Developer interest and fear of potential state government planning intervention played a hand in accelerating Macedon Ranges Shire Council’s adoption of the Romsey Structure Plan.
The plan delivers a vision for Romsey until 2050 and establishes a protected settlement boundary to define long-term growth.
Leading the push, Cr Rob Guthrie said he held some concerns about the plan but felt council needed to ‘start the process’ to ensure the right protections were in place.
“I can see Romsey being destroyed by the state government very, very quickly,” Cr Guthrie said.
“The state government is getting very actively involved in planning. We’ve had a situation already in Riddells Creek where we refused a precinct structure plan and it’s gone straight to the planning minister… Council can make a submission but we no longer have control of that process.
“I am very concerned that the same thing could happen to Romsey and it could do a lot of damage because there have been a lot of developers circling Romsey.”
Romsey is one of few towns currently without a protected settlement boundary. Development of the Romsey Structure Plan, including that boundary, began in 2018 with several stages of community feedback.
A draft was presented in August last year, which attracted 94 written submissions and 213 survey responses, resulting in several changes implemented into the final plan.
Changes include a buffer for the Romsey Wastewater Treatment Plant, and land directly east of the current town boundary and west of Portingales Lane has been removed from the protected settlement boundary.
Land north of Romsey Road and east of Tickawarra Road has been included in the proposed settlement boundary, and land has been also earmarked for a future secondary school on Romsey Road.
There is also an employment precinct south of Greens Lane with dual road frontages and a connection to the Melbourne-Lancefield Road.
Cr Guthrie sought to adopt the plan, with an added buffer to nearby farming activities, and request for the planning minister to undertake community consultation to inform the settlement boundary.
While the move gained majority support in 5-3 vote, some councillors held reservations about the plan and about progressing it too soon.
Cr Mark Ridgeway shared Cr Guthrie’s unease about potential state government intervention and a need to have a protected township “sooner rather than later”, however, felt more time to consider the document would be beneficial.
“I’d like the opportunity to get the draft as good as we can possibly get it before it goes up. I just don’t think we’re there yet. I have a lot of discomfort about saying ‘yes’ to it right now,” he said.
Cr Jennifer Anderson aired concerns about positioned industrial land further south and creating a creep of the protected settlement boundary.
Cr Geoff Neil sought to defer a decision on the plan, claiming the community and councillors had only received the full document the Friday before.
“We need to understand it before we firm up on a position,” he said.
“There were quite a few surprises in there… The community is not happy and I think that’s shown quite clearly by the amount of interactions that we as council have had with the community in the past four days.”
Planning director Rebecca Stockfeld said it was anticipated there would be future opportunities for community feedback to help refine aspects of the plan.
Councillors voted 5-3 in favour of Cr Guthrie’s motion. A division recorded those in favour were: Death, Pearce, Walker, Bonanno and Guthrie. Those against were: Anderson, Neil and Ridgeway. Cr Bill West was not present for the vote due to declaring a conflict of interest.
