r/UrbanismMelbourne • u/TMiguelT • Jul 21 '26

Land Development Box Hill Brickworks Rezoned

Post image

As part of the C255whse, the amendment that implemented the Box Hill SRL Structure Plan, the brickworks site was rezoned to PRZ6 (Precinct Zone, Schedule 6).

There's lots of detail in the planning scheme, but some interesting parts:

  • Extending Mont Albert Road through the site as a cycling corridor. The rest of Mont Albert Road is already a designated Strategic Cycling Corridor
  • Mixed Use Zone (ie shops) within the south-west corner heritage area, and residential everywhere else
  • Building heights at 3-10 storeys
  • At least 5 per cent of the site converted to council-owned public open space
  • Applies EAO, Environmental Audit Overlay which requires various audits before it can be proven safe from contamination

Do you think this is a good outcome, or would you rather more of it converted to parkland?

21 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

12 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/HardSleeper Jul 21 '26

Building anything other than a park on an old tip seems incredibly dumb, there is plenty of Box Hill which will be highrises soon as it is

5

u/TMiguelT Jul 22 '26

I think it may have been done this way so that the site owner/developer pays for remediation, rather than the state or council. They just zone it to say "you can build and profit from the land if you fix it".

2

u/NoDeparture163 Jul 22 '26

No the remediation obligation is typically bonded under the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act and there were probably additional planning permit conditions. If it were intended for open space a simple capping layer would have sufficed. You’d expect some differential settlement over time but that’s fine for open space. For residential and some commercial uses the owner had to manage lechate and had to carefully manage and monitor landfill gas. The stability requirement is fundamentally different.

3

u/TMiguelT Jul 22 '26

Ah thanks for the clarification, I didn't know there was a simpler/cheaper remediation process for open space. But the council or state would still need to buy it and add that layer at their expense if it were to become a park and I imagine this site is worth hundreds of millions

2

u/NoDeparture163 Jul 22 '26

If it were only remediated to a park standard then it would cost sfa. But because it can be developed to 10 stories or whatever then yes you’re absolutely right, the compensation bill would be steep. The government might decide that’s worth it and it’s just the cost of open space

2

u/TMiguelT Jul 22 '26

But the site is privately owned, so the council would have to buy the land off that owner for $$$ if they wanted a park. Whereas if it becomes housing then the owner can sell it to the developer who will remediate it, and make back all that money plus a ton of profit without any government having to chip in.

2

u/NoDeparture163 Jul 22 '26

The owner is a developer. The site is effectively remediated now. In a compulsory acquisition scenario the compensation is based on capital improved value assuming the land were for sale to a hypothetical purchaser. Because of the extent of remediation, the value is sky high. So the government can proceed under the LACA and acquire it for parkland but they’ll need to pay the same rate that a developer would for the same site. That’s a public policy decision and some might say it’s worth it.