Grange Planning Brain

title: Heritage Overlay HO14 / Former Steiglitz Court House Mapping Correction council: golden-plains state: vic category: constraint classification: MINOR status: unknown last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:

  • Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf
  • Att 7.5 C101gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents Adoption.pdf

Heritage Overlay HO14 / Former Steiglitz Court House Mapping Correction

This is a narrow statutory mapping issue, not a new heritage assessment or strategic heritage review. The problem is that the Former Steiglitz Court House is identified as HO14 and Victorian Heritage Register place H1487, but the Planning Scheme Review records that it is also mapped within part of the Steiglitz Heritage Precinct HO34, creating uncertainty about which heritage approval pathway should apply to that place. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.14)

The practical planning issue is administrative clarity: a place on the Victorian Heritage Register is managed through Heritage Victoria for heritage permits, so the planning scheme map should not create a second, overlapping local-precinct signal that confuses responsibility for permits. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.14)

Background

Golden Plains Shire’s 2022 Planning Scheme Review carried forward this item from the previous section 12B review undertaken in 2016, identifying it as outstanding work rather than a newly discovered heritage issue. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.380)

The review describes the required action as amending the Heritage Overlay maps to correct the error of the VHR place identified as HO14/H1487 Former Stieglitz Court House being mapped both in HO14 and in part of the precinct HO34. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.380)

The same review states the purpose of the correction: to clarify that Heritage Victoria is responsible for issuing heritage permits under the Heritage Overlay for that heritage place. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.14)

The C101gpla amendment material is not itself the HO14 correction, but it reproduces the Heritage Overlay schedule and confirms that the Former Steiglitz Court House at Steiglitz Road, Steiglitz is listed as HO14 with VHR reference H1487. (Source: Att 7.5 C101gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents Adoption.pdf, p.8)

The same schedule separately lists the Steiglitz Heritage Precinct as HO34, which is the precinct layer identified by the Planning Scheme Review as overlapping part of the HO14/VHR place. (Source: Att 7.5 C101gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents Adoption.pdf, p.9; Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.14)

Analysis

What The Correction Actually Does

The correction is best understood as a map clean-up between an individual heritage place and a precinct heritage control. HO14 identifies the Former Steiglitz Court House as an individual heritage place at Steiglitz Road, Steiglitz, and the schedule records VHR reference H1487 for that place. (Source: Att 7.5 C101gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents Adoption.pdf, p.8)

HO34 identifies the broader Steiglitz Heritage Precinct, and the Planning Scheme Review states that the HO14/H1487 court house is incorrectly mapped in both HO14 and part of HO34. (Source: Att 7.5 C101gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents Adoption.pdf, p.9; Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.14)

In simple terms, the planning scheme map is acting like two labels have been placed over the same important building: one label is the individual VHR place label, and the other is part of the surrounding precinct label. The review’s stated fix is to adjust the map so the individual place is not treated as if it is also governed through the overlapping precinct area for heritage-permit responsibility. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.14)

This does not appear to change the heritage significance of the Former Steiglitz Court House, because the available documents do not include any reassessment of significance, revised statement of significance, or new heritage citation for HO14. (Source: Att 7.5 C101gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents Adoption.pdf, p.8; Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.14)

Permit Responsibility Mechanism

The key mechanism is the distinction between local Heritage Overlay administration and state-level heritage administration for a Victorian Heritage Register place. The HO schedule records the Former Steiglitz Court House as included on the Victorian Heritage Register, and the Planning Scheme Review states that the correction is needed to clarify Heritage Victoria’s responsibility for issuing heritage permits for that heritage place. (Source: Att 7.5 C101gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents Adoption.pdf, p.8; Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.14)

The effect is procedural rather than spatial-growth-related: it should reduce ambiguity for applicants, council officers, Heritage Victoria, and affected community members when deciding which heritage permit process applies to works at the Former Steiglitz Court House. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.14)

The available sources do not identify a change to land supply, subdivision capacity, settlement boundaries, infrastructure requirements, or development sequencing arising from this correction. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.14; Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.380)

Relationship To Golden Plains Heritage Controls

The C101gpla material shows that Golden Plains’ Heritage Overlay schedule contains both individual places and precincts, including HO14 for the Former Steiglitz Court House and HO34 for the Steiglitz Heritage Precinct. (Source: Att 7.5 C101gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents Adoption.pdf, p.8; Source: Att 7.5 C101gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents Adoption.pdf, p.9)

