Grange Planning Brain

title: Teesdale Structure Plan council: golden-plains state: vic category: growth-area classification: MAJOR status: approved last_compiled: 2026-05-30 source_docs:

  • Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf
  • Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf
  • Att 7.6.6 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Track Changes Combined.pdf
  • Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf
  • Att 7.3 - Amendment C92GPLA Teesdale Structure Plan - Planning Panel Outcome_Part1.pdf
  • Att 7.3 - Amendment C92GPLA Teesdale Structure Plan - Planning Panel Outcome_Part2.pdf

Teesdale Structure Plan

The Teesdale Structure Plan is best understood as a settlement-boundary and constraint-management instrument rather than a growth-release plan: it keeps Teesdale’s future residential growth within the existing town boundary, prefers low density residential and infill development, and makes any rezoning in the north-east conditional on further investigation of demand, biodiversity, bushfire, flooding, landfill, infrastructure, sewer, drainage, open space and community infrastructure matters (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, p.21). The planning consequence is that Teesdale remains recognised as Golden Plains Shire’s second largest town, but the most contested greenfield area is held as a future-growth-investigation-area rather than treated as immediately justified residential land (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.17-20).

Background

Teesdale is the second largest town in Golden Plains Shire, located 12 kilometres west of Bannockburn, and its settlement pattern is described as low density residential land with a strong connection to the natural environment and surrounding agricultural land (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, p.2). The town is described as relying largely on Bannockburn and Geelong for services and job access, while experiencing considerable pressure for residential development (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, p.2).

Council adopted the Teesdale Structure Plan in April 2020 and authorised officers to prepare and exhibit Amendment C92gpla to incorporate it 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, add a new Teesdale section to Clause 02.03-1, insert a new local policy for Teesdale at Clause 11.03-6L, include further strategic work requirements before rezoning land in the Teesdale Future Growth Investigation Area, and list the Teesdale Structure Plan 2021 as a background document (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.16).

The amendment was exhibited and referred to an independent Planning Panel after Council considered submissions in March 2021 (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.16). The Panel sat on 10 and 11 June 2021, heard oral submissions from eight parties, considered written submissions from all submitters, and delivered its report to Council on 27 July 2021 (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.17). The hearing included representation from developers, community members and the Country Fire Authority, with issues including whether Teesdale’s settlement boundary should expand, the recent rate of growth, the future of the North East Growth Precinct, and the timing of bushfire requirements (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.17).

Analysis

Settlement Role and Growth Logic

The planning scheme positions Teesdale below Bannockburn in the Shire settlement hierarchy but above the smaller settlements, because the Shire’s population is described as largest in Bannockburn, followed by Teesdale, while all other townships have populations below 1,000 people (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, p.1). The Teesdale policy does not treat this role as a reason for unconstrained outward expansion; instead, Council seeks to accommodate future residential growth inside the existing town boundary and by encouraging infill development (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, p.2).

This is a deliberately conservative settlement mechanism. In simple terms, the plan tells the town to use the rooms already inside the house before building a new wing. The statutory expression of this approach is Clause 11.03-6L-05, which encourages low density residential as the preferred form of settlement growth, encourages infill residential subdivision and development where constraints can be managed, and avoids rezoning land outside the Teesdale Settlement Boundary (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, p.21).

The wider planning-scheme review confirms why Teesdale matters operationally: during the four-year period assessed, Teesdale accounted for 193 planning applications, or 10.7 per cent of all applications processed by Council, compared with Bannockburn’s 381 applications, or 21.12 per cent (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.17). That means Teesdale was not a minor township in permit workload terms; it generated about one application in every nine processed by Council during the review period (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.17).

The North-East Area: From Growth Precinct to Investigation Area

The central statutory shift made after the Panel process was the redesignation of the Teesdale North East Growth Precinct as a Future Growth Investigation Area (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.20). This is not just a label change. A growth precinct implies the planning system has broadly accepted the area for future urban use, while an investigation area means the area must first prove that rezoning is strategically and physically supportable (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-20).

Council officers described the exhibited north-east growth area as substantially 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 a potential drainage purpose (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.17). The Panel took a different view and found there was insufficient strategic justification to support the settlement boundary shown on the Strategic Framework Plan (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.18). The practical result was a compromise: the amendment retained the area inside the policy framework, but made rezoning conditional on a broader investigation package (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.19-20).

The required investigation package is broad. It must address Shire-wide 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 final policy also requires any rezoning and development in the Teesdale Future Growth Investigation Area to consider land supply and demand, biodiversity, bushfire, flooding, the former Teesdale landfill, roads, drainage, open space and community infrastructure regardless of land ownership (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, p.21).

The mechanism is important: the investigation burden moves closer to the rezoning proponent and away from an unconditional Council-led growth designation. Council officers expressly stated that designating the area as a Future Growth Investigation Area would allow a developer to undertake much of the investigation work, while bringing forward work that would otherwise have been required at rezoning stage (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.20). That makes the area neither released nor rejected; it is held in a conditional state until the constraint evidence is sufficient (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.20).

Infrastructure, Sewer and Drainage Dependencies

The Teesdale Structure Plan sits inside a Shire infrastructure context where water supply is broadly available but sewerage coverage is limited (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, p.10). The planning scheme states that all towns in the Shire have reticulated water supplied by either Central Highlands Water or Barwon Water, but sewerage systems are limited to Woodlands Estate near Enfield, Bannockburn and Smythesdale (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, p.10). Council’s infrastructure strategy is therefore to direct development to areas with water and sewerage access, facilitate water and sewerage works in unsewered townships, and improve service delivery to urban centre townships where sewerage or treated water is lacking (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, p.10).

For Teesdale, the key implication is that low density growth and infill are not only character choices; they are also servicing choices. Where sewer servicing is unresolved, subdivision intensity is constrained by wastewater disposal, drainage and land capability. The Panel’s insistence on sewer servicing and infrastructure analysis before rezoning the north-east area reflects this mechanism (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.18-20).

Drainage is a second binding issue because the north-east area includes a potential link to Native Hut Creek for drainage purposes (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.17). The final Teesdale local policy says encumbered land within greenfield sites should be used for open space where possible, including buffers along Native Hut Creek where required by the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, p.21). This creates a dual-purpose land-use mechanism: land that may be constrained by drainage or waterway buffers can still contribute to open space, but it may not contribute to developable lot yield (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, p.21).

The documents provided do not include a drainage engineering report, sewer servicing strategy, development contributions plan, infrastructure cost schedule or land budget for Teesdale. That prevents calculation of net developable area, lot yield, infrastructure cost per hectare, or the financial scale of any future development contributions mechanism. The policy does require a suitable development contributions mechanism for the Teesdale Future Growth Investigation Area, but no levy rate, works list or apportionment method is available in the provided source set (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, p.21).

Bushfire, Infill and the Limits of Local Policy

Bushfire was one of the most important unresolved policy tensions in the C92gpla process. The CFA raised concerns that encouraging infill in Teesdale could also encourage infill around the edge of town, where land may be exposed to bushfire risk even if it is not inside the Bushfire Management Overlay (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.22-23). Council’s bushfire expert described Teesdale as subject to moderate risk and developed a potential local policy requirement for an appropriate setback between bushfire hazard or rural interface and a dwelling building envelope to achieve a construction standard not exceeding BAL29 (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.23).

The Panel did not support that proposed requirement because it considered the requirement unclear and potentially more onerous than State policy (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.23). This exposes the core legal mechanism: local planning must prioritise human life in bushfire-affected areas, but local policy cannot simply create stronger bushfire controls than the State framework without adequate statutory support (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.23). The adopted policy therefore continues to encourage infill where constraints can be managed, but it does not resolve the broader problem of how moderate bushfire risk outside the BMO should be handled in Teesdale (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, p.21; Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.23).

This matters downstream because infill is the plan’s preferred way to absorb growth without expanding the settlement boundary. If future infill proposals sit near vegetated or rural interfaces, decision-makers will still need to reconcile settlement consolidation with bushfire exposure on a permit-by-permit basis unless State policy or future local policy gives clearer tools (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.23).

Former Landfill and the 500-Metre Investigation Area

The former Teesdale landfill is a specific constraint on future rezoning and development. During the Panel process, Council proposed changing the wording from a 500 metre landfill buffer to a landfill investigation area, following a submitter request during structure plan exhibition (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.21). The rationale was that EPA policy requires investigation for development within 500 metres of landfills and that the investigation may then determine the required buffer (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.21).

The Panel recommended that Council seek EPA advice if changing the terminology (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.21). Council officers considered the wording acceptable because the Structure Plan stated that land within 500 metres of the former landfill would require EPA support for any rezoning (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.21). The planning effect is that the 500 metre area is not treated as an automatic prohibition in the cited report, but it is treated as a technical gate requiring environmental assessment and EPA support before rezoning can proceed (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.21).

Urban Break, Landscape and Relationship to Bannockburn

The Structure Plan includes an urban-break concept east of Teesdale, linked to separation from Bannockburn and landscape values (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.21). The Panel questioned this designation because it had also questioned the strategic justification for the settlement boundary (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.21). Council officers argued that the designation was not a significant modification because the area was already outside the town settlement boundary and therefore ineligible for development regardless of the additional non-urban-break label (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.21).

The relationship with Bannockburn is therefore both functional and spatial. Functionally, Teesdale relies on Bannockburn and Geelong for services and job access (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, p.2). Spatially, the urban break reinforces that Teesdale should remain a distinct township rather than merge incrementally with Bannockburn through edge development (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.21).

Community Infrastructure and Public Realm Actions

The Panel considered that the Structure Plan’s social and community infrastructure actions should be supported by a community and social infrastructure needs assessment (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.21). Council officers responded that a Shire-wide Community Services and Infrastructure Plan was being developed when the Teesdale Structure Plan was prepared, but the timing did not align (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.21-22). Council officers also argued that because the Structure Plan did not increase growth areas or change the development potential of existing growth locations, community infrastructure could be planned separately (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.21-22).

The example given in the officer report shows the plan’s action-setting method: street lighting was identified as a potential issue through background analysis, discussed with engineers, tested through a community survey to all Teesdale households, and then converted into an action to analyse locations where a minimal number of lights could provide traffic-safety benefit (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.22). This is a modest action-planning approach rather than a fully quantified community infrastructure program, because the provided source set contains no facility demand model, open space standard assessment, cost estimate or delivery schedule for Teesdale-specific community infrastructure (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.21-22).

Amendment Outcome and Statutory Status

Council officers recommended adopting Amendment C92gpla despite the Panel’s recommendation to abandon it, on the basis that the Panel and Council had different interpretations of how the G21 Regional Growth Plan settlement boundary operated (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.26-27). The officer-recommended path relied on DELWP without-prejudice advice to modify the north-east area from a growth area to a Future Growth Investigation Area (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.27).

The later ordinance shows Clause 11.03-6L-05 Teesdale with Amendment C92gpla dated 30 June 2022, indicating the amendment had been incorporated into the planning scheme by that date (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, p.21). The 2022 Planning Scheme Review also records that C92gpla sought to implement the Teesdale Structure Plan, that the Panel recommended significant further work to inform and strategically justify the amendment, and that the amendment had been finalised, with the review assuming the recommendation had been addressed adequately (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.18).

Current Status

The Teesdale Structure Plan has statutory effect through Clause 11.03-6L-05 Teesdale and is listed as a policy document as the Teesdale Structure Plan, Golden Plains Shire, October 2021 (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, p.21). Amendment C92gpla is shown in the planning scheme ordinance with a date of 30 June 2022 (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, p.21). The Future Growth Investigation Area is not an approved rezoning pathway by itself; any rezoning must first address the listed investigation matters and provide a suitable development contributions mechanism (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, p.21).

Dependencies

  • Blocks: Rezoning in the Teesdale Future Growth Investigation Area is blocked until investigations address Shire-wide supply and demand, native vegetation, bushfire, flooding, infrastructure, sewer servicing, community and social infrastructure, and landfill buffer matters (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.20).
  • Blocks: Any future growth-area rezoning also requires a suitable development contributions mechanism, but the provided documents do not include a DCP, levy rate, infrastructure schedule or apportionment model (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, p.21).
  • Blocked by: Sewer servicing is an unresolved threshold issue because the Shire’s sewerage systems are limited to Woodlands Estate, Bannockburn and Smythesdale in the cited infrastructure policy context (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, p.10).
  • Blocked by: Moderate bushfire risk remains a decision constraint for infill and edge development because the Panel did not support Council’s proposed local BAL29-style setback requirement (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.23).
  • Informed by: The amendment was informed by the Teesdale Structure Plan, a background report, community engagement in 2019, DELWP input, agency input and the formal Planning Panel process (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.16, 26-27).
  • Implements: The amendment implements the Teesdale Structure Plan 2021 through local policy and strategic framework mapping in the Golden Plains Planning Scheme (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.16; Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, p.21).
  • Conflicts with: The amendment exposed a conflict between Council’s reliance on the existing G21 planned growth area and the Panel’s view that stronger strategic justification was required before supporting the settlement boundary and north-east growth designation (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.18-20).

Teesdale’s planning context is tied to Bannockburn and Geelong because the planning scheme states that Teesdale is largely reliant on Bannockburn and Geelong for services and job access (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, p.2). It is also tied to the G21 regional planning framework because Council officers stated that the north-east area was substantially the same as the planned growth area in the G21 Regional Growth Plan and that changing the regional settlement boundary would require a regional amendment process involving State Government and G21 councils (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, pp.17-19).

The Corangamite Catchment Management Authority is a functional dependency because the local policy refers to buffers along Native Hut Creek where required by that authority (Source: Att 7.6.5 - Golden Plains C102gpla Ordinance Combined_1.pdf, p.21). EPA involvement is also a functional dependency because land within 500 metres of the former Teesdale landfill requires EPA support for rezoning according to Council’s officer report (Source: Council Meeting agenda 211221.pdf, p.21).

Gaps in This Analysis

The provided attachment PDFs for the ordinance documents, Teesdale Structure Plan 2021 and C92gpla Panel Report are listed in the manifest, but their extracted text is largely page shells rather than recoverable substantive text, so the analysis relies mainly on the council agenda report, the later ordinance and the planning scheme review (Source: Att 7.3 - Amendment C92GPLA Teesdale Structure Plan - Planning Panel Outcome_Part1.pdf; Source: Att 7.3 - Amendment C92GPLA Teesdale Structure Plan - Planning Panel Outcome_Part2.pdf). This is a material evidence gap because the Panel’s full reasoning, the complete Structure Plan maps, and any technical appendices cannot be independently interrogated from the extracted text supplied (Source: Att 7.3 - Amendment C92GPLA Teesdale Structure Plan - Planning Panel Outcome_Part1.pdf; Source: Att 7.3 - Amendment C92GPLA Teesdale Structure Plan - Planning Panel Outcome_Part2.pdf).

Critical missing documents for a full 10/10 analysis are the Teesdale Structure Plan Background Report, the complete Teesdale Structure Plan 2021 text and maps in machine-readable form, the full C92gpla Panel Report in machine-readable form, any bushfire expert evidence, sewer servicing advice, drainage assessment, native vegetation assessment, landfill risk advice, community infrastructure assessment, land supply and demand analysis, and any development contributions mechanism or infrastructure costing for the Future Growth Investigation Area. Without those documents, this page cannot quantify gross area, net developable area, lot yield, infrastructure cost, DCP liability, sewer capacity, drainage land take, bushfire defendable-space effect, or landfill-buffer land take.

Graph View