title: Environmental Audit Overlay Constraints council: golden-plains state: vic category: constraint classification: MINOR status: in-progress last_compiled: 2026-05-30 source_docs:
- Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf
- PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 27 August 2024.pdf
- Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf
Environmental Audit Overlay Constraints
The Environmental Audit Overlay is being used in Golden Plains Shire as a targeted statutory control where land is moving toward, or may support, sensitive uses and contamination uncertainty remains unresolved at the amendment stage (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38; Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9). The available documents show two practical roles for the control: first, to allow broader planning-scheme corrections or growth-area rezoning to proceed while deferring site-specific audit obligations to later development stages; and second, to ensure dwellings, schools, childcare-type uses, playgrounds and associated works do not proceed on identified land until the contamination pathway has been addressed (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38; Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9).
Background
The earliest source in this bundle is Amendment C91gpla, a general amendment that corrected zoning and overlay anomalies, removed redundant overlays and schedules, rezoned land for public authorities, improved planning-scheme map legibility, extended some local-policy expiry dates, and modified zoning and overlay schedules (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.34). C91gpla received one submission, from the Environment Protection Authority, and that submission did not object to the amendment but recommended further interrogation of potentially contaminated land matters (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38).
The next relevant source is Amendment C102gpla, a policy-neutral amendment implementing recommendations of the Golden Plains Planning Scheme Review 2022 after public exhibition between 27 June and 28 July 2024 (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 27 August 2024.pdf, p.41). C102gpla is relevant because Council reported that EPA correspondence about Amendment C91gpla and the Environment Audit Overlay at Railway Place, Inverleigh had been resolved on the basis that C102gpla was only inserting ordinance omitted from the earlier amendment and did not trigger Ministerial Direction 19 comment from EPA (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 27 August 2024.pdf, p.41).
The most current source is Amendment C112gpla for the Teesdale North East Growth Area, where Council was asked to seek authorisation to rezone land 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). C112gpla follows Amendment C92gpla, which brought the Teesdale Structure Plan into the planning scheme and required assessment of land supply and demand, native vegetation, bushfire risk, flooding, drainage, infrastructure, sewer servicing, community and social infrastructure, and landfill buffer matters before rezoning the Teesdale North East Future Investigation Area (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-20; Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.6).
Analysis
The Overlay Functions as a Deferral Mechanism, Not a Rezoning Prohibition
The clearest pattern across the sources is that Council treats the Environmental Audit Overlay as a way to preserve a future contamination assessment trigger while allowing a planning scheme amendment to continue through the statutory process (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38; Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9). In the C91gpla report, Council officers considered that an environmental audit or Preliminary Risk Screen Assessment was not practicable within the amendment process for the Cemetery Road, Inverleigh site because engaging auditors could take a long time and delay unrelated amendment changes (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38). The mechanism chosen was to apply the Environmental Audit Overlay so that a satisfactory environmental audit would be required before a dwelling could be established on land proposed for Low Density Residential Zone (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38).
The same sequencing logic appears in C112gpla for Teesdale North East, where Council states that applying the EAO ensures investigation and remediation requirements are met in the future but does not prevent assessment and approval of the planning scheme amendment (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9). In simple planning terms, the overlay acts like a gate on later sensitive development rather than a stop sign on the amendment itself (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9). This matters because the contamination question is being separated from the broader question of whether the strategic land-use change is acceptable (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38; Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9).
C91gpla Shows the EAO Being Used Where Sensitive Use Potential Is Introduced
C91gpla considered three specific potentially contaminated sites after EPA referred Council to Planning Practice Note 30 on Potentially Contaminated Land (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38). The first site was PC337580 Cemetery Road, Inverleigh, where land proposed for rezoning to Low Density Residential Zone was owned by VicTrack and had a site history review that did not identify contamination sources but also did not rule out high-contamination-potential former uses such as railway-yard uses (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38). Because a dwelling is a sensitive use under Planning Practice Note 30, Council proposed the Environmental Audit Overlay for that site to require a satisfactory environmental audit before a dwelling could be established (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38).
The second site was CA 19G Cemetery Road, Parish of Carrah, Inverleigh, where land proposed for Public Park and Recreation Zone was considered potentially contaminated but no land-use or development change was anticipated from the rezoning (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38). Council relied on Planning Practice Note 30 guidance that no particular assessment is required where open-space rezoning is not expected to change use or development (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38). The third site was 24 Burns Street, Bannockburn, where the land was a long-established private dwelling incorrectly zoned Public Use Zone 2, and Council considered that no particular assessment was reasonable because the rezoning corrected an anomaly and no change to use or development was likely (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.39).
This comparison shows the operative test in the available record: the EAO was proposed where a rezoning could allow a new sensitive use on land with unresolved contamination uncertainty, while no further assessment was required where the amendment was not expected to change use or development (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.38-39). That distinction is important for future planning-scheme-amendments because it separates contamination risk by actual development pathway rather than by historical suspicion alone (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.38-40).
