Grange Planning Brain

title: Western Growth Area PSP (in preparation) — “West of West” council: ballarat state: vic category: growth-area classification: MAJOR status: framework-plan-adopted last_compiled: 2026-04-17 source_docs:

  • growth-areas-framework-plan-western-and-north-western-growth-areas_august-2024.txt
  • ballarat-growth-areas-framework-plan-2024.txt
  • p0052098_zoning_wga_0424.txt
  • ballarat-west-growth-area-housing-and-growth-enabling-infrastructure-bnif.txt
  • 14-august-2024-planning-delegated-committee-meeting-agenda-with-attachments.txt
  • 14-august-2024-planning-delegated-committee-meeting-minutes.txt
  • ballarat-igaf.txt
  • ballarat-igaf-003-.txt
  • vpa-ballarat-igaf-project-page.txt
  • koala-plan-of-management-part-1.txt
  • koala-plan-of-management-part-2.txt
  • dyson-drive-duplication_feb2026.txt
  • duplication-of-dyson-drive-ballarat.-now-and-into-the-future.txt
  • sd-r1-2-link-road-cross-section.txt

Western Growth Area PSP (in preparation) — “West of West”

The Western Growth Area is a 1,035-hectare future growth front west of the existing Ballarat West PSP that, if fully developed at the Framework Plan’s aspirational 20 dw/ha, would deliver approximately 17,200 dwellings housing 46,000 people — yet the VPA’s Infrastructure Growth Alignment Framework (September 2025) concludes that existing zoned land already meets Ballarat’s greenfield housing target to 2051 without rezoning a single hectare of this area. The area’s total infrastructure cost is 672.8 million, with indicative DCP levy rates of 520,913–710,494 per NDHa — 47–125% above the existing [[ballarat-west-psp|Ballarat West DCP]] rate of 316,339/NDHa. The resulting funding gap for Council ranges from 13 million to 178 million depending on how external demand is allocated. Two hard blockers — the unfunded Ballarat Link Road ($88.3 million for Dyson Drive duplication alone) and unfunded Central Highlands Water major upgrades (next pricing submission post-2028) — mean that PSP preparation cannot commence before the early 2030s at the earliest, and development is sequenced for the 2034–2055 DCP timeframe. This is Ballarat’s largest single unzoned growth front, but it sits behind the Ballarat North PSP (Core and Expanded Areas), all urban renewal precincts, and the existing Ballarat West PSP build-out in the IGAF’s sequencing hierarchy.

Background

Policy Lineage

The Western Growth Area’s strategic origins trace through four generations of growth planning, each progressively expanding the westward growth corridor:

1. Ballarat Strategy 1998 — Identified Ballarat West as the primary growth front and the “next logical extension to the urban fringe of the city.” The Strategy was incorporated into the Planning Scheme including the Overall Framework Plan, ultimately directing the development of the Alfredton and Ballarat West PSPs. This is the foundational document that established the westward growth direction that the Western Growth Area continues. (Source: growth-areas-framework-plan-western-and-north-western-growth-areas_august-2024.txt)

2. Ballarat West Growth Areas Plan 2009 — A staging plan for Ballarat West and Alfredton West that outlined recommended sequencing for future PSPs. The plan provided limited detail on urban structure but established sequencing criteria. It emphasised that “more detailed planning would occur through the PSP process.” (Source: growth-areas-framework-plan-western-and-north-western-growth-areas_august-2024.txt)

3. Ballarat Long Term Growth Options Investigation (Hansen Partnership, Arup & Tim Nott Economics, 2018) — A desktop assessment of four Greenfield Investigation Areas (Northern, Western, North-Western, and Eastern). The Northern GIA was recommended as the preferred location for long-term growth. The Western and North-Western GIAs “were considered to have the potential to form part of a longer-term growth corridor.” Critically, the 2018 study investigated a smaller Western GIA than the current 1,035-hectare boundary — a portion of the current growth area (referred to in the IGAF as the “potential growth expansion area”) was not assessed in this study. A state government agency raised concern during consultation that this area “had not had the same investigations undertaken as it was not included in the Long-Term Growth Options Investigation Paper” (Source: growth-areas-framework-plan-western-and-north-western-growth-areas_august-2024.txt; ballarat-igaf.txt, Section 4.2.2; 14-august-2024-planning-delegated-committee-meeting-agenda-with-attachments.txt, paragraph 55)

