High Density DD08 C96 Amendment Carried.

The C96 was passed through tonight, amid assertions that there is more to do, but this is a good set of steps in the right direction. ... So now the C96 gets passed to the Vic Planning  Department DPCD, for final review and possibly acceptance.

There has been many changes along the way, at many stages, the current set of rules for the DPCD to consider are included below, with markups showing what was changed, and at what stage. Thanks to Teresa Dominik for providing in this colorful format.  Now we just have to see what the final set of rules will achieve.

The Planning Panel suggested the new regs get a road test to see if they achieve the goals.

It might be a good test to get a development such as 5-7 Curlew Court Doncaster that did get through – challenged as an over development – and see what items the new set of regulations would do to it. we can’t change what is there, but it would show the impact of the changes…

Each of the PDF files below are about 700K.  Have a look tell us what you think of the outcomes – good & bad…

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg00     

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg01

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg02     

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg03

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg04     

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg05

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg06     

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg07

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg08     

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg09

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg10     

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg11

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg12     

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg13

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg14     

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg15

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg16     

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg17

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg18     

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg19

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg20    

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg21

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg22    

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg23

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg24    

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg25

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg26    

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg27

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg28    

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg29

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg30    

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg31

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg32    

Manningham-c96-carried-2013-05-28-pg33

end of document.

 

1 Comment

  1. Amelia Tang says:

    Council needs to provide the community an example of what two storey townhouse style developments, designated for allotments under 1800m2 in precinct A, will look like. How will they differ from apartment style developments in terms of appearance and density levels? Does the clause, “a townhouse style development ONLY will be considered and should be a maximum of two storeys”, mean three storey townhouse style developments will be precluded?
    Amelia Tang

Leave a Reply

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

*

*

*