Posted 21/1/18


Why the Localised Planning Statement's 500ha expansion of Woodend's town boundary is flawed


See also:

Comparison of existing planned population growth in Macedon Ranges v accelerated growth in the LPS:  it's on a par with the metro urban growth planned for Sunbury...

2018 - Macedon Ranges Protection BULLETIN



This week MRRA received information that a resident of Woodend, who objected to expansion of the town's boundary, had been advised that the Localised Planning Statement was protecting, that the expansion of town boundaries into settlement boundaries was land designated for investigation only, not a free for all development opportunity, that it won’t be developed tomorrow since it is a 50 year plan, and that the land might be used for a park or a sporting facility as opposed to housing. 


Here's how MRRA responded to the resident (the processes for expanding town boundaries applies equally in other towns like Kyneton and Riddells Creek). 



 The Localised Planning Statement is expanding the Woodend town boundary (renamed a settlement boundary in the LPS) by including 3 areas (500ha) identified in the Woodend Structure Plan as future investigation areas.  All are presently rural zoned land located outside the existing town boundary as land that COULD be investigated for its suitability for future development and inclusion in the town boundary if a need for additional land arises in future.  At the moment, there is no need for more land or to include these areas within the town boundary because Woodend has enough available land to accommodate projected population growth until 2036.


The LPS is putting all 3 future investigation areas inside the Woodend town (settlement) boundary at once, without going through the processes that are normally required to do this, and before need arises or investigation occurs. Being inside the settlement/town boundary automatically flags this is land intended for future urban (town) development. The extra 500ha doubles the physical size of Woodend township, without the proper processes and community consultation required to make such a sweeping change. p class="nor10treb">

The best way to guarantee towns - and rural land - are protected is to make existing town boundaries the new settlement boundaries. If or when a need arises to make any change, ONE of these 3 investigation areas might then become a location to look at and investigate for inclusion within the settlement/town boundary. It's not as if the settlement boundaries can't be changed in future, it will just require parliament's approval to do it.


The amount of growth being directed into Macedon Ranges' towns isn't protecting either the towns or the rural land being sacrificed to unjustifiably expand the towns.