Grange Planning Brain

title: Amendment C112gpla - Teesdale North East Growth Area Rezoning and DPO20 council: golden-plains state: vic category: amendment classification: MAJOR status: active last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:

  • Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf
  • Item 7.1 Attachments - Planning Scheme Amendment C112gpla Teesdale North East Growth Area - 28.04.2026.pdf
  • web-research-L0-gamble-fails-with-teesdale-rezoning-amendment-move-b19cbe38ff.txt
  • web-research-L0-most-recent-applications-from-golden-plains-shire-council-vic-bf43353d99.txt
  • Investment%20Prospectus%2024%20_FINAL%20V2.pdf
  • web-research-L0-teesdale-structure-plan-golden-plains-shire-council-475a98ec86.txt
  • Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan.pdf
  • Golden%20Plains%20C92gpla%20explanatory%20report_0.pdf
  • C92%20consolidated%20Amendment%20Documentation.pdf
  • Teesdale_BackgrounReport_compressed_OCT_0.pdf
  • Teesdale%20Strategic%20Bushfire%20Risk%20Assessment_0.pdf
  • Teesdale_Community_Engagement_FINAL.pdf
  • Infographic%20-%20Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan%20Survey.pdf

Amendment C112gpla - Teesdale North East Growth Area Rezoning and DPO20

Amendment C112gpla is the statutory step that would move the Teesdale North East Growth Area from a long-identified investigation area into a low-density residential development area controlled by overlay and agreement mechanisms. The practical planning question is not simply whether more land should be rezoned; it is whether a 206 hectare edge-of-town growth area can be serviced, staged, environmentally managed, and integrated with Teesdale’s low-density settlement pattern without shifting unresolved infrastructure and hazard costs onto later permit stages. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.6; Source: Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan.pdf, p.20)

The amendment is classified as MAJOR because it affects land supply, proposes rezoning from Farming Zone to Low Density Residential Zone, introduces Development Plan Overlay Schedule 20, and relies on multiple infrastructure, hazard, biodiversity, contamination, transport, drainage, sewer and social infrastructure assessments. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.6-12)

Background

The Teesdale North East Growth Area is not a new spatial idea created by Amendment C112gpla. The 2020 Teesdale Structure Plan states that the north-east area had been strategically identified for residential development and that any rezoning proposal would need to address detailed requirements before Council would consider it. (Source: Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan.pdf, p.20) Amendment C92gpla later inserted Teesdale-specific policy into the Golden Plains Planning Scheme, including strategies to avoid rezoning greenfield residential development land outside the Teesdale North East Precinct and to ensure rezoning and development in that precinct considers constraints, roads, drainage, open space and community infrastructure regardless of land ownership. (Source: C92%20consolidated%20Amendment%20Documentation.pdf, p.20)

The planning lineage is important. Amendment C92gpla implemented the 2020 Structure Plan into the planning scheme after replacing the 1997 Teesdale Structure Plan, which Council described as outdated and ambiguous in its treatment of the north-east growth land. (Source: Golden%20Plains%20C92gpla%20explanatory%20report_0.pdf, pp.1-2) The 2020 Structure Plan did not itself rezone the north-east land; it set a conditional pathway requiring analysis of flora and fauna, buffers, bushfire, utilities, contamination, landfill risk, traffic, roads and stormwater before rezoning could be supported. (Source: Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan.pdf, pp.20-21)

On 28 April 2026, Council considered an officer recommendation to seek Ministerial approval to prepare, authorise and exhibit Amendment C112gpla to rezone the Teesdale North East Growth Area from Farming Zone to Low Density Residential Zone and apply Design and Development Overlay Schedule 5, Development Plan Overlay Schedule 20 and the Environmental Audit Overlay. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.6) The formal amendment application had been submitted to Council on 27 November 2025 after supporting work began following approval of Amendment C92gpla. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.6)

