Starting in the land boom of the 1880s, and continuing until the introduction of formal planning controls in the 1950s, speculative subdivision of land into small blocks, many less than 0.1 hectares (1/4 acre) was rampant across Victoria.

These estates lay empty until the 1970s, when improved road access and the outward expansion of Melbourne saw pressure to develop these empty blocks, which saw the State Government fund the restructuring of inappropriately subdivided areas, a process that continues today through a “Restructure Overlays” applied to the affected land.

Failed speculative estates turned industrial

The first zombie subdivisions I found was Solomon Heights in Sunshine North – subdivided for residential purposes but related rezoned as industrial.

A similar example is the ‘Burns Road Estate‘ in Altona – subdivided in the 1920s, but never developed.

Closer to home for me are two Geelong examples – ‘New Station Estate‘ on Broderick Road – since restructured as larger industrial allotments.

And ‘New Corio Estate‘ on Shell Parade – purchased by council to become a grassland reserve.

Land boom hits Whittlesea

Eden Park west of Whittlesea was develpped during the 1880s land boom.

The subdivision of Eden Park sits six kilometres to the west of Whittlesea and 40 kilometres to the north of Melbourne. It is located between the lines of a geometric grid that in 1888 was prepared by the Burwood Land Building and Investment. Co. Ltd. The development featured 1324 lots, ranging from one to four acres in size.

But was unsuitable for such intensive development.

By 1901 upwards of 100 persons of small means had acquired lots at Eden Park, some no doubt tempted by the subdivider’s persuasive description of the advantages of a rural retreat.

In time many owners sold or surrendered their holdings by adverse possession until about 30 families owned small farms, intersected by the estate’s avenues. In the late 1960s the estate was again actively promoted, and in 1980 there were 450 individual owners and 175 detached houses.

Resulting in the restructure of the estate as a rural living area.

Created by bureaucratic bungling

Cemetery Estate in Hastings – approved for housing in 1960 with 230-plus lots sold. The Long Island Point gas fractionation facility was then built next door, rendering the unsuitable for residential development. Six households and 100+ privately owned allotments remain today.

And victims of dodgy developers

Midway between Werribee and Rockbank is Chartwell Estate – a subdivision created in the 1950s and marketed to new English migrants, and since restructured in the 1980s to facilitate limited residential development.

Swallowed by suburbia

The township of Kalkallo is located on the northern edge of Melbourne, on the Hume Highway just north of Craigieburn, and predates current planning rules.

The Kalkallo township was established in the pre-1851 squatting era and is an excellent examples of early rural town settlement. The township was subdivided into small allotments without regard for the provision of services or the effects of inadequate effluent disposal. As a result many of the allotments are incapable of adequately supporting a dwelling.

So as Melbourne has crept towards the township, a restructure overlay has been placed over it, to ensure that sympathetic development occurs.

Fire hazards

In the hills east of Melbourne, the Yarra Ranges Council is worried about the bushfire risk.

The objectives of the Restructure Plans under the Restructure Overlay are to:

• Ensure that existing old and inappropriate subdivisions are restructured in a manner that reduces development densities, that provides development opportunities consistent with the capacity of the site and the area to absorb such development without adverse impact on the environment and landscape of the area and without creating undue social and utility servicing pressures.
• Ensure that the restructure of old and inappropriate subdivisions assists in achieving environmental and landscape objectives for the area generally and that development of these lots is environmentally sensitive in its siting, design and construction.
• Ensure that adequate and proper servicing arrangements are made whilst recognising that there are often environmental impacts and high costs associated with infrastructure and utility service provisions.
• Recognise that restructure lots generally have poor accessibility and are often in isolated locations removed from community and other service facilities.
• Recognise that restructure areas are often located in high fire hazard areas and that any new development must be sited and designed to minimise fire hazard.

The end result – a total of 134 separate restructure overlays.

Holiday homes by the beach

I discovered Summerlands Estate of Phillip Island and the mysterious “This area is subject to a Government acquisition program” note alongside as a child. Developed from the 1920s in the middle of the penguin habitat, environmental concerns saw the “Summerland Estate Buy-Back Programme” launched in 1985, that saw the entire suburb wiped off the map by 2010.

The nearby ‘Scenic Estate’ was a similar situation – again redeveloped as a nature park.

