Archive:  Rural Living

Last Updated  2/8/16



MRRA Submission: Exhibited Amendment C110



Dire News:  Macedon Ranges Falls To Urbanisation Of Rural Land As Amendment C110 Panel Says the Gisborne and Riddells Creek Rural Living Carve-Up - Which Puts Housing Estates In A Nationally Significant Landscape - Is OK

(2/8/16 - P)  Worse: Macedon Ranges Council has overturned the Panel's veto of rezoning and urbanising of rural land at Kyneton and Romsey and will go ahead regardless.  This is what out-of-control looks like.  Only the State government can stop it and save Macedon Ranges now. 


In terms of protecting Macedon Ranges' values and landscapes, the C110 Panel report is a shattering, precedent-setting decision. 


The report supports small-lot rural living "hobby farm" development in the Shire's rural buffer with metropolitan Melbourne - along the Shire's southern boundary between Riddells Creek and Gisborne, and south of Gisborne around Mt. Aitken and Mt. Gisborne (both are features of State level significance). 


Like Council, the Panel report endorses increased rural living development, in response to market demand, as legitimate, not only in the Shire's south but in Kyneton and Romsey as well.  The report also said carving up the sensitive rural land in the south was 'consistent with and supported by policy', including (somehow!) Statement of Planning Policy No. 8.   Yet Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 has said for forty years that the "hobby farm" development C110 creates is a major threat to Macedon Ranges' values, and is to be resisted.  How then can this policy be 'compatible with or support' what C110 does?   After all, Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 is the policy upon which the State government is basing legislation to protect Macedon Ranges.  Incompatibly, but more accurately, the Panel  report also found carving up the Shire's southern rural buffer is consistent with Council's inept and damaging Equine and Agribusiness Plans.   Unlike Statement of Planning Policy No. 8, both of those documents do promote "hobby farm" subdivision and residential development of rural land.


About the only saving graces in the Panel report were its recommendations that Council delete rezoning and urbanisation of rural land at Kyneton and Romsey from the C110 amendment, not because "hobby farms" were a bad idea but because Council hadn't done enough work to justify them in the drinking water catchment at Kyneton and on high quality agricultural soils at Romsey.  The Panel report said do the work then consider a new planning scheme amendment for these areas.  But Macedon Ranges Council isn't taking 'no' for an answer and on 27 July overturned the Panel report's "delete" recommendation and instead voted to split Amendment C110 into two parts.  Part 1 is "do" the carve-up at Gisborne and Riddells Creek now.   Part 2 is "do" the rezoning of Farming zone and intensifying residential development at Kyneton and Romsey ASAP, with only landowners proposed to be 'consulted'.   By keeping Kyneton and Romsey as Part 2 of a "live" amendment, Council doesn't have to be accountable for changes it makes in those areas.  If Kyneton and Romsey had been deleted from C110, as the Panel report recommended, Council would have had to start a new amendment - with exhibition, submissions, objections and another panel.  By splitting the C110 amendment, Council doesn't have to do any of that.  Changes and decisions can be made "behind closed doors".


It was the officer's recommendation that Council split C110 into two parts.  Cr. Anderson put an alternative motion to stick with the Panel's recommendations (for Gisborne and Riddells Creek to go ahead, but not Kyneton and Romsey).  She received support only from Crs. Piper and Mowatt (the motion was defeated 3-6). 


Cr. Letchford then moved, and Cr. Jukes seconded, the officer's recommendation to split C110 into two parts, and proceed with Kyneton and Romsey.  They were supported by Crs. Hackett* , Connor, Ellis, McLaughlin, Mowatt, Piper.  In an 8-1 decision, only Cr. Anderson opposed the motion.


* Councillor Hackett has previously declared a conflict of interest for Amendment C110 (his land is affected by C110), but apparently did not declare last Wednesday.


 Check Council's website for both the C110 Panel report, and last Wednesday's 27 July 2016 meeting agenda and minutes


MRRA Says:


In case you haven't already noticed, here in Macedon Ranges we have a development company for a Council, which just can't stop selling-off, carving up and commercialising Macedon Ranges.  Too much is never, ever enough, particularly if it serves the interests of a favoured few.  Who cares if it isn't in the best interests of the broader community or environment?   Hanging Rock, the Kyneton Airfield, the Equine 'Everything' Centre provide some specific examples, but the destruction of values inherent in C110 sets a new precedent for the whole shire.


