In a recent
Herald Sun article titled ‘A Cracker of a Wish List’, Mirvac
CEO Kevin Hunt proclaimed that “there was plenty of land between St Kilda and
Mordialloc that could fit up to six Beacon Cove type developments”. “There are huge opportunities by undergrounding roads and trains to create massive
opportunities for waterfront housing and recreation” (Rose, 2002). Given the Bracks
government’s initial commitment to support appropriate foreshore height limits,
such developer statements are alarming.
With the current inner-city high rise boom and push for urban
consolidation, Melbourne’s foreshore is again likely to experience intense
development pressures.
As a resident of
a bayside municipality, I am interested in exploring current attitudes toward
foreshore height limits. In common with
many other planning issues, I found the debate to be centered on the pros and
cons of performance versus prescriptive based planning. However, before examining these central
themes, a potted history of foreshore development is required.
From its early
days, Melbourne’s coastline was a popular place to visit and a desirable place
to live. The eastern side of the Bay was
favoured for development and beach resorts were
established in places such as St Kilda, Brighton, Sandringham
and Mordialloc. A recent report on
Melbourne’s heritage provides an apt description of these places today: “Traces
of nineteenth and early twentieth century beach resort infrastructure – bathing
boxes, bandstands, piers, toilet blocks – are plentiful in these suburbs, and
are a tangible reminder (along with many street names, not to mention names
like Mentone and Brighton in themselves) of the seaside village origins of
these areas” (Cultural Heritage Centre for Asia and the Pacific, Deakin University and Context P/L, 2002, p.19).
In the first
half of the twentieth century, suburban development followed tram and train
routes (ibid.). Although the predominant
form of bayside housing was the detached house in a garden, St Kilda provided a
unique alternative. From 1910 onward,
the area was a popular location for walk up flats in the ‘Olde
English’, Spanish Mission and Modern styles (Lewis, 1999, pp.80-88). With the onset of the Great Depression, many
of St Kilda’s mansions were “subdivided into flats in a fairly gimcrack way”
(ibid., p.84), contributing to the suburb’s newfound seedy reputation. It would be quite some time before the high
density waterfront lifestyle became palatable to mainstream tastes.
In the Post War
boom decades, residential high rise development was championed by the Victorian
Housing Commission. The inner city tower
blocks quickly declined and were stigmatised: “The
sheer bulk of the estates…blighted neighborhoods physically, the prejudices
against their occupants soured neighbourhood
relations, and property values fell relative to those more distant from the
estates” (ibid., p.90). The towers
created widespread community opposition to both public and private high rise
residential development, and thus ‘apartment living’ fell out of favour in Melbourne for many years (ibid.).
Despite the
backlash, a market niche for luxury apartments prevailed through the 1970s and
80s (ibid., p.92). The foreshore was
considered to be a choice location by developers, and high rise apartments went
up on Beaconsfield Parade and The Esplanade; for example, Arrandale,
next to the Esplanade Hotel.
It was under the Cain government that the first wide-ranging height controls were introduced. As the result of a five storey application near Greens Point, Brighton, a two storey interim height control was applied to much of the foreshore. This prescriptive directive extended approximately 200 metres inland, though in some places it was pushed to as far as one kilometer – a precedent which can be discerned in current planning schemes. This measure was considered to be very successful by conservationists, though some builders stretched the limits by adding semi-basement levels and rooftop viewing platforms (1).
Height controls
came to the fore again in 1990, with the release of Making the most of the
bay: A plan for the protection and development of Port Phillip and Corio Bays (Government of Victoria). The plan signaled a potential lift in
foreshore height limits from Elwood to Frankston, from two storeys
to three storeys.
