272 posts in this thread / 0 new
Last post

Pages

Chris Seals's picture
#27

How did all other building including Riolto get by this restriction

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#28

This is from the report for 38 Freshwater Place:

Ministers of all Australian States, Territories and the Commonwealth Government have agreed to a National Airport Safeguarding Framework (NASF) which is a national land use planning regime to protect airports and communities from inappropriate off-airport development. Planning applications which breach the NASF and penetrate the OLS and PANS/OPs will not be recommended for planning permit without written consent of the relevant aviation authorities or a height reduction to comply with these provisions.

Looks like the NSW government has a very different view of NASF since they just approved a tower in Paramatta way over the OLS level when they know that the aviation authorities have objected to the development.

Back to top
Danny Boy's picture
#29

Perhaps the developers themselves have chosen to not bother pursing permission from aviation authorities and just want to get going with the project. Not everything has to be Wynne's fault.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#30

Maybe they are going to flip the site now they have the permit and leave it up to the next owners?

Back to top
Melbman's picture
#31

Always a possibility, but lets hope that's not the case.

Back to top
Qantas743's picture
#32

His next Central City approval will be make or break.

If it also fails to include the provision for penetrating the OLS then I think we're in a lot of trouble.

Don't forget, he's only been tested twice on this (with his other approvals being below OLS). He's failed one. Additionally, we've already had three towers needlessly reduced in height.

Hopefully other developers are picking up on this and will emphasise the desire to breach the OLS.

Back to top
Chris Seals's picture
#33

As it should be. absurd.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#34

If a developer doesn't like it they have to do is go to VCAT and they will win easily.

Back to top
Qantas743's picture
#35

Are you referring to a failure to include a condition which allows penetration of the OLS?

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#36

Aviation assessment is not a consideration under the Melbourne Planning Scheme so that issue should not be assessed as part for the planning application. VCAT would throw out the condition.

Back to top
Qantas743's picture
#37

Yes but the issue here is that he included a condition in the permit for FWP that it could go higher if permission was given from CASA. For whatever reason, he didn't extend that same condition to Premier tower - and potentially every other proposal in the CBD.

The whole thing is just a complete joke. As others have pointed out, how can the minister deny developers the opportunity to penetrate OLS when other taller buildings have been built or approved?

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#38

Of course, you're assuming here that the developer wanted to go higher - but there are costs in doing so. Do we know that the developer wanted more height?

Back to top
Qantas743's picture
#39

Well, they initially proposed the tower at around 290m, then dropped down to 250m due to the overshadowing.

Even if they wanted to go this low (which I highly doubt), they weren't even given the option!

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#40

Why should anyone but the developer care whether its 200 250 or 290m? Any of those heights will satisfy the planning concerns of most contributors to Urban.com.au - a very high density residential outcome on a tight urban site. The remaining concerns would be about design quality, aesthetic considerations and the way it relates to street level - not of which concern additional height.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#41

It is not a tight urban site it is an almost perfect site for the development of a very tall residential tower.

The increasingly restrictive development controls being introduced in the inner and middle ring suburbs mean that developers should be encouraged to make the most of sites like this in the CBD to cope with the unprecedented recent and ongoing population growth in Melbourne.

Back to top
Dean's picture
#42

Yes i fail to see how this is anything but the right thing here. Train and tram at your doorstep. Looks like a great design. What's not to like here???

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#43

Interesting that the planning report for this one has not been released yet.

Back to top
Qantas743's picture
#44

Spoke to someone today who was able to give me a good summary of what is happening now re OLS.

Basically the government is adopting a hard line - insisting that they won't approve anything that penetrates the OLS until it's ticked off from CASA. Guy just approved whatever was below the PANS-OPS given that it was never usually a problem (nor is it now) to breach the OLS. Put simply, DELWP and Wynne are being difficult, anal and bureaucratic.

