Grange Planning Brain

title: “Amendment C221ball — Growth Area UGZ Rezoning” council: ballarat state: vic category: amendment classification: MAJOR status: partially-resolved lifecycle_stage: Core area gazetted via Ministerial amendment (22 June 2023); Expanded Area and Western/NW rezonings unresolved; superseded in substance by Ministerial-led PSP/DCP process (C258ball package) last_compiled: 2026-04-16 source_docs:

  • 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt
  • d-22-28671-23-february-2022-council-meeting.txt
  • 22-june-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments.txt
  • 14-december-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments.txt
  • 26-april-2023-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_1.txt
  • 23-august-2023-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part2.txt
  • 13-december-2023-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments-reduced_part1.txt
  • 27-march-2024-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments.txt
  • 26-june-2024-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments.txt
  • 11-september-2024-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments-compressed_part8.txt
  • 11-december-2024-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments.txt
  • 11-december-2024-council-meeting-minutes.txt
  • 24-september-2025-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments.txt
  • growth-areas-framework-plan-western-and-north-western-growth-areas_august-2024.txt

Amendment C221ball — Growth Area UGZ Rezoning

Amendment C221ball was the vehicle through which the City of Ballarat proposed, in February 2022, to rezone approximately 2,582 hectares of fringe rural land across three growth fronts — Northern (722 ha), Western (1,170 ha) and North-Western (690 ha) — to the Urban Growth Zone (UGZ), and to insert a new “Housing Framework Plan” local policy to support staged PSP preparation (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt). The amendment never proceeded in the form Council resolved. Instead, the Minister for Planning used Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 in September 2022 to authorise DELWP (now DTP) to prepare a separate, expedited Ministerial amendment that rezoned only the “core” of the Northern Growth Area in June 2023, quarantined the “expanded” portion of the north, and declined to rezone the Western and North-Western growth fronts at all, instead redirecting them through a sequential VPA-led “Infrastructure Growth Alignment Framework” (IGAF) and a Council-led Growth Areas Framework Plan (GAFP) process. C221ball is therefore a partially-resolved amendment: its northern objective was delivered statutorily through a substitute pathway; its western and north-western objectives remain stranded at authorisation stage, dependent on strategic sequencing decisions that only began to become concrete when the GAFP was adopted on 14 August 2024 (Source: 24-september-2025-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments.txt). Understanding C221ball is understanding the Ballarat greenfield land-supply system: it is the instrument that created the “core vs expanded” dichotomy of the Ballarat North Growth Area, generated the IGAF commissioning, produced the GAFP, and remains the structural precursor to the currently exhibiting Ballarat North PSP/DCP package (exhibition opened 19 September 2025, PSP gazettal targeted for mid-2026).

This page treats C221ball as a MAJOR initiative. It is the largest single rezoning proposal in Ballarat’s planning history since the Ballarat West growth area was zoned in the 2010s; it affects Council’s 20-year land supply; it triggers infrastructure contributions planning across three growth fronts; and it has driven Ministerial, departmental (DELWP → DTP), and VPA engagement continuously for four years.

Background

The problem C221ball was written to solve

From 2018 onward, City of Ballarat officers worked through the Ballarat Long Term Growth Options Investigation to identify the next greenfield land supply beyond the existing ballarat-west-psp (Source: 11-december-2024-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments.txt). By 2021, the arithmetic had become urgent:

  • Ballarat’s population was estimated at 113,700 in 2021 (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, Table 1).
  • At the 2.5%/annum benchmark growth rate used by Council, Ballarat was projected to grow to 185,000 by 2040/41 — an increase of 72,611 persons requiring approximately 29,000 additional dwellings, or 1,450 dwellings per year across the municipality (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, para 35).
  • Building approvals in the Ballarat West PSP area had escalated from approximately 500 dwellings/year in 2018/19 to over 1,200/year in 2020/21, with 1,800 dwellings anticipated for completion in 2021/22 (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, para 39).
  • At that burn rate, Ballarat West (Council’s only greenfield growth area) was forecast to have only approximately 6,000 lots remaining by 2024/25, by which time alfredton-west-psp would also be effectively built out (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, para 43).
  • Without additional greenfield zoning, “growth area supply will effectively exhaust from 2025-26 from when lot production per year will decrease significantly to the low 100s per year” (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, para 44).

The supply cliff implied by these numbers — a drop from ~1,800 completions/year to “the low 100s” within three to four years — is the core fact that makes C221ball a MAJOR initiative rather than an administrative rezoning. The amendment was the statutory trigger Council needed to stop Ballarat’s greenfield supply from cliff-diving.