4. Growth Areas Framework Plan (August 2024) — Adopted by the Planning Delegated Committee on 14 August 2024 as the master strategic document for both the Western and North Western growth areas. The Framework Plan was supported by seven technical studies (Macroplan Retail Assessment, Taylors Engineering Servicing Strategy, ASR Community Infrastructure Assessment, SGS Development Contributions Assessment, Alluvium IWM Strategy, Alluvium Surface and Stormwater Management Strategy, and One Mile Grid Traffic and Transport Assessment) and received 28 individual submissions plus 14 online survey responses during its May 2024 consultation period. (Source: growth-areas-framework-plan-western-and-north-western-growth-areas_august-2024.txt; 14-august-2024-planning-delegated-committee-meeting-agenda-with-attachments.txt)

Key Council Resolutions

16 September 2020 — Council was provided with a status report of land supply within the Ballarat West Growth Area for the 2019/2020 financial year. The report demonstrated “high levels of growth with high demand rates” and predicted that the required 15 years of land supply would be diminished by 2025 “when the only land available for Ballarat West would be constrained and fragmented.” Council resolved to proceed with a planning scheme amendment identifying the Northern and Western Greenfield Investigation Areas as Ballarat’s future greenfield growth areas, including rezoning to the Urban Growth Zone. (Source: growth-areas-framework-plan-western-and-north-western-growth-areas_august-2024.txt)

23 February 2022 — Council was provided with a report recommending a program of rezoning land and further strategic work for three new growth areas. Council resolved to:

  • Seek Ministerial authorisation to rezone the growth areas
  • Commence preparation of a Precinct Structure Plan for the Northern Growth Area
  • Prepare a Growth Areas Framework Plan for the Western and North Western growth areas

The growth areas were “expanded on to include additional land surrounding key features (including the Northern Expanded Area and triangular area adjacent to Skipton Rail Trail).” Council officers stated that the Western Growth Area boundary was “a logical extension of the Ballarat West

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

Analysis

Land Supply and Yield Analysis

Gross Area and Precinct Structure

The Western Growth Area encompasses 1,035 hectares of land in Cardigan, Lucas, Smythes Creek, and Bunkers Hill, currently zoned Farming Zone (FZ). It is irregular in shape and consists of “relatively open, flat broad hectare rural land” with some large rural residential development to the south. (Source: growth-areas-framework-plan-western-and-north-western-growth-areas_august-2024.txt)

The area is bounded by:

  • North: The North Western Growth Area and existing Lucas suburb
  • East: The partially constructed Ballarat Link Road and the existing Ballarat West Growth Area
  • South: Bells Road (municipal boundary with Golden Plains Shire) and large lot rural residential development
  • West: Open rural land used for livestock grazing, with clusters of rural living lots at Bunkers Hill, the Sago Hill Mine, and Haddon Common Bushland Reserve

Four major roads intercept the growth area: Ballarat-Carngham Road, Glenelg Highway, Greenhalghs Road, and Cuthberts Road. The outermost point is 10.3 km from the Ballarat Central Activity District — a significant distance that raises questions about car dependency and public transport viability. (Source: growth-areas-framework-plan-western-and-north-western-growth-areas_august-2024.txt)

Yield Estimates and the Density Question

MetricFramework PlanIGAF
Total area1,035 ha1,027 ha
Total residential area862 haNot separately stated
Anticipated dwellings (low)12,90012,440
Anticipated dwellings (high)17,200—
Anticipated population34,800–46,000—
Retail floorspace33,853 sqm—
Potential employment (FTE)1,258—
Distance to CAD10.3 km (outermost)—

