Developers bank on investors to stave off Melbourne apartment glut

This story from the Fin Review, shows concern for the balance in the Apartment market presently…

Developers bank on investors to stave off Melbourne apartment glut

30 MAY 2013 | THE AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL REVIEW | REBECCA THISTLETON

The 22,850 apartment units under construction in Melbourne has sparked fears of an oversupply, however developers are confident an increase in investor buying will see the units absorbed.

In Manningham council, there are also many apartment developments approved, but not so many going ahead,  over the next few posts we will look into the progress, costs and growth seen around Manningham apartments.

MacroPlan on apartments in Manningham and needs

Study results can be reasonably accurate but often expressed in a way which best enhances the desired outcome of the client.

Below is an example of how the MacroPlan data might have been written if to more clearly demonstrate the low demand for apartments:

Arguable Focus of C96 High Densiy Zone Changes

Sandman Oz sent this in today – tying several aspects back together…

It has been argued that the need to request amendment 96 was more to do with rectifying the mistakes made in the current table 1 to schedule 8. For example, is the 9 metre height limit Continue reading Arguable Focus of C96 High Densiy Zone Changes →

Conjecture-Response

We have a response from the Manningham Council Planning Director Teresa Dominik… Does this give you confidence in what could be built around you?

Amelia
Please find below responses to issues that you require clarification for.
These have been provided in blue text.

 
·         If council is to follow its advertised policy for two storeys, Continue reading Conjecture-Response →

conjecture

This one was sent in by Amelia Tang. Amelia has picked up on some of the outstanding issues of the DD08 Regulations, even after C96. this was her letter to the councillors at Manningham. What do you see as the key problems?

 
Manningham Council had the opportunity to rectify a number of anomalies but many conflicting issues remain.
Will table 1 of the new schedule 8 be discretionary? If the intent is to remove any ambiguity in the Planning Scheme why was it not made clear?  It says only that a permit Continue reading conjecture →

C96 As Adopted High Density Changes to DD08

As previously discussed, the C96 changes to DD08 High Density Residential rule in Manningham has now passed council and is with State Gov. ( DPCD).

The version that council adopted is below, there are two Parts:  MSS 21-05, and the DD08. Continue reading C96 As Adopted High Density Changes to DD08 →

High Density DD08 C96 Amendment Carried.

The C96 was passed through tonight, amid assertions that there is more to do, but this is a good set of steps in the right direction. ... So now the C96 gets passed to the Vic Planning  Department DPCD, for final review and possibly acceptance.

There has been many changes along the way, at many stages, the current set of rules for the DPCD to consider are included below, with markups showing what was changed, and at what stage. Continue reading High Density DD08 C96 Amendment Carried. →

High Density Zones DD08 C96 MSS – Which Rules Rule?

With so many Planing regulations to choose from – Which one Rules?

There is a hierarchy – Rescode height limits & setbacks etc are the default guidelines for residential development (for less than 4 storeys); but they are subordinate to limits specified in a schedule to the zone (if there are any variations specified in the R1Z schedule – 0 for Manningham); and any zone schedule limits are in turn subordinate to any such limits specified in a schedule to an overlay if one applies – in this case, DDO8.
So if you live in a DD08 zone:   DD08 rules Continue reading High Density Zones DD08 C96 MSS – Which Rules Rule? →

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? →