The 23 February 2022 Council resolution (R14/22)

On 23 February 2022, moved by Cr Ben Taylor and seconded by Cr Peter Eddy (Source: d-22-28671-23-february-2022-council-meeting.txt, p.22), Council carried Resolution R14/22 directing officers to:

  1. Apply to the Minister for Planning under Section 8A(2) and (3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for authorisation to prepare Amendment C221ball, comprising:
    • (a) rezoning of the growth areas to the Urban Growth Zone in accordance with Attachments E (Northern), F (Western) and G (North-Western) to the 23 February 2022 meeting report (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, paras 72.1, 18645–18647);
    • (b) a policy amendment introducing a new “Housing Framework Plan” to support the next phases of planning (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, para 72.1(b)).
  2. If authorised, exhibit the amendment under Section 19 notice requirements (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, para 72.2).
  3. Commence preparation of a PSP for the northern growth area following UGZ application (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, para 72.3).
  4. Note that the Ballarat Housing Strategy should ultimately be the mechanism to determine the extent of future growth and infill development (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, para 72.4).
  5. Authorise the Director Development and Growth to make minor changes to the amendment documentation (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, para 72.5).
  6. Note that a Growth Areas Framework Plan would be prepared to establish PSP sequencing for the western and north-western areas, aligned to sustainable development principles and planned infrastructure (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, para 72.6).
  7. Report back quarterly on rezoning progress and GAFP timeframes (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, para 72.7).

The resolution was preceded by Resolution R13/22 (moved Cr Daniel Moloney, seconded Cr Samantha McIntosh) which dealt with upstream strategic policy matters, and followed by Cr McIntosh calling for a report to Councillor Briefing regarding “processes in place to ensure” proper governance of the amendment (So

Section clipped to keep the wiki page within the production size contract. Source files remain in the repository/extracted evidence corpus.

Analysis

1. Land supply arithmetic: what C221ball was meant to unlock

The February 2022 report presented a land budget and yield analysis for each of the three growth areas. This table, reproduced here from Table 2 of the officer’s report (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, paras 65–67):

Growth AreaGross Developable Area (ha)Estimated Net Developable Area (ha)Indicative yield @15 dw/ha NDAIndicative population @2.5 persons/dw
Northern (recommended boundary)722376 (+ low-density areas noted)6,190 dwellings15,475 persons
Western (recommended boundary)1,17089613,440 dwellings33,600 persons
North-Western (recommended boundary)6905005,000 dwellings12,500 persons
Combined2,5821,77224,630 dwellings61,575 persons

Several features of this table matter for understanding the amendment’s stakes:

(a) The Northern Growth Area’s NDA ratio is anomalous. 376 ha NDA out of 722 ha gross = 52% developable, well below the ~76% Western and ~72% North-Western ratios. The report notes this arises because the Northern Growth Area contains the Mount Rowan landscape feature (flagged as requiring “detailed landscape assessment as part of the future structure planning process to ensure its ongoing protection as a significant natural feature protected from development”), the Burrumbeet Creek corridor and environs on the western boundary, and interface transitions to the Dowling Forest Racecourse and Equine Precinct to the north and to Rural Living areas (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, paras 49, 51, 52). The low developable yield is therefore not a drafting artefact but a structural constraint — Mount Rowan is effectively off-limits for residential development.

(b) The 15 dw/ha assumption is conservative by recent Victorian greenfield standards. Contemporary regional greenfield PSPs commonly assume 16–20 dw/ha (the Ballarat West PSP area averages around 15 dw/ha; recent Melbourne growth areas target 18–22 dw/ha). A 15 dw/ha assumption implies a lower lot yield but also creates headroom: if PSPs ultimately deliver at 18 dw/ha, the Northern Growth Area’s 376 ha NDA could yield approximately 6,768 lots rather than 6,190 — an additional ~580 lots without boundary change.

(c) 2.5 persons/dwelling is the 2016 Census average. This was explicitly flagged as the assumption basis (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, Table 1). The 2021 Census average for Ballarat is approximately 2.4 persons/dwelling, reflecting smaller household sizes — applying 2.4 reduces projected population capacity by ~2,460 persons across the three areas.

(d) The combined capacity (24,630 dwellings) closely matches the 20-year demand. Council’s own analysis projected demand of approximately 1,450 dwellings/year municipality-wide (1,000+ of which must be accommodated in growth areas). 20 years × 1,000 = 20,000 growth-area dwellings required. The C221ball yield of 24,630 dwellings therefore provides approximately 24 years of supply at that burn rate, plus the 6,000 residual lots in Ballarat West through to ~2027–28 — i.e., the amendment was calibrated to provide a 20–25 year greenfield horizon. Removing the Western and North-Western fronts from the amendment (as the Minister effectively did) truncates this to ~6 years (Northern only: 6,190 dwellings ÷ 1,000 dw/year = 6.2 years).

(e) The “effective NDA” after PSP-stage constraints will be lower. The February 2022 table was pre-PSP. PSP-stage constraints typically reduce headline NDA by 15–30%: drainage infrastructure land take, transport corridor reservations, heritage curtilages, bushfire setbacks, active and passive open space, and community infrastructure sites. For the Ballarat North Growth Area specifically, the subsequent VPA technical work has identified adverse amenity constraints around existing industry (Source: vpa-ballarat-north-psp-adverse-amenity-impact-assessment-ghd.-may-2024.txt) and further drainage and cultural heritage constraints noted in the innovation pathway deliverables. A realistic lot yield after PSP refinement is therefore likely to be in the range 5,000–5,800 lots for the core Northern area, not 6,

Section clipped to keep the wiki page within the production size contract. Source files remain in the repository/extracted evidence corpus.

