C96 DD08 Precinct A ,small site – Not Safe.

After asking for clarity yesterday on what seemed a clear statement that big Apartments couldn’t be built in side streets on small sites we got the Council’s reply below.  It seems that there is still Council discretion to allow 10m high, 3 storey apartments on DD08 Precinct a sites less than 1800m2 (2 blocks) because the sections are not mandatory…

…if a lot has an area of less than 1800m2, a townhouse style development proposal only will be considered, but development should be a maximum of two storeys….

We received this explanatory email:  (Key here seems to be that DD08 can mandate things – MSS cannot, and these statements are written in the MSS.)  Continue reading C96 DD08 Precinct A ,small site – Not Safe. →

C96 DD08 Precinct A ,small sites High Density Restricted?

The current proposed C96 changes – as shown on the Council’s agenda for May 2013, does seem to keep large apartment blocks from appearing on small sites  – we are awaiting confirmation..

In the current amendment as posted on the Council website for May Agenda, the Precinct A, small site can ONLY be townhouses and two storeys at that. See below. Continue reading C96 DD08 Precinct A ,small sites High Density Restricted? →

Manningham Council ignores its own rules on height limits

Manningham Council has used ResCode sloping land guides to overrule DD08 regulations, and approve developments that were too tall.

DD08 is Manningham councils own overlay superseding heights and other details that Rescode would have covered on other sites without a Design & Development Overlay.  This anomaly affects only Precinct A of DD08 where the is NO extra allowance of building height for sloping land. In Precinct B and Rescode sloping land lets you have an extra meter of building height.  The C96 amendment seeks to add this extra height allowance to Precinct A as well. Continue reading Manningham Council ignores its own rules on height limits →

C96 Doesn’t provide enough distinction between precincts

The C96 amendment to planning regulations of DD08 still has some significant flaws. For instance if you compare the existing and proposed regulations the main rd precinct is no smaller than the lesser Precinct A & B !

Compare the three C96 DD08 proposed Precincts, in the context of sites under 1800m2 – one or two average home sites together – the following applies:

 C96 Maximum height for a sloping small site ( under 1800m2)

Bunnings on Doncaster Hill – vote May 28th

The planned Bunnings development on Doncaster Rd Doncaster, between shoppping town and the Primary School goes up for council Planning approval at this coming council meeting Tuesday May 28th.

Council agenda can be found here

Bunnings application – Planning Dept have recommended approval.

Stage 1 which gives them all they need to operate. They will only construct 124 apartments of the required 385. Continue reading Bunnings on Doncaster Hill – vote May 28th →

Ex Planning Minister Justin Madden becomes an activist against development near him

This interesting twist came in from Mary Drost of Marvelous Melbourne, and refferring to an article in the age.   Justin Madden also signed our petition against high density developments in side streets.

SUCH IRONY   –  NOW  JUSTIN MADDEN IS FIGHTING DEVELOPMENT NEAR HIM.   I  am thinking of asking  him to join Planning Backlash.

When I think of the damage he did  –  of course I  think of the fact that he sent a Barrister into VCAT to say he approved of the appalling green  glass towers that now dominate Camberwell Junction.

YOU SEE EVERYONE IS A NIMBY

MARY

Justin Madden joins the opposition at Moonee Ponds. Continue reading Ex Planning Minister Justin Madden becomes an activist against development near him →

C96 community feeback done – but to what end ?

Well the community feedback night had a good turn out, and plenty of feedback. There were general questions from those new to the challenges of the building regulations, as well as some very specific C96  and panel report issues.

Several councilors attended, thank-you to them : Major Jennifer Yang, Cr Stephen O’Brien, Cr Paul McLiesh, Cr Dot Hayes, and Cr Jim Grivokostopoulos. It was after all their offer that made this happen. Teresa Dominik the Planning director also attended and gave some back ground on the process. I was asked to chair the meeting, which was a little challenging as Continue reading C96 community feeback done – but to what end ? →

Prepare for the High Density C96 Community meeting Wed May 8th

Good evening all,

For those of you who have followed this Saga, and strived to stand up for the residents view on these development regulations, next Wednesday is the next important step in the process, and close to our last opportunity to have our input considered.

 This meeting will need to be mostly “Technical” in Nature, we have to step past the emotions and provide clear and concise review of the C96 amendment to DD08, and Planning Panels Report.

 We should use examples of how developments we have seen, and that are proposed, have flaunted the regulations to the determent of others.

These examples are the key to proving why the changes need to be made to the planning regulations. Continue reading Prepare for the High Density C96 Community meeting Wed May 8th →

High Density C96 IPP Feedback with Councilors Wed May 8th

Now that the independent Planning Panel has delivered their report on Amendment C96, (IPP Hearing Report,) we have our last opportunity to be consulted at this Community meeting, leading up to the submitters meeting

This will be specifically about C96, the DD08 high density ammendment– no other topics, all three Koonung ward councilors will be there,  and any other councilors you can encourage to attend.

This meeting will be for us,  the residents,  to advise the Mayor and Councilors what we think needs to be addressed from the IPP report, before they vote on it. The council will not have finished their internal review at this time, so they will not give us a stance.

Follow this link for more details and to RSVP  Wednesday May 8th – 7pm.

Continue reading High Density C96 IPP Feedback with Councilors Wed May 8th →

Sunken Apartments To Get Past Building Height Limits.

How many ways can heights be described? A clear example of  what happens when the rules have ambiguity – take note for the C96 amendment vote coming up
May 28th.

…To further example the uncertainty, the proposal (below) in sub-precinct A, at 185-187 Foote Street Templestowe, for a three/partial fourth storey, on a land area of 1548m, will be debated at a submitters meeting tomorrow the 18th April, 6pm at council offices. The proposal, which is actually 13.2m high, is to be sunk beneath the natural ground level by excavating to a depth equal to at least 3 meters (one storey, conform to the prescribed height of 9m above the natural ground level, (plus 1m extra to help minimise earthworks) despite the current  schedule which states; developments be designed and sited to minimise the need for earthworks (excavation) by either siting the building on the flattest part of the site or by designing the building to step with the land. … Continue reading Sunken Apartments To Get Past Building Height Limits. →