Council, having successfully sold the pup that "responding to market demand" constitutes "strategic justification" for hobby farms, must have been slightly irritated when the Panel report said delete Kyneton and Romsey.  Council of course just ignored that; the mild irritation would be having to come up with porkies to try to cover up what it was doing.  In the end Council settled on C110 being -- illogically - good for the community and environment, and being a better outcome than the urban sprawl at Epping and Thomastown (both of which are within the metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary).   As Macedon Ranges is NOT an urban growth area, the relevance of these suburbs to C110 is, at best, obscure. 


This C110 result is a fatal blow for the Macedon Ranges people love, and visit.  After years of authoritative documents recognising the damaging effects of "hobby farms", houses and urbanisation on the landscape, environmental and productive values of rural areas, and it being recognized that responding to market demand is not appropriate in Macedon Ranges, a Panel now says 'go ahead', primarily because it's what Council wants.  This outcome, and Council brazenly snooting its nose at anything that gets in the way of its limitless growth agenda, tips Macedon Ranges over the edge. 


  In MRRA's  "14 points" speech last November at a forum in Gisborne attended by the Minister for Planning, we said one of the key threats to Macedon Ranges is the loss, over time, of a "protection culture" at State and local level.  It is lost when people who make decisions stop thinking of Macedon Ranges as a special place needing special consideration and protection.  Amendment C110 is a prime example of both the loss of that culture, and what happens when it is lost.  How can anyone possibly think C110 is 'compatible with and supported by' Statement of Planning Policy No. 8?


C110 isn't the end, it's just the beginning - the foot in the door, so to speak.  Don't pay any attention to Council saying it (only!) wants a 30 year supply of rural living "hobby farms", it intends to have an unlimited supply.  Council is already planning more rezoning, subdivision and development in rural areas, and is about to launch into a rural land 'review' targeting rezoning and subdivision of Farming and Rural Conservation Zones.  The writing is already on the wall in its dubious Tourism, Equine and Agribusiness strategies, which want that rezoning and subdivision to suit tourism, equine and agribusiness interests, regardless of impacts on the land's higher level values.  And C110 sets up it all up very nicely indeed, by replacing existing planning scheme policy that says we already have enough and won't be creating any more, with policy that says Council can/will make more. 


The urbanisation and small lot sizes that C110 puts in Macedon Ranges also endangers the Green Wedges to the south of the Shire, because it results in urban development on both sides of the Green Wedge i.e. at Sunbury, and in Macedon Ranges.  Can you can hear developers saying, what's the point of having a Green Wedge in between?  Could this be why Green Wedge land in the City of Hume, along Macedon Ranges' boundary, was being bought up a few years ago? 


The Minister for Planning has the final say on Amendment C110 - it won't go into the Macedon Ranges planning scheme until / unless the Minister approves it.  


The Association's view is that Amendment C110 - any part of it - is contrary to Statement of Planning Policy No. 8, and the amendment's approval would significantly compromise and undermine both the standard of protection being provided, and community confidence in the protection process.


We all know the State government is working on legislative protection for Macedon Ranges, based on Statement of Planning Policy No. 8.  That longed-for protection can't get here soon enough.  Macedon Ranges needs it now, and we fully encourage the State government to expedite its efforts, while there is still something of value left to protect. 



Panel Set For Amendment C110 - The Rural Living Subdivision Frenzy

(9/3/16 - P)   Council drops the panel hearing for C110 right in the middle of panel hearings for Woodend, Kyneton and Riddells Creek Structure Plans, AND the Protection Advisory Committee process

A Panel to hear from people who made submissions on Amendment C110 has been set.  If you made a submission on C110 last December, you should receive a notice from Planning Panels Victoria.  Panel Hearing timetable


Firstly, if you want to appear in person to talk about your submission before the Panel, you NEED TO REGISTER WITH PLANNING PANELS VICTORIA BY 5.00pm THIS FRIDAY (11 March) by sending in a "Request To Be Heard Form".   You can also use this form to ask to be kept informed about the Panel hearings.


Next, there will be a Directions hearing at 11.00am on Tuesday 15 March, at the Gisborne Shire offices (Black Forest room) to deal with any 'housekeeping' matters. 