(Source: growth-areas-framework-plan-western-and-north-western-growth-areas_august-2024.txt; ballarat-igaf.txt, Table 9)

The 8-hectare discrepancy in gross area between the Framework Plan (1,035 ha) and the IGAF (1,027 ha) likely reflects the boundary correction noted in the Framework Plan regarding the triangular area bound by Remembrance Drive and the Skipton Rail Trail, which was “shown incorrectly as being included within the Western Growth Area” at the February 2022 Council meeting. The Framework Plan intends this section to be included in the North Western Growth Area instead. (Source: growth-areas-framework-plan-western-and-north-western-growth-areas_august-2024.txt)

The yield range of 12,440–17,200 dwellings reflects a fundamental disagreement about achievable density:

  • Framework Plan aspirational target: 20 dw/ha applied to 862 ha residential area = 17,200 dwellings. The Framework Plan states the objective is to “seek to facilitate an average of 20 dwellings per hectare acknowledging that some areas will accommodate lower densities. The final densities will be determined in the PSPs.” (Source: growth-areas-framework-plan-western-and-north-western-growth-areas_august-2024.txt)

  • IGAF conservative estimate: 12,440 dwellings across 1,027 ha, implying an effective density of approximately 12.1 dw/ha — a 28% reduction from the Framework Plan’s high scenario. This likely reflects a more realistic assessment of Net Developable Area after subtracting drainage land take, waterway corridors, open space, road reserves, heritage buffers, and other encumbrances.

  • Industry position: During the May 2024 consultation, development industry submitters were “concerned about the 20 dwellings per hectare assumption” and stated that “higher densities were unsuccessful in new growth areas.” They considered “15–17 dwellings per hectare” more reasonable. This aligns with the Ballarat West PSP’s actual delivery density of up to 17.64 dw/ha NDA (as reported in the IGAF). (Source: 14-august-2024-planning-delegated-committee-meeting-agenda-with-attachments.txt, paragraphs 29–31; ballarat-igaf.txt, Section 3.1)

  • State policy: The State Planning Policy Framework encourages “average overall densities in the growth areas of a minimum of 15 dwellings per net developable hectare and overtime seek an overall increase to more than 20 dwellings per net developable hectare.” (Source: growth-areas-framework-plan-western-and-north-western-growth-areas_august-2024.txt)

The density achieved will have a direct bearing on infrastructure cost recovery. At 20 dw/ha, the DCP levy is spread across more dwellings, reducin

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

Current Status

Framework Plan adopted by the Planning Delegated Committee on 14 August 2024. The Framework Plan will be included as a background document in the Ballarat Planning Scheme via a planning scheme amendment (subject of a separate report to Council).

IGAF status: The September 2025 IGAF recommends giving effect via Ministerial Direction 18, requiring the City of Ballarat to consult with the VPA on any planning scheme amendment involving rezoning within the IGAF area. The IGAF’s formal approval by the Minister for Planning and the status of Ministerial Direction 18 implementation are not confirmed in available documents.

Settlement boundary: Plan for Victoria Action 3 directs establishment of a regional settlement boundary for Ballarat. This boundary is “being developed in partnership with regional councils” and “discussions have commenced with the City of Ballarat.” The boundary could either accommodate or exclude the Western Growth Area — with profound implications for the Framework Plan’s relevance. (Source: ballarat-igaf.txt, Section 1.5)

Zoning: Farming Zone (FZ). No Urban Growth Zone applied. No PSP commenced. No DCP prepared. No pre-PSP technical reports commenced.

Next concrete step: The Framework Plan’s implementation via a planning scheme amendment to update Clause 21 (LPPF) — this formalises the Framework Plan as a policy document without rezoning. This amendment process is the subject of a separate council report (noted in the officer recommendation on 14 August 2024 as item 65.3: “Note that consideration of a policy amendment to implement the Growth Areas Framework Plan into the Ballarat Planning Scheme will be the subject of a separate report and recommendations to Council”). Once gazetted, the Framework Plan becomes a reference document in the planning scheme, guiding future PSP preparation without triggering rezoning. The IGAF explicitly requires this: “Implement the Ballarat Growth Areas Framework Plan. This must not result in an amendment for immediate rezoning of new greenfield land.” (Source: 14-august-2024-planning-delegated-committee-meeting-agenda-with-attachments.txt, Officer Recommendation 65.3; ballarat-igaf.txt, Recommendation 8b)

Precinct-Level Analysis

The Framework Plan divides the Western Growth Area into three precincts with distinct characteristics, constraints, and infrastructure requirements. While the sub-precinct staging is described as “indicative only,” the physical and infrastructure characteristics of each precinct create natural development parameters that will persist regardless of the final staging.

Precinct 2 (Sequence 1 — 320 ha NDA, 6,400 dwellings at 20 dw/ha, DCP timeframe 2034–2043)

Precinct 2 is prioritised because it is the largest contiguous area directly adjoining the existing Ballarat West PSP. This adjacency provides several advantages:

  • Service extensions: Water, sewer, and power can be extended from existing Ballarat West infrastructure with shorter trunk connections than the other precincts. The Bonshaw sewer pump station (4.6M, sought through BNIF 2025) and Greenhalghs Road trunk water pipeline (1.2M) service the intervening Ballarat West area and are preconditions for further westward extension. (Source: ballarat-west-growth-area-housing-and-growth-enabling-infrastructure-bnif.txt)

  • Road access: Precinct 2 can utilise existing road connections from the Ballarat West PSP area without requiring full completion of the Link Road, though traffic distribution remains a concern.

  • Community services: Early residents can access existing schools, community centres, and recreation facilities in the Ballarat West PSP area and Lucas, which are the “closest community centres and early years facilities.” (Source: growth-areas-framework-plan-western-and-north-western-growth-areas_august-2024.txt)

  • DCP efficiency: At 484,952/NDHa (higher external demand scenario) to 590,188/NDHa (lower external demand), Precinct 2 has the lowest DCP rate of the three precincts — approximately 25% below the growth area weighted average. (Source: 14-august-2024-planning-delegated-committee-meeting-agenda-with-attachments.txt, Tables 12–13)

  • Constraints: Precinct 2 is relatively unconstrained compared to the other precincts. It does not include the high visual sensitivity area (south-west) or the primary koala habitat areas (either side of Ballarat-Carngham Road). However, some ESO5 areas may extend into the northern portion.

Precinct 1 (Sequence 2 — 191 ha NDA, 3,820 dwellings at 20 dw/ha, DCP timeframe 2037–2048)

Precinct 1 is the smallest precinct and carries the highest DCP levy rate:

  • DCP rate: 641,872/NDHa (higher external demand) to 767,872/NDHa (lower external demand) — the highest of all three precincts and approaching the rate that triggered significant developer resistance in the Ballarat North PSP process. (Source: 14-august-2024-planning-delegated-committee-meeting-agenda-with-attachments.txt, Tables 12–13)

  • Scale limitations: At 191 ha NDA, Precinct 1’s smaller scale means enabling infrastructure costs are distributed across fewer developable hectares. The precinct requires a proportionally higher share of road and utility connections relative to its lot yield.

  • Koala habitat: The two likely primary koala habitat areas identified either side of Ballarat-Carngham Road may fall within or adjacent to this precinct, depending on final boundary delineation. If so, the NDA reduction from koala corridors and buffers would disproportionately affect Precinct 1’s yield.

Precinct 3 (Sequence 3 — 349 ha NDA, 6,980 dwellings at 20 dw/ha, DCP timeframe 2041–2055)

Precinct 3 is the most constrained and last to develop:

  • Distance from services: Being the most remote from existing urban infrastructure, Precinct 3 has the highest per-hectare servicing costs and the longest service extension distances.

