Sites not to be investigated further
Ascot
Site 30: Racecourse Road/Golfcourse Road
Land size 50.55ha No of properties 49 No of land owners 43 Current zone LDRZ Background Investigated as part of the ‘Density Management Provisions and Low Density Residential Review’. It was not recommended for rezoning at the time due to • Sewerage being unavailable • At the urban-forest interface with buffers required • Subject to AEO • Recommended to be a “horse agistment activities precinct” with the City of Greater Bendigo, East Bendigo Local Structure Plan February 2003, pg 77 Urban Growth Boundary Within UGB Salinity, contamination, There are no known areas of cultural heritage sensitivity, salinity or Aboriginal Heritage contamination. Overlays DPO4 Minimum lot size 1.0ha AEO Running north south covering a large section to the western and northern sections of the site. WMO While this does not apply to the site it applies to Wellsford forest which abuts the site. Proposed BMO through State Government amendment ESO Applies to part of the site Flooding Applies to sections of the site; LSIO1 & LSIO2 proposed (Amendment C221) Infrastructure Roads There are a lack of roads through the site Utilities and services Not currently serviced. Gravity sewerage not available. Distance to nearest shops 1km Distance to City Centre Approximately 4.5km Proximity to primary school 2km Proximity to open space Adjacent to Wellsford Forest and within 1km of other open space
112
113
Recommendation
The site is within the Urban Growth Boundary. However the site is at the urban-forest interface and within the horse adjistment activities precinct.
The site has been recommended for inclusion in the BMO as part of the most recent state government study.
The fragmented ownership of the site would also make it more difficult to develop and planning controls should be considered to enable a more coordinated approach.
Given the number of constraints on the site, including the recently constructed runway to the Bendigo Airport. There are also significant bushfire hazard issues associated with the area.
It is recommended that this area not be considered further.
114
California Gully
Site 31: North of Maiden Gully Road
Recommendation
Not recommended to consider rezoning due to bushfire risk.
Removal of the DPO4 is recommended as it does not specify a minimum lot size.
115
Golden Gully
Site 32: Diamond Hill Road
Recommendation
There is no recommendation to review planning controls for this site due to the high bushfire risk.
116
Site 33: Golden Gully Road
Recommendation
There is no recommendation to review planning controls for this site due to the high bushfire risk.
117
Site 34: Vains Street
Recommendation
Given the bushfire risk it is not recommended to consider rezoning this section of land.
It may be possible to consider removal of the DPO4.
118
Kangaroo Flat
Site 35: North of Furness Street
Recommendation
This area was investigated as part of the Residential Investigation Areas: Analysis 2014.
The property is a total of 7ha across 5 properties.
The site is within the Urban Growth Boundary.
The recommendation from the Residential Investigation Areas: Analysis 2014 was that ‘given the limitations of assembly, vegetation removal (associated with the SLO) and the bushfire risk it is recommended that Furness Street remain Low Density Residential Zone’.
There is nothing that has changed since this report was prepared to support a change in policy position.
119
Site 36: South of Ham Street
Recommendation
Not recommended to rezone due to bushfire risk, proximity to open cut mine and limited subdivision potential.
120
Site 37: Birds Reef Lane to Sheltons Road
Recommendation
Not recommended to rezone due to bushfire risk and limited subdivision potential.
121
Long Gully
Site 38: South of Maiden Gully Road and East of Albert Street
Recommendation
Due to the extent of existing development, proximity to old mining land, potential contamination and relatively small land size, it is not recommended to consider rezoning this land.
122
Maiden Gully
Site 39: West of Albert Street
Recommendation
Not recommended to investigate further due to bushfire risk and the limited subdivision potential.
As the DPO4 does not specify a minimum lot size in the schedule it would be recommended to remove.
123
Site 40: Edwards Road
Recommendation
The site was rezoned through Amendment C89 and the ESO5 applied to protect remnant vegetation.
While the large property to the east is under sole ownership and within the Urban Growth Boundary, it is heavily vegetated with remnant vegetation. It has also been identified in the most recent State Government BMO mapping. Given these constraints, it is not recommended that this property be rezoned.
Properties to the west are heavily vegetated and given that both the VPO and ESO2 apply, limiting subdivision, the site is not recommended to be rezoned.
124
Myers Flat/Woodvale/Eaglehawk
Site 41: Dalton Street to Sailors Gully Road
Recommendation
The area between Dempsey Street and Veale Street has already been subdivided extensively and is under fragmented ownership.
There is no reticulated sewerage to the site or in the surrounds, and there are existing issues in this area with treating effluent.
The proximity of the forest to the site means it is a high bushfire risk.
For these reasons it would not be recommended to consider rezoning the site in the short term.
125
Site 42: North of Williams Road
Recommendation
The surrounding area is heavily vegetated. This includes Crown Land to the West and North of site.
There is limited access to the site. Connection to reticulated infrastructure is unlikely to be possible as it is not in the nearby area.
While the land is within the Urban Growth Boundary, given the constraints on the land it is not recommended to consider rezoning at this stage.
126
Site 43: Williams Road to Loddon Valley Highway
Recommendation
Given this site was only rezoned in 2010 (as part of Amendment C89) and the ESO5 applied, it is not recommended to further investigate rezoning this site at this stage.
127
Site 44: Hopkins Avenue to York Street
Recommendation
The site has already been subdivided extensively and is under fragmented ownership.
The area is heavily vegetated, meaning it is a high bushfire risk.
The proximity to industrial land uses and former mining land may pose a risk to personal safety and amenity.
While the land is within the Urban Growth Boundary, given the constraints on the land it is not recommended to consider rezoning at this stage.
128
Sailors Gully
Site 45: 73 Letherbys Road
Recommendation
Given this site was only rezoned in 2010 (as part of Amendment C89) and the ESO5 applied, it is not recommended to further investigate rezoning this site at this stage.
129
Sailors Gully
Site 46: 3-9 Coakes Street
Recommendation
This site is a large site under single ownership and within the Urban Growth Boundary. It was rezoned to LDRZ as part of Amendment C89 with the ESO5 also applied.
While the area to the east, north-east and south is zoned General Residential there is also a high bushfire risk as the area to the west and north-west of the site is heavily vegetated.
Current limited road access through the site.
The site has Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sensitivity and environmental significance due to a patch Box Ironbark Forest.
There are also identified mine shafts.
Given the vegetation significance it may be inappropriate to rezone to anything other than Low Density Residential.
130
Strathfieldsaye
Site 47: Arunga Drive, Strathfieldsaye Road, Osborne Lane
Recommendation
Given the very high bushfire risk and limited access and egress from site it is not recommended to consider this site for rezoning.
131
Epsom/Huntly
Site 48: Marks Road to Leans Road, West of Midland Highway
Recommendation
Given the proximity of the area to the Coliban Water Treatment Facility (to the west), the Bendigo Creek levee bank and high risk of flooding, is not recommended to consider this site for rezoning.
132
Huntly
Site 49: Viewpoint, Waratah Road
Recommendation
The properties partially within by the LDRZ and the ESO5 contain significant remnant vegetation.
Given the vegetation significance it, is not recommended to consider this site for rezoning.
133
Junortoun
Site 50: Domain Village, McIvor Highway
Recommendation
This site is known as Domain Village and has been developed on small lots, once complete there will be 238 properties.
Given the extensive development of the site, it is not recommended to be considered for rezoning.
134