Advertisement
30 posts in this thread / 0 new
Last post

Pages

SOUTH YARRA | 627 Chapel Street | 42L | 140m | Residential

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

Back to top
Dean's picture

That last image Ridz... Very nice indeed.

Back to top
3000's picture

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

Looks really really good

Back to top
Qantas743's picture

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

Looks like an excellent outcome

Back to top
Alastair Taylor's picture

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

Back to top
Andrew's picture

Yep, must have stolen them from Rundle Mall.

Back to top
Riddlz's picture
Back to top
Michael Berquez's picture

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

Back to top
Mark Baljak's picture

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

Listed as at appeal

Back to top
Riddlz's picture
Back to top
Riddlz's picture

"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

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

"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

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

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

Back to top
SYmlb's picture

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

Fascinating, isn't it?

Back to top
Michael Berquez's picture

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

Back to top
Chris Seals's picture

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

Back to top
3000's picture

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

Correct

Back to top
SYmlb's picture

^ 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

Development & Planning

Monday, October 23, 2017 - 00:00
The tower dubbed 'Sol Invictus' may not have been conquered, but it is for sale. Long after the initial media blitz extolling the virtues of the tower, going hand in hand with an explanation of its name, the now approved 48 Moray Street has been handed to Colliers.

Policy, Culture & Opinion

Monday, October 9, 2017 - 12:00
Spring Street on Sunday unveiled its package of rental reforms that will see a variety of changes to the Residential Tenancies Act (1997). The state government has branded the reforms 'Rent Fair Victoria' and set up a website outlining the changes.

Advertisement

Visual Melbourne

Friday, August 25, 2017 - 07:00
The former site of John Batman's home, Batman's Hill is entering the final stages of its redevelopment. Collins Square's final tower has begun its skyward ascent, as has Lendlease's Melbourne Quarter Commercial and Residential precinct already. Melbourne Quarter's first stage is at construction and involves a new 12-storey home for consultancy firm Arup along with a skypark.

Sustainability & Environment

Tuesday, October 10, 2017 - 05:00
City of Melbourne intentions for a reimagined University Square are now available for viewing. The significant piece of public space at 190-192 Pelham Street is in line to receive a total makeover, bringing the green landscape into a 21st century.