On June 24, the Port Phillip Planning Committee released its 97-page report on an application for the construction of a 10-story building with 119 apartments, retail stores including food and beverage outlets, a wellness center, gym and a reduction in car parking requirements. . The location at 1-7 Waterfront Place, Port Melbourne, has a major Beach Street frontage.

The report is an interesting read because of the breadth of considerations, objections, and the Planning Officer's responses and conclusion methodology. I will let you, the reader, who are probably local to this development, draw your own conclusions regarding two issues that stand out:

• The Planning Officer conclusion regarding parking: and
• The Planning Officer process for completion regarding shadows.

Parking lot

The report says:   “ The development is not considered to have a significant impact on the road network . The development would provide parking spaces in excess of the Planning Plan requirements. However, due to the way parking would be allocated (no parking would be allocated to commercial use customers), a parking exemption is requested for the customer component of the parking requirements . The parking exemption is well justified and is not considered to result in undue off-site impacts. ”2.10, page 2

After reading this report, I visited Bay St, Port Melbourne. Bay St is one of Port Melbourne's jewels, with bustling retail. It is very clear that retail stores on Bay St require parking spots for their customers and due to the popularity of the strip it can sometimes be difficult to find a place to park a car.

It is difficult to reconcile the council's position that the commercial facilities at Waterfront Place do not require additional car parking (page 49). The report states that retail outlets will only serve users who are " normally already in the area , rather than driving to the Site ." Does this mean walking distance from your home? One must wonder if future retail tenants will be willing to pay significant commercial rents in an area that only serves the population of the building and residents within walking distance. Hopefully this will not result in non-rented retail stores that will bring a ghost town feel to this new development.

It is also puzzling that the city council claims that visitor parking permits will not be required and therefore will not be available for any of the 119 homes (page 15 Permit Notes): " Owners and occupants of new homes allowed by this permit will not be eligible for Council resident or visitor parking permits . "

Furthermore, and more importantly, it appears that the developer is not required to provide for visitor parking. One can only assume that the Planning Officer is of the opinion that all residents will have a very limited social life and no caregiver will attend to their needs.

Darkness

The requirement for this building is that "The development must minimize shadowing beyond the South Waterfront curb line " (Requirement B8, page 75).

The Planning Officer response to the proposed design is:

• "A detailed assessment in terms of winter shadows is provided in section 13.4 of the Report; ultimately they are considered acceptable." (page 52)
• First, it is noted that the requirement is discretionary , indicating that development should minimize overshadowing. Second, whether the shadows are 'minimized' is ultimately a matter of judgment. It is clear, based on planning controls, that a 10-story development that provides medium to high density housing has been contemplated for the Site, it is within this context that the term 'minimized' should be considered. (B8, page 70-71)
• Also, it must be recognized that some level of shading is unavoidable in any development , particularly one that is 10 stories high (B8, page 70-71).

For this observer, the reasoning offered by the Planning Officer (in bold) does not contribute to the veracity of the conclusion reached by the Planning Officer.

As is common in planning applications, often the most sensible observations come from the general public. One astute objector responded: “... He reiterated concerns related to winter shadows. Also, the bike and pedestrian trails along Waterfront Place are predominantly in the shade between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. on the June solstice, this is not consistent with the DDO requirements. … "(Public Notice / Objections, page 52)

So what did the planning officer recommend?

Planning officer recommendation
RECOMMENDATION PART A, page 3

"3.2 That the Responsible Authority, having made the request public and having received and noted the objections, issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit".

"3.3 That a Permit Grant Decision Notice be issued for the use and development of the land, to carry out works and build a 10-story mixed-use building on two basement levels, on a shared podium and arrangement of two towers, comprised of housing, retail (store, food and beverage outlets, wellness center), a restricted recreation facility (gym), and a reduction in car parking requirements at 1 & 7 Waterfront Place, Port Melbourne. "

The recommendation leaves one scratching their head, wondering if common sense has abandoned the city hall buildings. I parked my car outside the future 1-7 Waterfront Place site and enjoyed the sunshine one last time, before parking was no longer available and the sun was blocked by another large development that lines major real estate. from Melbourne.

Note : Page references cite PDF page numbers, not page numbers that are displayed at the bottom right of the document.

Author's Note: The Planning Officer responses cited and referenced above are just a subset of his considerations detailed in the 97-page report.