of the movement network to enhance connectivity, accessibility and efficiency. Detailed consideration of parking provision at the planning application stage. The role of a structure plan is to identify and manage areas of changes. There are some locations within the study area where height in excess of 5 storeys is considered appropriate having regard to such matters as access to public transport, existing character, size of land holdings and lack of heritage significance. These include Richmond Station Precinct, East Richmond Station, Burnley Station, south side of Swan Street from Richmond Station Precinct to Burnley Street, Burnley Street Village and South Cremorne. See response to 1.
Parking is a matter of concern due to the narrowness of the streets and the congestion on streets linking Brighton and Church Streets. This results in damage to cars, particularly mirrors. The use of buildings for commercial and retail spaces will aggravate this as we cannot rely on people using public transport or cycling if enough parking is not provided on site.
15
Resident
Tanner Street Richmond
Concerned about the discussion on Richmond Station and the Dimmeys redevelopment reported in the media. Wants a height restriction of 5 storeys and would hate to see the multi-storey developments on Church Street near the Yarra come into Swan Street as they would destroy the area.
16
Resident
Opposed to the introduction of a bike lane in Mary Street as it would halve the amount of parking and it is already sometimes difficult to find a parking space close to home. Mary Street is a residential street and the one-way rule works well to reduce traffic. The creation of a two-way bike path would be dangerous and is better suited to Coppin Street which already has a two-way bike path. Opposed to any more trees being planted in Mary Street as their roots damage houses, pipes and footpaths. Opposed to the restructure of Mary Street as it is already a struggle with car parking and would cause more problems.
17
Resident
See response to 1. Page 7 of 52
Name
18 Resident
Address
Object to a bike lane in Mary Street as it is already difficult to find parking and it is a narrow street that experiences significant traffic. Understands why Mary Street was chosen to have a bike focus but as a resident opposes it due to the difficulty of finding parking and difficult pedestrian access due to the footpath widths so increased bicycle activity and loss of parking would make this worse. More suitable route starting from the river would be up Mary Street until the join between the Alan Bain reserve and Barkley Gardens, to Coppin Street.
Officers Response
See response to 1.
19
Resident
See response to 1.
20
Resident
Opposed to the bike path down Mary Street as it would remove parking which is already hard to find. Believes the idea of a bike path is a good one; however it would be better suited to Coppin Street as it is wider and has a median strip, which could be removed to allow for a bike path. Current parking on Coppin Street could be changed from parallel to 45 or 90 degree parking which would allow the other side of the street to be used as a bicycle thoroughfare. Southern end of Coppin Street provides a boundary to Barkly Gardens so it is just as easily linked to the bike trail along the Yarra River. The northern end is equally as well suited as it continues across Bridge Road and widens to incorporate a larger median strip in the section to Highett Street. The asphalt surface of Coppin Street is in need of repairs or replacement due to the tree roots from the median strip planting so the redevelopment to include bicycle lanes could occur simultaneously. As Mary Street is a one way street at both ends, without allowing bikes to travel the wrong way down the street, it is not feasible to simply increase way finding signage for example. The only way to legally make Mary Street a bicycle thoroughfare, other than swapping half the street for dedicated bike lanes, would be to turn it into a two-way street shared between cars and bicycles and there is less room to do that, even with the removal of parking. Mary Street simply isnt wide enough to accommodate the proposal.
See response to 1.
Page 8 of 52
Name
21 Resident
Address
Canterbury Street Richmond
Overall supportive of the Plan and believes it should produce significant positive effects for the area. Believe the idea of street plantings should be extended to side streets, not just main roads, as they will also be affected by higher-density developments. As older houses with gardens are converted into townhouses and apartment buildings the area needs additional street plantings to improve the aesthetics and air quality. Including this in the Plan will make a significant difference over the long term. Specific suggestions to Canterbury Street, which could be replicated elsewhere, include planting in the grass on street corners and roundabouts, and it should be implemented now in anticipation for the higher density development taking place. Every new development should also be required to incorporate trees in the street frontage which are visible from the street. Opposed to the bike lane in Mary Street Clarification sought on a number of elements of the structure plan Retention of village atmosphere important. Need to ensure congestion isnt worsened through lack of parking spaces in new developments. Concerned about the proposal to turn Mary Street into a bicycle friendly thoroughfare as they will lose 90 car spaces which are required for residents. This will have a flow-on effect on nearby streets and will impact on house prices. As its a narrow street they are concerned about safety of cyclists and residents. Coppin Street already has bike lanes so the Mary Street proposal is superfluous to cyclists. Current amenity of the area is poor due to graffiti and tagging, and Council needs to improve its graffiti removal whilst developing supported youth graffiti programs. Footpath trading is creating OH&S risks and visually detracts from the area. Derelict buildings encourage squatters and pose health and safety risks, with vacant scaffolding acting as a canvas for advertising posters.
Officers Response
Noted. Opportunities for enhanced and new public/civic spaces are identified in the Plan under Public Spaces and specific details of the location of plantings would be considered at the implementation stage.
22 23 24
Resident Resident Resident
Mary Street Stawell Street Richmond Clifton Street Richmond
See response to 1. Response provided to questions of clarification. Noted. Car parking provision would be considered as part of individual planning permit application
25
Resident
See response to 1.
26
Resident
Powlett Street East Melbourne
Outside scope of Structure Plan
Footpath trading is managed under Councils Footpath Trading Policy.
Page 9 of 52
Name
Address
Vandalism and alcohol related crime and violence needs to be addressed by Council, law enforcement and hoteliers. Initiatives to move patrons out of the area after visiting the entertainment venues are important. Varying the late-night entertainment available will also attract a different type of consumer and boost the economic sustainability of the area. Street drinking and begging needs to be addressed. Building of social capital has been neglected in the draft and Council needs to provide opportunities for community members to meet formally and informally to enhance social capital. Query about land use proposed around Park Grove and Bendigo Street, and whether Burnley Park has any changes proposed. Wanted clarification around status of Channel 9 redevelopment. Believe there are inconsistencies between the land use and built form plans with regards to residential/mixed use or just office on the subject site. Therefore they are uncertain as to the intended land use for the site.
Officers Response
Objective 3 under the Land Use responds to night time activity.
Enhanced public and civic spaces are encouraged in the Structure Plan.
27
Resident
Park Grove, Richmond
Clarification provided in email response.
28
Planning Consultant
On behalf of: Church Street Cremorne
Inconsistencies between plans noted. Recommended changes: Amend plans to ensure consistency. Land use plan designates this area with having an office focus with a residential component. The role of a structure plan is to identify and manage areas of change. There are some locations within the study area where greater height is considered appropriate having regard to such matters as access to public transport, existing character, size of land holdings and lack of heritage significance. These include Richmond Station Precinct, East Richmond Station, Burnley Station, south side of Swan Street from Richmond Station Precinct to Burnley Street, Burnley Street Village and South Cremorne.
Believes opportunity exists for residential development at a higher density that does not impact upon existing residential dwellings, and therefore the site should be considered for residential and mixed use land uses. Would support higher building heights in the Cremorne South Office Area as the existing buildings are six stories so would like flexibility to increase the height of the current building. Population growth in Melbourne means that areas such as Richmond and Cremorne need to take full advantage of their location and existing infrastructure. A broader application of increased height to cater for higher density development, mixed use development and commercial development will enhance the activity centre, specifically the Cremorne South Office Area, along similar lines to the 7-10 storeys of the Maltings Precinct. Supports the introduction of public urban art in the area, and improved pedestrian and cyclist linkages.
Noted.
Page 10 of 52
Name
29 Resident
Address
Object to the proposed bicycle lane in Mary Street as the current split one way traffic system is successfully catering for residents. Dont want to see the one way system changed, or any parking removed to allow for a bike lane. Due to the quietness of the bicycles there is the potential for injury to people who are not aware of the bicycle traffic. Already adequate bicycle lanes on all the major roads which can cater for current and future bicycle traffic. If it was to be deemed essential to create another bicycle path Charles Street would be more suitable as it is wider. Current level of pedestrian amenity in the area is poor and the current park near the intersection of Stewart and Wangaratta Streets is small and poor. Supportive of the overall vision for the area but believes the boundary of the Richmond Station Revitalisation Area needs to be clarified and should include their subject site. Proposed heights do not respond appropriately to the strategic opportunities presented by the Richmond Station Revitalisation Area and should be significantly higher - at least 12-15 storeys on land with frontage to Stewart Street, and 710 storeys for the remainder of the land in the Revitalisation Area. No justification is apparent for the reduction in heights between the draft put forward at the Planning Environment and Infrastructure Committee and the draft on exhibition. The proposed heights prevent viable development and there needs to be included an analysis of the impact of height limits of development feasibility, construction costs and housing affordability.
Officers Response
See response to 1.
30
Planning Consultant
On behalf of: Stewart Street, Richmond
Opportunities to improve public space in this vicinity are shown in Figure 10, Public Spaces Action Plan. The precise extent of the area would be clarifies at the implementation stage. The Land Use Framework Plan identifies the Richmond Station as a key revitalisation area in which underutilised land would be developed; active ground floor uses encouraged to provide vibrancy and vitality; a range of activities encouraged that support the use of an active transit node; and safe, active and convenient entry and exit provided. . It is considered to be an area where greater height would be appropriate having regard to such matters as access to public transport, existing character, size of land holdings and lack of heritage significance. Recommended Change: That the nominated maximum height for the Richmond Station Precinct be changed to 7-10 storeys. Addressed under Theme 3, Public Spaces.
Pocket park needs to be better taken advantage of through the closure of the one way street north of the park to provide an expanded and improved public square, improved connection and better pedestrian safety. 31 Resident Brighton Street Richmond Land Use plan needs to be altered as the line for Large Format Retail with Residential Component currently goes through their backyard, as does the built form precinct (Figure 8). Further detail is required as to what appropriate treatments of
The details of specific planning controls to implement the recommendation so the Plan would be considered at the implementation stage. The Cremorne and Church Street Urban Design Framework already provides some insight into the Page 11 of 52
Name
Address
a sensitive edge would mean in an area where 5-6 stories is the preferred maximum height. Believe that setback heights and distances should protect residential zones from shadows and overview, particularly those with heritage overlays. Would like the relevant Local Policy included in the document. Controls around setbacks to reduce visual impact need to be defined.
Officers Response
issues relevant to managing the interface with existing residential areas.
32
Resident
Opposed to the creation of a bike lane in Mary Street as it is a narrow street and parking is required on both sides for the residents use. Removal of parking for a bike lane would make parking impossible. The best interests of residents should outweigh transient bike riders. Currently bike riders use the road in both directions and take responsibility for their own safety and this is a satisfactory use of the thoroughfare. Find it difficult to understand how it could ever have been proposed as Coppin Street and Church Street have bike paths. Area around Richmond Station (Botherambo, Tanner and Margaret Streets and Stewart Place) will benefit from sensible redevelopment that pays attention to the amenity of existing residents. Outlook, noise and light are three important considerations. Designated as 5-6 storeys but this may impact on outlook and lighting that are currently enjoyed so needs scrutiny. Noise from amplifications and announcements at the station is worse than the trains, so any redevelopment that addresses this would be welcomed. Concerned about amenity of the area diminishing if more drinking venues and clubs were introduced. Alcohol fuelled antisocial behaviour is already an issue. Any increase in entertainment venues should be on the south side of the station and fronting Swan Street. Underutilised land should only be developed if there is offstreet car parking and no permits are issued for on-street car parking as otherwise we will be headed for gridlock and a reduction in amenity and safety Opposed to the bike lane in Mary Street as parking is already difficult and if two bike lanes are implemented plus traffic there will not be room for any parking.
See response to 1.
33
Resident
Margaret Street Richmond
These matters would be considered at both the implementation stage and when applications for planning permits are considered.
Noise associated with the railway system is outside the scope of the Plan. This matter is addressed under Land Use, Objective 3.
Car parking provision is considered at the planning permit application stage and Councils parking permit policy does not support parking permits for residents of new developments. See response to 1.
34
Resident
Page 12 of 52
Name
Address
As they pay car registration they should be able to have peace of mind with parking and easy access to and from work. Bicycle riders dont pay registration and probably dont live in the vicinity, rather are just using it as a thoroughfare. The bike path along the Yarra River is a sufficient alternative. The speed of some cyclists would create a safety hazard for pedestrians, particularly the elderly and children.
Officers Response
35
Resident Mary Street Richmond
Opposed to a bike lane in Mary Street as it is too narrow, parking is already limited and the addition of a bike lane would create a safety hazard for cyclists, pedestrians and drivers. A bike lane would also interfere with street greening. Concerned over the restriction of residents car parking on Mary Street and the safety of residents. Parking is in great demand and if a bike lane was built the available parking would be reduced which would have a flow on effect to surrounding streets. Proposed two-way bike lane would result in an increase in drivers travelling the wrong way down the street and put the residents at risk. Cyclists are already well catered for in the area on other streets, particularly Coppin Street. Opposed to the bike path in Mary Street as it is a narrow street and residents require the off street parking, which is already in short supply. Bike riders currently use Mary Street in both directions and take responsibility for their own safety and this is working well. Coppin Street and Church Street already have bike lanes. Mary Street is a narrow, double-headed one way street with residences on both sides. Opposed to the removal of parking to allow for a bike lane as most properties do not have offstreet parking. Coppin Street would be a better alternative as it already has bicycle lanes and traffic lights to cross Swan Street. Objects to the use of Mary Street for a bike path as it would reduce parking for local residents. Cyclists already use the street in both directions so there is no requirement to change anything. Coppin Street is a better alternative due to existing infrastructure including traffic lights at Swan Street. It would
See response to 1.
36
Resident
See response to 1.
37
Resident
See response to 1.
38
Resident
See response to 1.
39
Resident
See response to 1.
Page 13 of 52
Name
Address
not warrant the expense to create a new bike path with one on Coppin Street already.
Officers Response
40
Resident
Object to the creation of a bike path on Mary Street as it is a narrow street and parking is already an issue. Removal of parking would have a detrimental impact on the residents of Mary Street and surrounding streets. Coppin Street would be the preferred option. Supportive of many principles and proposals in the Structure Plan, but concerned over three aspects: 1) lack of information about how the Plan will align with the new State Governments metropolitan planning and transport plans. Similarly, there is no information regarding how the Plan aligns with other government agencies such as VicRoads and other transport bodies, and how it will address congestion and demand on transport in the area. 2) potential for excessive intensive development on the north side of the railway at Richmond Station and the impact this will have on the amenity of residents in the area if buildings are allowed to go to 10 storeys.
See response to 1.
41
Resident
Mary Street
Section 1.3 describes the policy basis of the Plan. Matters pertaining to Access and Movement are considered under Theme 4.
Richmond Station is identified as an area appropriate for revitalisation and this is consistent with State Planning Policy directions. The Plan identifies a sensitive edge to the north which would need to be managed in accordance with existing relevant local policies. See response to 1.
