Grange Planning Brain

title: Clarkefield Growth Area Development Facilitation Program Proposal council: macedon-ranges state: vic category: growth-area classification: MAJOR status: exhibited last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:

  • 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf
  • web-research-L0-clarkefield-2000-lot-development-facilitation-program-report-4836e11590.txt
  • web-research-L0-clarkefield-growth-area-development-facilitation-program-proposal-source-evidence-091733044f.txt
  • Clarkefield-Development-Summary-final-May-2026-copy.pdf
  • Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf
  • APD-CLA_RD4313F_Clarkefield-Town-Centre_Urban-Design-Report_A3_260206-compressed.pdf
  • web-research-L0-clarkefield-growth-area-development-facilitation-program-proposal-source-evidence-2feb688736.txt
  • web-research-L0-clarkefield-growth-area-development-facilitation-program-proposal-source-evidence-60547dc4c2.txt

Clarkefield Growth Area Development Facilitation Program Proposal

Clarkefield is not a conventional local structure-plan exercise: the proposal has moved into the Victorian Government’s Development Facilitation Program, with the Minister for Planning acting as the determining authority for draft Planning Scheme Amendment C164macr and a combined planning permit process (Source: web-research-L0-clarkefield-growth-area-development-facilitation-program-proposal-source-evidence-60547dc4c2.txt). The planning effect would be to convert a small railway settlement and surrounding agricultural land into a district town of about 2,500 dwellings and about 6,000 residents, with the first phase containing about 1,075 dwellings and the full township staged to the late 2040s (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.74; Source: Clarkefield-Development-Summary-final-May-2026-copy.pdf, p.2).

The main planning question is whether the servicing, infrastructure, environmental and settlement-policy mechanisms are strong enough to manage a growth step from a hamlet-scale place to a district town while maintaining consistency with the Macedon Ranges Statement of Planning Policy and the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme settlement hierarchy (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, pp.9-10; Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.15-16).

Background

Clarkefield sits between Sunbury and Riddells Creek, just over 40 kilometres from central Melbourne, with the existing settlement centred on Station Street and the Melbourne-Bendigo rail line (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.5). The CDP says Clarkefield historically could not grow because reticulated sewer and water were not connected, even though the place already had a train station; it attributes the current planning change to Greater Western Water servicing strategy work that enabled a broader technical and strategic review (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.5).

The current statutory package is framed around a Comprehensive Development Zone Schedule 1, an incorporated Clarkefield Comprehensive Development Plan, an incorporated Infrastructure Delivery Plan, a Native Vegetation Precinct Plan, Section 173 agreements for infrastructure and affordable housing, and later planning permits and property infrastructure plans (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.6). In practical terms, the CDP is the design and performance rulebook, while the Section 173 mechanism is intended to bind infrastructure delivery to land development stages rather than rely on a standard cash-levy Development Contributions Plan model (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, pp.6, 74, 78).

Council’s February 2026 minutes record that the Minister had considered and determined a request from APD Projects that she become the planning authority for the amendment, and Council then resolved to ask the Minister to communicate the 2,000-plus-lot proposal publicly because of its scale, township-amenity implications, rural-character implications and relationship to the Statement of Planning Policy (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.15-16). A later public report says consultation on draft Amendment C164macr opened after that advocacy, with submissions open until 1 June 2026 and the amendment supported by a package of strategic documents responding to the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme (Source: web-research-L0-clarkefield-growth-area-development-facilitation-program-proposal-source-evidence-60547dc4c2.txt).

Analysis

Settlement Role and Housing Yield

The proposal’s headline scale is about 2,500 dwellings across 255 hectares by late 2040, accommodating about 6,000 residents (Source: Clarkefield-Development-Summary-final-May-2026-copy.pdf, p.2). That yield would be large in Macedon Ranges terms because the Victorian Government housing target for the shire is 13,200 additional dwellings between 2023 and 2051, while the proponent’s summary states currently zoned and approved land is predicted to fall short by more than 8,000 dwellings (Source: Clarkefield-Development-Summary-final-May-2026-copy.pdf, p.2). The CDP gives a narrower land-supply shortfall estimate from Urban Enterprise of 1,263 to 2,253 lots to 2051, which is materially different from the 8,000-dwelling shortfall figure in the summary document and should be treated as an evidence inconsistency until the underlying land-supply assessment is reviewed (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.9; Source: Clarkefield-Development-Summary-final-May-2026-copy.pdf, p.2).

