“We don’t want to be Melbourne. We don’t want urban sprawl. So, hands off!” was the message Macedon Ranges councillor Daniel Young directed at the state government last week.
It comes as the council continues its battle against inappropriate development at Clarkefield in a 2300-home proposal that the state government will now decide.
The proposal allows development of potentially 2500 new homes for 6000 people on 175 hectares of land east of the Clarkefield railway station. It would create a new township in an area the council has not formerly investigated or included in its short-term planning.
Plans were referred to the state’s Development Facilitation Program meaning the council has been removed as the decision-maker.
While the proposal promises more housing to help fill a desire of broader Victoria, the council was clear that any planning for the Ranges must be done with care.
“You cannot change the character of the Macedon Ranges because you’ve got a housing crisis problem and make it our problem in that process,” Cr Young said.
The state government’s housing supply target for the Macedon Ranges is 13,200 new homes over the next 25 years.
Councillors last week signed off a second submission to Planning Minister Sonya Kilkenny to reaffirm and detail its position against the proposal.
Cr Jennifer Anderson said the Macedon Ranges was declared a Distinctive Area and Landscape for its environmental, cultural and economic values.
“We are not one of the Meltons, the Cardinias, the Caseys, or Hume. We’re not a growth zone,” she said.
Cr Anderson said “at a minimum the proposal should go to a planning panel”.
“To have one person making a decision on documents that have come from a developer that are poorly formulated is just not right,” she said.
The detailed submission supports the council’s earlier statement lodged with the planning minister before the cut-off in June.
It outlines several significant strategic, infrastructure, governance, environmental, social and implementation issues with the proposal that are unresolved.
MRSC’s planning director Rebecca Stockfeld said Clarkefield was not currently identified as a preferred location for growth.
“Planning policy does not anticipate change with respect to Clarkefield’s role in the short-term,” she said.
“Council has planned for growth across the shire and we’ll accommodate well-planned growth in towns identified through council’s settlement strategy, and that’s not at Clarkefield.”
The submission also highlighted the absence of any comprehensive social and economic impact assessment in the proposal.
MRSC seeks further independent assessment and public review of the Clarkefield proposal: amendment C164macr – Clarkefield Township Development.