![]() The decision pending on a three storey contemporary building at 51-53 Beverley Street, East Doncaster, which should be two storeys, could be the turning point. The one metre slope allowance is NOT included in the three storey 11 metre height criteria which effectively precludes the option for a four storey building. Manningham then introduced a one metre leeway for slope that could be added to the 9 metre two storey height criteria which then provided the option for a three storey building. That’s why council had been reluctant to include two storeys in the planning schedule but had to pacify the community who wanted lower density two storey buildings. ![]() There is not enough profit margin in developing a two storey apartment building or a terraced town house complex especially when the costs associated with the procuring of land are added. The dilemma for council will now be whether to continue with its poorly conceived open ended schedule or have it amended to bring about a more realistic heights to storey ratio as VCAT have suggested. Though it was prepared to remove the discretionary options for maximum heights and minimum land areas, Manningham refused to address community requests for a more appropriate maximum height limit in the schedule that would stop three storey contemporary buildings from occurring where only two storey developments were prescribed in the DDO8 schedule…….the common objection in many of the resident appeals against the over developments that council were previously approving.Ĭouncil must now be at sixes and sevens on how to deal with future development proposed in its residential strategy since Vcat have overturned a council rejection of the three storey proposal in Whittens Lane, in precinct B where lesser density is envisaged, even though Manningham asserted that it should have been two storeys according to its policy. The changes council recommended were supposed to be in response to the 669 community submissions it had received, and many of them had been considered, but it seemed more to do with council wanting to introduce its high density Main Road precinct, with its higher buildings and no minimum land areas, than addressing the ambiguity in the “particular precincts” it had referred to. So in 2012, following the above statement Manningham announced it would request an amendment to its residential strategy (DDO8) and had called for public comment. In requesting the C96 amendment in 2012 council had admitted ….”The current controls do not provide sufficient guidanceįor development and have inadvertently led to ambiguity and at times, a greater scale of development than was intended within particular sub-precincts”. The minimum height needed for a two storey contemporary building is 6.5 metres and the minimum requirement for a three storey of similar design could be contained in less than 9.5 metres. Manningham council’s DDO8 and Municipal Strategic Statement prescribes a maximum height of up to 10 metres where developments are limited to two storeys a height that can also accommodate a three storey of contemporary design. Elections 2012 Manningham Council Mullum, Mullum Ward: Meg Downie.Elections 2012 Manningham Council Mullum Mullum: Paul McLeish. ![]() Elections 2012 Manningham Council Heide: EdwinOFlynn.Elections 2012 Manningham Council Koonung: Jennifer Yang.Elections 2012 Manningham Council Koonung: Magdi Khalil.Elections 2012 Manningham Council Koonung: Stephen O’Brien.2012-03 Draft Residential Review – Manningham 2012 stage 2.c96 Exhibition changes to DD08 high density residential zones.2012-05 Manningham Residential Review Stage 3.2012-07 High Density Zones DD08 C96 Amendment Improvements list.2012-07 High density Zone Amendment C96 – Public letters.Templestowe,Glendale Ave, 47-49 Three Stories, DD08 Precint B. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |