Last week a council spokesperson said homes built in any residential area outside of urban growth zones would be described as "infill". This is defined by the National Housing Supply Council as "housing development within existing urban areas".

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE MORE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE CBD? HAVE YOUR SAY BELOW

However, according to online planning reports carried out by The Courier, some brand new estates in the city's biggest growth areas are officially located in general residential zones - with the urban growth zone only applying to a relatively limited adjacent area.

Addresses on the Yorkdale estate, for example, would fall under that umbrella, as would new homes being built along the western part of the Greenhalghs Road.

Both are in the Ballarat suburb of Winter Valley, where some of the most rapid expansion in the city has taken place in the past years. New homes in this area could only be categorised as infill under the very loosest definition of the term.

Increasing the amount of new homes in established areas is a clearly defined target of the Ballarat Strategy 2040. The document was published in 2015 as a blueprint for managing the expected population growth in the city.

Significant planning was undertaken for a new western growth zone 10 years ago, with the document articulating an intent to balance expansion on the urban fringes with bringing new residents to the CBD.

It states that planners would "implement planning mechanisms to enable the housing market to trend towards 50 per cent infill / 50 per cent greenfield for new housing... between 2020 and 2040."

Infill is viewed as an effective way of using existing resources - including established health networks and transport links - rather than requiring new infrastructure to be built and maintained. It can also be seen as a way of revitalising neglected areas of a CBD.

The City of Ballarat confirmed on Friday all homes built within in general residential zones would be categorised as 'infill'. This includes the Winter Valley addresses above.

Last week, the City of Ballarat also supplied figures purportedly tracking how many homes are being built in established areas, and how many in growth zones in recent years.

According to its figures, "infill" levels averaged at almost 62 per cent over five years from 2015 to 2019.

The data supplied suggested annual rates of infill had been as high as 84 per cent in 2015, then had fallen to just over 40 per cent by 2019.

However, there may be more scrutiny of that data given the much broader definition of infill the City of Ballarat now appears to have adopted.

The Courier has also highlighted significant discrepancies in council-supplied figures measuring infill compared to urban growth on the fringes.

The Ballarat Strategy 2040 document said the city had around 40 per cent of new homes were built in established areas - a huge contrast to the 84 per cent suggested by the figures supplied last week.

A response from the City of Ballarat this week did not clearly address why and when this benchmark had changed (see below).

The infill question has proved a pertinent one in recent months, as the city moves towards opening two new areas - one further west, and one around Mount Rowan - for greenfield expansion.

In September, councillors approved a motion to fast-track the process for transferring the greenfield areas to urban growth zones.

It follows a surge in the take-up in lots in existing growth areas in Ballarat West, with council officers stating that land availability could start to run dry within a few years.

At that meeting, councillors were told the officers were "confident" building development was tracking at a 50/ 50 infill versus greenfield split.

Building approvals data analysed by The Courier this month showed the vast majority of recent growth in the city over the past three years has been in the western suburbs of Alfredton and Delacombe.

Only a fraction of new homes were being built within the CBD.

Mapped: How Ballarat tilted west

Ballarat Strategy 2040 (City of Ballarat document)

Planning report: Find what zones and overlays your house is in

New Greenfield areas (September 16, 2020 council meeting broadcast - watch from 1hr10 on)

The below shows a series of media requests sent by The Courier to the City of Ballarat, and the responses received. The original questions are headlined, the initial response is below, and resulting questions from The Courier are in italics.

In the years preceding the development of the Strategy the State Government defined land through the Urban Development Program as follows:

Regional Residential Report.

This is unclear. Could you explain exactly why this is relevant to infill being categorised at the much lower figure of 40 per cent back in 2015? As it stands, it would have to be inferred why. Please can we avoid assumptions, and have this stated in black and white.

Also, given this was the benchmark articulated in a defining strategy document in 2015, how would council be tracking by the same criteria now? Or is that benchmark now not being used at all? And if this is the case, have councillors or the broader community been briefed on this change?

*This figure was published as current in 2015 in the Ballarat Strategy 2040 document.

Data quality improvements, centralised databases and data sharing with the Victorian Building Authority, and improvements with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) now make it possible to geo-locate this data with other property information, so it can be analysed at a lot specific level, rather than rely on more general classifications. Because this data can be analysed in so much more detail, more easily, the use of the underlying zone is the most useful benchmark. Again, this is not clear. Why is this the most useful benchmark? It seems contradictory. If it can be analysed in more detail, then why are broader zoning classifications being used? Surely a more accurate picture of where infill is happening could be supplied to both councillors and the broader community if more specific detail is available?

The data can be analysed differently if there is a specific need. Again, the specific need would be to give an accurate reflection of what is really happening to the city, both to councillors and broader community. There is little in the responses so far that gives much confidence this is the case.

Refer above. When is not addressed in the response above. Could you please clarify?

The 5 years of data provided to the Courier and published online and in the printed paper is a clearly defined and transparent benchmark. This data is regularly updated and will continue to be made available online.

This appears to be the first time the data sent to The Courier has been shared publicly. Please correct me if this is wrong. Where is it available online? Again it seems very different to the data online here. Why? And why were councillors not supplied a more accurate account of these figures at the September 16 council meeting? An average of 61.66 per cent is very different to the 50-50 split they were told.

(This response was supplied in response to the queries from The Courier in italics, above).

The figures provided are per the definition, and so the infill column included all new properties in the General Residential Zone as well as the other housing zones. Large scale rezoning of farmland to the GRZ has not occurred in the last decade and a half as greenfield areas (generally unserviced farmland) is now planned and delivered using Precinct Structure Plans, which utilise the Urban Growth Zone. The definition is pretty clear.. 5 years of data has been provided and will continue to updated annually as new info becomes available.

The Ballarat strategy was clear about putting in place planning mechanisms to transition towards 50/50 split of infill and greenfield development over the 20 years between 2020 - 2040... we're one year in and have outlined the range of major infill sites that are the focus of our work program moving forward.

Occupancy permits are geolocated to the individual lot so the data can be analysed against whichever benchmark is desired. Given greenfield development areas now require Precinct Structure Plans and development and infrastructure contributions plans to underpin their growth, they will be zoned Urban Growth Zone and so the underlying zoning of the land is the most useful benchmark.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE MORE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE CBD? HAVE YOUR SAY BELOW