title: Amendment C92gpla - Teesdale Structure Plan council: golden-plains state: vic category: amendment classification: MAJOR status: pending last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf
- Att 7.3 - Amendment C92GPLA Teesdale Structure Plan - Planning Panel Outcome_Part1.pdf
- Att 7.3 - Amendment C92GPLA Teesdale Structure Plan - Planning Panel Outcome_Part2.pdf
Amendment C92gpla - Teesdale Structure Plan
Amendment C92gpla is a major settlement-planning amendment because it determines how the Teesdale Structure Plan is translated into the Golden Plains Planning Scheme, particularly for the north-east edge of Teesdale where Council shifted from calling the area a growth precinct to a future growth investigation area after the Panel process. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.16-20) The amendment is less a simple policy update than a control point for future rezoning: it sets the questions that must be answered before low-density residential expansion can proceed, including supply and demand, native vegetation, bushfire, flooding, infrastructure, sewer servicing, community and social infrastructure, and landfill buffer matters. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.20)
Background
Council adopted the Teesdale Structure Plan in April 2020 and authorised officers to prepare and exhibit a planning scheme amendment to incorporate the Structure Plan into the Golden Plains Planning Scheme. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.16) Amendment C92gpla was then prepared from the Teesdale Structure Plan and proposed five planning scheme changes: deleting the existing Teesdale Structure Plan map at Clause 02.04, modifying Clause 02.03-1 Settlement to add Teesdale-specific strategic directions, inserting a new Clause 11.03-6L Teesdale local policy and updated structure plan map, updating Clause 74.02 to identify further strategic work before any Low Density Residential Zone rezoning in the Teesdale Future Growth Investigation Area, and adding the Teesdale Structure Plan 2021 as a background document at Clause 72.08. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.16)
After exhibition, Council considered submissions in March 2021 and resolved to refer the amendment to an independent Planning Panel. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.16) The Panel hearing was held on 10 and 11 June 2021, heard oral submissions from eight parties, and considered all written submissions whether or not the submitter appeared at the hearing. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.17) The hearing included developers, community members and the CFA, with the main issues being whether Teesdale’s settlement boundary should expand, supply and demand, Teesdale’s recent fast growth, whether the North East Growth Precinct should proceed, and when bushfire requirements should be assessed. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.17) The Panel gave its report to Council on 27 July 2021. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.17)
The attachments package for the 21 December 2021 meeting identifies three underlying documents: C92gpla ordinance documents, the Teesdale Structure Plan 2021, and the C92gpla Panel Report. (Source: Att 7.3 - Amendment C92GPLA Teesdale Structure Plan - Planning Panel Outcome_Part1.pdf, p.3) The extracted text for the two statutory attachment PDFs is materially incomplete, preserving the table of contents and page markers but not the substantive ordinance, structure plan or Panel Report text. (Source: Att 7.3 - Amendment C92GPLA Teesdale Structure Plan - Planning Panel Outcome_Part1.pdf; Source: Att 7.3 - Amendment C92GPLA Teesdale Structure Plan - Planning Panel Outcome_Part2.pdf)
Analysis
Amendment Mechanism
The amendment mechanism is a planning scheme translation exercise: the Structure Plan does not itself rezone the north-east land, but the amendment would put Teesdale-specific settlement directions and a new local policy into the planning scheme. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.16) The practical effect is that future rezoning proposals would be tested against a clearer local policy framework rather than relying only on the older Teesdale map and broader settlement policy. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.16-20)
The most important mechanism is Clause 74.02, because Council proposed to use the schedule to further strategic work to list investigations that must occur before any Low Density Residential Zone rezoning in the Teesdale Future Growth Investigation Area. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.16) In plain terms, the amendment acts like a gate: land is not opened for development merely because it is shown inside an investigation area, and the listed studies become the key that must be produced before rezoning can be considered. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.20)
Council’s original exhibited approach treated the north-east area as the Teesdale North East Growth Precinct, but the post-Panel officer recommendation changed that designation to Future Growth Investigation Area in both the Structure Plan and Amendment C92gpla. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.20) That change matters because a growth precinct label implies a stronger policy signal that residential expansion is expected, while an investigation area label signals that the area is only a candidate for future growth until technical constraints and settlement need are resolved. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-20)
Panel Dispute and Strategic Justification
The Panel recommended that Amendment C92gpla be abandoned. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.17) Council officers disagreed with that recommendation and argued that the Panel had treated the amendment as though Council were selecting a new growth area without previous strategic recognition. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.18-19) The officer report says the north-east growth area is substantively the same as the planned growth area identified in the G21 Regional Growth Plan, with a small additional area linking to Native Hut Creek for potential drainage purposes. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.17)
The cause-and-effect issue is the role of regional policy. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.18-19) If the G21 Regional Growth Plan boundary is treated as a settled higher-order direction, then local amendment work can focus on what must be assessed before rezoning. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.18-20) If the boundary is treated as still needing full justification at local amendment stage, then the amendment needs a much larger strategic evidence base before it can safely proceed. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.18-20)