3) lack of detail around the bicycle focus improvements in Mary Street and the impact this may have on parking in the area, and the amenity and safety of residents. Other streets would provide better opportunities for connectivity, particularly Coppin Street. Believe Council should wait for the new state governments metropolitan and transport plan to ensure the Swan Street Structure Plan responds to and aligns with these plans as this would maximise the ability to gain funding and implement the structure plan. This would also allow Council to do more public engagement and consultation on the structure plan. 42 Resident Mary Street Richmond Do not support the bicycle proposal in Mary Street as the removal of parking would create more congestion and make it difficult for residents to park in their own street. Bicycle lane on Coppin Street is sufficient as it has traffic lights and can provide a safe route for cyclists. Would prefer to see money
Council is committed to proactively planning for and managing growth and change in the area irrespective of State policy development.
See response to 1.
Page 14 of 52
Name
Address
spent on upgrading this existing infrastructure rather than creating a new route.
Officers Response
43
Resident
Docker Street Richmond
Doesnt support the proposed height for developments as they are inappropriate and destroy the amenity, skyline and streetscapes. Believes three storeys should be the limit across the whole area, and a referendum of residents should be held to establish everyones views.
The application of blanket mandatory heights is not permissible under the current State planning provisions. Background research and analysis identified variances in built form and land uses across the study area and supports the identification of locations or precincts where further intensification is appropriate. Strategy 1.5 under Access and Movement is to explore opportunities to manage traffic flows in a more efficient and safer way which would occur at the implementation stage. This issue is not within the scope of the structure plan. Issues associated with entertainment uses are addressed under Theme 1, Land Use.
Also concerned about traffic management as congestion is getting worse through bottlenecks at intersections, installation of median strips which reduce the number of lanes and traffic lights too close together. Parking meters are too expensive and do not encourage retail. Encouraging office and residential uses above shops and near entertainment venues is good as long as the existing venues are protected from complaints about noise and people traffic. Hopes the Plan does not result in rate increases, if anything council should be trying to reduce rates. 44 45 46 47 48 49 Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Mary Street Richmond Mary Street Richmond Mary Street Richmond Mary Street Richmond Mary Street Richmond Query on timelines for the structure plan. Object to the proposal of a bike thoroughfare in Mary Street Object to the proposal of a bike thoroughfare in Mary Street Object to the proposal of a bike thoroughfare in Mary Street Object to the proposal of a bike thoroughfare in Mary Street Concerned about the proposed bicycle priority focus in Mary Street and the impact it will have on available parking in both Mary Street and surrounding streets. Opposed to increased priority being given to cyclists in Mary Street as it will make it extremely difficult to park near their homes. Parking is already in demand so if it becomes limited
Rate increases are outside the scope of the Plan. Response provided. See response to 1. See response to 1. See response to 1. See response to 1. See response to 1.
50
Resident Petition
Mary Street Residents
See response to 1.
Page 15 of 52
Name
Address
to one side of the road it would deny half the residents the ability to park near their homes. This would reduce their quality of life, the security of their cars and their sense of wellbeing. Cyclists should be utilising Coppin Street as it is safer and has traffic lights at Swan Street.
Officers Response
51
Resident
Kelso Street Cremorne
Thinks the draft is doing a great job. Understands that the north side of Swan Street needs to be 4 storeys for overshadowing reasons, but would like greater height on the southern side. Cremorne and Richmond Station should also have higher height limits, between 10-15 storeys due to the proximity to the city, public transport and bike paths and services. Traffic will always remain a problem, but that will just make other forms of transport more attractive. Its more sustainable to have development here than on the fringe. Allowing more housing in Cremorne will reduce the pressure on existing heritage areas, and therefore they can have lower height controls in these areas. Structure plan should focus on good design outcomes rather than heights as active interfaces and interesting architecture are of most importance. Opposed to the proposed bike path in Mary Street as the removal of 100 car parking spaces will result in congestion in the neighbouring streets and the devaluing of their properties. Concerned about the possible reduction in parking in Mary Street. On street parking in Zone 7 is already congested and limited so to remove more for a bike path would be illogical. Cant imagine the path would be heavily used anyway. Would like to see statistics on cyclist injuries heading NorthSouth to justify the need to improve the bike paths, and as to why Mary Street has been chosen over Coppin Street. Would like further clarification as to what is proposed in Mary Street as if parking is to be removed then residents should have been better consulted with. Supportive of a number of initiatives in the structure plan including the upgrade of the railway overpass, introduction of taxi ranks and works to improve the East Richmond Station
Noted. The role of a structure plan is to identify and manage areas of change. It is agreed that there are some locations within the study area where greater height would be appropriate having regard to such matters as access to public transport, existing character, size of land holdings and lack of heritage significance. These include Richmond Station Precinct, East Richmond Station, Burnley Station, south side of Swan Street from Richmond Station Precinct to Burnley Street, Burnley Street Village and South Cremorne. Recommended Change: Increased preferred maximum heights in nominated areas as shown in Attachment 3.
52
Resident
See response to 1.
53
Resident
Abinger Street Richmond
See response to 1.
54
Resident
See response to 1.
55
Resident
See response to 1.
Page 16 of 52
Name
Address
precinct. Not supportive of the proposed bike path in Mary Street as increased bicycle traffic and reduced parking provision would result in accidents. Would like Coppin Street used for cycle traffic instead as it is wider and would better accommodate a bike path, which could dogleg around the Barkley Gardens to meet the Yarra Trail.
Officers Response
56
Resident
Concerned about the how the proposed bicycle focus for Mary Street would be implemented. The street is too narrow for a two way bike path unless parking was removed, which would not be supported by the residents. It would also potentially impact on access for large vehicles (delivery trucks, emergency vehicles, construction vehicles etc) in the street. The narrowness of the footpaths would result in the bike lane being in close proximity to the front of houses, and therefore could create conflict between pedestrians and cyclists. Council should assess shared access bicycle lanes in other areas to determine their safety for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles. Railway overpass is an eyesore and provides a good opportunity to be upgraded as it is a unique entryway and could be used as for a garden setting. Included a draft design for the overpass. Opposed to the bike lane in Mary Street and the removal of half the on street parking. This will impact on Mary Street and the surrounding streets. It will also create safety issues due to the speed cyclists travel at. Children and the elderly will be put at risk if bikes are able to travel in both directions. There is already a bike lane on Coppin Street so building another one would be a waste of money. Disappointed in the lack of communication and transparency around the proposal. Supportive of bike paths in general, but does not believe Mary Street is the right location as the area is already under stress for car traffic and parking. Coppin Street would be more suitable. Believes it is unrealistic to use Mary Street as a bike route. There is already a shortage of on street parking due to the
See response to 1.
57
Resident
Sidwell Street East St Kilda
Proposed gateway design noted.
58
Resident
See response to 1.
59
Resident
Elm Grove Richmond
See response to 1.
60
Resident
Name
Address
street also being used by visitors to Swan Street and the sporting precinct and the parking restrictions are rarely enforced by inspectors. Would like to recommend the drainage to be improved in Mary Street with kerb outstands converted into rain gardens. Could also consider making the east side of Mary Street from Wall Street to Swan Street, and the west side from Wall Street to Bridge Road permit only parking.
Officers Response
61
Resident
On behalf of: Mary Street Aged Care Facility
Concerned about the introduction of a bike lane in Mary Street as it would cause safety issues due to the speed the bikes travel and the volume and frequency of bikes in the narrow street. Bikes should instead use Coppin Street It would also limit the parking available for their families when they come and visit. Opposed to the bike lane in Mary Street as it appears the impact of the proposal has not been fully considered and the rationale is solely driven by cyclists. The impact on parking for residents would be significant on the wider area as it is already limited. There are already bike paths in the area, such as on Church Street. Caution against increased activity in the area bounded by Stewart Street, Tanner Street, Wangaratta Street and Punt Road. The development of Richmond Station should be finalised before any other strategies are considered, and the impact of the sporting precinct on Swan Street cannot be overemphasized. Commercial intrusion in Stewart Street should not be allowed.
See response to 1.
62
Resident
Elm Grove Richmond
See response to 1.
63
Resident/Body Corporation
Tanner St, Margaret St & Stewart St Richmond
Proposed development of Richmond Station is under consideration by the State Government and it is not realistic to wait on that before implementing the structure plan.
Stewart Street is already included in a Mixed Use Zone where some forms of commercial development are already permissible. Noted. The proposal under consideration as part of C130 is not inconsistent with the arts focus. Council has now resolved not to support that amendment to the Yarra Planning Scheme. See response to 1.
64
Planning Consultant
Harcourt Parade, Cremorne
The designation of the subject site as within an area of arts and local creative industries should be removed as it is not consistent with Amendment C130 which is currently proposed for the site. Concerned about the proposed bicycle throughway in Mary Street as it is currently a quiet, one way street. Plan is unclear as to whether bicycle traffic would be one or two ways, and what this would mean in terms of on street
65
Resident
Page 18 of 52
Name
Address
parking. Coppin Street would be a better alternative, and access to the Yarra trail could be made through the Alan Bain Reserve.
Officers Response
66
Resident
Concerned about the proposed changes to Mary Street as turning it into a bicycle thoroughfare will cause major parking problems, which is already at a premium. Bicycle use should be encouraged in the area, and Coppin Street would be better suited to this kind of facility as it already has traffic lights at Swan Street and Bridge Road, and is a wider street. Opposed to changes in Mary Street that would alter traffic flows and make it more bike friendly. Removing parking spaces will be problematic and difficult to enforce. Having cars parked on both sides provides a natural barrier and makes the street safer for children as it reduces the speed of cars. Allowing bikes to travel in both directions would encourage drivers to do the same thing. Would not like to see the kerbside planting removed to allow for a bike lane. There is no need to make Mary Street bike friendly with Coppin Street so close by. Opposed to turning Mary Street into a bicycle friendly thoroughfare. The street is very narrow which could cause accidents with cyclists and allowing cyclists to travel in both directions may confuse drivers. The removal of parking will create congestion problems in the area and cause families to walk long distances to their cars. There are already enough cycle paths in Richmond so there is no need for an additional one. Coppin Street should be upgraded instead. Object to the proposed changes to parking in Mary Street as it is already difficult to find parking in the area, particularly as it is not policed by parking inspectors. Mary Street is a quiet street so there is no reason why bikes shouldnt be able to travel in both directions without changing the parking situation. Opposed to the removal of parking in Mary Street as they already experience increasing difficulty finding parking in the
See response to 1.
67
Resident
Malleson Street Richmond
See response to 1.
68
Resident
Charles Street Richmond
See response to 1.
69
Resident
Elm Grove Richmond
See response to 1.
70
Resident
Name
71 Resident
Address
area. Mary Street Richmond
Object to the proposed bike lane in Mary Street as it will impact on the safety and utility of the area. Having a two-way bike lane will cause conflict with cars and there are no traffic lights at the intersection of Mary Street and Swan Street. The silence and speed of bikes will also cause a safety hazard, particularly for older people. The reduction in car parking spaces to accommodate the bike lane will impact on the residents of the area. Coppin Street already has a bike lane and has traffic lights at Swan Street so should be utilised instead. Proposal to remove parking on Mary Street to introduce a bike lane is unacceptable as the availability of on-street parking is critical for residents. The Plan needs further clarification to outline whether parking is to be removed, or if Mary Street will only include way finding signage. Council should amend the Plan by removing Mary Street as the nominated bicycle link and replacing it with Coppin Street. Received an anonymous letter about the proposal to remove parking in Mary Street and introduce a bicycle lane. Wanted clarification as to whether this was the case, as the map within the structure plan did not verify this claim. However, if it is proposed to remove parking for a bike lane then he would object. Object to the proposal to turn Mary Street into a bicycle thoroughfare as it will drastically impact on the street. It is a narrow, one-way street and the residents need to have parking on both sides. If this is removed then it will impact on the residents of surrounding streets. The Plan includes enhancing pedestrian access along Balmain Street to connect the TAFE with Swan Street, however two issues need consideration. The street is heavily utilised by cars, often at excessive speed between Green Street and Church Street, and the footpath under the railway underpass is narrow on both sides. Traffic calming is required on Green Street and the underpass could be better lit, and with traffic calming measures.
Officers Response
See response to 1.
72
Resident
See response to 1.
73
Resident
See response to 1.
74
Resident
Elm Grove Richmond
See response to 1.
75
Resident
Balmain Street Cremorne
Strategy 1.5 under Access and Movement is to explore opportunities to manage traffic flows in a more efficient and safer way which would occur at the implementation stage.
Page 20 of 52
Name
76 Planning Consultant
Address
On behalf of a multiple land holder
The built form parameters will severely restrict viable development opportunities and therefore inhibit the provision of more housing choice and the creation of local jobs, and therefore not deliver on the additional floor space forecast for office, retail and restaurant sectors. Therefore, if the scale of built form remains as is proposed then the stated objectives of the structure plan will not be able to be achieved. The lack of identified strategic redevelopment sites in the area is not reflective of the actual conditions in the area as there are many sites that could be classified as underutilised, including along Church Street south of Swan Street and larger landholdings in Cremorne. However even those sites designated as underutilised still have proposed heights of 4-6 storeys and therefore will have limited floor space. The key revitalisation areas around Richmond Station and East Richmond Station includes land covered by heritage controls, and therefore the scale of development will be more limited than on other less constrained land, which therefore will not ensure height limits of 4-6 storeys are approved. As Swan Street is a Major Activity Centre the terminology of low, mid rise and higher built form and the associated preferred maximum height limits do not equate. The only site identified for higher built form is the Maltings Precinct, which already has approvals for development, despite there being many other sites that would be appropriate for a scale of this nature and possibly higher. Therefore the building heights in the draft would qualify as low-rise and these heights will do little to encourage redevelopment and hinder the achievement of several of the objectives of the Plan. There are inconsistencies between the strategies which promote further intensification etc and the heights proposed. The structure plan should have identified precincts with limited constraints and recommended built form outcomes that encourage significant development. The heights proposed in precincts 7, 8 and 9 do not make it worthwhile, from a financial perspective, to redevelop the land. Therefore the structure plan lacks credibility in terms of land price and building and development costs in the area. This will limit the potential for change to upgrade, enhance and revitalise the study area. Council needs to indicate what zones it may consider in the Cremorne area to accompany the land use framework plan.
Officers Response
The role of a structure plan is to identify and manage areas of change. It is agreed that there are some locations within the study area where greater height would be appropriate having regard to such matters as access to public transport, existing character, size of land holdings and lack of heritage significance. These include Richmond Station Precinct, East Richmond Station, Burnley Station, south side of Swan Street from Richmond Station Precinct to Burnley Street, Burnley Street Village and South Cremorne. The identification of future strategic redevelopment sites will be considered as part of the implementation plan. Recommended Change: Increase preferred maximum heights in nominated areas as shown in Attachment 3. Revise Plan to ensure consistency.
Noted. Economic analysis of development costs not considered within the scope of the Plan.