Agricultural and Railway Interfaces Remain a Recurring Screening Issue
C91gpla also records EPA concern about two Linton properties, being parts of 288 Flagstaff Ridge Road and 290 Flagstaff Ridge Road, where land was proposed to move from Farming Zone to Rural Living Zone (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.40). EPA stated that Planning Practice Note 30 identifies some agricultural activities as having medium contamination potential and recommends a Preliminary Risk Screen Assessment to determine whether an environmental audit is needed where a proposed zone allows sensitive uses (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.40). Council officers concluded that the relevant parts of the Linton sites were effectively existing backyards and that rezoning was not expected to influence land use or development, so no land contamination assessment was required (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.40).
The practical implication is that the contamination constraint is not limited to former industrial land in Golden Plains Shire (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.40). The available records show two recurring interfaces: railway-related land at Inverleigh and agricultural land where a residential-capable zone is proposed (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.38-40). The documents do not provide enough primary technical detail to map all such sites across the municipality, but they do show that EPA scrutiny can arise from historical railway use, agricultural activity, and proposed introduction of sensitive uses (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.38-40).
Teesdale North East Applies the EAO Within a Broader Growth-Area Constraint Stack
C112gpla applies the Environmental Audit Overlay in a more complex growth-area setting than C91gpla because it forms part of a 206 hectare proposed rezoning area north-east of Teesdale involving 10 land parcels (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.7). The subject area is mainly used for rural living or farming, and the former landfill owned by Golden Plains Shire Council is identified as Public Use Zone - Local Government in the agenda material (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.7). The amendment area is part of the Teesdale North East Growth Area, which C92gpla had redesignated as a Future Growth Investigation Area subject to further analysis before rezoning (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.20; Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.6).
Council reports that extensive analysis of potentially contaminated land was undertaken for C112gpla and that the detailed site investigation found two lots warranted additional scrutiny (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9). The proposed response is to apply the EAO to those two lots, which means the contamination constraint is geographically narrowed within the broader 206 hectare amendment area rather than applied across the whole growth area (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.7, 9). This is a material planning distinction because the overlay would impose later audit obligations on identified lots while the surrounding proposed rezoned land would be managed through other controls such as DPO20, DDO5, agency requirements and technical recommendations (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.6, 9).
The former landfill buffer is treated separately from the two-lot EAO issue in the agenda report (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9). Council states that an environmental audit of the landfill buffer found a very low risk of harm and supported reducing the buffer distance to 20 metres from the edge of the former landfill (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9). Council further states that this 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). The source material does not provide the environmental-audit report text in the extracted document bundle, so the basis for the very-low-risk conclusion, the exposure pathways assessed, and the conditions attached to the 20 metre buffer cannot be independently tested here (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.10-12).
The Contamination Constraint Interacts With Native Vegetation, Bushfire, Drainage and Servicing
The EAO should not be read as the only constraint affecting Teesdale North East because C112gpla identifies multiple technical filters before residential growth can proceed (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.8-9). The land originally proposed for rezoning was reduced after native flora and fauna survey work identified significant high-value vegetation and habitat west of Teesdale-Lethbridge Road, south of the former landfill and in the north-east corner property (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.8). Council states that those high-value vegetation areas were excluded from the proposed rezoning to preserve them (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.8).
Agency comments from EPA, CFA, Department of Transport and Planning, DEECA, Corangamite Catchment Management Authority and Barwon Water were sought during preparation of C112gpla (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9). Council states that agency comments were incorporated into DPO20 on bushfire risk mitigation, traffic management, active-transport connections, biodiversity protection, drainage management and flood assessment (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9). The practical effect is that contamination is one approval gate among several, and the later development plan will need to carry forward multiple technical requirements rather than only resolve the EAO lots (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9).
The growth-area history explains why this layered control approach emerged (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-20). In 2021, the Panel for C92gpla raised concerns about the level of analysis supporting the Teesdale North East Growth Precinct, including supply and demand, native vegetation, bushfire, flooding, infrastructure, sewer servicing, community and social infrastructure, and landfill buffer assessment (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.19). Council and DELWP responded by changing the designation to Future Growth Investigation Area and requiring those matters to be investigated before rezoning (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.20). C112gpla is therefore the later step where that investigation package is being used to justify a rezoning request and a set of overlay controls (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.6, 9-12).
C102gpla Shows Administrative Risk Around Missing Ordinance
C102gpla records a narrower but important administrative issue: Council reported that EPA correspondence about C91gpla and the EAO at Railway Place, Inverleigh related to ordinance omitted from the previous amendment (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 27 August 2024.pdf, p.41). EPA advised that because C102gpla was only seeking to include the omitted ordinance in the planning scheme, Ministerial Direction 19 was not triggered (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 27 August 2024.pdf, p.41). This indicates that EAO constraints can create not only site-assessment obligations but also planning-scheme maintenance issues if maps and ordinance are not aligned (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 27 August 2024.pdf, p.41).
