savePMG - Waterfront Place site viewed from Station Pier

Waterfront Place viewed from Station Pier

Preserve Port Melbourne’s Gateway to Victoria
Station Pier has been the “gateway to Victoria” for over 150 years – millions of Australians have passed through its environs over that time – many as new settlers – and it is part of the historical and cultural fabric of this nation. Today the area remains a thriving port, accessed by more than a million people every year arriving and leaving by Cruise Ships and the Tasmanian Ferries. It is also a prime recreation area of the Melbourne community who come to swim, jog, cycle, walk, sail, go to the restaurants or simply sit and enjoy the view of the bay. Read more

savePMG Waterfront Place Towers Footprint

Waterfront Place Towers Footprint

The City of Port Phillip Council (“CoPP”) has just passed Amendment C104 against strong community opposition. If approved by the Minister for Planning this will change the zoning from CDZ1 commercial to MRZ, and cause the welcoming view of the Melbourne skyline to be masked by 10-storey residential apartment blocks built on Waterfront Place – right in front of Station Pier. In addition, the amendment allows the overshadowing of the Port Melbourne Beach, bike and pedestrian paths for up to 6 months of the year. A Kuwaiti-owned company, Action Group Australia (AGA), submitted plans in 2012 to CoPP for 20-storey (71 m) tower. Read more

Waterfront Place - Tennis Courts, Recreation and Childcare Centre

Waterfront Place – Tennis Courts, Recreation and Childcare Centre

However, covenants currently apply to the Waterfront Place site that prevents CoPP and the intending Kuwaiti developer from proceeding with their plans. They ensure that any development on the site retains low-rise height limits and that the design incorporates commercially-operated recreational facilities (such as the original gym, tennis courts, swimming pool and childcare centre) for the use of all Melbournians who wish to use them. The current owner of this site has lodged applications with the Supreme Court of Victoria and VCAT to overturn the covenants, and has lodged applications with the City of Port Phillip Council (CoPP) for approval of a 20-storey (71 m) residential tower. Read more

savePMG Traffic


If any multi-storey development happens it will cause chaos to traffic flows through the area, prevent parking by visitors, and deny comfortable access to the millions who seek to use the area for travel or recreation. Traffic at the roundabout leading to Station Pier and the corner of Beach and Bay Streets is already chaotic when the Spirit of Tasmania loads and unloads and when large cruise ships visit. The proposed 20-storey development by AGA will add 431 extra car spaces with access right at the point where the worst traffic jams occur, and visitors to the towers will make the parking situation in the area even worse. Read more

BCNA 1,250 signatory petition presented to Sue Pennicuik, Martin Foley and Andrea Coote by Trevor Nink and Eddie Micallef (L to R)

BCNA 1,250 signatory petition presented to MPs in 2012

Community Groups have already said “No” to replacing recreational facilities with multi-storey residential towers at Waterfront Place. A 1,250 signatory petition was presented to the Victorian Parliament on March 15 2012 by the Beacon Cove Neighbourhood Association (BCNA) and also to CoPP but CoPP has ignored it. CoPP summarised the community responses to the redevelopment of Waterfront Place in its 2012 Community Consultation Report and subsequent reports but Amendment C104 ignores community feedback and allows taller buildings than the community wants and has no requirement for equivalent community facilities.

BCNA 1,250 signatory petition presented to Sue Pennicuik, Martin Foley and Andrea Coote by Trevor Nink and Eddie Micallef (L to R)

BCNA 1,250 signatory petition presented to MPs in 2012

Local politicians have previously said “No” to multi-storey development at Waterfront Place. Our current Federal Member, Michael Danby MHR, said recently in both a speech to parliament and by letter to local residents that “This area was always planned to be low-rise“. Our current State Member, Martin Foley, said in 2012 Waterfront Place must remain open and accessible and in 2013 “Keeping this Gateway open and protecting the low rise vistas back towards Melbourne from Station Pier, keeping the community focus on the site and not adding to the ports logistic problems for loadings at the spirit of Tasmania, should be our priorities“. Andrea Coote opposes towers on the site. The previous CoPP council backed down on its 2011 plan to put towers on the Waterfront Place site after community backlash. In 2012 ex councillor John Middleton and current councillors Serge Thomann and Jane Touzeau, put forward a motion “proposing a commitment by CoPP to the existing three-storey covenant“. This commitment was reiterated as part of the unChain platform for the 2012 council elections but has somehow been ignored by CoPP planning staff and has been subsequently overlooked by unChain councillors.

