Good evening all,
For those of you who have followed this Saga, and strived to stand up for the residents view on these development regulations, next Wednesday is the next important step in the process, and close to our last opportunity to have our input considered.
This meeting will need to be mostly “Technical” in Nature, we have to step past the emotions and provide clear and concise review of the C96 amendment to DD08, and Planning Panels Report.
We should use examples of how developments we have seen, and that are proposed, have flaunted the regulations to the determent of others.
These examples are the key to proving why the changes need to be made to the planning regulations.
So on Wednesday Night – do come, show community concern – 7pm Council building. Follow this link for more details and to RSVP Wednesday May 8th – 7pm.
Come informed: Read the current report manningham c96 panel report (Full report 488K)
DO keep emotions in check: If we miss this opportunity to improve the regulations, it won’t come around for another few years….
Expect Councilors to LISTEN, and Planning Dept to describe the PROCESS from here, Councillors can vote to approve, amend, reject or abandon the strategy at the next scheduled council meeting on 28th of May.
Council will not be giving the Planning department’s views, nor explaining why things are such, as they will not have finished the internal review at this stage.
The Council’s position, on the Planning Panel report will be shared at a later date – see the schedule here. High Density C96 IPP Feedback with Councilors Wed May 8th
Good Examples to consider. (Referenced to the c96 IPP report.)
- Maximum 60% site coverage across all DD08 sites ( C96 IPP report Pg xx)
- Mandatory height limits for sites – replacing preferred (C96 IPP report section 7.5 Pg 33)
Bad examples to consider (Referenced to the c96 IPP report.)
- Residents in DD08 precinct B might have cause for concern, now that the two storey limit, applicable to their zone, has been removed. Page 7 of the Panel report reSub?precinct B, Mandatory 9 metres and 10 metres on a sloping site.
· Sunken Apartments To Get Past Building Height Limits. Excessive excavation [Example 185-187 Foote Street Templestowe, The proposal, which is actually 13.2m high, is to be sunk beneath the natural ground level by excavating] (Correlate to C96 IPP report Pg 33)
· Ambiguity, inability to enforce. Pages: x,y,z
· And so on
Help us make this list strong and referenced. If it is not in the DD08 / c69 regulations under review, then this night will not be the place to argue it
Armed with strong info, the councilors can then go back to planning and request clarification, amendments, and eventually make an informed decision when it comes to voting time.
Hope to see you there.