Specific zones will be considered at the implementation stage. Page 21 of 52
Name
77 Resident
Address
Elm Grove, Richmond
Opposed to the proposed bike lane in Mary Street as it is already a struggle to find parking and the bike lane will only add congestion as Mary Street residents will have to look elsewhere for parking. Pleased Council is addressing plans for the development of the area. Concerned that their property is not included in the area planned for office focus with residential component as they are near existing residences and would like to redevelop their warehouse to include artist studios, apartments and galleries. Believe that this is closely aligned with the Plan except that their property is a short distance from the proposed art route and the zone where residential would be permitted. They believe Hill Street is a perfect location for developments with a mix of retail at ground level with 4-5 storeys of residential/home office/studios above, which would contribute to the vibrancy of the local community. Concerned that large developers will turn the area into a sterile location by obtaining permits through VCAT which vastly exceed the preferred heights for the area. Concerned about how the Plan is going to be implemented and how they can start to realise the objectives of the Plan. Would like to see the structure plan used as a guide to ensure development is taking the general direction agreed on but not as a rigid set of regulations whereby streets adjacent to those intended to be part of the arts precinct cannot also be considered. Concerned about the proposed green link in Mary Street as the only feasible way to implement it would be the removal of parking on one or both sides of the street to turn it into bike lanes. This will reduce parking for residents of Mary Street and the surrounds and have a significant impact on their amenity and the value of their homes. Encouraging the use of Mary Street as a thoroughfare will increase the flow of people and therefore noise pollution and reduce the enjoyment of their homes. There are already delays turning out of Mary Street into Swan Street and encouraging pedestrians and cyclists to use the street will make this worse. It would also be unsafe. Coppin Street already has a bike lane so it would be unnecessary to make Mary Street a green link also.
Officers Response
See response to 1.
78
Resident/Business
Hill Street Cremorne
Area designated as office focus with residential component requires further detailed analysis at implementation stage to identify individual sites that may be potential strategic redevelopment sites. Broad rezoning of this precinct is not under consideration.
Noted. That is a matter which would be considered at the implementation stage.
79
Resident
See response to 1.
Page 22 of 52
Name
80 Resident
Address
Francis Street Richmond
Concerned about the proposed bicycle focus in Mary Street as the installation of a two-way bike path would require the removal of approximately 100 car parking spaces. It is already difficult to find a parking space, particularly close to Bridge Road or Swan Street. The removal of parking would force Mary Street residents to park on surrounding streets which are already overcrowded. The construction of more speed humps in Mary Street would slow down motorists and would make conditions safer for cyclists travelling in either direction. Concerned about the safety of bike riders and drivers if Mary Street gets the proposed bike lane as the street is narrow. Cyclists currently ride without helmets and lights, on the footpath as the street is narrow and the wrong way down the street and this will only get worse. Seeking clarification about the proposal for Mary Street and whether parking is to be removed. If so this would cause frustration for residents on Mary Street and side streets as there would be increased pressure and competition for car parking spaces. Note that there are great ideas and focuses in the Plan that would benefit Richmond. Concern about the bike priority route for Mary Street and whether it would require the removal of existing street parking. Would object to any lessening of parking as a reduction would impact the street and its residents. Supportive of the overall objectives of the structure plan however concerned about the preferred maximum building height identified for the site. Have strong reservations about the preferred maximum building heights for the three train stations as they are inconsistent with State and local planning policies which encourage higher density development on lands which are well served by public transport. The proposed heights do not fail to respond to the development potential of the land nor do they achieve the policy aims around integration of transport and land use. This will limit the ability of the activity centre to become a focal point for housing, transport and economic
Officers Response
See response to 1.
81
Resident
See response to 1.
82
Business
Bridge Road, Richmond
See response to 1.
83
Resident
Mary Street
See response to 1.
84
Planning Consultant
On behalf of: Swan Street Richmond
Noted. The role of a structure plan is to identify and manage areas of change. It is agreed that there are some locations within the study area where greater height would be appropriate having regard to such matters as access to public transport, existing character, size of land holdings and lack of heritage significance. These include Richmond Station Precinct, East Richmond Station, Burnley Station, south side of Swan Street from Richmond Page 23 of 52
Name
Address
activities as envisaged. These heights should be replaced with an approach based on the context of the site, its ability to absorb additional height, the merit of the design proposed and its ability to contribute positively to the character of the area. Support Councils commitment to providing a signature building on or adjacent to each of the train stations, but consider it would be better suited to land surrounding the railway stations instead. With regards to Burnley Station, it has constraints which limit its potential to develop a signature building, including the limited development area, poor pedestrian environment, location away from Swan Street, the impact on residents to the south and the cost of developing on the station. Believe their site provides an opportunity for a signature building as it is accessible from all forms of public transport and provides pedestrian connectivity, is a large site, has exposure to both Swan Street and Burnley Street and would provide a recognisable reference point for Burnley Station, whilst connecting the station back with Swan Street. It is also removed from any sensitive interfaces. Developing this site as the signature building would be consistent with many of the objectives of the structure plan and therefore the proposed signature building should be allocated to this site. Council should support an increased building height and density on the subject site in order to encourage a development outcome which is able to achieve the objectives of Council for the area. The viability of providing a high quality built form solution for the site is directly influenced by the sites potential yield, and 5-6 storeys would not achieve this.
Officers Response
Station Precinct to Burnley Street, Burnley Street Village and South Cremorne.
The identification of future strategic redevelopment sites will be considered as part of the implementation plan. Recommended Change: Increase preferred maximum heights in nominated areas as shown in Attachment 3.
The Plan identifies the Burnley Station as an opportunity for a new signature building.
85
Resident
On behalf of: Golden Square Residents Group
Swan Street is virtually two storey with the occasional three storey building the entire length and it has had this low scale faade for more than a century. We should be protecting the strip at this scale, not developing it up to four stories.
Swan Street does not reflect a consistent built form pattern. There are variances in built form and land uses along the length of Swan Street that require more detailed consideration with respect to future development opportunities. The annotation in relation to revitalisation needs to be read in conjunction with the Built Form Framework Plan which does not identify major change to built form in the area described. See response to 1. Page 24 of 52
There is a row of cottages on the corner of Burnley and Swan Streets that are included in the key revitalisation area that should not be given over to high rise, and high density development. 86 Resident Disapproves of the proposed Mary Street bicycle friendly thoroughfare as it will significantly reduce parking spaces
Name
Address
which are already difficult to find, particularly when there is an event at the MCG. It would also devalue the properties.
Officers Response
87
Resident
Believes people in the wider area will be disadvantaged if parking is removed for a bike lane in Mary Street as it is already hard to find parking spaces. Would like both sides of Charles Street to be made permit only parking (currently one side is permit and the other is 2 hours). Concerned about the proposed bike path in Mary Street as cannot see how it could be implemented without the removal of parking and garden beds. The idea of a bike lane is good, but not along Mary Street. Concerned about the conversion of Mary Street into a cycle path. It is already difficult to find a park so losing half the parking spaces would have huge implications. In favour of a bike focus for Mary Street. Would like it implemented to retain the one-way flow for cars, retain the parking install signs saying one way, bicycles excepted and bicycles have priority, install additional speed humps and paint a green strip on the east side of the street that is oneway north and on the west half of the street that is one-way south to support bicycle priority flow. Could also consider implementing short sections without parking with a centre median strip to allow cars to pull over and allow oncoming bicycle traffic to pass through. Against a new cycle lane down Mary Street due to the loss of parking and the problems this would cause. Would prefer cyclists to continue to use Coppin Street. Believes the idea of developing a bike path in Mary Street is a waste of money as there are no real issues with the current system, except that it is dangerous to cross Swan Street and Bridge Road from Mary Street as there are no traffic lights. Better to improve the existing bike lane on Coppin Street as it already has traffic lights. Large trucks should be banned from using the street. Parking on Mary Street is already at capacity and adding a bike lane will only add further pressure.
See response to 1.
88
Resident
See response to 1.
89
Resident
See response to 1.
90
Resident
See response to 1.
91
Resident
See response to 1.
92
Resident
See response to 1.
Page 25 of 52
Name
93 Resident
Address
Would not object to improved bicycle signage, but would object to the removal of parking or trees, the introduction of a two-way path/priority for bikes or bicycle traffic lights at any intersections. Coppin Street already has a bike lane and traffic lights and should be the focus for cyclists wishing to get onto the Capital City Trail. Unclear as to how the Plan will impact on Mary Street, but has been told it will drastically reduce parking spaces. Would not support the loss of parking spaces but is all for bicycle lanes, improved lighting etc. Would like to see if there is a more suitable street, such as Coppin Street, or if the bike lane could be implemented without the loss of parking. Strongly objects to turning Mary Street into a bicycle friendly thoroughfare. Opposed to a bike lane in Mary Street as it will drastically reduce the already limited parking. Would like to know if Council would provide financial compensation to property owners if the proposed bicycle lane impacts on property values. Objects to Mary Street becoming a bike thoroughfare as it will severely decrease the already limited parking spaces. As Mary Street is a quiet street with speed bumps there is no danger with cars and bikes sharing the road as it is. Coppin Street would be a better alternative for a redeveloped bike lane. Appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback. Concerned about the lack of high school options for boys in Richmond and has seen little evidence that there is any meaningful coordination between Council, State Government departments and the federal government. Encouraged to see the need for a secondary school in Richmond was acknowledged in the structure plan and would be happy to contribute to a further discussion on the issue. Objects to the proposal to convert one side of Mary Street into a bicycle lane. It will increase the likelihood of accidents and cars will travel at
Officers Response
See response to 1.
94
Resident
See response to 1.
95
Resident
Elm Grove Richmond Mary Street Richmond
See response to 1.
96
Resident
See response to 1.
97
Resident
See response to 1.
98
Resident
Bell Street Richmond
Whilst the Plan acknowledges the lack of a secondary school in the area, the establishment of a school within the study area is outside the scope of the Plan.
99
Resident
Malleson Street Richmond
See response to 1.
Page 26 of 52
Name
Address
higher speeds without the barrier of cars parked on both sides. It will also widen the street and increase the incidence of cars and trucks travelling the wrong way. The increased speed of cars will also reduce the amenity of the area due to the increased noise levels. The impact of removing parking will be significant on other streets in the area as parking is already at a premium. It will also have an adverse impact on property prices. Would be more appropriate to implement this on Coppin Street as it is wider and will have less detriment to the community. Council should put its resources into policing people driving the wrong way down one way streets and reducing the speed at which people drive down Malleson Street.
Officers Response
100
Resident
Not in favour of the proposal for Mary Street in any form. Does not want any parking removed as it is already difficult to find due to the large apartment buildings being developed, and patrons from venues on Bridge Road parking in the street. Issues of noise, rubbish etc from patrons leaving alcohol premises on Bridge Road an issue, particularly in the rear laneway. No-one polices the bike riders from riding illegally. Coppin Street would be a much better alternative. Land Use Should encourage the use of retail spaces to create a design precinct. Richmond already has a reputation as a design suburb but this should be solidified with support from Council. Should encourage the establishment of a design centre or a design cultivation centre for kids. Edgy design elements could be incorporated into buildings, pavement and lighting. Built Form Area between Church Street and Brighton Street should be limited to 4 storeys. The entire area bounded by Church, Swan and the Yarra is a heritage precinct and having 6 storeys is inappropriate. Maintaining 3 storeys on the east side of Church Street is great, however the available blocks between the Yarra and Swan Street are very large so even with visually recessive upper levels they will create bulky and domineering buildings. This will destroy the character of the street. Concerned about opportunities for signature buildings with
See response to 1.
101
Resident
Objective 1 & 2 under the Land Use theme provides encouragement for independent fashion and local retailers to have a stronger presence in Swan Street although Councils role in relation to this issue is limited.
Future development proposals will be considered against relevant policy provisions, including heritage policy considerations. The Built Form Objectives for Precinct 8 respond to these concerns.
Figure 9 Built Form Plan nominates important Page 27 of 52
Name
Address
higher built form and what this will mean.
Officers Response
components of signature buildings including high quality architecture and unique, active uses at ground level. Improvements to the public domain are considered under Public Spaces.
Public Spaces Very few public spaces so it would be good to create more interesting access to the Yarra River, potentially by upgrading the walkway at Mary Street. Barkly Gardens would make a fantastic design garden with contemporary landscaping and a showcase for public sculptures. Would be good to have access from Richmond to Herring Island which currently belongs to South Yarra. The eastern side of Church Street between the Yarra and Swan Street and the southern side of Swan between Punt Road and Church Street have great characteristics that evoke the vibe of the laneways in the city and should be capitalised for interesting design spaces. 102 Resident Objects to Mary Street being used as a bike thoroughfare as it is already overcrowded by people parking there to visit Bridge Road. Council should be developing creative ways to increase parking spaces to reduce congestion, rather than taking them away for bike lanes. Issues with litter, violence, damage to cars and noise from people leaving venues on Bridge Road on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. Melrose Street Cremorne Concerned about the height limits in Precinct 6 (Punt Road edge) and precinct 7 (Cremorne). Like the requirements around sensitive edges, the low to mid rise scale and the need to have upper level setbacks as these justly imply protection for their property from large developments. However believe the 5-6 height with a transition to 2-3 storeys at the rear that is designated for Precinct 6 should be repeated in Precinct 7 and Precinct 9. The 5-6 storey height limit is too high for Punt Road anyway and it should be reduced to 4 storeys to avoid creating a canyon like feeling for residents to the rear. Strongly support the idea of utilising the existing car park at Kangan TAFE as open space, it is what the area needs as it is severely lacking in accessible open space. Would also like to suggest the land on the south corner of Gough and Cremorne Streets could present an opportunity for semi enclosed public open space.
A number of ideas are included in the Plan to enhance civic spaces and showcase local arts. See Figure 10, Public Spaces.
See response to 1.
103
Resident
The Plan specifies 5-6 storeys along Punt Road frontage, transitioning to 2-3 storeys at rear. This is to support a reinvigorated precinct comprising medium scale, well-designed development designed to support mixed commercial and residential uses that would enhance pedestrian amenity at street level and ensure development transitions in scale to adjoining residential areas fronting Wellington Street to protect amenity. Precinct 7 provides a variety of built form and sites that vary in size and does not offer the same context as Precinct 6. Therefore a different approach is warranted. Precinct 9 (Maltings) is already subject to a Comprehensive Development Zone which specifies built form requirements, Page 28 of 52
Name
Address
Enhanced street greening and proposed green links are excellent, however should also link with a new pedestrian crossing over Punt Road to create a pedestrian friendly axis down Blanche Street between Goschs paddock and the Kangan open space. Strongly support objectives around housing options offering accessibility to all as maintaining the diversity in the area is important. Noted.
Officers Response
