Grange Planning Brain

title: Amendment C105gpla - Ormond Street Bannockburn Rezoning and DPO19 council: golden-plains state: vic category: amendment classification: MAJOR status: adopted last_compiled: 2026-05-30 source_docs:

  • Council Briefing Agenda Reports 24.06.2025.pdf
  • Item 7.4 Attachments - Planning Shceme Amendment C105gpla - 24.06.2025.pdf
  • Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf
  • Item 7.6 - Planning Scheme Amendment C105gpla - Attachments.pdf
    1. Agenda - Council Meeting - 10 September 2024.pdf
  • C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf
  • C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part2.pdf
  • Att 7.5 C105gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents.pdf

Amendment C105gpla - Ormond Street Bannockburn Rezoning and DPO19

Amendment C105gpla is a 16.93 hectare residential land-supply amendment for 5, 20, 25 and 30 Ormond Street, Bannockburn, changing the land from Farming Zone to General Residential Zone 1 and applying Development Plan Overlay Schedule 19. (Source: Att 7.5 C105gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents.pdf, p.1; Source: Att 7.5 C105gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents.pdf, p.2) Its practical effect is to convert four rural-residential holdings into a planned residential subdivision framework of about 170 lots, while making Bruce Creek, stormwater, cultural heritage, bushfire, traffic and servicing matters gatekeeping requirements before subdivision can proceed. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.30; Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.91)

Background

The amendment was requested by the landowners of 5, 20, 25 and 30 Ormond Street, Bannockburn. (Source: Att 7.5 C105gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents.pdf, p.2) The application was first submitted to Council on 3 September 2020, and Council officers referred the material to internal departments and external agencies including the VPA, EPA, CFA, DTP, DEECA, Wadawurrung, CCMA, Powercor and Barwon Water. (Source: 00. Agenda - Council Meeting - 10 September 2024.pdf, p.18)

The strategic lineage is long rather than sudden: the area around Ormond Street was shown as future urban in the 1977 Bannockburn Structure Plan, as consolidated residential in the 2013 Bannockburn Urban Design Framework, and as urban growth land in the 2021 Bannockburn Growth Plan context. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.29; Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.31) Council’s land-supply rationale is that Bannockburn is the only town in the south of the Shire with reticulated sewerage, and therefore carries a larger share of urban-density housing functions than surrounding smaller settlements. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.29)

Council supported preparation and exhibition on 10 September 2024, exhibited the amendment from 21 November to 23 December 2024, referred unresolved submissions to an independent Panel on 25 February 2025, and on 24 June 2025 received the Panel Report, adopted the amendment in the Panel-recommended form, and resolved to request Ministerial approval under section 31 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. (Source: 00. Agenda - Council Meeting - 10 September 2024.pdf, p.18; Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.28; Source: Council Briefing Agenda Reports 24.06.2025.pdf, p.21)

Analysis

Land Supply And Settlement Role

The amendment is small in area but significant in sequence because it is intended to bridge a residential land-supply constraint before the larger Bannockburn South East and North West precincts are realised. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.30) Council’s February 2025 report states that earlier amendments C059gpla, C072gpla and C103gpla added 183 residential lots, that Bannockburn had been growing at an average of 41.5 lots per year, and that those earlier rezonings equated to about 4.4 years of supply. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.30) On Council’s arithmetic, a further 170 lots from Ormond Street equates to about four additional years of supply at that historic absorption rate. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.30)

The mechanism is straightforward: the Farming Zone currently keeps the land outside ordinary residential subdivision expectations, while GRZ1 makes conventional residential use and development the applied urban zone. (Source: Att 7.5 C105gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents.pdf, p.4) DPO19 then prevents the rezoning from operating as an unconstrained lot-creation exercise because a development plan must address urban design, bushfire, stormwater, road network, sequencing, landscaping, arboriculture, flora and fauna, geotechnical, cultural heritage and infrastructure matters before subdivision design is settled. (Source: Att 7.5 C105gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents.pdf, p.22)

The headline yield should be treated as indicative, not fixed. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.68) The Infrastructure Servicing Assessment states that the concept development plan had not been approved by Council or service authorities and that the layout and lot yield were likely to change through stakeholder input. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.68) The CHMP describes the proposed activity as involving 172 to 199 residential lots, while the stormwater report uses a preliminary subdivision plan of approximately 170 lots with lot sizes ranging from 431 square metres to 2,168 square metres and three super lots of 3,990 to 6,137 square metres around retained dwellings. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.218; Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.91)

Bruce Creek As The Main Spatial Constraint

Bruce Creek is the key physical constraint because it is simultaneously a drainage outlet, a flood-related feature, a cultural heritage landscape, an ecological corridor, a bushfire edge and a future open-space spine. (Source: Att 7.5 C105gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents.pdf, p.3; Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.32) The subject land is mostly described as substantially cleared and degraded, but Bruce Creek is described as a steeply incised waterway along the eastern boundary and through the north-eastern boundary of 25 Ormond Street. (Source: Att 7.5 C105gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents.pdf, p.3)

The planning control mechanism after exhibition became more explicit. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.32) Council officers recommended adding a DPO19 requirement that the geotechnical assessment determine the developable area while ensuring a minimum 30 metre buffer from the bank of Bruce Creek. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.32) That buffer is important because it converts a general creek-protection principle into a measurable development-plan test, reducing the risk that the creek corridor is narrowed during detailed subdivision design. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.32)

The Panel process did not require a precinct-only Bruce Creek management plan. (Source: Council Briefing Agenda Reports 24.06.2025.pdf, p.22) The June 2025 Council report records that the Panel considered DEECA’s suggested changes and found that a Bruce Creek Management Plan or Open Space Management Plan should be led by Council or DEECA to address all of Bruce Creek, rather than only the small portion within this amendment area. (Source: Council Briefing Agenda Reports 24.06.2025.pdf, p.22) That finding leaves a broader catchment-scale management dependency outside the amendment itself. (Source: Council Briefing Agenda Reports 24.06.2025.pdf, p.22)

Stormwater And Flooding Mechanism

The stormwater evidence shows why DPO19 needs to control detailed design rather than simply rely on the rezoning map. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.82) Development changes the site’s impervious fraction from 4.7 percent under existing conditions to 58.6 percent under developed conditions, which materially increases runoff unless detention and treatment assets are delivered. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.92)

The stormwater strategy uses a central wetland and detention facility for most of the site, with separate detention and bioretention systems for catchments S3 and S4 because topography prevents all flows being sent to one central system. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.106; Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.109) The central basin is modelled with 3,203 cubic metres of detention volume for the 1 percent AEP event, 2,766 cubic metres for the 10 percent AEP event and 2,667 cubic metres for the 20 percent AEP event. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.108) The S3 and S4 basins are separately identified at 210 cubic metres and 230 cubic metres respectively, each with an average depth of 0.5 metres. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.109)

The modelled discharge result is that the eastern outlet to Bruce Creek is reduced from 0.940 cubic metres per second existing to 0.785 cubic metres per second developed in the 1 percent AEP event, from 0.326 to 0.311 cubic metres per second in the 10 percent AEP event, and is approximately unchanged from 0.247 to 0.250 cubic metres per second in the 20 percent AEP event. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.110) The western outlet to Henry Street is reduced from 0.120 to 0.062 cubic metres per second in the 1 percent AEP event, from 0.047 to 0.037 cubic metres per second in the 10 percent AEP event, and from 0.032 to 0.029 cubic metres per second in the 20 percent AEP event. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.110)

The water-quality modelling reports best-practice pollutant reductions of 80 percent for total suspended solids, 62.1 percent for total phosphorus, 45.8 percent for total nitrogen and 100 percent for gross pollutants. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.82) After exhibition, Council officers recommended DPO19 changes requiring stormwater volume management, reference to the Environmental Protection Act general environmental duty, and peak discharge rates no greater than pre-development for 10 percent, 5 percent and 1 percent AEP events. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.32; Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.33)

Infrastructure Servicing

The servicing assessment concludes that all required services can be provided to the site. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.75) Sewer is the most important enabling service because Barwon Water’s advice indicates that reticulated sewer can drain north to the existing sewer pump station at the eastern end of Archie Lane. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.69) The same assessment states that Area 1 can be serviced by the existing DN300 gravity sewer in Bruce Street, that Area 2 can discharge partly to Area 1 and partly to Area 3, and that Area 3 can be accommodated by Bannockburn No.4 Sewer Pump Station. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.70)