Analysis

Statutory Mechanism and Control Architecture

The amendment uses three statutory levers: rezoning, design control and development plan control. The rezoning would change the land from Farming Zone to Low Density Residential Zone, which is the base-zone shift that permits low-density residential subdivision rather than rural/farming use. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.6) The proposed Design and Development Overlay Schedule 5 and Development Plan Overlay Schedule 20 would sit over that base zoning to control built form, sequencing and precinct-wide development outcomes. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.6)

The Development Plan Overlay is the key mechanism because the 2020 Structure Plan explicitly required any rezoning proposal to be accompanied by a DPO schedule for the entire north-east precinct. (Source: Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan.pdf, p.20) That requirement was intended to prevent isolated lot-by-lot subdivision decisions from undermining shared drainage, road, open space, bushfire and infrastructure outcomes across fragmented ownerships. (Source: Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan.pdf, pp.20-21) In simple terms, the DPO is the rulebook that says the paddock cannot be carved up one piece at a time without first showing how the roads, water, drainage, open space, hazard buffers and development staging work together. (Source: C92%20consolidated%20Amendment%20Documentation.pdf, p.20)

The C112gpla agenda report states that agencies including EPA, CFA, Department of Transport and Planning, DEECA, Corangamite Catchment Management Authority and Barwon Water were consulted during amendment preparation, and that comments were incorporated into DPO20 regarding bushfire mitigation, traffic management, active transport, biodiversity protection, drainage management and flood assessment. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9) This indicates that DPO20 is being used as the downstream translation mechanism for agency requirements, but the actual wording of DPO20 is not available in the extracted text because the attachment document extracted only as page markers. (Source: Item 7.1 Attachments - Planning Scheme Amendment C112gpla Teesdale North East Growth Area - 28.04.2026.pdf)

Land Supply and Yield Logic

The subject C112gpla site is approximately 206 hectares across 10 land parcels north-east of Teesdale. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.7) The site is mostly used for rural living or farming, with a former Council-owned landfill shown as Public Use Zone - Local Government land within the broader area. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.7) The land falls generally from north to south-west towards Native Hut Creek, and a drainage line crosses the north-west portion of the site before ultimately draining to Native Hut Creek. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.7)

The 2019 background report estimated that Teesdale grew from 1,479 residents in 2011 to 1,664 residents in 2016, equivalent to average annual growth of 37 people or 2.5 per cent. (Source: Teesdale_BackgrounReport_compressed_OCT_0.pdf, p.16) Using an average household size of 2.9 residents, the report translated that growth rate into demand for approximately 13 dwellings in 2018. (Source: Teesdale_BackgrounReport_compressed_OCT_0.pdf, p.16) The same report estimated that 158 hectares of undeveloped land in already-residential DPO2 areas could yield about 237 future lots if 60 per cent of the land became lots and each lot was 4,000 square metres. (Source: Teesdale_BackgrounReport_compressed_OCT_0.pdf, p.16)

The background report also modelled the north-east growth area as approximately 200 hectares after excluding the former landfill and a 500 metre buffer, with a theoretical yield of 300 lots based on 60 per cent developable land and 4,000 square metre lots. (Source: Teesdale_BackgrounReport_compressed_OCT_0.pdf, p.17) At 2.9 people per household, those 300 lots were estimated to accommodate about 870 additional residents. (Source: Teesdale_BackgrounReport_compressed_OCT_0.pdf, p.17) Combining the 300-lot north-east growth area with the 237 lots already zoned but undeveloped produced a theoretical 537-lot supply and about 1,557 additional residents, which the background report equated to just over 25 years of supply at 2.5 per cent annual population growth. (Source: Teesdale_BackgrounReport_compressed_OCT_0.pdf, p.17)