Then, the full Panel hearing will be held starting from 18 April  (times and location to be announced)


MRRA Says:


There are already 5 amendments with panel hearings on the go.  Soooo - what does Macedon Ranges council do?  It puts another panel hearing (C110) right in the middle of them.  The start date for the C110 full panel hearing (18 April) is in fact the same day as the last day of the hearings for the Kyneton Structure Plan.   Then, along comes the Macedon Ranges Protection Advisory Committee (i.e. the big one), and C110 is now in the middle of all of this as well.  Indecent haste, indeed.  The other thing is, Council doesn't think there will be many people who want to appear before the C110 Panel, and has scheduled only a 4 - 5 day hearing.  Council's presentation will take up at least one of those days.


Reminder:  Council's C110 Rural Living Land-Grab Amendment  Submissions Close December 23

(13/12/15 - P)   Amendment C110 - the disgrace Macedon Ranges Shire Council calls planning.  Just a couple of lines from you objecting to and asking for C110 to be abandoned will do.

Submissions on this amendment are due two days before Christmas.  To make a submission, send an email to, with Amendment C110 in the subject line, objecting to the rezoning of farming land, much smaller lot sizes, removing subdivision restrictions from already subdivided land, and the damage to landscapes these greedy C110 changes will produce.  Copy your submission to the Minister for Planning, and Macedon MLA Mary-Anne Thomas (see letter below for email details).  


 Macedon Ranges Shire Council website:  \


MRRA Says:

At the Community Forum on protecting Macedon Ranges in Gisborne on 18/11/15, Ms. Sophie Segafredo (Council's Director of Planning) advised, in response to complaints people hadn't been notified about Amendment C110, that Council had sent out over 2,000 letters.  Seeing how there were over 14,000 households in the Shire in 2011, 2,000 letters doesn't seem enough to be able to say Council has "consulted" - at least, not consulted "the community", just some in the community.   Were you one of the lucky ones, or just one of the rest of us Council didn't want to know about C110?


The more you read, the worse it gets.  Not only is Council reducing existing 40ha and 8ha subdivision sizes to 4ha and 2ha, many new houses won't have to get a planning permit.  Wait... Council is also applying Development Plan Overlays across HUGE areas of the rural land it is allowing to be subdivided, and that Overlay takes away your rights to be notified, object to or appeal at VCAT against permit applications for any houses that might still need a permit, or commercial, tourism and other development.  Yessirree, Council's plan is to not only carve up rural areas because that's what some real estate agents and some greedy landowners want, and chop up the land into blocks with room for a pony because that's what Council's irrational Equine Strategy says, the Shire is also being carved up so commercial and tourism development can flourish without accountability through a normal planning process, courtesy of the Development Plan Overlay. 


The last-minute inclusion of Farming Zone rezoning at Kyneton and slashing subdivision sizes at Romsey (both reduced from 40ha to 2ha) is being done without community consultation or strategic assessment, and heightens perceptions that C110 is definitely not about what you know, but who you know.


Here's a letter MRRA sent to local papers this week about C110 asking residents to make a submission (copy to the Minister for Planning and Mary-Anne Thomas).  Please do so.


Alert to Macedon Ranges’ residents: 


Can you please object to Council’s “Rural Living” land-grab, Amendment C110?  It’s wrong in so many ways.


Council is consulting and listening to some more than others.


Council is ignoring its adopted growth strategy.  Amendment C110 puts an additional 1,000 people in the Shire.


Amendment C110 intensifies existing, and creates new, housing opportunities in rural areas by dramatically lowering existing subdivision sizes, removing existing restrictions on subdivision of already subdivided land, and rezoning farming land. 


Council wants this new unsewered housing development in the sensitive rural landscapes at the Shire’s southern gateways, from south of Gisborne to Riddells Creek; on high quality agricultural soils at Romsey, and in a drinking water catchment at Kyneton. 


This type of development has long been identified as a threat to Macedon Ranges’ values.  It depletes agricultural potential, creates land use conflicts and additional demand for infrastructure and services in rural areas, and irreparably damages the environment and landscapes this Shire relies on for tourism.  It’s the complete opposite of “protecting” Macedon Ranges – it’s what Macedon Ranges needs to be protected from.


It’s almost Christmas and Council is counting on you being too busy to notice or object.  Prove them wrong by putting in a short submission by 23 December (mrsc@mrsc.vic, telling Council to abandon Amendment C110, copy to the Minister for Planning (, and Macedon MLA Mary-Anne Thomas (


CURRENT Action Required   Council's "From Outer-Space" Rural Living 'Strategy':  Amendment C110 Is Now On Exhibition.  Submissions Due 23 December

(24/11/15 - P)  Will it go down as the worst example of 'planning' in Macedon Ranges Shire?  In history?  It should...  It's self-interested madness.  Make sure you get your objection in. 

