Grange Planning Brain

title: Amendment C112gpla Teesdale North East Growth Area council: golden-plains state: vic category: growth-area classification: MAJOR status: authorisation-request last_compiled: 2026-04-27 source_docs:

  • council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt
  • item-7.1-attachments-planning-scheme-amendment-c112gpla-teesdale-north-east-growth-area-28.04.2026.txt
  • teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt
  • 22010384_r07_v01_teesdale_fris_summary.txt
  • 22010384_r05_v01_teesdale_flood_damages_mitigation.txt
  • gps-settlement-scale-bushfire-assessments-final-report-19-october-2022-v1.0-c.txt
  • page-00176-www-goldenplains-vic-gov-au-residential-and-industrial-land-supply.txt

Amendment C112gpla Teesdale North East Growth Area

C112gpla is the statutory test of whether Teesdale should extend its low-density settlement edge north-east of the existing Tawarri Estate, converting approximately 206 hectares across 10 parcels from Farming Zone to Low Density Residential Zone while layering DDO5, DPO20 and EAO controls over the land. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

The amendment is not a simple rural-residential rezoning: it is the implementation gate created by the Teesdale Structure Plan, which required land-supply, vegetation, bushfire, flooding, drainage, infrastructure, sewer, community-infrastructure and landfill-buffer evidence before Council could consider rezoning the Future Growth Investigation Area. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

The planning feasibility question is whether those investigations convert a fragmented, partly constrained rural edge into a coherent low-density precinct without exporting drainage, fire, landfill, traffic, social-infrastructure or affordable-housing costs to later permit stages. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

1. Control Summary

  • Amendment identifier: C112gpla. The amendment number identifies this as a Golden Plains Planning Scheme amendment rather than a planning permit, so the decision pathway begins with Ministerial authorisation before public exhibition. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Initiative name: Teesdale North East Growth Area. The named growth area is the north-east expansion area identified by the Teesdale Structure Plan rather than a township-wide review. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Council decision sought: Seek approval from the Minister for Planning to prepare, authorise and exhibit. Council was not asked on 28 April 2026 to adopt or approve the amendment; it was asked to commence the statutory amendment process. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Existing zone: Farming Zone. The existing Farming Zone keeps the land in a rural planning regime, so residential subdivision requires a zone change before low-density settlement can proceed at scale. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Proposed zone: Low Density Residential Zone. The proposed LDRZ aligns the new precinct with Teesdale character, where the Structure Plan says LDRZ areas make up the vast majority of the town and use a 4,000 square metre minimum lot size in the absence of reticulated sewerage. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt; teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)
  • Proposed overlays: DDO5, DPO20 and EAO. The overlay stack makes the rezoning conditional in practice: DDO controls design, DPO requires an integrated development plan, and EAO requires environmental audit controls before sensitive uses or associated works on affected land. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Land area: approximately 206 hectares. At a 4,000 square metre minimum lot size, the absolute theoretical lot ceiling is about 515 lots before roads, drainage, open space, buffers, vegetation retention, easements and existing dwellings are removed from developable land. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt; teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)
  • Parcel count: 10 land parcels. A 10-parcel amendment area means cross-property infrastructure cannot be solved by a single subdivision permit unless the DPO and Section 173 agreement bind shared drainage, movement and social-infrastructure obligations. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Largest-landowner role: The major landowner is the proponent. Because the largest property owner initiated the amendment, the risk is that infrastructure design could be optimised around one holding; Council addresses this by requiring a shared infrastructure plan for the entire amendment area. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Formal application date: 27 November 2025. The amendment moved from background investigations after C92gpla to a formal application just over three years after C92gpla came into operation in June 2022. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Prior strategic amendment: C92gpla came into operation in June 2022. C92gpla created the Structure Plan basis for the future investigation area and made C112gpla dependent on a documented evidence sequence rather than a fresh strategic-policy argument. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Council-owned constraint: former landfill in Public Use Zone - Local Government. The landfill makes the growth area a contamination and gas-migration problem as well as a land-supply problem, because the Structure Plan flags EPA Publication 1642 and potential audit requirements within 500 metres of a closed landfill. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt; teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

2. Strategic Finding

C112gpla converts the Structure Plan future-investigation logic into a statutory rezoning proposition: the question is no longer whether Teesdale should be considered for growth, but whether the technical work has narrowed the developable footprint enough to avoid high-value vegetation, landfill risk, flood-prone land, unmanaged bushfire edges and fragmented infrastructure delivery. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt; teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

The amendment area is described as north-east of Teesdale and north of the existing Tawarri Estate, so it extends an established low-density settlement pattern rather than creating a detached new settlement. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

The planning mechanism is deliberately staged: authorisation enables exhibition; exhibition creates the submission record; unresolved submissions may trigger a panel; and only a later approval decision can legally rezone the land. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

Teesdale is the second largest town in Golden Plains and is identified in the Growing Places Strategy as suitable for growth with incremental change potential, which makes C112gpla a moderate-growth implementation item rather than a metropolitan-scale PSP. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

The Structure Plan says the remaining greenfield land from the 1997 plan was sufficient for 13 years of population growth at 2.5 percent per annum, so C112gpla must be read as a forward land-supply release rather than an emergency response to exhausted supply. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

The Structure Plan also says Council is obligated by Clause 11.02-1S to provide a 15-year municipal land supply, which means a 13-year Teesdale greenfield supply figure is strategically relevant but does not by itself prove a township-specific shortage. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

3. Statutory Mechanism And Why It Matters

  • FZ to LDRZ. The Farming Zone to Low Density Residential Zone change is the enabling move: it changes the primary purpose of the land from rural production and rural living to low-density residential settlement. The practical feasibility consequence is that the land can be subdivided only if the later DPO masterplan, development plan and permits solve access, servicing and hazard interfaces at a whole-precinct scale. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • DDO5. The Design and Development Overlay Schedule 5 is proposed as part of the amendment package. The agenda extract does not state the DDO5 metrics, so building-height, siting, landscape or built-form effects cannot be quantified from the current corpus and must be treated as a gap until the ordinance is available. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • DPO20. The Development Plan Overlay Schedule 20 is the main coordination device. DPO20 is intended to carry bushfire-risk mitigation, traffic management, active-transport connection, biodiversity protection, drainage management and flood-assessment requirements into the development-plan stage. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • EAO. The Environmental Audit Overlay is proposed for 2 lots identified by detailed site investigation as needing additional scrutiny. The EAO does not prohibit rezoning, but it defers sensitive-use confidence until audit and remediation obligations are satisfied before sensitive use, children’s playground, secondary school or associated buildings and works. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Section 173 agreement. The major landowner has entered a Section 173 agreement with Council. The agreement is the cost-allocation bridge between amendment authorisation and permit-stage delivery because it requires a shared infrastructure plan, later detailed implementation agreement, Community Infrastructure Levy payment and Social and Affordable Housing Contribution payment for land affected by the agreement. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Formal exhibition. Council states no exemption from public exhibition would be sought. The amendment therefore must face 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.txt)

4. Land Assembly And Parcel Logic

  • Parcel register item 1: Volume 11641, Folio 975, CA42A Parish of Burtwarrah; this title is one of the 10 parcels forming the approximately 206-hectare amendment area. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Parcel register item 2: Volume 11641, Folio 976, CA42B Parish of Burtwarrah; this title is one of the 10 parcels forming the approximately 206-hectare amendment area. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Parcel register item 3: Volume 11641, Folio 977, CA43A Parish of Burtwarrah; this title is one of the 10 parcels forming the approximately 206-hectare amendment area. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Parcel register item 4: Volume 11641, Folio 978, CA43B Parish of Burtwarrah; this title is one of the 10 parcels forming the approximately 206-hectare amendment area. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Parcel register item 5: Volume 11641, Folio 979, CA46 Parish of Burtwarrah; this title is one of the 10 parcels forming the approximately 206-hectare amendment area. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Parcel register item 6: Volume 11641, Folio 980, CA46A Parish of Burtwarrah; this title is one of the 10 parcels forming the approximately 206-hectare amendment area. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Parcel register item 7: Volume 09567, Folio 834, CA47 Parish of Burtwarrah; this title is one of the 10 parcels forming the approximately 206-hectare amendment area. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Parcel register item 8: Volume 10234, Folio 667, Lot 1 PS341415R; this title is one of the 10 parcels forming the approximately 206-hectare amendment area. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Parcel register item 9: Volume 10234, Folio 668, Lot 2 PS341415R; this title is one of the 10 parcels forming the approximately 206-hectare amendment area. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Parcel register item 10: Volume 10234, Folio 669, Lot 3 PS341415R; this title is one of the 10 parcels forming the approximately 206-hectare amendment area. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

The parcel list matters because the Structure Plan warned that the north-east land is fragmented in ownership and that Teesdale-Lethbridge Road is the key access point, with access also available via Teesdale Tip Road. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

Fragmented ownership means the first subdivision that proceeds could consume the easiest road frontage and leave common drainage or connector-road obligations stranded unless DPO20 and the Section 173 implementation agreement bind the whole precinct before permits are issued. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt; teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

5. Quantified Yield Envelope

  • Gross amendment area: 206 ha. This is the only area figure available for the C112gpla land in the agenda extract. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Minimum LDRZ lot size referenced by Structure Plan: 4,000 sq m. The Structure Plan links this lot size to the absence of reticulated sewerage and to the continuation of rural character. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)
  • Theoretical gross lot count at 4,000 sq m: about 515 lots. 206 ha equals 2,060,000 sq m; divided by 4,000 sq m gives 515 lots before land deductions. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt; teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)
  • 20 percent land-take sensitivity: about 412 lots. If roads, drainage, open space, buffers and retained vegetation remove 20 percent of gross land, net land is 164.8 ha or about 412 low-density lots at 4,000 sq m. This is an analytical sensitivity, not a sourced yield. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt; teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)
  • 30 percent land-take sensitivity: about 361 lots. If constraints remove 30 percent of gross land, net land is 144.2 ha or about 361 low-density lots at 4,000 sq m. This is an analytical sensitivity because the C112 technical land budget is missing from the corpus. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt; teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)
  • 40 percent land-take sensitivity: about 309 lots. If constraints remove 40 percent of gross land, net land is 123.6 ha or about 309 low-density lots at 4,000 sq m. This sensitivity illustrates why vegetation exclusions, drainage corridors and landfill buffers materially affect feasibility. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt; teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

The current corpus does not provide a C112 net developable area, road-area schedule, basin land-take schedule, open-space contribution area, vegetation-retention area, affordable-housing quantum, community-infrastructure levy rate or final lot-yield estimate. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

6. Constraint Exclusions Already Made

The original investigation footprint was larger than the proposed rezoning area, because land west of Teesdale-Lethbridge Road, land south of the former landfill and the property in the north-east corner were excluded after vegetation and habitat surveying identified significant High Value vegetation or habitat. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

This exclusion sequence is important because it shows the amendment has already moved from gross investigation area to a constrained rezoning footprint; the land-supply gain is therefore smaller than the full North East Investigation Area. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

The corpus does not provide the hectare area excluded for high-value vegetation, so the yield impact cannot be quantified beyond identifying the excluded locations and the resulting 206-hectare proposed amendment area. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

The former landfill is not proposed as ordinary residential land in the agenda description; it is identified as Public Use Zone - Local Government and owned by Golden Plains Shire Council. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

The EAO is proposed only on 2 lots, not over all 10 titles, which indicates the detailed site investigation narrowed contamination uncertainty to a smaller subset of the amendment area. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

7. Landfill And Contamination Mechanism

  • 500 m landfill-buffer trigger. The Structure Plan says land within 500 metres of a closed landfill is likely to require an environmental audit for rezoning under EPA Publication 1642. This makes the landfill buffer a strategic-planning threshold, not merely a permit-stage technicality. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)
  • 20 m supported buffer. The C112 agenda states an Environmental Audit of the landfill buffer found the risk of harm was very low and supported the buffer distance being reduced to 20 metres from the edge of the former landfill. The feasibility consequence is major: a 20 m buffer rather than a 500 m default concern means all proposed rezoned land is said to be available for residential purposes or other sensitive uses. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • 2 EAO lots. The detailed site investigation found 2 lots warranted additional scrutiny. The EAO preserves the amendment pathway while keeping sensitive-use sign-off dependent on later audit and remediation. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Uncapped landfill status. The Structure Plan says the landfill is uncapped, flagged for eventual capping by Council and has no fixed timeframe for capping. The C112 agenda says the landfill-buffer audit supports a 20 m buffer, but the missing audit text is needed to understand whether landfill capping remains a staging dependency or merely a background council asset-management issue. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt; council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

8. Bushfire Risk Mechanism

The C112-specific Bushfire Planning Report found the subject site to be Type 2 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.txt)

This C112 Type 2 finding is materially more favourable than the settlement-scale bushfire assessment, which assessed Teesdale overall as Landscape type 3 and said Teesdale has elements of a higher-risk settlement. (Source: gps-settlement-scale-bushfire-assessments-final-report-19-october-2022-v1.0-c.txt)

The reconciliation is spatial: the settlement-scale report treated Teesdale as a whole and identified limited BAL:Low refuge and higher fuels in parts of low-density areas, while C112 assesses the subject site with approach directions and egress conditions specific to the north-east precinct. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt; gps-settlement-scale-bushfire-assessments-final-report-19-october-2022-v1.0-c.txt)

The settlement-scale report says grassland setbacks of 19 metres are generally required from bushfire hazards to achieve less than 12.5 kW per square metre radiant heat flux. (Source: gps-settlement-scale-bushfire-assessments-final-report-19-october-2022-v1.0-c.txt)

The same report says woodland setbacks of up to 33 metres and forest setbacks of up to 48 metres are generally required from bushfire hazards, so vegetation classification has direct land-take implications for low-density lot layout. (Source: gps-settlement-scale-bushfire-assessments-final-report-19-october-2022-v1.0-c.txt)

The Structure Plan required the DPO masterplan to include a perimeter road as a bushfire mitigation measure so the site can meet Clause 13.02-1S. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

The settlement-scale bushfire report recommends applying bushfire vegetation-management requirements to all land within 50 metres of settlement edges as part of planning applications and rezoning of land. (Source: gps-settlement-scale-bushfire-assessments-final-report-19-october-2022-v1.0-c.txt)

C112 therefore needs a DPO20 development-plan layout that converts a rural edge into a managed settlement edge with perimeter access, defendable interfaces, egress routes and vegetation obligations visible before permit subdivision. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt; teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt; gps-settlement-scale-bushfire-assessments-final-report-19-october-2022-v1.0-c.txt)

9. Flooding, Drainage And Climate-Change Baseline

Teesdale is a Priority Flood Risk Area in the Corangamite Regional Floodplain Management Strategy, with both riverine and flash-flood risks identified for the town. (Source: 22010384_r07_v01_teesdale_fris_summary.txt)

The Teesdale Flood Risk Identification Study covers Native Hut Creek and tributaries in the township of Teesdale, and was commissioned because earlier mapping underpinning FO and LSIO controls understated flood hazard. (Source: 22010384_r07_v01_teesdale_fris_summary.txt)

Flood modelling and mapping were produced for 50%, 20%, 10%, 5%, 2%, 1%, 0.5%, 0.2% AEP and PMF events, giving the township a full frequency spectrum rather than a single design flood map. (Source: 22010384_r07_v01_teesdale_fris_summary.txt)

The Native Hut Creek catchment begins approximately 22.5 kilometres north of Teesdale near Meredith and drains approximately 110 square kilometres to Teesdale. (Source: 22010384_r07_v01_teesdale_fris_summary.txt)

Teesdale is approximately 8.5 kilometres north of Inverleigh and sits on the banks of Native Hut Creek, which makes township growth sensitive to both local stormwater and creek breakout behaviour. (Source: 22010384_r07_v01_teesdale_fris_summary.txt)

The Flood Risk Identification Study estimated average annual flood damages in Teesdale at $113,366 per year. (Source: 22010384_r07_v01_teesdale_fris_summary.txt)

The flood-damages report says flooding in Teesdale arises from both local rainfall or stormwater inundation and riverine flooding when Native Hut Creek breaks its banks. (Source: 22010384_r05_v01_teesdale_flood_damages_mitigation.txt)

The C112 subject land falls generally from north to south-west toward Native Hut Creek, and a drainage line cuts through the north-west portion of the site before ultimately ending in Native Hut Creek. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

This topography means stormwater from the amendment area is not neutral to the broader township flood system: it ultimately connects to the Native Hut Creek receiving environment. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt; 22010384_r07_v01_teesdale_fris_summary.txt)

The Structure Plan required a high-level stormwater management plan for the entire precinct to confirm drainage is possible for all sites regardless of land ownership, including common drainage elements and an implementation plan if necessary. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

The C112 agenda says agency comments were incorporated into DPO20 on drainage management and flood assessment, but the Stormwater Management Strategy itself is missing from the extracted corpus. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

The flood-damages report recommends planning scheme mapping based on the 1% AEP behaviour for the year 2100 under RCP8.5 rainfall projections. (Source: 22010384_r05_v01_teesdale_flood_damages_mitigation.txt)

The flood-damages report states the LSIO used the projected flood extent and the FO was applied where flood depths are at least 0.3 metres, velocities are at least 2.0 metres per second or other threshold criteria are exceeded. (Source: 22010384_r05_v01_teesdale_flood_damages_mitigation.txt)

The flood-damages report states inclusion of 2100 RCP8.5 mapping in the Planning Scheme triggers permit referral and enables Corangamite CMA to assess future development against relevant flood requirements. (Source: 22010384_r05_v01_teesdale_flood_damages_mitigation.txt)

10. Movement, Access And Public Transport

Teesdale-Lethbridge Road is the key access point for the Future Growth Investigation Area, with access also available via Teesdale Tip Road. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

The Structure Plan required a traffic impact assessment and roads network plan identifying key roads to support the road network within the masterplan. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

The C112 agenda states agency comments were incorporated into DPO20 regarding traffic management and connection for active transport. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

The C112 Transport Impact Assessment is listed as Appendix 04, but its extracted text is not in the corpus, so intersection warrants, turning treatments, trip generation rates, road cross-sections and upgrade triggers cannot be quantified here. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

Teesdale had 79.7 percent car travel to work in the Structure Plan baseline, which makes any additional low-density growth structurally car-dependent unless bus, walking and cycling links improve. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

Council’s April 2026 bus-network submission says Teesdale and Inverleigh have little to no regular public transport services. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

The same April 2026 bus-network report says DTP received 3,787 community survey responses to the Geelong, Bellarine Peninsula and Bannockburn Bus Network Review, including 84 from Teesdale, 39 from Inverleigh and 265 from Bannockburn. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

Council’s proposed bus improvements include an integrated bus network connecting Bannockburn with Teesdale, Inverleigh and Lethbridge, which is directly relevant to C112 because low-density housing north-east of Teesdale will otherwise reinforce private-vehicle dependence. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

11. Servicing, Sewer And Low-Density Form

The Structure Plan says the lack of reticulated sewerage and the resulting 4,000 square metre minimum lot size will continue to maintain Teesdale’s rural character. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

The Structure Plan required sewer servicing to be assessed before the Future Growth Investigation Area could be considered for rezoning. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

The C112 agenda lists a Land Capability Assessment and a Servicing Report among the technical appendices, but neither extracted text is present in the corpus. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

The practical implication is that the page can identify the sewer-servicing dependency but cannot verify absorption-field sizing, potable-water capacity, electricity augmentation, telecommunications, fire-flow capacity or staged utility costs from the current extracts. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt; teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

The low-density form is a servicing compromise: it preserves rural character and can avoid reticulated sewer, but it increases per-dwelling road length, active-transport distance, drainage frontage and public-transport difficulty. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt; council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

12. Community Infrastructure, Affordable Housing And Contributions

The Structure Plan says Teesdale has limited community infrastructure and relies on Bannockburn and Geelong for access to a number of higher-order services. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

The Structure Plan principle is to provide community infrastructure and services to meet the growing population and to leverage enhanced community facilities through developer contributions. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

The Section 173 agreement requires the major landowner to pay the Community Infrastructure Levy in relation to land affected by the agreement. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

The Section 173 agreement also requires payment of a Social and Affordable Housing Contribution in relation to affected land. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

The C112 agenda lists an Affordable Housing Memo and a Shared Infrastructure Funding Plan Memo, but neither extracted text is in the corpus, so contribution rates, triggers, indexation, staging and landowner-apportionment methodology remain unverified. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

The agenda states a Gender Impact Assessment will be undertaken before preparation of the Urban Design Master Plan, and says the master-plan stage is the appropriate time for gender-informed design principles to be included. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

13. Community Sentiment And Contestability

The Structure Plan engagement package was mailed to all residents and landowners of Teesdale on 29 August 2019, and 86 survey responses were received by mail. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

The Structure Plan engagement also received 80 online survey responses. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

Two conversation posts were held, one at Teesdale Primary School on 12 September 2019 and one at Teesdale Turtle Bend Park on 14 September 2019, with 28 attendees in total. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

The Structure Plan survey received 166 total responses, with 51 percent by mail and 49 percent online. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

The respondent profile was 90 percent residents, 1 percent business owners or workers, 1 percent landowners and 6 percent developers. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

The survey recorded 76 percent opposition to investigations into reticulated sewerage and 20 percent support for reticulated sewerage. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

The survey also recorded that 42 percent of respondents did not think Teesdale would benefit from additional street lighting, which matters because the Structure Plan says new growth should include modest street lighting for driver safety. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

The same survey recorded that 51 percent thought Teesdale could benefit from more street trees and 31 percent chose street trees as the most beneficial small community project. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

A number of submissions rejected further residential development, but the Structure Plan response noted Teesdale was expected to grow because of G21 strategic identification, the 1997 Structure Plan, existing infill opportunities and municipal land-supply obligations. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

C112 has not yet been exhibited in the agenda extract, so there are no C112 submissions to count; the contested issue register below is therefore a forecast based on prior Structure Plan engagement and known technical constraints, not a submission summary. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt; teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

14. Likely Submission Issues At C112 Exhibition

  • Low-density growth quantum. Likely submissions may ask whether approximately 206 hectares of new LDRZ land is consistent with incremental change rather than excessive expansion. The evidence needed is the Demand and Supply Assessment listed as Appendix 08, which is missing from the extracted corpus. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Reticulated sewerage. Prior Structure Plan engagement showed 76 percent of respondents did not support investigations into reticulated sewerage. C112 may attract submissions if servicing assumptions imply pressure for sewer, smaller lots or urbanisation beyond the 4,000 square metre low-density baseline. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)
  • Traffic and road safety. The key access roads are Teesdale-Lethbridge Road and Teesdale Tip Road. Without the Transport Impact Assessment, submitters and Council cannot test trip generation, intersection performance, pedestrian crossings or school-bus conflicts from the extracted corpus alone. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt; council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Native vegetation. High Value vegetation or habitat has already removed several properties from the rezoning footprint. Submissions may test whether the remaining 206 hectares still contains avoidable biodiversity loss or whether DPO20 adequately protects retained corridors. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Landfill risk. The landfill-buffer audit supported a reduction to 20 metres, compared with the Structure Plan 500 metre audit trigger. The sharp reduction is likely to be scrutinised because it changes a potentially precinct-wide constraint into a narrow edge constraint. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt; teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)
  • Flooding and drainage. The site drains toward Native Hut Creek and contains a drainage line through its north-west portion. Submissions may focus on whether post-development runoff, basin sizing and downstream flood risk are adequately handled before rezoning. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt; 22010384_r07_v01_teesdale_fris_summary.txt)
  • Bushfire. The C112 site-specific report finds Type 2 risk, while Teesdale overall has been assessed as Landscape type 3. Submissions may test whether the north-east precinct genuinely avoids the wider settlement weaknesses around BAL:Low refuge, settlement-edge management and low-density vegetation. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt; gps-settlement-scale-bushfire-assessments-final-report-19-october-2022-v1.0-c.txt)
  • Community infrastructure. The Section 173 agreement includes Community Infrastructure Levy and Social and Affordable Housing Contribution obligations. Submissions may question whether levy amounts are sufficient and whether contributions are secured across all 10 parcels rather than only the proponent’s land. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

15. Development Feasibility Implications

  • Rezoning risk. The amendment is at authorisation-request stage, so no zoning uplift exists until Ministerial authorisation, exhibition, possible panel, adoption and approval occur. The feasibility implication is timing uncertainty rather than merely design uncertainty. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Yield risk. The gross area is 206 hectares, but high-value vegetation exclusions, drainage infrastructure, road networks, buffers, EAO lots and open-space requirements reduce usable yield. Because no land budget is in the corpus, any financial feasibility assessment must run a sensitivity range rather than rely on a single lot count. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Infrastructure apportionment risk. The Section 173 agreement requires a shared infrastructure plan and later detailed implementation agreement. This lowers the risk of first-mover infrastructure avoidance but leaves detailed apportionment, triggers and reimbursement mechanisms unresolved in the public extract. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Landfill risk. The audit-supported 20 m buffer materially improves feasibility relative to a 500 m precautionary buffer. The unresolved issue is whether landfill capping, gas monitoring, audit conditions or EAO requirements create stage-specific delays for the 2 scrutinised lots. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt; teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)
  • Drainage risk. The site falls toward Native Hut Creek and contains a drainage line. Feasibility depends on whether the Stormwater Management Strategy can provide common drainage elements that work across all landholdings without excessive land take or downstream afflux. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt; teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)
  • Bushfire risk. The C112 report’s Type 2 conclusion supports rezoning, but the DPO still needs to implement perimeter-road and mitigation wording. If the final layout cannot provide managed edges and reliable egress, the low-density form may require larger setbacks or vegetation-management obligations that reduce effective yield. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt; gps-settlement-scale-bushfire-assessments-final-report-19-october-2022-v1.0-c.txt)
  • Market risk. Teesdale is identified for incremental change, not high-density urban consolidation. The likely lot product is rural-residential rather than compact suburban housing, making absorption, infrastructure cost per lot and transport dependence more sensitive to household preferences and car costs. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt; teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)

16. Staging Logic

  • Stage 0 - C92gpla strategic basis. C92gpla came into operation in June 2022 and inserted the Teesdale Structure Plan basis that identified the Future Growth Investigation Area. C112 depends on this stage because it supplies the policy doorway and the list of required investigations. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Stage 1 - Proponent investigations. The proponent commenced background work shortly after C92gpla approval. The work had to address land supply, vegetation, bushfire, flooding, drainage, infrastructure, sewer, community infrastructure and landfill buffer issues. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt; teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)
  • Stage 2 - Formal application. A formal planning scheme amendment application was submitted on 27 November 2025. This converted background work into a statutory amendment request. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Stage 3 - Council authorisation resolution. The 28 April 2026 officer recommendation was to seek Ministerial approval to prepare, authorise and exhibit C112gpla. This is the immediate decision gate. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Stage 4 - Public exhibition. Council states no exemption from public exhibition would be sought. Exhibition will create the formal submission record and identify whether unresolved objections require a panel. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Stage 5 - DPO20 development plan. After rezoning, DPO20 requires a development-plan process to implement movement, drainage, biodiversity, bushfire and flood-assessment requirements. This stage translates strategic feasibility into a masterplan before individual permits. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Stage 6 - Shared infrastructure implementation. The Section 173 agreement requires a shared infrastructure plan and later detailed agreement to implement that plan. This is the stage where cost apportionment and delivery timing become binding. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Stage 7 - Permit and subdivision stages. Future permits must comply with zone, DDO, DPO and EAO controls. The 2 EAO lots cannot be treated as ordinary sensitive-use land until audit and remediation requirements are satisfied. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

17. Source Document Inventory For C112

  • C112 document 01: 01 Town Planning Report (17798_STQC_Town_Planning_Report V06.pdf). Missing extracted text; needed for proponent strategic case and land-use budget. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 02: 02 Local Context Plan (17798_230810_Context_Plan_V03.pdf). Missing extracted text; needed for spatial context and connections. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 03: 03 Site Analysis Plan (17798_230811_Site_Analysis_Plan_V02.pdf). Missing extracted text; needed for constraints map and site geometry. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 04: 04 Transport Impact Assessment (230025TIA001G-F.pdf). Missing extracted text; needed for trip generation, intersections and road upgrades. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 05: 05 Vegetation Assessment (M1031_Teesdale_Vegetation_Assessment_Report_16032023_V1.pdf). Missing extracted text; needed for quantified habitat and native vegetation impacts. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 06: 06 Buffer Needs Assessment (17798 BUFFER NEEDS ASSESSMENT V01.pdf). Missing extracted text; needed for landfill buffer evidence. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 07: 06.1 Appendix B to Buffer Needs Assessment (Appendix B to Buffer Needs Assessment.pdf). Missing extracted text; needed for buffer supporting data. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 08: 07 Heritage Statement (4865.000 Heritage Statement_FINAL.pdf). Missing extracted text; needed for Aboriginal and post-contact heritage constraints. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 09: 08 Demand and Supply Assessment (Land_Supply_Assessment_TeesdaleV2.1.pdf). Missing extracted text; needed for land-supply need and take-up assumptions. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 10: 09 Stormwater Management Strategy (23010293_R01V04.pdf). Missing extracted text; needed for basins, wetlands, legal points of discharge and staging. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 11: 10 Bushfire Planning Report (Bushfire Planning Report - Teesdale North East Growth Area v1.pdf). Missing extracted text; agenda provides only summary Type 2 conclusion. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 12: 11 Land Capability Assessment (17798_230821_LCA_v01.pdf). Missing extracted text; needed for wastewater and soil capability. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 13: 12 Servicing Report (2301E_Servicing Report - Combined.pdf). Missing extracted text; needed for water, sewer, power, telecoms and utility staging. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 14: 13 Strategic Assessment Guidelines Response (17798_Strategic_Assessment_Guidelines_Response V2.pdf). Missing extracted text; needed for Planning Practice Note 46 style amendment justification. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 15: 14 Detailed Site Investigation (G1088_RPT019 RevB_Teesdale_DSI_13Nov24 reduced.pdf). Missing extracted text; agenda provides only 2-lot EAO result. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 16: 15 Preliminary Risk Screening Assessment part A (180725_Teesdale_a.pdf). Missing extracted text; needed for contamination screening. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 17: 15 Preliminary Risk Screening Assessment part B (180725_Teesdale_b.pdf). Missing extracted text; needed for contamination screening. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 18: 15 Preliminary Risk Screening Assessment part C (180725_Teesdale_c.pdf). Missing extracted text; needed for contamination screening. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 19: 16 Environmental Audit part A (EA001785_a.pdf). Missing extracted text; needed for landfill buffer and audit conditions. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 20: 16 Environmental Audit part B (EA001785_b.pdf). Missing extracted text; needed for landfill buffer and audit conditions. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 21: 16 Environmental Audit part C (EA001785_c.pdf). Missing extracted text; needed for landfill buffer and audit conditions. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 22: 17 Advice from Auditor on EAO application (RE_ Teesdale - Environmental Audit Overlay.pdf). Missing extracted text; needed to verify EAO lot selection. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 23: 18 Climate Change Consideration Report (Climate-change-consideration-report-V2.pdf). Missing extracted text; needed for climate risk beyond flood mapping. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 24: 19 Affordable Housing Memo (17798_AffordableV01.pdf). Missing extracted text; needed for contribution quantum and mechanism. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 25: 20 Shared Infrastructure Funding Plan Memo (17798_SIFP_V01.pdf). Missing extracted text; needed for infrastructure apportionment. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • C112 document 26: 21 Copies of title (C112gpla Copies of Titles.pdf). Missing extracted text; agenda provides title register summary. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

18. Dependency Register

  • Dependency 01: Ministerial authorisation. Council cannot exhibit C112gpla as a planning scheme amendment until authorisation is obtained. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Dependency 02: Formal exhibition. Neighbouring landowner and resident mailout, newspaper notice, Civic Centre documents and website documents are required because Council is not seeking an exhibition exemption. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Dependency 03: Agency positions. EPA, CFA, DTP Transport, DEECA, Corangamite CMA and Barwon Water were consulted and their comments informed DPO20. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Dependency 04: Whole-precinct masterplan. The Structure Plan says rezoning and DPO schedule amendment should be for the entire Future Growth Investigation Area unless otherwise agreed by Council. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)
  • Dependency 05: Shared infrastructure plan. The Section 173 agreement requires a shared infrastructure plan for the entire amendment area. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Dependency 06: Later detailed agreement. The Section 173 agreement requires a more detailed later agreement to implement the shared infrastructure plan. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Dependency 07: DPO20 masterplan. The DPO must carry a high-level masterplan demonstrating logical future road layout and common drainage infrastructure where necessary. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)
  • Dependency 08: Perimeter road. The Structure Plan requires a perimeter road as a bushfire mitigation measure. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)
  • Dependency 09: Drainage management. The Structure Plan requires high-level stormwater planning for the entire precinct to confirm drainage works across ownership boundaries. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)
  • Dependency 10: Flood assessment. DPO20 incorporates flood-assessment requirements after agency consultation. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Dependency 11: Landfill buffer audit. The amendment relies on an Environmental Audit finding very low risk and supporting a 20 m buffer from the former landfill. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Dependency 12: EAO compliance. The 2 EAO lots require audit and remediation before sensitive uses or associated buildings and works. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Dependency 13: Vegetation avoidance. Properties with significant High Value vegetation or habitat have been excluded from the rezoning footprint. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Dependency 14: Traffic assessment. A traffic impact assessment and roads network plan are required by the Structure Plan and Appendix 04 is listed for C112. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt; council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Dependency 15: Sewer servicing. The Structure Plan required sewer servicing assessment before rezoning eligibility. (Source: teesdale-structure-plan_october2021.txt)
  • Dependency 16: Land capability. Appendix 11 is listed for C112 and is needed to verify on-site wastewater feasibility under low-density form. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Dependency 17: Community infrastructure levy. The proponent agreement requires payment of the Community Infrastructure Levy. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Dependency 18: Social and affordable housing contribution. The proponent agreement requires payment of a Social and Affordable Housing Contribution. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Dependency 19: Gender impact assessment. A Gender Impact Assessment is to occur before the Urban Design Master Plan. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)
  • Dependency 20: Public transport advocacy. Council’s bus-network submission seeks a Bannockburn-Teesdale-Inverleigh-Lethbridge network but no service commitment is identified in the C112 agenda. (Source: council-meeting-agenda-28.04.2026_1.txt)

Size Contract Note

This page was compacted for UI and Obsidian readability. The underlying source documents and extracted text remain in the evidence corpus.

Graph View