The key point however is that developers need to be on the front foot, i.e. the government will not inform them that they can go higher than the OLS (if they submit a proposal which does so) and will simply shoot down a tower if it breaches the limit via not having the same condition in the permit that allowed FWP38 to go to full height. Basically, developers need to tell the department early on that they want to go the full height in order to get the condition in the permit which allows them to do so. That appears to be why FWP 38 got approval and Savoy didn't.

Hopefully developers have woken up to this otherwise all we'll be getting from now on are towers that go no higher than 215-220m.

Back to top
melbourne's picture
#45

Thanks for that bit of information, it doesn't make sense for that to just be it though, considering:

1) This proposal was first proposed while Matthew Guy was still around, surely there was communication then that it was possible to go to a certain height if not so now.

2) The developers brother's company (or whatever it is), Aspial, is building Melbourne's tallest building in Southbank, i'm sure there's some knowledge about aviation paths there considering they need permits for the crane to go above it during construction...

3) The Rialto, Bourke Place, Melbourne Central + other approved buildings such as Aurora, Victoria One etc. are taller than this height. (Surely there would be some common sense with, "why can they build that high and we can't?")

The report for 380 Lonsdale also states if the proposal is not approved by the Commonwealth then the height must be reduced etc.

Back to top
Qantas743's picture
#46

I agree some aspects seem a bit strange but that's what I was told (may have misinterpreted some of the details). Maybe CASA is directing the government not to approve anymore towers over due to the proliferation of cranes penetrating the OLS?

What I can say for certain though is that the developers of FWP made a point very early on to deal with this and made sure they got the capacity to increase the height up to 270m from the OLS, via the condition in the permit.

I guess we'll know for sure if this was just a once-off or is going to be a serious problem if/when he makes his next approval. From Wynne's perspective, it would be a good excuse to lower the height of 85 Lorimer St to placate some of the NIMBYs in Yarra's Edge.

Re 380 Lonsdale - isn't that only around 215m, i.e. below the OLS?

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#47

Elenberg Fraser are well aware of all the aviation requirements.

This is purely political. The minister is using the OLS so that the minister can honestly claim he has required developers to reduce the height of towers in media releases. If the developers then get permission to exceed the OLS the minister can quietly issue a permit amendment to let them go back to full height.

There is already a VCAT decision on this matter for Aurora Tower. In that case VCAT only required a condition for the developer to get approval to penetrate the OLS before construction commences and removed a condition requiring that the plans be amended to show compliance with airspace regulations.

Back to top
Qantas743's picture
#48

So are you suggesting there is still a chance Savoy could go back up to 250m?

It still doesn't answer the question though why FWP 38 clearly had the condition in relation to allowing them to go higher if they got approval from CASA in their permit while Savoy didn't.

How very convenient for the minister. Any time he wants to reduce the height of a tower to save his political backside he can use the OLS as an excuse instead of what the planning provisions say. Ridiculous!

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture
#49

I think if they got the approval and applied to amend the plans to take the height back up to 250m the minister would have no grounds to refuse the application.

Back to top
Danny Boy's picture
#50

CBD | Premier Tower | 134-160 Spencer Street | 78L | 249m | Residential & Hotel

CBD | Premier Tower | 134-160 Spencer Street | 78L | 249m | Residential & Hotel

CBD | Premier Tower | 134-160 Spencer Street | 78L | 249m | Residential & Hotel

CBD | Premier Tower | 134-160 Spencer Street | 78L | 249m | Residential & Hotel

Back to top
Danny Boy's picture
#51

Couple more pics:

CBD | Premier Tower | 134-160 Spencer Street | 78L | 249m | Residential & Hotel

CBD | Premier Tower | 134-160 Spencer Street | 78L | 249m | Residential & Hotel

CBD | Premier Tower | 134-160 Spencer Street | 78L | 249m | Residential & Hotel

CBD | Premier Tower | 134-160 Spencer Street | 78L | 249m | Residential & Hotel

Back to top

Pages