OVERDEVELOPMENT STILL POSSIBLE ON SMALLER SITES – after C96

How safe do you think side streets are from over development?

Manningham Council’s decision not to insert a condition prescribing a limit of two storey development on smaller sites, in the revised table 1 to schedule 8 document, has created a great deal of uncertainty. Whilst the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) has indicated that “high yield” two storey town  house style “should” only occur on land areas less than 1800sqm, it remains subordinate to the revised table 1 to schedule 8, which does not specify storeys and refers only to a maximum height of 9 metres (10 metres if the building site is sloped). The MSS can still be considered in decision making but only in the context of the broader planning policy framework and cannot mandate specific actions or outcomes of the revised DDO8 schedule.

Stipulating a number of storeys in conjunction with a height limit in metres, is the normal practice of most planning authorities as a means of enabling interesting and varied roof forms, as opposed to Manningham council’s current policy of encouraging developers to maximise the number of storeys, within the height limit, by the employment of a contemporary flat roof design as a “preferred neighbourhood character”. If Manningham council is to continue with this concept as the preferred neighbourhood character, it need only have specified a height of 6.5 metres (7.5 metres for a slope site) to accommodate a two storey building.

Further concerns of overdevelopment stem from the material Manningham council distributed in the 2012 document titled “What matters Manningham” Frequently asked question, sent to more than 40,000 residences, which made the following statement on page 5;  “if a site (in precinct A) is less than 1,800 sqm a building can be no higher than 9 metres, or 10 metres if on sloping land. Whilst Council’s policy  encourages two storey dwellings within 9 metres (or 10 metres on sloping land) it should be noted that a three storey building could still be achieved within the specified height limit but would be on a smaller scale”.

Robert  W

Final_Schedule 8__mann_Adoption Version_28 May

Final_MSS_21_05__mann_Adoption Version_28 May

FAQ in What Matters Manningham c96

One Response to “OVERDEVELOPMENT STILL POSSIBLE ON SMALLER SITES – after C96”

  1. Patrick says:

    There are two basic methods of measuring building heights, one being height in metres and the other in the number of storeys, the former has problems of definition, and can be abused, resulting in the overdevelopment of a building site. Lower ceiling heights, excessive site excavation, the employment of a contemporary style flat roof design are among the measures used to create an additional level of apartments within the maximum building height. In view of these potential difficulties, table 1 to schedule 8 of the Manningham planning scheme should have specified maximum building heights in metres in conjunction with a limit on the number of storeys. The design objectives in the document (1.0) were not definitive, paragraph 2 and 3 merely say to “support” a number of storeys, it should say “to support a limit” of etc.
    Patrick

Leave a Response