C102gpla received two submissions, from Department of Transport and Planning Transport Division and VicTrack, and both submissions did not object to the proposed policy-neutral changes (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 27 August 2024.pdf, p.41). The amendment was recommended for adoption and submission to the Minister for Planning for approval under section 31 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 27 August 2024.pdf, p.41). For this constraint page, the main implication is that the EAO at Inverleigh had to be regularised through later policy-neutral amendment work, which creates a dependency between contamination controls and planning-scheme accuracy (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 27 August 2024.pdf, pp.41-44).
Current Status
As at 28 April 2026, C112gpla was at the stage where Council was being asked to seek Ministerial approval to prepare, authorise and exhibit the amendment for the Teesdale North East Growth Area (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.6). The agenda states 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). The agenda also lists the Detailed Site Investigation, Preliminary Risk Screening Assessment, Environmental Audit and auditor advice on EAO application as supporting documents linked outside the extracted agenda text (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.10-12).
As at 27 August 2024, C102gpla had completed exhibition, received two non-objecting submissions, and was recommended for adoption and submission to the Minister for Planning for approval (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 27 August 2024.pdf, pp.41-44). As at 21 December 2021, C91gpla had completed exhibition, received one EPA submission with no objection, and was recommended for adoption and submission to the Minister for Planning for approval, with a condition allowing the Cemetery Road, Inverleigh site to be removed if VicTrack did not respond satisfactorily to EPA matters by 4 January 2022 (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.34).
Dependencies
- Blocks: On land where the EAO applies, sensitive uses and associated buildings and works cannot proceed until the required investigation, audit and any remediation pathway is satisfied (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38; Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9).
- Blocked by: Resolution of site-specific contamination uncertainty depends on technical material such as the Detailed Site Investigation, Preliminary Risk Screening Assessment, Environmental Audit and auditor advice identified for C112gpla but not included as extracted source text in this manifest (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.10-12).
- Informed by: The EAO approach is informed by EPA advice, Planning Practice Note 30, site history review, detailed site investigation, environmental audit work, and agency referral comments recorded in the agenda reports (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.38-40; Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9).
- Implements: The Teesdale North East EAO forms part of the amendment package responding to the Teesdale Structure Plan and C92gpla Future Growth Investigation Area requirements (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-20; Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.6).
- Conflicts with: No direct policy conflict is identified in the available extracted source documents, but there is an unresolved analytical tension between using the EAO to defer site-specific contamination resolution and needing enough technical certainty to justify rezoning land for sensitive uses (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38; Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9).
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
EPA is the key state agency link because it provided the C91gpla submission, corresponded on the C91gpla/C102gpla EAO issue, and was consulted on C112gpla (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.38; Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 27 August 2024.pdf, p.41; Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9). VicTrack is a material landholder or referral-related party for the Inverleigh railway land matters because PC337580 Cemetery Road was identified as a VicTrack site and VicTrack was asked to respond to EPA’s remaining concerns about proximity to agriculture and railway noise (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.38-39). For Teesdale North East, CFA, DTP Transport, DEECA, Corangamite Catchment Management Authority and Barwon Water were consulted and their comments were incorporated into DPO20 requirements on bushfire, transport, biodiversity, drainage, flooding and servicing-related matters (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9).
Gaps in This Analysis
The C112gpla agenda lists the Detailed Site Investigation, Preliminary Risk Screening Assessment, Environmental Audit in three parts, and auditor advice on EAO application, but those documents are not provided as extracted source documents in this manifest (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.10-12). Without those documents, this page cannot verify the contamination model, sampling scope, landfill gas assumptions, audit conditions, remediation requirements, lot-specific boundaries, or the technical justification for reducing the landfill buffer to 20 metres (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9).
The C91gpla agenda refers to an explanatory report, zoning and overlay maps, ordinance documents, explanation of changes and EPA submission as attachments under separate cover, but those attachment texts are not included in this manifest (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.34). Without those attachments, this page cannot confirm the final mapped extent of the EAO at Cemetery Road or Railway Place, the precise ordinance wording, or whether the Cemetery Road site remained in the amendment after the VicTrack response deadline (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.34, 39).
The C102gpla agenda refers to combined ordinance and combined maps as attachments, but those attachment texts are not included in this manifest (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 27 August 2024.pdf, p.41). Without those maps and ordinance, this page cannot confirm the exact policy-neutral correction made to the Inverleigh EAO or whether the map and ordinance alignment was fully resolved after Ministerial approval (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 27 August 2024.pdf, p.41).
Because the current task prohibits file edits, these gaps are recorded here rather than added to _gaps (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.10-12; Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.34; Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 27 August 2024.pdf, p.41).