The proposed settlement role is a district town rather than an expansion of an existing large township (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.9). The CDP quotes the settlement definition of a district town as a place with 2,000 to 6,000 people, essential services, a dominant town centre, retail services, a post office, schools, a police station and basic medical facilities, with employment generally in higher-order centres (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.9). This matters because the planning risk is not only dwelling count; it is whether the proposed service package arrives early enough to prevent a dormitory settlement that relies on Sunbury, Gisborne, Craigieburn, Epping and other centres for higher-order services (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.77).

The first phase is described differently across sources: the summary says approximately 600 to 1,000 homes including 140 build-to-rent homes by 2031, while the CDP transport basis uses about 1,075 dwellings for Phase 1 (Source: Clarkefield-Development-Summary-final-May-2026-copy.pdf, p.1; Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.74). The practical effect is that early transport, drainage and community-infrastructure triggers should be assessed against the higher 1,075-dwelling technical assumption, not only the lower public-facing 600 to 1,000-home range (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.74; Source: Clarkefield-Development-Summary-final-May-2026-copy.pdf, p.1).

Statutory Mechanism and Decision Pathway

The proposal is being advanced through the Development Facilitation Program, with the Minister for Planning as determining authority, rather than a normal council-led amendment pathway (Source: Clarkefield-Development-Summary-final-May-2026-copy.pdf, p.2; Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.15). Draft Amendment C164macr was reported as publicly exhibited from 4 May to 1 June 2026, after which submissions are to be assessed before a recommendation on next steps is made to the Minister (Source: Clarkefield-Development-Summary-final-May-2026-copy.pdf, p.2; Source: web-research-L0-clarkefield-growth-area-development-facilitation-program-proposal-source-evidence-60547dc4c2.txt).

The CDP states that CDZ Schedule 1 requires planning permits to be generally in accordance with the CDP, which gives the document statutory force as a performance framework rather than a purely illustrative masterplan (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.5). That mechanism is flexible: the CDP says the responsible authority may accept variations to drainage assets, the education-community-recreation hub, the town centre, the solar farm and the community farm if the altered layout still meets the vision, objectives and performance measures (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.6). The benefit of that flexibility is staged adaptation; the risk is that key spatial commitments, including drainage land, community land and town-centre configuration, may shift after approval unless the Section 173 agreement and permit conditions are precise (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.6).

The infrastructure model is not a conventional DCP levy system: the CDP says every listed infrastructure item has delivery responsibility assigned to the developer, with obligations linked to defined works rather than a financial contribution amount and no reimbursement sought (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.78). This is a strong delivery concept if scope, standards, timing and land-transfer obligations are enforceable; it is weaker if the final IDP tables, Section 173 agreement and permit triggers do not specify measurable completion points before relevant dwelling thresholds are reached (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, pp.74, 78).

Land Use, Urban Form and Local Centre Function

The CDP lists 22 parcels in the land budget table, including 193.7 hectares at 1560 Melbourne-Lancefield Road held by Rupert Clarke and Company, smaller parcels around Station Street, VicTrack land, Country Fire Authority land, and the existing Clarkefield Recreation Reserve (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.18). Because the extracted text does not capture the full summary land budget on pages 17, 79 and 80, the available evidence supports parcel-level gross land identification but not a reliable independent calculation of net developable area, drainage land take or lot-yield loss by constraint (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, pp.17-18, 79-80).

The proposed town centre is intended to function as a compact neighbourhood hub of about 6,500 to 8,000 square metres along Station Street, with the public summary separately referring to economic analysis supporting a 5,900 to 6,900 square metre neighbourhood activity centre (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.11; Source: Clarkefield-Development-Summary-final-May-2026-copy.pdf, p.6). The Urban Design Report locates the most intense urban centre character within 200 to 400 metres of the station and shops, an urban character area within about 300 to 450 metres, and lower suburban character beyond 400 metres or a five-minute walk (Source: APD-CLA_RD4313F_Clarkefield-Town-Centre_Urban-Design-Report_A3_260206-compressed.pdf, p.17).