This land supply logic has two tensions. First, the 2026 C112gpla site is approximately 206 hectares, while the 2019 theoretical calculation used about 200 hectares after landfill and buffer exclusions, so the old 300-lot estimate is useful as a scale indicator but should not be treated as a final subdivision yield for the current amendment footprint. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.7; Source: Teesdale_BackgrounReport_compressed_OCT_0.pdf, p.17) Second, the Structure Plan recognised extensive infill potential, with a high-level estimate of up to 822 additional lots if existing residential allotments were resubdivided to the maximum extent possible under the 4,000 square metre minimum lot size. (Source: Teesdale_BackgrounReport_compressed_OCT_0.pdf, p.16) The background report cautioned that infill capacity is theoretical because landowner intentions vary and not all owners will subdivide. (Source: Teesdale_BackgrounReport_compressed_OCT_0.pdf, p.16)

The planning implication is that C112gpla is not needed because Teesdale has no physical capacity for growth. It is a choice to shift a large, coordinated greenfield supply into the statutory pipeline rather than relying mainly on dispersed infill and already-zoned DPO2 land. (Source: Teesdale_BackgrounReport_compressed_OCT_0.pdf, pp.16-17; Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.6) That choice changes the growth pattern: instead of many smaller infill decisions closer to existing services, C112gpla would create a single large low-density growth area north-east of the town that needs its own shared infrastructure, active transport links, drainage and hazard management. (Source: C92%20consolidated%20Amendment%20Documentation.pdf, p.20; Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.10)

Environmental Constraints, Native Vegetation and Native Hut Creek

The amendment area sits within a township context with high ecological sensitivity. The Teesdale Structure Plan records large pockets of Plains Grassland and Plains Grassy Woodland, states that less than five per cent of the original extent of temperate grasslands and grassy woodlands remains in the Victorian Volcanic Plain, and identifies more than 90 indigenous flora species in Teesdale. (Source: Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan.pdf, p.4) The Structure Plan also identifies Native Hut Creek as an environmental, cultural and recreational feature that functions as a Creekline Grassy Woodland and fauna corridor. (Source: Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan.pdf, p.4)

The C112gpla report states that the initial rezoning area was reduced after native flora and fauna survey work identified significant high-value vegetation and habitat in properties west of Teesdale-Lethbridge Road, south of the former landfill, and in the north-east corner. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.8) Those high-value vegetation areas were excluded from the proposed rezoning land to preserve them. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.8) This is the most important environmental design move visible in the extracted C112gpla corpus: the amendment does not simply overlay environmental management on the original area; it removes some higher-value areas from the rezoning proposal. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.8)

Native Hut Creek creates both ecological and hydraulic implications. The Structure Plan anticipated that encumbered land within greenfield sites should be used for open space where possible, including buffers along Native Hut Creek where required by the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority. (Source: C92%20consolidated%20Amendment%20Documentation.pdf, p.20) The 2019 background report noted that flood mapping for Native Hut Creek was out of date and that a study on flood susceptibility was being peer reviewed, with a likely later planning scheme amendment to implement new mapping. (Source: Teesdale_BackgrounReport_compressed_OCT_0.pdf, p.7) The same report also noted that a tributary crossing Jollys Road and leading to Native Hut Creek had not been flood mapped but warranted consideration for possible flood impacts. (Source: Teesdale_BackgrounReport_compressed_OCT_0.pdf, p.7)

The mechanism is straightforward: if the drainage line and Native Hut Creek corridor require land for flood conveyance, stormwater treatment, open space or waterway buffers, that land reduces the area available for 4,000 square metre residential lots. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.7; Source: C92%20consolidated%20Amendment%20Documentation.pdf, p.20) The extracted corpus does not provide basin sizes, waterway buffer widths, drainage land take or lot-by-lot yield impacts for C112gpla, so the final net developable area cannot be calculated from the available sources. (Source: Item 7.1 Attachments - Planning Scheme Amendment C112gpla Teesdale North East Growth Area - 28.04.2026.pdf; Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.10-12)

