Grange Planning Brain

title: Gheringhap Development Contributions Plan and Design Guidelines council: golden-plains state: vic category: strategy classification: MAJOR status: unknown last_compiled: 2026-05-30 source_docs:

  • Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf

Gheringhap Development Contributions Plan and Design Guidelines

The available evidence indicates that the proposed Gheringhap development contributions plan and design guidelines were not a completed standalone planning package by the time of the 2022 Golden Plains Planning Scheme Review; rather, they were legacy further strategic work items that Council no longer treated as separately required because infrastructure contributions were expected to be handled through a Section 173 agreement and a shire-wide DCP, while built-form guidance was expected to be handled through a DDO and possible DPO linked to rezoning and subdivision. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378) This matters because the planning mechanism appears to have shifted from a precinct-specific DCP and guideline document toward permit, agreement, overlay and broader contribution tools, which changes where enforceable requirements would sit in the statutory chain. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378)

Background

Gheringhap is described in the planning scheme review as being approximately 15 kilometres north-west of Geelong and 6 kilometres south-east of Bannockburn, with proximity to the Port of Geelong, Geelong Ring Road, Midland Highway, Hamilton Highway and rail infrastructure. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.251-252) The review frames Gheringhap as a location for commercial and industrial development through the Gheringhap Employment Area, while also identifying open grasslands, the Moorabool River and rural character as values to be protected. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.252)

The statutory policy hook is Clause 11.03-6L-02 Gheringhap, which applies to land shown on the Gheringhap Framework Plan and directs commercial and industrial use and development to the area specified on that plan. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.261-262) The same clause discourages residential development inside the Gheringhap Employment Area unless it is directly associated with and required to support a significant commercial, industrial or agricultural activity. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.261)

The Gheringhap Structure Plan by Parsons Brinckerhoff, dated December 2012, is identified as the policy document for Clause 11.03-6L-02 and as a reference document in the planning scheme review material. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.262; Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.379) The actual Gheringhap Structure Plan text is not included in the manifest source documents, so this page can analyse the planning scheme review’s treatment of the initiative but cannot quantify the structure plan’s land budget, infrastructure list, staging assumptions or design controls. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.379)

Analysis

Mechanism Shift: From Precinct DCP to Agreement and Shire-Wide Contributions

The clearest finding is that the precinct-specific Gheringhap DCP was no longer being treated as required strategic work in Appendix 3 of the review. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378) The appendix records the item “Prepare a development contributions plan for the provision of infrastructure within the Gheringhap precinct” as sourced from Clause 74.02, not completed, not commenced and not required by Council. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378) The reason given is that Gheringhap infrastructure would be subject to a Section 173 agreement and covered by the shire-wide DCP. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378)

In practical planning terms, this means the contribution pathway appears to move from a precinct-specific levy schedule to a combination of site-linked legal agreement and broader municipal contribution policy. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378) That is a material governance difference because a precinct DCP usually specifies infrastructure items, apportionment logic and levy rates within a statutory contribution framework, while a Section 173 agreement usually binds obligations to particular land, permit or rezoning outcomes. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378)

The source does not provide the shire-wide DCP, the Section 173 agreement, the list of Gheringhap infrastructure items, the cost estimates, the benefiting area, the charge area or the apportionment method. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378) Because those inputs are absent, this analysis cannot calculate a per-hectare contribution rate, per-lot equivalent, cost exposure by stage, or whether the contribution burden is proportionate to the infrastructure demand generated by the Gheringhap Employment Area. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378)

Design Guidance: From Standalone Guidelines to Overlay Controls

The design-guidelines item follows the same pattern as the DCP item. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378) Appendix 3 records “Develop design guidelines for the Gheringhap Structure Plan Area” as sourced from Clause 74.02, not completed, not commenced and not required by Council. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378) The explanation given is “DDO and possible DPO with the Gheringhap rezoning and subdivision.” (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378)

That means Council’s preferred control pathway appears to be statutory overlay drafting rather than a separate design-guideline document. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378) A DDO would be the likely mechanism for built-form matters such as setbacks, landscape interfaces, presentation to roads and site layout, while a DPO would be the likely mechanism for sequencing, development plan content, access arrangements and integrated subdivision requirements. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378)

The Gheringhap local policy already points to the design issues that such overlays would need to operationalise. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.261-262) Clause 11.03-6L-02 supports development that uses the area’s proximity to highways, railways, a high-pressure gas pipeline, a high-voltage electricity transmission line and water pipelines. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.261) The same clause requires commercial and industrial development to be located and designed to provide landscaped interfaces and setbacks from existing residential development and road frontages. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.261-262)

The clause also requires development to be set back from the Midland Highway and Fyansford-Gheringhap Road, although the review separately notes that the wording needed redrafting to begin with an approved planning verb. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.261; Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.47) This indicates that the design problem was not just visual character; it included highway interface, residential amenity, industrial access and landscape treatment. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.47, 261-262)

Infrastructure and Access Dependencies

Gheringhap’s strategic role depends on its infrastructure setting. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.251-252) The review identifies Gheringhap’s proximity to state highways, railways, a high-pressure gas pipeline, high-voltage electricity transmission line and water pipelines as a reason to support commercial or industrial use and development. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.261)

The same infrastructure context creates design and access management issues. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.261-262) Clause 11.03-6L-02 supports safe vehicle movement, well-presented car parking and improved access in the Gheringhap Employment Area, including through road-system reconfiguration. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.262) This implies that access is not merely a site-by-site permit issue; it is part of the precinct’s operating structure and would need to be resolved through subdivision layout, road hierarchy and overlay requirements. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.262)

The broader planning scheme review also found that Council staff identified a lack of guidance for infrastructure planning, particularly subdivision planning, stormwater runoff and road-corridor planning in growth areas. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.19) The review’s finding was that Golden Plains needed infrastructure guidance beyond the Infrastructure Design Manual in some growth contexts, and that VPA Precinct Planning Guidelines may be more appropriate in significant growth areas. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.19) Although this finding is not exclusively about Gheringhap, it helps explain why a simple permit-by-permit approach may be insufficient for an employment precinct with road access, stormwater and interface requirements. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.19, 261-262)

Settlement Role and Land-Use Tension

Gheringhap is not framed as a residential growth area in the available source. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.251-252) The broader settlement strategy directs residential development primarily to Smythesdale in the north-west and Bannockburn in the south-east, while avoiding urban development in unserviced areas and consolidating townships within township boundaries. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.250) Gheringhap is instead positioned around employment, commercial and industrial development, with policy protection for rural character and the Moorabool River environs. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.252)

This creates a planning balance between employment-area function and rural-settlement protection. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.251-252) The policy supports commercial and industrial development that takes advantage of strategic infrastructure, but it also requires sensitive commercial or industrial development where land abuts existing residential development along McCurdy Road. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.261) The policy also requires landscaped interfaces and setbacks from existing residential development and road frontages. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.261-262)

Permit activity does not show Gheringhap as a major source of recent applications in the 2018-2021 period. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.17) The review records 13 Gheringhap planning permit applications over that four-year period, representing 1 per cent of applications in locations with more than 10 permits. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.17) This low application volume suggests the Gheringhap contribution and design questions are less about managing a high current permit load and more about preparing statutory mechanisms for future rezoning, subdivision and employment-area development. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.17, 378)

The review identifies Amendment C89gpla as an approved site-specific amendment applying the Special Controls Overlay to Lot 1 TP 966552 Midland Highway, Gheringhap and inserting the Gheringhap Service Station Advertising Signage incorporated document, July 2020, to permit signage for a previously approved service station. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.204) The planning scheme schedules also list SCO1 as the Gheringhap Service Station Advertising Signage Incorporated Document, July 2020. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.366)

This is not the same as a precinct-wide DCP or design guideline, but it shows that Gheringhap already had at least one site-specific statutory control for development-related matters. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.204, 366) The planning scheme also lists Ryans Road, Gheringhap as a Clause 51.01 specific site and exclusion reference tied to an incorporated document dated March 1999. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.366)

The heritage schedule identifies HO74 Korong Farm at 241 Bakers Bridge Road, Gheringhap and HO75 Bluestone Villa at 150 Bakers Bridge Road, Gheringhap. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.318) The manifest does not include heritage citations or curtilage analysis for those places, so this page cannot determine whether either place directly affects the Gheringhap Structure Plan Area, the Employment Area, rezoning land, subdivision staging or design-control drafting. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.318)

Current Status

The 2022 review records the Gheringhap precinct DCP item as not completed, not commenced and not required by Council. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378) The same review records the Gheringhap Structure Plan Area design-guidelines item as not completed, not commenced and not required by Council. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378) The replacement pathway identified in the review is a Section 173 agreement and shire-wide DCP for infrastructure contributions, and a DDO with possible DPO for design and development control through rezoning and subdivision. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378)

The manifest source does not confirm whether the shire-wide DCP has since been prepared, whether a Section 173 agreement has been executed, whether a Gheringhap rezoning has progressed, or whether a DDO or DPO has been applied to the relevant land. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378) For that reason, the status of the named initiative should be treated as unknown rather than active, adopted or abandoned. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378)

Dependencies

  • Blocks: The absence of the actual contribution mechanism blocks any quantified assessment of infrastructure cost recovery, item apportionment, levy rate, timing or equity between land parcels in the Gheringhap precinct. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378)
  • Blocked by: The available source indicates that infrastructure contributions depend on a Section 173 agreement and shire-wide DCP rather than a standalone Gheringhap DCP. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378)
  • Informed by: The initiative is informed by the Gheringhap Structure Plan by Parsons Brinckerhoff, dated December 2012, but that structure plan is not included in the manifest. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.262, 379)
  • Implements: The contribution and design-control pathway implements Clause 11.03-6L-02 Gheringhap’s direction for commercial and industrial development in the Gheringhap Employment Area, including access, setbacks, landscaped interfaces and separation from residential clusters. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.261-262)
  • Conflicts with: The available source does not identify a direct policy conflict, but it does show an inherent planning tension between industrial and commercial development, existing residential amenity, highway interfaces, open grasslands, Moorabool River environs and rural character. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.251-252, 261-262)

Gheringhap’s planning role is tied to regional transport and infrastructure systems rather than only local township demand. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.251-252) The review identifies proximity to the Port of Geelong, Geelong Ring Road, Midland Highway, Hamilton Highway, railways, high-pressure gas pipeline, high-voltage electricity transmission line and water pipelines as part of the rationale for supporting commercial and industrial development. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.251-252, 261)

The source does not include documents from the Department of Transport and Planning, VicTrack, rail operators, utility providers, Barwon Water, Central Highlands Water, the Port of Geelong or adjacent councils. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.251-252, 261) Those missing documents limit any cross-jurisdictional analysis of road access standards, freight movement, rail interface, pipeline easements, electricity capacity, water servicing or infrastructure delivery responsibilities. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.251-252, 261)

Gaps in This Analysis

The largest analytical gap is the absence of the Gheringhap Structure Plan itself, even though the planning scheme review identifies it as the relevant policy document for Clause 11.03-6L-02. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.262, 379) Without that document, this page cannot map the Gheringhap Framework Plan, identify the employment-area boundary, calculate developable land, identify staging areas or test whether the policy controls match the structure plan’s design intent. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.262, 379)

The second gap is the absence of the shire-wide DCP or any contribution schedule that replaced the Gheringhap-specific DCP item. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378) Without that document, this page cannot quantify infrastructure items, costs, apportionment, charge areas, levy rates, payment timing or whether Gheringhap-specific works are funded through a municipal contribution framework. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378)

The third gap is the absence of the Section 173 agreement referred to in Appendix 3. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378) Without that agreement, this page cannot identify the land bound by the obligations, the infrastructure or works required, the timing triggers, the responsible parties or the relationship between agreement obligations and any broader contribution policy. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378)

The fourth gap is the absence of any DDO or DPO schedule prepared for Gheringhap rezoning and subdivision. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.378) Without the overlay schedules, this page cannot assess whether interface setbacks, landscaping, road access, staging, stormwater, car parking, highway exposure or residential amenity requirements have been translated into enforceable statutory controls. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.261-262, 378)

The fifth gap is the absence of technical infrastructure reports for transport, drainage, servicing, utilities, native vegetation, bushfire, cultural heritage and land capability. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.19, 261-262) This matters because the review itself identifies infrastructure planning, stormwater runoff and road-corridor planning as areas needing more guidance in growth contexts, but the manifest does not include the technical evidence needed to test those issues for Gheringhap. (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.19)

Graph View