Grange Planning Brain

title: Development Plan Overlay Rationalisation and Redundant DPO Removal council: golden-plains state: vic category: constraint classification: MINOR status: in-progress last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:

  • Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf
  • Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf
  • Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf
  • Att 7.5 - Planning Scheme Amendment C91gpla - General Amendment.pdf

Development Plan Overlay Rationalisation and Redundant DPO Removal

This initiative is a planning-scheme housekeeping program that separates Development Plan Overlay controls that have already done their job from DPO controls that still manage unresolved subdivision, servicing, movement, drainage, heritage, landscape, flood, bushfire, biodiversity, contamination, or interface issues (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.34-36; Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, pp.128-139). Its practical effect is procedural: redundant DPO removal reduces the need for development plan approvals in established estates, while retained DPO schedules continue to operate as constraint-management tools for land where subdivision or development sequencing remains unresolved (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.35-36; Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, pp.128-139).

Background

Amendment C91gpla was prepared as a general amendment to correct zoning and overlay anomalies, remove redundant overlays and schedules, rezone land for public authorities, improve planning-scheme map clarity, extend an expiry date for local policies, and modify zoning and overlay schedules (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.34). Council resolved on 15 December 2020 to authorise preparation and exhibition of the amendment, and the amendment was exhibited between 7 October 2021 and 7 November 2021 (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.34). The amendment was based on accumulated planning-department knowledge since about 2013, when the previous corrections-focused amendment was undertaken, with small issues grouped into one amendment because many were too minor to justify standalone planning scheme amendments (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.34).

The attachment pack for C91gpla comprised an explanatory report, zoning and overlay maps, ordinance documents, an explanation of changes since December 2020, and an EPA submission (Source: Att 7.5 - Planning Scheme Amendment C91gpla - General Amendment.pdf, p.3). The council report identified redundant DPO removal in Bannockburn and Inverleigh as one of the two most significant impacts of C91gpla, with the other major procedural change being removal of Incorporated Plan Overlay Schedule 1 in Batesford (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.35-37).

Analysis

Mechanism: Why a DPO Becomes Redundant

The council report explains that the relevant DPOs were applied many years earlier when the land was vacant or not substantially developed, and that the original purpose was to guide initial residential or commercial development (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.36). The matters controlled by those DPOs were large-estate matters such as road networks, drainage, open space, and supporting studies, which are most relevant before or during the first subdivision of a greenfield estate (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.36).

The under-the-hood problem is that a DPO is not self-extinguishing after an estate is built out; it remains legally in force until removed through a planning scheme amendment (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.36). That means a small later subdivision in an established estate, including a two-lot infill subdivision, can still need an approved development plan before the subdivision permit can be considered (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.36). In simple terms, the planning scheme can keep asking for the big “make the whole estate work” plan even after the estate has already been made and sold as individual lots (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.36).

Administrative and Community-Process Effects

C91gpla was expected to reduce council resource and administrative costs because fewer development plan and planning permit applications would be required (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.34). The council report states that redundant DPO removal would reduce the burden on both applicants and council planning officers who otherwise need to assess development plans (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.36).

The change also alters public participation settings for affected land because development plans and subdivisions within DPO-affected areas require no public notice and have no third-party appeal rights, including no appeal to VCAT (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.36). Removing the DPO from established areas would therefore restore ordinary public notice and appeal rights for subdivisions in those areas, which council officers considered would reduce the risk of community expectations being unmet where neighbouring land is subdivided without notice (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.36).

This creates a cause-and-effect distinction between efficiency and transparency: removal reduces an obsolete front-end development-plan step, but it can increase procedural visibility for later permit applications because ordinary notice and review pathways are no longer displaced by the DPO process (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.36). The planning effect is not simply deregulation; it is a shift from estate-wide pre-approval control to ordinary permit-by-permit assessment in areas where the estate-wide control has already served its original purpose (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.35-36).

Spatial Scope Identified in the Available Sources

The available council report identifies Bannockburn and Inverleigh as the locations where redundant DPOs were proposed for removal (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.35-36). The report says the proposed removal areas and schedule numbers were shown in figures for Bannockburn and Inverleigh, but the extracted text does not expose the mapped boundaries or schedule-number labels from those figures (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.35-36). This means the corpus confirms the towns and mechanism, but not the precise parcel extent, hectares affected, number of lots affected, or exact DPO schedule numbers removed (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.35-36; Source: Att 7.5 - Planning Scheme Amendment C91gpla - General Amendment.pdf, p.3).

Relationship to the Planning Scheme Review and C102gpla

The 2022 Planning Scheme Review recorded C91gpla as an administrative amendment that was underway and at “Approval Under Consideration” stage (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.202). The same review described C91gpla as seeking to correct zoning and overlay anomalies, remove redundant overlays, rezone public-authority land, improve planning-scheme map clarity, extend a local-policy expiry date, modify schedules, remove redundant schedules, and correct a redundant background-document listing (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.202).

The Planning Scheme Review also recommended broader overlay rationalisation rather than wholesale DPO removal, including drafting changes to DPO schedules such as Schedule 2, Schedule 4, Schedule 6, Schedule 7, Schedule 8, and Schedule 9 so that provisions better complied with Ministerial Direction drafting requirements (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.25-26). The review separately noted that some further strategic-work items were clearly redundant and should be reviewed so redundant projects could be removed and the strategic work program aligned (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.28).