Landfill, Contamination and the Environmental Audit Overlay

The former Teesdale landfill is the central contamination constraint. The 2020 Structure Plan stated that land within 500 metres of a closed landfill is likely to require an environmental audit to be considered for rezoning, with underground gas migration identified as a concern. (Source: Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan.pdf, p.20) The Structure Plan also recorded that the landfill was uncapped and had been flagged for eventual capping by Council, with no fixed timeframe. (Source: Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan.pdf, p.20)

The C112gpla report states that extensive analysis of potentially contaminated land was undertaken and that the detailed site investigation found two lots warranted additional scrutiny. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9) The amendment therefore proposes to apply the Environmental Audit Overlay to those two lots. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9) The report describes the EAO as the planning scheme mechanism that requires investigation and remediation before sensitive uses, a children’s playground, a secondary school, or buildings and works associated with those uses commence. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9)

The landfill buffer position changed materially between the Structure Plan and C112gpla. The Structure Plan used the 500 metre landfill buffer as the default risk frame, while the C112gpla report states that an Environmental Audit found the risk of harm was very low and supported reducing the buffer distance to 20 metres from the edge of the former landfill. (Source: Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan.pdf, p.20; Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9) Council’s report states that this 20 metre buffer reduction results in all proposed rezoned land being available for residential development or other sensitive uses. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9)

This is a major dependency because the 2019 yield estimate for the growth area excluded the former landfill and a 500 metre buffer, while the 2026 amendment report says the audit-supported buffer reduction leaves all proposed rezoned land available for sensitive uses. (Source: Teesdale_BackgrounReport_compressed_OCT_0.pdf, p.17; Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9) The practical consequence is that the contamination conclusion appears to have converted land from constrained investigation land into potentially developable land, subject to the EAO on two lots. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9) The analytical gap is that the Environmental Audit, Detailed Site Investigation and auditor advice are listed in the agenda but are not present as extracted source documents in the manifest. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.11-12)

Bushfire Risk and Settlement Form

Teesdale is in a bushfire-prone planning context, but the available bushfire assessments distinguish between general regional risk and the specific risk profile of the north-east growth land. (Source: Teesdale%20Strategic%20Bushfire%20Risk%20Assessment_0.pdf, pp.4-5) The 2020 strategic bushfire assessment identified the main threats as grassfire from the north-west, grassfire running west of town and turning with a south-westerly wind change, and bushfire from the Inverleigh Flora and Fauna Reserve to the south-west. (Source: Teesdale%20Strategic%20Bushfire%20Risk%20Assessment_0.pdf, p.5) The report stated that the north-east growth area would be principally affected by grassfire from the north or north-west and that a fire from the south-west would be moderated by existing development in Teesdale. (Source: Teesdale%20Strategic%20Bushfire%20Risk%20Assessment_0.pdf, p.8)

The 2020 assessment recommended interface measures including sufficient separation to achieve BAL12.5 for dwellings, a perimeter road within the separation distance, and fuel management within the separation distance. (Source: Teesdale%20Strategic%20Bushfire%20Risk%20Assessment_0.pdf, p.7) It concluded that the north-east development area could be a low-risk location if mitigation achieved a radiant heat flux of 12.5 kilowatts per square metre under AS3959. (Source: Teesdale%20Strategic%20Bushfire%20Risk%20Assessment_0.pdf, p.9)

The C112gpla report records that further bushfire analysis was undertaken through discussions with CFA and that the later Bushfire Planning Report by Planning for Fire found the precinct to be Type 2 because bushfires can only approach the site from the north/north-west, egress to shelter is relatively certain, and extreme bushfire behaviour is not likely. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9) The same report states that wording was recommended for DPO20 so the bushfire findings flow through to the Development Plan and later planning permits. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9)

The downstream effect is that bushfire protection is not resolved solely by rezoning. It depends on DPO20 requiring subdivision layouts, perimeter roads, separation distances, staging and permit conditions that preserve the mitigation logic as land is developed. (Source: Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan.pdf, p.20; Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9) If staging allows lots to face unmanaged grassland edges without interim perimeter-road or fuel-management treatment, the risk profile assumed in the strategic assessments may not hold at the time of occupation. (Source: Teesdale%20Strategic%20Bushfire%20Risk%20Assessment_0.pdf, pp.7-8)