The same concerns apply along the Victorian coast.

Old and Inappropriate Subdivisions along the coast is an issue that planning has been attempting to deal with for some time. Most subdivisions occurred prior to formal planning laws being introduced. Issues being grappled with include: potential coastal erosion; climate change impacts; and development thresholds.

Point Roadknight near Anglesea is an uncontentious example.

The Anglesea Neighbourhood Character Study (2003) identified two areas in Point Roadknight where the lots are substantially smaller in width and site area to the general pattern of allotments in the area.

Lots in the area adjoining Great Ocean Road are approximately 9.3m wide and have an area of 523m². Lots fronting Eighth and Eleventh Avenues are approximately 9.3m wide and have an area of 417m². This compares with the predominant lot size of 1000-1500m² in the surrounding areas. These lots result from past inappropriate subdivision, and in the majority of cases are owned in groups of two or three, with an existing dwelling constructed across the boundaries of the lots.

The Study flagged that if the lots in these land parcels were to each be developed individually for a dwelling, or re-subdivided to facilitate this outcome, it would result in an adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area. A recent example of the type of development being discouraged is at 59 Eighth Avenue, where the boundaries of two lots (each 417m²) were realigned to facilitate the construction of two dwellings, resulting in a crowded development that is uncharacteristic of the area.

Since restructured.

Landowners fight back

Attempts to restructure land in South Gippsland saw landowners fight back – Toora being one example.

But the Wellington Shire Council’s handling of Ninety Mile Beach subdivisions went to the Victorian Ombudsman:

The story of the development of Ninety Mile Beach is a sorry tale indeed. Thousands of people, mostly migrants, lured by developers with the promise of their own slice of paradise on Victoria’s own Gold Coast. The brochures promise a well-planned resort, with shopping centres and amenities, illustrated by pictures of glamorous women in bathing costumes on the golden sands.

Then as the years wear on the promises unravel. Much of the land cannot be developed, at least in its present form. Some of it is beach dunes. Some of it is flood-prone. Much of it is inaccessible. Successive environmental studies confirm what should have been seen at the outset, that it should never have been sold off in the first place. The original developers have disappeared.

In the meantime, some owners have continued to pay rates and other charges on their now worthless slices of paradise. Others have refused to pay. Yet others have sold their land back to the council for the nominal sums reflecting the land’s current value, later accusing the council of profiteering. In recent years the anger and frustration of many current and former landowners seems to have escalated, and to date has resulted in 67 complaints to my office.

Since then it has been recommended that blocks on coastal dunes and in flood-prone areas should be acquired by the State Government, while those in ‘urban settlement nodes’ can be developed, but only if the original individual lots are combined with three others to form a single block.

Impacts on agriculture

In Melbourne’s outer east Cardinia Shire Council has seen inappropriate subdivisions encroach on agricultural land.

In the area south of the Princes Highway, there are also many areas that were subdivided into 20 acre parcels as part of the draining of the Koo Wee Rup Swamp. These areas often contain high quality productive soils and many are within the Koo-wee-rup Flood Protection District, therefore they are subject to regular flooding. Many of the lots are also held in contiguous ownership and are being farmed as one farming unit.

It is considered that the development of housing on lots at the density of the original subdivision will compromise the long term agricultural productivity of the land and would substantially alter the character of the area. The Restructure overlay has been put in place to restrict the number of dwellings being constructed on lots that are in contiguous ownership.

The Mount Alexander Shire Council has similar concerns in the Victorian gold fields, where farmland around Ravenswood, Muckleford and Maldon is at risk of being developed for residential uses.

The lots in these areas mainly comprise old Crown Allotments which are significantly smaller than the minimum lot size allowed under the Farming Zone (40 hectares) and which if developed with dwellings could lead to the entrenchment of these areas as rural living areas.

This is not supported because it would remove land from productive agricultural use and in many cases will also be incompatible with the environmental values of the areas. In addition, some of the areas are relatively remote from townships and services.

Conditional on access

In the Shire of Murrindindi restructure plans, development of one allotment is conditional on access being approved to the Maroondah Highway.

While another restructure allotment is reserved to provide access to a neighbouring parcel that is landlocked.

And protecting townships in the middle of nowhere

In the south-west the Colac Otway Shire has restructured subdivisions in Cressy, Gerangamete, Pirron Yallock and Irrewillipe.

The Surf Coast Shire has restructured the outskirts of Deans Marsh.

South Gippsland Shire restructured historically envisaged railway and port settlements, and State Government land settlement schemes from the late 19th century.

As well as former coalmining townships.

And the Pyrenees Shire in western Victoria have put in place restructure overlays on the townships of Avoca, Wattle Creek, Beaufort and Snake Valley, amongst others.

And the most bizarre example

Sandstone Island is a 20 hectare island located one kilometre southeast of Hastings, which was bizzarly subdivided into 142 suburban-sized allotments during the 1960s.

Sandstone Island is rural freehold land held in single ownership and is isolated and constrained by its geographical location and lack of infrastructure. The Island is bordered by steep, grassy coastal bluffs. The Island contains an existing dwelling and shed and there is no provision for tourism or commercial uses.

So the restructuring of them into a single allotment was an obvious solution.

The legal bits

The Victoria Planning Provisions detail what a “Restructure Overlay” is.

Restructure Overlays are shown on the planning scheme map as RO with a number.

Purpose

• To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
• To identify old and inappropriate subdivisions which are to be restructured.
• To preserve and enhance the amenity of the area and reduce the environmental impacts of dwellings and other development.

Subdivision

• A permit is required to subdivide land.
• A subdivision must be in accordance with a restructure plan for the land listed in the schedule to this overlay.
• Each lot must be provided with reticulated sewerage if available. If reticulated sewerage is not available, the application must be accompanied by a land assessment report which demonstrates that each lot is capable of treating and retaining all waste water.

Decision guidelines

Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible
authority must consider, as appropriate:

• The objectives of the restructure plan for the area.
• Appropriate measures to cope with any environmental hazard or constraint affecting the land, including slope, drainage, salinity and erosion.
• The protection and enhancement of the natural environment and the character of the area including the retention of vegetation and fauna habitats and the need to revegetate along waterways, gullies, ridge lines and property boundaries.
• The availability of utility services, including sewerage, water, drainage, electricity, gas and telecommunications.
• The relationship of the intended use and development to the existing or likely use and development of adjoining and nearby land.
• The effect on surrounding uses, especially agricultural uses and nearby public land.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Old and inappropriate subdivisions of Victoria appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Exploring the paddock

The bulk of the land is open grasslands, but back in 2010 one landowner had fenced off their little portion.

And by 2019 they were planning to build a warehouse on the site.

Other landowners were trying to sell their slice.

One vendor selling multiple blocks.

But the strangest were these two blocks of land located on a non-existent road – ‘Danglow Avenue’.

Doing some digging

When I headed over to Google Maps, a grid of tiny blocks of land appeared.

With the state government Land Channel maps showing the same.

Including a larger block of land zoned for public parkland.

So why was the estate never developed, unlike the industrial complexes that now surround it?

And the answer

Hobsons Bay City Council has a page on what is called the ‘Burns Road Industrial Estate‘.

The Burns Road Industrial Estate is located between the State Baseball Softball Centre, Harcourt Road and Merton Street in Altona. It has 505 lots owned by over 170 property owners. The estate was subdivided in the 1920s. No roads, drains or other services have ever physically been created. The estate has remained undeveloped for almost 100 years due to a range of complex issues, including lot size and configuration, native vegetation, and the complexities of the multiple ownerships.

Including a detailed history of the estate.

1929: The Burns Road Estate was subdivided for the purpose of residential development, with the site set aside as a reserve to be used for private recreation to serve the residential lots. Although the site was identified for the purposes of public open space, it was not vested into Council’s name as part of the original subdivision.

Mid 1950s: The Estate was zoned ‘Rural’ (east of Henty Avenue) and Explosive Buffer Zone (west of Henty Avenue). The Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works also placed an Interim Development Order (IDO) on the Estate and detached houses were permitted provided the site was five acres (two hectares). Industrial development was prohibited.

1960s: The Explosive Buffer Zone was replaced with the Rural Zone. From the late 1960s to the mid 1970s the minimum land requirements to construct a detached house were reduced to 3.5 acres (1.4 hectares) and industry and light industry were allowed subject to a planning permit.

