Height, Storeys and setbacks across different Councils.

Manningham Council have repeatedly told the community during the DD08 high density zone review, that only height can be effectively used to define developments, and that “Storeys” was un-manageable as a definition.

How ever when you compare how othe Melbourne Councils manage their developments, they do use both Height and Storeys in thier definitions.  attached are a couple of samples.

Kingston, Boroondara Councils express maximum heights in conjunction with the maximum storeys in their schedules. (e.g. 2 storeys and 8 metres)

Maroondah stipulates storeys in conjunction with minimum land areas and setbacks…no mention of heights.

See the Page from Manningham submission to C96 re heights in lieu of storeys attached.

Maroondah+C74+Panel+Report

Heights 43_02s19_king

Boroondara Activity Centre Schedule

manningham c96 panel report 31

Another great bit of research by Warren,

I hope the planning departments of our council are reviewing practices from other councils to determine the best practice for these matters…

2 Responses to “Height, Storeys and setbacks across different Councils.”

  1. Patrick says:

    Manningham Council have refused to insert a condition limiting the number of storeys in conjunction with heights, in DDO8 of the Manningham planning scheme, despite its commitment to do so in Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS). Council is now saying that the MSS policy document will 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 the number of storeys in conjunction with a height limit in metres, is a good and proper practice adopted by most planning authorities. It provides more control and can result in a more interesting and varied concept in built form as opposed to Manningham’s schedule, which has no limit on the number of storeys providing developers the opportunity to maximise “apartment yield”(overdevelopment) by approving a variety of rather dubious measures to circumvent the height limit and add an extra storey, such as “sinking” living areas below the natural ground level to disguise the true height of a building.
    Patrick

  2. B Carlisle says:

    I am hopeful that Manningham Council will not renege on what it has promised in its MSS statement, despite concerns that it has not been written into the DDO8 schedule.
    Council’s new MSS policy restricting development of building sites under 1800sqm in sub precinct A, to a reduced maximum of two storeys (previously three storeys), but retaining a maximum height of up to 10 meters, is welcomed. A two storey apartment building, using the contemporary flat roof design, Council’s preferred neighbourhood character, can easily be accommodated within a height of only 7.5 metres. With the new two storeys limit applicable to smaller sites, it will no longer be necessary for excessive excavation to lower parking basements, especially living areas, below the natural ground level, because there is now ample scope in height to avoid this practice. This was a dodgy and unacceptable measure employed to contravene the spirit of the previous building height and density restriction.
    Barbara Carlisle

Leave a Response