Macedon Ranges Shire Council has voted to defer discussion on a town structure plan for Lancefield until April next year.
The Department of Transport and Planning had offered support towards the plan as one of two options to resolve the lingering Development Plan Overlay Schedule 24. The other option was to review and simplify DPO24 – but not to remove it, despite heavy council and community campaigns to do so.
DPO24 intended to create coordinated development of three areas in the town but has instead hindered land freedom and development for 27 landholders since it was introduced several years ago.
The overlay requires all landholders in an area to agree on a single development plan before anyone can build. Landholders are also expected to pay for the plan, along with any reports required, and a myriad of other extras.
PLAN ENTICING?
MRSC’s director of planning and environment, Rebecca Stockfeld, had recommended the council endorse an application to the DTP to prepare a structure plan for Lancefield.
“A structure plan process was determined to be the only planning mechanism through which an alternative to DPO24 could be considered,” Ms Stockfeld said.
A town structure plan is a long-term strategic blueprint that guides how a specific town or township will grow, develop and change. It would allow for a review of current zones and overlays such as DPO24.
However, Ms Stockfeld said there was no guarantee that DPO24 would removed or altered. A review may conclude that current planning provisions remain appropriate.
“Resolution of the DPO24 issue may get lost in a broader review of the township or be delayed as the Lancefield structure plan may need to address many other issues,” she said.
“It may not remove the DPO24 or result in recommendations to modify DPO24, and therefore not resolve the community’s concerns that infrastructure and open space costs are too high and the DPO24 Schedule is too onerous.”
Potential challenges highlighted in Ms Stockfeld’s report included changes to the settlement boundary to grow Lancefield to a district town, pressure for rezoning growth area before infrastructure is available and increased land speculation.
Ms Stockfeld said council officers “have been wary of undertaking a new structure plan for Lancefield” given the town has protected settlement boundaries and is not experiencing a high growth demand.
COUNCILLORS DEFER
Cr Andrew Scanlon moved the motion for deferral, saying it would allow further discussion with the community about the options available.
“It will also allow for an early opportunity to interrogate the elements of what an application to the regional planning hub might look like and the likely impacts on both physical nature of Lancefield and its livability, not just its development and growth,” he said.
However, he acknowledged there was some level of risk that funding for the project may not be available at a later date.
The structure plan was proposed to be prepared by a consultant, engaged and supported by the regional planning hub. This would reduce costs to council, however, MRSC would still need to implement the plan through a planning scheme amendment process.
Other councillors questioned the current need for a Lancefield structure plan and whether it would solve DPO24 problems.
Cr Daniel Young said he would be happy to “kill off the idea of having a structure plan for Lancefield, at the moment, altogether”.
“In the time I have been on this council, it hasn’t been raised as a need independently of DPO24,” he said.
“Without a structure plan actually addressing a particular issue, I don’t feel that at the moment I’m convinced enough to go down the path of having one.”
Cr Young said a town structure plan was “being sold as a magic pill to solve” problems. However, he said there were risks with both outcomes including a structure plan that imposes greater restrictions or “worse outcomes”.
ELECTION PROMISE
Residents have now heard from Liberal and Labor candidates for Macedon, and both have supported DPO24’s removal.
The Liberal Nationals announced last month they would scrap DPO24 if elected this November.
Liberal candidate for Macedon Kate Kendall, who remains a shire councillor, removed herself from the council chambers last week due to her conflict of interest on the matter.
Labor candidate for Macedon Annette Death said, if elected in November, she would advocate for the overlay to be removed.
Since 2023, the council has written to Planning Minister Sonya Kilkenny three times to remove it without success, most recently this year.
MAKE NO ASSUMPTIONS
Cr Alison Joseph said creating a town structure plan was “potentially contrary to the position of council to remove DPO24”.
“If the current planning minister wishes to remove DPO24, then they could do so now. So, it can’t be assumed that a structure plan will actually remove DPO24 or solve the problem,” she said.
Preparation of a new plan would take around 10-12 months. It would take at least two years from project inception to a gazetted planning scheme amendment.
Cr Joseph said “the residents who are subject to DPO24 have suffered enough”.
“For them, it has been many years of trauma. To then set off another long expedition of several years without having any idea what destination will be reached, in my mind, is unreasonable,” she said.
She said deferring the decision would give the future government, of “whatever flavour”, an opportunity to “put their money where their mouth is”.
Cr Cassy Borthwick was the only councillor to abstain from voting on the matter. She acknowledged strong community views on DPO24 but also held reservations about deferring a decision.
“While the DPO is a significant driver of this discussion, what is before council tonight is not simply a decision about one planning control. It’s a decision about whether the council should pursue the strategic work needed to understand how planning works collectively,” she said.
“Without that work, there is a risk that council remains in the current position and a deferral will keep us in that current position for as long as that deferral stands.”
Councillors voted in favour of a deferral. A division recorded those in favour were: Crs Anderson, Guthrie, Pearce, Joseph, Scanlon, Bonanno and Young. Cr Borthwick abstained (which is recorded as a ‘no’ vote). Cr Kendall’s conflict meant she could not debate or vote on the matter.
The matter is expected to be heard at a council meeting in April next year.