It also introduced the concept of ‘activity nodes’, proposing heights of
up to 5 storeys in certain areas. Such nodes were to be located in bayside
commercial centres such as Sandringham and
Mordialloc, and were consistent with urban village policy. Interestingly, many of these places were the
beach resorts of the 1800s. The nodes
were also designed to facilitate foreshore related development such as
restaurants. Windows on the Bay
at Mordialloc forms an example dating from this era. The lifting of height limits proved too
controversial, however, and the status quo prevailed. However, it did set the scene for future
urban village policies (ie. Sandringham).
With the
election of the Kennett Government, height limits were again on the horizon –
though not until the Victoria Planning Provisions and New Format Planning
Schemes were established. The Gateway
to the Bay strategy (Victoria Urban Design Unit, 1999) centered on the Port
Phillip City foreshore. It continued to
encourage development in designated activity nodes, but departed from previous
policy by contemplating a radical lifting of height limits (Mitchell, Bull and
Townsend, 1999, p.19). The document was
interpreted by some as advocating ‘landmark architecture’ in nodes such as St
Kilda and Port Melbourne (Ward, 1999), whilst others focused on the proposition
that “there be no height limits along the foreshore and that all proposals for
development or redevelopment be judged on individual merit” (Mitchell, Bull and
Townsend, 1999, p. 19).
Indeed, much of
the current fears about foreshore development stem from this notorious period
of history. The then Planning Minister,
Robert McLellan, became embroiled in a number of
controversial developments involving height limits, made even more scandalous
by his liberal interventions and perceived misuse of ministerial powers (Lewis,
1999, pp.185-201). Miles Lewis sums up
the situation well in his book Suburban Backlash: “Height limits, which
(McLellan) perceived as arbitrary and irrational,
were the Minister’s special bete noire,
and the subject area in which he was most prepared to swim against the tide of
public opinion” (ibid, p.199). Infamous
examples pertaining to the foreshore include the Teac Australia and HMAS
Lonsdale sites in Port Melbourne (ibid.), and Becton’s Esplanade Hotel
proposal. It was also during this time,
that ‘design response’ and ‘performance standards’ became increasingly
prominent in planning rhetoric.
By the twilight
of the Kennett era, community opposition to the Gateway vision had
consolidated. The City of Port Phillip,
National Trust and Esplanade Alliance ran effective campaigns with the aim of
maintaining foreshore height limits of three to ten storeys
in the inner bayside area (McDonald, 1999).
With the
election of the Bracks Government in late 1999, it
appeared that mandatory height limits had come back into favour. The new State Planning Agenda noted
that “High-rise development in inappropriate locations close to Port Phillip
Bay can block the views and enjoyment of other residents and visitors. Proper planning should encourage high-rise
development in locations where it will not damage amenity and heritage values”
(Mitchell and Reed, 2001, p.6). Minister
Thwaites then moved to provide interim height
controls for a number of bayside councils, pending the necessary “strategic
planning and local policy development to justify the specification of preferred
maximum building heights” (ibid.).
To gain a
greater understanding of current attitudes to foreshore height limits, recent
panel hearings must be explored.
Relevant amendments include (Carew, 2002):
·
Melbourne
Planning Scheme Amendment C20 (late 1997)
·
Port
Phillip Planning Scheme Amendments C5 and C14 (December 1999)
·
Queenscliffe Planning Scheme Amendment C7 (March 2001)
·
Hobsons
Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C11 (April 2001)
·
Bayside
Planning Scheme Amendment C2 (August 2001)
The presence of Kathy Mitchell on three of the independent
panels was noted, as was Mr Keaney’s
presence on two.