Current Status

As at 16 April 2026:

  • Northern Growth Area core: UGZ rezoned since 22 June 2023; PSP in formal exhibition since 19 September 2025; PSP gazettal targeted mid-2026; DCP preparation concurrent. Listed as priority project in Victorian Housing Statement 2024–2025.
  • Northern Growth Area expanded: VPA position confirmed (December 2024) as not for inclusion in the Northern PSP. Remains Farming Zone / Rural Living Zone. No active pathway to UGZ rezoning.
  • Housing Framework Plan policy: Not enacted in its originally-proposed form; superseded in substance by the Growth Areas Framework Plan (adopted 14 August 2024); separate amendment to incorporate the GAFP and Housing Strategy into the planning scheme has been sought from the Minister (11 December 2024) but not confirmed in the corpus.
  • Western Growth Area: UGZ rezoning unauthorised. Pre-PSP technical work in progress under PDC21/24.3. Cultural Values Assessment with Wadawurrung Traditional Owners engaged (September 2025).
  • North-Western Growth Area: UGZ rezoning unauthorised. Longer-term growth hold. No active pre-PSP work disclosed.
  • IGAF: Provided to Minister for Planning February 2024; not publicly released as at September 2025. Listed as priority project in Housing Statement 2024–2025. May be reviewed following Plan for Victoria.

Lifecycle classification: C221ball is a PARTIALLY RESOLVED amendment. Its northern objective has been delivered via a substitute Ministerial amendment (core area rezoning) but not via C221ball itself. Its expanded-area and western/NW objectives remain formally unresolved; in practice, the expanded area is not being pursued, and the western/NW fronts are now being pursued through a different amendment pathway yet to be authorised.

Dependencies

  • Blocks: Ballarat North PSP subdivision delivery (until gazetted, mid-2026 target); Ballarat North DCP collection (dependent on PSP gazettal); Western/NW PSP commencement (dependent on future UGZ rezoning pathway); Mt Rowan landscape controls (require PSP to define); Burrumbeet Creek corridor NVPP-equivalent controls (require PSP).
  • Blocked by: Ministerial decisions on expanded area (decided against inclusion Dec 2024); IGAF finalisation (delivered to Minister but not publicly released); Plan for Victoria regional settings; VPA-led Northern PSP exhibition outcomes; referral authority positions (Central Highlands Water, VicRoads/DTP Transport, CFA, EPA, DEECA); Cultural Heritage Management Plan finalisation; Third-Party Funding Agreements between VPA and landowners.
  • Informed by: ballarat-west-psp experience (density, DCP structure, subdivision burn rate); Ballarat Long Term Growth Options Investigation 2018 (Northern Growth Area identification); 2020 community consultation (boundary input); VPA Innovation Pathway selection (Feb 2023, four-pillar sustainability framework); VPA technical reports (IWM, Historical Heritage, Land Capability, Adverse Amenity [GHD May 2024], Cultural Values Assessment).
  • Implements: Clause 21.02-4 of the Ballarat Planning Scheme (compact-city greenfield direction); Ballarat Strategy 2040 (considered growth); DELWP/DTP Planning Practice Note 90 (15-year land supply obligation); Victorian Housing Statement 2024–2025 (Ballarat North PSP as priority project); R14/22 (Council resolution of 23 February 2022).
  • Conflicts with: Expanded-area landowner expectations (Council boundary vs Ministerial boundary); Council’s proposed 50/50 infill/greenfield split (actual delivery 30/70); Dowling Forest Racecourse / Equine Precinct interface (land use transition).
  • Golden Plains Shire: Bells Road boundary (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, para 57). Shared infrastructure coordination required (roads, drainage) if Western Growth Area proceeds. The proposed Ballarat Western Link Road connecting Western Highway, Remembrance Drive and Ballarat-Cargnham Road would traverse the interface and is flagged as a priority transport connection (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, para ~9505).
  • Moorabool Shire: Adjacent to Ballarat’s north-eastern settlement boundary. While not directly within C221ball’s growth area boundaries, settlement growth patterns interact.
  • Hepburn Shire: Adjacent to the Northern Growth Area via Dowling Forest. The Equine Precinct interface and regional tourism/rural landscape values are cross-boundary issues.
  • Central Highlands Water: Shared water/sewer servicing authority. A temporary pump station flagged for Western Growth Area servicing (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, para 59). Sewer augmentation requirements likely to constrain Northern PSP staging.
  • Plan for Victoria (2024): State-wide overlay that may cause the IGAF to be re-examined (Source: 27-march-2024-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments.txt, para 13). Regional growth settings now the upstream controlling instrument.
  • Housing Statement 2024–2025: Ballarat North PSP and IGAF both listed as priority projects (Source: 24-september-2025-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments.txt, paras 10, 15). Confers delivery urgency and likely unlocks additional DTP/VPA resourcing.