including height.
Noted.
104
Resident
Bunting Street Richmond
Limited meter parking should be installed along Swan Street and the surrounds to stop people parking in the area to get to the sporting precinct. Many of the one-way streets are used by vehicles going the wrong way which is very dangerous. Larger signage and more enforcement are required. New multi-level apartments should be required to provide sufficient parking including visitor parking. They should also provide outdoor areas for residents and not build over the complete footprint. Need stricter rules about footpath trading as access for prams and wheelchairs is very difficult due to tables, bill boards etc.
The allocation of parking and traffic enforcement are not within the scope of a structure plan.
The provision of parking in association with new development is part of the planning permit application process.
Footpath trading is managed in accordance with Councils Footpath Trading Policy. Not within scope of the Plan Strategy 3.3 under Land Use relates to the issue of management of late night venues. Overlooking is considered as part of planning application process.
Regularly broken bottles and rubbish on the pavement near hotels and fast food outlets so stricter enforcement needs to be introduced. Public open space is limited and whilst the idea of shared multi-purpose roof spaces may be good for the residents of that particular building they can cause privacy issues for surrounding buildings and residents. Some modern building styles and cheap construction techniques look sad after a few years of weathering. Idea of having fresh food shops is appealing but the viability of it surviving in competition to the supermarket is reduced. Imposing of height limits on both sides of Swan Street should become law to avoid compromise from different agendas such
Building materials are not within scope of the Plan.
The establishment of fresh food retailers is encouraged under Theme 1, Land Use, Objective 1. Whilst preferred maximum heights are nominated in the Plan, the Victoria Planning system does not Page 29 of 52
Name
Address
as developers and the State Government.
Officers Response
provide any opportunity to apply mandatory height controls. A large area at the western end of the Study area is covered by a Heritage Overlay. The heritage values of the area have been considered during the development of the Plan. The Built Form Objectives relating to Precinct 3 include ensuring that new development sensitively responds to adjoining low-scale residential areas. A new style of easy access tram stop is currently being considered for Bridge Road and may be suitable in Swan Street. Noted.
The existing Victorian-era buildings should be preserved as examples of the history of Richmond. Heritage Overlays in practice do not save or preserve a building from development or destruction. Increasing the height of buildings east of Burnley Street to 5-6 storeys is excessive and will be overbearing and contribute to amenity issues. Tram super stops are not viable as Swan Street is too narrow.
105
Planning Consultant
On behalf of: Gwynne Street Cremorne
Generally supportive of the indicative built form outcomes envisaged for Cremorne. Supportive of the discretionary approach over arbitrary mandatory provisions and hope any future planning provisions will reflect this. Understand that the future evolution of the precinct is for office, educational and arts-related activities and believe that residential land use is compatible with this direction, so it would be short sighted to prevent all future residential use in the precinct. Particularly as an element of residential development is likely to be the major catalyst for urban renewal in the area. Oppose the continued use of the Business 3 Zone as it will prevent the sort of reinvestment required to make Cremorne a vibrant and successful mixed use precinct where employment, educational and accommodation used can complement one another. Aware that none of the generic VPP zones adequately encourage employment uses whilst also enabling residential development in a manner that doesnt prejudice the ongoing operations of existing or potential non-residential activities in the area. Therefore propose a Special Use Zone based on the Business 2 Zone, with dwellings prohibited unless: - the dwelling is not located on the ground or first floor to ensure active commercial frontages and a reasonable proportion of employment floor space per site - the dwelling is designed to protect the future amenity of residents against potential emissions created by employment and other uses.
The Cremorne area is one of Yarras few employment precincts and in order to ensure that the area continues to support land uses which generate employment it will be important to apply a zoning which encourages that and does not allow residential use to dislocate employment related uses.
Page 30 of 52
Name
Address
The strategic, contextual and location attributes of Cremorne are too valuable to waste and with careful planning and design residential developments could be incorporated. Urge Council to think outside the square and contemplate the formulation of a non-generic zone.
Officers Response
106
Environmental Community Group
Swan Street precinct presents a major opportunity to showcase best practice in respect to carbon constrained urban development in a dense inner urban mixed residential, commercial, retail and industrial precinct. Document needs to explicitly restate Councils commitment to urban sustainability and reflect the actions in pre-existing Council policies. Therefore the purpose of the structure plan should be expanded to include the point: Plan and demonstrate Councils commitment to reducing Yarras environmental footprint, GHG emissions and increasing sustainability at an urban scale Inadequate to promote or encourage the incorporation of best practice ESD principles, we should be requiring and showcasing them. Community consultation and review phase appropriate to the Implementation Plan should be added.
Objective 5 under the Built Form theme promotes ESD initiatives as part of new development. This will be supported by Councils proposed ESD policy which is currently under consideration by the Minister for Planning. It is not considered appropriate to reiterate Councils policies in every strategic document.
Future consultation will be informed by the Implementation plan. Any proposed amendment to the Yarra Planning Scheme would be publicly exhibited. Community infrastructure planning is being undertaken as part of a separate process for the Richmond area.
Suggest an additional strategy under Objective 5, Land Use: Audit and assess the adequacy of the provision of community facilities to existing and proposed residents and provide necessary facilities identified by this process to ensure that all residences (existing or proposed) are within a reasonable walking or riding distance of appropriate community facilities. Suggest additional strategy under Objective 9, Land Use; To develop a sub-system of locally accessible and highly visible waste transfer stations, recycling and compost centres for use by residents and businesses within walking distance. Suggests that the strategies under Objective 8 (To provide a range of mixed-use buildings and spaces) should more directly refer to encouraging residential uses above offices, large format retail and office and over convenience retail, lifestyle and entertainment as shown in Figure 7: Land Use.
This is not within the scope of the Plan but could be considered as part of future planning for waste management.
Strategy 7.2 encourages additional housing above ground floor uses in identified locations. This will require further investigation at the implementation stage. Strategy 8.3 specifically encourages office and Page 31 of 52
Name
Address
Officers Response
housing above existing commercial uses along Punt Road.
Suggest additional strategy under Objective 7, Land Use: Provide local, pedestrian accessible community gardening opportunities appropriate for the increased demand resulting from projected residential growth.
In June 2011, Council adopted guidelines to help identify and manage new opportunities for different kinds of urban agriculture activities. To encourage a collaborative approach, Council will employ a Community Gardens Facilitator who will be responsible for liaising with residents and groups wishing to establish Urban Agriculture projects. These matters are considered as part of the planning permit application process.
Suggest additional strategies to Objective 3, Access and Movement: Provide where possible and appropriate dedicated cycle and pedestrian routes to the appropriate community facilities, transport interchanges and shopping to ensure that existing residences are appropriately connected by safe, accessible pathways. Ensure that all new commercial and retail properties are accompanied by adequate and where necessary secure bike parking and storage Ensure that existing transport interchanges, educational facilities and commercial and retail properties are accompanied by adequate, and where necessary secure bike parking and storage. Structure Plan would benefit from a specific strategic commitment to planting of street trees and the identification of at least one separated on road bicycle route, as committed to in the Customer Service Guarantee.
Enhanced street greening is included under the Public Spaces Theme and Council is currently its Street Tree Strategy as a separate process. Similarly Strategy 3.3 under Access and Movement Strategy 3.3 refers to providing pedestrian and bicycle priority improvements in identified locations. This matter is addressed under Public Spaces theme under Objective 1 & 2.
Would also like to see Councils commitment for new parks and the conversion of hard road surface to landscaping reflected in the Plan. Congratulates Council for the progressive approach to developing a sustainable local neighbourhood. 107 Resident Elm Grove Richmond Built Form Endorse redevelopment of Richmond Station as a key transport hub but not at 10 storeys as this would set a
The Plan identifies that Richmond Station could become a well-designed, world class precinct comprising higher to medium scale buildings that Page 32 of 52
Name
Address
precedent.
Officers Response
relate to Richmond Station and environs in its role as a high profile transport interchange and gateway to the activity centre and nearby sports and entertainment precinct. It could also support a range of uses and new public spaces that create a lively, functional and safe street environment. Existing heritage considerations would continue to apply in relation to consideration of any applications for development. Burnley station is included as a locale that is appropriate for revitalisation. Heritage controls apply over parts of the study area and the important contribution of existing heritage fabric is acknowledged in the Plan. Comments noted.
Building on East Richmond Station would destroy the heritage nature. Burnley Station is unattractive and a low rise development would enhance it. Swan Street from Charles Street to Punt Road has many historic buildings which should not be demolished for new, 4 storey developments as it would destroy the amenity of a key part of Richmond. Taller buildings would create a cold and shaded wind tunnel and would not be conducive to activities in the precinct. More should be done to utilise upper stories of existing buildings which are currently vacant. It can also be possible to add an extra storey to existing buildings without them being seen at street level. Public Spaces The Church Street entrance to the library has deteriorated and anything that can be done to clean it up and make it attractive would be supported. East Richmond Station car park is used for Coles parking and access is already tight so reducing parking will add to the congestion that already exists in Richmond. Access and Movement There are already sufficient bike routes so providing an additional one south of the railway line would only add congestion. Proposal to make Mary Street a priority for bicycles will seriously impact on the residents of Mary Street and surrounding streets as parking would be more difficult to find than it currently is.
Objective 4 under Public Spaces is to develop a series of appropriately located, well designed and architecturally distinct community uses. The Plan does not include any proposals to reduce car parking at East Richmond Station.
See response to 1.
Page 33 of 52
Name
108 Resident
Address
Wellington Street Cremorne
Supportive of overall need for the Plan. Concerned about traffic congestion throughout the study area, and how the structure plan will address this particularly with increased numbers of residents. Punt Road is a key concern as cars attempting to bypass it use Wellington Street, which is dangerous and not conducive to the residential nature of the street. Believe Punt Road should be limited to 2-3 storeys to ensure Wellington Street doesnt become boxed in. Any higher would impact on the amenity of the area, particularly the sense of space and access to natural light. Reducing the heights will also reduce the number of new cars in the area.
Officers Response
The exploration of opportunities to manage traffic flows in a more efficient and safer manner is included as Strategy 1.5 under Access & Movement.
The Plan specifies 5-6 storeys along Punt Road frontage, transitioning to 2-3 storeys at rear. This is to support a reinvigorated precinct comprising medium scale, well-designed development designed to support mixed commercial and residential uses that would enhance pedestrian amenity at street level and ensure development transitions in scale to adjoining residential areas fronting Wellington Street to protect amenity. Additional open space in Cremorne is proposed Public Spaces.
The area is very short on open space, so Council should consider turning the undeveloped land in Cremorne Street into a park. Wellington Street could be designed as a home zone with paving and other elements that do not allow through traffic and encourage residents to use the street. Richmond has inadequate secondary school facilities for boys so Council should consider expanding the TAFE to include secondary education, potentially using the undeveloped land in Cremorne Street for the secondary school, or turning Richmond Girls College into a coeducational school. Supportive of the vision for the area and objectives 2, 3 and 4 of the land use theme. Would like the themes in objectives 1 and 6 expanded to connect education/retail/business such as food, fashion, arts/culture and sport/activity. Objectives 5, 7 and 8 in land use are generally okay, but the introduction of further green space on underutilised land should be included.
The details of streetscape improvements will be considered at the implementation stage.
Whilst the Plan acknowledges the lack of a secondary school in the area, the establishment of a school within the study area is outside the scope of the Plan.
Objective 2 (To develop links between higher education providers and associated business opportunities) is considered sufficient to address this issue without the need to specifically identify every opportunity in the Plan. The issue of green space is considered in the Public Spaces theme. Page 34 of 52
Name
Address
Supportive of Theme 2 (built form) but would like more information about how Council will apply the plans to ensure consistency and speed up the approval process. Would also like to know what the bigger plan for Punt Road is, and who has the jurisdiction.
Officers Response
Implementation of the Plan is likely to include changes to the Yarra Planning Scheme which will be identified in the Implementation Plan. Applications for planning permits would be considered in accordance with the normal planning process. The Objectives and strategies do not identify the study area solely as an arts precinct but encourage a mix of uses and recognise its role in relation to fashion and sport.
Supportive of Themes 3 and 4 but maybe more thought is needed as Richmond may be more than an arts precinct, instead it could have a couple of themes arts/culture, fashion and sport.
109
Resident
Objects to any bicycle treatment in Mary Street that would result in the reduction in parking as there is already insufficient parking for residents in the area due to parking being waived In new developments and people parking in the area to visit Bridge Road. Proposed bike lane in Mary Street would be dangerous for cyclists as the intersections at both Bridge Road and Swan Street are too dangerous to cross. Coppin Street should be used as an alternative, with Copenhagen style lanes as it provides a link to the river through the Barkly Gardens and links to the north, east and west along Highett Street. Objects to the 4 storey height limit along Swan Street abutting residential properties to the north and south. Objects to the blanket 8 storey height limit in other parts where they abut existing residential properties. Clients site is in one of the designated key revitalisation areas however there appears to be a gap between the policy intent and the built form outcomes expressed in Figure 9. Strategies and objectives encourage denser built form around train stations, more intense housing in appropriate areas and identify three key revitalisation areas, however the heights shown do not reflect this. 4 storey height limits are applied uniformly along the southern spine of Swan Street. Therefore, the Plan does not appropriately analyse the opportunities and constraints presented in different sections of Swan Street. The land between the south side of Swan Street and the
See response to 1.
Figure 9: Built Form, clearly identifies sensitive edges where higher built form meets existing residential areas and the need for appropriate built form treatment in accordance with existing Council policies. The role of a structure plan is to identify and manage areas of change. It is agreed that there are some locations within the study area where greater height would be appropriate having regard to such matters as access to public transport, existing character, size of land holdings and lack of heritage significance. These include Richmond Station Precinct, East Richmond Station, Burnley Station, south side of Swan Street from Richmond Station Precinct to Burnley Street, Burnley Street Village and South Cremorne. Page 35 of 52
110
Planning Consultant
On behalf of : Swan Street and Church Street Richmond
Name
Address
