THE state government’s plans to make major changes to residential zones sends a strong message about where it sees the future for development within Ballarat.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Most significantly, the government on Wednesday announced it will create new residential growth zones, allowing for more townhouses and higher density development in core retail areas.
This is likely to be a highly controversial move and will raise renewed questions about the battle between development and heritage in our city.
Currently, many developments in Ballarat are held up by a lack of planning efficiency or by restrictive planning overlays.
Most prominently, these protect the historical aspects of Ballarat’s facade, which are vital to our connection with the past.
It’s not clear how, if at all, the government will make provision for such detail in its new zones.
Certainly, the City of Ballarat as the local planning authority is already heavily weighed down by dealing with such provisions.
What we know is that the activation of retail centres is a major challenge for regional areas, and Ballarat is no exception. Locating more people in business areas promotes growth in service industries and outlets and improves vibrancy.
On the balance, it’s why inner-city development is cautiously welcomed.
The amendment also provides further scope for medium density housing growth to cater for Ballarat’s steadily growing population in outer suburban areas.
According to the government, almost 50,000 more people are expected to make Ballarat home by 2031.
That’s a significant figure and should be embraced both by city leaders and the community more broadly. However, it must happen in concert with investment in infrastructure.
Protective “Neighbourhood Residential Zones” will be added to parts of Brown Hill, Canadian, Mount Helen and Mount Clear, although Buninyong and parts of Sebastopol will be under the General Residential Zone.
The devil – as always – will be in the detail and clearly, the need for clarity is long overdue.
Let’s hope that clarity extends to the implementation of the planning processes so that development can be tested and reviewed in a manner which meets community expectations, and timeframes.