Council’s report frames the Panel’s criticisms as requiring analysis of Shire-wide supply and demand, detailed native vegetation, bushfire, flooding, infrastructure, sewer servicing, community and social infrastructure, and landfill buffer issues. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.19) Officers stated that most of those matters had either been completed at a high-level due diligence stage or were already identified as investigations required before rezoning. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.19) The recommended compromise was to move those matters into the investigation requirements for the future growth area rather than abandon the amendment. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-20)
Growth Area Controls and Sequencing
The amended approach brings technical investigations forward in the planning sequence. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.20) Under the officer recommendation, a developer could undertake much of the work needed for the investigation area rather than Council funding all of it before the amendment proceeds. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.20) This changes the cost and timing burden: Council would not need to complete all detailed investigations before embedding the Structure Plan framework, but any rezoning proponent would still need to resolve the listed issues before land could move to the Low Density Residential Zone. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.20)
The investigation list is broad enough to affect both land capability and settlement need. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.20) Supply and demand determines whether additional low-density land is needed at Shire scale; native vegetation and flooding determine whether the land can physically and environmentally accommodate subdivision; bushfire determines whether future dwellings can be sited with acceptable risk; infrastructure and sewer servicing determine whether lots can be serviced; community and social infrastructure determine whether growth can be supported by facilities; and the landfill buffer assessment determines whether sensitive uses can occur near the former landfill. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-21)
The landfill issue is specifically tied to a 500 metre area around the former Teesdale landfill. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.21) Council’s report says the Structure Plan states that land within 500 metres of the former landfill will require EPA support for any rezoning. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.21) This creates a hard referral-style dependency: even if settlement policy supports future residential investigation, rezoning within that distance cannot be treated as a purely local planning decision because EPA support is identified as necessary. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.21)
Infill, Bushfire and Rural Interface Risk
The Structure Plan encourages infill subdivision so that existing residential land closer to town can be used more efficiently before agricultural land is converted to residential use. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.22) Council’s report says Clause 02.03 already loosely encourages infill in small towns by facilitating infill development shown on township maps at Clause 02.04, including Teesdale. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.22)
The CFA submission raised a risk that encouraging infill in Teesdale could also encourage subdivision near the town edge where land is exposed to bushfire risk. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.22) Council’s bushfire expert described Teesdale as subject to moderate bushfire risk and proposed a local policy requirement seeking a setback between bushfire hazard or the rural interface and a dwelling building envelope to achieve a construction standard not exceeding BAL29. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.22-23) The Panel raised concern that the proposed requirement was unclear, could be more onerous than State policy, and was not supported. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.23)
This leaves a planning tension rather than a settled technical solution. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.23) Council must prioritise human life in bushfire-affected areas, but the officer report also states that it is not appropriate for local government to impose requirements more onerous than State policy. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.23) The unresolved mechanism is that moderate-risk areas outside the Bushfire Management Overlay may still have some risk, but they do not receive the same mandatory subdivision and construction standards that apply within the Bushfire Management Overlay. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.23)
Settlement Boundary and Non-Urban Break
Council proposed to replace the 1997 Teesdale Framework Plan with a 2021 version that provides clearer mapping and updated terminology. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.20) The officer report says the replacement plan did not change the settlement boundary. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.20) That matters because the amendment’s main spatial controversy was not a mapped outward expansion by Council, but whether the existing boundary and north-east planned growth designation had enough strategic justification. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.17-21)
The Panel also objected to Council’s proposed non-urban break east of Teesdale because the Panel did not support the settlement boundary designation at that time. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.21) Council’s response was that the non-urban break was not a significant modification because the land already sat outside the town settlement boundary and was ineligible for development regardless of the label. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.21) The planning implication is that the non-urban break appears to be a reinforcement of separation and landscape values rather than the main legal control preventing development east of the township. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.21)
Community Engagement and Submissions
The amendment process included formal exhibition and consultation activities beyond statutory minimums. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.26) The exhibition methods included letters to all landowners and occupiers in Teesdale, newspaper notice in the Geelong Advertiser and Golden Plains Times, a Government Gazette notice, a poster at the Teesdale General Store, a dedicated Have Your Say page, updates to Council’s Strategic Planning page, an after-hours online drop-in session, general officer availability, and two dedicated after-hours phone times. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.26)
The officer report says the vast majority of submission content was from developers, while the Panel hearing included developers, community members and the CFA. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.16-17) The available extracted text does not provide a submission register, submitter count, issue-by-issue tally, or the full written submissions. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.16-17; Source: Att 7.3 - Amendment C92GPLA Teesdale Structure Plan - Planning Panel Outcome_Part1.pdf; Source: Att 7.3 - Amendment C92GPLA Teesdale Structure Plan - Planning Panel Outcome_Part2.pdf) This is a material analytical gap because the amendment was contested enough to go to Panel, but the available text only identifies broad themes rather than the number and substance of submissions by issue. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.16-17)