railway presents fewer constraints for development due to the lack of adjoining residential neighbourhoods and this should be recognised as an opportunity for higher forms of development. The Plan notes the relationship with the South Yarra Activity Centre but does not capitalise on the potential geographical, transport, visual and economic relationships. Built form outcome of 4 storeys for the subject site is at odds with the MSS which contemplates development of 6 storeys in activity centres and strategic redevelopment sites, and in some cases even higher. Consider built form of 6-7 storeys should be encouraged in such locations to reflect the opportunities presented by the Church Street/Swan Street intersection, and the policy intent for more intense development in key revitalisation areas. View-line analysis from various vantage points should be undertaken to allow a robust discussion of heights in key revitalisation areas. No spatial analysis appears to have been done to ensure the structure plan is able to implement the projected growth in residents and retail and commercial floor space. These projections do not appear to be matched by land and development opportunities in the Plan. The Plan does not adequately take into account opportunities for site amalgamation, such as the car park to the rear of buildings on the Swan Street/Church Street south-west corner. Development over 4 storeys could be supported here without impacting on the integrity or the views of heritage buildings facing Swan and Church Streets. Structure Plan in its current form would not realise many of the strategic objectives it sets out to achieve and it may in fact stifle, rather than encourage development in the areas identified. Further clarity is needed around the future use and development of the car park behind Coles as it is designated for social and cultural activities but could present a unique opportunity for a range of uses at a higher built form. Welcome any proposed improvements to East Richmond Station and any proposed improvements for pedestrian connectivity, safety and accessibility.
Officers Response
Recommended Change: Increased preferred maximum heights in nominated areas as shown in Attachment 3.
Background research and analysis was undertaken to inform the preparation of the Issues Paper & draft Plan considered at the April Council meeting. A detailed capacity analysis has not yet been undertaken in relation to revised heights included in current draft Plan.
Noted. Council is currently undertaking detailed design work in association with improvements to the public domain in the vicinity of the Station.
111
Planning Consultant
On behalf of: Gwynne Street
Concerned about the emphasis on office/commercial land use for the subject site and seeks a mix of office/commercial and
The Cremorne area is one of Yarras few employment precincts and Council wishes to Page 36 of 52
Name
Address
Cremorne
residential land uses. Believe the lower levels of development are suitable for commercial and car parking with upper levels suited for residential uses. Providing this mixture would support Councils objectives of providing local job opportunities as well as housing choice. Rosella Complex provides a unique opportunity to support further intensification of development with an integrated approach but 5-6 storeys is neither economically feasible nor reflective of the character and context of the land and its environs. The properties abutting the railway corridor have the potential to accommodate buildings of 5-10 storeys, stepping down to Balmain Street and towards the Yarra without impacting on the amenity of neighbouring properties. The Rosella Complex properties fronting Palmer Street should be redeveloped with transitional height arrangements and recessed upper levels due to the established low rise residential area to the west. Believe the Rosella Complex should be designated a strategic redevelopment site and included in an additional revitalisation area that encompasses the commercial/industrial area to the east of the railway corridor to Church Street. Railway corridors provide unique opportunities to pursue high density development spines to accommodate workers and residents close to public transport modes and bicycle path networks. Maximum heights of 5-6 storeys do not respond to the areas strategic imperatives and demonstrates a lack of detailed consideration of the opportunities and constraints in particular locations throughout the study area. The proposed building heights will stifle redevelopment and fail to deliver on the other aspirations and strategic objectives of the structure plan, including the creation of job and the provision of greater diversity of housing.
Officers Response
ensure that the area continues to support land uses which generate employment and to minimise opportunities for residential land use to dislocate employment related uses. The role of a structure plan is to identify and manage areas of change. It is agreed that there are some locations within the study area where greater height would be appropriate having regard to such matters as access to public transport, existing character, size of land holdings and lack of heritage significance. These include South Cremorne (south of Balmain Street and west of Church Street). Recommended Change: Increase preferred maximum heights in South Cremorne as shown in Attachment 3.
112
Resident
Object to any bicycle treatment in Mary Street that would result in a loss of parking in the area. Applauds Councils commitment to providing safe cycling in the city but doesnt think Mary Street is a viable solution as the entry and exit points do not have traffic lights which would make it dangerous. Coppin Street already provides a safe cycling thoroughfare with traffic lights and access to the Yarra river to the south and
See response to 1.
Page 37 of 52
Name
Address
cycle paths to the north so Councils efforts should be used to improve these existing facilities.
Officers Response
113
Resident
Object to the proposed plan to turn Mary Street into a 2-way bike path as parking in the area is already very difficult and the bike path would make this markedly worse. It would also negatively impact on property values in the area. With bike paths existing on Coppin Street there is no need for another bike path as there is not sufficient North-South traffic to justify the inconvenience to ratepayers. Council should introduce bicycles excepted signs on all the one way streets to make the whole suburb more bicyclefriendly. It should be possible to allow for the needs of all road users whilst not reducing parking facilities. Objects to the proposed bicycle friendly thoroughfare on Mary Street as the loss of parking will impact on surrounding streets and the street is too narrow for both a shared bike path and cars. Doesnt believe there are enough cyclists to warrant the bicycle thoroughfare particularly as there are other bike paths in the area. Concerned this approach going to be used across all the narrow streets in Richmond. Believe the Business 3 Zone that applies to the southern part of the precinct is redundant and should be rezoned to the Business 2 Zone or Mixed Use Zone in order to realise the preferred land use outcomes. This should be recognised as an implementation strategy.
See response to 1.
114
Resident
Hunter Street Richmond
This is a specific matter which would be considered as part of Councils overall bicycle strategy for Yarra.
115
Resident
Elm Grove Richmond
See response to 1.
116
Planning Consultant
On behalf of: Swan Street and Coppin Street Richmond
Whilst there may be some opportunities for rezoning within the study area to support the objectives of the Plan and these will be considered at the implementation stage. However the Cremorne area is one of Yarras few employment precincts and Council wishes to ensure that the area continues to support land uses which generate employment and to minimise opportunities for residential land use to dislocate employment related uses. The role of a structure plan is to identify and manage areas of change. It is agreed that there are some locations within the study area where greater height would be appropriate having regard to such matters as access to public transport, existing character, size of land holdings and lack of heritage significance. These include the south Page 38 of 52
Proposed 4 storey maximum height would unreasonably limit development potential. Believe the preferred heights should be informed by an assessment of the unique opportunities and constraints of each parcel of land or precinct. The building heights should be appropriate to a major activity centre and the opportunities presented by land on the south side of Swan Street and north of the railway line. This includes relatively
Name
Address
large land parcels and few, if any, sensitive interfaces, heritage considerations and is well serviced by public transport and services.
Officers Response
side of Swan Street from Richmond Station Precinct to Burnley Street where a preferred maximum height of 5-6 storeys is considered appropriate. Recommended Change: Increased preferred maximum heights in nominated areas as shown in Attachment 3. Inconsistencies to be addressed in proposed revisions to current draft Plan.
117
Resident/Business
Swan Street, Richmond
Apparent inconsistencies between height limits proposed in the MSS and the Built Form plan, but both preferred maximum heights are excessive for a heritage area of primarily 1-2 stories. However believe the three storey street faade height is acceptable as it is equivalent to the current two storey th Victorian construction, and the 4 storey at the rear should be able to be accommodated. This does raise questions about the appropriateness of 5-6 storeys in the other Victorian strip shopping activity centres in Yarra though. Three storey faade height in Swan Street is not objected to but it needs to be made clear that these height provisions are subject to consistency with existing heritage controls. The structure plan does not clarify that redevelopment is encouraged on non-contributory buildings, but that the conservation of heritage facades is still expected. There has been a positive trend towards more residential developments at Burnley Village and this should be encouraged, particularly close to the station. However it could be seriously affected by promoting the area as an entertainment precinct due to the resulting noise and behaviour problems. Good to see pedestrian priority is to be improved at the intersection of Swan and Burnley Streets as the volume of traffic and turning movements results in long waits for pedestrians. Changes need to be made to improve both the vehicular and pedestrian safety and this intersection. The structure plan should recognise the mixed use nature of the Cremorne area and propose a more appropriate zone.
Relevant policy provisions will be considered as part of a planning permit application. Strategies under Objective 1 of the Built Form theme acknowledge the importance of existing heritage fabric and the contribution it makes. Activation of the Burnley Street Village is encouraged. There is no particular emphasis on consolidating entertainment activities in this locale.
Active forms of transport and improved connectivity are encouraged in the Plan under the Access and Movement theme.
Future rezoning consistent with the objectives of the Plan will be considered as part of the implementation stage. Noted.
118
Planning Consultant
Generally agree with the strategies which promote the redevelopment of strategically important and relatively unconstrained and underutilised land, as well as the vision for Richmond Station and surrounds.
Page 39 of 52
Name
Address
Concerned primarily about the preferred maximum height of 56 storeys as it is restrictive for a site adjacent to such a major transport interchange and is contrary to a number of the objectives within the Plan which promote the development of signature buildings on or adjacent to Richmond Station. There is a disconnect between the built form outcomes being sought in the objectives and what will be achieved under the nominated maximum building heights. Believe the subject site represents an ideal location for higher built form given its distance from established residential areas, distance from listed heritage buildings and its position at the gateway to Swan Street, and proximity to Richmond Station and the sports and recreation precinct. The presence of heritage controls throughout large sections of the structure plan area significantly limits the extent of land that can support any substantial height or density. Therefore land that is unconstrained by heritage controls should be able to perform to their maximum potential with regards to development densities. 5-6 stories for land around the three train stations will not meet this potential. Preferred maximum heights are contrary to objectives in both State and Local planning policies, and the structure plan. 5-6 storeys will constrain the development potential of the site and will not achieve the integrated land use and transport objectives and the ability for the activity centre to become a focal point for housing, transport and economic activities as envisaged within the Yarra Planning Scheme and the structure plan. The subject site has the potential to accommodate a signature building due to its location, accessibility and the suitability of the environment surrounding the site to support a higher built form gateway development. 5-6 storeys is inconsistent with the built form objectives of the structure plan and will limit the urban design contribution able to be made to the precinct. The proposed Building Heights and Setbacks for the Richmond Station precinct should be revised to better reflect the context and ability to absorb additional building heights with little impact to existing residential areas.
Officers Response
The Land Use Framework Plan identifies the Richmond Station as a key revitalisation area in which underutilised land would be developed; active ground floor uses encouraged to provide vibrancy and vitality; a range of activities encouraged that support the use of an active transit node; and safe, active and convenient entry and exit provided. . It is considered to be an area where greater height would be appropriate having regard to such matters as access to public transport, existing character, size of land holdings and lack of heritage significance. Recommended Change: That the nominated maximum height for the Richmond Station Precinct be changed to 7-10 storeys.
119
Resident
Richmond Terrace (plus petition signatures)
Proposal for a green space at the meeting of Richmond Terrace and Docker Streets to provide some much needed public open space in the area as there is currently limited and will be required to support the population increases in the
The proposal is currently being considered by Councils Open Space Unit. Recommended Change: Include proposed open Page 40 of 52
Name
Address
area. The proposed site has views of the city and has sufficient space for grass, trees and seats. It would not close off through traffic or limit vehicle access to adjacent properties but would deter the use of the area for rat-running. Enclose a draft design of the park.
Officers Response
space in Richmond Terrace on Figure 10, Public Spaces Action Plan.
120
Resident
Punt Road Cremorne
Cremorne is an area that has and will undergo a character change and significant urban renewal. It offers a means of relieving pressure from other areas of Yarra, including heritage precincts, and should be viewed in a more ambitious manner in the Structure Plan. There has been little recognition of the ability to support high density development around Richmond Station and the benefits this would bring due to its location. Punt Road is affected by high volumes of traffic and amenity impacts; however quality residential development with appropriate noise attenuation treatments could turn this around, however the structure plan does little to achieve this by limiting the heights to 5-6 storeys. The area has access to all necessary services but the Structure Plan is short sighted in its views for change in the Cremorne and Punt Road areas. They have a lot of potential and so require a re-think, particularly at a time when pressure for housing is so substantial. Thinks the Plan is thorough and has strong merit but would like the draft to outline where Council will place its priority. Plan fails to recognise the impact congestion of the M1 corridor will have on the precinct once it reaches capacity. It will reduce the vibrancy and amenity of Swan Street and so Council should recognise in the Plan the need for an alternative east-west road transport crossing for Melbourne, north of the CBD. The structure plan recognises the need to redevelop Richmond Station but is unclear what this will involve and when it will occur. The revitalisation of the station will drive the redevelopment of the precinct so more emphasis needs to be placed on this in the structure plan to improve the quality of the retail offerings in the station area. No mention of the type of street furniture that might be used in
The Plan clearly nominates areas for change within the Study area including in the vicinity of the Richmond Station.
121
Resident
Derby Street Richmond
Priorities for implementation will be addressed in the Implementation Plan. This is a metropolitan road issue which is not within the scope of the Plan.
The State Government is responsible for redevelopment of the Station.
Specific details of street furniture would be Page 41 of 52
Name
Address
the precinct. Emphasis is on lighting and landscaping and more recognition is needed on improved standards of street furniture as the existing furniture is old and outdated.
Officers Response
considered at the implementation stage.
122
Resident
Chestnut Street Cremorne
Development in Yarra does not need to be high-rise, but European densities could be achieved at 6-8 stories. It would be unfortunate for Yarra to close the door on higher built form as landmark buildings create interest to the skyline. In particular Richmond and Burnley Stations are locations were taller buildings could be built with limited impact on surrounding residential properties and make a positive impact on relatively ugly/industrial sites whilst taking advantage of the high accessibility of the locations. Swan Street is lucky to have 3 train stations and a tram route which creates real public transport options. Concerned that there is the perception of an antidevelopment mentality in Yarra which will result in difficulties for people be able to afford to move into or stay in the area. There are many properties on the south side of Swan Street, particularly between Church and Burnley Streets that 4 storeys would be an underdevelopment, particularly as there are existing heritage buildings of at least that height along Swan Street. Supports the incorporation of WSUD principles into street design and encouraging best practice ESD principles into new development. Supports development that encourages engagement with the Yarra River, provided impacts of development on the river are avoided or mitigated. Sections of the study area are subject to riverine flooding and overland flows from the underground drainage system so any new or redevelopment must take this flooding into consideration and adhere to Melbourne Waters Guidelines for Development in Flood-prone Areas. Parts of the study area will also be affected by inundation associated with sea level rise and consideration should be taken when setting development requirements proposed in the Swan Street Structure Plan. Melbourne Waters Richmond Quarry Main Drain is located within the study area and any new or modified land use or development that would impact upon the drain should be avoided. This may include impacts from the construction of
It is agreed that there are some locations within the study area where greater height would be appropriate having regard to such matters as access to public transport, existing character, size of land holdings and lack of heritage significance. These include the south side of Swan Street from Richmond Station Precinct to Burnley Street where a preferred maximum height of 5-6 storeys is considered appropriate. Recommended Change: Increased preferred maximum heights in nominated areas as shown in Attachment 3.
