Grange Planning Brain

title: Amendment C148 - Rural Land Use Strategy Implementation council: ballarat state: vic category: amendment classification: MAJOR status: approved last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:

  • Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf
  • Ballarat C148 Instruction Sheet Exhibition Gazetted.pdf
  • Ballarat C148 22_lpp13_ball Exhibition Gazetted.pdf
  • 35_03s_ball.pdf
  • 35_07s_ball.pdf
  • Victoria Government Gazette G30 28 July 2011.pdf
  • Victoria Government Gazette G10 7 March 2013.pdf
  • web-research-L1-rlus-c148-amendment-api-dtp.txt

Amendment C148 - Rural Land Use Strategy Implementation

Amendment C148 converted the Ballarat Rural Land Use Strategy, November 2010 into statutory controls for rural land across the municipality, with its strongest effect being the tightening of dwelling discretion in the Farming Zone and the insertion of a new local policy for rural dwellings and subdivision (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.1; Source: Victoria Government Gazette G10 7 March 2013.pdf, p.481). In simple terms, the amendment changed the planning scheme so rural land was treated less like spare housing land and more like working agricultural land, with rural living demand directed to land already zoned Rural Living Zone (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.4, 6).

Background

The amendment was prepared by the City of Ballarat as planning authority and applied to all land zoned Farming Zone, Rural Living Zone and Rural Conservation Zone in the City of Ballarat (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.1). The notice of preparation was published on 28 July 2011, identifying all Farming Zone, Rural Living Zone and Rural Conservation Zone land as affected land and setting 9 September 2011 as the submission closing date (Source: Victoria Government Gazette G30 28 July 2011.pdf, p.1708).

The strategic trigger was the Ballarat Rural Land Use Strategy, Final, November 2010, which reviewed rural planning policy, identified rural issues, involved stakeholder consultation, developed a strategic vision and refined rural-area objectives (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.1). The amendment record shows exhibition from 28 July 2011 to 9 September 2011, a panel requested on 1 March 2012, a panel appointed on 5 March 2012, a panel report received on 27 June 2012, council adoption on 25 July 2012, submission to the Minister on 27 July 2012 and gazettal on 7 March 2013 (Source: web-research-L1-rlus-c148-amendment-api-dtp.txt).

Analysis

Statutory Mechanism: Turning Rural Strategy into Permit Tests

The amendment changed the Ballarat Planning Scheme through three linked mechanisms: it updated the Municipal Strategic Statement, inserted a new Clause 22.13 Rural Dwellings and Subdivision policy, and replaced the schedules to the Rural Living Zone and Farming Zone (Source: Ballarat C148 Instruction Sheet Exhibition Gazetted.pdf). The approval notice confirms the same broad package and adds that the amendment also corrected Heritage Overlay and Clause 61.03 anomalies created by Amendments C146 and C135 (Source: Victoria Government Gazette G10 7 March 2013.pdf, p.481).

The mechanism is important because the Rural Land Use Strategy itself was strategic guidance, while the amendment made that guidance relevant to everyday permit decisions for subdivision, dwellings, house lot excisions, boundary realignments and rural earthworks (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.1-2; Source: Ballarat C148 22_lpp13_ball Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.1-3). Like putting a rulebook beside a referee, Clause 22.13 gives council a written basis for asking whether a new dwelling is needed for farming rather than simply desired as a rural-residential house (Source: Ballarat C148 22_lpp13_ball Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.3).

Agricultural Land Protection and Dwelling Control

The core policy shift was the increase in the Farming Zone dwelling threshold for “all other land” from 40 hectares to 70 hectares, while the minimum subdivision area for “all other land” remained 40 hectares (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.4; Source: 35_07s_ball.pdf, p.1). This separates the ability to hold or reconfigure a farming parcel from the ability to establish a dwelling without a permit, so the planning scheme can allow farming-related land trading while placing tighter scrutiny on new housing in farming areas (Source: Ballarat C148 22_lpp13_ball Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.1-2; Source: 35_07s_ball.pdf, p.1).

The practical effect is that a 40 hectare Farming Zone lot could satisfy the minimum subdivision size but still fall 30 hectares short of the 70 hectare no-permit dwelling threshold for all other Farming Zone land (Source: 35_07s_ball.pdf, p.1). That 30 hectare gap is the amendment’s main control lever: it does not prohibit dwellings below 70 hectares, but it makes them discretionary and requires an agricultural justification (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.4; Source: Ballarat C148 22_lpp13_ball Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.3).

Clause 22.13 makes the reason explicit: dwellings and subdivision in farming areas can restrict farming activity on the subject land and can also affect neighbouring farms through amenity conflicts, pesticide complaints, late-night harvesting conflicts, domestic dogs attacking livestock and pest spread from residential properties (Source: Ballarat C148 22_lpp13_ball Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.1). This is a land-use compatibility control, not only a lot-size control, because the policy is aimed at preventing rural-residential expectations from undermining ordinary farming operations (Source: Ballarat C148 22_lpp13_ball Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.1).

