Manningham New Gov Zones vs Old zones

There are more drastic changes to the Planning schemes and regulations coming, as discussed previously due to statewide rezoning by the government. Scary words like discretionary are being used again – for instance the GRZ zone below includes special allowances for extra height etc for current DD08 A & B areas.

Manningham Council have now approved / requested the state government to take the next step. see council minutes from 29 April 2014 item 9.2 : New Residential Zones – Amendment C105 to the Manningham Planning Scheme – Request for Approval under 20(4) of the Planning & Environment Act 1987.

There is much detail to be added before the rules are clear enough, but here is an overview if you are already aware of your current zoning.
2014-04-29 state gov Zone approval manningham Table 1 zone Old vs New

Example from the minutes:

3.9. The purpose of the General Residential Zone (GRZ) is to respect and preserve neighborhood character while allowing moderate / incremental housing growth and diversity. The GRZ has a default discretionary height limit of 9 metres. This zone most closely reflects the existing R1Z and (subject to
maximum height being included in the zone schedule) the R3Z.

2 Responses to “Manningham New Gov Zones vs Old zones”

  1. Nino says:

    How can we possibly take these faceless unaccountable bureaucrats seriously while they are lurching from one “amendment” to another? It is not just the uncertainty they are creating by their tinkering, but also the financial stress it has imposed on our community. For example, I know of several families that have had a three storey development, with 16 to 30 apartments, approved on a small block next door to them. Unfortunately the amendment C96 which determined that this type of development could only occur on blocks 1800m2 or more, came too late for these people. As a result of C96, only two storey town houses would be permitted on these smaller sites…cold comfort for families who face significant property value losses. Just when we thought they might have got it right we now have another round of alterations. I have not read the latest changes fully but the word “discretionary” will only create more uncertainty and a perception of a continuing bias towards developers.

  2. Ivan S. says:

    Prior to the latest strategy, “Planmelbourne”, there was the “living Suburbs” after that failed we had the disastrous “Melbourne 2030” followed by the “Melbourne @ 5 Million” debacle. All have had similar problems that have caused them to stall, the most common being the lack of supporting infrastructure.
    There has been little change to the Doncaster Hill high rise surrounding the Westfield shopping centre, part of the ill-fated Melbourne 2030 in 2002, or the DDO8, a medium density strategy (2006), on and around main roads. There were a total of 13,500 apartments envisaged, 4000 to be built in the high rise towers and 9,500 in the lower scale DDO8. Up till May 2014 the number of apartments completed on Doncaster Hill, since February 2002, including affordable housing, have totalled only 527. And the number constructed in the DDO8, since its inception in 2006, is estimated at 550 -600 dwellings.
    There have been a high number of planning permits issued for developments in both areas, many speculative, but are unable to obtain construction finance until at least 75% of apartments are sold off the plan. The long period elapsing between deposit and completion, up to three years in the case of high rise, could leave both developer and purchaser vulnerable, especially if there is an oversupply.
    Ivan S.

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.