Financial and Administrative Implications
Council’s report says the amendment had mostly been processed in-house, except for a bushfire assessment. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.26) The report states that no further costs were anticipated at the December 2021 stage except a standard $488.50 fee payable to the Minister for amendment approval. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.26) The report also says Panel hearing and bushfire expert evidence costs had been accommodated within the Strategic Planning budget. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.26)
The financial implication is that Council’s recommended pathway reduces immediate public-sector investigation cost by requiring detailed studies later, before rezoning, rather than completing all of them before adoption of C92gpla. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-20) That sequencing has a governance trade-off: it keeps the structure plan amendment moving, but it means the wiki cannot quantify future infrastructure cost, lot yield, service capacity, or development staging from the available documents. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-20)
Current Status
As at the 21 December 2021 Council agenda, officers recommended that Council adopt Amendment C92gpla, adopt the modified Teesdale Structure Plan, and request the Minister for Planning approve the amendment under section 31(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.16) The report placed the amendment at the post-Panel Council decision stage, with the next step being Ministerial consideration of whether to approve the amendment and in what form. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.23,27) The manifest status for this compile job records the initiative as pending, but the supplied source documents do not establish whether the Minister later approved, modified, refused, or gazetted the amendment. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.23,27)
Dependencies
- Blocks: The amendment blocks a clean local policy basis for assessing future rezoning in the Teesdale Future Growth Investigation Area because the investigation requirements are proposed to be embedded through C92gpla. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.16,20)
- Blocked by: Any future rezoning of the north-east investigation area is blocked by completion of the listed investigations: Shire-wide supply and demand, detailed native vegetation, bushfire, flooding, infrastructure, sewer servicing, community and social infrastructure, and landfill buffer assessment. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.20)
- Informed by: The amendment is informed by the Teesdale Structure Plan, the Teesdale Structure Plan Background Report, DELWP consultation, community views from the background report process, a bushfire assessment, and the C92gpla Panel process. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19,26-27)
- Implements: The officer report says the amendment is congruent with the G21 Regional Growth Plan because that plan recognises the relevant growth area. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.25)
- Conflicts with: The amendment conflicts with the Panel’s recommendation to abandon C92gpla, and the conflict turns on how much strategic justification is required at this amendment stage for an area already identified in regional policy. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.17-20,27)
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
The main cross-jurisdictional link is the G21 Regional Growth Plan, because Council’s defence of the north-east investigation area relies on the area already being shown as a planned growth area in regional policy. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.17-19) Council’s report states that changing the regional settlement boundary would require a regional amendment process, a State Government-initiated amendment, and agreement from the G21 councils. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.19) This means the Teesdale settlement boundary cannot be fully understood as a Golden Plains-only decision: the local amendment sits under a regional policy framework that Council says it cannot unilaterally modify through C92gpla. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.19)
The EPA is also a cross-agency dependency because land within 500 metres of the former Teesdale landfill requires EPA support before rezoning. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.21) DELWP is a further state-agency dependency because DELWP authorised the amendment, worked with Council during preparation, and later gave without-prejudice advice on changing the north-east growth precinct to a future growth investigation area. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-20)
Gaps in This Analysis
The most important gap is that the extracted text for the statutory attachment PDFs is not analytically usable beyond the table of contents and page markers. (Source: Att 7.3 - Amendment C92GPLA Teesdale Structure Plan - Planning Panel Outcome_Part1.pdf; Source: Att 7.3 - Amendment C92GPLA Teesdale Structure Plan - Planning Panel Outcome_Part2.pdf) Those attachments should contain the ordinance documents, Teesdale Structure Plan 2021, and C92gpla Panel Report, but the body text is not available in the extracted-text corpus. (Source: Att 7.3 - Amendment C92GPLA Teesdale Structure Plan - Planning Panel Outcome_Part1.pdf, p.3)
This gap prevents quantified analysis of land area, lot yield, infrastructure items, sewer capacity, drainage land take, native vegetation impacts, bushfire modelling, community infrastructure thresholds, and the Panel’s full reasoning. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-20) The agenda identifies the categories of required investigation, but it does not provide the underlying technical measurements needed to calculate downstream development capacity or infrastructure staging. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.20)
The second gap is the absence of the submission register and written submissions. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.16-17) The agenda says the Panel considered all written submissions and that the hearing involved eight oral parties, but the extracted corpus does not provide issue counts, submitter names, or the specific changes sought by each submitter. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.17)
The third gap is current statutory status after December 2021. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.23,27) The supplied documents show the amendment at the Council adoption/request-for-Ministerial-approval stage, but they do not establish whether the amendment was later approved, modified, gazetted, refused, or abandoned. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.23,27)