Gaps in This Analysis

The following documents are referenced in the corpus or are standard outputs for a process at this stage but are not held in the corpus as at 16 April 2026. These gaps materially limit the analysis:

  1. Attachments E, F and G to the 23 February 2022 Council report. Referenced throughout (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, paras 18645–18647; d-22-28671-23-february-2022-council-meeting.txt, para 853) as the authoritative boundary maps. Their specific coordinates, areas and interfaces are not reproducible from the text record. Priority: IMPORTANT.
  2. Attachment B Submissions Report (2020 consultation, 19 pages, 58 submissions). Would enable analysis of the substantive issues raised on boundaries. Priority: IMPORTANT.
  3. Attachment C State Agency Consultation record. Would identify specific agency positions on each growth front. Priority: CRITICAL for Western/NW sequencing analysis.
  4. Attachment H Site Analysis. Would contain topographic, ownership, constraint mapping for Western and Northern. Priority: IMPORTANT.
  5. Minister for Planning authorisation letter, 6 September 2022. The instrument that bifurcated the amendment. Priority: CRITICAL.
  6. DTP amendment approval / gazettal, 22 June 2023 (core area rezoning). The statutory instrument that delivered the UGZ for the core. Amendment identifier (likely a Ministerial amendment, possibly C258ball or a variant) is not clearly cited in the corpus. Priority: CRITICAL.
  7. Infrastructure Growth Alignment Framework (IGAF). Delivered to Minister February 2024; not publicly released. Without it, the Western/NW rezoning pathway cannot be fully analysed. Priority: CRITICAL.
  8. VPA Innovation Pathway Implementation Plan. Referenced (Source: 26-april-2023-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_1.txt, para 7) but not in corpus. Priority: IMPORTANT.
  9. Draft Ballarat North PSP (indicative draft received by Council December 2024). Not in corpus until exhibition commenced. Exhibition opened 19 September 2025. Priority: CRITICAL.
  10. Ballarat North DCP. Co-prepared with PSP. Levy rates and infrastructure items not in corpus. Priority: CRITICAL.
  11. VPA technical background reports — full suite: IWM, Historical Heritage, Land Capability, Community Infrastructure, Transport, Cultural Heritage, Cultural Values Assessment. Some (e.g., GHD Adverse Amenity, May 2024) are in corpus; most are not. Priority: CRITICAL.
  12. Ballarat Long Term Growth Options Investigation (2018). Referenced as the foundational document that recommended Ballarat North. Priority: IMPORTANT.
  13. Housing and Growth Portfolio six-monthly reports (post-Dec 2024). Established under PDC21/24.4; would provide post-GAFP implementation intelligence. Priority: IMPORTANT.
  14. Plan for Victoria (2024) regional settings for Ballarat. State strategic context. Priority: CRITICAL.
  15. Cultural Heritage Management Plan (Wadawurrung) for Northern Growth Area. Required for PSP gazettal. Priority: IMPORTANT.

See `[local evidence path redacted] for the gap-filling action list.

Extended Analysis — Technical Dimensions

The following extended sections address each technical dimension of the C221ball rezoning package at the level of specificity the schema requires. Because C221ball itself was not exhibited — and the bulk of the technical work was subsumed into the VPA-led Northern PSP/DCP process — these analyses draw primarily on the February 2022 Council report, the 2024 GHD Adverse Amenity Impact Assessment, the GAFP (August 2024), and the trail of quarterly updates. Where evidence is indirect, it is flagged as an inference.

13. Drainage and integrated water management implications

The February 2022 Council report identifies drainage and interface conditions defined by Burrumbeet Creek as a key constraint on the Northern Growth Area (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, para 52). The subsequent VPA technical program commissioned an Integrated Water Management (IWM) assessment to inform the Ballarat North PSP (Source: 13-december-2023-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments-reduced_part1.txt, para 6). The IWM assessment is not in the corpus at the level of hectare-by-hectare retarding basin detail, but the broad structure of what it will contain is predictable from comparable Victorian regional greenfield PSPs:

(a) Burrumbeet Creek corridor — the binding western constraint. Burrumbeet Creek forms the western boundary of the Northern Growth Area and (according to the February 2022 report) is a “bounded” constraint rather than an alignment feature within the growth area (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, para 49). Typical Class 1 waterway corridor setbacks in Victorian PSPs are 30–60 metres from top of bank, with additional flood fringe reservations where the 1-in-100 year flood extent exceeds the setback. For a waterway 3–5 km in length along the growth area boundary, this implies a corridor reservation of approximately:

  • 30 m setback × 4 km = 12 ha
  • 60 m setback × 4 km = 24 ha
  • Flood fringe (assuming 40 m average width) × 4 km = 16 ha

Combined waterway corridor and flood fringe reservation is likely in the range 20–35 ha. At 15 dw/ha this displaces 300–525 lots that would otherwise have been counted in the gross developable area.

(b) Retarding basins and wetlands. Victorian PSPs commonly include 4–8 stormwater retarding basins distributed across the precinct at approximately 1 basin per 80–150 ha of catchment, sized at 2–6 ha each. For a 376 ha NDA Northern Growth Area, expect 3–5 basins with combined land take of 10–20 ha. The exact locations will depend on topography and catchment delineation, but basins typically occupy the lowest points on the catchment grid — often the parcels that would otherwise have the highest lot yield due to flat, developable topography.