  • High visual sensitivity: The south-western portion of the growth area has “high visual sensitivity due to the prevalence in views from elevated hillsides.” Action 13 requires investigation of low-density residential zoning to limit visual impact. If LDRZ at 2–4 dw/ha is applied to a significant portion, the yield of 6,980 dwellings (at 20 dw/ha) would be dramatically reduced. Even applying LDRZ to 100 ha of the 349 ha NDA would reduce yield from 6,980 to approximately 5,380 — a 23% reduction.

  • Bushfire: The two BMO-affected portions of the site are likely to include areas within Precinct 3, associated with tree plantations and remnant vegetation. BMO requirements (defendable space, access provisions, water supply for fire fighting) reduce lot yield on affected parcels.

  • Southern boundary: Precinct 3 interfaces with Bells Road, the municipal boundary with Golden Plains Shire. The proposed Cambrian Hill development (3,000 lots) abuts this boundary. If both develop, the combined population would exceed 55,000 peop

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

Dependencies

  • Blocks: PSP preparation and rezoning for Western Growth Area Precincts 1–3; future DCP preparation; potential lot yield contributing to Ballarat’s greenfield supply beyond 2051; resolution of Ballarat’s long-term westward growth direction
  • Blocked by:
    • IGAF sequencing recommendations — no short-term rezoning (Recommendation 13)
    • Ballarat Link Road Stages 2–3 — unfunded, $88.3M for Dyson Drive duplication alone
    • Central Highlands Water major upgrade funding — next pricing submission post-2028
    • Plan for Victoria 60/40 growth split — if achieved, existing supply meets greenfield target without this area
    • Settlement boundary determination — may exclude the Western Growth Area
    • Ballarat North PSP (Core Area) completion — estimated mid-2026
    • Ballarat North Expanded Area — 2,600 dwellings, sequenced ahead of Western Growth Area
    • All 70 pre-PSP actions unresolved (approximately 40 apply to Western Growth Area)
    • Biannual land supply review demonstrating need for additional greenfield land

The Water Authority Pricing Cycle: A Structural Constraint

The Essential Services Commission (ESC) regulates Central Highlands Water’s pricing and capital expenditure program in approximately 5-year cycles. The current pricing period covers 2023–2028. CHW’s approved capital program for this period includes the $17.3 million Ballarat Sewer Growth Project for the Ballarat West UGZ southern section but does not include any projects that would service the Western Growth Area. (Source: ballarat-igaf.txt, Section 4.2.2)

The next pricing submission (approximately 2027–2028, for the 2028–2033 period) is the earliest opportunity for CHW to include Western Growth Area servicing in its regulated capital program. For CHW to include these projects, several preconditions must be met:

  1. Demand justification: CHW must demonstrate to the ESC that the capital expenditure is justified by projected demand. This requires either (a) the Western Growth Area being rezoned to UGZ (providing a statutory basis for demand), or (b) the Framework Plan and IGAF providing sufficient strategic justification for advance infrastructure investment. Given the IGAF’s position that the Western Growth Area is not needed in the short term, CHW may struggle to justify the expenditure to the ESC.

  2. Price impact assessment: The ESC evaluates whether proposed capital expenditure will create undue price impacts on existing customers. Major infrastructure for the Western Growth Area would need to be funded through a combination of developer contributions (infrastructure charges on new connections) and cross-subsidy from the existing customer base. The ESC typically requires that new development infrastructure be substantially funded by new development, not existing ratepayers.

  3. Project scoping: CHW must scope the specific projects — trunk sewer extensions, pump stations, water main augmentation, reservoirs — to a level of detail sufficient for ESC assessment. This requires engineering design that has not commenced (Framework Plan Action 59 has not been actioned).