Water supply is also a staged-network issue rather than a simple frontage connection. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.71) The development would connect to the Bannockburn pressure zone, which is a boosted water-supply system with a full supply level of 167 metres AHD, and a DN300 shared water main would need to be constructed along Bruce Street and south on Ormond Street. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.71) The report states that the shared main would be refunded by Barwon Water on takeover, which indicates an asset-delivery arrangement rather than a permanent private servicing burden. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.71)

Other utilities are less constraining in the available documents. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.73; Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.74) Electricity can be supplied from Manifold Street with two triple-switch kiosks, gas mains in Manifold Street and Bruce Street have sufficient capacity according to AusNet Services, recycled water is not required because that part of Barwon Water’s network lacks recycled-water infrastructure, and NBN advised telecommunications can be supplied. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.73; Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.74; Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.75)

Transport And Movement

The local traffic report finds that the immediate subdivision can be accommodated by the existing road network, but the later Trafficworks work shows that the wider Bannockburn growth area will require higher-order intersection planning on Harvey Road. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.134; Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.153) For the Ormond Street subdivision itself, Traffix Group reports post-development degrees of saturation at Bannockburn-Shelford Road/Bruce Street of 0.275 in the AM peak and 0.205 in the PM peak, and at Bannockburn-Shelford Road/Harvey Road of 0.122 in the AM peak and 0.178 in the PM peak. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.133; Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.134)

The local road-volume effect is material for Bruce Street and Harvey Road even if intersection capacity remains acceptable. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.137) Traffix estimates future daily volumes of 910 vehicles per day on Harvey Road, 415 vehicles per day on Ormond Street and 1,700 vehicles per day on Bruce Street after adding site-generated traffic. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.137) The report states that Ormond Street and Bruce Street are to be constructed to Access Street standard, and that proposed internal roads have at least 16 metre reservations with the main east-west link at 18 metres. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.137; Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.138)

The wider PSP-context analysis is more cautionary. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.153) Trafficworks assessed Harvey Road/Bannockburn-Shelford Road, Harvey Road/Ormond Street and Harvey Road/new road intersections for the south-west precinct of the future Bannockburn PSP, using 2043 traffic, a 2 percent compound annual growth rate from 2018 volumes, and growth-plan lot yields. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.153; Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.154) The interim Harvey Road/Bannockburn-Shelford Road roundabout is reported to operate satisfactorily for 1,000 lots from the south-west development area only, or for a combined 1,050 lots across south-west and north-west areas if they develop at the same rate. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.158)

After exhibition, DPO19 changes were recommended to require bus-capable north-south and east-west roads, bus-turning support, Ormond Street sealing, active-transport infrastructure, a Harvey Road active-transport link supporting the Strategic Cycling Corridor, and early delivery of active-transport connections where construction staging would otherwise delay them. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.33)

Cultural Heritage

Cultural heritage is a binding approval and construction-management issue because the proposed subdivision is a high-impact activity within an area of cultural heritage sensitivity associated with Bruce Creek. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.251) The CHMP executive summary states that the activity involves excavation over about 190,000 square metres for 172 to 199 lots. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.218)

The assessment found a dense cultural heritage signal near Bruce Creek. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part2.pdf, p.8) The desktop review found 90 previously registered Aboriginal places within the geographic region, with the nearest 110 metres east of the activity area. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.218) The field program excavated four 1 metre by 1 metre test pits, five 0.5 metre by 0.5 metre radial test pits and 49 machine test pits, totalling 103.25 square metres of excavation and identifying 312 additional stone artefacts. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.218)

Three Aboriginal cultural heritage places were recorded in the activity area: Ormond Street LDAD VAHR 7721-1436, Bruces Creek Artefact Scatter VAHR 7721-1435 and Manifold Street Artefact Scatter VAHR 7721-1434. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.218; Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part2.pdf, p.54) Bruces Creek Artefact Scatter consisted of 270 artefacts and was assessed as having medium scientific significance because of its artefact density and location relative to Bruce Creek. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.219; Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part2.pdf, p.54) Approximately 86 percent of subsurface artefacts were found in Section 4, on the plains and ridgeline leading to Bruce Creek. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part2.pdf, p.8)