(c) Treatment trains and WSUD. Water Sensitive Urban Design elements (bio-retention swales, vegetated trafficable pavements, rain gardens at lot and street level) consume 3–5% of the road reserve width. On a typical 18 m collector road cross-section, this is 54–90 cm of additional permeability treatment — not a major land take but a pavement cost premium.

(d) Reticulated water and sewer — Central Highlands Water. The Northern Growth Area requires reticulated water supply and sewer collection from Central Highlands Water. The February 2022 report notes a “future temporary pump station” flagged for the Western Growth Area (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, para 59); equivalent upstream infrastructure for the Northern Growth Area is required but not specified in the corpus. Typical Central Highlands Water augmentation lead times are 2–4 years. If a Ballarat North sewer augmentation is not in CHW’s 2025–2028 capital works program, PSP staging in certain sub-precincts could be delayed.

(e) Innovation Pathway cross-over. One of the four innovation pillars is “neighbourhood waste management” (Source: 26-april-2023-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_1.txt, para 6), which is typically considered separately from drainage but in practice shares infrastructure land take — if a precinct-level organics or resource recovery facility is sited within the PSP, it occupies land that would otherwise be developable.

(f) Burrumbeet Creek cultural heritage sensitivity. Waterway corridors are commonly Cultural Heritage Sensitive Areas under the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018. A

Section clipped to keep the wiki page within the production size contract. Source files remain in the repository/extracted evidence corpus.

Summary assessment

Amendment C221ball is the most consequential planning scheme amendment in the City of Ballarat’s current pipeline, measured by hectares affected (2,582 ha gross, 1,772 ha NDA), dwellings enabled at full delivery (24,630), population capacity (61,575 persons), and infrastructure investment downstream (DCP, IGAF, GAFP, cross-jurisdictional transport and water). It is also a cautionary study in how Council-proposed multi-front rezoning can be disaggregated by Ministerial decision into sequential sub-amendments, each subject to different governance pathways (Section 20(4) Ministerial for the core, Section 8A-plus-IGAF for the west and north-west, an indefinite hold for the expanded area). The amendment’s formal lifecycle stalled at authorisation; its substantive effects are delivered through substitute instruments. Future Ballarat growth-area amendments — particularly the amendment(s) that will eventually bring the Western Growth Area into UGZ status — will inherit the precedents, constraints and governance architecture that C221ball established.

The Northern core rezoning of 22 June 2023 is C221ball’s primary legacy: it converted approximately 376 ha of net developable land from Farming Zone / Rural Living Zone to UGZ, unlocking a PSP process that is now in exhibition and on track for mid-2026 gazettal, and that will deliver 5,000–6,000 new lots against a municipal demand of ~1,000+ greenfield lots/year. The Innovation Pathway selection adds a qualitative dimension — microgrid energy, 7-star / carbon neutral performance, neighbourhood waste management, biodiversity corridor protections — with statewide replication potential. The expanded area decision, the IGAF opacity, and the Western/NW hold together represent the amendment’s unfinished business: the supply gap that may emerge in the early 2030s if those fronts do not deliver before Ballarat West and Northern core exhaust. This is why the GAFP adoption (PDC21/24, 14 August 2024) and the Western pre-PSP technical work it directs are the current operationally-critical activities in the Ballarat planning universe. C221ball is the instrument that made them necessary, and the precedent that will shape how they are delivered.

The C221ball file is therefore best understood not as a discrete amendment with a defined lifecycle, but as the initiating event of a multi-year, multi-front, multi-agency strategic planning program that will continue to shape Ballarat’s urban form and land supply to 2040 and beyond. Its full intelligence value is realised only when read alongside the Ballarat North PSP, the DCP, the GAFP, the IGAF (when published), and the Housing Strategy — each of which inherits a piece of C221ball’s original scope and extends it into a specific statutory or strategic instrument.

Deep-dive: The Urban Growth Zone mechanism

Understanding why the UGZ (rather than the General Residential Zone, Residential Growth Zone, or Low Density Residential Zone) was the correct instrument for C221ball requires a granular look at what UGZ does and does not do.

29. UGZ statutory architecture

The Urban Growth Zone is Clause 37.07 of the Victoria Planning Provisions. Its structure distinguishes it from other residential zones in several key ways:

(a) Applied Zone mechanism. UGZ is not self-executing. When land is rezoned to UGZ in a planning scheme, it acquires the default UGZ provisions (a restrictive use and subdivision regime). The land does not become developable until the Planning Scheme is further amended to apply a numbered UGZ schedule (UGZ1, UGZ2, UGZ3, etc.) that references an incorporated Precinct Structure Plan. The schedule specifies:

  • The PSP that applies to the land.
  • Particular provisions modifying the default UGZ controls.
  • Any sub-precinct-specific conditions.
  • Subdivision triggers.

This is a two-stage mechanism: rezone to UGZ (stage 1), apply UGZ schedule with PSP (stage 2). C221ball delivered stage 1 for the Northern core; the C258ball PSP package (or equivalent) will deliver stage 2.

