Clarity & Certainty for all.

This question was posed to the Manningham Council at the April 2012 meeting – it has been taken on notice – we will have to wait and see how well it gets answered… It was Given to Teresa Dominik to answer, as she is now the official head of the Manningham Planning Dept. Teressa also had a lot to do with developing the C50, which led to the DD08, and is well versed on the current Residential strategy. However for some reason Mayor Gough instructed her to not try to fully answer as Teresa had just taken on the role…

 As Council is seeking to ensure that greater clarity and certainty is provided in the Residential Strategy’s future planning controls, I query the summary of recommendations for proposed Amendment to DD08 in April’s Manningham Matters.
In the Main Road sub-precinct you stipulate a maximum building height of 11 meters and bracket three storey.
 But for the sub-precinct A you stipulate 11 meters but bracket approximately three storeys.  Why do you use different wording?  What does approximately mean in ‘storeys’?
 However, even if the minimum mandatory lot size of 1800m2 is not met, a three-storey building can still be designed within 9 meters making it no different to the Main Road sub-precinct.
 Sub-precinct B refers to a two-storey development with a maximum mandatory height, however, a three storey building could still be designed within the mandatory maximum building height of 9 meters –  making it no different to sub-precinct A or the Main Road sub-precinct.
Can Council clarify how the proposed DD08 controls are giving a greater level of protection –  as promoted to Councillors and the community – in the February Council Meeting Agenda?  Why distinguish between land areas under and over 1800m2 or indeed between 9 or 11 meter height limits when it is entirely possible to incorporate the 3 storey building on any site be it Main Road, sub-precinct A or B.
Please clarify exactly how you have strengthened the distinctions between these precincts.
What  also concerns us is the portrayal of the Draft residential Strategy in this months Manningham Matters.
It was good that the council finally started including the Upside and Down-side in thier statements, in this case mentioning that three storey buildings could still be built on the smaller sites…  HOWEVER, it was not appropriate to put it under the heading of “Recommendations of the Draft Residential Strategy.”  The three storey on small blocks is a debated, contentious issue, that was & is  to be clarified. Definitely not a recommendation.  So please do spell out the best and worst for all to understand, but make sure any commentary is presented and highlighted as such. Lets not mislead residents into thinking that all is lost while we are still fighting that battle.

One Response to “Clarity & Certainty for all.”

  1. Edwin O'Flynn says:

    At that same meeting Cr Ellis outlined his conservationist principles.
    This begs the question. How do you reconcile your conservationist principles with a Residential Strategy that supports McMansions on one acre blocks with individual tennis courts and swimming pools? These are anathema to environmentalists.
    Also the Eastern Golf Course zoning changed from special use to development.This site because of it’s centrality and history is of greater environmental and landscape significance than even the green wedges on the urban fringe.

Leave a Response

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.