The General Residential Zone, schedule 2 is, according to our wonderful council, supposed to provide the necessary ‘buffer zones’ between properties in housing diversity and minimal change (ie NRZ) because of the upper level setbacks included in the schedule. No other limitations, apart from the deficient ResCode numbers, have been enforced on this zone. For example – in Glen Eira we find:
Site Coverage – 60%
Permeability – 20%
Height – 10.5 metres
Private Open Space – minimum of 25 square metres (ResCode) and
Nothing about tree protection or landscape plans.
Other councils in their ‘negotiations’ and subsequent amendments just happened to be far more successful in introducing limits on what can be build in the GRZ2 zone. Here are some examples that are gazetted and in operation.
Banyule –
Site coverage 40%
Landscaping – Landscape plans will provide 1 tree for every 400 square metres of site area, including 1 large tree in the front setback – A Landscape Concept Plan must be submitted which considers the Banyule Tree Planting Zone Guidelines. It should distinguish landscaped garden areas from useable private open space, show tree planting locations and the extent of the mature canopies.
Geelong –
Landscaping – One canopy tree per dwelling
Private Open space – An area of 60 square metres, with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with minimum area of 40 square metres, a minimum dimension of 5 metres and convenient access from a living room. It cannot include a balcony or roof top terrace.
Height – 9 metres
Knox –
Height – 9 metres
Private open space – Private open space consisting of an area of 80 square metres or 20 per cent of the area of the lot, whichever is the lesser, but not less than 60 square metres. At least one part of the private open space should consist of secluded private open space with a minimum area of 40 square metres and a minimum dimension of 5 metres at the side or rear of the dwelling with convenient access from a living room.
Monash –
Front setback – 7.6 metres.
Private Open Space – A dwelling or residential building should have private open space consisting of:
An area of 75 square metres, with one part of the private open space at the side or the rear of the dwelling or residential building with a minimum area of 35 square metres, a minimum width of 5 metres and convenient access from a living room
Stonnington –
Basements should not exceed 75% of the site area.
Walls on boundaries – Walls should not be located on side boundaries for a distance of 5 metres behind the front façade of the building fronting the street.
Whitehorse
Site coverage – 40%
Permeability 40%
Provision of at least two canopy trees with a minimum mature height of 12 metres. At least one of those trees should be in the secluded private open space of the dwelling. The species of canopy trees should be native, preferably indigenous.
Development should provide for the retention and/or planting of trees, where these are part of the character of the neighbourhood.
Walls on boundaries – Walls should only be constructed on one side boundary.
Yarra – height 9 metres
September 22, 2015 at 2:21 PM
Everyone else gets a better deal when ya get Hyams and Newton up front. Betyas other councillors didn’t get a look in or have a clue. They still haven’t.
September 22, 2015 at 3:20 PM
The councillors know exactly what going on, they are just traitors to the residents and willing sycophants to newton and his developer mates
September 23, 2015 at 3:17 PM
GECC got itself into a mess by its instance on excluding the public when applying the “new residential zones”, and by its lack of consultation over more than a decade that might have established reasonable amenity standards. Having not done the strategic work and having undermined the democratic process, GECC nevertheless will not bring itself to admit it failed us. I thought it was a lousy argument that Jeff Akehurst used to justify excluding the public: that there was a risk we might undo the policies and lack of controls he desperately wanted.
September 24, 2015 at 2:25 PM
I recommend anyone to go and watch last nights ABC’s 7:30 Report on Alburns Council in Sydney and see where the slippery slope in corruption leads a community and a local government, shocking but not surprising.
Sydney always does things bigger and better
September 24, 2015 at 4:48 PM
Yes, while I watched it I thought, I wonder if GECC is similarly afflicted? After all we have a majority of the same people on the Council since 2005 voting the same way. What’s in it for them? After all Councillors remuneration is not a motivation for them to be on the Council.
September 24, 2015 at 7:55 PM
I think the Jewish councillors could be seen of having a conflict of interest when making decision involving their community, Lipshutz in particular has show that all things from his community are right and they will always get his vote, the small soccer ground debacle rang all the bells that things looked and smelled rotten in this department
September 26, 2015 at 1:39 PM
This is the very reason people say other Councillors are letting this happen. However,
amongst other councillors Delahunty is the only one who can see through and through them and is doing well as a Deputy Mayor out shining Magoo.