How could the new C96 High density rules translate to real life ?

The Planning Panel said the council should test the new  rules to see what outcomes might be…
There are already examples from recent times…
Some possible outcomes of the C96 changes if they get passed :
The 51-53 Talford St case is a good example of how the new DDO8 will be interpreted & used .  There were 2 key issues in Talford St – max ht of 10.6 (reduced to 10.3m), and a 2nd level bulk equivalent to the ground floor area.  The excuses (sorry, rationale) in the Delegate Report for accepting both were revealing (see below).
It will be interesting to see how Council interprets the new mandatory heights for particular parts of buildings in light of the excuses below for variations – note that there are already exceptions in the new DDO8:
“Max. Building Ht does not include building services, lift over-runs and roof mounted equipment, including screening devices.”
Basically, the podium design is now enshrined in DDO8 since the 75% rule has been redefined to apply only to the 3rd level (not the 2nd level as well)  in relation to the area of the ground floor (in order to “maximise yield”).  Getting rid of “ugly basement projections” is a euphemism for maximising excavation which is possible IN TANDEM with the extra allowed ht on a sloping site.
 ——————-
TALFORD ST Delegate Report, pt. 6.5:
(1) Max. ht was 10.6m reduced by negotiation to 10.330m

The maximum building height, subject to a condition that it be lowered by 270mm, is acceptable because:

  •  All of the habitable floor area within the building occurs within the recommended maximum building height (10m). It is the fascia associated with the roof of the building which sits above the recommended maximum building height.
  •  Less than 25% of the building’s roof area exceeds the recommended maximum building height. More than 50% of the building’s roof area sits well below the recommended maximum building height (with a height of between 7m and 7.5m).
  •  The small portion of the building’s fascia that sits above the recommended maximum building height is located mid- site and away from residential neighbours. The building height and setbacks accord with the requirements of Clause 55.04-1 of the Manningham Planning Scheme.
  • The building offers a high degree of transition to the single storey residential dwellings located west of the site.
  • The site is a consolidation of two properties.

 

(2) The top floor of the building steps up from a two- storey podium adjacent to the rear boundary….. 

A two-storey podium is a reasonable proposition and there are examples of two-storey buildings and sheer two-storey walls in the surrounding area including opposite the site in Elvie St [not true  just a normal articulated dual occupancy, one unit behind the other] and at the corner of Elvie St and Doncaster Rd [irrelevant  a 2 storey commercial building in a B2 Zone].

The top level is adequately recessed from the two-storey podium on the east, west and north sides and occupies around 52% of the ground floor area, significantly less than the 75% required.

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.