The built-form mechanism is a transect: the Urban Centre area allows two-to-four-storey mixed-use and live-work forms with zero to 1.5 metre setbacks, the Urban area uses mostly two-storey attached and semi-detached forms with 1.5 to 3 metre setbacks, and the Sub Urban area uses one-to-two-storey detached or semi-detached housing with generally 3 to 5 metre setbacks (Source: Clarkefield-Development-Summary-final-May-2026-copy.pdf, pp.4-5; Source: APD-CLA_RD4313F_Clarkefield-Town-Centre_Urban-Design-Report_A3_260206-compressed.pdf, pp.17-22). The planning effect is to concentrate activity near the station while softening edges toward Melbourne-Lancefield Road, open space and rural interfaces (Source: APD-CLA_RD4313F_Clarkefield-Town-Centre_Urban-Design-Report_A3_260206-compressed.pdf, pp.17-22).

Infrastructure Dependencies and Staging

Water and sewer are the binding infrastructure dependencies because existing buildings are not presently connected to reticulated sewer or water (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.7). The CDP says Greater Western Water has confirmed the township area can be serviced by the Gisborne-Macedon-Riddells Creek-Woodend water network, with a new main from Gisborne to Riddells Creek and connection via 6.3 kilometres of 300 millimetre pipe (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.69). Wastewater is proposed to be treated at the Riddells Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant through a new pump station and sewer rising main, with existing unsewered lots progressively connected (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.69).

The water-cycle mechanism is more than basic servicing: sewage is proposed to be treated to Class B recycled water and reused on agricultural land east of the site, while stormwater from three drainage reserves is to be harvested and conveyed to an existing northwest dam to reduce discharge volumes to pre-development levels (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, pp.65, 69). The CDP says the Riddells Creek recycled water plant currently produces Class C recycled water and is planned to be upgraded to Class B, which makes that upgrade a material dependency for the claimed reuse model (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, pp.65, 69).

Transport staging is tied to Melbourne-Lancefield Road access and internal connector delivery (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, pp.73-74). Phase 1 requires two public access intersections, retention of Station Street/Melbourne-Lancefield Road, an unsignalised northern east-west connector intersection, an emergency-only southern access, internal connector roads, a Station Street upgrade within a constrained 20 metre reserve west of Green Street, and a north-south pedestrian and cycling connection through a constructed waterway in the town centre (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.74). The Station Street/Melbourne-Lancefield Road signalised T-intersection is not required by the traffic analysis for Phase 1 but is recommended before the last stage of Phase 1, which means it is a governance trigger rather than a modelled necessity at commencement (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.74). Phase 2 then requires a new northern signalised connector intersection on Melbourne-Lancefield Road, initially as an unsignalised full-direction T-intersection and ultimately as a signalised T-intersection (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.77).

Drainage is structured around three developed catchments and three retarding basin treatments: southern, northern and north-western (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.77). Each retarding basin is to include WSUD treatment, with the northern retarding basin connected to the existing central railway culvert and upgrades required to existing culverts near the north-western and southern retarding basins (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.77). The CDP says stormwater volumes leaving the site will not exceed pre-development levels and that flow rates will be retarded to existing rural conditions, but the extracted package does not provide basin areas, hydraulic modelling outputs or downstream asset capacity tables (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, pp.65, 77).

Community infrastructure is staged by occupied dwelling thresholds rather than dates alone (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.78). The staging table identifies a providore and sales centre with meeting spaces at commencement in 2027, Clarkefield Recreation Reserve upgrades and a private childcare centre at 600 dwellings in 2031, a Level 1 multipurpose community centre and first active open-space oval at 1,200 dwellings in 2036, a second oval at 2,000 dwellings in 2043, and a government primary school site at 1,500 to 2,000 dwellings subject to Department of Education confirmation in 2043 (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.78). The full package also identifies a 0.8 hectare multipurpose community centre, 3.5 hectare government primary school allocation, and 8 hectare active open-space reserve with sports pavilion (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.77; Source: Clarkefield-Development-Summary-final-May-2026-copy.pdf, p.3).