Servicing, Sewer and Infrastructure Delivery

The servicing issue is structurally important because Teesdale is a low-density, largely unsewered township. The background report states that Teesdale is not sewered, that Barwon Water had no known plans to sewer the town in its five-year plan at the time, and that a reticulated sewer would likely affect development potential and town character because the Low Density Residential Zone minimum subdivision size is 4,000 square metres for unsewered lots and 2,000 square metres for sewered lots. (Source: Teesdale_BackgrounReport_compressed_OCT_0.pdf, p.10) The community engagement report records that 126 of 166 survey respondents did not wish to see reticulated sewerage in Teesdale, while 32 supported investigations into sewerage. (Source: Teesdale_Community_Engagement_FINAL.pdf, p.5)

C112gpla therefore needs to be read as a low-density, on-site wastewater or limited-servicing growth model unless the missing servicing report shows a different pathway. (Source: Teesdale_BackgrounReport_compressed_OCT_0.pdf, p.10; Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.11) The agenda lists a Land Capability Assessment and a Combined Servicing Report among the amendment appendices, but those documents are not included in the manifest as extracted source documents. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.11) Without those reports, the corpus cannot verify wastewater disposal capacity, water supply augmentation needs, staging thresholds, or whether Barwon Water’s comments impose infrastructure triggers. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.9-11)

Infrastructure funding is partly addressed through agreement rather than a full Development Contributions Plan in the extracted sources. The 2020 Structure Plan required an agreement under section 173 for collection of development contributions and delivery of infrastructure items before rezoning, and stated that contribution levels would be influenced by state standard rates for Infrastructure Contributions Plans while accounting for LDRZ density restrictions. (Source: Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan.pdf, p.21) The C112gpla agenda states that the major landowner has entered into a section 173 agreement to prepare a shared infrastructure plan for the entire amendment area, later enter into a more detailed agreement to implement that plan, and pay the Community Infrastructure Levy and Social and Affordable Housing Contribution for land affected by the agreement. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.10)

This creates a staged infrastructure-funding mechanism. The first agreement secures preparation of the shared infrastructure plan and a commitment pathway; the later agreement is intended to implement the plan. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.10) The risk is timing: if rezoning proceeds before infrastructure item costs, triggers, delivery responsibilities and landowner apportionment are locked in, later subdivision stages may depend on negotiated obligations rather than a fully visible contributions schedule. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.10; Source: Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan.pdf, p.21)

Transport, Active Movement and Town Integration

The amendment area is north-east of the existing township and is accessed through the existing Teesdale road network, with Teesdale-Lethbridge Road identified in the Structure Plan as a key access point and Teesdale Tip Road also available. (Source: Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan.pdf, p.20) The C112gpla report states that agency comments were incorporated into DPO20 for traffic management and active transport connections. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9)

Transport integration matters because Teesdale is highly car-dependent. The Structure Plan states that 79.7 per cent of Teesdale residents use a car to travel to work and that paths within Teesdale are fragmented in places. (Source: Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan.pdf, p.15) The background report states that Teesdale is 34 minutes by car from Geelong CBD, 51 minutes from Werribee, 50 minutes from Ballarat, 52 minutes from Colac, and 11 minutes from Bannockburn. (Source: Teesdale_BackgrounReport_compressed_OCT_0.pdf, p.24) The agenda for the same 28 April 2026 Council meeting separately states that Teesdale and Inverleigh have little to no regular public transport service and that Council’s bus review submission sought an integrated bus network connecting Bannockburn with Teesdale, Inverleigh and Lethbridge. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.29-30)

