23. Table 2 of DDO21 sets the street wall height of eight metres for non-heritage properties
and a building setback of five metres behind this street wall. As already set out, while the
street wall exceeds eight metres we agree with parties that the exceedance of 0.7 metres
is minor and enables a fine grain street wall that is responsive to the street pattern. Table
3 sets out rear interface standards that we address in our discussion of the interface to
residential properties in May Road in reasons below.
24. As a starting point we comment that simply because the building at 26 or 30 metres
high, is roughly 40 - 60% taller than the preferred maximum height of DDO21, this does
not make, of itself, an unacceptable outcome. We need to test the height against the
DDO21 provisions and other relevant policy of the planning scheme. This includes
general urban design policy of clause 15.01 and also net community benefit direction in
applying policy, as set out in clause 71.02-3 of the planning scheme.
Is the form, at its proposed height, an acceptable response to the urban design
objectives of the planning scheme?
25. Urban design evidence of Ms Roberts, on behalf of the applicant, is that the levels above
the street wall provide a good urban design outcome by providing a strong, articulated
middle section to the building and then a recessive top. Ms Robert’s evidence is that the
building responds to the objectives of DDO21 by:
◦ minimising overshadowing of the southern footpath of Malvern Road between
10am and 2pm at the equinox,
◦ expressing the fine-grained subdivision pattern with the grid pattern of the middle
three levels of building, and
◦ demonstrating a suitable design response to identified character.
26. Firstly, we agree that the building meets the test to minimise shadowing of the southern
footpath of Malvern Road, with no shadow being cast on the footpath between 10am and
2pm at the equinox. This is the test to be met in the overlay.
27. We also agree that the lower and mid-level architecture response responds well to the
fine grain subdivision pattern of the centre. We note that no party specifically objects to
th
the grid pattern of levels 1 to 5 (ground to 4 floor).
28. Part of the existing character of the centre, particularly east of Williams Road is low,
single and double storey form. The structure plan and DDO21 anticipate some additional
height in this area, including taller form at a discretionary height of 18 metres at only
three sites east of Williams Road. Two of these sites are north of Toorak Road, being the
review site, and the other being the ‘Woolworths’ site. This Woolworths site is further
east of the review site at 559-565 Malvern Road. In between these two sites the DDO21
has a discretionary 15 metres building height. To the west, including the western part of
the review site at 531 Malvern Road, building is restricted to a mandated height of only
[8]
15 metres, at least 10 metres lower than the top of level 5 of the proposed building.
Heritage facades between Williams Road and (including) 531 Malvern Road, must also
be retained. A number of these facades are single storey facades that will expose more of
the side elevation of the proposed building on its western façade.
29. In discussion of character, there was debate between parties as to how a building, that
will be the first of the two sites that have a potential for greater height than sites around
them, can comfortably fit within the centre. There was also some debate as to what
might be construed to be an identified character for the centre.
Comparison to an earlier concept plan
30. In discussion of how the building may be considered acceptable in this preferred
character context the applicant referred us to comments of the Panel to Amendment
C272. In its report, the Panel commented on a concept plan for the review site that has
some similarities to the proposal before us. The panel commented that ‘on first
appearances, the concept looks to be a generally sensitive and site responsive design’.
The Panel, then went on to comment that ‘however it would require a proper detailed
assessment’.
31. We were provided a copy of the concept provided to the Panel. We do not make a
detailed comparison between the concept it viewed and the detailed permit application
before us. This is mostly because, as the Panel noted, it is the application that requires
detailed assessment, not a broad concept presented at the panel.
32. We do note, however, that there are a number of distinctions between what the Panel