  4. Construction timeline: Even if the post-2028 pricing submission includes Western Growth Area projects, the ESC approval process, detailed design, procurement, and construction timeline means services would not be available until approximately 2031–2033 at the earliest.

The structural implication is that CHW’s regulated pricing cycle creates a minimum 3–5 year lag between the policy decision to service the Western Growth Area and the physical availability of water and sewer infrastructure. This lag is independent of and additional to the planning framework timeline (PSP preparation, amendment exhibition, Panel/SAC hearing, approval). The two timelines — planning and infrastructure — must be coordinated, and both have minimum durations that cannot be compressed below approximately 4 years each.

If the timelines run in parallel (i.e., CHW commences capital works while the PSP is being prepared), the total elapsed time from decision to first lot creation could be approximately 4–5 years. If they run sequentially (infrastructure must be committed before PSP commences, or vice versa), the total extends to 7–10 years. The IGAF’s sequencing recommendations implicitly assume parallel timelines — the DCP timeframe of 2034–2055 is consistent with PSP preparation commencing approximately 2030–2032 and CHW infrastructure being delivere

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

  • Golden Plains Shire — Cambrian Hill (3,000-lot proposal) abuts Ballarat West PSP southern boundary; shares the Ballarat Link Road dependency and mirrored transport challenges. If Cambrian Hill proceeds independently, it draws on Ballarat’s infrastructure without contributing council rates. Golden Plains Shire’s Growing Places Strategy addresses long-term strategic planning for Cambrian Hill. (Source: ballarat-igaf.txt, Sections 4.3, 5.2.2)

  • Central Highlands Water — Water and sewer servicing authority. Current funded projects (2023–2028) include 17.3 million for Ballarat West UGZ southern section sewer assets but do not include Western Growth Area infrastructure. Next pricing submission post-2028 is the earliest opportunity. The BNIF 2025 seeks 4.6M for Bonshaw sewer pump station and $1.2M for Greenhalghs Road trunk water pipeline as preconditions. (Source: ballarat-igaf.txt, Section 4.2.2; ballarat-west-growth-area-housing-and-growth-enabling-infrastructure-bnif.txt)

  • Department of Transport and Planning / VicRoads — Ballarat Link Road (unfunded); arterial road upgrades; road network management; IGAF author (via VPA). DTP will “monitor the alignment of strategic planning work and any proposed planning scheme amendments with the Ballarat IGAF and Plan for Victoria.” (Source: ballarat-igaf.txt, Section 1.6)

  • Victorian Planning Authority — IGAF author; Ministerial Direction 18 consultation requirement on any rezoning; potential PSP preparation authority (if appointed, as occurred for Ballarat North PSP in August 2022). (Source: ballarat-igaf.txt, Section 1.6)

  • Corangamite CMA — Drainage and waterway management across the Western Growth Area. The growth area sits within the upper portions of three major river basins (Barwon, Hopkins, and Loddon) managed by three separate CMAs (Corangamite, Glenelg Hopkins, and North Central respectively). The Western Growth Area primarily falls within Corangamite CMA jurisdiction. No local waterway corridor guidelines exist — the Framework Plan defaults to Melbourne Water’s guidelines, which is unusual for a non-metropolitan context.

  • Glenelg Hopkins CMA — A portion of the North Western Growth Area falls within this CMA’s management area. The cross-CMA jurisdiction means that drainage design for the combined growth areas may need to satisfy requirements from two different catchment management authorities with potentially different waterway management standards.

  • Powercor — Electricity servicing. Capacity and upgrade requirements to be determined at PSP stage (Action 60).

  • Ballarat Airport — Primary runway circuit pattern (18/36) directly affects the growth area; noise contours from Airport Strategy and Master Plan 2024. Maximum event noise up to 70 dB(A) with 50–99 events per day above 60 dB(A) in affected portions. Updated AEO determination pending consultation with Airservices Australia. The Airport is a significant regional asset — its Strategy and Master Plan focuses on “the usage of aviation within the operations and supply chains of Ballarat’s businesses and industry.” Development that introduces residential uses under flight paths creates reverse amenity concerns for the airport’s ongoing operations.