Documentation for Amendment C110 is now available from Council's website or by going to Planning Scheme Amendments Online.  There are 29 amendment documents to download on Council's website, plus the infamous rural living 'strategy' (which by now must be a real estate agents' dream come true), as well as the 50mb Background document.  And a "fact" sheet (not to be relied on).


Council is allowing just over 1 month for comments on C110, which proposes to turn existing Rural Living zones into semi-suburban areas through significant reductions in minimum lot sizes (40ha to 4ha, 8ha to 2ha), and by removing existing Section 173 (legal) agreements and Design and Development Overlay 13 (both of which prohibit further subdivision of already subdivided rural living zoned land), from Gisborne South to Riddells Creek.  That is, the area that, until this Council, has been preserved for over 40 years as the rural buffer between the metropolitan boundary and Mt. Macedon. 


If that wasn't enough, and it never is, Council is also doing an ad hoc rezoning  of Rural Living Zone 1 (40ha) to 2ha in Romsey (NOT in the draft 'strategy', and Class 1 agricultural land), PLUS another 270ha in Kyneton is also popped into C110 (203ha Farming zone, 68ha Rural Living 5) to be rezoned to 2ha (even though Coliban Water has said it won't support rural living development in the Eppalock Special Water Supply Catchment, and the Kyneton Structure Plan said Kyneton has sufficient existing zoned land to last until 2036).   Quite a financial windfall, for some. 


Oh, and the Jacksons Creek escarpment (you know, all that undeveloped land you see along Jacksons Creek at Gisborne when you go over the big freeway bridge, coming from Melbourne?), Council has that down for 1ha subdivision, even though the Gisborne Outline Development Plan says it's to be left as it is.  The heritage property, Gisborne Park near the Calder Freeway, is also to be subdivided. 


Submissions can be made to Council's inappropriately named Strategic Planning and Environment department, Macedon Ranges Shire Council, PO Box 151, Kyneton VIC, 3444, or by email


MRRA Says:

What can you say about a piece of work like this!?!   Has it got to 'it's plain old corruption' yet?  Yes?  No?   If nothing else, this amendment puts the way this Council operates, and everything this Council really stands for - a Council doing whatever it or its mates want - right in the spotlight.   C110 is about as far away from the concept of planning as you can get.  There is nothing honest that justifies this amendment, and it won't stop houses being built in rural areas, it will just put a whole lot more (some say 1,000) UNSEWERED houses in what used to be rural areas, as well as on-going houses in rural areas.  All this extra growth wasn't in the Macedon Ranges Settlement Strategy, either - it's all additional and unplanned.  Breath-taking in its audacity, it will only be the beginning.  The rest of the Farming and Rural Conservation zones will be on Council's radar.   High growth, greed, land speculation.  It will irreversibly damage Macedon Ranges, and tourists to the Shire will be greeted by hundreds of acres of houses, with (a la Hyacinth Bucket) room for a pony.  It's what you get when you rezone all of this land because that's what real estate agents, and your Equine Strategy, say should be done.  Council's headlong rush to get it all done before State level protection is introduced is sickening, but typical of the way this Council operates.


BTW, did you know Macedon Ranges Council adopted a Rural Living Strategy in 2008?  That Strategy recognised the damaging impact of rural living development, confined it, and back-zoned some rural living zones to farming zone.  This Strategy never saw the light of day after Council adopted it, but its adoption date does tell us when the rot started in the back rooms at Council.


Make a submission, and make sure you say 'no'.


CURRENT Council's "In The Rural Living Zone".  Well, It's Some Sort Of Zone But More Like One From Outer Space...

(16/12/14 - P)  Psst...don't ever call it a strategy or even planning:  greed, ignorance, misrepresentation and empire-building are closer to the mark  (MRRA Submission)   Rural Living File    Red Alerts

Comments on Council's salivating plans for unsewered rural residential development as far as the eye can see closed last Friday.  The good news is that it's soooo bad, so blatantly not strategic planning, it's unlikely to go anywhere.  The bad news is ratepayers have bankrolled it - more waste of our money.  See MRRA's submission


MRRA Says:

Your rates squandered, again.  Utterly appalling planning standards, and we are paying for this rubbish.  The mis-representation, twists and omissions in this open-ended endorsement for putting rural living everywhere verily take your breath away.


At what point does the cavalry arrive and stop this self-interested takeover of planning in Macedon Ranges?  Is there any time at which way too much will be enough?  