1976: The land was rezoned to Reserved Light Industrial where light industry and detached houses were allowed (no conditions were attached).

1986: The Minister for Planning and Environment applied an IDO over and around the Altona Petrochemical Complex. This was followed by Amendment 404 to the Altona Planning Scheme.

1988: The new Altona Planning Scheme was introduced and detached housing was prohibited. The land at 18‐71 Harcourt Road, Altona was included as Public Open Space.

1993: Employee Population Density Controls were introduced to the Altona Planning Scheme to protect the State’s petrochemical industry and minimise the risk to personal safety from a major petrochemical accident.

1997: Given the long and complex history with the Estate, the Council engaged Ratio Consultants to prepare the Burns Road Industrial Estate Structure Plan. The Structure Plan, which was not adopted, recommended:
– A restructure of the subdivision to a minimum lot size of two hectares (which was based on the 1997 development market for industrial lots);
– Minimum road pavement of 10.2 metres for all internal roads and 20 metres for periphery roads; and
– Implementation facilitated by establishing a unit trust, whereby landowners register their lots with the trust which then offers the land.

2000: The New Format Planning Scheme was introduced and the Estate was zoned SUZ4 which specifies a minimum lot size of two hectares for development of this land and contains the Employee Population Density Controls.

2002: The Council began preparing the Industrial Land Management Strategy (ILMS) which was introduced into the planning scheme as a reference document via Amendment C33.

2008: Amendment C33 was approved by the Minister for Planning. The Estate forms part of Precinct 1 – Burns Road, Altona, which is identified as ‘Core Industrial’ in the ILMS reference document. A key strategic action/objective for this Precinct is to support its role as Core Industrial.

2011‐12: The Council undertook a policy neutral review of the Municipal Strategic Statement as part of Amendment C63. The Panel Report for Amendment C63 recommended that the
Council add under Further Strategic work in Clause 21.07 Economic Development, ‘review the planning framework for the Burns Road Estate area in Altona to determine the appropriate policy zoning, and overlays to address long standing use and development issues’

2013: Council adopted this recommendation and resolved to undertake a feasibility study for the Estate.

The most recent review was triggered by a group of irate landowners.

A group of up to 200 landholders, spearheaded by Laverton North business owner Michael Sergi, believe the council has not helped them make something of their investment.

Mr Sergi said the council had been “stealing rates” and had “failed the people of Altona”.

“In 1997, the council commissioned Ratio planning and development consultants to produce a structure plan for the Burns Road industrial estate,” he said.

“The report recommended a ‘unit trust’ scheme where individual lots would be pooled to form a minimum two hectares for development.

“The report was presented to landowners in July 2004 and promptly shelved. Why has Hobsons Bay not acted on the report of the consultants it has contracted?”

As the Weekly exclusively reported last September, Mr Sergi hopes to form a consortium and build a truck wash on the 40-hectare estate, which was rezoned light industrial in 1954.

To date, he has spent more than $1 million battling the council without progressing his plans.

In 2014 a consultant was engaged to negotiate a settlement between landowners, leading to the creation of the Burns Road Landowners Group in 2017.

Membership of the group had risen to 46 by August 2018, representing 230 of the 505 lots in the estate, while at the same time a group of five landowners rationalised their nearly 100 lots into less and more logical parcels.

100 years after the initial subdivision of the estate, it appears that development might finally be going ahead!

Further reading

• Zoning issues at the Burns Road Industrial Estate
• More at the Hobsons Bay City Council website

And a Princes Freeway footnote

A short distance on the other side of Kororoit Creek Road is another seemingly empty paddock.

Located in the triangle between the Princes Freeway and a car storage yard.

 
That’s the Laverton North Grasslands – 40 hectares of land reserved in the 1980s to preserve one of the few remaining grasslands in western Melbourne.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Ghosts of the past beside the Princes Freeway appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Melway Edition 22 Map 431 (1993)

Paying a visit to Summerlands

It took me until 2011 to finally visit Summerlands in person.

The views were fantastic.

But all I found was a ghost town.

Gravel tracks leading into the scrub.

And a handful of abandoned houses.

Ready to be demolished.

So what happened?