The CHMP records that harm to Ormond Street LDAD cannot be avoided or minimised because artefacts occur from about 15 centimetres depth and the proposed activity involves excavation deeper than that across the activity area. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part2.pdf, p.55) This makes cultural heritage management a construction-phase compliance matter, not only a design-buffer matter. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part2.pdf, p.55)

Vegetation, Contamination And Bushfire

The vegetation assessment supports rezoning only because most of the site is degraded, but it still identifies native vegetation and offset obligations. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part2.pdf, p.107; Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part2.pdf, p.114) The study area contains mostly exotic vegetation, but includes partially intact riparian River Red Gum vegetation along Bruce Creek, one scattered River Red Gum proposed for removal and one Manna Gum patch proposed for removal. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part2.pdf, p.117) The native vegetation to be removed is 0.092 hectares, requiring 0.068 general biodiversity equivalence units within the Corangamite CMA area with a minimum strategic biodiversity score of 0.464 if removal is permitted. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part2.pdf, p.114)

The contamination assessment reduces but does not eliminate environmental due-diligence risk. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part2.pdf, p.140) ESA found a low likelihood of soil contamination from fertilisers, herbicides, other chemicals and industrial waste, no apparent asbestos contamination, no apparent imported fill, and analysed soils below relevant NEPM residential thresholds. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part2.pdf, p.140) The site inspection had initially identified low-medium risk and recommended surface soil sampling around paddocks and buildings, which was then addressed through the sampling program. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part2.pdf, p.142)

Bushfire risk is treated as manageable through subdivision design rather than as a reason to avoid settlement. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.56) The bushfire assessment identifies grassland as the dominant surrounding landscape hazard, with scrub along Bruce Creek, and calculates BAL-12.5 exposures to the east, south and west and BAL-Low to the north. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.44; Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.56) The Bushfire Management Plan requires BAL-12.5 construction, defendable space of 39 metres around Bruce Creek to the east, 22 metres to the east toward farmland and road reserve, 19 metres to the south and 19 metres to the west, plus hydrants no more than 120 metres apart and no more than 90 metres from the rear of lots or building envelopes. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.57)

Submissions And Panel Issues

Exhibition generated 10 submissions: two from agencies, four from community organisations, two from neighbouring residents, one from a proponent of nearby development and one from a community member. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.28) Three submissions were generally supportive but sought minor changes or clarification, five requested changes before the amendment proceeded, and two objected. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.31)

The issues raised were not generic opposition; they focused on measurable design and environmental controls. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.31; Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.32) The listed issues included Bruce Creek buffers, stormwater volume and peak discharge during more frequent flood events, the general environmental duty, consistency with the Bannockburn Growth Plan, traffic and noise, rural landscape change, arterial and local road upgrades, public and active transport, Bruce Creek environmental protection, future zoning of open space, cultural heritage protection, weed and pest eradication, and ESO2 conformance. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.31; Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.32)

Council reported that CCMA and DTP submissions were resolved by suggested DPO19 changes, and that the nearby-development proponent’s concerns were resolved by clarification about future Harvey Road and Bannockburn-Shelford Road intersection upgrades. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.32) Community-group and community-member concerns about stronger Bruce Creek protection remained unresolved at officer stage, and neighbour objections about process and amenity also remained unresolved. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.28; Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.32)

The Panel hearing was held on 5 and 6 May 2025 after a Directions Hearing on 7 April 2025, and one late DEECA submission dated 3 April 2025 was accepted for Panel consideration. (Source: Council Briefing Agenda Reports 24.06.2025.pdf, p.22) The Panel found the amendment well founded and strategically justified, recommended that it proceed with changes to DPO19 and Clause 74.02, and the parties produced an agreed DPO19 revision that formed the basis of the Panel’s recommended version. (Source: Council Briefing Agenda Reports 24.06.2025.pdf, p.22; Source: Council Briefing Agenda Reports 24.06.2025.pdf, p.23)