As acknowledged,
the debate centered on the pros and cons of ‘performance’ versus ‘prescriptive’
standards. These concepts are explained
in a simple fashion in Suburban Backlash: “A prescriptive standard is
one which says something like ‘a party wall must be of brick and at least 225mm
thick’ or ‘a building may not exceed 6 meters high’. If you don’t know why the height was
restricted, then you may have difficulty in administering it. For example, you will not know whether to
allow a higher television aerial on top – if it was only a question of casting
shadow, then the aerial may be acceptable, but if it was interference with low
flying aircraft, then it will not. Once
you know why such a standard was adopted, you can convert it into a performance
standard: (ie.) ‘a party wall must have at least the
decibel rating of 225 mm brickwork’ or simply ‘a party wall must have a decibel
rating of…’. Something of a problem
arises when the original prescription was designed to achieve more than one
thing, so that you may have to define the thermal performance and the bearing
capacity of the party wall, as well as its decibel rating. However, once this translation has been
effected, this has become a performance standard. Then if you can find some way to use less
brick to achieve the same decibel rating, or to use some other material
entirely, you are free to do so” (Lewis, 1999, p.212).
When applied on
a broader level, performance based planning is sometimes referred to as
objective based planning. This approach
is preferred by many urban designers and architects because it allows them
greater creative freedom and less restriction on design outcomes. Objective or performance based planning is
increasingly being favoured by governments,
consultants and the planning profession (Walton, 1997) – a trend that reflects
the current fashion for neo-liberalist philosophies such as deregulation, managerialism and the facilitation of private
enterprise. This begs the question: does
design provide a convenient yet trendy excuse for development?
A purist
‘performance’ view of height limits is presented in the Standing Advisory
Committee on Local Variations to the Good Design Guide (1999): “Height is
one of the most contentious issues in planning.
The question, ‘How high should a building be?’ has no absolute answer
but depends on its context. There is
nothing wrong with height per se. Rather
it is the external impact which height may have on surrounding development in
terms of overlooking and overshadowing, or its aesthetic impact when viewed
within its surroundings, that will influence whether the height of a building
is appropriate or not”. “The issue of
height will require independent assessment in each case, which can only be done
through the planning permit process” (Mitchell, Keaney
and Semmens, 2001, p.68).
This philosophy
is further illustrated in a Derrida-esque fashion the
Melbourne Planning Scheme, which was one of the first new format planning
schemes to be considered by a Panel: “An objective of the planning reform
program is to identify outcomes against which applications should be
assessed. If an application is not
contrary to an outcome, or will not undermine it…it ought to be allowed. Height limits are not ends in themselves, but
should be based on identifiable objectives or outcomes. They are a means to an end, not an end in
themselves” (ibid., p.69).
Objective based planning was attacked in Sydney where broad
scale experiments in this method were criticized by the Land and Environment
Court: “the enormous danger in this process (is that in) allowing greater
flexibility to planning instruments, they can degenerate into mere statements
of desirability. In the process such
planning instruments then lose all semblance of providing proper planning
guidance. Indeed in recent times there
has been a very regrettable trend to define entirely desirable planning goals
in the rhetoric that would be more properly associated with describing the
benefits of such aspects of the human condition as ‘motherhood’. The problem with such an approach is that it
has to be founded on a proposition that there is a level of fundamental
agreement…between planners as to what is the proper and appropriate planning
outcome for any number of different situations.
Self evidently this is erroneous as the juxtaposition of expert
witnesses in the Land and Environment Court espousing diametrically opposed
positions serves to demonstrate on a daily basis” (Walton, 1997, p.13).
As Julie Walton,
a former Sydney City Councillor astutely points out in the journal article In
Praise of Certainty: “The crux of a highly discretionary system is that
having said ‘yes’ to one applicant, you must be able to say ‘no’ to the
next…Having agreed once that a 20 meter high building satisfies this control,
the consent authority will have created an expectation in the minds of owners
and valuers that 20 meters is also appropriate for
succeeding applications”. “To do
anything other than approve the later applications exposes the administrator to
enormous pressure, because development control decisions have important implications
for the value of property. The value of
the land in the area will quickly reflect an assumption that 20 metres has become the achievable height on all physically
comparable parcels of land. At best the
consent authority seeking to require a lesser height in future will be accused
of capriciously causing economic harm to landowners. At worst there is the risk of the perception
of favoritism or corruption” (ibid).