Google Maps satellite imagery (2016)

A history of Summerlands

Subdivision of Summerlands commenced in the 1920s with 12 large allotments created, along with features such as a roundabout and cypress trees that were still visible decades later. Between 1927 and 1931, 227 new blocks were created, and from 1929 to 1940 there was a nine-hole golf course on what is now the Penguin Parade car park.

Photo from the Phillip Island and District Historical Society collection

In 1950s, a further 437 blocks were created, and the final subdivisions were carried out in 1958 and 1961 on land closer to The Nobbies. Much of the land was sold to speculators rather than those interested in building on it, and by 1974 only 11 percent of the 986 blocks of land had been cleared or built on.

Phillip Island Nature Parks photo

By the 1970s it was recognised that residential development of the estate would threaten the adjacent penguin colony, but it was not until 1985 that the Victorian Government launched the “Summerland Estate Buy-Back Programme” to purchase all 774 allotments on the Summerland Peninsula and add them to the Phillip Island Nature Park, with a projected end date of 2000. This decision meant that land owners could not build on their land, improve their properties, or sell them to anyone but the Government.

In the years that followed a total of 732 properties were been voluntarily sold by their owners, at a cost to the government of around a million dollars a year.

Phillip Island Nature Parks photo

With the final push made in 2007, when the decision was made to compulsorily acquire the final 42 properties – 20 empty blocks and 22 with houses, held by 34 private owners – over the next three years, at a cost of $15 million.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme – Public Acquisition Overlay at Summerlands Estate as of 23 May 2007

A tour of the last remaining houses

In February 2008 the Google Street View car did the rounds of Summerlands Estate, capturing the last remaining houses.

Classic 1950s fibro beach houses.

1970s brick.

Or looking to have been built just before the 1985 land buyback.

Some were out in the middle of an empty plain.

Others nestled between the tea trees.

Or hidden away completely.

Some looking to be only used at holiday time.

Others looking like they were occupied year round.

With neat front gardens.

But some had already been demolished.

And the end

In 2007-08 five property purchases were settled and agreement to purchase one property was reached, along with six negotiated purchase offers and one offer for compulsory acquisition. In 2008-09 fourteen properties were purchased taking the total number to 25, leaving 17 properties still to be acquired, a process completed in June 2010.

Land Victoria showing Summerlands Estate land still under separate titles as of 13 June 2011

At the time of my 2011 visit, the Summerlands Estate was being returned to nature.

The roads had been closed to vehicles.

Few houses remained.

Excavators at work clearing them away.

Leaving behind a front fence.

Gardens.

An empty block where houses once stood.

Building rubble.

Ready for new tree plantings.

Introduced trees has been ringbarked.

Slowly killing them.

Before their eventual removal.

Power lines were also being removed.

Replaced by new underground wires.

And farewell

I drove past the house on the hill in 2011.

By 2013 the only trace left was a plot of freshly planted trees.

I wonder how it looks a decade on.

Further reading

• Govt forces penguin reserve land buyback (ABC News, 2007)
• When Phillip Island penguins won, and land owners lost (ABC News, 2018)
• To Save Tiny Penguins, This Suburb Was Wiped Off the Map (New York Times, 2019)
• Summerlands Rehabilitation Project (Phillip Island Nature Parks, 2015)
• Department of Sustainability and Environment. “Annual Report 2008 – Report of Operations”
• Department of Sustainability and Environment. “Annual Report 2009 – Report of Operations”

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Summerlands – the suburb that penguins reclaimed appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Google Maps

Early years

The neat grid of streets stand out against the flat grasslands, 7 km south of Rockbank and 10 km north of Werribee.

Land Victoria

All with British names:

• Downing Street,
• Mayfair Avenue,
• Eaton Court,
• Oxford Street,
• Shelly Court,
• Wandsworth Street,
• McMillan Parade,
• Finchley Court,
• The Mall,
• Sheridan Close,
• Stratford Road

Volume 2 – The Environmental Thematic History from the Shire of Melton Heritage Study by David Moloney explains how the estate came to be:

Rosedale Estate, Chartwell (commonly known as the ‘Chartwell Estate’) was a 1957 subdivision of 491 township sized allotments situated on the eastern corner of Boundary Road and Downing Street (Crown Allotment 5, Section 4, Parish of Pywheitjorrk).