The practical effect is that C112gpla would add low-density residential land in a location where daily access to jobs, secondary education, higher-order services and regional destinations is likely to remain car-based unless public transport and active transport improvements occur. (Source: Teesdale_BackgrounReport_compressed_OCT_0.pdf, p.24; Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.29-30) The Structure Plan already recognised this by including future actions to advocate for a regular bus service to Geelong Station for the combined populations of Inverleigh, Teesdale and Bannockburn, and to improve pedestrian safety and paths. (Source: Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan.pdf, p.23)

The local integration question is also contested. A news report captured in the corpus states that Cr Gavin Gamble sought to defer the amendment and review the Teesdale Structure Plan, arguing that people should not live nearly six kilometres from the centre of town, while the alternative motion was defeated and the original recommendation was carried. (Source: web-research-L0-gamble-fails-with-teesdale-rezoning-amendment-move-b19cbe38ff.txt) This is a secondary media source rather than a primary minute, but it identifies a planning concern that should be tested through formal exhibition: whether the north-east growth pattern weakens compact access to the town centre and community facilities. (Source: web-research-L0-gamble-fails-with-teesdale-rezoning-amendment-move-b19cbe38ff.txt; Source: Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan.pdf, p.17)

Community Sentiment and Social Infrastructure

The 2019 engagement program received 166 survey forms, with 86 hardcopy and 80 online responses, and 28 attendees across two conversation posts. (Source: Teesdale_Community_Engagement_FINAL.pdf, pp.2-3) The engagement report states that 90 per cent of survey respondents were Teesdale residents and that the survey represented about 26.6 per cent of households or 9.5 per cent of the total population. (Source: Teesdale_Community_Engagement_FINAL.pdf, p.4) The survey results show a community preference for rural character, with 67 respondents identifying a country or rural community as the type of community they wanted Teesdale to remain. (Source: Teesdale_Community_Engagement_FINAL.pdf, p.5)

The survey results reveal a mixed settlement mandate rather than a simple pro-growth or anti-growth position. Fifty per cent of respondents wanted more commercial facilities, while 44 per cent believed existing commercial facilities were adequate. (Source: Teesdale_Community_Engagement_FINAL.pdf, p.6) Forty-eight per cent thought car parking could be improved, with the general store identified as the most common problem location in the infographic. (Source: Infographic%20-%20Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan%20Survey.pdf, p.1) Seventy-six per cent did not support reticulated sewerage, and 20 per cent supported it. (Source: Infographic%20-%20Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan%20Survey.pdf, p.1)

The social infrastructure issue is that Teesdale has some local facilities but relies on Bannockburn and Geelong for many higher-order services. (Source: Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan.pdf, p.16) The Structure Plan states that Teesdale contains limited community infrastructure and that the population relies on nearby Bannockburn and Geelong for higher-order services. (Source: Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan.pdf, p.16) The background report lists existing facilities including a primary school, pre-school, community hall, Presbyterian church, Turtle Bend Park, Don Wallace Reserve, tennis courts, walking tracks, a BMX track and Chinaman’s Lagoon. (Source: Teesdale_BackgrounReport_compressed_OCT_0.pdf, p.23)

C112gpla’s section 173 pathway includes a Community Infrastructure Levy and Social and Affordable Housing Contribution, but the extracted sources do not quantify the levy rate, the affordable housing contribution, the infrastructure items, or how contributions are apportioned across landholdings. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.10) That absence matters because a 206 hectare low-density residential area can increase demand for local roads, open space, paths, drainage, community facilities and transport services even if individual lot density remains low. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.7; Source: Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan.pdf, pp.16-17)

Relationship to Broader Golden Plains Growth

Golden Plains Shire is a growth municipality. The 2024 investment prospectus states that the Shire had a population of 25,651 in 2023 and an anticipated population of 42,607 by 2041, with predicted annual growth of 2.73 per cent. (Source: Investment%20Prospectus%2024%20_FINAL%20V2.pdf, p.8) It also states that the Shire had 8,971 dwellings in 2023. (Source: Investment%20Prospectus%2024%20_FINAL%20V2.pdf, p.15) The 2026 agenda states that the Council Plan includes implementation of planning decisions to support delivery of designated housing targets for Golden Plains Shire in line with Victorian State Government legislation. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.12)

