DEVELOPER WANTS EXTRA STOREY DISPENSATION
DDO8 concerning the 51-53 Beverley St proposal in Sub-Precinct A (In red italic for emphasis) is:
Sub-precinct A is an area where two storey units (9 metres) and three storey (11 metres) ‘apartment style’ developments are encouraged. Three storey, contemporary developments should only occur on land with a minimum area of 1800m2. Where the land comprises more than one lot, the lots must be consecutive lots which are side by side and have a shared frontage. The area of 1800m2 must all be in the same sub-precinct. In this sub-precinct, if a lot has an area less than 1800m2, a townhouse style development proposal only will be considered, but development should be a maximum of two storeys.
Neighbourhood Character Two Storeys in Beverley St
Click to enlarge
Cross Section of 3 Storey
Click to enlarge
3 Storey Town House Style proposal Beverley Street
Click to enlarge
Residents of East Doncaster are outraged that another three storey town house style development would be proposed at 51-53 Beverley Street after a previous proposal of similar design had been withdrawn. It was expected that any future permit application would only be a two storey town house development because the land area is less than 1800 Sqm. Manningham council had already rejected
a three storey development at in Foote Street Templestowe on a similar sized block .
Among the grounds for rejection were:
“The proposal fails to meet the Objectives and Standards of Precinct 2 Sub-Precinct A of Clause 21.05 (Residential) of the Manningham Planning Scheme, as the proposed three storey building is in excess of the two storey built form which is the desired building form sought by Sub-Precinct A where the minimum lot size cannot be met”. and
“The proposal fails to meet the Objectives and Standards of Precinct 2 Sub-Precinct A of Clause 21.05 (Residential) of the Manningham Planning Scheme, as the land at 189-191 Foote Street provides a combined area of 1,525sqm which does not meet the mandatory requirement of 1,800sqm for lots located in Sub-Precinct A”.
“The proposal is therefore an overdevelopment of the land, and does not fit Council’s policy direction for the future neighbourhood character of the area, in particular where the land parcel is less than 1,800sqm a townhouse style development with a maximum of two storeys be developed”.
Two Storey Town House Style plan at 21 Clay Drive
Click to enlarge
Paul, a member of RAIDID (Residents Against Inappropriate Development In Doncaster), thinks there is a double standard. “A recent application being processed at 21 Clay Drive Doncaster, in sub Precinct A and also on a smaller block than 1800 sqm, has had to conform to the schedule which limits the development to two storeys” “A three storey town house style development is a bonus for developers because it allows more floor area on site than a two storey without exceeding the site coverage limit of 60%”
Council policy in prescribing a height of nine metres, plus a one metre leeway for sloping blocks, for a two storey development comfortably allows a contemporary architectural flat roof design, but also accommodates a higher pitched roof design similar to the adjoining neighbourhood character. If council wanted two storey developments limited to a contemporary flat roof design then a lower maximum height should have been specified.
Click on links below for Beverley Street and Clay Drive plans
FI Plans PL15025029 51-53 Beverley street
D15 31153 Advertised Plans PL14 024702 21 Clay Drive Doncaster
17 Comments
What is council up to? The purpose of the C96 amendment was to remove ambiguity yet here they are processing a permit application which is clearly in breach of the conditions applicable to land areas less than 1800m2. If this application is approved then the C96 amendment, with its gravy train of consultants and planning apparatus, was a complete waste of time and community resources. The point you make in regard to the height condition allowing sufficient scope for more interesting alternative concepts in two storey design is well put, especially when it is noted that council have said that any such design must not be at the expense of the existing neighbourhood character which is predominately two storey conventional pitched tiled roof town house developments.
The plan of the development you have posted looks like a large factory against the town house developments along side. If it were two storey, as it should be in accordance with the schedule of development on land less than 1800m2, it would not look so overwhelming.
Richard Stuart
Why the need for three storeys? This design is completely out of character with the recent redevelopment of Beverley Street which has been either two storey town house clusters or single storey villa units and all have tiled roofs.
Manningham apparently have one rule for one and another for another. The three storey proposal at 189 Foote Street was rejected because the land was 1500sqm (larger than 51-53 Beverley Street) but well under the 1800sqm minimum required. I don’t know about the two storey proposal at 21 Clay Drive …maybe the developer wasn’t trying to buck the system.
The overbearing bulk of this proposed development provides no physical or visual link with the local neighbourhood character. The policy in this regard seems to be conforming to what Council prefer rather than in keeping with the style of the existing two storey town house redevelopment in Beverley Street
Talford
This three storey application would give the developer approximately 600 m2 more floor area on site than a two storey development with the same building footprint which is why the developer is trying to circumvent the rules.