Although the
panels on the Melbourne and Port Phillip amendments (C20 and C5 and 14) supported
‘preferred’ height limits where strategically justified, the election of the Bracks government prompted a shift toward a more
prescriptive standpoint. This new stance
was acknowledged by the panel on Amendment C11 (Hobsons Bay), though it appears,
somewhat reluctantly. The report
promotes the ‘wisdom’ of the objective/design based approach, alternating in
gushing and lecturing tones to the unsophisticated lay-people of Williamstown
and Newport, who in the most part, support a two storey mandatory limit. The panel are enthusiastic to point out that
prescriptive height limits do not always lead to good design outcomes, but also
(thankfully) acknowledge that “design quality is a subjective judgment”
(Mitchell and Reid, 2001, p.30). From an
outer suburban perspective, however, the panel report provides a useful
discussion on issues such as basements and attic rooms, overshadowing and
building height versus number of storeys. The panel concludes by supporting the
Council’s position that “some areas of the municipality would benefit from an
increase from two to three storeys” (ibid., p.26).
In contrast, the Queenscliffe
panel presents quite a different perspective on the “the flexibility of a
discretionary control” (Mitchell, Keaney and Semmens, 2001, p.72).
The panel supports the ‘unique’ character and ‘village scale’ of the
township in a robust fashion and expresses its fears of inappropriate
development. “The Panel can see no
circumstances in Queenscliffe which would warrant an
application above the specified maximum.
Indeed, by introducing flexibility, it would inevitably lead to this
matter being tested time and time again at Council and VCAT. Land is so scarce and expensive at Queenscliff and views so sought after, that the Panel
believes that a relaxed height regime would give rise to many applications
attempting to “push the envelope”. The
Panel is satisfied that Council has a clear vision: it is supported by
strategic research: it is endorsed by many in the community: and it therefore
should be sanctioned in the planning scheme” (Keaney
and Salmon, 2001, p.30).
The Bayside
panel report (August 2001) provides an analysis of the earlier reports and summarises prior panels’ stances on foreshore height
controls in Greater Melbourne (Mitchell, Keaney and Semmens, 2001, p.73).
·
Height
controls are contemplated in new format planning schemes.
·
A
“Design and Development Overlay” is the most appropriate mechanism to implement
height controls.
·
There
must be real evidence of demand for development exceeding the proposed height
limits.
·
The
height control must be soundly based and be the outcome of thorough strategic
research.
·
Height
controls must be seen in the context of built form outcomes and objectives
rather than as just a prescriptive tool.
·
While
mandatory height controls are contemplated, they are the exception and must
achieve a clear built form objective.
·
Discretionary
height controls are the preferred way to deliver a performance based outcome.
The Bayside
panel concludes by supporting mandatory foreshore height limits, but not the
heights endorsed by the Council. Rather,
it endorses the initial exhibited amendment that was founded on strategic work
undertaken by a consultant. The central
message is again conveyed by the panel: “The Panel is satisfied that new format
planning schemes (principally via the Design and Development Overlay) provide
an opportunity for height control and allow them to be expressed as either a
mandatory or discretionary provision.
The key to their implementation, and the prescriptive nature of the
controls, must however be sourced in strategic research. The Panel must be satisfied that any proposed
control is properly sourced before it can sanction it” (ibid., p.99).
In addition to
the mandatory requirement for strategic justification of height levels, it
appears that the activity node concept or ‘precinct of elevated height’ remains
in favour. It
should also be noted that panel recommendations embody the views of a small and
select group of senior planning professionals.
These views are relevant, as panels advise the Minister, but the
Minister does not have to support their recommendations. Such panels may use their forum to evaluate
resident, local government and developer views, but provide scant self analysis
or thorough justification for their own positions.
This paper has
reviewed the background to foreshore height controls in Melbourne and examined
the deliberations and conclusions of several relevant panel hearings. The debate surrounding performance and prescriptive
based planning in the context of height limits was also briefly explored.