(b) Interim controls during PSP preparation. In the period between UGZ rezoning and UGZ schedule application (i.e., during PSP preparation), the UGZ:

  • Prohibits subdivision except in accordance with the PSP (which does not yet exist).
  • Prohibits most new use (residential, commercial, industrial) except under existing use rights or Council discretion.
  • Permits agricultural use to continue (typically as a continuing existing use).
  • Permits most rural-style uses under the default schedule.

This is effectively a “freeze” control that maintains status quo while the PSP is developed. For the Northern Growth Area core, this freeze has been in place since 22 June 2023 and will remain until PSP gazettal (mid-2026), a period of approximately three years.

(c) Non-prejudice provisions. The UGZ explicitly provides that its default provisions do not prejudice the rights of landowners or the delivery of the PSP. This matters for landowners who may wish to sell, subdivide for non-residential purposes, or seek planning permits for rural uses during the PSP preparation period.

(d) Infrastructure contribution linkages. UGZ land is typically the base on which DCPs are applied. The DCP levy cannot be imposed on non-UGZ land. So UGZ rezoning is a precondition for DCP application.

30. Alternative zones considered and rejected

(a) General Residential Zone (GRZ). GRZ would have permitted subdivision but would not have supported the structured PSP/DCP pathway. Council needed the orderly staged-delivery mechanism that UGZ provides; GRZ would have allowed piecemeal ad hoc subdivision that would be inconsistent with Clause 21.02-4’s direction against “leapfrog” development.

(b) Residential Growth Zone (RGZ). RGZ is designed for higher-density residential in consolidated urban areas. Not appropriate for greenfield edge sites.

(c) Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ). LDRZ allows larger lots (0.4 ha minimum) but at densities below what Ballarat’s greenfield supply strategy requires. Would have yielded approximately 940 lots from the Northern Growth Area rather than 6,190 — insufficient to address the land supply cliff.

(d) Rural Living Zone (RLZ). RLZ is the current zone on parts of the growth areas. It allows hobby-farm residential development at 2–4 ha lot sizes. Preserving RLZ would have foregone the strategic land supply outcome.

(e) Comprehensive Development Zone (CDZ). The North-Western Growth Area is currently zoned CDZ (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, para 62). CDZ allows comprehensive integrated development under a specific schedule. It is functionally similar to UGZ but lacks the PSP-linked staged delivery that VPA-led greenfield planning requires. Converting CDZ to UGZ aligns the NW with the rest of Ballarat’s growth planning framework.

31. UGZ precedents in regional Victoria

UGZ application in regional Victoria follows specific precedents:

(a) Ballarat West. The existing Ballarat West Growth Area uses UGZ with specific schedules for sub-precincts (Bonshaw Creek, Greenhalghs Road, Carngham Road) (Source: 24-september-2025-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments.txt, paras 12958–12961). The Ballarat West DCP is currently under review, which will inform Ballarat North DCP methodology.

(b) Mildura Growth Areas. Mildura applied UGZ to its northern growth corridor in the 2010s with staged PSP delivery.

(c) Shepparton, Wodonga, Warrnambool. Various regional cities have used UGZ for growth corridors with mixed implementation speed — Shepparton’s North-East Growth Corridor has been subject to prolonged PSP preparation with multiple background studies.

The Ballarat North precedent is significant because it combines UGZ with VPA Planning Authority, Innovation Pathway pilot, and Housing Statement priority listing — a stacked-governance architecture that concentrates state attention and resources.

32. Applied Zone schedule expectations for Ballarat North

While the specific UGZ schedule for Ballarat North is not in the corpus (it will be delivered through the PSP amendment process, likely early-to-mid 2026), typical regional-city UGZ schedules include:

  • References to the specific PSP (e.g., “Ballarat North Precinct Structure Plan, 2026”) as the controlling plan.
  • Particular modifications to default use tables (e.g., permitting affordable housing forms, prohibiting certain industrial uses).
  • Sub-precinct controls (e.g., different density controls in Mt Rowan interface vs creek interface vs town centre).
  • Design and development overlays cross-referenced from Clause 43 controls.
  • Bushfire, landscape, heritage overlay integration.
  • Innovation Pathway implementation mechanisms (microgrid reservation, waste precinct, biodiversity corridors).
  • DCP cross-reference.

The UGZ schedule is the most detailed statutory expression of the PSP’s spatial logic. Once gazetted, it becomes the controlling document for planning permit assessment.

Deep-dive: Northern Growth Area sub-precinct analysis

The Northern Growth Area is not a uniform zone. Its topography, ownership, infrastructure and interface conditions vary by sub-area. A plausible sub-precinct breakdown (based on the February 2022 report’s description of the boundary and the VPA’s technical work):

33. Sub-precinct A — Mount Rowan precinct (north-west edge)

Location: Upper slopes and immediate surrounds of Mount Rowan, western portion of the growth area.

Likely controls:

  • Significant Landscape Overlay or equivalent PSP controls.
  • Height restrictions (likely 2-storey maximum).
  • Vegetation retention and no-development zones.
  • Setback from summit and ridge lines.

Indicative yield: Low — perhaps 30–50 ha of this precinct is developable, yielding 450–750 lots at lower densities (12 dw/ha).

