The regulations that control how BIG a development in a side street can be, are being reviewed, the last big review was 2005, and now the Manningham council has received State Gov approval to display their next iteration.

…Manningham Leader October 2005:  Seven-storey Hill units OK…

…..Long term residents of Doncaster Hill have been told to accept Manningham Council’s high-rise version for the precinct or move on….

2011-11  words of Planning Minister Matthew Guy: “the view that greater density can happen anywhere is not one that I subscribe to. We want to get away from days where people living in little courts, or quiet streets, wake up and find 50 apartments are going to be built where one house was”.

2012   Manningham City Council-spawned DD08 overlay into Amendment C96 – “tightening controls”

Are residents being given greater planning protections, clarity and certainty – Not by half. The flaws in this Amendment must be corrected. There must be appropriate planning controls on inappropriate developments in courts, cul-de-sacs and small side streets. It does not matter whether the side size of 1800sqm can be attained – multi-unit developments in such locations require the setting of a much higher bar. Under 1800Sqm still fits three storeys, and dwarfs all else  around….

Cr. Mayne has said ‘it’s good to see democracy in action’. We are not seeing it. Cr. Mayne has said: “small cul-de-sacs are streets like any other and not quarantined from development.” Reasonable development is one thing – inappropriate multi-dwelling units that are a substantial foot print over and above the street’s capacity to absorb a severe impact on its amenities and infrastructure – is another.

Main Roads have a normal grid pattern. Small courts and so forth do not and need specific planning protection. No protection is not contained in this Amendment C96. Planning Officers have failed the community and if Councillors fail to ensure a correction is made – they should not be rewarded by being re-elected at the October Council elections to represent the community that pays their wages.

This Amendment C96 needs to reflect the words of Planning Minister Matthew Guy: “the view that greater density can happen anywhere is not one that I subscribe to. We want to get away from days where people living in little courts, or quiet streets, wake up and find 50 apartments are going to be built where one house was”.

Speak up about C96 – Tell council you don’t want over-development – but do be specific – tell them no three storey apartments in side streets.

For example if people object or comment on C96, &  just say they don’t want over-developments in side streets, then the council will take that as agreement with their changes which do sort of cover that…

 MSS 21.05  Page 3 of 16 changes  ( We agree these “Limits” are an improvement over the “encouraged no limit” items struck out below them.)

But it does not cover it enough for those who have followed it more closely.

Three Storey apartments can still be built in small side streets, courts, and Cul de Sac’s, which is just not right, nor is it needed. Beyond that Along main roads could be built higher than the 11 meter, three storey recommendations, and you have to consider what it would be like to be the home behind them…

There is also still a lot of ambiguous statements, and “Discretionary items” that leave the door open for excessive development. they need to be resolved in the regulations as well.

So…. Do tell the Council how you want your neighborhood to look in 5-10 years time, write to them about C96.

Submissions must be received by 5pm , 17th of August 2012. email eepadmin@manningham.vic.gov.au, or post to PO Box 1, Doncaster Vic 3108.

Attention : Vivien Williamson, Manager Economic & Environmental Planning, Manningham Council.