This one was sent in by Amelia Tang. Amelia has picked up on some of the outstanding issues of the DD08 Regulations, even after C96. this was her letter to the councillors at Manningham. What do you see as the key problems?

Manningham Council had the opportunity to rectify a number of anomalies but many conflicting issues remain.
Will table 1 of the new schedule 8 be discretionary? If the intent is to remove any ambiguity in the Planning Scheme why was it not made clear?  It says only that a permit cannot be granted to vary the condition regarding the minimum land size and configuration specified in Table 2 to this Schedule but does not include table 1.
Media statements praising the council’s amendment to create certainty by the introduction of maximum heights and minimum land areas, as the main reason for proposing the amendment, was puzzling because they have been mandatory since 2007. If they were discretionary or variable it would have been stated in the  current schedule 8 of the Manningham Planning Scheme or in the Municipal Statement clause 21.05 and they were not.
Documents supplied by Coherence, depicting C50 Panel recommendations and Ministry of planning’s alleged direction for discretionary options, notwithstanding.
It seems more of a damage control measure in light of the proposals that have been allowed to circumvent the schedule. e.g. We were told that the special concessions granted to the three storey proposal at 51 Talford Street, East Doncaster , were discretionary. The land on which the development was to be built was virtually flat but was allowed a height increase from 9m to 10m plus an additional 330mm. Under the mandatory provisions it should have been limited to a maximum of 9 metres. This was inconsistent with the another proposal on flat land at 33 Queens Avenue, Doncaster, granted a height of only 9 metres in accordance with the schedule. The schedule re flatter blocks, (less than 2.5 degrees) restricts proposals to a maximum height of 9 metres yet their counterparts on sloped land are allowed 10 metres with no limit on excavation below NGL which means a much larger development can be built on a sloped block. This has not been addressed.
Proposals advantaged by the height allowance should be required to build up (raise floor levels) by at least one metre. “Building height limits follow the slope of the land, and so on sloping sites a higher limit is needed to allow buildings to achieve a reasonable floor to ceiling height without excessive excavation”. “This is accepted practice”  excerpt from C96 Panel.
The omission in the current schedule 8, namely the allowance for slope (9 metres to 10 metres) specified in Sub precinct B,  but not on smaller sites in sub-precinct A, has been rectified.
The proposal to strengthen the distinction between sub-precincts A and B, I believe, will not occur because heights subscribed for smaller sites in sub precinct A will be the same as in precinct B.
The appears no clearer differential between the scale and form between the 3 sub-precincts. While proposals in the main road precinct will likely be taller and be of a high density, it is doubtful there will be any real distinction between A and B. (sites above 1800m2 in precinct A will be a rarity).
Council have provided no detail whatsoever on  “townhouse style developments with a higher yield” in precinct B.
The proposal to give greater clarity and certainty to residents, applicants and decision makers has not been achieved.
Amelia Tang


2 Responses to “conjecture”

  1. Marg and Jeff says:

    “Sub-precinct B is an area where single storey and two storey dwellings only will be considered and development should have a maximum site coverage of 60 per cent.” The schedule goes on to specify a height; “9 metres, unless the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than eight metres of the building is 2.5 degrees or more, in which case the maximum height must not exceed 10 metres”
    We are doubtful that the DPCD would allow sub-precinct B to be limited to single storey or two storey dwellings when the prescribed maximum height limit of 10m will enable three storeys. After all, a height limit of 6.8m (7.8m for fall) would only be required to accommodate a two storey contemporary apartment or dwelling, if that was the intention.
    We were surprised when council specified the number of storeys for sub-precinct B after they had argued strongly that heights be the sole measure in adjoining precincts. Council had made the following statement in the May 28th, 2013 minutes:
    The request to introduce the number of storeys in addition to the maximum building height i.e. maximum height of 9 metres and 2 storeys is problematic for several reasons. Firstly, from a statutory planning perspective, the Manningham Planning Scheme defines a ‘storey’ as: ‘That part of a building between floor levels. If there is no floor above, it is the part between the floor level and ceiling. It may include an attic, basement, built over car parking area, and mezzanine’.
    Perhaps it was anticipated mezzanines and attics would only occur in higher density buildings!
    Marg and Jeff

  2. Thommo. says:

    Manningham Council have never been regarded as a good communicator. Of the 669 objectors to the draft Residential Strategy in the lead up to the amendment C96, 101 still had unresolved issues due to the lack of effective consultation of the previous amendment C50 back in 2005!
    (see page four of March 2012 minutes)
    Council’s preliminary documents, pertaining to amendment C96, such as the widely distributed Manningham Matters, did not fully qualify the status of the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) against the provisions of the DDO8. Whilst the MSS is required to be considered in decision making, it cannot mandate specific actions or outcomes. Had this important point been properly conveyed to the community at the outset, a large proportion of the 669 objections, lodged on the basis of what was prescribed in the MSS document, may not have materialised. e.g. the MSS document specifies storeys whereas the DDO8 provisions stipulates heights.

Leave a Response

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.