Current Status

As at the latest source document, Council’s 24 June 2025 agenda recommended receiving the Panel Report, adopting Amendment C105gpla in the Panel-recommended form, and requesting the Minister for Planning to approve it under section 31 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. (Source: Council Briefing Agenda Reports 24.06.2025.pdf, p.21) The source set does not include a Ministerial approval notice, gazettal notice or incorporated final planning scheme extract confirming approval after Council adoption. (Source: Council Briefing Agenda Reports 24.06.2025.pdf, p.26; Source: Item 7.4 Attachments - Planning Shceme Amendment C105gpla - 24.06.2025.pdf)

Dependencies

  • Blocks: Residential subdivision of the land is blocked until the rezoning is approved and DPO19 development-plan requirements are satisfied. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.31)
  • Blocked by: Ministerial approval and gazettal are not evidenced in the supplied source set, and detailed subdivision remains dependent on stormwater, road, cultural heritage, bushfire, flora and fauna, geotechnical and servicing responses required by DPO19. (Source: Council Briefing Agenda Reports 24.06.2025.pdf, p.21; Source: Att 7.5 C105gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents.pdf, p.22)
  • Informed by: The amendment is informed by the town planning report, infrastructure servicing assessment, stormwater management plan, traffic engineering report, bushfire risk assessment, cultural heritage management plan, vegetation assessment and environmental site assessment. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.4; Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part2.pdf, p.100; Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part2.pdf, p.138)
  • Implements: The amendment implements the Bannockburn Framework Plan and the Bannockburn Growth Plan direction for urban growth in Bannockburn. (Source: Att 7.5 C105gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents.pdf, p.4; Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.29)
  • Conflicts with: The source set records unresolved concerns about Bruce Creek protection, cultural heritage, rural landscape change, amenity and process, but the Panel ultimately found the amendment strategically justified with changes. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.31; Source: Council Briefing Agenda Reports 24.06.2025.pdf, p.22)

Barwon Water is a critical infrastructure authority because sewer and water servicing shape whether Bannockburn can absorb urban-density growth. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.69; Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.71) CCMA and DEECA are material because Bruce Creek stormwater, floodplain and creek-corridor management extend beyond the four-lot amendment area. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.32; Source: Council Briefing Agenda Reports 24.06.2025.pdf, p.22) DTP is material because the amendment’s road-network response intersects with longer-term Bannockburn growth-area transport planning, including Harvey Road and Bannockburn-Shelford Road intersection design. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.153; Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.33)

Gaps In This Analysis

The Panel Report itself is listed as an attachment in the June 2025 source package, but the extracted attachment text contains only page headers and no readable Panel findings, so this page relies on Council’s summary of the Panel’s conclusions rather than the Panel’s own reasoning. (Source: Item 7.4 Attachments - Planning Shceme Amendment C105gpla - 24.06.2025.pdf; Source: Council Briefing Agenda Reports 24.06.2025.pdf, p.22)

The supplied documents do not include the full text of the 10 exhibition submissions or the late DEECA submission, so issue weighting is limited to Council’s categorisation and cannot independently test each submitter’s evidence. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.28; Source: Council Briefing Agenda Reports 24.06.2025.pdf, p.22)

The source set refers to Section 173 contributions for a future road intersection upgrade, community facilities, and social and affordable housing, but it does not disclose contribution amounts, timing triggers or draft agreement terms. (Source: 00. Agenda - Council Meeting - 10 September 2024.pdf, p.22; Source: Council Meeting Agenda - 25 Feb 2025.pdf, p.36)

The documents do not include a Ministerial approval or gazettal notice after Council’s 24 June 2025 adoption resolution, so the amendment status can only be stated as Council-adopted and submitted/requested for Ministerial approval on the supplied evidence. (Source: Council Briefing Agenda Reports 24.06.2025.pdf, p.21; Source: Council Briefing Agenda Reports 24.06.2025.pdf, p.26)

The broader Bruce Creek management response remains a corpus gap because the Panel summary says a Bruce Creek Management Plan or Open Space Management Plan should be led by Council or DEECA for the whole creek, but no such whole-of-creek plan is included in the source set. (Source: Council Briefing Agenda Reports 24.06.2025.pdf, p.22)

Graph View