Can you Spot the difference in these regulations.
This comment came in today, I have heard the same line of thought from several people lately.
This ineffectiveness of the distinctions between lot sizes and zones is at the core of the problem with the current zoning rules. I thought it worthy of having it’s own post, do you feel the same way?
Why does the residential strategy discern between land areas above or below 1800m2, or between maximum heights of 9 or 11 meters, when either are permitted three storeys, particularly in sub precinct A?
Why is Manningham Council now allowing developers to circumvent their own regulations by granting permits to overdevelop lots as small as 1060m2 with three storeys and the employment of flat lean to roofs?
Council’s previous undertaking that limited two storeys on land less than 1800m2 would have enabled a development to follow the existing neighbourhood character i.e. pitched tiled roofs similar to established dwellings and/or two storey town house clusters that now dominate the area.
Why should the community have to fight its own Council, to uphold building controls, to protect community amenity, liveability, and fundamental rights to privacy, sunlight and pleasant surrounds when it pays such handsome salaries to Manningham planners and elects councillors to ensure this happens?
Instead, paradoxically, they are now working against the very interests of their employers, the Manningham rate payers?
Kind Regards,
Warren Welsh
1 Comment
We totally agree with the above comments. This is not the first time Manningham Council have made sweeping changes to a strategy after the consultation period. We still have the letter signed by Teresa Dominik, the current council officer for planning and environment, assuring us three storey apartment developments would be limited to a height of 11 meters on a land area of at least 2,000 m2 (later reduced to 1,800) and that two storeys within a height limit of 9 meters would be acceptable on smaller sites. However, what council presented to a government panel for approval, was substantially at odds with the previous undertakings it had made to the community. Without bothering to consult affected residents, council proposed that developers could increase apartment yield by squeezing three storey apartment developments within a height limit of 9 meters if a flat roof design was adopted. In order to satisfy the panel that the existing neighbourhood character should be disregarded, council engaged an independent consultant to give evidence at the panel hearing, who said in effect, “the character of the precincts are not sufficiently special or significant” which helped pave the way in obtaining Panel’s acceptance of a flat roof as the new “preferred” neighbourhood character and the future overdevelopment of small sites.
Barbara C.