C102gpla shows the other side of the rationalisation logic because it retained and redrafted active DPO schedules where unresolved development constraints remained (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, pp.128-139). For example, DPO10 for Bannockburn East still required sealed roads, reticulated water, electricity, telephone services, a Garonne Drive and Knights Park Crescent intersection upgrade, a 22,500 litre rainwater tank requirement, stormwater management, rural and Midland Highway buffers, an 8 metre vegetation belt, access changes for highway-fronting lots, archaeological survey, building and effluent envelopes, land capability assessment, and preliminary environmental assessment (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, pp.128-129). DPO11 for Hills Road, Batesford still required road upgrades, land capability assessment, minimum 1 hectare lots in poor or very poor effluent-disposal areas, minimum 1 hectare lots abutting the Moorabool River, stormwater and flood assessment, Midland Highway access assessment, cultural heritage management planning, flora and fauna assessment, open-space planning, 30 metre waterway buffers, contamination audit, and consultation with DEECA on key design responses (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, pp.129-132).

The retained DPO schedules demonstrate that council was not treating the DPO as obsolete in all circumstances; it was treating the DPO as appropriate where land still needed coordinated subdivision design, infrastructure sequencing, environmental assessment, access resolution, or interface management (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, pp.128-139). DPO13 for The Manse Estate retained controls for heritage and visual sensitivity, land capability, a 20 metre waterway buffer on each side of the waterway, topographic survey at 0.5 metre contours, traffic works, potable water, vegetation management, and movement links to Shelford township facilities (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, pp.132-134). DPO14 for Yellowglen retained requirements for reticulated sewerage and water via Central Highlands Water, landfill-proximity acknowledgements for lots within 500 metres of the Smythesdale landfill premises boundary, no-further-subdivision mechanisms, subdivision layout referral to Central Highlands Water, stormwater, traffic, bushfire, biodiversity, flood, waterway-corridor, infrastructure-easement, and staging requirements (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, pp.136-139).

Planning Interpretation

The rationalisation program should be understood as a maturity filter: where a DPO related to an already-developed estate, C91gpla sought removal because the estate-wide coordination function had been spent (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.35-36). Where a DPO still mediated subdivision design, infrastructure delivery, land capability, environmental management, road access, waterway protection, contamination, flood risk, bushfire risk, or agency referral, the later C102gpla ordinance retained and refined those requirements (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, pp.128-139).

For Bannockburn, the available sources show both removal and retention logic operating in parallel: C91gpla proposed redundant DPO removal in established Bannockburn areas, while C102gpla retained detailed controls for Bannockburn East where subdivision and servicing matters still required coordinated treatment (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.35-36; Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, pp.128-129). For Inverleigh, C91gpla proposed redundant DPO removal in established areas, while the Planning Scheme Review separately identified DPO7 Common Road, DPO8 Faulkner Road, and DPO9 Barrabool Views as schedules needing drafting rationalisation rather than simply being removed in the available review material (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.35-36; Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.25-26).

Current Status

Within the available corpus, C91gpla had completed exhibition by 7 November 2021, received one EPA submission with no objection, did not require a planning panel, and was recommended for adoption and submission to the Minister for Planning for approval under section 31 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.34, 37-43). The 2022 Planning Scheme Review subsequently recorded C91gpla as an administrative amendment that was underway and at “Approval Under Consideration” stage, with no planning panel hearing and no requirement for Part Two assessment (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.202). The available corpus does not include a gazettal notice or approved planning scheme map confirming the final approved DPO deletion boundaries (Source: Att 7.5 - Planning Scheme Amendment C91gpla - General Amendment.pdf, p.3; Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.202).

Dependencies

  • Blocks: Redundant DPOs blocked efficient assessment of small infill subdivisions by requiring development plan approval before those subdivisions could be considered (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.36).
  • Blocked by: Final certainty is blocked in this analysis by the absence of a gazettal notice, approved maps, and extracted map labels showing the exact removed DPO schedules and boundaries (Source: Att 7.5 - Planning Scheme Amendment C91gpla - General Amendment.pdf, p.3; Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.35-36).
  • Informed by: C91gpla was informed by accumulated planning-department knowledge since about 2013 and by the grouped correction of small planning-scheme issues that did not warrant standalone amendments (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.34).
  • Implements: The initiative implements planning-scheme efficiency, anomaly correction, and redundant-control removal through Amendment C91gpla, while the Planning Scheme Review and C102gpla continue the broader task of rationalising and redrafting local schedules (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.34-36; Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.25-28; Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, pp.128-139).
  • Conflicts with: No direct policy conflict is identified in the available sources, but the procedural trade-off is that removing a DPO removes the development-plan gate while restoring ordinary notice and appeal pathways for later subdivisions (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.36).

The retained DPO schedules show agency dependencies rather than cross-council dependencies, including Head, Transport for Victoria involvement in access and traffic works, Central Highlands Water involvement in Yellowglen water and sewer servicing, Corangamite Catchment Management Authority flood and stormwater considerations at Hills Road, and DEECA consultation for land capability and flora/fauna design responses (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, pp.129-132, 136-139). These dependencies mean retained DPOs can operate as multi-agency coordination tools even when redundant DPOs in established estates are removed (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, pp.128-139).

Gaps in This Analysis

The extracted text does not expose the figure labels or mapped boundaries for the Bannockburn and Inverleigh DPO removal areas, so this page cannot quantify the land area, lot count, or exact schedule numbers removed by C91gpla (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.35-36; Source: Att 7.5 - Planning Scheme Amendment C91gpla - General Amendment.pdf, p.3). The corpus does not include a gazettal notice or final approved planning scheme maps for C91gpla, so the final legal commencement date and final approved removal boundaries cannot be confirmed from the provided sources (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.202). The source set is strong on mechanism and amendment rationale but thin on spatial measurement, because the relevant maps are image-based in the extracted material and the text does not provide hectares, affected property counts, affected lot counts, or schedule-number tables for the removed DPO areas (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.35-36; Source: Att 7.5 - Planning Scheme Amendment C91gpla - General Amendment.pdf, p.3).

Graph View