Within that municipal growth frame, Teesdale is the second largest town in Golden Plains Shire and is identified in the Growing Places Strategy as suitable for growth with incremental change potential. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.6) Amendment C92gpla planning scheme content describes Teesdale as the second largest town, located 12 kilometres west of Bannockburn, characterised by low-density residential properties and a strong connection to the natural environment and surrounding agricultural land. (Source: C92%20consolidated%20Amendment%20Documentation.pdf, p.2) It also states that Teesdale is largely reliant on Bannockburn and Geelong for services and job access and is experiencing considerable pressure for residential development. (Source: C92%20consolidated%20Amendment%20Documentation.pdf, p.2)

C112gpla therefore sits between two planning objectives that pull in different directions. One objective is to provide land supply within an existing township boundary and a previously identified growth precinct. (Source: C92%20consolidated%20Amendment%20Documentation.pdf, p.20) The other is to maintain Teesdale’s low-density rural character, environmental values, non-urban breaks and reliance on service provision scaled to a small town. (Source: Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan.pdf, pp.12-17)

Current Status

As at the 28 April 2026 Council agenda, the recommended action was for Council to seek Ministerial approval to prepare, authorise and exhibit Amendment C112gpla. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.6) The agenda report stated that no exemption from public exhibition would be sought and that exhibition would include direct mailout to neighbouring landowners and residents, notice in the Golden Plains Times, documents at the Golden Plains Civic Centre and documents on Council’s website. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9)

A secondary media report dated 7 May 2026 states that an alternative motion by Cr Gavin Gamble to defer the rezoning proposal and review the Structure Plan was defeated, and that the original officer recommendation was carried. (Source: web-research-L0-gamble-fails-with-teesdale-rezoning-amendment-move-b19cbe38ff.txt) The manifest does not include the adopted Council minutes for 28 April 2026, the Ministerial authorisation decision, exhibition notice, submissions, Panel directions, Panel report, adoption report or approval/gazettal record. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.6-12)

Dependencies

  • Blocks: Rezoning of the Teesdale North East Growth Area from Farming Zone to Low Density Residential Zone cannot occur unless the amendment is authorised, exhibited, considered through the statutory process, adopted and approved. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.6, 9)
  • Blocks: Large-scale residential subdivision in the amendment area depends on DPO20 and later development plans translating bushfire, traffic, active transport, biodiversity, drainage and flood requirements into permit-stage controls. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9)
  • Blocked by: The amendment is blocked by Ministerial authorisation and the subsequent amendment process, including public exhibition and possible Panel consideration if submissions remain unresolved. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9)
  • Blocked by: Final subdivision feasibility is blocked by missing details on servicing, land capability, stormwater, transport, vegetation offsets, contamination remediation and infrastructure funding because the underlying technical appendices are not included in the extracted manifest. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.10-12)
  • Informed by: The amendment is informed by the 2020 Teesdale Structure Plan, the 2019 background report, the strategic bushfire assessment, community engagement, C92gpla planning scheme policy and the C112gpla supporting studies listed in the agenda. (Source: Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan.pdf; Source: Teesdale_BackgrounReport_compressed_OCT_0.pdf; Source: Teesdale%20Strategic%20Bushfire%20Risk%20Assessment_0.pdf; Source: Teesdale_Community_Engagement_FINAL.pdf; Source: C92%20consolidated%20Amendment%20Documentation.pdf; Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.10-12)
  • Implements: The amendment implements the Teesdale-specific planning scheme direction inserted by C92gpla to focus greenfield rezoning within the Teesdale North East Precinct and require precinct-wide consideration of constraints, roads, drainage, open space and community infrastructure. (Source: C92%20consolidated%20Amendment%20Documentation.pdf, p.20)
  • Conflicts with: The amendment may sit in tension with community preferences for maintaining rural character and limiting sewer-enabled intensification, because the 2019 engagement found strong rural-character sentiment and 76 per cent opposition to reticulated sewerage. (Source: Teesdale_Community_Engagement_FINAL.pdf, p.5; Source: Infographic%20-%20Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan%20Survey.pdf, p.1)