The English mansion Chartwell, best known for its twentieth century ownership by Sir Winston Churchill, overlooks ‘The Weald of Kent’: a rolling green woodland. If the name Chartwell was meant to inspire images of such British landscapes, the Melton South Chartwell – isolated, flat, dry, and totally devoid of trees – was a grand fraud. The Estate’s street names – The Mall, Oxford Street, Downing Street, Mayfair Avenue, Eaton Court, Wandsworth Street, Stratford Street, Macmillan Parade, and Finchley Court – seem to be intended to inspire rich images of England. Most are famous English streets or places; others, including Macmillan Parade (probably named after Harold Macmillan, the English Prime Minister who assumed office in 1957), had more contemporary associations.

The original subdividers, an English couple, went bankrupt before selling the entire estate, which was then taken over by a real estate company. The estate was marketed to new English migrants in western suburbs migrant hostels, many of whom purchased their allotment ‘site unseen’ on the basis of the estate’s proximity to Melbourne, and affordability.

An example of these advertisements is this from 1964.

The Age, 3 November 1964

With land still on sale a decade later.

The Age, 8 December 1973

The land being zoned residential as late as 1985.

1985 Planning Scheme

Development pains

The 491 lot estate could have housed 1500 people, but the land wasn’t suitable for development:

The original approval of the estate in 1957 had apparently been an oversight on the part of a Council which at that time had little experience with legal processes for residential subdivision. The estate did not have water and, more significantly, sewerage; the high rock bedrock of the district would not accommodate 491 septic tanks.

Following the introduction of the Melbourne Metropolitan Interim Development Order (Extension Area No. 1) in 1971, the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works refused 18 applications for detached houses in the Rosedale Estate, with the Town Planning Appeals Tribunal hearing three appeals.

In 1976 the subject of development was revisited by Earle and Partners, as part of their Melton-Sunbury Peripheral Towns Study for the Melton-Sunbury Interim Co-ordinating Committee:

We recommend that no public effort be made to improve the services of water or sewerage to Chartwell and that any further building be subject to satisfactory sewerage, drainage and water being provided on the site.

It is expected that this will require a degree of site amalgamation and could result in a total population of 300-400 people.

Existing residents were against further development:

The Board received a letter signed by ten residents on November 16, 1977 stating that they considered that ‘any further development would create unbearable living conditions for those already living on the estate’. The letter noted the problem of roads being ‘impassable for long periods during wet weather’, and the general lack of facilities. The residents were particularly concerned about the lack of sewerage and drainage and believe that a health hazard will result if further development occurs.

But in 1977 the Board’s Planning Committee resolved that the area had been accepted for ultimate development, and that to achieve that it would be necessary to provide water supply and sewerage facilities.

This decision was reverted in 1981, when the Board and the Council commenced a joint study into the future of the estate, with a view to restructuring it and ultimately issuing permits for detached houses on the restructured lots. Provision of a water supply was investigated.

Possible sources of water for a reticulated town supply have been investigated. The first was by connection to the Board’s main at Cowies Hill. Preliminary estimates indicated that such a service would cost in the vicinity of $1,000,000. A second alternative was the provision of a main extending from Rockbank. Cost estimates in respect of this service are likely to be in excess of $500,000.

The alternative to a reticulated water supply would be the provision of water storage tanks to each house. Chartwell has the lowest rainfall in the Melbourne region with an average annual rainfall of 400-500 mm. Assuming a roof area of 150 spare metres the maximum amount of water that could be collected in one year is 75,000 litres (16,500 gallons). Not allowing for leakage and evaporation, this would permit 205 litres to be used per day. For a house occupied by 4 persons this represents 51 litres (11 gallons) per person per day. The State Rivers and Water Supply Commission have advised that each person in a household requires 113 litre (25 gallons) per day minimum. In the metropolitan area the average per capita consumption is 160 litres per day (35 gallons).

It appears then that a severe shortage of water is indicated if reliance were to be placed on roof fed tank supplies. It would not be possible to maintain gardens and the use of water for laundry purposes would be severely restricted. In addition to the inconvenience caused by continual water rationing and the necessity to have water delivered by truck at high cost in times of drought, the lack of means with which to fight fires is an especially serious concern due to the estate’s isolation and restricted access.

A heavier use of the roads would exacerbate this poor condition due to the lack of drainage and the heavy impermeable soils which can cause roads to become impassable in this area.

