Archive: Gisborne Futures Project
Last Updated 18/9/20
CURRENT
Unprecedented Growth In 'Gisborne Futures'. This Peri- Urban Town In A Protected
Area Is Being Treated As If It's Part Of The Sunbury & Diggers Rest Growth Corridor.
The Result Is Ugly And Needs A Comprehensive Rethink. Submissions
close September 14
(7/9/20 - P) There's a medium density explosion 'within
walking distance' of the town centre and across half of the town (including
at a State level heritage site). You'll also need to be a big fan of urban sprawl
as hundreds of hectares of Gisborne's famed rural landscape setting are to be rezoned
for suburban residential conversion, including north of the railway line for the
first time ever. A booming expansion of industrial land plus a suburban-style
Commercial 2 zone on a town gateway, next to significant landscape feature Magnet
Hill, rounds it out.
Classic pre-COVID thinking. The Gisborne Futures Project is
anchored on and driven by promoting excessive and unprecedented growth which will
dramatically change and damage characteristics residents and visitors most value
about the town and its surrounds - characteristics residents assumed were protected
by State legislation just a couple of years ago.
Gisborne Futures thought about only two (high) growth scenarios,
then selected the highest and added an extra 10% for good measure. The
Residential Land Demand And Supply Assessment (page 3) shows that in 2016 the
town of Gisborne had 9,800 people (which excludes the huge rural areas
counted to come up with the 12,000 figure often said to be Gisborne's town population).
From there, Gisborne Futures aims for 20,000 population by 2036, and for 50,000
by 2050. The Structure Plan says the new Settlement Boundary being set in
Gisborne Futures has sufficient land inside it to be capable of accommodating growth
to 2050 (50,000 people). Those figures don't yet include the additional population
that would be produced as a result of Cr. Mandi Mees' 24/6/20 last minute resolution
to also include the 210ha Glen Junor property inside the new Settlement Boundary
for residential development.
To accommodate this growth extravaganza, Gisborne’s prized semi-rural
township character, ambience and amenity is to be sacrificed to a never-before-contemplated
level of infill, unit and townhouse development - as 'preferred' housing types -
and in areas never before considered suitable for such suburban outcomes, while
at the same time substantial areas of rural zoned land that is the backbone of Gisborne’s
rural landscape setting and significant viewlines are to be sacrificed to rezoning
for Sunburyesque new suburban greenfields development.
The overall Gisborne Futures concept is very “Melbourne”,
very metropolitan, very business-as-usual as if everything hasn't
changed in 2020, and no matter how hard you look at it, any nexus with Gisborne
being a peri-urban town and located in the Macedon Ranges “protected” area is hard
to find.
Submissions on this first round of consultation close September
14th. Find out more on Macedon Ranges Council's website:
https://www.mrsc.vic.gov.au/About-Council/News/Have-Your-Say/Be-a-part-of-Gisbornes-future
MRRA Says:
Here are some matters to consider about Gisborne Futures:
Ownership Of The Gisborne Futures
Project
The Gisborne Futures growth explosion has been hurtling towards
the town since Gisborne Futures' predecessor, the Gisborne-New Gisborne Outline
Development Plan was introduced into the Macedon Ranges planning scheme in 2012.
In November 2017, the Gisborne Futures Project
received $220,000 'Streamlining for Growth' funding from the Victorian government
(additional State assistance has been provided for the Giborne Business Park proposal
as well). If attributing blame, Gisborne Futures is as much a product of State
government funding and policies as it is of Macedon Ranges Shire Council.
Exhibition Period
Thirteen documents associated with the Gisborne Futures Project
are currently on exhibition (see MRSC website), ten of which are related supporting,
reference or technical documents. Details of the Gisborne Business Park are
buried in the Economic and Employment Analysis. Gisborne Futures is a major
multi-layered planning exercise, an extremely deep and complex project consisting
of many aspects and at times with technical information and jargon to be absorbed.
More explanation and more than 6 weeks exhibition was needed to allow residents
a better chance of coming to grips with what's proposed and what's at stake.
