Grange Planning Brain

title: Bushfire Risk and Settlement Growth Constraints council: golden-plains state: vic category: growth-area classification: MAJOR status: active last_compiled: 2026-05-30 source_docs:

  • Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf
  • C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf
  • Att 7.5 C105gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents.pdf
  • Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf
  • Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf
  • Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf

Bushfire Risk and Settlement Growth Constraints

Bushfire risk operates as a settlement filter in Golden Plains Shire: it directs substantial growth toward lower-risk locations, limits growth in higher-risk established places, and forces new growth areas to prove that subdivision layout, staging, access, vegetation management, and construction standards can protect human life before rezoning proceeds. (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.8) The main planning issue is not a simple yes/no constraint, because several growth fronts sit outside the Bushfire Management Overlay but still require design responses to grassland, vegetation, and rural-interface hazards. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.23)

Background

Golden Plains Shire has experienced some of the highest percentage population growth rates outside metropolitan Melbourne since the late 1990s, influenced by proximity to Melbourne, Geelong, and Ballarat. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf) The planning scheme directs residential development into township boundaries, avoids unserviced urban development, and identifies Bannockburn and Smythesdale as the primary south-east and north-west settlement focuses. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf)

The Growing Places Strategy treats protection of human life as a primary test for future growth suitability and states that bushfire is a significant issue across the municipality, with the highest-risk areas predominantly in the north of the Shire. (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.8) The same strategy states that substantial-growth locations are identified as low bushfire risk, while established areas with higher bushfire risk are intended to receive minimal growth unless development can reduce township risk through tailored protection measures. (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.9)

Analysis

Bushfire as a Growth Triage Mechanism

The Growing Places Strategy divides places into minimal, incremental, and substantial change categories, and explicitly identifies bushfire risk and flooding as reasons why additional housing may be unsuitable in minimal-change areas. (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.19) Bannockburn is classified for substantial change subject to the Bannockburn Growth Plan, Meredith is classified for substantial change subject to reticulated sewerage and a new structure plan, and Lethbridge, Teesdale, Smythesdale, and Inverleigh are classified for incremental change with several township-specific preconditions. (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.19)

This creates a practical settlement rule: bushfire risk is handled first by location choice, then by structure planning, and only then by site-level subdivision controls. (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, pp.8-9) The mechanism is important because avoiding rezoning in bushfire areas also reduces the need for vegetation removal and other protection works that may affect environmental values. (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.8)

The strategy identifies Meredith, Lethbridge, Teesdale, Stonehaven, and Cambrian Hill as potential growth locations for longer-term strategic work to 2050 and beyond. (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.22) Bannockburn remains the main planned growth focus and is described as capable of accommodating an additional 13,000 homes at full development, while its precinct areas are described as capable of accommodating more than 8,000 new homes. (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, pp.22,25)

Bannockburn: Managed Growth at the Grassland and Reserve Interface

Bannockburn is the largest urban centre in Golden Plains Shire and is identified in local policy as the place where rezoning continues to be required to accommodate expected future growth under the Bannockburn Growth Plan. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf) The planning scheme identifies the Bannockburn Flora and Fauna Reserve as presenting the highest bushfire risk to the Bannockburn Growth Area because of vegetation, aspect, proximity to existing communities, and proximity to future growth areas. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf)

Amendment C105gpla shows how this policy is translated into statutory controls for a specific Bannockburn growth parcel. (Source: Att 7.5 C105gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents.pdf) The amendment rezones 5, 20, 25, and 30 Ormond Street, Bannockburn from Farming Zone to General Residential Zone 1 and applies Development Plan Overlay Schedule 19 to guide residential development. (Source: Att 7.5 C105gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents.pdf, pp.3-4) The explanatory report states that the rezoning is expected to add approximately 170 lots, which is described as about four years of additional supply based on an average Bannockburn growth rate of 41.5 lots per year. (Source: Att 7.5 C105gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents.pdf, p.4)

The bushfire assessment for C105gpla finds that the Ormond Street land is within a Bushfire Prone Area but not within the Bushfire Management Overlay. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.35) The report identifies grassland hazards to the west and south, Bruce Creek vegetation to the east, and the need for subdivision design to provide setbacks so future dwellings are not exposed to radiant heat loads greater than 12.5 kW/m2. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.35)

The design mechanism is specific: the bushfire report states that BAL-Low can be achieved where development has a 50 metre setback from grassland hazards, and that internal areas of the subdivision can achieve BAL-Low. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.35) The same report identifies staged development, defendable space, perimeter roads, and vegetation management as the means of reducing the hazard during transition from rural edge to urban subdivision. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.35)

The BAL table for the Ormond Street land calculates BAL-Low to the north where low-threat vegetation is more than 100 metres away, BAL-12.5 to the east where scrub is 39 metres away, BAL-12.5 to the east where grassland is 22 metres away, BAL-12.5 to the south where grassland is 19 metres away, and BAL-12.5 to the west where grassland is 19 metres away. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.56) The resulting development control requires all future construction works to comply with BAL-12.5 under AS 3959-2018. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf, p.57)

DPO19 carries these findings into the statutory layer by requiring a Bushfire Management Plan with perimeter roads along the south, east, and west boundaries where land abuts an identified bushfire hazard. (Source: Att 7.5 C105gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents.pdf, p.23) DPO19 also requires identification of bushfire hazards within 150 metres of the site, staging risks at each stage, defendable-space vegetation management, interface treatments between reserves and housing, and access and egress for early subdivisions. (Source: Att 7.5 C105gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents.pdf, p.23)

Teesdale: From Contested Growth Area to Investigation-Led Rezoning

The Teesdale planning record shows that bushfire risk has affected the timing and evidentiary burden for settlement growth. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.16-23) Amendment C92gpla proposed to implement the Teesdale Structure Plan, update settlement policy, introduce a Teesdale local policy, and list further work required before rezoning land in the Teesdale Future Growth Investigation Area to Low Density Residential Zone. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.16)

The C92gpla Panel hearing considered settlement-boundary expansion, supply and demand, whether the North East Growth Precinct should be developed, and when additional bushfire requirements should be assessed. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.17) The Panel recommended abandonment, and Council officers reported that key Panel concerns included insufficient strategic justification for the settlement boundary, insufficient justification for the North East Growth Precinct, and unresolved bushfire policy questions. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.17-19)

The pathway adopted by Council officers was to change the Teesdale North East Growth Precinct to a Future Growth Investigation Area and require further investigation before rezoning. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-20) The required investigations included whole-of-Shire supply and demand, detailed native vegetation assessment, bushfire assessment, flooding assessment, infrastructure analysis, sewer servicing, community and social infrastructure, and landfill buffer assessment. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.20)

The April 2026 C112gpla report indicates that this investigation pathway has now moved into a rezoning request. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.6) The C112gpla recommendation is to seek Ministerial authorisation to prepare and exhibit an amendment rezoning the Teesdale North East Growth Area from Farming Zone to Low Density Residential Zone and applying Design and Development Overlay Schedule 5, Development Plan Overlay Schedule 20, and Environmental Audit Overlay. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.6)

The C112gpla land comprises ten parcels north-east of Teesdale and is approximately 206 hectares in size. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.7) Council reports that high-value vegetation and habitat west of Teesdale-Lethbridge Road, south of the former landfill, and in the north-east corner were excluded from the proposed rezoning area. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.8)

The April 2026 report states that CFA comments were sought and incorporated into DPO20, and that additional bushfire analysis was undertaken through discussions with CFA. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9) The Bushfire Planning Report for Teesdale classified the precinct as a Type 2 landscape because bushfires can only approach from the north or north-west, egress to a place of shelter is relatively certain, and extreme bushfire behaviour is not likely. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9)

The Moderate-Risk Gap Outside the BMO

A recurring constraint is that the Bushfire Management Overlay does not fully capture all settlement-interface risk. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.23) In the Teesdale C92gpla report, Council notes that areas around the edge of Teesdale are generally not in the BMO and therefore are not subject to extreme-risk controls, but those areas still have some bushfire exposure. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.23)

Council’s bushfire expert described Teesdale as subject to moderate risk and proposed a local requirement that dwelling envelopes be set back from bushfire hazards or the rural interface to achieve a construction standard not exceeding BAL-29 for infill development. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.23) The Panel did not support that requirement because it was considered unclear and potentially more onerous than State policy. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.23)

This creates a governance problem: local policy must prioritise human life, but Council is constrained in imposing local requirements that exceed State policy. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.23) The practical effect is that moderate bushfire risk below BMO thresholds remains partly dependent on State-level policy settings, local structure-plan wording, and site-specific development-plan conditions. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.23)

The Planning Scheme Review confirms this is not isolated to Teesdale. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf) Council planners identified the BMO as a common permit trigger and noted conflict between defendable-space vegetation removal requirements and planning controls that seek to retain vegetation. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.19) Internal staff also identified a lack of clarity and balance in bushfire planning because fire mitigation receives stronger policy direction than vegetation impact management. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.19)

Infrastructure and Staging Dependencies

Bushfire controls interact with infrastructure staging because perimeter roads, emergency access, water supply, drainage corridors, and open-space edges are part of the risk treatment. (Source: Att 7.5 C105gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents.pdf, p.23) For the Ormond Street land, the traffic assessment states that 7.3 metre carriageways allow parking on both sides while maintaining fire-truck access, and that dead-end access places use court-bowl turning treatments exceeding CFA minimum turning-circle requirements. (Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf)

The Teesdale North East Growth Area has a broader infrastructure dependency because the 2026 report states that the major landowner has entered into a Section 173 agreement to prepare a shared infrastructure plan for the full amendment area, enter into a later implementation agreement, and pay the Community Infrastructure Levy and Social and Affordable Housing Contribution for affected land. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.10) This matters for bushfire because the DPO20 controls are intended to carry agency requirements into future development plans and permits rather than resolve every design detail at amendment authorisation. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9)

The Growing Places Strategy adds a municipal staging layer by tying future growth to reticulated sewerage, public transport, road capacity, and detailed structure planning. (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, pp.22-23) Meredith is identified as the next growth location subject to Barwon Water committing to reticulated sewerage, while Lethbridge and Teesdale are subject to significant infrastructure commitments to reticulated sewerage and public transport. (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.23)

Current Status

The Growth Places Strategy was in draft form in the source corpus and identified Bannockburn, Meredith, Lethbridge, and Teesdale as the main growth focus, with Cambrian Hill and Stonehaven only to be investigated if necessary infrastructure becomes available. (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.18) C105gpla was presented as a statutory amendment package for Ormond Street, Bannockburn that rezones land and applies DPO19 with bushfire-management requirements. (Source: Att 7.5 C105gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents.pdf, pp.3-4)

C112gpla was at the Council authorisation stage on 28 April 2026, with Council officers recommending that Council seek Ministerial authorisation to prepare and exhibit the Teesdale North East Growth Area amendment. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.6) The April 2026 report states that no exemption from public exhibition would be sought. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9)

Dependencies

  • Blocks: Higher-risk or moderate-risk township expansion is blocked or delayed until bushfire assessment, staging, access, vegetation, and interface-management requirements are resolved through structure planning, development plans, or amendment controls. (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-23)
  • Blocked by: Growth in Teesdale, Lethbridge, Meredith, Cambrian Hill, and Stonehaven is also blocked or conditioned by sewerage, public transport, road capacity, and further technical investigations. (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, pp.22-26)
  • Informed by: The analysis is informed by the Growing Places Strategy, Planning Scheme Review, C105gpla bushfire risk assessment, C105gpla amendment documents, C92gpla agenda reporting, and C112gpla authorisation reporting. (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf; Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf; Source: C105gpla Application and technical assessments_Part1.pdf; Source: Att 7.5 C105gpla Planning Scheme Amendment Documents.pdf; Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf; Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf)
  • Implements: The settlement approach implements the planning scheme direction to consolidate townships, avoid unserviced urban development, maintain a distinction between urban and rural areas, and direct residential development primarily to Bannockburn and Smythesdale. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf)
  • Conflicts with: Bushfire protection requirements can conflict with vegetation-retention objectives where defendable space requires vegetation removal or ongoing fuel management. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.19)

Golden Plains’ settlement pattern is shaped by proximity to Geelong and Ballarat, and the Growing Places Strategy states that the Shire has required land supply for the State Government’s Victoria in Future 15-year forecast while also facing potential flow-on growth from neighbouring regional cities. (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.18) Cambrian Hill is described as an extension of Ballarat’s growth with access to trunk infrastructure, and the strategy says its sequencing must align with Ballarat growth areas. (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.23)

Stonehaven is described as extending planned growth from Geelong, with Hamilton Highway capacity and regional land-supply analysis required before growth can be considered. (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.23) Council’s 2026 advocacy report identifies sewerage infrastructure for supporting growth, public transport connectivity, drainage and flood resilience infrastructure, and an enabling infrastructure fund for growth areas as advocacy priorities through G21, GBAC, and PUCV. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.25-27)

Gaps in This Analysis

The manifest does not include the Strategic Bushfire Risk Assessment 2022, even though the Growing Places Strategy states that it found the Bushfire Management Overlay inadequate in some locations. (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.9) The manifest also does not include the Teesdale C112gpla technical appendices, including the Bushfire Planning Report, Demand and Supply Assessment, Servicing Report, Stormwater Management Strategy, and Land Capability Assessment, although the April 2026 agenda lists those documents as supporting material. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, pp.10-12)

Because those technical reports are not in the manifest source set, this page can identify the policy mechanism and amendment pathway but cannot independently test the Teesdale Type 2 bushfire classification, lot yield implications, developable-area loss from buffers, or detailed staging requirements. (Source: Council Meeting Agenda 28.04.2026_1.pdf, p.9) The manifest also does not include the full Bannockburn Growth Plan or its Strategic Bushfire Risk Assessment, so the page cannot quantify the full bushfire-related land take across the South East, North West, South West, and Future Investigation Areas. (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.25)

Graph View