savePMG - Waterfront Place Towers Environmental Impact

Towers Environmental Impact

Keep Station Pier Port Operating as a Working Port
An environmental overlay exists on the Waterfront Place leisure centre site to ensure that residential accommodation is not built on the site. Building residential towers will result in “…an increase in the number of people affected by noise and … exposure to risk to health or life arising from port operations.” This overlay must be enforced, as once new residents experience the noise and fumes from ships and freight operations, they will lobby to reduce Station Pier operations. The Port of Melbourne Corporation is opposed to residential development on Waterfront Place.

save PMG View of Heritage Railway Station

Heritage Railway Station

Prevent Overshadowing and Wind Tunnels at Heritage Station Area
Once one high tower development has been approved in the low rise area of Beacon Cove, a precedent will have been set and other nearby sites such as the Beacon Cove food store, will then be targets for other residential towers. This will overwhelm the heritage feel of the old Port Melbourne railway station and the area will start to resemble the windswept wastelands of Docklands.

Where’s the Town Planning?The area near Station Pier was designed to offer a food store, sporting and medical facilities and restaurants. The proposed CoPP draft design guidelines (schedule 23) for 1-7 Waterfront Place and the Port Melbourne Waterfront Urban Design Framework 2013 give no commitments to ensure that these amenities are to be retained or increased to allow for the increasing population in the area, instead allowing them to be replaced by residential towers. Good town planning should focus on the needs of the community rather than the profits of developers.

How Can I Help?Contact savePMG for details

22 comments for “Home

  1. shirley
    4 December 2013 at 9:43 am

    It’s a difficult thing to stand up for the local community. When the wider community is apathetic because they are not personally affected.

    To be clear, we do not hate the council, but we disagree with the developer. These are separate entities. And the council IS supposed to stand by the community affected by developer decisions. Otherwise what is the point of having a council involved in those decisions?

  2. Christian
    4 December 2013 at 7:58 am

    It’s interesting that you’ve spent so much time and energy hating on Council over the past few months, but you’re silent now that the broader community has overwhelmingly disagreed with your views. The UDF has been approved and so may Amendment C104!

    • Site Administrator
      4 December 2013 at 9:56 am

      The comment from “Christian” appears to have been posted by someone who provided a fake e-mail address – The address from which the post was made was This is the IP address for which is a server for David Lock Associates ( David Lock Associates produced the Views and Vistas study for Amendment C104 and will provide an expert witness for the developer (Waterfront Place Pty Ltd) for the Planning Panels Victoria Hearing.

  3. Ann Stinton
    15 August 2013 at 12:16 pm

    I only have one very strong comment to make in regard to the Waterfront Redevelopment and that Is I believe those making decisions do not live in the area close to Station Pier and therefore do not have to deal with the traffic issues. Recognising that in our city we do have major traffics problems however infrastructures for any future additions to our Beacon Cove population need to be resolved before any further changes to existing development plans.
    To the decision makers please visit on a warm or hot sunny weekend and attempt to park your car to unload groceries, babies, frail elderly people etc. And please visit when peak hour traffic and loading of the Tasmanian Ferry and the tourists returrning to their ships before sailing, which usually coincides with traffic returning from workplaces either from the Westgate Bridge or from Beaconsfield Parade. As well we have the Tasmanian Ferry travellers who park sometimes long term in our locale. We have experienced situations where the roundabout in front of the London Hotel has been jammed and police have been called to try to extricate the immobilised traffic.
    We the locals will have to live with an unsuitable outcome, made by people who have no common sense, which may not be in the best interests for all.

  4. Lee Turner
    10 August 2013 at 3:59 pm

    Not quite right Jill, I never hid from the fact I supported the development. I publically stated my support for the development at the community debate and there was also an article written about me in the local paper where I again made mention of my support for it.

    To pick one article from my website where I do not mention it is quite misleading when there are other articles solely dedicated to my support for it.

    The child care facilities that were there originally ceased because they didn’t work. I 100% support increased public amenities as you mentioned but I also reconize that this is private land and the developer does not have to provide any. Yet he is happy to talk with the community and listen to what they want but the bandwagons are all intent on painting him as the devil.

    He has continued to let his tennis courts be used free of charge, the pool is leaking and has major problems so therefore can’t be used. Since the gym closed two more (bigger) gyms have opened up and he is has been in talks with a large national gym operator to open up in the development along with sports medical facilities.