Teesdale’s growth is functionally linked to Geelong, Bannockburn and the wider G21 region. The Structure Plan states that Teesdale, Inverleigh, Bannockburn and Lethbridge are recognised in the G21 Regional Growth Plan for planned growth, and that Geelong’s limited low-density residential supply gives Golden Plains Shire a role in providing larger lifestyle-type allotments near regional services. (Source: Teesdale%20Structure%20Plan.pdf, p.7) The background report states that Teesdale residents are integrated with Geelong, Bannockburn, Ballarat, Werribee and Colac through travel-to-work and service access. (Source: Teesdale_BackgrounReport_compressed_OCT_0.pdf, p.24)

Water and wastewater servicing create a direct authority dependency with Barwon Water. The C112gpla report states that Barwon Water was consulted during amendment preparation, and the Structure Plan background report states that Barwon Water had no plans at the time to sewer Teesdale within its five-year plan. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9; Source: Teesdale_BackgrounReport_compressed_OCT_0.pdf, p.10) The amendment cannot be assessed at full technical depth without the Combined Servicing Report and Barwon Water response listed in the C112gpla agenda. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.11)

Transport integration is a Department of Transport and Planning dependency. The C112gpla report states that DTP comments informed DPO20, while the same Council agenda records a separate bus review submission seeking better bus links between Bannockburn, Teesdale, Inverleigh and Lethbridge. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.9, 29-30) This means C112gpla’s residential growth has cross-government implications beyond planning scheme approval, especially if new residents remain reliant on private vehicles for Geelong, Bannockburn and regional access. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.29-30; Source: Teesdale_BackgrounReport_compressed_OCT_0.pdf, p.24)

Gaps in This Analysis

This page is limited by a critical C112gpla corpus gap. The manifest includes the Council agenda and a C112gpla attachment PDF, but the attachment extracted only as blank page markers and does not provide readable ordinance, maps, schedules or explanatory content. (Source: Item 7.1 Attachments - Planning Scheme Amendment C112gpla Teesdale North East Growth Area - 28.04.2026.pdf)

The agenda lists at least 21 supporting C112gpla documents that are not included as extracted source documents in the manifest, including the Town Planning Report, Transport Impact Assessment, Vegetation Assessment, Buffer Needs Assessment, Heritage Statement, Demand and Supply Assessment, Stormwater Management Strategy, Bushfire Planning Report, Land Capability Assessment, Servicing Report, Strategic Assessment Guidelines Response, Detailed Site Investigation, Preliminary Risk Screening Assessment, Environmental Audit, auditor EAO advice, Climate Change Consideration Report, Affordable Housing Memo and Shared Infrastructure Funding Plan Memo. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.10-12)

Because those C112gpla technical reports are absent, this analysis cannot quantify final lot yield, net developable area, internal road land take, drainage basin land take, water and wastewater capacity, infrastructure item costs, contribution rates, affordable housing contribution terms, contamination remediation requirements, native vegetation offsets, transport upgrade triggers or agency conditions. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.9-12) Those missing documents should be logged in _gaps as a CRITICAL corpus gap because they are primary supporting documents for a major rezoning amendment. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.10-12)

The manifest also does not include the adopted Council minutes for 28 April 2026, Ministerial authorisation correspondence, exhibition material, submissions, officer response to submissions, Panel material, adoption decision, approval decision or gazettal notice. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.6-12) Until those lifecycle documents are added, the current status should be treated as active but not confirmed beyond the Council agenda and secondary media report. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9; Source: web-research-L0-gamble-fails-with-teesdale-rezoning-amendment-move-b19cbe38ff.txt)

Graph View