SAVE DIMMEYS Email: SaveDimmeys@gmail.com www.Twitter.com/SaveDimmeys www.Issuu.com/SaveDimmeys www.Scribd.com/SaveDimmeys www.Youtube.com/SaveDimmeys www.Vimeo.com/SaveDimmeys
Yarra City Council Richmond Town Hall 333 Bridge Road Richmond. 3121
Planning Consultation Meeting A consultation meeting involving submitters (objectors), the developer and Council's planning officers, was held on 25 January 2011. 6pm – 7.30pm. Statement on Planning Application: PLN10/0734. 140 – 160 Swan Street, Richmond. (Dimmeys). The Dimmeys clock tower is the predominant landmark in Swan Street, and is a valued asset for both its heritage and architectural qualities. The clock tower dominates the skyline landmarks of the area and, is an important part of the rich urban fabric of Inner Melbourne. The character of the public domain in Swan Street is a product of the surrounding built form, the vitality and vibrancy of the shopping, the original 19th century grid pattern, the fine grain of development, and the proximity to major transport nodes. We believe there is a need to protect all views to the Dimmeys clock tower, not just partial views. We believe Council has a role in minimising negative environmental impacts from new developments, such as the proposed 10-storey tower, or adjacent public domain including streets and other public spaces. We will be affected every day as we go about to meet friends and pass or go into the Dimmeys Store. The architecture, the clock tower and the history mural are all part of our lives. The Swan Street village could be compared to Soho in London or Greenwich Village in New York. URBAN DESIGN CONTEXT The proposed development does not fit well with the current land use in the area. Most buildings in the area are low-rise development of single or double storeys. In some areas there are a few higher with a maximum of three storeys or five storeys. The proposed ten-storey height is excessive and will not interface well with the existing buildings and land use. The proposal is for a large tall glass structure, with little or no interact with the surrounding area. The design is devoid of any sympathetic architecture, which is not the norm in the inner activity centre. There are no adjoining towers of this magnitude or size within the activity area. This development would set a precedent to high-rise tower development on the Swan Street shopping strip. SCALE We object to the development as shown in the Richmond Icon Pty Ltd application. The scale and density is totally out of proportion to its location, and out of character with the Swan Street inner suburban activity centre setting. The scale and visual bulk of the 10 Storey tower will totally dominate the surrounding low-rise neighbourhood. The current proposal, and its doubling of the Yarra planning guideline height should be rejected. There is no other building in the vicinity, which is as tall as this proposal, and the tallest buildings in the area are in fact about 3 levels maximum. Copyright © Save Dimmeys 2011. All Rights Reserved
1
SAVE DIMMEYS Email: SaveDimmeys@gmail.com www.Twitter.com/SaveDimmeys www.Issuu.com/SaveDimmeys www.Scribd.com/SaveDimmeys www.Youtube.com/SaveDimmeys www.Vimeo.com/SaveDimmeys
The proposed building is totally out of character with the area, and has no resemblance to the cultural values of the surrounding area. It is proposed to be a massive modern structure overshadowing an old and character filled shopping precinct – it is completely out of place. DENSITY The influx of 83 new residential apartments will place enormous pressure on already inadequate infrastructure, i.e. traffic-clogged roads, insufficient parking and overcrowded public transport. HEIGHT & BULK The Yarra Planning Scheme guidelines state that Built Form development within activity centres should generally be no more than 5-6 storeys for the site. This proposal is double the guideline. This proposed development would dominate the site, thus overtaking the existing heritage clock tower as the primary focus and landmark, which is contrary to the Yarra Planning Scheme. During the initial public comment period 25 November 2010 – 24 December 2010, Yarra Council received over 400 objections opposed to the application. The issues raised in these objections can be summarised as follows: Ø Height and bulk of development Ø Impact on views to the Dimmeys clock tower. Ø Traffic impacts including road congestion, tram movement, access arrangements in and out of the site, car parking, and alterations to Green Street. Ø Amenity impacts including overshadowing and loss of privacy. As an Activity Centre site, it is within a Business 1 Zone (B1Z) which seeks to: Implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. State