    There are so many misconceptions and untruths relating to this application. His door is always open if people care to talk to him as I found out. It’s been interesting that people have gone out to speak with him but want to do it behind closed blinds because they’re too scared of being seen with him.

    It’s also a misconception to think the higher the developer can build the more “profit” he can make. There comes a tipping point where the cost to go any higher is outweighed by the actual cost to do it. Also the developer is entitled to make money the same way you and I do when we go to work each morning.

    It should be up to council to be providing child care not a developer trying to develop his private land.

    I encourage you and any other community member that cares to go out and talk with him the same way I did.

    There is a saying I like and it goes something along the lines of “If you go at someone with fists they will greet you with fists but if you go at someone with open hands they too will greet you with open hands” Think about it.

  5. Jill Maddox
    9 August 2013 at 2:08 pm

    Hi Lee, I know you said you’ve looked at the developer’s plans but I don’t think you’ve looked closely enough. Currently 1-7 Waterfront Place has more than 2,700 square metres of community facilities (gym, pool, tennis courts, child care and kindergarten) – and much more than this if you count the garden areas on the rest of the site. The only amenity in the developer’s plans that has the word public associated with it is the swimming pool, and this is slightly smaller than the current pool (which would be better bigger). So about 1/7 the space, despite the multi-storeys, devoted to public facilities compared to the current situation. Even if the gym, hot pool, sauna etc that are not stated to be public facilities are to be publicly accessible the developer is still contributing only ~ 1,170 m2 of facilities. However, from the plans it appears unlikely that the areas not designated as public areas will be publicly available as nowhere does it state explicitly that the gym or hot pool or sauna etc will be public – unlike the repeated statements about the public pool. As you know residents of HM@S enjoy their own private facilities – there is no publicly accessible gym in HM@S, so not much benefit to the surrounding area. With HM@S much of the commercial space disappeared once residents worked out that allowing the public access to this space created security concerns for the residents. The same situation is likely to happen on Waterfront Place, unless there is proper design to ensure both security for residents and public access. The proposed gym area in the developer’s plans (including waiting area) is only about 1/7 the size of the current gym and aerobics area (excluding lobby etc). Furthermore, there are no changing rooms or locker areas in the plans, and if only the public pool section is public then there are no showers either – although they do have some toilets. So, do you really think these are well designed public facilities that will be equivalent to what is being removed? Likewise, if there is to be a multi-storey building on the site then where are visionary things like after-school facilities for school children? Modern families still do have children, and given its position (easily accessible by walking or off-road bike paths and public transport) Waterfront Place is an ideal location for access by school children. The site occupied by tennis courts could be converted to multi-functional tennis, netball, basketball etc courts – these could be indoor or outdoor. Such a solution could offer a good alternative for local children to use especially compared to the current inadequate basketball facilities under the Graham St overpass.

    Likewise, nowhere in the CoPP’s draft design guidelines does it stipulate that there should be at least 2,700 m2 of community facilities to replace what the community will be losing when CoPP changes the zoning rules. Nor do they consider what infrastructure it would be good for the Port Melbourne community to have. All CoPP is doing with changing the zoning is allowing the developer to make more profit by building predominantly residential buildings on the site. The long term employment opportunities will be minimal.

    By the way, I, and presumably many others, didn’t know your views on Waterfront Place before the 2012 elections. There is no mention of it at If anything it implies the opposite (commitments for New sporting & community facilities as our population grows, Win the fight for two new schools and better childcare).

  6. Andrew
    7 August 2013 at 10:11 pm

    I think it is fair to say that just because the State Government has chosen to take action on something doesn’t mean it is correct. Do people always agree with everything they do? I think everyone can agree they are not doing the right thing on numerous issues, how can you be so certain that this time they are correct?

    In simple terms, a free market will dictate if something is justified in an area. If the developer wants to build an apartment building in this location with all of the issues people have outlined here, then surely no one will buy any apartments will they? If a site with such poor attributes was to be developed, why would anyone want to buy here? Surely no one would want to live in a location which is 100 metres from a light rail tram route, 100 metres from the beach, offers excellent amenity with restaurants cafes and shopping within close proximity, where car ownership is not a requirement, etc etc.

    Where would a better location be for a higher density property development? Melbourne already has a ridiculous level of urban sprawl and to expand further is crazy. The cost of urban expansion is very high and infill development sites are far cheaper to use to house a cities expanding population. I would rather see my taxes used to improve the area I live in rather than to extend rail lines and freeways to make a 2 hour trip reduce to 1 hour 50 minutes!

