“Framing a policy for a more preferred community outcome, while prescribing regulations you know will enable something entirely different and far less acceptable, is not in good faith”. …...Comment from B.J.

View from Villa Unit Click to enlarge

View from Villa Unit
Click to enlarge

Basement & Two Storeys Click to enlarge

Basement & Two Storey
Click to enlarge

An apartment development, currently under construction in East Doncaster, is one of several developments being built that would not be approved today under the terms and conditions of latest amendment C96.

This is cold comfort for the owners of a neighbouring villa unit, situated immediately South East of the development, whose land will be in shadow for most of the year.

The plan (below) shows
the single storey unit tucked into the internal corner of the L shaped development where it will be shadowed from both the East and West.  Under the new regulations basement walls to the full height of the car park, as shown in the photographs, would not be allowed. The building where it is adjacent to the villa unit is equal to a three storey building.

Shadow 3pm Sept 22 Click to enlarge

Shadow 3pm Sept 22
Click to enlarge

Shadow Lengths September Equinox June Winter Soltice Click to enlarge

Shadow Lengths
September Equinox
June Winter Soltice
Click to enlarge

According to amendment 96 the land (approximately 1,300 m2) would only enable a two storey town house style development. Apartment development can now only occur on land areas of at least 1800m2 in Sub-precinct A.

Residents of East Doncaster are particularly anxious to see the that the new regulations are adhered to with the new proposal at 51 Beverley Street (land area approximately 1,500 m2) after two previous applications, which did not comply with amendment C96, were withdrawn after council had received more than 70 objections on each occasion.




  1. Banjee says:

    There are a number of Councils that define foundation areas or basements, protruding to a height of more than one metre above ground, as a storey. This control prevents buildings from rising out of the ground too much and ensures that development is stepped down with the contours of the land, thereby limiting bulk and scale of a development. This development appears to have been given extra special treatment. Council have allowed the full height of the basement above ground right next to the villa unit despite what is written in their own design objectives, which reads.

    “To ensure the design of basement and undercroft (underground) car parks complement the design of the building by eliminating unsightly projections of basement walls above natural ground level”

  2. Arbee says:

    I know the site well, it’s just south of Jackson Court, I pass it every day. The owners of the Villa Unit appear to be left with very few options because their land is very small and may not be viable for redevelopment. If the neighbours on the eastern side decide to develop their land the Villa Unit could be surrounded by multi storey buildings at its rear and side boundaries. It would appear these disadvantages were never taken into account by the Manningham council. I would welcome a response from their planning division.

    • Carmen says:

      This is a case where compensation should be paid on application for planning permission.
      Ethical developers do pay out to people under their own volition. They are rare.
      There was a time when Councillors main priority was to protect residents.
      Weak Manningham has a priority to encourage developers.

      • Fontein says:

        Councillors are elected by the people but they have no power, just people who can be held responsible for shonky bureaucratic decisions.
        Council’s bureaucrats and planning staff etc., who do have enormous power, are not selected democratically but are chosen by merit in an examination process so there is no guarantee that they will work for the welfare of the Municipality.

  3. South of Jackson says:

    The building height of 10 metres appears more like 12 when viewed from the driveway and private open space areas on the eastern boundary of the Villa Unit, due to its location on the downward slope. The fall of land also lengthens the shadowing significantly more than what would occur in a flat area, at the September equinox.

  4. Courvent says:

    The development straddled the border of the higher and lower density zones, Sub-precincts A and B, which meant only half of the site of the development could be an apartment style building (A) the other half (B) should have been multi unit developments (townhouse style).
    So council decided it was appropriate to have an apartment style building across the entire land area. The latest maps show the boundary separating the two zones has not been altered.

  5. Blazing Dragon says:

    Framing a policy for a more preferred community outcome, while prescribing regulations you know will enable something entirely different and far less acceptable, is in bad faith.
    The Manningham Strategic Statement in regard to the residential strategy indicates that three storeys buildings should only occur on allotments with an area of at least 1800m2 and only two storeys would be permitted on smaller blocks. Given the form of development (townhouses and villa units) recently built in the area (other than on main road precinct) and costs associated with site consolidation, it was generally assumed development would continue to be 2 storey yet every development built in the past ten years, irrespective of land size, has been at least three storeys

  6. Nick says:

    Two storey apartment developments were never a viable option for developers which is why none have been built. Council knew this yet they were stipulated in their policy document, supposedly to pacify residents, but did not want to lose developers so they specified a maximum height only, up to ten metres, in the Manningham planning scheme, a height that would easily allow a three storey building. When residents objected they were told that the Municipal Strategic Statement (policy) was subordinate to the planning schedule and long as the height did not exceed ten metres then three storeys would be approved

  7. John Smith says:

    The recent amendment, number C96, according to Council, will restrict three storey development to larger sites (usually three adjoining blocks) and all other buildings in Precincts A & B would be two storey townhouses. However my concern is that Council have retained the maximum height of ten metres in the schedule which might create a problem.

    John Smith

Leave a Response to Blazing Dragon

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.