title: Amendment C91gpla - General Planning Scheme Amendment council: golden-plains state: vic category: amendment classification: MINOR status: unknown last_compiled: 2026-05-30 source_docs:
- Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf
- Att 7.5 - Planning Scheme Amendment C91gpla - General Amendment.pdf
Amendment C91gpla - General Planning Scheme Amendment
Amendment C91gpla is a housekeeping amendment to the Golden Plains Planning Scheme that bundles many small corrections into one statutory process rather than running separate amendments for each anomaly. Its main planning effect is administrative: it removes obsolete controls, corrects zoning and overlay mapping, rezones some public authority land, modifies schedules, and reduces unnecessary development-plan and permit steps where land has already been developed. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.34)
The amendment matters because old controls can keep operating after their original job is finished. In simple terms, some parts of the planning scheme still had old gatekeeping rules attached to land that had already been subdivided or settled, so C91gpla tries to take those redundant locks off while keeping more relevant controls, such as contamination and environmental overlays, where they are still needed. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.35-42)
Background
Council resolved on 15 December 2020 to authorise preparation and exhibition of an amendment later titled C91gpla, with the purpose of correcting anomalies, errors and inefficiencies in the planning scheme. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.34) The amendment drew on planning department knowledge accumulated since about 2013, when the last comparable correction-focused amendment was undertaken. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.34)
The amendment was exhibited between 7 October and 7 November 2021. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.34) The exhibition was delayed by staff changes and drafting modifications requested by DELWP, particularly changes to the explanatory report. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.34) The attachment package for item 7.5 included the explanatory report, zoning and overlay maps, ordinance documents, an explanation of changes since December 2020, and the EPA submission. (Source: Att 7.5 - Planning Scheme Amendment C91gpla - General Amendment.pdf, p.3)
Analysis
Mechanism: bundling small corrections into one amendment
The amendment is structured as a bundled correction process: many changes were too small to justify individual planning scheme amendments, so Council grouped them into one larger amendment. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.34) That mechanism is important because it changes the planning scheme without necessarily signalling a major shift in growth policy, settlement boundaries, or infrastructure staging. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.34)
The stated changes include correcting zoning and overlay anomalies, removing redundant overlays and schedules, rezoning land for public authorities, improving map clarity and legibility, extending an expiry date for certain local policies, and modifying zoning and overlay schedules. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.34) The practical effect is to make the scheme easier to administer and to reduce unnecessary applications, especially development-plan approvals and some planning permits. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.34,43)
Development Plan Overlay removal
The most significant operational change is the removal of redundant Development Plan Overlays with various schedules in Bannockburn and Inverleigh. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.35-36) These overlays were originally applied when land was vacant or not substantively developed, and their purpose was to guide initial residential or commercial estate development, including road networks, drainage, open space, and supporting studies. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.36)
The under-the-hood issue is that a Development Plan Overlay does not disappear automatically after an estate is built. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.36) Once lots are sold and the area becomes established, the overlay can still require a development plan before even a small infill subdivision can be assessed. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.36) This adds an extra approval layer for minor subdivision proposals and requires Council officers to assess development plans that no longer perform the original greenfield coordination function. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.36)
The removal also changes community participation rights. Development plans and subdivisions in Development Plan Overlay areas do not require public notice and do not provide third-party appeal rights, while removing the overlay from established areas means subdivision proposals will again be subject to ordinary notice and appeal processes where those processes otherwise apply. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.36) The planning trade-off is therefore not simply less regulation; it is a shift from up-front estate-wide coordination toward standard planning-permit assessment for later small-scale infill. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.36)
Incorporated Plan Overlay Schedule 1 removal in Batesford
The second widespread change is removal of Incorporated Plan Overlay Schedule 1 in Batesford. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.36) The overlay was applied more than 20 years earlier, before the affected land was developed, and like the Development Plan Overlay it was mainly intended to guide development when the land was vacant. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.37)
The mechanism problem is that the incorporated plan requires future subdivision to be generally consistent with a plan that does not contain specific lot boundaries. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.37) That makes the control weak as a design tool but still capable of creating uncertainty for small infill subdivision. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.37)
The overlay also required new dwelling plans to be lodged with Council, but did not clearly establish that requirement as a planning permit process or another recognised statutory application pathway. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.37) In practice, residents lodged dwelling plans and Council stamped them, which indicates an administrative process with limited assessment basis rather than a contemporary planning control with clear decision criteria. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.37)
Environmental and contamination issues
The amendment was not contested by public objections, but EPA made one submission. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38) EPA did not object to the amendment, which meant a planning panel was not required on the basis of that submission. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38)
EPA’s concerns focused on potentially contaminated land and the application of Planning Practice Note 30. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38) The most sensitive site was PC337580 Cemetery Road, Inverleigh, where the proposed rezoning to Low Density Residential Zone could allow a dwelling, which is treated as a sensitive use for contamination purposes. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38) VicTrack had undertaken a site history review that did not identify contamination sources, but the review did not rule out high-contamination former uses such as a railway yard. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38)
Council’s response was to propose an Environmental Audit Overlay for PC337580 Cemetery Road, Inverleigh. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38) That overlay would require a satisfactory environmental audit before a dwelling could be established, meaning the amendment could correct the zoning while deferring detailed contamination clearance to the point at which a sensitive use is actually proposed. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38)
A second VicTrack site, CA 19G Cemetery Road, Parish of Carrah, Inverleigh, was proposed to be rezoned to Public Park and Recreation Zone. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38) Council noted that the site may be potentially contaminated but that no land-use or development change was anticipated from the rezoning, so no particular assessment was considered required under the cited Planning Practice Note 30 approach for open-space outcomes. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38)
A third site, 24 Burns Street, Bannockburn, was proposed to be rezoned from Public Use Zone 2 to General Residential Zone Schedule 1 because it was a long-established private dwelling incorrectly carrying the former zoning of an adjoining school. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.39) Council acknowledged that the land may be potentially contaminated and that redevelopment could technically trigger closer assessment, but treated the rezoning as anomaly correction because the dwelling had existed for at least 25 years and EPA had not objected. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.39)
EPA also identified parts of 288 and 290 Flagstaff Ridge Road, Linton, where land was proposed to be rezoned from Farming Zone to Rural Living Zone. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.40) EPA’s concern was that some agricultural activities have medium contamination potential under Planning Practice Note 30, and that sensitive uses in the receiving zone can trigger the need for a Preliminary Risk Screen Assessment or environmental audit pathway. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.40) Council’s response was that the affected land was effectively part of existing backyards and that the rezoning was not expected to change land use or development, so no land contamination assessment was required on that basis. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.40)
Environmental Significance Overlay mapping
Council identified environmental benefit from correcting Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 2 mapping. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.42) The specific stated effect was that Bruce’s Creek river environs would be protected by the overlay provisions after the mapping correction. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.42) This is a small but important distinction: the amendment is mostly administrative, but at least one component improves the spatial application of environmental protection controls. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.42)
Exhibition and submissions
The amendment was exhibited under section 19 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.42) Exhibition included direct notice to approximately 700 landowners and occupiers, direct notice to agencies and prescribed ministers, a notice in the Golden Plains Times, a notice in the Government Gazette, and a webpage with amendment details. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.42) Officers received approximately 30 phone calls, mainly from residents seeking clarification about how the amendment would affect them. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.37-38)
The only formal submission identified in the report was from EPA. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38) Because EPA did not object and no other objections were recorded, the amendment could proceed to Council adoption without a planning panel. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38)
Current Status
As at the 21 December 2021 agenda, officers recommended that Council adopt Amendment C91gpla and request approval from the Minister for Planning under section 31 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.34) Officers also recommended authority to remove PC337580 Cemetery Road, Inverleigh from the amendment unless VicTrack responded to EPA’s submission by 4 January 2022 in a way considered satisfactory by the Manager Development and Regulatory Services. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.34)
The corpus provided for this page does not include a later Council minute, Ministerial approval notice, or gazettal notice. The status is therefore recorded as unknown rather than approved, because the available sources establish exhibition and a recommendation for adoption but do not prove final approval or gazettal. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.34,43)
Dependencies
- Blocks: The amendment removes redundant controls that otherwise continue to require development-plan or permit processes for some small infill proposals in established areas. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.36,43)
- Blocked by: The only unresolved issue at the agenda stage was VicTrack’s response on PC337580 Cemetery Road, Inverleigh, concerning EPA’s matters about proximity to agriculture and railway noise. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.39)
- Informed by: The amendment was informed by accumulated planning department knowledge since about 2013, the C91gpla explanatory report, zoning and overlay maps, ordinance documents, a post-December-2020 change explanation, and EPA’s submission. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.34; Source: Att 7.5 - Planning Scheme Amendment C91gpla - General Amendment.pdf, p.3)
- Implements: The amendment implements correction and efficiency improvements to the Golden Plains Planning Scheme, rather than a new growth-area framework or major land-supply program. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.34,43)
- Conflicts with: No direct policy conflict is identified in the available sources, but EPA’s submission shows a risk boundary around rezoning potentially contaminated land to zones that allow sensitive uses. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.38-40)
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
The amendment involved state-level planning administration because Council proposed to request approval from the Minister for Planning under section 31 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.34) DELWP required drafting modifications before exhibition, particularly to the explanatory report. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.34) EPA participated as a referral/commenting agency and raised contamination-related matters under Planning Practice Note 30. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.38-40) VicTrack was relevant because it owned at least two Inverleigh sites affected by the amendment. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38)
No adjacent-council infrastructure dependency, shared servicing constraint, or regional growth sequencing issue is identified in the available C91gpla sources. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.34-43)
Gaps in This Analysis
The statutory attachment is materially thin in the extracted text: it confirms that the attachment package contained the explanatory report, zoning and overlay maps, ordinance documents, explanation of changes since December 2020, and EPA submission, but the extracted body pages are largely page markers rather than readable substantive text. (Source: Att 7.5 - Planning Scheme Amendment C91gpla - General Amendment.pdf, pp.3-104) Because of that extraction limitation, this page cannot list every zoning, overlay, map, ordinance, and schedule change from Appendix 1 of the explanatory report. (Source: Att 7.5 - Planning Scheme Amendment C91gpla - General Amendment.pdf, p.3)
The available corpus also does not include the final adopted amendment package, the Minister’s approval decision, or a gazettal notice. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.34,43) That means the analysis can describe the amendment’s exhibited and recommended form, but cannot verify whether all recommended changes, including the possible removal of PC337580 Cemetery Road, Inverleigh, were ultimately approved. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.34)
Recommended gap entry for _gaps: obtain the machine-readable C91gpla explanatory report and ordinance/map package, plus the final approval or gazettal record, to confirm the final list of controls changed and whether the VicTrack Inverleigh site remained in the amendment. (Source: Att 7.5 - Planning Scheme Amendment C91gpla - General Amendment.pdf, p.3; Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.34)