Environmental, Heritage and Risk Controls

The biodiversity evidence in the summary says multiple ecological assessments found the development area has limited ecological value with sensitive areas excluded, but the underlying ecological reports are not in the manifest (Source: Clarkefield-Development-Summary-final-May-2026-copy.pdf, p.6). The CDP controls require retained native vegetation from the NVPP to be protected in conservation spaces or widened road reserves, Melbourne-Lancefield Road native vegetation to be retained, 70 per cent indigenous species in nature-strip landscaping near shared paths and street verges, pest plant and animal management before development, and tree retention zones under AS 4970-2009 (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.51).

Aboriginal cultural heritage is addressed through three CHMPs: township development CHMP 16263 dated 25 March 2021, Phase 2 CHMP 17306 dated 18 March 2025, and subdivision and service extension CHMP 17503 dated 20 September 2022 (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.56). The summary says the three CHMPs cover the entire development area and have been approved by the Wurundjeri Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council, but the CHMPs themselves are not included in the manifest (Source: Clarkefield-Development-Summary-final-May-2026-copy.pdf, p.6).

Post-contact heritage is centred on the Clarkefield Hotel and Stables, erected in 1856-57 and covered by Heritage Overlay HO225, with the CDP also identifying a possible Mile 32 rail marker requiring further archaeological investigation and consultation with Heritage Victoria before works proceed in that area (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, pp.56-57). The mechanism is integration rather than avoidance alone: development is required to respond to the Clarkefield Hotel, maintain views from key locations, implement CHMP recommendations, and obtain Heritage Act 2017 consent where Victorian Heritage Inventory sites may be affected (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.57).

Bushfire risk is presented as manageable because the EHP report found the growth area is in a low-risk bushfire prone area dominated by flat grassland, with new housing expected to achieve BAL-12.5 or BAL-LOW after development (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.58). The CDP still requires setbacks to hazardous vegetation, safe access and egress, one-sided roads at bushfire interfaces except where another suitable response is demonstrated, a bushfire management plan before subdivision certification, hydrants within CFA distance standards, and road geometry suitable for firefighting vehicles (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, pp.58-59).

Contamination is a residual gate because the PSI found the area suitable for urban development but also led to Environmental Audit Overlay controls on relevant land and PRSA requirements for non-proponent-controlled land at 35, 38 and 50 Station Street (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.71). Sensitive uses such as residential, childcare, kindergarten, primary school and playgrounds must be supported by a PRSA statement, environmental audit statement, certificate of environmental audit or equivalent audit documentation before subdivision, use, buildings or works proceed (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.71).

Contested Issues and Governance Risk

Council’s concern is not limited to site design: its February 2026 resolution asked the Minister to ensure the public could understand and comment on the scale and detail of a new township and how it may affect township amenity, rural character and the shire-wide approach to managing growth under the Statement of Planning Policy (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.15-16). The local media report framed the issue as council being removed from decision-making through the Development Facilitation Program and linked councillor concern to the earlier Amess Road / Riddells Creek state-intervention experience, but that report is supporting evidence rather than a statutory source (Source: web-research-L0-clarkefield-2000-lot-development-facilitation-program-report-4836e11590.txt).

The key governance risk is accountability for infrastructure timing when the determining authority is the Minister, the local infrastructure will ultimately interface with council assets, and several delivery items depend on state agencies or authorities such as Greater Western Water, Department of Transport and Planning, Department of Education, CFA, VicTrack and Jemena (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, pp.59, 69, 74, 78). The CDP assigns delivery responsibility to APD for infrastructure items, but school delivery remains subject to Department of Education confirmation and the recycled-water model depends on a planned Riddells Creek RWP upgrade to Class B (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, pp.65, 69, 78).

Current Status

As at 31 May 2026, the proposal is in public exhibition for draft Amendment C164macr and a combined planning permit process under the Development Facilitation Program, with submissions reported as open until 1 June 2026 (Source: web-research-L0-clarkefield-growth-area-development-facilitation-program-proposal-source-evidence-60547dc4c2.txt; Source: Clarkefield-Development-Summary-final-May-2026-copy.pdf, p.2). After exhibition, submissions are to be assessed before a recommendation on next steps is made to the Minister for Planning (Source: Clarkefield-Development-Summary-final-May-2026-copy.pdf, p.2).