123
Melbourne Water
Comments are noted and most would be considered at the implementation stage or at the time of consideration of applications for development. Strategy 2.7 under Public Spaces is to improve existing, and develop new, links to the Yarra River.
Page 42 of 52
Name
Address
basements or construction activity that involves pile driving/ground anchors. Any upgrades to pedestrian/cycle/shared paths and routes will need to take into consideration Melbourne Waters Shared Pathway Guidelines.
Officers Response
124
Planning Consultant
Site is within the Burnley Station key revitalisation area. There appears to be a gap in the policy intent and the built form outcomes expressed on the Built Form map. The objectives encourage denser built forms around train stations, more intensive housing in appropriate areas and key revitalisation areas, however the building heights do not differentiate along Swan Street north and provide a uniform 4 storeys. These built form outcomes are at odds with the MSS which contemplates development of 6 storeys inactivity centres, and even possibly higher. The structure plan fails to describe the opportunities presented by different sub-precincts that would lead to different built form outcomes. The built form map should be amended to reflect the policy intent for more intense development in key locations, therefore higher development in the key revitalisation areas in the order of 6 storeys. The Plan does not adequately consider opportunities for site amalgamation and the significant redevelopment opportunities this could present. The Plan fails to recognise that the north side of Swan Street presents fewer overshadowing constraints for development and that this part of Richmond has much fewer constraints generally, most notably the absence of heritage overlays or significant buildings. Disappointed that the heights recommended to Council by Officers seeking built forms of up to 6 storeys in this precinct has been ignored. Structure Plan in its current form would not realise many of the strategic objectives it sets out to achieve and may stifle rather than encourage development in the areas identified. The Plan notes the relationship with the South Yarra Activity Centre but does not capitalise on the potential geographical, transport, visual and economic relationships. No spatial analysis appears to have been done to ensure the
Inconsistencies noted. To be addressed in proposed revisions.
It is agreed that there are some locations within the study area where greater height would be appropriate having regard to such matters as access to public transport, existing character, size of land holdings and lack of heritage significance. These include the south side of Swan Street from Richmond Station Precinct to Burnley Street where a preferred maximum height of 5-6 storeys is considered appropriate. Recommended Change: Increased preferred maximum heights in nominated areas as shown in Attachment 3.
Background research and analysis was Page 43 of 52
Name
Address
structure plan is able to implement the projected growth in residents and retail and commercial floor space. These projections do not appear to be matched by land and development opportunities in the Plan. Pedestrian access to Burnley Station could be improved through mixed-use opportunities in the Burnley Village precinct, potentially with a new north-south pedestrian link between Cutter Street, the train station and potentially Adam Street.
Officers Response
undertaken to inform the preparation of the Issues Paper & draft Plan considered at the April Council meeting. A detailed capacity analysis has not yet been undertaken in relation to revised heights included in current draft Plan. Strategy 1.2 under Access and Movement relates to improving access to train stations.
125
Planning Consultant
On behalf of: South end of Church Street Cremorne
Believe the Swan Street Activity Centre has the potential to absorb greater housing growth without compromising established residential areas due to the context and availability of services and facilities in the area. In particular this includes the subject site, the Rosella Complex, land adjacent to the train stations, the Richmond Maltings precinct and a strip along Punt Road. Yarra has limited land opportunities to deliver housing and these key redevelopment site present a unique opportunity to meet State housing policy. Corner and landmark sites provide further opportunities for increased density. Would like a reference to residential uses within the future character and building guidelines for the Cremorne South Office Area and modify the preferred land use for the Cremorne South Office Area in Figure 7: Land use from Office Focus with Residential Component to Office/Residential. Believe it is necessary to use underutilised land and strategic redevelopment sites to accommodate residential growth and therefore a specific reference to residential land use is required in the guidelines to promote this activity. Residential activity will support the core retail role of Swan Street and the existing commercial activity along Church Street. The reduction of heights in the Cremorne South area from the 7-10 stories proposed by Council Officers through the Stakeholder Group process to 5-6 stories represents a gross underdevelopment of the precinct. The original working version applied logical and rational preferred height limits, informed by rigorous analysis and consideration. 5-6 stories in this area does not reflect the existing or approved built form and there is precedent for high density development up to 9 stories, including a permit used for the
The Cremorne area is one of Yarras few employment precincts and Council wishes to ensure that the area continues to support land uses which generate employment and to minimise opportunities for residential land use to dislocate employment related uses.
The role of a structure plan is to identify and manage areas of change. It is agreed that there are some locations within the study area where greater height would be appropriate having regard to such matters as access to public transport, existing character, size of land holdings and lack of heritage significance. These include South Cremorne (south of Balmain Street and west of Church Street). Recommended Change: Increase preferred maximum heights in South Cremorne as shown in Attachment 3.
Page 44 of 52
Name
Address
subject site in July 2010 for 9 stories. In setting height limits a Structure Plan should not ignore existing built form or the reality of recent approvals. Preferred building heights must be considered in the context of the surrounding neighbourhood, including that of other municipalities. The Forest Hill Precinct in Stonington lies just south of the subject site and includes major residential towers, some up to 32 storeys tall and deserve consideration as part of the surrounding context. Support the designation of the site as one that requires high architectural quality, higher built form than the surrounding context and have an active ground floor however it should be marked at a similar scale to Richmond Station as the development opportunity is as important due to its role as the gateway to the City of Yarra. Believe the site is located within one of three areas capable of accommodating building heights of more than 10 stories and that a high quality, high density development will contribute to the diversity of built form and create a sense of arrival into Yarra. Believe the wording in Figure 7 should be modified to remove any emphasis to a specific land use over another, or simply changed to mixed use to provide the necessary flexibility. As the site has direct access to public transport, public open space and is not surrounded by sensitive land uses it is suitable for significant residential development which will contribute to a vibrant community and support urban consolidation strategies. The subject site and its immediate surrounds should be identified as a key revitalisation area as it will encourage development of underutilised and low amenity land at the gateway to the municipality. Agree with the designation of Church Street for enhanced pedestrian permeability and visual amenity and enhanced pedestrian links and public transport services. Support the pedestrian link between Dale Street and the south-eastern rail lines. Would like the Dale Street reserve and City Link off-ramp reserve added as open space on the appropriate plans.
Officers Response
The wording of Figure 7 is designed to encourage specific land use in accordance with the Plans objectives.
It is not considered that this location warrants designation as a key revitalisation area.
Recommended Change: Change all plans to show these reserves. See response to 1. Page 45 of 52
126
Resident
Concerned about the proposed bike lane in Mary Street and the impact it will have on available parking. Bikes currently
Name
Address
have free and safe access through Mary Street and surrounding streets and there is no reason to make changes. Reducing the parking will have a severe impact on residents in both Mary Street and surrounding streets, particularly for families. This will also impact on housing prices.
Officers Response
127
Resident
Wellington Street Cremorne
Disappointed in the move to make the areas surrounding Richmond Station and along Punt Road high-rise of 5-10 storeys. This will impact on their amenity and the current infrastructure will not be able to cope with the additional residents. The laneways and roads behind Punt Road are narrow and already overused. The small residential pocked in Wellington Street will be overwhelmed by this scale of development. Supports the move to introduce a new signature building at the intersection of Punt Road and Swan Street or near the station, however it must be sustainable and not too high 4 stories would be sufficient. Richmond Station could be designed with mixed business/commercial/retail and residential but using a low rise development to prevent an eyesore from impacting on surrounding attractions such as the sporting precinct. Does not support the proposal to convert Mary Street into a key bicycle route. The route on Coppin Street is well used and it would seem logical to develop and improve this route rather than spend money on a new route down Mary Street. The Coppin Street route provides protection at the Swan Street crossing due to signalised lights for both pedestrians and cyclists. South of Swan Street the bike path could join existing routes through the Barkly Gardens to meet the Main Yarra Trail along the river. The removal of parking on one side of Mary Street will in effect be a widening of the roadway which will attract more cars to use Mary Street, and their speeds will increase. Supportive of the Vision for the future of Swan Street. Agree with the proposed future land use which locates the Hotel in an area of retail and residential land use, and primarily focuses entertainment uses closer to Punt Road and Burnley Street. However the structure plan and zones should be flexible
The Plan specifies 5-6 storeys along Punt Road frontage, transitioning to 2-3 storeys at rear. This is to support a reinvigorated precinct comprising medium scale, well-designed development designed to support mixed commercial and residential uses that would enhance pedestrian amenity at street level and ensure development transitions in scale to adjoining residential areas fronting Wellington Street to protect amenity.
128
Resident
Elm Grove Richmond
See response to 1.
129
Business
Swan Street Richmond
Any proposed rezoning will be considered as part of the Implementation Plan.
Page 46 of 52
Name
Address
enough to permit smaller licensed restaurants/cages/bars and other retail uses with residential development above and behind. Rezoning parts of Swan Street will be necessary to facilitate these kinds of uses. Have already lodged a combined planning scheme amendment and permit application (C107) to rezone the subject land from a Business 4 Zone to a Business 1 Zone to permit residential development with the permit proposing additions and alterations to the existing hotel, a shop and residential apartments. Generally agree with the proposed built form outcomes as building forms should reflect the street wall heights of existing older buildings, with additional upper levels set back further. Given the varied streetscape character suggests that height guidelines should focus on satisfying the contextual and qualitative built form objectives rather than placing emphasis on a particular number of building levels.
Officers Response
Consideration of any application for development will be based on consideration of specific context as well as the preferred maximum heights.
130
Resident
Alphington
Structure Plan exacerbates planning mistakes of the past as it is too simplistic to address the need for housing stock by encouraging destruction of the built environment which characterises the rich cultural and social heritage of the area. Promotes development of poorly constructed blocks of flats which will be destructive to the social, economic and built-form fabric. Does not promote a model of organic growth, instead will place pressure for boundary-to-boundary high-rise, developer driven planning. Will destroy the sense of continuity of place and alienate the community and visitors from enjoying the interesting nooks and crannies, streetscapes and viewscapes that currently exist. This will impact on the business economy of the area. Removes opportunities for appropriate and communityrelevant businesses to establish and will remove smaller existing businesses as developers will try and buy their properties to redevelop. Removes the housing choice options and will contribute to an unstable, transient population which brings with it a decline in community pride and an escalation of socially undesirable activities. Will disenfranchise the elderly, contribute to a decline in local and state birth-rate and price individuals and couples out of
The Structure Plan is designed to identify the scope and location of change at the same time identifying those characteristics of the area which it is considered should be protected.
Page 47 of 52
Name
Address
owning their own property. Does nothing to ensure building heights, design, siting, or orientation on each site is appropriate in context. Nor does it ensure new buildings reach high levels of sustainability through building materials and the use of rainwater harvesting, solar energy, wind energy and superior levels of insulation. Does not acknowledge forthcoming requirements for premises to have audits on their environmental impacts nor ensure that all new buildings are able to operate without a reliance and dependence on energy consumption. Removes the likelihood of retaining and enhancing existing public open space and the vegetation contained within it as they become too valuable as real estate. This will happen to laneways as well. Makes no allowance for the needs of existing and future community with regards to services such as police stations, education facilities, workplaces for both skilled and unskilled employment, community meeting places, bicycle parking, health clinics etc. Council must amend the documentation to ensure the height limits are clear, concrete and enforceable so developers cannot view them as the starting point, which would then set precedents for the whole area. The infrastructure in the area such as sewerage pipes are circa 1895 and are already stretched to capacity so any new development of higher density living will test them beyond their capacity. It is unlikely new subterranean pipes would be possible without major impacts on the street surfaces, public transport, businesses and residences. The provision of subterranean multilevel car parking is problematic if Council doesnt acknowledge that the area is flood-prone. Underground car parks, elevators and generator rooms associated with new towers will be at serious risk of inundation. The structure plan does not provide an appropriate guide for urban renewal and will not achieve a sustainable, liveable, workable, organically grown, safe community.
Officers Response
The Structure Plan is a high level strategy document which, whilst providing more locally specific content than the MSS, does not address specific contextual issues which would be considered as part of the planning permit application process. ESD initiatives are encouraged under Objective 5, Built Form theme and objectives and strategies relating to public spaces are included in the Public Space theme.
Planning for these facilities is the responsibility of State and local government as well as the private sector and Council is already engaged in a separate process in relation to infrastructure planning. Mandatory heights controls are not possible within the context of the State planning system.
Planning for infrastructure and car parking is undertaken at the development application stage.
131
Resident
Existing sewerage system is already showing signs of wear and does not need further pressure placed on it from increased development. Dont need any new, tacky developments to replace existing
Planning for sewerage infrastructure is the responsibility of Melbourne Water and is undertaken in the context of future development projections. Heritage controls apply over parts of the study Page 48 of 52
Name
Address
heritage fabric. Would be interested to know how many residents would be in favour of just leaving the streets alone, particularly the heritage buildings.
Officers Response
area and the important contribution of existing heritage fabric is acknowledged in the Plan.
132
Department of Transport (DOT)
Rail Corridor & Stations In principle support for investigation of potential air rights development opportunities above the railway corridor. Proposed development should not preclude future rail corridor expansion. Any proposal to build over railway should be approved by DoT Transport and access implications for all modes of transport should be taken into consideration with respect to proposed development. Future developments should be appropriately set back from the rail corridor boundary, or be designed in a way that will not unduly prejudice future railway development options. The proposed Built Form: Building heights and Setbacks plan should illustrate a buffer zone along the rail corridor to note that future rail requirements need to be determined and may have an impact on adjacent development along the railway corridor. Cross sections included in Future Character and Building Guidelines, should include notation that clearly specifies cross sections are indicative only. A collaborative approach to resolving complex transport issues is encouraged. Tram Services & Stops Supports upgrade of key tram stop locations along tram routes included in the structure plan boundary. Strengthen interchange opportunities Proposals to improve tram priority welcomed. Tram stop optimisation encouraged Efforts should be made to minimise traffic congestion & potential tram conflicts associated with future development along Swan Street. General Comments
Comments noted. Any buffer requirements associated with the rail corridor would be need to c considered via a separate and fully consultative process.
The objectives and strategies under Access and Movement support minimisation of congestion and tram conflicts.
Page 49 of 52
Name
Address