Decisionmakers
The Gisborne Futures Structure Plan, Neighbourhood Character
Study and Urban Design Framework came before Macedon Ranges Council on 24 June,
2020. A resolution moved and seconded respectively by South ward Councillors
Mandi Mees and Andrew Twaits both endorsed Gisborne Futures for consultation and
added the 210ha Glen Junor to be rezoned for residential development. Both of those
Councillors are retiring at the October election. The third South ward councillor,
Helen Radnedge, did not support the Mees/Twaits resolution. Decisions about
the Gisborne Futures Project will be made by the Council to be elected on 24 October
2020.
Process
After this current exhibition and submission process ends on
September 14, Council will consider submissions received and then a revised Gisborne
Futures will be produced for a further exhibition and submission period. After
that, a finalized Gisborne Futures Project will again come before Council and, if
approved, will then be moved forward into a planning scheme amendment, at which
time a formal statutory period of consultation and submissions on the amendment
will occur.
Submissions
It is important for residents to make individual submissions
(developers will be) at every step of the process. Submissions need not be
long, and can be submitted by email to
mrsc@mrsc.vic.gov.au with
"Gisborne Futures submission" as the subject.
It would also be appropriate to copy submissions to all current (and future) Councillors,
and Mary-Anne Thomas, State MLA member for Macedon. You can find current email
contacts here
councillor and MLA email contacts
Growth & the Urban Growth Zone
Too much growth is being promoted. Gisborne Futures is
more about creating a housing market alternative for metropolitan Melbourne's population
than what's right for Gisborne. Alternative housing markets
are already planned in Melbourne's Growth Areas and will soon be available in the
Sunbury & Diggers Rest Growth Corridor (housing 71,000 people and creating 10,000
jobs). There is no need or justification for the extent of either the multi-dwelling
and medium density development or rezoning hundreds of hectares of existing rural
zoned land for new greenfields housing proposed for Gisborne. It's excessive.
An existing General Residential zoned area north-west of the
town near Rosslynne Reservoir is being rezoned to Urban Growth Zone. Rural
land is also being rezoned to Urban Growth Zone (a zone applied in Melbourne Growth
Areas) west (Ferrier Rd), north (on the Mount Macedon side of the railway line)
and east (past the Industrial area) of New Gisborne. Cr. Mandi Mees' motion
of 24 June, 2020 then added another 210 hectares east of Gisborne at Glen Junor
(Kilmore Road) even though this is not needed to accommodate 50,000 people in 2050.
The Glen Junor inclusion also encroaches on and compromises the buffer of rural
land required to be maintained between Gisborne and Riddells Creek. These
Urban Growth Zone areas are all included within the new Gisborne Settlement Boundary,
and automatically designate the land for future residential development.
Gisborne Futures does not include concepts or plans about how
development would occur in these Urban Growth Zones, nor does the Neighbourhood
Character Study address these areas in terms of their defining features, or future
character. The same thing happened at Riddells Creek when rural land was rezoned
to Urban Growth Zone without a plan and as those residents recently learnt, applying
an Urban Growth Zone without a plan already in place means developers get to decide
what goes there - which at Riddells Creek is a "sustainable" 1,300 lots
on 130ha.
You should be very concerned about:
- The very substantial extent of rural land being included
at one time within the new Gisborne Settlement Boundary. At a minimum,
Glen Junor (210ha, Kilmore Road to Jacksons Creek) and land north of the railway
proposed for Urban Growth Zone should be removed from within the Settlement
Boundary.
- All of the rural land being rezoned immediately to
Urban Growth Zone, signalling to developers it is available to be developed.
Even if land is included in the Settlement Boundary (between the current town
boundary and the new Settlement Boundary) there is no substantive reason to
rezone all of it to an Urban Growth Zone at this time.
- The failure of the Gisborne Structure Plan to provide
any direction for proposed Urban Growth Zone areas in terms of development standards,
neighbourhood character and plans/planning controls for future development.
- The Structure Plan's failure to recommend that with
this level of growth a second secondary school and a hospital are necessary
and must be provided (the Structure Plan at page 50 only says consider a possible
need for an additional secondary school).
- The Structure Plan's failure to recognise Gisborne's
close proximity to extensive extreme bushfire risk areas and the potential for
a catastrophic fire from the south-west, west and north-west.
