title: Golden Plains Planning Scheme Review 2022 council: golden-plains state: vic category: strategy classification: MAJOR status: in-progress last_compiled: 2026-05-30 source_docs:

00 AGENDA - Council Meeting - 28 November 2023.pdf
Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf

Golden Plains Planning Scheme Review 2022

The Golden Plains Planning Scheme Review 2022 is less a single policy reset than a maintenance and prioritisation mechanism: it confirms that the scheme is generally functioning, then separates immediate policy-neutral corrections from a longer strategic work program on growth, subdivision infrastructure, rural land-use conflict, landscape protection, climate adaptation and statutory process performance (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.6-9). Its practical effect is to feed Amendment C102gpla, a proposed section 20(2) amendment intended to implement policy-neutral ordinance and map changes, while leaving higher-discretion policy questions for later strategic work (Source: 00 AGENDA - Council Meeting - 28 November 2023.pdf, pp.28-32).

Background

Council is required to review the Golden Plains Planning Scheme every four years under section 12B of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, and the previous comprehensive review was undertaken in 2016 with findings translated through Amendment C76, gazetted on 21 December 2017 (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.6, 10). The 2022 review was prepared with DELWP Regional Planning Hubs support and used a structured review method covering council information, planning scheme audit work, Planning Panel Victoria recommendations, VCAT decisions, referral agency feedback, Registered Aboriginal Party input and a further strategic work program (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.10-11).

The review sits in a high-growth municipal context: Golden Plains was estimated at just over 23,000 people in 2018 and just under 25,000 people by 2021, with the report describing the Shire as having had some of the highest percentage growth rates outside metropolitan Melbourne since the late 1990s (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.12). The review states that land supply is generally sufficient to meet growth forecasts across the Shire except in Bannockburn, where further rezoning is required to accommodate growth identified in the Bannockburn Growth Plan (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.12).

Analysis

Statutory Mechanism: Separating Immediate Corrections From Strategic Work

The central mechanism is a two-track implementation model: Amendment C102gpla is intended to carry policy-neutral corrections, while matters requiring new strategic justification are assigned to further strategic work (Source: 00 AGENDA - Council Meeting - 28 November 2023.pdf, pp.28-32). The officer report says C102gpla would clarify language, align local content with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes, update department names and data, remove outdated references, reinstate omitted transport content, update Traditional Owner recognition, correct Rural Living Zone scheduling, and update Clause 74.02 further strategic work (Source: 00 AGENDA - Council Meeting - 28 November 2023.pdf, pp.29-30).

This matters because the review does not attempt to resolve every substantive planning question through one amendment (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.6-9). Instead, it proposes that immediate ordinance hygiene proceed first, while issues such as subdivision infrastructure standards, landscape assessment, industrial land identification, Special Use Zone reform, Lethbridge Airport controls and environmental overlay rationalisation remain subject to further work (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.22-27).

The most important cause-and-effect chain is therefore administrative: if C102gpla proceeds, the scheme becomes clearer and more internally consistent, but it does not by itself settle the growth-area, landscape, rural amenity or infrastructure policy questions identified by the review (Source: 00 AGENDA - Council Meeting - 28 November 2023.pdf, pp.28-32; Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.26-28). If C102gpla stalls, the outdated references, omitted transport policy, referral-location issues and Clause 74.02 prioritisation issues remain embedded in the scheme and continue to affect day-to-day interpretation (Source: 00 AGENDA - Council Meeting - 28 November 2023.pdf, pp.29-32).

Growth Management and Settlement Pressure

The review identifies growth pressure as the reason Golden Plains needs an active planning work program, not simply a compliance review (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.12, 26). The report states that the Shire has undertaken major settlement implementation work since the previous review, including the Inverleigh Structure Plan, Northern Settlement Strategy, Teesdale Structure Plan and Bannockburn Growth Plan (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.13-14).

Permit data shows the geography of pressure: Bannockburn accounted for 381 applications, or 21% of the applications listed for areas with more than 10 permits between 2018 and 2021, while Teesdale accounted for 193 applications, or 11% (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.16-17). The same table records Inverleigh at 97 applications, Lethbridge at 94, Ross Creek at 93, Smythesdale at 82, Haddon at 71, Meredith at 70 and Scarsdale at 60, which shows that planning workload is distributed across both larger centres and smaller townships (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.16-17).

The review identifies Smythesdale as the northern growth centre and says Clause 02.03-1 directs residential development to Smythesdale in combination with Bannockburn, but Smythesdale accounted for less than 5% of applications in the four-year period reviewed (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.16). That mismatch is analytically important because the scheme’s settlement intent is not yet fully reflected in application geography, which makes the recommended Growing Places Strategy, Housing Needs Assessment and residential-zone variation work central to converting strategic direction into statutory settings (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.26-27).

Permit System Performance and Workload

The review uses permit activity as a diagnostic for whether the scheme is doing avoidable work (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.14-16). Between 2017/18 and 2020/21, processed applications ranged from 411 in 2019/20 to 479 in 2020/21, with an average of 437.5 processed applications per year (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.14). Issued permits rose from 294 in 2017/18 to 423 in 2020/21, indicating that the review period coincided with increasing permit output (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.14).

The highest-volume workload problem is sheds and outbuildings, which comprised 26.44% of all applications processed by Council over the four-year period reviewed (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.14-15). Amendment C99gpla was gazetted in September 2022 to remove permit requirements for outbuildings greater than 120 square metres in the Low Density Residential Zone and Rural Living Zone, and the review recommends monitoring whether that change reduces future application volumes (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.15).

The second workload problem is restrictive covenants: covenant removal or variation represented 3.05% of all applications processed, but 18.18% of applications when Council was the decision-maker (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.15). The review’s mechanism finding is that covenants can be imposed by other parties without Council involvement beyond subdivision certification and registration stages, which creates statutory workload while limiting Council’s ability to deliver its planning objectives (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.15).

The main service-performance issue is processing time: the median time from receipt to decision was 78 days in 2020/21, compared with a four-year average of 75.65 days, a similar-council average of 64.59 days and the statutory 60-day benchmark (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.15). The review therefore recommends a process-improvement investigation covering workflow, task duration, concurrent work practices, IT systems, officer role clarity, training and whether additional staff are required (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.27).

Decision-Making Pattern and Appeal Risk

The review finds the delegation structure is broadly functioning: Council-supplied data records 1,612 delegated decisions, or 96.70% of total decisions, compared with 55 Council decisions, or 3.30% (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.15-16). The same table records 1,647 permits, 6 notices of decision and 14 refusals across 1,667 decisions, meaning 98.80% of decisions were permits and 0.84% were refusals (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.16).

The appeal profile is low by volume: the review says Golden Plains had 8 VCAT appeals in the previous four years against more than 1,800 planning permit applications, or less than 1% of applications (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.17). The significant point is not the number of appeals but the recurring policy gaps identified through them, including the absence of clear Farm Management Plan requirements for dwellings on smaller Farming Zone lots and the absence of preferred-location policy for racing dog keeping and training (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.17-18).

Infrastructure, Stormwater and Subdivision Guidance

The review identifies a gap between routine engineering standards and the type of subdivision guidance needed in larger growth areas (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.18, 26). Council planners and internal stakeholders specifically raised the need for infrastructure guidance beyond the Infrastructure Design Manual, including 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.18).

The recommended mechanism is to develop infrastructure guidance for subdivision planning, stormwater runoff and road corridor planning, with the review noting that the VPA Precinct Structure Plan Guidelines may be more appropriate than the Infrastructure Design Manual for more significant growth areas (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.18, 26). This matters because infrastructure standards shape road widths, drainage land, stormwater treatment, access layouts and staging requirements before individual permit applications are lodged (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.18, 26).

The review also recommends adding priority strategic work for the South East Precinct Structure Plan, Smythesdale Structure Plan, Haddon Structure Plan and a Development Contribution Policy (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.8, 22). The downstream effect is that growth planning, infrastructure funding and subdivision design are treated as linked problems rather than separate permit-by-permit questions (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.22, 26).

Environmental Constraints, Bushfire and Landscape Protection

The review identifies bushfire as a municipality-wide issue affecting built communities and natural systems, and identifies flood-prone land in river and stream catchments, especially Inverleigh at the confluence of the Leigh and Barwon Rivers (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.12). It also records salinisation impacts on soil and water resources, biodiversity and agriculture (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.12).

The most difficult environmental mechanism is the conflict between bushfire safety and vegetation retention (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.18-19). Survey respondents identified dwellings in the Bushfire Management Overlay as common applications and noted conflict between the BMO, Rural Conservation Zone and Clause 52.17 because defendable space may require vegetation removal while zone purposes seek vegetation retention (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.18-19). The review therefore recommends State Government advocacy for clearer balancing tools between bushfire planning and vegetation protection (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.8-9, 18).

The review recommends policy or controls to protect established trees, assessment work to identify significant landscapes, a climate adaptation policy response, and rationalisation of Environmental Significance Overlay objectives in Schedules 1, 2 and 4 (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.8, 24-27). These recommendations indicate that the existing scheme can manage many environmental triggers, but the review sees weaknesses in strategic evidence and drafting structure for landscape, tree and overlay controls (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.24-27).

PPF Translation Repair

The review identifies two specific problems caused by Amendment C90, the State-led Smart Planning PPF translation (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.20-22). First, expiry dates were added to Clause 2.04 Strategic Framework Plans and selected Clause 11 local policies for Golden Plains South East, Gheringhap and Smythesdale, and the review argues that updating those plans is not the highest-priority work compared with the broader strategic program (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.20-21).

Second, Amendment C90 deleted local transport policy that the review says should have been retained because not all of it duplicated state Clause 18 policy (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, p.21). Amendment C102gpla is therefore intended to reverse those translation effects by removing or extending the expiry dates and reinstating transport policy in the relevant Clause 18 locations (Source: 00 AGENDA - Council Meeting - 28 November 2023.pdf, pp.29-30; Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.20-22).

Current Status

The source corpus shows that the 28 November 2023 Council agenda sought two decisions: adoption of the Golden Plains Planning Scheme Review 2022 and authorisation to prepare and exhibit Amendment C102gpla under section 20(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for policy-neutral ordinance and map changes (Source: 00 AGENDA - Council Meeting - 28 November 2023.pdf, p.28). The corpus does not include the signed minutes, Ministerial authorisation, exhibition material, adoption record, approval notice or gazettal notice for C102gpla, so the post-agenda statutory status cannot be confirmed from the provided documents (Source: 00 AGENDA - Council Meeting - 28 November 2023.pdf, pp.28-32).

Dependencies

Blocks: The review blocks a clean implementation pathway for C102gpla because the amendment relies on the review’s findings to justify policy-neutral corrections, referral relocations, reinstated transport policy and Clause 74.02 updates (Source: 00 AGENDA - Council Meeting - 28 November 2023.pdf, pp.28-32).
Blocked by: Full implementation is blocked by Council and Ministerial process for C102gpla, consultation with referral authorities proposed to be moved to Clauses 66.04 and 66.06, and further strategic work for matters that are not policy neutral (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.6-9, 19, 22-27).
Informed by: The review is informed by PPARs and Council permit data, Planning Panel Victoria recommendations, VCAT decisions, council officer survey work, staff and Councillor consultation, referral-agency analysis, Registered Aboriginal Party input, regional documents and adopted Council strategies (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.10-23).
Implements: The immediate amendment pathway implements policy-neutral scheme maintenance and selected adopted strategies, including the Council Plan 2021-2025, Social Housing Plan 2021, Environment Strategy 2019-2027 and Sport and Active Recreation Strategy 2020-2030 (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.21-23).
Conflicts with: The review identifies unresolved tensions between bushfire mitigation and vegetation protection, rural residential amenity and animal or home-based activities, Farming Zone dwelling demand and agricultural justification, and restrictive covenants and Council’s planning objectives (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.15, 17-20).

Cross-Jurisdictional Links

The review links Golden Plains planning outcomes to State planning reform because it responds to VC and GC amendments including native vegetation, PPF transition, transport reform, environment protection and ESD changes (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.12-13). It also identifies regional and Traditional Owner documents including the Glenelg Hopkins Regional Catchment Management Strategy 2021-2027, Eastern Maar Country Plan and Wadawurrung Country Plan as relevant to scheme updates (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.21-22).

Infrastructure and environmental implementation depends on referral and technical systems beyond Council, including DTP or its predecessor DELWP, CFA input on bushfire content, catchment-management considerations, water authorities and referral authority relocation into Clauses 66.04 and 66.06 (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.17-19, 24-25). The review’s recommendation for State Government support on significant landscape assessment and clearer bushfire-vegetation balancing indicates that some outcomes cannot be fully resolved through a local amendment alone (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.8-9, 19-20).

Gaps in This Analysis

The main gap is statutory status: the available agenda states what Council was asked to adopt and authorise on 28 November 2023, but the corpus does not include the minutes or any later amendment-stage documents confirming whether C102gpla was authorised, exhibited, adopted, approved or gazetted (Source: 00 AGENDA - Council Meeting - 28 November 2023.pdf, pp.28-32). A second gap is implementation evidence: the corpus does not include the separate C102gpla explanatory report, instruction sheet, maps, ordinance or track-changed ordinance listed as agenda attachments, even though those documents would show the exact clauses and maps affected by the amendment (Source: 00 AGENDA - Council Meeting - 28 November 2023.pdf, p.28).

A third gap is technical depth for growth and infrastructure: the review references the Growing Places Strategy, Housing Needs Assessment, Characteristics and Comparative Significance Analysis, South East Precinct Structure Plan, Smythesdale Structure Plan, Haddon Structure Plan and Development Contribution Policy, but those primary documents are not included in this manifest (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.8, 22, 26). Without those documents, this page can identify the dependency chain but cannot quantify future land supply, infrastructure costs, development contribution rates, stormwater land take, road-reservation impacts or staging triggers (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.22, 26-28).

A fourth gap is post-review monitoring: the review recommends monitoring whether Amendment C99gpla reduces shed and outbuilding permit volume, but the corpus does not include later permit statistics showing whether the 26.44% shed and outbuilding workload materially declined (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.14-15). This should be recorded in _gaps as an implementation-monitoring gap for the next planning scheme review cycle (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf, pp.14-15).

Grange Planning Brain

Explorer