and Local Policy relevant to the proposed development including the Landmark and Tall Structures Policy cover the site. We feel the proposal does not meet the specified circumstances for development in activity centres, which are no more than 5-6 storeys in height. We feel that the applicant has not exhibited specified circumstances to warrant the proposal exceeding the 5-6 storeys in height. While the documentation for planning and controls are specific, the Strategy of the MSS Statement is clear, development within activity centres should respect and not dominate existing built form. This proposed development in its present form, does not meet the criteria, and is also contrary to the Landmarks and Tall Structures policy framework. The proposal needs to be reviewed in light of the changes in Planning Scheme Amendment VC75. We contend that the overall majority of submitters do not support the application in its present form. We feel that the proposal to erect a ten-storey glass tower above the Dimmeys Store is contrary to significant policies in the Yarra Planning Scheme, and should not be supported. Does this proposal meet the high threshold of design excellence required to establish superior architectural quality? We believe the answer is no. We don’t think the Architectural Design is of a standard that would be regarded as excellence. This is a remarkable and sensitive site, with many attributes that are unique to Melbourne. An assessment of architectural superiority must take account of the manner in which this proposal responds to the site. We contend it has failed to adequately address the unique urban form and characteristics of this site.
Copyright © Save Dimmeys 2011. All Rights Reserved
2
SAVE DIMMEYS Email: SaveDimmeys@gmail.com www.Twitter.com/SaveDimmeys www.Issuu.com/SaveDimmeys www.Scribd.com/SaveDimmeys www.Youtube.com/SaveDimmeys www.Vimeo.com/SaveDimmeys
This is a highly exposed location. An urban design analysis should not have resulted in a proposal with a tower, which is at odds with the Urban Design Framework. We further contend the project does not make a positive contribution to the public realm. There will be an adverse impact from this development on the public realm The scale will overwhelm this section of Swan Street, instead of scaling down to sections of the street. It will actually dwarf the existing Dimmeys building; the proposed 10-storey tower will become the new Richmond Icon, which its creator wants. The project occupies the site in a way, which does not make sense in relation to neighbouring sites. The project makes little sense in relation to the Swan Street public realm. From all viewpoints it will dominate the site. We believe the massing of the proposal indicates that the project proposes, considerably more development than the site can comfortably provide, with respect to impact on views over the site, and on the adjoining low rises development. The building layout does not take account of solar orientation, so that internal and external spaces benefit. The majority of orientation of residential units is not north facing. The project lacks a convincing architectural expression. It will read a single large amorphous form, from key viewpoints, particularly any of the approaches from Swan Street. The project will have an overwhelming presence. It is purely repetition of a theme. The project is not based on a clear and coherent set of aspirations and intentions. The presentation does not demonstrate a clear and coherent design response. What the community has expressed was horror (along with more than 400 objectors) at an inappropriate development on a unique site. This overdevelopment we believe breaches Councils own planning height and setback guidelines, which were developed following consultation with our community. The accumulated traffic demands of this and other developments in the area will result in increasing traffic chaos and congestion. This proposal also does not provide any affordable housing. We believe that this project falls short of achieving superior architectural quality. Further, when taking into consideration other factors and issues raised by objectors, we feel this proposal doesn’t come up to the benchmark of design excellence, density, traffic, bulk and environmental factors, and the Council should reject the application.
Allan Harris Secretary Save Dimmeys
Meeting Chaired by: Paul Wood, Principal Planner, and Mary Osman, Manager Statutory Planning. Proceedings of the meeting were published to the web, thanks to Andy Smith. Follow the links on Save Dimmeys Twitter. http://www.Twitter.com/SaveDimmeys Copyright Š Save Dimmeys 2011. All Rights Reserved
3