High Density Planning Review Process C50 before DD08

    How were the Residents involved in the Previous Planning review ?   How will the Current DD08,  C96 review be handled ?

Strategy Presented To The Panel: C50

The draft of provisions provided to the panel Nov 2005 document is at odds with Council’s undertaking to the community. Even the Manningham officers report, presented to Councillors prior to presentation to the panel on the 27/9/05, did not mention storeys.

The chronology of documents speak for themselves, Council first advertised a plan acceptable to the community then without consulting the public, presented an entirely different plan to the Panel hearing in November 2005.

  • Information on the Residential Strategy was advertised over a period of more than 12 months, in media articles and letters sent to 30,000 affected parties (2004 to 2005)
  • They clearly stipulated that two storeys would be permitted on lots less than 2000m2 and three storeys on larger lots with height limits of 9m and 11m respectively.
  • This development formula was accepted by the community since two storey town house clusters were already being developed.
  • The letter to affected residents was dated 26/4/05.
  • The two information sessions followed on the 12/5/05 and 16/5/05, attended by a total of 270 people.
  • However the Draft of Provisions provided to the Panel for approval on 22/11/05 was at odds with what had been presented to the public.
  • Storeys were removed from the equation and only height limits were retained which allowed developers to squeeze another storey by employing a flat roof and/or lowering the ground floor below the Natural Ground Level.
  • Later when challenged why the public were not informed , Council responded by saying that only the 65 submitters who had responded to the letter to affected residents by making written submissions were eligible to receive information on the changes and they were not obliged to re-inform the wider community.
  • The Panel report was not released until March 26, 2006.
  • Even after the release of the report it was difficult to obtain information, there were references to the aim of the strategy in several in editions of the Manningham Matters (which I have obtained from the Manningham Library) even information appearing on the website, that the C50 (the residential strategy) had been gazetted in 2007, did not mentioned the changes council had made to its previous undertaking…in any event it would not have mattered since the strategy had already been accepted by the panel.

Refer to the letters below for further details :   Manningham Leader Articles On Residential Strategy  C50-Letter-to-Affected-Parties

Panel Report Release 26th March 06    Council Agenda For Date 27-Sep-2005 REPORT ONLY.DOC     Draft of Provisions Provided to Panel Nov 2005

Tags: , ,


  1. lynton reid says:

    we need mandatory requirements stating min plot sizes and max heights
    so council cannot bend the rules

  2. Susie Howard says:

    My question: if we have mandatory min plot sizes and max heights – thinking it provides certainty and clarity, in reality it does not. Developers only have to acquire two or three dwellings side by side – attain the ‘mandatory’ minimum lot size – and it leaves them free to develop our streets by stealth.

    There has to be effective wording implemented into the Amendment C96 to ensure this cannot occur.

    The Amendment is still flawed, the short-comings that have originally hurt residents still exist.

  3. John says:

    Re zoning a residential street to DD08 on one side and leaving the other as it is has to be the worst attempt at calling yourself a planning dept. (Manningham City Council).

    Absolute disgrace.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *