Displaying posts categorized under

High Density developments

OVERDEVELOPMENT STILL POSSIBLE ON SMALLER SITES – after C96

How safe do you think side streets are from over development? Manningham Council’s decision not to insert a condition prescribing a limit of two storey development on smaller sites, in the revised table 1 to schedule 8 document, has created a great deal of uncertainty. Whilst the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) has indicated that “high […]

Interest in Units on the Rise – not so much appartments.

This Leader article backs up our recent articles around the lack of  appartment progress in Manningham. The attached leader article reports comments from leading Doncaster real estate agent. Notably that “people do not want to compromise their home but do not want a quarter acre block”, which might explain why units (villa or town houses), […]

APPROPRIATENESS OF MANNINGHAM’S HIGH DENSITY STRATEGY IS QUESTIONED AS DEMAND FOR APARTMENT LIVING DECLINES

“Sandman Oz” shares some thoughts on why Highrise  hasn’t ever moved in Manningham… Speculative permits, risks associated with purchasing off the plan, lack of a fixed rail infrastructure, lack of public off street parking and difficult terrain are among the factors contributing to a low demand that has stymied the progress of high density apartment […]

Manningham Council Website (HOUSEHOLDS) and ABS

These percentages suggest that  the Doncaster Hill and DDO8 apartment strategies are simply not working… Population The 2011 Census Estimated Resident Population of Manningham was 116,958, an increase of 1.6% from 2006 Doncaster, which include  Doncaster Hill and much of  DDO8, was  only1.52% in the 5 year period compared to a national growth of 1.8% […]

Changed Provisions Of DDO8 – Recognition of Small sites

189-191 Foote Street, Templestowe.   Council  are planning to  reject this proposal because it does not meet the minimum land area of 1800sqm for a three storey development. This will apply to all developments in Precinct A. Unfortunately this welcome change in direction cannot be applied in retrospect to the Queens Avenue and Talford Street proposals. […]

Bunnings/Westfield head to VCAT

Further to the Bunnings and VCAT story a few days ago – the Weekly Review Eastern has some more details in their article below…  It has been suggested that part of a compromise might have to come from Manningham council itself, re the residential content, otherwise the matter could be delayed indefinitely, given the resources […]

Review cul de sacs and side streets within sub-precinct A of DDO8 – Council Agenda 28 May 2013

Not letting of the pressure, this letter has been sent to Manningham Council’s Mayor, Jennifer Yang, seeking the status of the outstanding issues from the C96 amendment that was recently passed. Dear Jennifer,  I would appreciate if you could advise me on where we stand with respect to: Action 2.3: Review cul de sacs and side […]

Bunnings Doncaster Appealed to VCAT by Westfield Shoppington

Bunnings Site VCAT Appeal At its May Council meeting, Council approved a planning permit application lodged by Bunnings for the site at 659-667 Doncaster Road, between Tower Street and Council Streets, Doncaster. The application proposes a three stage combined retail and residential development that includes 385 apartments and retail and trade supplies (Bunnings). Westfield has […]

Beverley St Doncaster East 51-53 Development Withdrawn !

In what seems like a nice win for the neighbors along Beverley st, the development proposal has been withdrawn from the Council ! 51-53 Beverley Street, East Doncaster 3109  :  Construction of 22 dwellings within a three-storey apartment building, with a basement car park. (All on a small 1,527m2 site.) This development has been under […]

Quiet streets to be a no-go zone for towers – AGE

This from the Age today highlights how important it is to define where our growth areas are to be… it also shows we need to have that argument with council about growth areas… Leafy neighbourhoods in Stonnington and Boroondara will be the first to come under new eight-metre height limits and stricter rules for subdividing […]