Encourage accessibility & sustainability and amend text to reflect this. Various notations on plans suggested.
Officers Response
Addressed in proposed revisions to draft Plan
133
VicRoads
Little discussion on parking and how it will be managed. Cycling along Bridge Road and Swan Street should be supported. Future redevelopment of Richmond Station should include careful consideration of improvements for all modes of transport to Punt Road. Pedestrian improvements along Punt Road should not be at the expense of vehicular movements. If proposed, a bicycle priority crossing at intersection of Rowena Street & Punt Road would not be supported. Rowena not on principal bicycle network. At grade pedestrian crossing point at intersection of Blanche Street & Punt Road is not supported. Swan Street should be denoted in the plan as a bicycle focus route given it is included in the Principal Bicycle Network.
Comments noted including lack of support for pedestrian crossing of Punt Road. The objectives and strategies under Access and Movement support appropriate management of all modes of transport. Management of parking would be considered at the development application stage.
The Structure Plan seeks to identify additional routes that provide improved local connectivity over and above the Principal Bicycle Network. Figure 11 shows Swan Street as having a public transport focus however this does not mean that other forms of transport will be ignored or forced out.
Proposals for art installations on Richmond Rail Overpass would require separate approval. Comments noted. Further discussion required.
134
Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD)
Comments on February Draft of Structure Plan: Generally supportive of land use objectives. Further details should be provided on the use of the term appropriate and how appropriate is to be applied & determined. Implementation plan should include details regarding roles, responsibilities and timeline. Generally supportive of preferred building heights for various areas & provides consistency with the centres role as a Major Activity Centre. Supportive of extra height for future development at
Page 50 of 52
Name
Address
each of the train stations. Does not support solar access to south side of Swan Street at all times throughout the year. Regarded as unreasonable request and further analysis of potential overshadowing and impact on surrounding land use should be undertaken.
Officers Response
Comments on May Draft of Structure Plan: DPCD does not support the May Draft due to insufficient justification for proposed building heights. DPCD will not support future amendments to the Yarra Planning Scheme that seek to implement the Structure Plan. Request a more detailed background report that achieves greater consistency with Structure Planning Practice Note. Link between land use objectives and where they will occur should be more explicit. Unclear as to whether the amount of floor space required for each land use can be accommodated within the preferred building heights, particularly when building height varies within the area. Building heights should be expressed in metres. The projected increase of 2500 dwellings by 2026 appears too low and should be reconsidered. Inconsistencies identified in the number of storeys nominated for an area and description of scale Heights nominated in the Draft are inconsistent with the role of Swan Street as a Major Activity Centre, context of the centre & State Planning Policy. Characteristics of the Swan Street Major Activity Centre support increased building heights above heights nominated in the May draft Structure Plan. Further detail required on implementation of Access and Movement theme. Length of Structure Plan is too long and should be revised to identify what could be shifted to Background report. Implementation plan should clearly identify roles, responsibilities and timeframes.
Comments noted and further discussion required.
Page 51 of 52
Name
135 Resident
Address
Believe the area is suitable for a more intensive use due to its proximity to East Richmond Station, trams, services and employment whilst having little impact on the surrounding neighbourhood. The intensity being proposed around Richmond Station should also be considered in the vicinity of East Richmond Station.
Officers Response
It is agreed that there are some locations within the study area where greater height would be appropriate having regard to such matters as access to public transport, existing character, size of land holdings and lack of heritage significance. These include South Cremorne (south of Balmain Street and west of Church Street). Recommended Change: Increase preferred maximum heights in South Cremorne as shown in Attachment 3.
Page 52 of 52

