Hi,
In Perth south eastern and north eastern suburbs, I see the large residential estates surrounded by rural land holdings and semi-rural land holdings. After some time, I see new estates getting popped up somewhere else away from those established estates. Wondering why Planning Commission does not allow estates to grow organically by adding more residential blocks to the estate by converting adjacent rural land holdings? I believe it will cost a lot of money to allow the developers to develop the lands in random manner. Organic development is economic solution. I see that in the inner-city areas of Perth where everything is residential but for the public spaces. What is the story here? Anyone who has worked in state planning commissions provide some insights?
Thank you.
It's developer lobbyists at play, if you look at Ellenbrook, it was some 20+ years before its time, effectively a development Oasis cut off from all infrastructure. The only way it got up was because Stockland/Peet etc (can't remember who) basically said it would be a great site for a nodal community (The real reason was that they bought up average farmland on the cheap and sold it as a liveable neighbourhood). Government ate it up and the residents were given a community cutoff from the Perth metro area only to complain and berate their local member until they got Northlink and a train line (at a cost of billions to the Perth community).
Developers all have their land holdings (Stockland owns pretty much all of Wellard) and develops it depending on the market and the difficulty of ground conditions (poor drainage etc can double/triple the cost of the subdivisions.) Adjacent land holdings aren't always the cheapest/easiest way. We also have these terrific things called bush forever sites which preserve major habitats.
I also find it quite funny how you'd see developers buy up farmland in areas that are well and truly farmland, only for it to get rezoned a year or two later. Money talks and the rich get richer.