Councillors are expected to endorse council officers recommendation NOT to approve the three storey contemporary building at 51-53 Beverley Street, East Doncaster at next Tuesday’s council meeting on the 29th of March. NOT because of it’s failure to meet the Objectives and Standards of Precinct 2 Sub-Precinct A of Clause 21.05 (Residential) of the Manningham Planning Scheme or that it exceeds the two storey built form, the desired building form sought by Sub-Precinct A where the minimum lot size cannot be met (1,800 sqm), but because officers want only minor changes to plan, known to be acceptable to the applicant and later negotiated in private without scrutiny.
This what you might call a CLAYTON”S, the refusal you give when your not wanting to refuse. Chances are
it has already been discussed that with the applicant to remove the small roof feature as a compromise to try and show that council are acting in the community interest.
APPENDIX A ……………Applicant’s submission for three storey
Three-storey, contemporary developments should only occur on land with a minimum area of 1800m (The land area of the Beverley Street proposal only 1527m2) 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. All development in Sub-precinct A should have a maximum site coverage of 60 percent.
Here are the minor grounds listed for the refusal to issue a permit.
1. It is considered appropriate to refuse the application. The building design appears to have been predicated on a desire to maximise dwelling yield and floor area.
2. The overall architectural presentation is not suited to a local street such as this and the building will be bulky and quite dominating in this well established streetscape, especially due to the impacts from the sheer front walls and its lack of linear articulation.
3. The inclusion of a third floor has not provided any notable architectural contribution, but instead detracts from the streetscape and the amenity of neighbouring properties (increased building bulk), while roof-top screening will be a discordant visual element above the main roof line.
4. Internal amenity for future residents could most likely be improved by a more thoughtful design approach.
5. Parking access arrangements are constrained and there are insufficient landscaping opportunities across the rear and sides of the site. The proposed landscape/fencing treatment of the frontage is also unsatisfactory.
6. Objector concerns that the building will not “fit in” to this streetscape are