John Joyner, highly regarded ex senior planning officer at Manningham council, now the principal of Melbourne Planning Outcomes (MPO), has been engaged as the planning consultant for Anne Wang c/-Jiakun Li (designer), the applicant for a three storey development at 51-53 Beverley Street, East Doncaster, to assist at a VCAT hearing in September this year. This is an extraordinary situation where VCAT will now determine the outcome of the proposal instead of Manningham Council because it had contravened section 79 of the planning and environment act 1987 by exceeding the 60 day statutory period for the responsible authority to determine an application.
The applicant had complied with all requirements, including the advertising of plans etc. by Thursday the 29th of October 2015 but council did not list the proposal for decision until five months later on Tuesday the 29th of March 2016. VCAT informed Manningham council that the proponent had lodged an application on Wednesday the 9th of March requesting the tribunal decide the matter on the grounds Manningham had exceeded the statutory provisions. It is hard to imagine why VCAT, if not the proponent or its consultants, did not inform Manningham council in time to have the matter removed from the agenda set down for the Tuesday the 29th of March 2016. But it went ahead as scheduled anyway with Councillors voting to support council officers recommendation to refuse to issue a permit.
There were several
items in the grounds that were worrying e.g. minimum area for three storeys (1,800 m2) was “preferred”. And further back in the report item 6.5 they say there is no mandatory site coverage limit when there clearly is in the DDO8 schedule. Other than that it will be a Dorothy Dixer. The developer will agree to get rid of the roof feature and adjust some other aspects and they get the three storeys…..that will be the outcome. Whatever happens it will be VCAT and NOT the Manningham council who will be blamed for opening the floodgates and officially making it possible for three storey buildings to be built anywhere within the three sub-Precincts. There were many people who had predicted this outcome. However it still remains a question of interpretation writes David Willison of RAIDID (Residents Against Inappropriate Development In Doncaster) “Manningham Planner John Joyner, who was familiar with council’s residential strategy, has found a blatant contradiction between Councils Policy and its DDO8 schedule”. “While the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) indicates a policy of limiting townhouse style development to two storeys on building sites, with an area of less than 1800 sq m, the DDO8 schedule makes no mention of storeys but only of a height limit of up to 10 meters which could comfortably fit three storeys”.
John Joyner summed it up ever so eloquently Submission John Joyner Re 51 Beverley st
Scale drawing on left is an example of how a three storey building can be built within 10 metres,The truth is it was always the aim of Manningham to have them everywhere when it prescribed up to 10 metres and 11 metres without mandating storeys in its DDO8 schedule. It had deliberately misled the community in its Municipal Strategic Statement by indicating two storeys units would occur on land areas less than 1,800 m2.
Les Clark in May 2013 said;
“Consider the 10 meter high, 3 storey apartment next to me in Precinct “A.” It is an example of the peak size that can be achieved on a sub 1800m2 site”. “The sad reality of the C96 as it stands is that the same design, would be considered the maximum allowed on all three proposed DD08 precincts – there is no “step down.””So DD08 Main road Precinct, Precinct “A”, AND Precinct “B” on a single or double block, are all defined as : Height of ten meters for a sloping site, 60% coverage, same setbacks, really, what’s the difference”?