The C101gpla material also lists the Steiglitz Heritage Precinct Statement of Significance as an incorporated document introduced by Amendment C90gpla, confirming that HO34 is supported by a separate precinct-level statement of significance. (Source: Att 7.5 C101gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents Adoption.pdf, p.23)

The analytical implication is that the HO14 correction sits within a broader heritage-control system where individual VHR places, local individual places, and heritage precincts can appear in close proximity. Where those layers overlap without clear map boundaries, the planning scheme can create uncertainty about whether a proposal is being assessed through the individual-place pathway, the precinct pathway, or both. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.14; Source: Att 7.5 C101gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents Adoption.pdf, p.8; Source: Att 7.5 C101gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents Adoption.pdf, p.9)

Why This Is Classified As Minor

This initiative is classified as minor because the available documents describe a correction to Heritage Overlay mapping rather than a new overlay, rezoning, growth-area plan, infrastructure funding mechanism, or settlement strategy. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.14; Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.380)

The correction still matters because heritage controls are legal triggers: an unclear map can send applicants and decision-makers to the wrong approval pathway, while a corrected map can make responsibility easier to identify before works are designed, lodged, or assessed. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.14)

Current Status

The 2022 Planning Scheme Review records the HO14/H1487 mapping correction as outstanding work from the previous review and notes that it could be included in the next general amendment or potentially form part of a section 20(4) process for the review. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.380)

The manifest classifies the initiative as pending, and the available source documents do not include a gazettal notice, adopted amendment document, approved map sheet, or post-2022 status update confirming that the HO14/HO34 mapping correction has been completed. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.380)

Dependencies

  • Blocks: The correction primarily blocks administrative clarity for heritage-permit responsibility at the Former Steiglitz Court House, rather than blocking a documented growth-area, subdivision, or infrastructure project. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.14)
  • Blocked by: The correction depends on a planning scheme amendment or equivalent statutory map update, because the review identifies amendment of the Heritage Overlay maps as the required action. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.380)
  • Informed by: The issue is informed by the 2016 section 12B review, the 2022 Planning Scheme Review, the Heritage Overlay schedule entry for HO14/H1487, and the separate HO34 Steiglitz Heritage Precinct entry. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.380; Source: Att 7.5 C101gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents Adoption.pdf, p.8; Source: Att 7.5 C101gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents Adoption.pdf, p.9)
  • Implements: The correction implements the review’s recommended heritage-map housekeeping action for HO14/H1487 and HO34. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.380)
  • Conflicts with: The available documents do not identify a policy conflict, submission dispute, or competing amendment outcome for this correction. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.14; Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.380)

The direct cross-jurisdictional link is with Heritage Victoria, because the Planning Scheme Review states that the purpose of the correction is to clarify Heritage Victoria’s responsibility for issuing heritage permits for the HO14/H1487 heritage place. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.14)

No adjacent-council, water-authority, transport-agency, or regional-infrastructure dependency is identified in the available source documents for this correction. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.14; Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.380)

Gaps In This Analysis

The source set is thin for a full heritage-control analysis because it does not include the current HO14 map sheet, the current HO34 map sheet, a marked-up correction map, a Heritage Victoria register extract for H1487, or the Steiglitz Heritage Precinct Statement of Significance itself. (Source: Att 7.5 C101gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents Adoption.pdf, p.23; Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.14)

Without the corrected map or current planning scheme map sheet, this page cannot verify the exact spatial extent of the overlap between HO14 and HO34 or confirm whether the correction has since been gazetted. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.380)

Without the Heritage Victoria register extract for H1487, this page cannot independently describe the registered extent, permit exemptions, or statement of significance for the Former Steiglitz Court House beyond what is reproduced in the Golden Plains Heritage Overlay schedule. (Source: Att 7.5 C101gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents Adoption.pdf, p.8)

This should be recorded as a targeted gap in _gaps: current HO14/HO34 map sheet or amendment map showing the correction, Heritage Victoria H1487 register record, and Steiglitz Heritage Precinct Statement of Significance. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.14; Source: Att 7.5 C101gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents Adoption.pdf, p.23)

Graph View