  • Federation University and Australian Catholic University — Action 47 requires working with these institutions to confirm higher education provision needs. The growth areas’ combined population of 54,000–72,000 people may generate demand for satellite campus facilities or teaching spaces co-located with community infrastructure.

  • Department of Education — Six government primary schools and 1.7 government secondary schools required; kindergarten provision strategy and co-location within schools to be determined (Actions 43, 45). Joint school/community active open space opportunities (Action 37). The Department of Education’s school construction program operates on a separate timeline from land development, and school delivery typically lags residential development by 3–5 years. This means early residents in each precinct will need to travel to schools in the existing Ballarat West PSP area — reinforcing car dependency in the initial development phases.

  • Diocese of Ballarat Catholic Education Limited (DOBCEL) — Action 46 requires working with DOBCEL and other independent schools to confirm provision needs. For both growth areas combined, 2 non-government primary schools and 1 secondary sc

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

Gaps in This Analysis

Documents Referenced But Not in Corpus

  1. Taylors Engineering Servicing Strategy (November 2023) — The primary source for infrastructure cost estimates and servicing sequences. Referenced extensively in the SGS assessment. Listed as Attachment 4 to the 14 August 2024 agenda (291 pages). The extracted committee agenda text references its findings but the standalone report is not separately available in the corpus. Priority: CRITICAL.

  2. SGS Development Contributions and Infrastructure Funding Assessment (2024) — Listed as Attachment 6 to the 14 August 2024 agenda (44 pages). The committee report provides aggregate figures but individual project-level data from Appendices A and B (external demand allocations per project) is not available. Priority: CRITICAL.

  3. ASR Community Infrastructure Assessment (November 2023) — Listed as Attachment 7 to the 14 August 2024 agenda (105 pages). Referenced for community facility specifications, hierarchy, and costings. Not separately available. Priority: IMPORTANT.

  4. Alluvium Integrated Water Management Strategy (2023) — Drainage design inputs, waterway corridor widths, and stormwater management approach. Not separately available. Priority: IMPORTANT.

  5. Alluvium Surface and Stormwater Management Strategy (2024) — Recommended boundary extension for full waterway reach. Not separately available. Priority: IMPORTANT.

  6. One Mile Grid Traffic and Transport Assessment (2024) — Transport modelling basis, intersection performance, and traffic volume forecasts. State agencies contested the traffic volume forecasts during consultation. Not separately available. Priority: CRITICAL.

  7. Macroplan Retail Analysis (February 2024) — Listed as Attachment 3 to the 14 August 2024 agenda (27 pages). Retail floorspace demand estimates (33,853 sqm) and retail hierarchy. Not separately available. Priority: USEFUL.

  8. Ballarat Airport Strategy and Master Plan (2024) — Updated ANEF and N-contours that determine acoustic attenuation requirements and potential AEO extension. Not available. Priority: IMPORTANT.

  9. Hansen Partnership/Arup/Tim Nott Ballarat Long Term Growth Options Investigation (2018) — The desktop assessment of Greenfield Investigation Areas. Not available. Priority: USEFUL.

  10. Ballarat Link Road Preliminary Business Case — Referenced as “complete” in the February 2026 advocacy material but not publicly released. Priority: IMPORTANT.

  11. Central Highlands Water pricing submission (post-2028) — Will determine when water/sewer infrastructure for this area is funded. Not yet prepared. Priority: CRITICAL (future).

  12. Plan for Victoria settlement boundary — Being developed in partnership with Council. Not yet finalised. May accommodate or exclude the Western Growth Area. Priority: CRITICAL (future).

  13. Growth Areas Framework Plan Consultation Summary Report — Listed as Attachment 5 to the 14 August 2024 agenda (10 pages). Contains detailed analysis of all 28 submissions. Not separately available. Priority: IMPORTANT.