One for IBAC, we think.


  P.S. Profound apologies - we earlier made the mistake of calling this document a Strategy (i.e. as in a strategic document).  Now we realise it's just Council's wish-list report to Council.


Council's Carve-It-Up Rural Living Strategy Out For (Selective) Comment

(10/11/14 - P)   There's a survey proposed, but only for owners of Rural Living Zoned land.  MRSC website says Strategy documents are available until 12 December, but doesn't say submissions can be made, or where to send them, or have any contact details for this Strategy.    

Macedon Ranges Council's strategy to reduce existing 40ha and 8ha Rural Living zone minimum lot sizes to 4ha and 2ha - and remove existing "S173 agreements" that prohibit further subdivision - is on exhibition, apparently until 12 December.  The area affected (at this stage) runs from South Gisborne to near Riddells Creek, and is the 40 year old rural buffer between Melbourne and Mt. Macedon.  In addition to potentially allowing 10 lots where there is now only 1 lot, Council is also proposing to remove legal agreements to allow land currently embargoed from further subdivision to get into the game. See information from Council's website and links to documentation.


MRRA Says:


You could see all of this coming in Amendment C84, as Council secretly set about rewriting the planning scheme to support this move, even to the extent of deleting Panel recommendations (while telling everyone it adopted them).  


The current Macedon Ranges planning scheme, at Clause 21.03, says:

"Inappropriate subdivision and development of rural land is the major cause of fragmentation and loss of values in the landscape."  C84 doesn't.


Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 says protect this landscape from this type of development:   

"There is a need to retain a buffer zone of predominantly rural landuses between any concentrated urban development at Sunbury and the major recreational and scenic attractions , water catchments and forest resources of the Macedon Range.  This can best be achieved by the encouragement of legitimate farming concerns in the intervening areas, by the prevention of small rural subdivisions, controls on allowable residential density, regulation of land uses... "  page 33.   C84 says maintain a rural buffer in the south-east of the Shire.


And here's what the Macedon Ranges Cultural Heritage and Landscape Study, 1994 (Volume one page ii) says about making these types of changes:

"...areas like the Macedon Ranges are prone to falling to the tyranny of small decisions. Small decisions to change key elements are cumulative and lead to progressive loss of heritage on a grand scale, resulting in complete changes to the character and presentation of the area.  The great danger for the Macedon Ranges is not that growth management of urban development will not be exercised but that it will be exercised in such a way that the end result is the suburbanisation of the area."    What Council is proposing is a large and irreversible change to one of the most fundamental elements of the Shire: its gateway with Melbourne.


It's frighteningly obvious that Council doesn't get it (or doesn't care) that turning hundreds of hectares of rural land along the southern entry to the Shire into low-density suburbia changes everything, and affects everyone..  It's a giant leap in the opposite direction of expert opinion that says 'don't do it'. 


Despite Council excluding most of the community from commenting on its Rural Living Strategy, make a submission anyway.   Tell Council what you think of its 2ha and 4ha Strategy, and don't forget to let Council know what you think of their "consultation" process. 


Council Puts Another Nail In Macedon Ranges' Coffin:  Its Rampant Rural Living Strategy Will Destroy Significant Landscapes, Clobber Gisborne

(25/10/14 - P)  Council quietly takes the next step in its economic development / equine / growth agenda:  a sea of houses instead of sweeping rural views to Mount Macedon as you enter the Shire from Melbourne. This couldn't happen if we had Statement of Planning Policy No 8 as State policy.    LPS   Red Alerts

At the 22/10/14 Council meeting, Council didn't even bother to debate its new draft Rural Living Strategy (aka the "In The Rural Living Zone" project); it just added it to another 10 agenda items and dealt with them all together under one of its infamous en bloc motions, where multiple agenda items are moved forward, without debate, in a lump.


The 'Strategy' is more a cunning plan to push even more growth and development into the Shire, and is driven in great part by Council's questionable Equine Strategy (the Amendment C84 panel did not support its implementation).  The Strategy's aims include maintaining a 30 year supply of Rural Living 'hobby farm' blocks in the Shire, additional to residential land supply in towns (even State policy only requires a 15 year total land supply for the Shire).  It's reducing minimum lot sizes in existing Rural Living Zone from 40ha and 8 ha to 4ha and 2ha - from the Shire's southern boundary with metro Melbourne, up to Gisborne, New Gisborne, and almost across to Riddells Creek, and also removing long-standing legal agreements to not allow further subdivision of some previously subdivided land.  Commercial development in the Rural Living zone, including accommodation uses, is also supported. 