    A development that was planned in 1992 is now more than 20 years old. Just because some minor things were completed in 2006, has no relevance on the original plan. The original plan is what the area is still managed in accordance with. Things change in 20 years and we need a modern Melbourne.

    Community facilities are always required in an area, but why do they need to be in a single storey building on the site? Why can’t there be a compromise where the same facilities, or even more, incorporated into the development proposed?

    I don’t purport to say that this specific development is the solution for this site, but there are two sides to every argument and people should consider both sides. To simply say no to everything is not the answer.

    • Ian Evans
      7 August 2013 at 11:26 pm

      Andrew, I’m afraid that the argument that the free market leads to good outcomes has taken a bit of a hit from the Global Financial Crisis. Just look up “tragedy of the commons” to see how seemingly rational individual actions can lead to worse results for all.

    • Gerhard Correa
      8 August 2013 at 9:49 am

      Andrew – I would like to respond to your one of your comments below:

      “A development that was planned in 1992 is now more than 20 years old. Just because some minor things were completed in 2006, has no relevance on the original plan. The original plan is what the area is still managed in accordance with. Things change in 20 years and we need a modern Melbourne.”

      I would have agreed with you if we were talking about a motor car built in 1992 – which is definitely old. But when you are talking of a master planned estate built between 1996 – 2006, 7-18 years is very young in its life-cycle. Also right up to 2006 when the last of the lots in Beacon Cove were sold, Mirvac kept up its marketing campaign promoting the community facilities and the restrictions that affected it. Every buyer of land in Beacon Cove was notified of these restrictions and has an equitable right in the restrictions that affect Waterfront Place. If a majority of these buyers were of the opinion that the covenants were obsolete then definitely the development should go ahead. But the petitions and the objections that are being lodged indicate a very different picture. The beneficiaries of the restrictions have every right to oppose the development – these are equitable land rights which carry a great deal of weight.

  7. Gerhard Correa
    7 August 2013 at 3:48 pm

    Mr Turner has called for the facts – in particular as to why there are 5 x 10 to 12 storey towers in Beacon Cove. This is a fair question and to answer it Mr Turner needs to look at the history behind the low rise build form at Waterfront Place.

    I will provide Mr Turner that history which is as follows:

    In 1992 the Bayside Community forum was conducted by the State Government of Victoria and the Port Melbourne City Council. Over 900 residents along with many urban designers, architects, town planners, engineers etc provided their input which ultimately shaped the master planned community of Beacon Cove. The community preference was for a low-rise built form across the whole of the Beacon Cove estate, but ultimately the community agreed to a “trade-off” with the State Government and Council to allow the “high-rise” build form west of Station Pier with the “low-rise” community facilities built around the heritage railway station and Waterfront Place. The State Government to protect the character of the neighbourhood imposed the current restrictive covenants that burden 1-7 Waterfront Place. These are covenants imposed by the State Government and not a “fly by night” developer. The “benefits” of these covenants flow to the whole of the community and for the current council to suggest a 10 storey height limit for the site is a breach of its own governance policies, particularly after the 1,250 strong petition that was presented to the Victorian Parliament in March 2012. The community centre – particularly the gym was a thriving hub of activity until it was closed down much to the angst of the community. The reopening of the gym alone would bring the place back to life.

    This is not a brown fields site but a master planned estate which has won many awards which is the reason why many residents bought their properties. The estate was completed in 2006 which is only seven years ago – to change the land scape so soon after the paint has barely dried on the walls is absolute madness!

    Mr Turner is entitled to his opinion – and so are the rest of the community. My only hope is that the Port Phillip City council and the Minister for Planning come to their senses and withdraw the C104 Planning Scheme Amendment.

  8. Patricia Goldie
    7 August 2013 at 12:39 pm

    The people who live in the planned estate of Beacon Cove (including the existing towers) have a right to have the community facilities available as planned by Mirvac. There are two covenants protecting this site from development. One of them states the site is for community facilities. The other states no residential accommodation. Through the Developer, the Royal Family of Kuwait have bought the land with these encumbrances and should know that is is wrong to try to put up towers on this site. The Beacon Cove community will be disadvantaged if this site is developed as towers will cause overshadowing of the beach, biking and walking paths in winter; cause wind tunnel effect at the tram stop; increase the traffic at peak times in summer; increase difficulty in parking; cause loss of views from land and sea. I can only see the motivation to push ahead with towers on this site as greed.

