Tribunal Comments: “In reference to the height (10m), it is recognised that the desirability of providing some flexibility for design outcomes that might include, for example, the need to accommodate varied topographical conditions that are a characteristic feature in Manningham, pitched roof forms, architectural features or even a recessive third storey element”. “Thus, I consider that the approach advocated for the applicant, said to derive from a strategic imperative to fill the building envelope by reference to its maximum height, is a flawed yardstick with which to measure the acceptability of this proposal”.
ex senior planning officer at Manningham council, now the principal of Melbourne Planning Outcomes (MPO) and advocate for the developer wrote: “With regard to Council’s policy position regarding three storey development only being supported in precinct A where a minimum 1,800 sqm lot size is met, the particular point to be made that the support for two storey development in this case is not a mandatory control and the Council has the procedural freedom to determine that a development with a three storey component can be approved on this site”.
“Clause 21-5 (Residential) can be quoted as follows with reference to sub-precinct A DDO8-2:In this sub-precinct if a lot has an area of less than 1,800, a townhouse style development 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%”.
“The language, after careful consideration through and including the panel process, should has been kept as “should’ rather than “must” and does not therefore create a prohibition on three storey components of a development in precinct A”. (even if it did, the efficacy of using the Municipal Strategic Statement as a directly prescriptive device should be questioned)
Advocate statement in full …applicants-advocate-re-51-beverley-st
advertised-plans-pl15025757-38-frederick-street-doncaster (8 metres high)