It won't matter that this land includes landscape features of State significance and the Jacksons Creek escarpment, as well as the sweeping rural views that historically have announced Macedon Ranges.  It clearly doesn't matter that this rural buffer with Melbourne is the holy grail of planning which Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 has said for 40 years must be preserved and protected.  That Council instead intends to turn this rural buffer into a housing estate, each lot no doubt with room for a pony, is further evidence of why Council refuses to include Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 in its Localised Planning Statement. 


Gisborne will bear the impacts of all this development and population growth (additional to the growth Council has already locked in for the town itself), with new residents turning to Gisborne as their town base, straining already-stretched services and infrastructure, and adding to the chaotic traffic flow and car parking shortages that are already a bane in the town.


MRRA Says:


In 2008 a previous Macedon Ranges Council produced a Rural Living Strategy that was adopted for exhibition by Council in September 2008, but never exhibited.  You could hardly find two Rural Living Strategies that were more chalk and cheese.


Be afraid, because unless the State government makes Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 State policy, Council's fire-sale agenda - when too much growth and development isn't enough, make some more - won't stop at this.  The next steps in this Rural Living Strategy contemplate rezoning Farming and Rural Conservation zoned land to make even more small hobby blocks.  On-going approval of houses in Farming and Rural Conservation zones looks set to continue as well.  Council's latest fad is overturning planning officer recommendations to refuse new dwellings in the Farming zone (has done so at the past 2 Council meetings).  Why?  Because these new dwellings are ancillary to EQUINE uses.  Got a pony - want a a house with that?


Council (not a consultant) produced the Strategy, and from the text apparently with hefty input from real estate agents about market demand, as well as Council's Equine Strategy's development wish-list.  The Strategy's launch also explains why residents were asked that totally unrelated question, in the Localised Planning Statement survey last July, about how important are houses in rural areas.  Responses will no doubt be used to justify this Strategy's radical departure from the principles of proper and orderly planning, and from Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 which 40 years ago identified the type of development the Strategy proposes as the biggest single threat to the the Macedon Ranges and Surrounds' landscapes.  The other question is, will tourists still want to come?


The Strategy's changes - and their  location - also confirm that some people knew in advance (or guessed extremely well) that these changes were on the way.  From 2010 MRRA has received reports of real estate agents knocking on doors, offering to buy up land, in the areas the Strategy proposes to carve up.  Insider trading?   If only we had NSW's Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] in Victoria...


The Strategy wasn't on Council's website yesterday, but you can find a draft with the 22/10/14 Council meeting agenda (the attachment to Item PE6).


Macedon Ranges' Rural Living Strategy - Opportunity For Residents To Comment

(3/3/08 - P)   Download the response form here

Following on from three recent forums addressing Council's Rural Living Strategy, residents are able to send comments to Council until Friday 7th March.  Click here to download a response form and details of who to send it to.


MRRA Says:

From what we are hearing, there is no shortage of people putting in requests to rezone or subdivide their land.  So if you don't want a ring of rural house blocks along the Shire's southern boundary (MRRA has heard wall-to-wall 2 ha lots from Gisborne to Clarkefield may be under consideration), or if you want rural land to be protected from "market demand" responses (i.e. because some people want it), please make sure your voice is heard by putting in some comments. It doesn't have to be a lot, but Council needs to hear that there are other perspectives than those which favour low-density suburbanization of Macedon Ranges.


Council's Rural Living Strategy Meetings 25th and 28th February

(24/2/08 - P)  Have your say, particularly if you value Macedon Ranges' rural land and want it to still be around in the future

The final 2 public consultation meetings preliminary to production of a draft Rural Living Strategy are scheduled for this coming Monday (25th) in Gisborne and Thursday (28th) in Romsey.  Please note that these 'meetings' are actually a rolling series of presentations and discussion forums (i.e. not a single public meeting).  You will be able to discuss your views and issues with Council's consultant and planning staff.  There are multiple presentation sessions which run for about an hour.  This format is intended to allow people to come along at a time most convenient for them (although MRRA believes some later sessions were warranted to accommodate residents who get home after 7pm). Click here for details re location and times.


MRRA Says:

This is a critical issue.  There are those who would have all of the Shire translated into one big rural residential living estate.  A more considered approach is needed, and so is your input, to provide a range of views about the Shire's future.  Please go along and have your say...