  9. Nick
    7 August 2013 at 11:57 am

    If Lee’s failure at the 2012 LG election is evidence of the overwhelming community hatred of development, why did Lee lose by the closest margin out of any ward across Victoria? I will remind you that he was only beaten by a margin of 30 votes. This does not correlate with C Britchford’s position that Lee is at odds with the views and interests of the residents of Sandridge. Special interest groups such as this purport to represent the views of a far larger percentage of the community than they do in reality. This is called the false-consensus effect. Council rightly takes views like yours as just one of many valid concerns.

    The fact remains that one of the best ways to improve quality of living is to intelligently increase density. Not only does this increase council revenue per sq km, it also allows council to deliver services far more cheaply. This double whammy effect is further multiplied when you consider the extra residents that get to enjoy living in Sandridge – why should they be denied the benefits of the ward just because they can’t afford landed property?

    I understand that most objectors are long-term residents of the area who wish to maintain the amenity they enjoyed 20 years ago. I also understand that definitions of amenity are going to have to change as the world changes around us – we can’t all own a 3 bedroom house with 3 bathrooms AND have a 15 minute tram ride into work. Believe it or not, it’s possible to be quite happy with a far smaller footprint – perhaps a 2 bed/1 bath apartment and using a bike or public transport to get to work. In a world of finite resources being divided among a growing population, shouldn’t we be encouraging people to live in this way?

  10. Lee Turner
    6 August 2013 at 6:47 pm

    I hope this project gets the go ahead. The design is beautiful and will provide a beautiful gateway into Port Melbourne for people arriving by boat. It will further enhance the area and provide the local community with a gym, public pool and other amenities.

    It’s laughable to call it inappropriate when there a five 13 story towers along the foreshore yet everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon because they are happy living in there towers but they don’t want anymore. Please!

    Everyone objected to HMAS when that 19 story beauty was built and now it has become one of the most sort out apartment blocks around.

    People need to accept change and understand we live in the inner city and development is evident and traffic is a part of life.

    This project will be good for employment has it will provide many jobs, it will be great for local businesses and it will provide the council more revenue.

    We have a classic CAVE syndrome down here – Citizens Against Virtually Everything!!

    • C Britchford
      6 August 2013 at 8:35 pm

      You are clearly out of touch with community views, and still languishing in the architectural doldrums of the seventies if you can describe this 19 storey monstrosity as ‘beautiful’.

      As for your comment that ‘traffic is a part of life’ and we should just put up with it………………………….all I can say is that you have renewed my faith in the democratic process, failing as you did to get elected onto Council! The residents of Sandridge ward rightly perceived that you do not represent their views nor will you protect their interests.

      STOP promoting the profit motive of one at the expense of many.

      • Lee Turner
        7 August 2013 at 9:47 am

        Lets look at the facts:

        HMAS is one of the most sort out apartments blocks that won numerous design awards and its apartments attract a price premium.

        News Flash: Yes traffic is a part of life, we live in the inner city with a growing population and an increase in demand to live close to the city. I have adapted to this my riding my Vespa, catching public transport or riding my bicycle. Traffic will continue to increase regardless if this is built.

        Yes I failed at council but at least I was honest and put up my hand and declared my position when it would have been easy to say nothing or join the popular chorus of those against it. I honestly believe the development will be a good thing for the area and I personally think the design is fantastic and will provide some great public amenities and much needed boost to the local economy and businesses.

        I think you miswrote your comment on me not representing the residents views. Are you sure you didn’t mean the Sandridge residents wanted to protect their views?? Explain why there are 5 X 13 Story Towers in Beacon Cove yet one more tower just 6 stories higher is attracting so much negativity.

        Finally your comment about “stop promoting the profit motive of one at the expense of many” Are you serious? Do you and I not go to work to make money? Why can’t the developer do the same? Is being a developer some seedy occupation? They are trying to turn a derelict site into something stunning that will provide

        I was originally against the development but I took the time to meet the developer and weigh up both sides of the argument and I made an informed decision from that. If thats a crime, lock me up.

        • Ian Evans
          7 August 2013 at 12:18 pm

          Why is one more tower attracting so much negativity? Let’s try a few obvious answers.

