Grange Planning Brain

title: Planning Scheme Amendment C109 Historical Zoning Map Anomaly council: greater-bendigo state: vic category: amendment classification: MINOR status: unknown last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:

  • City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf

Planning Scheme Amendment C109 Historical Zoning Map Anomaly

This page records a legacy zoning-map anomaly associated with 42-44 Rohs Road, East Bendigo, because the supplied corpus shows that the issue was raised in 2009 during Amendment C109 and remained unresolved when a later correction amendment, amendment-c285gben-corrections-amendment, was exhibited in 2025. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, p.93) The practical planning issue is narrow but important: the submitter says current cadastral lot boundaries and planning scheme zone boundaries no longer align, leaving parts of the land split between low-density-residential-zone and industrial-1-zone controls. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-95)

Background

The only supplied source does not contain the Amendment C109 amendment documentation, panel material, gazettal material, or 2009 Council report, so the original statutory purpose and final outcome of C109 cannot be reconstructed from this corpus. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-94) What the source does show is that A & E Knox Superannuation Pty Ltd, through Centrum Town Planning, told Council in October 2025 that a general request to amend planning scheme maps had been made in 2009 as part of Amendment C109, with the supporting material said to include a 4 May 2009 letter from Tony Knox and Council meeting minutes. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-94)

The affected land is identified in the 2025 submission as 42-44 Rohs Road, East Bendigo. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, p.93) The submission states that the site consists of two lots, Lots 1 and 2 on PS 805706V, created through a re-subdivision approved by the City of Greater Bendigo under Planning Permit AM/1072/2007/A. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, p.93) The submitter says that before registration of the re-subdivision in 2018, the lot boundaries aligned correctly with the zone boundaries. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, p.93)

The 2025 submission was made to Amendment C285gben, a broader corrections amendment that proposed to correct zoning and overlay mapping errors and anomalies, remove redundant overlays, correct planning scheme text, rezone one property to a residential zone, and apply the Heritage Overlay to two properties and part of 23 other properties. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.32-34) Council officers did not add the Rohs Road land to C285gben because they advised that sites could not be added at that stage of the amendment process; instead, officers stated that the City would assess the properties in a future corrections amendment. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.41-42)

Analysis

Nature of the Anomaly

The anomaly is a boundary-alignment problem rather than a strategic rezoning proposal on the evidence supplied. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-95) The submitter requested two reciprocal map corrections: rezoning the northern part of Lot 2 from Low Density Residential Zone to Industrial 1 Zone, and rezoning a small triangular part of Lot 1 from Industrial 1 Zone to Low Density Residential Zone. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, p.93)

Mechanically, this means the submitter is not asking for the whole site to move from one planning regime to another. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, p.93) The requested change is a land-swap style correction between two existing mapped zones so that the zone line follows the intended lot pattern after subdivision. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-95) In simple terms, the map appears to be like a colouring book page where the coloured line stayed in the old place after the property line moved, so a small part of each lot may now carry the wrong colour. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-95)

The practical effect of a split-zone anomaly is that a single cadastral lot can be read through two different land-use rule sets. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-95) Because the requested correction involves LDRZ and IN1Z land, the issue may affect which zone purpose, permit triggers, land-use expectations, and built-form controls apply to the affected parts of Lots 1 and 2. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-95) The source does not quantify the area of the northern part of Lot 2 or the triangular part of Lot 1, so the exact land area and control effect cannot be measured from the supplied material. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-95)

Relationship to Amendment C109

The corpus connects the anomaly to Amendment C109 only through the 2025 submitter’s statement that a general request to amend planning scheme maps was made in 2009 as part of C109. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, p.93) The supporting documents listed by the submitter include the current titles for PS 805706V, the previous lot layout PS 437046N, and a copy of the C109 submission by Tony Knox dated 4 May 2009 with Council meeting minutes. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, p.94)

That evidence suggests C109 is relevant as the first known statutory amendment process in which the issue was raised, not necessarily as the amendment that created the anomaly. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-94) The supplied agenda does not show whether Council accepted, rejected, deferred, or failed to process the 2009 request under Amendment C109. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-94) It also does not show the approved C109 maps, the exhibited C109 maps, or any Ministerial decision for C109. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-94)

The strongest analytical conclusion available from the supplied source is that the C109-related mapping request did not resolve the Rohs Road issue in a way that the landowner regarded as effective by 2025. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, p.93) That conclusion is supported by the 2025 request to include the same land in C285gben and by Council’s response that the properties would be assessed in a future corrections amendment. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.41-42)

Relationship to Amendment C285gben

Amendment C285gben is the live statutory context in the supplied corpus. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.32-39) It was publicly exhibited from 23 October 2025 to 22 December 2025 and attracted nine submissions, including five opposing submissions and four supporting submissions. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.32-34) One opposing submitter requested that C285gben be changed to include additional properties, identified in the officer response as 42 and 44 Rohs Road, East Bendigo. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.34-35, pp.41-42)

Council’s officer response is procedurally significant. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.41-42) The response did not contest the existence of a possible zoning anomaly; instead, it said no change would be made to C285gben because sites could not be added at that point in the amendment process. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.41-42) The response also stated that the City would assess 42 and 44 Rohs Road in a future corrections amendment. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.41-42)