House Lot Excisions, Boundary Realignments and Section 173 Agreements

The amendment does not treat all subdivision as harmful; Clause 22.13 acknowledges that subdivision can support farm consolidation, asset transfer between farm enterprises and long-term farm planning (Source: Ballarat C148 22_lpp13_ball Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.1). The policy therefore supports subdivision where it improves a productive farming outcome, but requires subdivision not to increase the potential for future dwellings and supports Section 173 agreements to prohibit further dwellings on lots below the zone schedule minimum (Source: Ballarat C148 22_lpp13_ball Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.2).

For house lot excisions, the policy requires the excision to facilitate farm consolidation, the balance lot to continue farming unhindered, the dwelling to be unnecessary for the farm, and the excised dwelling lot and immediate surrounds to be a maximum of 1 hectare (Source: Ballarat C148 22_lpp13_ball Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.2). This makes the excision pathway narrow: the planning benefit must be farm consolidation, not the creation of another rural-residential entitlement (Source: Ballarat C148 22_lpp13_ball Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.2).

The Section 173 mechanism is a key downstream safeguard because it turns a permit outcome into a title-affecting legal constraint that can bind later owners (Source: Ballarat C148 22_lpp13_ball Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.2-3). In practice, the amendment allows council to approve a farming-supportive rearrangement while using agreements to prevent the rearranged land from becoming a stepping stone to additional dwellings or further fragmentation (Source: Ballarat C148 22_lpp13_ball Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.2-3).

Rural Living Supply and Direction of Housing Demand

The amendment’s housing logic rests on the finding that Ballarat had more than 20 years supply of Rural Living Zone land at the time of the Rural Land Use Strategy (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.4, 6). That finding matters because it provides the policy basis for directing rural-residential demand to the Rural Living Zone rather than allowing ad hoc rural-residential development in the Farming Zone (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.4).

The Rural Living Zone schedule retained 4 hectare minimum subdivision and no-permit dwelling areas for most Rural Living Zone land, with 2 hectare settings for land shown on Map 1 and Map 2 to the schedule (Source: 35_03s_ball.pdf, p.1). This means the amendment did not create additional Rural Living Zone supply; instead, it relied on the existing zoned supply and used the Farming Zone controls to hold the line between rural living areas and productive farming land (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.6; Source: 35_03s_ball.pdf, p.1).

Earthworks and Water Movement Controls

The amendment inserted a permit trigger in the Rural Living Zone for earthworks on all land where the works change the rate of flow or discharge point of water across a property boundary (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.2; Source: 35_03s_ball.pdf, p.1). This is a smaller but important environmental control because rural living lots can alter drainage patterns through driveways, pads, dams, cut-and-fill and local reshaping even where the main land-use issue is residential rather than agricultural (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.2; Source: 35_03s_ball.pdf, p.1).

The Farming Zone schedule did not specify a permit requirement for earthworks changing cross-boundary flow or increasing saline groundwater discharge (Source: 35_07s_ball.pdf, p.2). The asymmetry indicates that Amendment C148 placed the specific new earthworks control on rural living land, while the Farming Zone package focused more heavily on dwelling thresholds, subdivision logic, farm consolidation and land-use compatibility (Source: 35_03s_ball.pdf, p.1; Source: 35_07s_ball.pdf, pp.1-2; Source: Ballarat C148 22_lpp13_ball Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.1-3).

Economic and Strategic Justification

The explanatory report states that the value of commodities from Ballarat’s rural areas in 2006 was 37,275,466, equal to 980.33 per hectare, and that this per-hectare value was higher than surrounding municipalities except Hepburn Shire and higher than the Victorian average (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.2). This quantified evidence is the economic spine of the amendment: the planning scheme changes are justified because rural land was not treated as residual land around the urban area, but as productive land with regional economic function (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.2-3).

The rural economy described in the amendment includes broad-acre sheep and beef grazing, wool, meat and dairy support, poultry, piggeries, vegetable and potato cropping, boutique crops such as Chinese vegetables, grapes, organic wheat and berries, major food processors including Mars and McCains, and rural activities such as thoroughbred and harness racing (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.2-3). The breadth of those activities explains why the amendment uses general rural policy tools rather than a single-industry control: the risk being managed is cumulative fragmentation and land-use conflict across a mixed rural economy (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.2-4).

Spatial Framework and Precinct Logic

The Rural Land Use Strategy divided rural Ballarat into four geographic precincts: North West, North, South West and South (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.3). The explanatory report states that these precincts do not form zone-control boundaries, but help council recognise that rural areas function differently and may need different management approaches (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.3).

