PIECEMEAL PLANNING Heights & Depths

This in From Rodney, taking a look the combination of Excavation and Heights.

There are so may loose ends to this amendment (C96 amendment to DD08 High Density Zones,) you have to question the wasting of resources, especially now that they foreshadow yet another amendment.

If you read the attachment 4 of the minutes (not previously discussed) and various comments from Lester Townsend this “strategy” seems further away than ever in being finalised. It has been a piecemeal process along the way. How will the review of Courts and the consideration for 4- 5 storeys etc. fit into scheme?

Rodney W.

 

DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE BUILT FORM AND THE DEFINING OF BOUNDARIES BETWEEN PRECINCTS

Unless the DDO8 is amended to provide a height differential between the precincts I cannot see how any discernible distinction can be accomplished. The failure of the panel to address this problem is disappointing.

The following options could at least be starting points for consideration and put before the community for comment:

 Suggestion 1. (less preferred)

To help overcome the problem of defining boundaries, could be to have merged sub-precincts A and B and specified a uniform height limit of 9 metres throughout, retain the 10 metre height for slope but define a limit on the depth of excavation, perhaps one metre cut or in steps (excluding basement), then specify a 11 metre height limit for all areas within the Main Road precinct.

 Suggestion 2. (preferred)

Since a two storey dwelling is desired for precinct B, a contemporary architectural design, the preferred neighbourhood character,  could be accommodated within a much lower maximum height threshold, why not have specified a limit of 7.5 metre and retained a 9 metre limit throughout sub-precinct A, retain the additional one metre height for slope but define a limit on the depth of excavation perhaps one metre in one cut or in steps (excluding basement) then specify an 11 metre height for all areas within the Main Road precinct.

 

Though Manningham had submitted, “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”, very little development has occurred in Sub-precincts A and B, so it still might be opportune to consider

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.