With so many Planing regulations to choose from – Which one Rules?
There is a hierarchy – Rescode height limits & setbacks etc are the default guidelines for residential development (for less than 4 storeys); but they are subordinate to limits specified in a schedule to the zone (if there are any variations specified in the R1Z schedule – 0 for Manningham); and any zone schedule limits are in turn subordinate to any such limits specified in a schedule to an overlay if one applies – in this case, DDO8.
So if you live in a DD08 zone: DD08 rules (the Design & development Overlay, then MSS, then Residential strategy and Rescode as applicable…
However, all the above comments involve discretionary controls, not mandatory ones; so Council can use its discretion to follow the same logic as used to vary discretionary height limits in sub-precinct B where significant slope does allow for a 1m ht increase (despite this being theoretically a lower density area).
All this proves clearly that all the “controls” are flexible – i.e., fairly useless unless they’re mandatory. Anything can be and is being varied selectively according to the planner’s preferences – ironically, except for height in most cases, yet this is the only parameter which the C96 panel and council want to be mandatory (therefore won’t make much difference). And mandatory height controls on their own won’t stop the inconsistent and selective variation by council planners of the other built form parameters. Particularly ignored or selectively misinterpreted is the “75% rule” and minimising excavation.
These inconsistent analyses of DDO8 issues in delegate reports are directly related to Council’s comment about inappropriate over-development noted in the Panel Report (3.1: Summary of Issues, p9) – a key excerpt the council should note, especially the last sentence:
“Since 2007, emerging development trends, escalating building and land costs have resulted in developers maximising the development potential of land within DDO8.
Council is experiencing developers using the controls to maximise development potential of land, often at the cost of design and amenity impacts, in particular side setbacks and accompanying landscaping.
Council is continuing to experience pressure for development that is considered to not be an appropriate transition to the adjoining residential areas. In addition, Council is experiencing very little distinction between the built form in Sub-precinct A and Sub-precinct B.”
And yet the C96 amendment to DD08 , supposedly intended to better define the zone differences and remove ambiguity, has the following outcomes: Compare the three C96 DD08 proposed Precincts, in the context of sites under 1800m2 – one or two average home sites together – the following applies:
C96 Maximum height for a sloping small site ( under 1800m2)
- Main Rd Precinct : 10 meters maximum height. (discretionary limit.) 3 or more story apartments possible.
- Precinct A : 10 meters maximum height. (mandatory limit) 60% coverage. 3 story apartments possible.
- Precinct B: 10m (mandatory limit) 60% coverage. 3 story apartments possible.
- ResCode : 10m ( this is the normal house sites outside of the DD08 high density zones. 60% coverage.