77 Bay St, Port Melbourne

January 2017

The purpose for which the application was originally made - for childcare - is about to be realised. Matrix Early Learning Centre is inviting registrations of interest for childcare places. The Centre will provide long day care for 90 children aged between 6 weeks to 6 years of age. 

77 Bay St, January 2017

February 2014

The site lies idle, gathering cigarette butts and litter. 

77 Bay St, February 2014

1 September 2012

Council's decision to refuse the application for an eight level apartment development at 77 Bay St was upheld by VCAT. Tribunal member Rundell concluded that 

'[the proposal] would have significant adverse impacts on residents to the south, and invade the privacy of the residents to the west. It would also be a blunt and overwhelming interface to the sensitive heritage interface on its north side, and it also impacts on the Bay Street public domain. ... Access is constrained. I also think it fails to provide adequate car parking on site. ... Finally I think the amenity of most of the apartments would be unacceptable. They would have limited access to daylight, face dismal outlooks and their residents would rely heavily on the amenity of the locality to compensate for the very limited amenity of many of the dwellings.' 

He provides guidance for any future development of the site.

References

VCAT Ref P1690/2011 decision 9 02 2012

Planning Application No 778/210

15 October 2011

between Bayshore and the four significant heritage buildings

Port Phillip Council has refused the application for 77 Bay St. The proposal is to construct an 8 level building comprising a ground floor level shop facing Bay St with 24 dwellings above. The applicant has lodged an appeal with VCAT. Some of the grounds for refusal include 

• the height, minimal front setbacks and lack of side setbacks of the proposal, particularly at Levels 4 to 8, would not be site responsive to the neighbourhood and streetscape character of the area, the heritage buildings to the northerly side of the site, or the reasonable amenity and energy efficiency of existing dwellings to the southerly side and rear.
• the height of levels 4 to 8 would be unreasonable and would overwhelm and not achieve a satisfactory transition in scale between the adjacent heritage buildings to the north and the massing of the 3, 6 and 9 level 'Bayshore' apartments to the south.
• the height, scale and massing of the proposal would not satisfactorily respond to the existing conditions on adjacent properties and could detrimentally affect the amenity of existing dwellings to both sides and to the rear, and would adversely impact on the streetscape and built form character of the nearly section of Bay St.