32 posts in this thread / 0 new
Last post

Pages

SOUTH YARRA | 627 Chapel Street | 24L | 95m | Office

Riddlz's picture
#1

Try this instead of dumping it in the South Yarra Thread

Elenberg Fraser Design

http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/Development/Planning/Advertised-Material

Back to top
Riddlz's picture
#2

Back to top
Dean's picture
#3

That last image Ridz... Very nice indeed.

Back to top
3000's picture
#4

EF are starting to experiment with the vertical garden idea, hopefully they can put it to good use and improve their abysmal street level designs (which it looks like they have in this instance)

Back to top
Michael Berquez's picture
#5

Looks really really good

Back to top
Qantas743's picture
#6

Love the ground level street activation.

The building itself? Not so sure... A bit too Gold Coastish for my liking.

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture
#7

Looks like an excellent outcome

Back to top
Alastair Taylor's picture
#8

Is that an ode to/replica of Adelaide's Mall's Balls I see in the first, second and fourth render?

Back to top
drunkill's picture
#9

Yep, must have stolen them from Rundle Mall.

Back to top
Riddlz's picture
#10
Back to top
Michael Berquez's picture
#11

Think LK might have a bit to do with the refusal lol

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture
#12

I find their register says refusal a little to often, even when projects are approved or at sales...not a very user friendly platform

I'd say this proposal will pull through in the end

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture
#13

Listed as at appeal

Back to top
Riddlz's picture
#14
Back to top
Riddlz's picture
#15

"We agree with the responsible authority the primary amenity concern arises from the building’s relationship with Capitol Grand and other nearby buildings. As noted above, we agree that the building would be far too tall in this area. We are confident that it would exceed the reasonable expectations of people who have purchased northeast and northwest facing dwellings 20 storeys and above. They would expect uninterrupted views, instead they would see a tall and wide building nearby.
They may not have a right to a view, but they have a reasonable expectation that new nearby buildings would be generally consistent with the prevailing policy framework, particularly if there is no obvious public benefit for the generous exceedance.

Except for the highest floors, most of the dwellings in the Capitol Grand would be overshadowed between 9am to 3pm. Instead of an attractive view and an energy efficient northern orientation and solar access, these dwellings would have limited solar access.

We accept that the review site is on the north side of Capitol Grand and some overshadowing is inevitable at the lower and possibly mid-level parts of that development. At 37 storeys, and even at 32 storeys, we think the proposal reflects a winner take all approach that captures the solar access and views for this development at the expense of the amenity of the residents of Capitol Grand.

We also think that ILK to the southwest will also experience extensive overshadowing in the morning period. Similarly with Capitol, some shadow can be expected, but the shadow cast by this building would be considerably greater than what might be reasonably expected by the policy context.
We think there is no basis in policy or context to support this outcome. These adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings and the unresolved internal amenity matters have been determinative in our decision."

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#16

Wow. That will put a spanner in the works for inner city developers from here on in. What a precedent! It's very unusual to see VCAT take views into any sort of consideration, let alone give them some weight in the decision itself. It's also interesting to see the reference to policy re: height and solar access for tall buildings in this sort of context.

Back to top
Chris Seals's picture
#17

"height and solar access" Are you promoting Melanoma now Bilby ? These tall beauty's may keep us from having to visit the oncologist

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#18

I don't know about that - but personally, I think it's a bit rich for Capitol Grand residents to complain about views and overshadowing, given the way their own building has (literally) bulldozed its way through the planning scheme, wiped out one of Chapel Street's most historic sites and exceeded the general expectations for height in the area itself (see: Forrest Hill Precinct Policy 22.17-2 Objectives: "To provide for the regeneration of the Forrest Hill Precinct while protecting and conserving
its existing heritage places.")

What I am saying is, with this judgement, Capitol Grand has ironically just made things a lot harder for developers all over the inner city.

Back to top
Chris Seals's picture
#19

double standards, it say's something about these developers.

Back to top
SYmlb's picture
#20

They would expect uninterrupted views, instead they would see a tall and wide building nearby.

I have to say, VCAT has never disapproved of tower after tower in Southbank and the CBD, which have blocked out other buildings views, yet for some reason they feel compelled to exert their opinion on this specific project? Why now?

Something seems odd about that report. Even when you look at Queensbridge St, there is about 5 towers in a row of 150m-320m buildings (all taller than this tower they objected to) planned or built for that section near Power Street, all abutting eachother. Where is their objection to these projects?

What about MY80 and Avant on A'Beckett Street? Where's VCAT objection to Avant being constructed approx. 5m from MY80 and the residents expectations for reasonable views and sunlight access?

That is a fairly unusual statement for them to make. I'm almost willing to say they were paid a bribe by another nearby developer to oppose this and protect the views of a selected few wealthy individuals.

What utter rubbish!

Back to top
Bilby's picture
#21

Fascinating, isn't it?

Back to top
Michael Berquez's picture
#22

lol........the power of Mr Kestleman
I said ages ago that this would never be approved.

Back to top
Chris Seals's picture
#23

It will be applied for again and approved when all Mr Kestleman's apartments have all sold.

Back to top
3000's picture
#24

You beat me to it. Was about to say the same thing.
Given how long it's taken to sell these apartments too I'm not at all surprised.

Back to top
Michael Berquez's picture
#25

Correct

Back to top
SYmlb's picture
#26

^ Probably. Just amazing how VCAT can be so blatant and hypocritical of this project when they have stayed silent on so many others.

I would not have an issue with this if they were consistent, but anyone can see this is biased towards another project. It's farcical.

Back to top

Pages