Conclusion removed.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Please Note:
Ampisands removed from list for better web
formatting.
Apartments.melb
(2002) “Where to Live/Invest in Melbourne” in, http://www.apartments-melbourne.com,
May.
Carew,
M. (2002) “Planning reform - Panel Reports – are height controls are furphy?” in, VPELA Newsletter, No. 55, March, pp.
6-7.
Cultural
Heritage Centre for Asia and the Pacific, Deakin
University and Context P/L (2002) Protecting Heritage in a Changing
Melbourne: Technical Report 10 – Integrating Heritage into the Metropolitan
Strategy, Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
Esplanade
Alliance (2002) “Main Objections – Why isn’t a 38 storey tower good for St
Kilda” in, http://pandora.nla.gov.au (archived site), May.
Government
of Victoria (1990) Making the most of the bay - A plan for the protection of
Port Phillip and Corio Bays, Department of
Planning and Urban Growth and Department of Conservation and Environment,
Melbourne.
Government
of Victoria and Victorian Coastal Council (2002) Victorian Coastal Strategy
2002, Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
Heywood,
P. and Jackman, H. (1987) “High Rise Building on
Queensland’s Sunshine Coast” in, Australian Planner, vol. 25, no. 3, pp.
18-21.
Jackson,
D. (1998) “Radar Urbanity: St Kilda’s historic but grungy Esplanade Hotel in, Architecture
Australia, Nov/Dec, pp. 20-21.
Keaney, J. and Salmon, J.
(2001) Queenscliff Planning Scheme
Amendment C7 – Independent Panel Report, Department of Infrastructure,
Melbourne, March.
Learmonth,
J. (ed.) (1999) Architect (St Kilda special edition), Nov/Dec.
Lewis, M. (1999) Suburban Backlash, Bloomings Books, Melbourne.
McDonald,
H. (1999) “Projects…Whither the Espy?” in, Architect (St Kilda special
edition), Nov/Dec, pp.22-23.
Melbourne
Times (author unknown) (2002) “Delahunty in
Hot Seat” in, The Melbourne Times, February 2.
Mitchell,
K., Bull, C. and Townsend, L. (1999) Report of a Panel – Amendment C5 and
C14 – Port Phillip Planning Scheme, Department of Infrastructure,
Melbourne, December.
Mitchell,
P. and Reed, D. (2001) Report of a Panel: Amendment C11 – Hobsons Bay
Planning Scheme – Foreshore Height Controls, Department of Infrastructure,
Melbourne, April.
Mitchell,
K., Keaney, J. and Semmens,
P. (2001) Report of a Panel: Amendment C2 – Bayside Planning Scheme,
Department of Infrastructure, Melbourne, August 2001.
Parliament
of Victoria (1998) “Planning: height limits” in, Hansard
(Adjournment), Parliament of Victoria, Melbourne, February 19, pp. 6-7.
Port
Phillip Conservation Council Inc (2002) “Planning Limits on Heights of
Structures Around Port Phillip Bay” in, http://home.vicnet.net.au/~phillip/,
May.
Rose, M. (2002) “A cracker of a wish list” in, Herald
Sun, April 20, p.17.
Victoria
Urban Design Unit (1999) Gateway to the Bay – Inner Melbourne Foreshore
Urban Design Framework, Department of Infrastructure, Melbourne, March.
Walton,
J. (1997) “In Praise of Certainty” in, Australian Planner, vol. 34, no.
1, pp. 12-15.
Ward,
G. (1999) “Views…Gateway to Paradise: or Seinfeld City?” in, Architect (St
Kilda special edition), Nov/Dec, p.12.
Williams,
K. (2002) “Apartments plan gets approval” in, Bayside Leader, April 29,
p. 5.
Wilson,
H. (1994) “Image, perception and perspective: Sydney’s Foreshore” in, National
Trust Quarterly, no. 73, October, pp. 25-30.
Back to the MBCL
Resource Page