MSS and DDO8 – Small sites, restricted developments.
Some large developments are getting knocked back by council lately, it seems due to the DD08 zone, C96 Tightening of requirements. Thankyou to Amelia for sharing this.
19 August 2013 3:29:22 PM
Teresa, Joe and Councillors,
Can it be assumed that the grounds for refusal in items 1 and 2 of the attached page, 2 storeys only on lots less than 1800sqm in sub-precinct A, in accordance with clause 21.05 of the MSS, will be consistently applied in similar circumstances henceforth? Will table 1. to schedule 8 and the objectives of the Design and Development Overlay document need to be altered?
Contrary to press statements, maximum building heights and minimum land areas in sub-precinct A were never an issue with residents. Despite the previous panel C50 recommendation that building heights be made discretionary and likewise for minimum land areas, determined later by the DPCD, Manningham council have strictly applied the minimum land areas and according to a summary of council approvals, courtesy of coherence. com, have diligently followed rescode in regard to building heights.
If the change in interpretation is to be sustained, the new administration and councillors should take credit. It is a victory for commonsense which will effectively rule out overdevelopment on smaller sites, the grounds of prctically all resident Vcat appeals.
Wednesday, 28 August 2013 4:17 PM
Dear Ms Tang
Thank you for your email dated 19 August 2013, in which you commend Council on the changes being proposed to tighten the planning controls guiding development in areas around shopping centres and along main roads, particularly in Sub-precinct A. You are correct in noting that as part of the proposed Amendment C96 to the Manningham Planning Scheme changes, Council’s policy direction is for two storey development in Sub-precinct A, on lots that are less than 1,800m2.
I have attached for your perusal and information the Council adopted Schedule 8 to the Design and Development Overlay and Clause 21.05 of the Municipal Strategic Statement which include the proposed changes to tighten the existing controls.
Council officers have progressed this Amendment as a matter of high priority, responding to community concerns in the drafting and refinement of the controls.
As a Council adopted Amendment, applications can be considered in the context of how they respond to the tightened planning provisions, and these controls will be consistently applied in considering development applications. Council is currently awaiting the outcome of its request for the Minister for Planning to approve Amendment C96.
Should you have any further queries, please feel free to contact me on 9840 9279.
Thank you for your replying to my message below.
Had council honoured its written commitment, the storeys/height/minimum land area criteria, and applied it to developments such as Queens Avenue, Talford Street, Whittens Lane and Curlew Court etc it is unlikely they would have been appealed. The huge drain on municipal funds with the employment of solicitors consultants etc., not to mention the time and stress imposed on the community in mounting an appeal, could have been avoided.
If clause 21.05, the Municipal Strategic Statement (version 28th May 2013) stipulates two and three storeys applicable to heights of 9m and 11m and land areas under and over 1800m2 respectively, why can’t it be included in the provisions prescribed in table 2 of schedule 8 of the Design and Development Overlay (version 28th May 2013)?
If other councils can specify a limit on the number of storeys in conjunction with height in their planning scheme schedules, (attached) to provide certainty, then why can’t Manningham Council? By not specifying a limit on the number storeys applicable to height in the new schedule 8, the opportunity for overdevelopment of a small site still exists.
In 4.1, item 2.20 of the Manningham Council 2012 October minutes, the responsible officer, the then Director of Planning and Environment, made the following comment; “A three storey building could also be designed within 9 or 10 metres, particularly if the building has a flat roof. It is also noted that under the building code of Australia an owner could build a three storey house on a block of land without requiring a building permit. Therefore it is difficult to legislate against a three storey development, when a property owner could still build such a form of development without a building permit”
If the above be the case, why bother with the DDO8 or for that matter the Manningham Planning Scheme?.
Knox for example, in their DDO7 specify a building height of 4.5m for a one storey, 7.5m for two storeys, 9m for 2/3 storeys and 14m for a four storeys.