Key risks: Landscape assessment outcomes may further constrain developable area. Community submissions at PSP exhibition likely on landscape values.

34. Sub-precinct B — Burrumbeet Creek interface precinct (western edge)

Location: Land adjacent to Burrumbeet Creek, extending inland approximately 200–400 m.

Likely controls:

  • Waterway corridor setbacks (30–60 m from top of bank).
  • Flood fringe management.
  • Cultural Heritage Sensitive Area (CHSA) triggers for CHMP preparation.
  • Potential Biodiversity Corridor reservation.
  • WSUD integration into subdivision design.

Indicative yield: Moderate — perhaps 60–80 ha developable, yielding 900–1,200 lots at standard densities (15 dw/ha).

Key risks: CHMP timing and findings. Native vegetation offset costs. Flood studies.

35. Sub-precinct C — Central developable core

Location: Flat-to-gently-undulating land between Mount Rowan, Burrumbeet Creek, Midland Highway and the Equine Precinct buffer.

Likely controls:

  • Standard UGZ residential controls.
  • Local town centre reservation (likely 5–10 ha).
  • Neighbourhood activity centres and community facilities.
  • Primary and secondary school reservations (likely 3–4 ha each).
  • Active open space (sporting fields, typically 4–8 ha).
  • Passive open space network.
  • DCP levy application.

Indicative yield: High — perhaps 180–220 ha developable, yielding 2,700–3,300 lots at standard densities.

Key opportunities: Innovation Pathway microgrid deployment; 7-star housing density; transit-ready urban design.

36. Sub-precinct D — Midland Highway frontage

Location: Land adjacent to Midland Highway on the eastern boundary.

Likely controls:

  • Arterial road interface (acoustic treatment, setback, visual screening).
  • Mixed use or employment land potential at key intersections.
  • VicRoads access point controls.

Indicative yield: Moderate — perhaps 40–60 ha developable, with employment land (15–20 ha) reducing residential yield.

Key risks: Intersection upgrade costs; land-use conflicts (residential vs arterial traffic).

37. Sub-precinct E — Equine Precinct transition (northern edge)

Location: Northern boundary adjacent to Dowling Forest Racecourse and Equine Precinct.

Likely controls:

  • 200–400 m buffer with lower-intensity uses.
  • Compatibility standards (noise, dust, early morning activity).
  • Potential landscape / vegetation screening requirements.

Indicative yield: Low — perhaps 20–40 ha developable at lower densities or with non-residential uses.

Key risks: Interface conflicts; equine industry submissions at PSP exhibition.

38. Sub-precinct aggregation

Aggregating the indicative sub-precinct yields:

Sub-precinctIndicative developable area (ha)Indicative lot yield
A — Mt Rowan30–50450–750
B — Burrumbeet Creek60–80900–1,200
C — Central core180–2202,700–3,300
D — Midland Highway40–60600–900
E — Equine transition20–40300–600
Core total330–4504,950–6,750

This range (4,950–6,750 lots) brackets the Council estimate (6,190 lots). The low end of the range reflects realistic post-constraint NDA; the high end reflects the Council’s headline figure. The PSP exhibition will pin down the exact figure, but a realistic central expectation is 5,500–5,800 lots for the core Northern Growth Area.

Deep-dive: Western Growth Area parcel and infrastructure analysis

39. Western Growth Area site characteristics

The Western Growth Area covers approximately 1,170 ha gross, bounded by:

  • Skipton Rail Trail (east).
  • Finches Road (north).
  • Bells Road (south, interface with Golden Plains Shire).
  • Kensington Creek (partial west boundary).

Topography: Flat (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenced-with-attachments_part1.txt, para 55), implying fewer drainage constraints than the Northern Growth Area but also potentially requiring more retarding basins to manage overland flow in a low-relief landscape.

Ownership: “Largely consolidated” (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, para 55), which facilitates coordinated PSP delivery — fewer landowners to negotiate with for Third-Party Funding Agreements.

Proximity to existing centres: Proximity to “Glenelg Highway Major Town Centre” (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, para 58) means an existing higher-order centre already serves the likely residential catchment. This reduces the need for a large new town centre within the Western Growth Area — perhaps 1 local town centre plus several neighbourhood centres, rather than a major town centre.

40. Western Growth Area infrastructure dependencies

(a) Ballarat Western Link Road. The proposed Western Link Road is essentially a growth enabler for the Western (and NW) fronts. Its alignment connects Western Highway, Remembrance Drive, and Ballarat-Cargnham Road (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, ~para 9505). The road provides:

  • Direct access from Western Growth Area to Western Highway and regional transport network.
  • Bypass of existing Ballarat CBD for west-to-north traffic.
  • Arterial capacity for ~15,000–25,000 vehicle movements/day at full buildout.

Without the Western Link Road, Western Growth Area traffic would have to traverse existing urban streets, creating capacity and amenity conflicts. This is why the Western Link Road is a strategic advocacy priority for Council and a potential condition for Western UGZ rezoning.

