Zoe Moffatt
Macedon Ranges Council has said no to an amendment process for the Amess Road Precinct Structure Plan, heeding a 1231 signature petition from the community.
In a meeting on Wednesday, April 12, councillors unanimously decided not to support requesting the Minister for Planning to authorise the preparation of planning scheme amendment.
The request sought changes to the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme to allow a 1300 dwelling housing development to proceed.
Better Futures Macedon Ranges spokesperson Hal Pritchard said it was a fantastic outcome for Riddells Creek.
“I think it’s a win for the councillors,” Mr Pritchard said.
“It’s amazing they stood up and listened to the community. Macedon Ranges is an area of distinctive landscape and heritage…Our rural identity is not for sale.
“We don’t mind growing, we understand there’s growth pressures in Melbourne… and we don’t mind taking some of that population growth, but it needs to be done on our terms.”
Mayor Annette Death said the decision to not support the amendment was about appropriate development not anti-development.
“It’s great to see the community engagement and involvement,” Cr Death said. “Supporting this motion this evening is not about anti-development, it’s about appropriate development.”
East Ward Councillor Geoff Neil agreed with Cr Death and said he was looking for different development plans to keep the status of a district town.
“Let’s look at the big picture. Riddells Creek is a country town in a rural shire, there are six to nine years of land currently available for housing,” Cr Neil said.
To stop turning Riddells Creek into a large district town, Cr Neil said he would prefer developments with larger lot sizes, no further subdivision and no unit development.
He said the Amess Road Plan design to subdivide into 1300 or more lots would result in a population increase of at least 3250 people, with an average of 2.5 persons per lot.
“[This increase is] virtually doubling today’s population,” he said.
“The community of Riddells Creek are quite concerned about this… [with an] excess of one quarter of current township population [having] made a submission to us… voicing concerns.”