Athina
I would have expected that this proposal, on land well under the minimum area of 1800m2 to enable three storeys, would have been restricted to two storeys in accordance with the revised building schedule (C96) applicable to sub precinct A as above in bold. Could it be made any clearer?
“The proposal fails to meet the Objectives and Standards of Precinct 2 Sub-Precinct A of Clause 21.05 (Residential) of the Manningham Planning Scheme, as the proposed three storey building is in excess of the two storey built form which is the desired building form sought by Sub-Precinct A where the minimum lot size cannot be met”.
David
This is an apartment development masquerading as town houses. They are nothing like what has been built in the area. Who do they think they are kidding?
This current three storey application is virtually identical to what was lodged with the Manningham planning department during July of last year. Council were surprised by the high number objections to the developer wanting three storeys despite there being a limit of two storeys on land areas less than 1800 m2 in sub Precinct A. The officer who chaired the submitters meeting appeared to be dismissive of residents claims and sympathetic towards the developer even though the proposal was clearly at odds with the schedule. I suspect that what followed was a discussion with the developer when the decision was made to withdraw the application in January 2015 and wait a few months and resubmit a slightly different plan (advertised in September 2015) and hope by which time the resident objectors might have given up and walked away.
Don’t give up, your neighborhood has a character that is worth striving for.
We are getting a little bit ahead of ourselves if we assume council would approve this application just because it was advertised.
While Council may have advised the proponent that the proposal does not comply with the planning scheme they are still obligated to process all permit applications they receive, irrespective. The applicant would have been told that the schedule will only allow a three story building where the land is 1800 m2 or more because he rules are no longer discretionary as they were prior to the amendment. This proposal will finish up being a two storey town house style development and maybe obtain permission to retain that roof feature if desired.
I have sympathy for the developer but rules are rules. If council allows this proposal then all the hard work and community resources used to negotiate the C96 amendment would have been for nothing.
It does not conform to the conditions of amendment C96 because;
1. It is a three storey contemporary development and should ONLY occur on land with a minimum area of 1800 sqm….the land area is approx 1400 sqm.
2. The proposal is also a three storey town house development and should ONLY be two storeys because the land area is less than 1800 sqm.
Could it be made any clearer?
Francis Day
From a developer’s point of view the minimum land area needs to be reduced so as to allow more three storey developments.
Under the present conditions a three storey development of any type is not supported if the land on which it is proposed fails to meet the minimum area requirement of 1800 sqm.
You can’t be serious! The community have just spent more than six years campaigning for an amendment to stop these bulky three and four storey buildings on small blocks and now you want to reinstate them….Go back to sleep!
This cannot be approved because the building block is too small.The C96 amendment was required to ensure certainty and reduce the stealth and deception that had been employed by certain officials.
The word SHOULD is not definitive and does not belong in a legal document nor a building schedule, (it is a recommendation or an expression of opinion) it needs to be followed by a qualifying clause listing what else might be acceptable starting with words such as HOWEVER or UNLESS (example in italics) otherwise the condition could be voided for uncertainty. for example Sub-precinct A is an area where two storey units (9 metres) and three storey (11 metres) ‘apartment style’ developments are encouraged. Three storey, contemporary developments should only occur on land with a minimum area of 1,800m2, however, an application for a three storey contemporary building, on a site less than 1800sqm, will be considered providing the height of the proposed development is 10 metres or less, (9 metres plus 1 metre leeway for a sloping site), and the setback and site coverage conditions are met etc.etc.
Vcat have exposed the weaknesses of Council’s revamped DDO8 schedule in a recent decision to allow a three storey contemporary development in precinct B where only two storey buildings had been permitted. Council’s claim that their rewording of the MSS and DDO8 schedule, allegedly to provide clarity and consistency in C96 amendment, would remove ambiguity, has proven to be totally untrue. In fact it seemed more to do with the weakening of the schedule so much so that it is now virtually useless because it might now allow high density three storey contemporary developments anywhere within the precincts. The majority of the 669 community submissions council received wanted a tightening of the schedule by removing the “weasel” words. Prior to the “amendment” the schedule read in part; Three storey contemporary developments, however, CAN only occur on consolidated sites with a minimum area of 1800 sqm”. now after the amendment it has been downgraded to a weak and watery advisory condition; “three storey, contemporary developments SHOULD only occur on land with a minimum area of 1,800m2. Notwithstanding council had stated it would amend the DDO8 and MSS to improve readability, consistency and add further clarity; !