Councillors approve amended Flinders St tower despite heritage concerns

The City of Melbourne has unanimously approved an amended permit for a new office tower at 376–388 Flinders St, backing a $59 million proposal that will integrate a significant heritage substation while enforcing stricter setback conditions to protect its prominence.

The decision was made at the February 3 Future Melbourne Committee meeting, where councillors considered an amendment to an existing planning permit for an 18-storey mixed-use building comprising retail and office space. The amendment followed the acquisition of adjacent land at 11–27 Tavistock Place, introducing new heritage considerations, which protects a graded significant substation on the site.

The council’s planning chair Deputy Lord Mayor Roshena Campbell outlined the key issue before councillors: whether built form extending into the airspace above the heritage substation was appropriate under the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

“The key issue before us tonight is consideration of whether this development, in particular on the new land, delivers an appropriate built form and heritage response,” she said.

While the applicant, Wincrown Pty Ltd, represented by Tract Consultants, sought the removal of a condition requiring an increased upper-level setback, council officers recommended retaining it to ensure compliance with heritage policy.

Cr Campbell made clear that the planning scheme’s heritage controls were central to the assessment.

“It’s worth making it very clear that council’s heritage policy and the planning scheme specifically requires that additions to a significant or contributory building do not build over or extend into the airspace directly above the front or principal part of the building,” she said.

Officers advised that the proposed cantilever above Tavistock Place would diminish the heritage significance of the substation. A render presented to councillors showed an overhang supported by pillars intersecting visually with the heritage building.

In response to a question about commercial feasibility, council management reiterated that such considerations were not part of the statutory test.

“Feasibility isn’t a consideration under the planning scheme,” officers said. “We’re required to assess the planning merits of the application as per the policies within the planning scheme, and that’s not one of the considerations.”

The applicant argued that without regaining floorplate efficiencies, the project would be unviable as a Grade A office building. Wincrown’s chief operating officer Jim Lough told councillors that “any further reduction to that floor plate will basically render the project unfeasible”.

Tract town planning consultant Luke Chamberlain also urged councillors to consider removing the setback condition, saying the project would make “a wonderful contribution to this city block”.

However, Cr Campbell emphasised that the council’s role was to balance investment with policy compliance.

She noted that council had already granted a permit for the broader development and supported the amendment subject to conditions.

“We are delighted that it retains and incorporates the heritage substation,” she said, describing the adaptive reuse as “strongly aligned with our planning policy objective to encourage adaptive reuse of heritage places as an alternative to demolition”.

Importantly, she said, the setback condition would “ensure an appropriate transition between the heritage building and the addition, keeping the new built form recessive, subservient and importantly, in this heritage context, clearly distinguishable”. •