Residential
In order to accommodate the excessive growth that has been selected
for the town, Gisborne Futures puts forward some damaging proposals and changes:
You should be very concerned about:
- Excessive Application of the General Residential
Zone This zone is, officially, to be applied where 3 storey outcomes
are wanted. Under Gisborne Futures it continues to be the dominant residential
zoning within Gisborne and New Gisborne, retained over large areas, including
'outliers' remote from the town centre (for example, Morningside Estate next
to the Rural Conservation zoned Golf Course, and Mulbarton Estate on the Bacchus
Marsh Road gateway). Modifications are not proposed at all to the General
Residential Zone schedule in Precincts 4 and 5. Although the Structure
Plan says 3 storey development isn't preferred (except in the town
centre, Precinct 3), that won't stop 3 storey development because that's what
the zone is for and what the zone says can be done.
- Neighbourhood Residential Zone This
is proposed for a relatively small proportion of the town. Other towns (Woodend,
Riddells Creek and Kyneton) are almost entirely Neighbourhood Residential Zones. This
is a ‘softer’ residential zone with a 2 storey height maximum, and fewer (and
smaller) non-residential uses allowed than in the General Residential Zone.
It should be the dominant zone across Gisborne. It also allows minimum subdivision
sizes to be set, but none are specified in Gisborne Futures. Alarmingly,
6 of 10 neighbourhood character sub-precincts proposed to be rezoned to Neighbourhood
Residential Zone are made 'incremental change' areas with two-storey medium
density development as a preferred housing type (these areas are: 1b Station
Road South (next to the Marshlands), 2a Gisborne Post War Suburban (next to
Daly Reserve), 2b New Gisborne Post War Suburban (Farrell Street area), 2c Morrow
Road Post War Suburban (Freeway Interchange area), 4a Skyline Drive and Frith
Road, and 4b Chessy Park Drive).
- Medium Density (units/townhouses) development
and infill development There's a big difference between
having some opportunities for medium density 'diversity' where it would be appropriately
close to shops and services, and where Gisborne Futures is promoting it.
Medium density is a preferred housing type across
much of the town in both General Residential (3 storey) and Neighbourhood
Residential (2 storey) zones. Some of it is quite distant from the town
centre, some is in highly sensitive areas (e.g. Skyline Drive where until now
only single storey, single dwelling developments have been allowed). Even
in the town centre, Precinct 3 expands the areas for 3 storey medium density
development from current 'preferred medium density' areas but doesn't apply
Design and Development Overlay 17 to all of them. Dual occupancy is also
a preferred housing type in almost all General Residential and Neighbourhood
Residential Zone areas. Recommendations for medium density and infill
development on this scale are not reconcilable with preserving Gisborne's semi-rural
character or maintaining any semblance of a "village in the valley",
as the Structure Plan claims. .
- Macedon House Currently
zoned Rural Conservation Zone, located at a principal gateway to the town centre
and on the Jacksons Creek floodplain, the best that Gisborne Futures can come
up with is to rezone this historic (Heritage Victoria) and highly sensitive
land to General Residential Zone and designate it for 3 storey medium
density development all, apparently, in order to protect
the property’s State level heritage values. This rezoning
should be abandoned.
- Low Density Residential Zone
Most existing Low Density Residential Zone areas are zoned that way to recognise
much larger existing lots (many around 4,000sqm) with a very distinct low density
character (some areas currently have 6,000sqm subdivision minimums). It
appears Gisborne Futures does not intend to specify a minimum subdivision size
in the Low Density Residential Zone's schedule to protect existing sewered LDRZ
properties from being further subdivided down to 2,000sqm.
- Incompatible residential areas included in
the same neighbourhood character precincts This can have undesirable
consequences where the 'ridges and valleys' of different existing development
and character are merged into the same future development standards. Examples
of mismatches include Precinct 4c (North of Kilmore Road, Sunny Acres Estate
has been developed with significantly different standards than those south of
Kilmore Road), and Precinct 6a which attempts to marry areas with distinctly
different characteristics east and west of Station Road in the vicinity of Cherry
Lane. One area of General Residential Zone, next to Precinct 6b (north of Hamilton
Street near Neal Street), doesn't appear to be included in any neighbourhood
character precinct at all.
