Archive: Retirement Village on Floodplain, Woodend
Last Updated 17/2/07
VCAT "Expands" Woodend Township Boundary To Allow Retirement Village On A Rural Zoned Floodplain
(17/2/07 - P) Who needs a planning scheme or a planning scheme amendment when it seems VCAT can change the planning scheme almost at will.
This massive residential development proposal, for 225 retirement village units, a 51-suite supported residential facility, a 40-bedroom private nursing home, a 10 bed 'step-down' medical facility and a central amenities building - in a rural zone - will go ahead after VCAT ruled that although the land wasn't shown inside the Woodend township boundary in the planning scheme "in a formal or statutory sense", such change in use and development that the proposal represents must be "at least contemplated". So go ahead...
MRRA Says:
Our kingdom for a prescriptive planning scheme... one which says what it means and tells us what goes where, how it's to be done and what's a no-no. Maybe then VCAT, Councillors and developers could be tied down to following the same plan we are working from and we might begin to see development that doesn't trample all over our rights, our amenity and our environment and values (all hallmarks of the current planning system), and standards much much higher than the abominations flowing from the Victoria Planning Provisions.
Onya, VCAT. Things are bad enough without "surprises" like this one. We'll pop it on our ever expanding list of "Ways You Never Thought Of Getting Rolled At VCAT" and write a letter of complaint to the relevant offices. Our sympathy to the people who live near this site who bought their land on assurances the land next door was rural - and would stay rural. It's a pity they can't sue for loss of rural amenity. Click here for previous reports on this sorry (or should that be soggy?) saga.
Woodend Retirement Village On Floodplain Goes To VCAT
(14/10/06 - P) Locals battle to keep floodplain rural
A hearing has occurred at VCAT where arguments for and against a 250 plus unit and hostel retirement village have been put. The "village" is reported as perhaps the third largest ever proposed in Victoria. Its location on a notorious floodplain, squeezed up against the Calder Freeway, makes the application controversial. VCAT's decision will be all-important in determining the planning principles to be applied in Woodend, on floodplains, in rural zones, and for retirement villages. We wait to see which way VCAT goes.
Worry Over Slowness Of Council Processes For Notifying Objectors
(9/7/06 - P) Notice of Woodend retirement village approval almost 3 weeks late
Objectors to the proposal in Woodend for a 225 unit retirement village and additional 100 bed accommodation were last week starting to worry about whether they could lose the chance to take the development to VCAT. Although the proposal was approved by Macedon Ranges Council on 14th June, by the middle of last week Council still hadn't given objectors notice of Council's decision (a Notice of Decision to Approve [NOD]) which is usually issued within a few days of Council making a decision. The key point is, if objectors anywhere decide to take a development to VCAT, they must lodge an application for review within 21 days of receiving Council's NOD. It was over 21 days since Council's decision when objectors finally got the all-important NOD, dated 3 July, after some urgent calls to Council's Planning Department. No-one seems to know why Council seems to have dropped the ball or why the NOD wasn't issued weeks ago. Objectors say they will now be off to see VCAT.
Thar She Blows! Woodend Retirement Village Gets Predicted Approval: "No Worries" Wins The Day
(20/6/06 - ) "Works well" theory prevails even if retirement units are almost a metre off the ground
By the time a decision was made on this application, it was after midnight. This time around, Cr. Letchford from the South ward seemed to forget the importance of the zone, the need to keep things low intensity and caring about surrounding residents' amenity (as he had with the Macedon Lodge proposal) because he voted for this intense residential development on a floodplain, in a rural zone (a disappointing form reversal after a good showing with Macedon Lodge). And there was to be no persuading Councillors Bleeck, Relph, Connor or Neill that a proposal of this intensity, which would likely raise objections in a residential zone, had no place in a rural zone. Nup, it was a good idea, and needed in Woodend, although according to Cr. Connor it would serve not only Woodend but the rest of the Shire and places outside the Shire. And of course the applicant's representative's claim that VicRoads had so kindly - and deliberately - constructed the Macedon Road overpass to retard water to protect downstream properties from flooding made approving this application OK (although we suspect all this might be news to VicRoads). There was much rowdy speech at a very late hour about how we have to look after the elderly (agreed) and how many jobs, and what a great thing, etc. etc. but not much from supporters about how the proposal sat with planning scheme requirements, or how it would result in a practical outcome for the people who would live there. Cr. Bleeck related how his mother had been forced to move somewhere else because of a shortage of retirement village units, and said we should look after our elderly, to which Cr. Gyorffy responded "yes, but not drown them". An objector's detailed and sourced assessment that this village would, with other similar existing or proposed facilities in Woodend, provide some 730 units in the town when the anticipated demand in Woodend would be 60 units over the next 25 years, had no effect. Even the planning officer's report (Mr. Matt Gorman) had some difficulty sorting it out - he apparently measured some parts of the application against ResCode and said it fell short but conceded ResCode didn't actually apply in a rural zone so it too was OK. It didn't matter that the land is outside the town boundary, or that the proposal pre-empts any attempt to rezone this floodplain for residential. It wasn't prohibited, and the Rural Living zone supported residential (even if the rural activity that is also supported in this zone was nowhere to be seen). In the end, it was moved Cr. Connor (West ward ), seconded Cr. Bleeck (East ward ) and approved with the votes of Crs. Relph (South ward), Letchford (South ward) and Mayor Neil (East ward). Crs. Gyorffy (West) and Guthrie (South) opposed. 5 votes for, carried the day (Crs. McGregor and Harvey were absent), just as MRRA said it would.
MRRA Says:
A concept drawing of this proposal shows a large retarding basin with a boat on it, with the water lapping up against the Amenities Building. No doubt about it, the boat will be a handy item under certain circumstances. Not sure what use a lake already full of water will be in retarding floodwaters, though. What's got us really flabbergasted is why anyone would think putting units for the elderly almost a metre off the ground is a suitable outcome? Mmmm... There's something about this that conjures up those houses in Queensland - you know, the ones built on stilts. And doesn't it bring the saying, watch your step, into sharper focus! Add to this lofty ground floor arrangement the very high, very steep (almost chalet-style?) rooves proposed, and these units start to look suspiciously multi-storied - 225 of them, rather jammed-looking, right up against the Freeway. 450 people are predicted to live on these 11 soggy hectares, with a shuttle bus proposed to take people to Woodend Station - er, it's not exactly within walking distance. Former Cr. Donna Petrovich attended the meeting to see the proposal she originally put in motion become a reality (Cr. Petrovich moved the motion last year that Council adopt an 'in principle support' position for the then unseen proposal). Woodend locals Marlene Jaegar and SES stalwart, Ailsa Howe, who also attended the meeting in support of the proposal.
Our sources tell us this one will definitely end up in VCAT.
Woodend's Wet, Wet, Wet Retirement Village Before Council Next Wednesday (14 June)
(10/6/06 - P) Will our Councillors be able to stop themselves from the tempting prospect of approving another 'good idea'? We don't think so... why change now?
Next Wednesday Macedon Ranges Council will make a decision on whether or not to approve a massive 225 - 250 unit retirement village (and shops, leisure centre, hostel) proposal on a key floodplain in Woodend. It's also outside the town's township boundary, on a piece of land that somehow was rezoned as part of the C48 amendment in a way that doesn't prohibit the retirement village as the proposed zoning would have. There hasn't been much consultation with objectors, but MRRA understands the applicants have spent plenty of time with most of our Councillors.
MRRA Says:
MRRA has issued a press release raising the question of community financial liability if this piece of planning madness goes ahead. Think about it: the land was zoned rural for 30 years and suddenly becomes Rural Living. Almost every inch of the 11 or so hectares is to be jammed with development the intensity of which would raise objections in a Residential zone, no flood study has been done and every time this piece of land has been assessed for residential development in the last 30 odd years, the answer has always been no.
Having a retirement village is one issue, having it on what can be a fairly nasty floodplain is another.
Still, these types of constraints haven't stopped our Council in the past and most have shown a fondness for good ideas rather than good planning outcomes.
MRRA reckons it's odds-on that 5 Councillors will go for this regardless of the potentially disastrous results for both the retirement village and the broader community. Click here to see MRRA's press release.
Another Retirement Village Proposal On A Floodplain, This Time In Woodend
(29/1/06 – P) Will they never end?