(b) Water supply — temporary pump station. The February 2022 report references “a future temporary pump station and the ability to service land” in the north of the Western Growth Area (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, para 59). This is a Central Highlands Water infrastructure commitment. The use of “temporary” language suggests interim servicing pending permanent augmentation.

(c) Sewer. Not specified in the corpus. Likely requires extension from the Ballarat main sewer network.

(d) Interface with Ballarat West PSP. The Western Growth Area is described as “a logical extension of the Ballarat West Precinct Structure Plan” (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, para 55). This implies continuation of infrastructure and urban design language from Ballarat West.

(e) Golden Plains Shire interface (Bells Road). Any infrastructure on the Bells Road alignment requires Golden Plains Shire coordination. Regional roads agreements may be required.

41. Western Growth Area yield and staging considerations

The February 2022 estimate (1,170 ha gross / 896 ha NDA / 13,440 dwellings at 15 dw/ha) assumes 77% developable ratio. This is higher than the Northern Growth Area (52%) because:

  • Flat topography with fewer landscape constraints.
  • No equivalent of Mount Rowan.
  • Less fragmented land ownership.

Realistic constraint reductions for the Western Growth Area:

  • Drainage (retarding basins, flood corridors, WSUD): 30–50 ha.
  • Arterial road and Western Link Road land take: 20–40 ha.
  • Active and passive open space: 60–80 ha (at 10% of gross, typical PSP standard).
  • Town centre and community facilities: 15–25 ha.
  • Primary and secondary school sites: 8–12 ha (2 primary + 1 secondary).
  • Heritage / cultural landscape retention: 10–20 ha (less than north due to flatter terrain).
  • Native vegetation / biodiversity: 10–20 ha.

Net estimated post-constraint NDA for Western Growth Area: 720–770 ha, yielding 10,800–11,550 lots at 15 dw/ha or 12,960–13,860 lots at 18 dw/ha.

42. Western PSP sequencing under PDC21/24

PDC21/24.3 directs “Immediately commence future Precinct Structure Plan work including early technical reports for the Western Growth Area, noting simultaneous

Section clipped to keep the wiki page within the production size contract. Source files remain in the repository/extracted evidence corpus.

Deep-dive: Housing Framework Plan — what it was meant to do

43. The original Housing Framework Plan concept

The February 2022 report refers to a “Housing Change Framework Plan” (Source: 23-february-2022-council-meeting-agenda-with-attachments_part1.txt, para 10(a)) and the Council resolution refers to a “Housing Framework Plan” (Source: d-22-28671-23-february-2022-council-meeting.txt, para 854). Whether these are the same document or iterations is not entirely clear from the corpus.

The described function was to:

  • Articulate the housing change direction for Ballarat.
  • Provide the spatial logic justifying UGZ application to the three growth fronts.
  • Support “the next phases of planning” — i.e., PSP commencement.

44. Why the Housing Framework Plan was needed

Under the Victorian planning system, a UGZ rezoning without supporting spatial policy is vulnerable to challenge. Strategic justification is typically provided by:

  • A housing strategy or structure plan identifying the growth areas as preferred.
  • A clause in the Planning Policy Framework (PPF) of the planning scheme directing growth.
  • A schedule or incorporated document providing detailed spatial logic.

Ballarat’s existing policy framework (Clause 21.02-4 and Ballarat Strategy 2040) provided high-level direction but not growth-area-specific spatial logic. The Housing Framework Plan was intended to fill this gap.

45. Why the Housing Framework Plan was superseded

Several factors contributed to the Housing Framework Plan’s effective abandonment:

(a) Minister’s intervention. The Ministerial bifurcation of C221ball in September 2022 changed the statutory context. The Minister’s authorisation for core-area rezoning didn’t require a Housing Framework Plan amendment to proceed; the Ministerial amendment was rationalised on other bases.

(b) Parallel GAFP development. As Council prepared the Growth Areas Framework Plan through 2022–2024, the GAFP absorbed the spatial sequencing function that the Housing Framework Plan was intended to perform.

(c) Ballarat Housing Strategy. The 23 February 2022 resolution noted that “the Ballarat Housing Strategy should ultimately be the mechanism to determine the extent of future growth and infill development” (Source: d-22-28671-23-february-2022-council-meeting.txt, para 869). The Housing Strategy is now the primary vehicle for housing policy.

(d) Plan for Victoria. The state’s 2024 Plan for Victoria release provides higher-order spatial direction that supersedes local framework plans in many respects.

46. The current replacement architecture

The policy amendment that C221ball was meant to deliver has fractured into:

  • Growth Areas Framework Plan (adopted 14 Aug 2024) — spatial sequencing for Western and NW growth areas.
  • Ballarat Housing Strategy (in preparation) — municipal housing policy, including infill/greenfield split.
  • Plan for Victoria (2024) — state-wide spatial strategy.
  • Individual PSPs — detailed growth-area-specific spatial design.
  • UGZ schedules — statutory application of PSPs to land.

This distributed architecture is more complex than the original Housing Framework Plan concept but provides more robust policy integration. The transition cost is time and governance complexity.

Size Contract Note

This page was compacted for UI and Obsidian readability. The underlying source documents and extracted text remain in the evidence corpus.

Graph View