The Growth Areas Authority has revised its planning documents for the 2,400 hectares of new suburbs at Toolern, Melbourne. There is no summary document to explain the reasoning behind the changes, and it seems that what little is good about the plan is being slowly whittled away with stakeholder input. Increased construction costs for the many community facilities also seem to have caused a reduction in expenditure in other areas.
Back into the documents we go…
- The new regional parkland at Toolern Creek may increase from 98ha. to 130ha. This regional park is contigent on Green Wedge land being rezoned as Urban Growth Zone.
- The reinstatement of one shared pedestrian bridge, bringing the total connecting Toolern to Melton to two, along six kilometres of creek.
- A new clause has been added to the PSP ‘Image and Character section’ – pretty short though?
4.1.3 PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDELINES:The following planning and design guidelines must be met:
- Subdivision design should incorporate natural and design elements which assist in place making and the achievement of a “sense of place”.
- Five trails removed from the shared pedestrian and cycle trails network – from $3,867,150 (18.4km) to $682,500 (3.2km). It will be built cart before horse – “as required by access demand”.
- Deleted from the PSP’s vision statement:
- One suspects that the pile of reports is too big for anyone to head their head around. There are inconsistencies between them and within them. One section of the C84 Planning Amendment requires 15-40 dwellings per net developable hectare, “to support the efficient provision of services and ensure the viability of the activity centres serving the precinct.” The revised PSP has lowered this for conventional density housing to a “target” of an average 10-15 dwellings per NDHa. Elsewhere the PSP still requires a minimum of 15 dwellings.
- references to the Toolern Railway Station have been amended to “the prefered site of the proposed Toolern Railway Station”.
- The requirement to place big box retail above of behind street-front retail tenancies has been changed from a “must” to a “should”.
The documents are still draft. I wonder where we’ll end up when they are final.
View Larger Map
Posted by Peter on 10.05.10 in urban planning
Commenting is closed for this article.