Churchill-Waverley Golf and Bowls Club Ltd. has spent nearly two decades trying to unlock its land in Rowville for housing, and reinvest the proceeds in a new, upgraded facility to better serve its members and the community.
The land is flanked by homes, an immediately adjoining retirement village, Stud Rd, and even adjoins a major electrical substation. Major powerlines run through the middle.
It's currently zoned Special Use (SUZ) for golf course purposes, but because it sits just outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), it’s frozen in red tape that prevents rezoning and redevelopment.
This isn’t a "greenfield" site; it’s a major infill site in middle-ring Melbourne, around 25km from the CBD (same as the Yarraman Activity Centre) which can support between 500 and 700 homes and medium-density dwellings.
The Victorian Government treats the UGB like a sacred line, at the expense of blocking thousands of potential affordable homes while simultaneously lamenting the #housingcrisis.
Knox City Council's 2015 Housing Strategy identified the site as potentially suitable for housing. Newly mandated 43,000 by 2051 #housingtargets mean opportunities like this are more important than ever. Yet it can't do anything without a change to the UGB, which hasn't moved since 2012.
The State refuses to let sense prevail, despite its own public targets and affordability rhetoric. As I say in The Age:
“Most people assume the urban growth boundary is around the very outskirts of Melbourne. That’s actually not the case,” he [Shifman] said.
“In the case of Waverley [golf course] in Rowville, you’re less than 25 kilometres from the city. You’ve got all the infrastructure, you’ve got all the amenities, you’ve got an existing population. That is a very different prospect to rezoning land that’s much further out.”
… But he doubted the urban boundary would move soon as he believed “the state is entirely wedded to the magic line on the map."
“If they were serious about unlocking more affordable housing supply for people, this would be exactly the sort of thing that they’d be looking at,” he said. “But instead, they’re too focused on unlocking activity centres in areas where the housing will be far too expensive for young people to buy.”
Apparently, "Activity Centres" 40km from the CBD are OK (i.e. Frankston), and new greenfield areas 50km+ away, but a ready-to-go site in a great area just 25km from the city is a no-go.
🤔If the government were serious about affordability and sustainable growth, this would be a no-brainer, a priority. Instead, they’re too focused on “activity centres” that deliver theoretical density without the #affordability.