By Rachael Dexter
A proposal for a massive redevelopment near Marvel Stadium has been savaged by City of Melbourne councillors, with one calling it a “great wall” in Docklands and another labelling the application one of the most embarrassing he had seen.
Development Victoria and the AFL have applied to the state government for a planning scheme amendment that would allow them to redevelop the western edge of the stadium precinct with three buildings, the tallest at 129 metres or about 40 storeys.
An artist’s render of the proposed development of three towers on Harbour Esplanade, Docklands.Credit: Development Victoria
Under the application, Development Victoria – the state government’s property development agency – and the AFL proposed using the three buildings for office space, a function centre and retail stores, with options for homes and a hotel, subject to market conditions.
Also under the proposal, the current AFL House building would be partially demolished and rebuilt taller, while the current Channel Seven headquarters would be demolished and two towers built in its place. Development Victoria says it owns part of the site and the AFL owns another part.
City of Melbourne was asked to provide feedback on the application as a referral authority, but does not have the final say on whether it goes ahead and in what form. That power rests ultimately with Planning Minister Sonya Kilkenny.
The application seeks to radically increase height controls on the site. The current central square has a height limit of 60 metres (about 18 storeys), but the application wants to increase that to 90 metres (about 27 storeys).
The proposed increases to height limits for the site.Credit: Development Victoria
The parcels of land to the west, where Seven’s headquarters are located, have height controls of 75 metres (about 22 storeys), which the AFL and Development Victoria aim to increase to as high as 129 metres (about 40 storeys).
At a council meeting on Tuesday night, City of Melbourne planners noted concerns about a lack of public benefit to justify the increases in height. However, they formally recommended that councillors support the plans and request changes instead.
But the councillors voted unanimously against supporting the project.
At the meeting, Docklands resident Sandra Severin called the redevelopment “the Development Victoria Wall of Marvel splitting our suburb”.
Sandra Severin (with blue scarf) and other Docklands residents oppose the development plan.Credit: Joe Armao
Councillor Jamal Hakim, an independent, echoed that: “Many are calling it the ‘Great Wall of Docklands’, but I think what Sandy said is more precise because it’s more like the ‘Great Wall of Development Victoria’ because no one in Docklands supports this.”
Deputy Mayor Nick Reece, who is Labor-aligned, said approving the height controls without knowing the fate of the central pier (another Development Victoria asset) directly in front of the buildings would risk repeating historical mistakes in Docklands. Major buildings in the precinct were approved without consideration of amenity for locals or public need for things like schools or open space.
“Council has been absolutely resolute that we will not repeat the mistakes of the past in Docklands, but that is what will occur if we were to support this proposal in its current form,” he said.
“So I do want to really strongly encourage our friends and colleagues at Development Victoria and the AFL to work with us to address the concerns that have come up this evening.
An aerial view of Marvel Stadium on Wednesday.Credit: Joe Armao
“We are really committed to getting to ‘yes’ and seeing a major project move forward here. But we want it to be a development that Docklands and Melbourne and all of us can be really proud of.”
Other councillors were more scathing, including Hakim, who criticised the absence of anyone from the AFL or Development Victoria at the council meeting to field questions, as is the norm.
“This has to be one of the most embarrassing applications we’ve ever seen. Someone’s clearly dropped the ball on this application,” Hakim said. “Either that will all we’re all missing something really dodgy.”
Greens councillor Rohan Leppert said there was “lack of strategic justification” and that the application’s suggestion this development would connect the city to the waterfront did not stack up.
“How does this project connect the city to the waterfront? This is reverse-engineered gobbledygook,” he said.
“[The developers need to explain] how it connects Docklands with other parts of the city, what its relationship with Harbour Esplanade can be, and then we’ll have an idea about whether this is an idea worth pursuing.
“I would love to find a way to get to ‘yes’ but we can’t reverse engineer nonsense strategic justifications.”
The proposal would allow for a “mix of uses across the three buildings including offices, a function centre and retail uses, with options to include accommodation such as dwellings and a residential hotel”, according to the council officer’s report.
The report noted that the proposal “seeks flexibility ‘dependent on market conditions’ and therefore the final land-use mix is unknown at this stage”, and that the plan did not “anticipate the provision of any affordable housing”.
Severin told The Age Docklands locals were furious about a lack of commitment to community assets in the proposal on what is state government land.
“That proposal was so loose,” she said. “Our local community is desperate for a local high school, desperate for a larger primary school, a public pool, we don’t have community sports grounds.”
AFL spokesperson Jay Allen said: “The AFL is committed to seeing the Docklands and Harbour Esplanade precinct flourish and has undertaken to work closely with council and the Victorian government to see the vision realised.”
In a statement, Development Victoria’s Niall Cunningham said it was “an opportunity to deliver more housing, jobs and entertainment to Docklands’ waterfront, enhancing Marvel Stadium as a sports and entertainment complex”.
A spokeswoman for the planning minister said any proposal would be “considered on its merits”.
The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.