Another proposal has been received by Council for a retirement village, this time for 225 units and a 50 bed hostel in Mt. Macedon Road, Woodend. The site where the ‘village’ is proposed is zoned Rural. It used to be zoned Rural A (Lowlands), and Watercourse, in the former Newham and Woodend Planning Scheme. The Land Subject to Inundation, and Floodway, overlays proposed to be put on the land in the 1997 draft Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme were removed by the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the State government when the current planning scheme was approved. Those overlays have never been put back. Unsuccessful attempts have been made since the 1970’s to allow the land to be used for residential purposes. The answer has always been ‘no’ because the land is floodprone and has consistently been deemed unsuitable for residential development. To see the effects of flooding on the site, which MRRA featured in an earlier story, click here. There’s also a problem with the vegetation on the land – most of it is Black Gum, which is a tree of State significance, is endangered and is listed on the Flora and Fauna Guarantee. Get your objections in – Council will not make a decision before February 1st but you can put submissions in until Council makes a decision on the proposal. The application number is P205-0569, the applicant is Tiffany Developments, c/o Network Planning Consultants P/L.
MRRA Says:
The young, elderly and infirm are the most vulnerable people in our society. Before anyone says a retirement village is a ‘good idea’, or incorrectly assumes the Woodend Bypass has ‘fixed’ flooding problems on this land, have a think about this: Would it also be a good idea to put 225 lots, or 250 houses, or a hospital, or a child care facility on this land? Or would it represent over-development, or unsafe development, or non-agi use of rural land? A retirement village is one thing, the constant stream of applications trying to put these facilities in floodways is another – perfect examples of someone trying to push square pegs into round holes.
No Surprises As Most Macedon Ranges’ Councillors Support Putting Retirement Village In Floodplain
(Updated 30/4/05 – P) ‘Good idea’ and ‘lovely spot’ argument prevails.
At last night’s Council meeting, in another example of having no understanding of planning Crs. Petrovich, Relph, Connor, Evans, Todd and Bleeck voted to support, in principle, a concept plan for a retirement village in a floodplain. Crs. Dunn and Guthrie voted against (Cr. Gee was absent). Cr. Petrovich moved the motion, saying there was a demand for the facility and it would create a huge economic boom. She repeatedly emphasized that, while there are planning issues with the proposal, it isn’t prohibited under the current rural zoning. She also seemed to believe and sought to convince her fellow councillors that the Minister for Planning will rush through ‘translation’ of the rural zone on this land to an [unexhibited] Rural Living zone, thereby ensuring this use wouldn’t be prohibited on the site. Cr. Relph seconded the motion saying she represents people and this is about people. She liked the proposal’s location, and although the land has zoning problems it was a great spot, right next to everything, and if there was a flooding issue it didn’t run all the time and had essentially gone away; the creek[s] could be made into a feature. Cr. Guthrie described how the site had been identified for 30 years as floodprone land and commented that as none of the Councillors were qualified to comment on flooding issues, a comprehensive flood study was required. Cr. Dunn couldn’t believe Council was even considering the matter because the proposal already has a valid permit in another location in Woodend. See photograph of flooded site: NB: Overlays identifying these flooding problems have not yet been included in Macedon Ranges’ planning scheme.
MRRA Says:
There are some fundamental principles in planning, and one of them is that residential development doesn’t belong in floodways or floodplains. This wasn’t even an application, just a toe in the water which hasn’t been through any professional assessment or consultation processes. By dismissing flooding and planning issues (and apparently Council officers’ dislike of the proposal), and by promoting a particular zoning to suit a proposal, do Councillors who supported this proposal on good intentions rather than hard facts and sound planning grounds understand they are condemning the elderly, those least able to cope, to a difficult if not dangerous future? That they are being unfair to the proponent and are also potentially exposing Council to future liability claims? Disappointingly, it seems the blind continue to lead the blind, and that the ditch remains full…
Another Dumb Council Planning Decision Coming Up? Retirement Village in Floodplain Likely To Get Nod Tonight
(27/4/05 – P) It won’t be a surprise if most of our Councillors yet again back something that shouldn’t happen for no other reason than they think it’s a ‘good idea’.
Macedon Ranges Council has been asked to give in principle support to a concept for another retirement village proposal in another floodplain in Woodend. The land in question, currently zoned rural, has been regarded since 1979 as unsuitable for residential development – that’s why there isn’t any development there at the moment. But if most of our Councillors run true to form they won’t even consider whether this is the right place for what’s proposed, they’ll just back the proposal as another one of those ‘put it anywhere’ good ideas. Land Subject To Inundation and Rural Floodway overlays were applied to this land in the exhibited 1997 Macedon Ranges’ draft planning scheme but were removed by the State government before it approved the current scheme. Neither Council nor the State government has bothered to put the overlays back.