Sewage being a sticking point.

In the absence of reticulated sewerage for the disposal of sewerage and household sullage, the usual system used is the septic tank. The heavy soils and poor drainage of this area therefore suggest that the disposal of effluent by soil absorption should desirably be carried out on much larger residential sites.

As was the lack of other ‘urban’ facilities.

It also appears that other facilities normally associated with a residential development are lacking in this area. No shops exist at Chartwell, the closest being located at Rockbank. The shopping facilities available at Rockbank are very limited, being only a general store, and residents in the area are required to travel to Melton, Werribee or Sunshine to satisfy most of their shopping needs.

No school exists at Chartwell so children living in the area are taken by bus to schools at Werribee. Whilst the Education Department has reserved a site within the Rosedale Estate for a school, the maximum development potential of the subdivision is well below that required to support a full primary school.

Public open space in the estate has not been developed.

The final decision being:

The Board therefore submitted that development at Chartwell would not be in accordance with the orderly and proper planning of the area or the western sector of Melbourne generally.

It intended that if development were to be permitted at Chartwell, a corresponding pressure and demand for the provision of water, sewerage and drainage services, upgrading of access, provision of educational facilities and other community services to the township would follow. The high capital cost of servicing Chartwell compared with its relatively low development potential under existing policies would be likely to lead to increased pressure for further urban zoning to justify such a large expenditure on them.

The Board therefore submitted that it would be preferable to prevent any development which may dissipate resources from the designated growth centres for the time being.

But despite this, by 1981 14 houses have been erected on 18 lots, of the total 464 residential allotments.

In 1982 one landowner took the Shire of Melton to the Victorian Ombudsman to appeal their rejection of a building permit.

“My wife and I are owners of a residential block of land at Rosedale Estate Chartwell which is in the Rockbank Riding of the Shire of Melton. We purchased the land ten years ago with the idea of building our own home on that land when next I was posted to the Melbourne area (I am a member of the RAAF). We came back to Melbourne in January of this year eager to build on our land only to find that the Melton Shire Council will not issue building permits and any attempt by us to secure a permit would be opposed by the MMBW. For the past ten years we have paid our rates and it seems we will be expected to carry on paying rates even though we are refused building permits.

If the Melton Shire Council cannot be forced to provide facilities and issue building permits could they be forced to buy the land from us thus enabling us to build elsewhere.”

The council reiterating the history of the estate.

“The Rosedale Estate, at Chartwell, was subdivided about 20 years ago. The Council of the day apparently did not require the subdivider to construct the streets. There seems to have been an arrangement whereby the subdivider was to provide water supply from underground sources, but the water proved to be unsuitable, both as to quality and quantity. Fourteen houses have been erected on the subdivision, and the owners are dependent on rainwater for their supply. Over the years some gravelling and minor maintenance of the streets has been provided to give the residents access to their properties. Electricity and telephone services are available, but the Estate is otherwise unserviced. Several years ago the Council tried to interest the then residents in a “self help” water supply scheme, but found that the majority were unwilling to participate in a scheme which would improve conditions for themselves and allow others to build there.

And the reasons for refusal.

The Council, as a planning authority in its own right, has granted permits for the erection of houses on various lots in the Estate, but similar applications to the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, as the regional planning authority have met with refusals. One or two house permits have been obtained on appeal, but other applicants have not pursued the matter following refusal.

The Council is certainly in sympathy with owners who wish to build on their land, but now feels that the Estate should be treated as an “old and inappropriate” subdivision. A joint study into the future of the Estate has been commenced with the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, in the hope that various parcels of lots can be consolidated into a very much smaller number of larger “rural residential” allotments. The study is only in its initial stages but, when it is sufficiently advanced, all property owners affected will be consulted to ascertain their views and perhaps suggest a range of alternative futures for the area.

To develop the Estate as it stands, to a normal residential standard, would require the expenditure of millions of dollars on the construction of the private streets, drains, sewers, and the provision of water supply. Much of this would be a direct cost to the owners of the properties. It would be many years, if ever, before the development of the Estate had a sufficient priority in the eyes of the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission to qualify for Government assistance in the provision of water supply and sewerage.