  14. Kevin Hazell Strategic Planning for Bushfire in the City of Ballarat (2020) — Referenced in the Framework Plan’s reference list. Not available. Priority: USEFUL.

  15. Kneebush Planning Ballarat Aerodrome Noise Modelling Study (2010) — Pre-dates the 2024 Airport Strategy but may provide baseline data. Not available. Priority: USEFUL.

  16. Ballarat West DCP Review (2025/2026) — The updated DCP rate for the existing Ballarat West PSP will set the market benchmark for future growth area levies. The Framework Plan noted gazettal was anticipated in 2026. Not available. Priority: IMPORTANT.

  17. Golden Plains Shire Growing Places Strategy — A Plan for Growth to 2051 — Addresses longer-term strategic planning for Cambrian Hill. Referenced in the IGAF (Recommendation 14). Not available. Priority: USEFUL.

What Would Need to Change

For the Western Growth Area to proceed materially earlier than the IGAF’s 2034+ timeline, the following conditions would need to be met — and they would need to be met concurrently, not sequentially:

  1. Land supply trigger: The biannual review would need to demonstrate that greenfield supply is being consumed faster than the 60/40 target allows, threatening the 15-year supply metric. Under business-as-usual 70% greenfield growth, this trigger could be reached by approximately 2031.

  2. Link Road funding: State or federal government commitment to fund Dyson Drive duplication ($88.3M) and potentially Ballarat-Carngham Road duplication. Without this, the IGAF’s sequencing dependency cannot be satisfied.

  3. CHW investment: Central Highlands Water inclusion of Western Growth Area servicing in its post-2028 pricing submission, ESC approval, and construction commencement. This path leads to service availability approximately 2031–2033 at the earliest.

  4. Settlement boundary inclusion: The Plan for Victoria settlement boundary for Ballarat must include the Western Growth Area (or at least Precinct 2) within its limits.

  5. Ministerial approval: The Minister for Planning would need to agree to vary the IGAF’s sequencing, and the VPA (via Ministerial Direction 18 consultation) would need to support rezoning.

  6. Pre-PSP technical reports: At least the most critical actions (Cultural Values Assessment, Koala Habitat Assessment, traffic modelling, flood risk assessment, contamination investigation) would need to be completed or well advanced.

The probability of all these conditions aligning before the early 2030s is low. The most likely pathway is the one the IGAF has charted: PSP preparation commencing in the mid-2030s, with Precinct 2 as the first cab off the rank, and a development horizon extending to 2055.

However, the Framework Plan’s adoption in August 2024 was itself a proactive step by Council officers to reduce future PSP preparation timeframes by completing the strategic framework and commencing early technical work. The committee resolution explicitly authorised officers to “engage with State Government authorities to progress implementation of the Growth Areas Framework Plan, including actions listed within the Implementation Plan such as early background technical reports to support a future Precinct Structure Plan for the Western Growth Area.” This signals that Council does not intend to simply wait until 2034 — it plans to advance the pre-PSP work program progressively, so that when the land supply trigger is reached, the PSP can proceed with less delay. (Source: 14-august-2024-planning-delegated-committee-meeting-agenda-with-attachments.txt, Officer Recommendation 65.2)

The development industry’s consultation position — pushing for short-term rezoning consistent with the 2022 Council resolution — reflects a fundamentally different assessment of land supply adequacy and a different weighting of the growth split question. From the industry’s perspective, the ris

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

Size Contract Note

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

Technical Appendix Limits

This page gives a strong high-level growth-area reading, but parcel-level and infrastructure-item-level conclusions remain limited by missing or incomplete Taylors, SGS, One Mile Grid, Alluvium, ASR, airport, servicing, drainage and project-sheet appendices. Use the page to understand growth sequencing and strategic dependencies, not to quote final basin impacts, road-trigger thresholds, DCP rates, land-take figures or parcel-specific infrastructure charges until those appendices are present and cited.

Graph View