While I applaud the plan for its efforts to allow greater density around the village area, I question the need to institute very large lot sizes in Ten Mile Point and Queenswood. My husband and I bought our home on Ten Mile Point two years ago, but it was originally built in the 1950s. Our lot is about 900sqm – well below the minimum lot size of 4000sqm proposed by the draft area plan. Many of the lots around us are a similar size to ours, yet our area of Ten Mile Point still feels wonderfully wild and ‘rural’, thanks to the many tall trees, rock outcrops, trails, and greenways.
Why institute a minimum lot size more generous than the lot size of many homes already in the area? The Local Area Plan says this is to “maintain the semi-rural character” of the area, but in practice this is a euphemism for preserving estates. A 4000sqm lot in 2022 is a multi-million dollar estate. If the goal is to maintain “semi-rural character”, surely this can be done with smaller lot sizes, provided there is careful preservation of trees, and appropriate restrictions on setbacks, building height, and house-to-property-size building ratios.
By instituting a minimum lot size of 4000sqm in Queenswood and Ten Mile Point, the Local Area Plan is attempting to do two things at once – increase density while appeasing wealthy property owners who don’t want to see it in their backyards. There’s nothing stopping someone from building a large house on a 4000sqm lot and landscaping it all anyway, so long as the protected trees remain standing. I’d rather see more diversity, more duplexes, more small family homes like ours, and more thoughtfully integrated townhouses in our plentiful and wild neighbourhood than more large estates.