This distinction is important: Amendment C148 did not create a parcel-by-parcel precinct control in the extracted schedules, but it inserted a policy framework that can guide discretion with awareness of different rural functions (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.3; Source: Ballarat C148 22_lpp13_ball Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.1-3). The result is a broad statutory framework rather than a fine-grained rural precinct code (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.3).

What Could Break or Be Contested

The explanatory report anticipated local contention because the amendment affected a large part of the municipality and balanced competing interests in rural land (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.4). The most likely friction point was owners seeking rural-residential dwellings on Farming Zone land, because the amendment deliberately redirected that demand toward Rural Living Zone land and required farming-related need for dwellings below the Farming Zone threshold (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.4; Source: Ballarat C148 22_lpp13_ball Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.3).

The amendment also expressly avoided giving planning merit or status to individual urban development proposals in rural zones, even though such proposals existed at various concept stages (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.4). That is a significant boundary: C148 was not a growth-area approval mechanism, and using it as one would misread the amendment’s purpose (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.4).

Current Status

Amendment C148 was approved by the Minister for Planning and came into operation when the approval notice was published in the Victoria Government Gazette on 7 March 2013 (Source: Victoria Government Gazette G10 7 March 2013.pdf, p.481). The amendment record identifies the status as finished and the outcome as approved with changes (Source: web-research-L1-rlus-c148-amendment-api-dtp.txt).

Dependencies

  • Blocks: The amendment blocks, or at least makes harder, rural-residential dwellings in the Farming Zone where there is no demonstrated agricultural need, especially on lots below the 70 hectare no-permit dwelling threshold for all other Farming Zone land (Source: 35_07s_ball.pdf, p.1; Source: Ballarat C148 22_lpp13_ball Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.3).
  • Blocked by: The amendment is no longer blocked because it was approved and operative from 7 March 2013 (Source: Victoria Government Gazette G10 7 March 2013.pdf, p.481).
  • Informed by: The amendment was informed by the Ballarat Rural Land Use Strategy, November 2010, prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, and by supply-demand work finding more than 20 years supply of Rural Living Zone land (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.2, 4, 6).
  • Implements: The amendment implements the Ballarat Rural Land Use Strategy, November 2010 through MSS updates, Clause 22.13, and revised Rural Living Zone and Farming Zone schedules (Source: Victoria Government Gazette G10 7 March 2013.pdf, p.481).
  • Conflicts with: The amendment creates policy tension with ad hoc rural-residential expectations in the Farming Zone and with urban development concepts seeking status through rural strategic work, because the explanatory report states that such proposals were acknowledged but not assessed or endorsed by the Strategy (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.4).

The explanatory report compares Ballarat’s 2006 rural commodity value per hectare with surrounding municipalities and the Victorian average, stating that Ballarat exceeded all surrounding municipalities except Hepburn Shire and exceeded the state average (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.2). That comparison frames Ballarat’s rural land as part of a regional agricultural system rather than only a local land-supply reserve (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.2).

The amendment also aligns with state rural policy settings by referencing the State Government’s Future Farming Strategy and its $205 million allocation across seven action areas to improve farm productivity, competitiveness and sustainability (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.3). The cross-jurisdictional implication is that local Farming Zone decisions in Ballarat sit within a wider state policy objective of protecting productive agricultural land and supporting sustainable agricultural production (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.3, 5).

Gaps in This Analysis

The extracted corpus does not include the full Ballarat Rural Land Use Strategy, November 2010, even though that document is the strategic basis for the amendment and is repeatedly referenced in the explanatory report (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.1-6). This limits analysis of the four rural precincts, the supply-demand modelling behind the “over 20 years supply” finding, the land capability evidence behind the 70 hectare dwelling threshold, and any maps or recommendations not reproduced in the amendment documents (Source: Ballarat C148 Explanatory Report Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.3-4, 6).

The extracted corpus does not include the text of the Ballarat C148 and C149 Panel Report, although the amendment record lists a panel report received on 27 June 2012 (Source: web-research-L1-rlus-c148-amendment-api-dtp.txt). This prevents a proper assessment of submissions, panel reasoning, recommended changes, and why the final outcome is recorded as approved with changes (Source: web-research-L1-rlus-c148-amendment-api-dtp.txt).

The corpus also lacks the full final approval versions of all MSS clauses and the Heritage Overlay and Clause 61.03 schedules affected by the approval notice, so this page can identify those corrections but cannot analyse the specific heritage or administrative anomalies corrected by Amendments C146 and C135 (Source: Victoria Government Gazette G10 7 March 2013.pdf, p.481). These gaps should be treated as important corpus gaps for _gaps.md because they constrain analysis of the amendment’s contested issues and final changed form (Source: web-research-L1-rlus-c148-amendment-api-dtp.txt).

Graph View