- Frontage Setbacks are being
changed in General Residential and Neighbourhood Residential zone schedules
from the existing 'average of adjoining setbacks or 9 metres, whichever is the
lesser', to just the average of adjoining frontages. Some existing frontage
setback requirements - 6, 10 and 12 metres - in existing Design and Development
Overlays seem to be being removed. Setbacks for corner lots aren't addressed
in proposed General Residential or Neighbourhood Residential zone schedules.
- Current Design and Development Overlays
Several of these important existing development controls (which can
include design requirements, restrictions on development density and setbacks)
are proposed to be deleted, or amended. These include existing overlays
in the Skyline Drive and Frith Road (DDO3 remove/retain/review), Chessy Park
(amend DDO8), Wyralla Crescent (remove DDO10), Gisborne Rise Estate (amend DDO9),
and Sunny Acres and Wallaby Run (remove DDO1) areas. The Monaghan Road
(Low Density Residential) area DDO4 is also affected.
Other Matters and Other Planning
Controls
Many issues can be raised about details and individual sites/areas
within Gisborne Futures. Here are some broader additional issues.
- Conflicts Several examples of conflicting
advice have been found across the Structure Plan and Neighbourhood Character
Study, creating uncertainty about what’s being proposed (e.g. Design and Development
Overlay 3 (Skyline Drive and Frith Road) is variously being deleted (Character
Study p8), retained (Character Study p33) and reviewed (SP p36, although here
DDO3 is also incorrectly called DDO1). These and other conflicts should
have been resolved prior to exhibiting the documents.
- Vision The Structure Plan's "Vision"
doesn't include the environment, or Gisborne's location and role within a protected
area.
- The Structure Plan's Objectives and Strategies
Objectives are "must", but Strategies are "should". Objectives
and Strategies are not strong enough, and should not be saying things like "Support
sympathetic development" (p33, Objective 15 Strategy) or to merely
"encourage" developers to include design guidelines for dwellings
in new subdivisions (p18 Objective 4 Strategy). These proposed policies and
controls don't come across as strong, specific or sympathetic enough to provide
clear direction and certainty for protecting Gisborne's semi-rural character.
For example, the Structure Plan at p36 Objective 18 Strategy only says "assess"
the Jacksons Creek corridor for potential application of a Significant Landscape
Overlay instead of saying "apply" the overlay.
- Town Centre Commercial The
Urban Design Framework is promoting (a lot of) 3 - 4 storey development in the
Gisborne town centre's commercial zone. It also thinks the at-grade car
parks within the Gisborne Village Shopping Centre are sites that have "redevelopment
potential in the longer term". Semi-rural? Village in a valley?
- Fences The Neighbourhood Character
Study proposes to not allow front fences in most areas of Gisborne. Exceptions
are 1.5m high fences in Precincts 1a and 1b (NRZ, New Gisborne) and the Town
Centre (Precinct 3), while at Mulbarton and Morningside Estates and all seven
Precinct 5 sub-precincts, fences can be 1.5 - 2 metres.
- Suburban The Neighbourhood
Character Study's use of the word 'suburban' in neighbourhood character precinct
names confirms Gisborne Futures' theme. This word should be changed to
something like 'town' - it's Gisborne, not Sunbury.
- Landscapes The Structure Plan
does not include Mount Macedon and the Macedon Range (or views to them) as one
of the 'landscape features important to Gisborne'.
- Gateways The Melton Road and
Bacchus Marsh Road approaches where they meet the edge of the Gisborne township
are not identified as gateways (p35).
New Gisborne Business Park
A brain child of the previous 2012 - 2016 council and assisted
by State government input, this is an example of too much really being just too
much. Business Park proposals relate directly to the planned population boom in
Gisborne Futures.
Gisborne does not need a new 'Vineyard Road' style Commercial
2 zone (the same zone now causing problems in Kyneton with proposals for freeway
service centre / fast food outlets / large scale and 'bulky' commercial development).
Previous economic studies in Gisborne rejected large scale commercial uses in this
sensitive Saunders Road location. It's close to residences, and smack bang next
to the significant landscape feature of Magnet Hill. Together with proposed
concurrent extensive industrial rezoning, increased traffic triggers major changes
to local roads and to private property access.
You should be very concerned about:
- Rezoning so much land to Industrial 3 zoning all at
once.
- Rezoning any land along the sensitive Saunders
Road frontage to Commercial 2.