Dependencies

  • Blocks: Urban subdivision and dwelling delivery at the proposed 2,500-dwelling scale cannot proceed as planned without approval of the CDZ/CDP/IDP framework, later permits generally in accordance with the CDP, infrastructure-triggered staging plans and Section 173 agreements (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, pp.5-6, 73-74).
  • Blocked by: The proposal depends on Ministerial decision-making after exhibition, water and sewer extensions through Greater Western Water, wastewater treatment at Riddells Creek WWTP, Class B recycled-water upgrade planning, Melbourne-Lancefield Road access works, drainage reserve delivery, contamination clearances and agency referrals including CFA and VicTrack (Source: Clarkefield-Development-Summary-final-May-2026-copy.pdf, p.2; Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, pp.58-59, 69, 71, 74, 77).
  • Informed by: The manifest includes the CDP, public development summary, town centre urban design report, council minutes, council/news reporting and a proponent web page; the summary states 45 reports and investigations were completed over five years across more than 20 consultant teams (Source: Clarkefield-Development-Summary-final-May-2026-copy.pdf, pp.5-10; Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.2).
  • Implements: The package implements local settlement policy for Clarkefield through Clause 11.01-1L, which encourages at least 2,500 dwellings inside the Clarkefield township boundary, transit-oriented settlement, affordable housing near the station and local town centre, and new retail, employment, recreation and community services (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.10).
  • Conflicts with: Council has identified potential tension with rural character, township amenity and the Macedon Ranges Statement of Planning Policy’s shire-wide growth-management approach, and those issues are central to the public-interest assessment rather than resolved by the proponent package alone (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.15-16).

The proposal is structurally linked to Greater Western Water because water supply is to connect to the Gisborne-Macedon-Riddells Creek-Woodend network via 6.3 kilometres of 300 millimetre pipe and wastewater is to be treated at the Riddells Creek WWTP (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.69). It is also linked to Melbourne Water catchment outcomes because the site is within the Jacksons Creek Priority Waterway Area and the stormwater strategy is designed to hold runoff volumes to pre-development levels (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, pp.65, 69).

Transport links extend beyond council jurisdiction because the settlement is structured around Clarkefield Station on the Melbourne-Bendigo rail line, interfaces with VicTrack land, and requires Melbourne-Lancefield Road intersection works and DTP-agreed bus-stop infrastructure (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, pp.60, 74, 81). Higher-order social infrastructure links extend to Sunbury, Gisborne, Craigieburn and Epping because the CDP states Clarkefield residents would use those places for hospitals, secondary schools and other higher-order services (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, p.77).

Gaps in This Analysis

This page is limited by the source package because most of the underlying technical reports listed in the development summary are not included as source documents, including the land supply assessment, traffic assessments, Integrated Water Management Strategy, Infrastructure Delivery Plan, Social Infrastructure Assessment, retail assessments, biodiversity reports, CHMPs, contamination reports, land valuations and the Native Vegetation Precinct Plan (Source: Clarkefield-Development-Summary-final-May-2026-copy.pdf, pp.9-10). The extracted CDP also does not expose the full numerical land-use budget tables on pages 17, 79 and 80, so this analysis cannot independently calculate net developable area, open-space land take by category, basin hectares, lot-yield loss by parcel or infrastructure cost per dwelling (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, pp.17, 79-80).

The amendment documents themselves are also missing from the manifest, including the exhibited C164macr ordinance, CDZ Schedule 1, incorporated IDP, NVPP, combined permit conditions, explanatory report and agency referral responses (Source: web-research-L0-clarkefield-growth-area-development-facilitation-program-proposal-source-evidence-60547dc4c2.txt; Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, pp.5-6). Those documents are necessary to test whether the performance measures described in the CDP become enforceable approval requirements or remain partly discretionary at permit stage (Source: Clarkefield-Ordinance-Comprehensive-Development-Plan-compressed.pdf, pp.5-6, 81).

Source-limit caveat: Clarkefield remains a live top-tier growth-area proposal with incomplete primary technical material. Missing items include land supply, traffic, IWM, Infrastructure Delivery Plan, Social Infrastructure Assessment, biodiversity, CHMP, contamination, valuation, NVPP and permit-condition material.

Production Caveat

This page identifies a major planning signal, but the current evidence base is not yet a complete technical package. Do not use it as final parcel-level or yield-level advice until the missing primary reports named in the gaps section are present. The defensible use today is to identify the mechanism, dependencies, current known status and exact evidence still needed for a complete statutory planning view.

Graph View