RESIDENTS IN THE DARK OVER SHADOWING POLICY

Residents in the lower scale development zone, abutting the Doncaster Hill precinct at 810 Elgar Rd, are questioning why council have prescribed such high buildings (32.5 metres) on their boundary line without there being an appropriate height step down to avoid overshadowing of their properties. 

Shadowing Diagrams

All buildings and works should be designed to avoid casting shadows upon any adjacent properties (including public open spaces) outside the area covered by the DDO6 (Doncaster Hill Precinct) between 11am and 2pm on  22nd March or 22nd of September  (ACZ1 updated from amendment C33)

Council planning officers have recommended that the application for the construction of a 11-storey building (a residential hotel comprising 116 suites), to be decided on the 31st October 2017, be refused. planning_application_pl16_026580_-_810_elgar_road_doncaster_-_report (1) The main reason being that the proposal does not provide an appropriate height transition that steps down to the lower scale residential growth area on the southern boundary thereby creating an unreasonable amount of overshadowing and visual impact on the adjacent properties. The narrow building footprint has made it impossible to comply due to the width of the block being only 17.7 metres wide. It is possible that the proponent could decide on an an appeal to VCAT should councillors reject this proposal, on the basis that the applicant has complied with the mandatory height of 7 A of the Doncaster Hill height schedule, as per the following link.  Building Heights

810 Elgar Road for Sale   (photos by Anonyme)

Manningham council had departed from the mandatory height policy and approved an application in March last year for the construction of a eight, three storey town house development. The permit is still valid but has not been taken any further. This would have been a relief for residents on the southern boundary who were concerned about the effect a 32.5 metre building would have on their properties.  It is hoped that the applicant does not pursue an appeal if the Hotel proposal is rejected and instead is prepared to finalise the permit for the three storey town house development.                                                                                                            Panel Report on C33       Table for calculation of shadow lengths.    Shadow Draw

Sale Board Re Sale of previous 8 unit proposal

Step Down Example

12 Responses to “RESIDENTS IN THE DARK OVER SHADOWING POLICY”

  1. Less says:

    Surely sunlight is an amenity that no-one can take from an existing home.
    They can’t claim has it no value, nor can it be taken without impacting your lifestyle, wellness or proper values.

    • Deaconbart says:

      If the buildings were not so close together and the balconies larger then there would be a greater opportunity for solar access. People choose to buy apartments because they like the life style and others because it is all they can afford either one deserves to have the facilities they were promised.

  2. Anonyme says:

    It is good to see that the council are not just accepting any sort of application to get things moving, as they had been a decade ago when the Doncaster Hill high rise strategy was stalling.
    The land is even narrower than a previous Hotel proposal that was approved next door to our church in Doncaster Road. Like this proposal there was insufficient standing areas on site and lack of space to drop off or wait to collect patrons but council still endorsed it. Another problem was that the building was to be built to the boundary line alongside the church. Luckily for everyone concerned the project did not proceed.

  3. Clive P says:

    The hotel shadow is much longer than it would be if the land was flat. This has to be taken into account when calculating shadow lengths in hilly terrain. It is hard to understand why there was not a gradual height reduction of the buildings to the north of the site. According to the lower scale zone its properties can only be two storeys so the proper height for 810 Elgar Road should have been a maximum of four storeys.

  4. East of Whittens says:

    The building heights are expressed as maximum not mandatory maximum, however, Council say that any height less than what is prescribed for a site is considered to be an underdevelopment…when ever it suits them.

  5. Mark and Julie says:

    There should be a roadway buffer separating the high rise buildings from lower scale precincts similar to what has been planned in other areas on the outskirts of the Doncaster Hill strategy.
    When we drove up to site last night to have a look for ourselves, we could not believe what we were seeing. There was no separation from the six, single unit cluster in a battleaxe formation and are entirely overlooked by three apartment buildings. If any of the Manningham executives are reading these comments and were involved in this planning shemozzle, we have a message for you and it is this ….get another job!

  6. Anonyme says:

    There is a for sale board up on the property so it appears that thee proponent has had enough and is walking away. This had also occurred with the previous owner who had a planning permit for a six storey apartment building but could not comply with the special conditions of the approved permit. What a mess!

  7. Margaret Bayne-West says:

    Precinct 2, on the east side of Tram Road, has a roadway plus two rows of four storey buildings as a buffer which protects the low scale development zone to the south from the impact of the high-rise apartment towers on Doncaster Road. The difficulty with 810 Elgar Road is that the land is too narrow for the building to step down so the height has to be reduced to limit overshadowing etc..The problem of getting some sought of separation of the zones appears to be on how to deal with the difficulty of consolidating the land upon which six villa units are located. It seems to me that the problem has been put in the too hard basket and our planners are hoping that the market can adopt to what ever eventuates. Hardly the attitude you would expect from people who are paid annual salaries of up to $250,000.00

    • East of Whittens says:

      Council were too intent on appeasing developers without thinking about what can be developed south of 810. It will be a major problem where the six unit development is located. The units would have to be acquired in one bundle, a major hurdle in itself, without taking into account the problems associated with the shape of the land and limited Road frontage.

  8. Patrick says:

    Excerpts from amendment C33 suggest that council are not fully applying the overshadowing conditions.applicable to Doncaster Hill.
    Council submitted that the mandatory elements of the Overlay have been carefully crafted to ensure the following outcomes:
    NO overshadowing of adjoining or nearby properties or public open spaces.
    between 11.30am and 1.30 pm on 22 March or 22 September.
    NO overshadowing of the south side of Doncaster Road between 11.30am and
    1.30pm on 22 June.
    Patrick

  9. J Dixon says:

    There could have been a Street or a strip of parkland linking Tram and Elgar Roads from 93 Tram Road through to 810 Elgar Road which would have provided the opportunity to overcome the problem. The planning department were so anxious to have developments built that it took priority over the impact of overshadowing.
    Item from the Council minutes pertaining to 810 Elgar Road demonstrates their lack of concern.
    Overshadowing and loss of daylight
    8.77 The extent of shadows cast will impact on the amenity of adjoining properties. Given the constraints of the site, it is not possible for overshadowing to adjoining properties to be avoided in its entirety.
    While shadows cast exceeds those shadows cast by adjoining developments, (which are already excessive) the extent of overshadowing is not significantly greater than the other developments.!!!

    • Nick says:

      A road from 93 Tram Road through to Elgar Road via 810 would have lined up with a the proposed road through to Briar Court (property already acquired) to Carawatha Road providing a clear separation between the high and low rise precincts in Elgar Road and a sort of circuit Road through to Doncaster Road west. There is no record of it ever being considered in the early planning of the Doncaster Hill precinct back in 2002.

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.