Save Dimmeys. Swan ST Structure Draft Attachment 2 - Summary of Submissions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Save Dimmeys. Swan ST Structure Draft Attachment 2 - Summary of Submissions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ATTACHMENT 2 SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS Draft Swan Street Structure Plan August 2011 Name

Mary Street Richmond

Mitchell Street Richmond

Brighton Street Richmond

Balmain Street Cremorne

Tennyson Street Richmond

Punt Road Cremorne

Outside scope of Structure Plan

Brighton Street Richmond

Tanner Street Richmond

Mary Street Richmond

Mary Street Richmond

See response to 1. Page 7 of 52

Mary Street Richmond

Mary Street Richmond

Resident Resident Resident

Mary Street Stawell Street Richmond Clifton Street Richmond

Mary Street Richmond

Powlett Street East Melbourne

Outside scope of Structure Plan

Footpath trading is managed under Councils Footpath Trading Policy.

Park Grove, Richmond

Clarification provided in email response.

On behalf of: Church Street Cremorne

On behalf of: Stewart Street, Richmond

Mary Street Richmond

Margaret Street Richmond

Mary Street Richmond

Resident Mary Street Richmond

Mary Street Richmond

Mary Street Richmond

Mary Street Richmond

Mary Street Richmond

Mary Street Richmond

Docker Street Richmond

Mary Street Residents

Kelso Street Cremorne

Mary Street Richmond

Abinger Street Richmond

Mary Street Richmond

Mary Street Richmond

Mary Street Richmond

Sidwell Street East St Kilda

Proposed gateway design noted.

Mary Street Richmond

Elm Grove Richmond

Mary Street Richmond

See response to 1. Page 17 of 52

On behalf of: Mary Street Aged Care Facility

Elm Grove Richmond

Tanner St, Margaret St & Stewart St Richmond

Harcourt Parade, Cremorne

Mary Street Richmond

Mary Street Richmond

Malleson Street Richmond

Charles Street Richmond

Elm Grove Richmond

Charles Street Richmond

See response to 1. Page 19 of 52

Mary Street Richmond

Charles Street Richmond

Elm Grove Richmond

Balmain Street Cremorne