In his letter, the complainant referred to payment of rates and the possibility of the Council buying his land. The land cannot be exempted from rating, and the Council has no need of the land for any municipal purpose. In the event of a restructuring scheme proceeding, as outlined earlier in this letter, there would presumably be an opportunity of selling the land to whichever authority may have the responsibility for implementing such a scheme or, alternatively of purchasing additional adjoining land to create a larger allotment.

The issue was finally resolved in 1992, following the implementation of the Chartwell Restructure Allotment Plan. The 491 lots were reduced to 62, the bulk being around 0.6 hectares in size, the exception being 14 already occupied by dwellings.

Chartwell Restructure Allotment Plan

In the years since, the number of houses on the estate has risen to 16.

And the future

In 2008 plans for the Outer Metropolitan Ring Road were made public, to connect the Hume Freeway at Kalkallo in the north, to the Princes Freeway south-west of Werribee.

But one problem for the residents of Chartwell – the freeway alignment went straight through the middle of the estate.

VicRoads Public Acquisition Overlay, via Land Victoria

The City of Melton made a submission to the ‘Delivering Melbourne’s Newest Sustainable Communities’ study.

The Chartwell Estate on Boundary Road is a small closer settlement of around 15-20 houses. The proposed alignment has a major impact upon this settlement, and would effectively see its complete destruction. This is likely to have significant social implications. Whilst Council appreciates that there are significant engineering constraints associated with the alignment of the OMR, the impact of this outcome should not be underestimated, and Council would urge VicRoads to explore whether there are alignment options which might see the OMR avoid Chartwell.

But the final route of the freeway was still pushed through the estate.

OMR Transport Corridor Design Sheet 4

A note on Public Acquisition Overlays

You might have noticed something a little odd about the Public Acquisition Overlays marked in yellow on this map – PAO3, PAO5 and PAO7.

VicRoads Public Acquisition Overlay, via Land Victoria

Turns out Public Acquisition Overlay numbers are only unique to the planning scheme that they belong to, and not unique across the state. In the case of Chartwell, the estate sits on the border of two:

The top half is the Melton Planning Scheme:

• PAO3: Outer Metropolitan Ring / E6 Transport Corridor
• PAO5: Western Grassland Reserves

While the bottom half the Wyndham Planning Scheme:

• PAO5: Outer Metropolitan Ring / E6 Transport Corridor
• PAO7: Western Grassland Reserves

Clear as mud?

And a note on the Western Grassland Reserve

The Western Grassland Reserve was established in 2009 to protect remnant grasslands, and offset urban sprawl, but only 9% of land has been acquired so far. So what’ll be finished first – freeway or grassland?

Sources

• Volume 2 – The Environmental Thematic History, the Shire of Melton Heritage Study, David Moloney
• Victorian Ombudsman, Quarterly Report, 30 September 1981

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post The ghost of Rosedale Estate in Melbourne’s west appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

The grid of proposed roads can be found in Melway Edition 1 on map 26 and 27.

In the decades since the land on the western side of the railway line has been developed, but the other side lays empty – aerial imagery from Google Maps shows a grid of dirt tracks.

So why has such a large subdivision sit empty for so long?

I found the answer earlier this year, when a paper titled “Solomon Heights: A Zombie Subdivision?” was published. From the abstract:

Solomon Heights, 10kms west of the centre of Melbourne, Australia, on what has now become prime riverside real estate, is a case in point. Although subdivided into a residential pattern during the 1920s, the site had been rezoned industrial in the mid-1950s under Melbourne’s first comprehensive city plan. It was thereafter left fallow, for reasons unclear, without basic urban services like water or sealed roads. Environmental social issues have since come to impact on the site, while landowners seek the opportunity to build.

The rest of the paper is well worth the read, as are these other links:

• Solomon Heights: A Zombie Subdivision? (Elizabeth Taylor, David Nichols, Victoria Kolankiewicz)
• Solomon Heights at Brimbank City Council
• Solomon Heights at Wikipedia

Other abandoned subdivisions

Turns out the list of abandoned subdivisions in Victoria is quite long – so many that I’ve spun them off into their own articles.

• Summerlands Estate on Phillip Island
• Rosedale Estate at Chartwell
• Burns Road Estate in Altona

As well as an overarching post covering the subject of ‘old and inappropriate subdivisions’ in Victoria.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Streets to nowhere in Sunshine North appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.