          1. The location destroys the vista for visitors arriving at Station Pier.

          2. It’s right at the point where there are often horrendous traffic jams.

          3. We don’t want Port Melbourne to be a dormitory suburb, with all activity centres locked up as residential towers. Where is the commercial space and extra restaurant that was supposed to be within HM@S? Converted to 7 residences in 2002, that’s where.

          4. There need to be local facilities so that people don’t have to drive everywhere to do anything. This site had these until the current owner purchased the site. This was part of the plan when they built the other 5 towers.

          Towers are a fact of life, and there are places where they are fine, but they need to be balanced with appropriate infrastructure. This was done in the planning for Beacon Cove, with broad acceptance from the community. Now this infrastructure is under threat, and it’s obvious why there is community concern.

        • Shirley
          10 August 2013 at 9:30 pm

          No one has any issue with a developer making money, Lee.

          THE LAND WAS BOUGHT AS IS. With restrictions. Presumably Mirvac and the State Govt felt for the good of all.
          And the buyer knew what they were. They signed the purchase documents. THAT, I have issue with.

          How splendid you have taken the time to meet the developer. So have all of us Beacon Cove Association folks who’ve had him at numerous meetings.

          My informed decision is that, (like many other locals) I am opposed to what is proposed for Waterfront Place – which has far reaching consequences re other building restrictions and covenants in the area. The developer represents the parent company in Kuwait. We live here. Who lives with the outcome?
          There were never meant to be any towers along the waterfront. However a deal was done, I believe, in the end to allow 5 towers IN TOTAL, because the developers pushed for it. More fiscally fruitful shall we say.

          Hence having covenants and building restrictions were put in place to keep as is.

          And what about Station Pier’s operation? And TT Line? It is a working pier. It needs room. There is noise from engines during the night.

          It’s like building near an airport and then insisting later its shut down because of the noise to residents. It is just not a good outcome for anybody. Well, perhaps mmm, the developer? Who has built and gone?

        • Shirley
          10 August 2013 at 9:42 pm

          It wasn’t a derelict site before Lee. It was quite nice.

          It only changed due to the owners letting it go – in my opinion this would be a strategy to get approval for new plans.


    • Shirley Whittington
      10 August 2013 at 6:56 pm

      Waterfront place was supposed to be a community space. I suggest you read a bit more about the original development and agreements before you make these comments.

      And the new towers are ugly in my view. Beautiful? Your taste is very subjective.

      As for HM@S – I shudder at its ugliness. It has water views. That’s why people live there. They don’t look at the building – they look at the water.

      Furthermore I suggest you read the recent council survey of Port Phillip residents that says a big concern is more development.

      So Waterfont being developed into 3 ugly towers will create jobs. What jobs? I can hardly get a tradie now. Seems to me just another a very short term view.

      Just money for the developers. Slums of the future more like it. So are all the apartments on Bay Street rented out yet? Do you actually know? Do we need more high rise? Yes, it is more revenue for the council. That is true.

      Another short term view is that that we have to be overdeveloped and have more traffic. Poor development and bad traffic is due to poor planning and poor governance surely. And in my opinion, like bad design, should never be accepted.

  11. C. Small
    5 August 2013 at 9:26 pm

    How about some comment about the Mirvac house on the corner of Beach and Princes being prepared for demolition. A three story house will be built, entirely overriding the covenants and looks too commercial! I looked at the plans at the St Kilda city hall.

  12. Faye Johnstone
    29 July 2013 at 8:15 am

    NO! Port Melbourne is already over developed with apartment complexes, let’s maintain what we have and put some money back into Port Melbourne – it would be great if there were some shops that could cater for teh 20 somethings :) :):):)

  13. Myfanwy van de Meene
    26 July 2013 at 10:41 am

    As a frequent visitor to Port Melbourne I have always enjoyed the cycling and beach activities available in the area. I appreciate the historical aspects of Station Pier.
    I oppose the building of a twenty storey apartment building in the area. It will detract from the view of the iconic Melbourne skyline seen by visitors. Remember how the “toaster’ building detracts from the views of the Opera House in Sydney. The area has been set aside for community use. As the population of the Port Melbourne area grows it becomes imperative that there be a community hub, so that suburb does not become an empty, heartless collection of roads. A twenty storey building will overshadow the beach and bike tracks. We are so lucky to have such a beautiful beach precinct within such easy access of the CBD, with a short light rail trip or pleasant bike ride from South Melbourne.
    I implore the Council of Port Phillip to uphold the exisitng planning arrangements and oppose the rezoning of the area.

    Myfanwy van de Meene

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *