Grange Planning Brain

title: Teesdale Growth Location and Structure Plan Update council: golden-plains state: vic category: growth-area classification: MAJOR status: active last_compiled: 2026-05-30 source_docs:

  • Council Meeting Agenda Final - 26.05.2026.pdf
  • Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf
  • Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf

Teesdale Growth Location and Structure Plan Update

Teesdale sits in Golden Plains Shire’s long-term growth framework as a district town where additional housing is supported only after further structure planning and infrastructure planning resolve known constraints, especially sewerage, public transport, bushfire, flooding, community infrastructure and former landfill matters (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, pp.19, 23, 25; Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-20). The planning issue is not simply whether Teesdale should grow; it is whether a previously identified north-east growth area can move from strategic identification to rezoning-ready status without creating unmanaged servicing, hazard, biodiversity, social infrastructure or interface impacts (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.17-20).

Background

The earlier Teesdale planning pathway began with Council adopting the Teesdale Structure Plan in April 2020 and authorising officers to prepare and exhibit Amendment C92gpla to incorporate the structure plan into the Golden Plains Planning Scheme (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.16). Amendment C92gpla proposed to delete the existing Teesdale Structure Plan map at Clause 02.04, modify Clause 02.03-1 to add key settlement directions for Teesdale, insert a new local policy at Clause 11.03-6L for Teesdale, update Clause 74.02 to list assessments required before rezoning land in the Teesdale Future Growth Investigation Area, and add the Teesdale Structure Plan 2021 as a background document in Clause 72.08 (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.16).

After exhibition, Council resolved in March 2021 to refer Amendment C92gpla submissions to an independent Planning Panel (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.16). The Panel hearing occurred on 10 and 11 June 2021, heard oral submissions from eight parties, and considered written submissions from all submitters, including parties who did not present at the hearing (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.17). The hearing issues included whether Teesdale’s settlement boundary should be expanded for edge-of-town sites, supply and demand given recent fast growth in Teesdale, whether the North East Growth Precinct should be developed, and when bushfire requirements should be resolved (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.17).

The Planning Panel delivered its report on 27 July 2021 and recommended that Amendment C92gpla be abandoned (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.17). Council officers disagreed with abandonment and instead proposed converting the Teesdale North East Growth Precinct into a Future Growth Investigation Area, with the detailed investigations brought forward before any rezoning could be considered (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-20). This is the central mechanism in the Teesdale update: the land remains strategically visible, but rezoning is made conditional on further evidence rather than assumed from the existing growth-area label (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-20).

The later Growing Places Strategy places Teesdale within a shire-wide housing and settlement framework to 2050 and beyond (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, pp.2-3). The draft strategy identifies five Potential Growth Locations: Meredith, Lethbridge, Teesdale, Stonehaven and Cambrian Hill (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.22). It also says Bannockburn remains the principal focus for future growth, with the Bannockburn Growth Plan able to cater for an additional 13,000 homes at full development (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.22).

Analysis

Strategic Role and Housing Supply Function

Teesdale is identified as a district town with incremental change rather than substantial change in the Growing Places Strategy change-area table (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.19). The preconditions attached to Teesdale are a new structure plan and increased bushfire resilience, which means the GPS does not treat Teesdale as immediately rezoning-ready land supply (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.19). In plain planning terms, Teesdale is a reserve-capacity location that must be investigated before it can carry a larger housing role (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, pp.22-25).

The municipal supply context is important because the GPS states that Golden Plains already has enough planned residential land supply to meet the State Government’s 15-year forecast, while also noting that independent research suggests that forecast may be modest (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.2). The strategy cites Victoria in Future 2023 projections of 24,892 people in 2021, 27,276 in 2026, 30,166 in 2031 and 34,036 in 2036 for Golden Plains Shire (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.7). It also cites total dwelling projections of 9,408 in 2021, 10,405 in 2026, 11,593 in 2031 and 13,134 in 2036 (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.8).

The GPS records a draft housing target of 11,700 new houses for Golden Plains Shire by 2050 or 2051, while the adjacent regional-city targets are much larger at 139,800 for Greater Geelong and 46,900 for Ballarat (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, pp.7, 25). This places Teesdale in a cross-regional pressure environment: it is not the main supply engine, but it is part of the shire’s response if demand accelerates faster than the VIF trajectory or if Bannockburn supply is taken up faster than expected (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, pp.24-25).

The GPS states that the Bannockburn Growth Plan can accommodate more than 8,000 new homes in its South East Precinct Structure Plan, North West Development Plan and South West Development Plan precinct areas, and 13,000 new homes at full development including future investigation areas (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.25). The implication for Teesdale is sequencing: if Bannockburn proceeds at forecast rates, Teesdale’s larger role can remain preparatory; if Bannockburn land is taken up faster, Teesdale and the other Potential Growth Locations need enough groundwork completed to avoid reactive planning (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, pp.24-25).

The North East Growth Area Mechanism

The 2021 agenda report says the Teesdale growth area in the structure plan was substantively the same as the area identified as a planned growth area in the G21 Regional Growth Plan, with a small additional area connecting the growth area to Native Hut Creek for potential drainage purposes (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.17-18). Council officers argued that this area was already embedded in regional policy and the local planning scheme, while the Panel considered that the strategic justification for the settlement boundary was insufficient (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.18-19).

This difference matters because it changes who must prove what and when. Council’s preferred approach treated the regional identification as enough to justify retaining the growth-area concept while requiring further detail before rezoning (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-20). The Panel’s approach would have required more evidence before the amendment could proceed, including whole-of-shire supply and demand, detailed native vegetation, bushfire, flooding, infrastructure, sewer servicing, community and social infrastructure, and landfill buffer analysis (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.19).

The compromise pathway recommended by officers was to rename the Teesdale North East Growth Precinct as a Future Growth Investigation Area and require the same major investigations before rezoning could be considered (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-20). This shifts the growth area from a presumed development precinct to an evidence-gated investigation area (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-20). The practical effect is that a landowner or proponent may need to fund or coordinate technical work earlier than the rezoning stage, rather than relying on the structure plan as a sufficient strategic basis for rezoning (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.20).

Infrastructure, Servicing and Staging

Reticulated sewerage is the main servicing constraint because the GPS states that Council will continue working with Barwon Water on sewerage for Meredith and will also consider other towns including Lethbridge and Teesdale (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.17). The GPS also states that higher densities can only be supported in locations with reticulated sewerage (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.25). For Teesdale, this means low-density or incremental forms are the likely planning baseline until a sewer servicing pathway is defined (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, pp.17, 25).

Public transport is also a gating issue. The draft GPS originally identified passenger rail as the enabling infrastructure for Teesdale, and the 2026 amendment report recommends replacing passenger rail with public transport for Lethbridge and Teesdale in response to a submission (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.23; Source: Council Meeting Agenda Final - 26.05.2026.pdf, pp.16-17). This change is analytically significant because it broadens the enabling-infrastructure test from a single rail outcome to a wider public transport response (Source: Council Meeting Agenda Final - 26.05.2026.pdf, pp.16-17). It also avoids overstating rail as the only acceptable transport mechanism for Teesdale, while still recognising that car-dependent growth is a structural weakness for the shire (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, pp.16-17).

The GPS says growth in Golden Plains is currently locked into a car-based model because public transport is limited or unavailable, and it identifies the Geelong-Ballarat railway as a possible spine for future growth involving Meredith, Lethbridge, Bannockburn and Teesdale (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.16; Source: Council Meeting Agenda Final - 26.05.2026.pdf, p.16). The planning implication is that Teesdale’s housing role depends not only on land capacity but also on whether transport planning can reduce reliance on private vehicles for access to higher-order employment, education, health and services in Geelong and Ballarat (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, pp.16-17).

Hazards, Landscape and Environmental Constraints

Bushfire is a recurring constraint in both the 2021 and 2026 material. The Panel hearing considered bushfire and the stage at which additional bushfire requirements should be resolved, including whether those requirements should be part of C92gpla or deferred to rezoning of the North East Growth Precinct (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.17). The 2021 report says Council’s bushfire expert described Teesdale as subject to moderate risk and developed a possible local policy requirement for infill development to maintain a setback from bushfire hazard or rural interface sufficient to achieve a building construction standard not exceeding BAL29 (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.23).

The Panel considered that proposed local bushfire wording was unclear, might impose more onerous requirements than State policy, and was not supported (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.23). Council officers then framed moderate bushfire risk as a broader State policy issue rather than a Teesdale-only issue, because land outside the Bushfire Management Overlay may still experience some risk but is not subject to the same standards (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.23). The 2026 amendment report recommends clarifying Clause 02.03-3 to state that moderate landscape risk areas include parts of Inverleigh and Teesdale, while land adjoining existing developed areas in Teesdale is assessed as Landscape Type 1 and lower landscape risk (Source: Council Meeting Agenda Final - 26.05.2026.pdf, p.17).

Flooding is also a formal investigation requirement. The GPS says the Natural Environment and Hazards Analysis 2022 identifies flooding in the highest risk category, that the GPS avoids growth in flood-prone areas based on existing flood mapping, and that flood maps need continued updates with the Catchment Management Authority (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.9). The GPS identifies the Teesdale Flood Risk Identification Study 2023 as a template for future flood studies using climate change models to map future impacts (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.9). The 2021 C92gpla compromise also lists flooding assessment as a required investigation before rezoning in the Teesdale Future Growth Investigation Area (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.20).

Native vegetation, biodiversity and waterway matters remain unresolved at the level needed for rezoning. The 2021 report lists detailed native vegetation assessment among the required investigations for the Future Growth Investigation Area (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.20). The 2026 amendment report records that one agency submitter recognised the strategy appeared to avoid areas known to contain environmental values such as reserves, waterways and wetlands, but noted that Victorian Grassland Earless Dragon assessment is required in some locations (Source: Council Meeting Agenda Final - 26.05.2026.pdf, p.12). This means the available source set supports a broad constraint-screening conclusion, but not a parcel-level biodiversity conclusion (Source: Council Meeting Agenda Final - 26.05.2026.pdf, p.12; Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.20).

The former Teesdale landfill is a specific land-use compatibility issue. The 2021 report says the Panel noted Council had proposed changing terminology from a 500 metre landfill buffer to a landfill investigation area, and Council officers said the structure plan explicitly required EPA support for any rezoning within 500 metres of the former landfill (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.21-22). The mechanism is important: land inside 500 metres is not automatically excluded in the available material, but any rezoning must pass an EPA-supported landfill investigation process (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.21-22).

Settlement Form, Infill and Character

The Teesdale structure planning material promotes infill subdivision as a more efficient use of existing township land compared with converting agricultural land to residential use (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.22). Council officers argued that infill can accommodate additional population within the existing township, reduce farmland conversion, and reduce future infrastructure maintenance obligations compared with greenfield expansion (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.25). This is the strongest sustainability rationale for Teesdale’s incremental-growth role in the available material (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.25).

The same infill approach creates a bushfire policy tension. CFA’s submission to the Panel raised concern that encouraging infill in Teesdale could increase development near township edges exposed to bushfire risk (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.22). Council officers maintained that encouraging infill was reasonable, but acknowledged that State Government could impose additional requirements for moderate bushfire risk areas or remove references to encouraging infill if it took a different position at approval (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.23).

Teesdale’s character guidance in the GPS is specific but high-level. The GPS identifies wide verges, a footpath on one side of the road, large street trees and views to clusters of established native trees as key character elements for Teesdale (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.23). This provides a design direction for later structure planning, but it does not yet quantify road reserve widths, canopy targets, public realm costs or development contribution requirements (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.23).

Governance, Submissions and Amendment Status

The 2026 Growing Places Strategy amendment process is active rather than settled. Council adopted the Growing Places Strategy at its June 2025 meeting and resolved to seek Ministerial approval to prepare, authorise and exhibit a planning scheme amendment to implement it (Source: Council Meeting Agenda Final - 26.05.2026.pdf, p.11). The Minister authorised exhibition of Amendment C106gpla in mid-December 2025 with conditions mainly relating to terminology and Ministerial Form and Content requirements (Source: Council Meeting Agenda Final - 26.05.2026.pdf, p.11). Amendment C106gpla was exhibited between 23 February and 13 April 2026 (Source: Council Meeting Agenda Final - 26.05.2026.pdf, p.11).

The 2026 report records 11 submissions, consisting of five agency submissions and six landowner or landowner-representative submissions (Source: Council Meeting Agenda Final - 26.05.2026.pdf, p.11). Of those submissions, three supported the amendment with no changes, one provided no comment, two had no substantive objection but recommended minor changes, three supported with minor changes, one supported the broad objective but requested substantial changes, and one objected (Source: Council Meeting Agenda Final - 26.05.2026.pdf, p.11). The officer recommendation was to refer all submissions on Amendment C106gpla to an independent Planning Panel under section 23(1)(b) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Source: Council Meeting Agenda Final - 26.05.2026.pdf, p.11).

Teesdale appears in the 2026 submissions in several ways. One submitter supported directing growth to Stonehaven and Teesdale (Source: Council Meeting Agenda Final - 26.05.2026.pdf, p.12). Another requested amendment to clarify the bushfire landscape type applying to land outside current developed land in Teesdale (Source: Council Meeting Agenda Final - 26.05.2026.pdf, p.13). The officer response recommended revised bushfire wording for Teesdale and revised transport wording changing the enabling infrastructure reference from passenger rail to public transport (Source: Council Meeting Agenda Final - 26.05.2026.pdf, pp.16-17).

Current Status

As at the 26 May 2026 agenda, Amendment C106gpla was proposed to proceed to an independent Planning Panel after exhibition produced 11 submissions (Source: Council Meeting Agenda Final - 26.05.2026.pdf, p.11). The Teesdale-specific pathway remains evidence-gated because the earlier C92gpla report recommended that the North East Growth Precinct be treated as a Future Growth Investigation Area requiring supply and demand, native vegetation, bushfire, flooding, infrastructure, sewer servicing, community and social infrastructure, and landfill buffer assessment before rezoning (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-20). The GPS also states that updating the Town Structure Plans for Meredith, Teesdale and Lethbridge is required before future development can proceed (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.25).

Dependencies

  • Blocks: Teesdale blocks rezoning-ready housing supply in its Future Growth Investigation Area until the required technical investigations confirm whether land can be rezoned in whole, in part or not at all (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-20).
  • Blocked by: The Teesdale growth pathway is blocked by unresolved sewer servicing, public transport planning, bushfire assessment, flood assessment, native vegetation assessment, infrastructure analysis, community and social infrastructure analysis, and former landfill investigation requirements (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-20; Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, pp.17, 23, 25).
  • Informed by: The available documents identify the Teesdale Structure Plan, Teesdale Structure Plan Background Report, C92gpla Panel Report, Teesdale Flood Risk Identification Study 2023, Strategic Bushfire Risk Assessment 2022, Natural Environment and Hazards Analysis 2022, Housing Needs Assessment 2022 and Service Limitation and Civil Infrastructure Analysis 2024 as relevant inputs, but most of those documents are not included in this compile manifest (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.16, 19, 26; Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, pp.8-9, 16).
  • Implements: The Teesdale update implements the local structure-planning component of the Growing Places Strategy and the wider municipal objective of planning for housing growth to 2050 and beyond (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, pp.2-3, 22, 25).
  • Conflicts with: The main planning tension is between using existing township land and identified growth land more efficiently, and avoiding additional exposure to moderate bushfire risk, flood risk, servicing gaps, agricultural interface effects and landfill-buffer uncertainty (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-23, 25; Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, pp.8-9, 17, 25).

Teesdale’s growth role is tied to the wider Geelong-Ballarat regional settlement and transport system. The GPS says Golden Plains is positioned between Greater Geelong and Ballarat, with neighbouring growth pressure and development planned up to shire boundaries (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.2). The GPS also treats the Geelong-Ballarat railway as a potential transport spine for Meredith, Lethbridge, Bannockburn and Teesdale, and says improved regional transport connectivity is essential for growth because higher-order services are concentrated in Geelong and Ballarat (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, pp.16-17).

Barwon Water is a direct dependency because the GPS identifies ongoing Council work with Barwon Water on sewerage for Meredith and consideration of other towns including Lethbridge and Teesdale (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.17). The Department of Transport and Planning is also a relevant agency because the 2026 amendment report recommends changes to transport wording and Clause 74.02 consultation requirements in response to a transport-related submission (Source: Council Meeting Agenda Final - 26.05.2026.pdf, pp.16-18).

The G21 Regional Growth Plan remains a structural influence because the 2021 report says the Teesdale growth area was substantively the same as the planned growth area in G21 regional policy, while the Panel and Council differed on how much strategic justification was still needed locally (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.17-20). That difference shows a cross-jurisdictional governance issue: regional settlement policy can identify a growth area, but local amendment and rezoning processes still need enough site-specific evidence to satisfy hazard, infrastructure, biodiversity, servicing and community-infrastructure tests (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.18-20).

Gaps in This Analysis

This analysis is limited because the manifest does not include the Teesdale Structure Plan 2021, the C92gpla ordinance documents, the C92gpla Panel Report, the Teesdale Structure Plan Background Report, the Teesdale Flood Risk Identification Study 2023, the Strategic Bushfire Risk Assessment 2022, the Housing Needs Assessment 2022, the Natural Environment and Hazards Analysis 2022, or the Service Limitation and Civil Infrastructure Analysis 2024, even though the available agenda and GPS documents refer to these sources (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.16, 19, 26; Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, pp.8-9, 16, 25). These missing documents prevent parcel-level analysis of developable area, lot yield, drainage land take, infrastructure cost, sewer capacity, road upgrades, biodiversity offsets, bushfire setbacks, former landfill constraints and development contribution mechanisms (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-20; Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, pp.16-17, 25).

A priority corpus gap should be recorded in _gaps for the Teesdale Structure Plan package and C92gpla Panel material because those documents are necessary to test the actual spatial boundary, investigation requirements, policy wording and Panel reasoning (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.16-20). A second priority corpus gap should be recorded for the infrastructure and hazard studies listed by the GPS and C92gpla report because those studies are necessary to quantify the binding constraints on Teesdale’s future structure plan update (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-20; Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, pp.8-9, 16-17, 25).

Graph View