This creates a clear cause-and-effect chain. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.41-42) Because C285gben had already reached exhibition and submissions, adding new land would have altered the affected-land scope and potentially required further notification. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.36-37, pp.41-42) Because Council declined to add the land to C285gben, any correction to the Rohs Road zone alignment must wait for a later amendment process. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.41-42)

Planning Significance

The issue is classified here as MINOR because the supplied evidence describes a site-specific zoning-map correction affecting two lots, not a broad land-supply strategy, precinct structure plan, infrastructure program, or major policy change. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.41-42, pp.93-95) Its significance is still practical because planning scheme maps are the legal starting point for deciding what uses and development permissions apply to land. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-95)

For Council administration, the issue shows why correction amendments need a disciplined intake process. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.32-39, pp.41-42) C285gben was designed to correct mapping errors and anomalies across multiple suburbs, towns, and localities, yet the Rohs Road anomaly could not be added once the amendment had progressed to the exhibited-submission stage. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.33-39, pp.41-42) The consequence is administrative delay: a small map correction must be carried into a later amendment rather than being resolved in the current corrections package. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.41-42)

For affected land administration, the issue may create uncertainty until corrected because part of Lot 2 is said to remain LDRZ when the submitter considers it should be IN1Z, and a small triangular part of Lot 1 is said to remain IN1Z when the submitter considers it should be LDRZ. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-95) The source does not provide enough information to determine whether any current permit application, enforcement matter, land-use conflict, or existing-use right depends on the correction. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-95)

Process Lessons

C285gben shows the standard correction-amendment pathway: Council resolved on 22 April 2024 to seek authorisation, prepare the amendment, and exhibit it subject to Ministerial authorisation. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.38-39) The Minister authorised preparation and exhibition on 22 August 2025, subject to conditions. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, p.39) The amendment was then exhibited from 23 October 2025 to 22 December 2025 after an extended exhibition period caused by an administrative notification issue. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, p.37)

The Rohs Road issue entered that process too late to be included in the exhibited amendment. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.41-42, pp.93-94) This matters because correction amendments are often treated as low-policy, technical instruments, but the planning authority still has to preserve procedural fairness for affected owners, occupiers, prescribed Ministers, referral authorities, and the public. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.36-37) Adding new land after exhibition can change who is affected and what notice is required. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.36-37, pp.41-42)

Current Status

The original status of Amendment C109 is unknown from the supplied corpus. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-94) The current status of the Rohs Road anomaly is that Council officers stated in the C285gben officer response that 42 and 44 Rohs Road would be assessed in a future corrections amendment, after the submitter withdrew the C285gben submission following clarification from a City officer. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.41-42)

C285gben itself was before Council on 20 April 2026 for consideration of submissions and a request that the Minister for Planning appoint a Planning Panel. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.32-33) The unresolved C285gben submissions concerned vegetation protection in the Bendigo Regional Park, not the Rohs Road zoning anomaly. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.32-36)

Dependencies

  • Blocks: The unresolved map alignment may block clean interpretation of planning controls for the affected parts of Lots 1 and 2 at 42-44 Rohs Road, because the submitter says the current zone boundaries do not align with the registered lot boundaries. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-95)
  • Blocked by: Any correction is blocked by the need for a future corrections amendment or another statutory planning scheme amendment process, because Council officers did not add the land to C285gben. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.41-42)
  • Informed by: The issue is informed by PS 805706V, PS 437046N, Planning Permit AM/1072/2007/A, and the 4 May 2009 Tony Knox submission to Amendment C109, but those documents are referenced rather than reproduced in the supplied source. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-94)
  • Implements: A future correction would align with the same administrative purpose described for C285gben: correcting zoning anomalies and improving the legibility and efficiency of the planning scheme. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.100-112)
  • Conflicts with: No policy conflict is documented in the supplied source, but the procedural timing conflicted with the ability to add new sites to C285gben after exhibition. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.41-42)

No cross-jurisdictional dependency is identified in the supplied source for the Rohs Road anomaly. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-95) The later C285gben process did involve public authorities, including Goulburn-Murray Water and the Head, Transport for Victoria, but their responses related to C285gben generally rather than to the Rohs Road C109 anomaly. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.96-98)

Gaps in This Analysis

The supplied corpus is thin for Amendment C109. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-94) The missing primary materials are the Amendment C109 explanatory report, exhibited maps, adopted or approved maps, panel report if any, Council minutes for the C109 decision pathway, gazettal notice, and the 4 May 2009 Tony Knox submission referenced in the 2025 material. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-94)

The supplied corpus also does not include the title plans PS 805706V and PS 437046N, so the exact geometry and area of the mismatch cannot be measured. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-95) Without those plans, this page cannot quantify the area proposed to move from LDRZ to IN1Z, the area proposed to move from IN1Z to LDRZ, or the number of square metres affected by the triangular zoning mismatch. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-95)

This should be treated as a corpus gap in _gaps: Amendment C109 Rohs Road historical zoning-map anomaly primary file, likely held in City of Greater Bendigo amendment records, Council meeting minutes from 2009, the Victoria Government Gazette, or Department of Transport and Planning amendment archives. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-94) The priority is IMPORTANT because the issue is site-specific and minor, but the missing records are necessary to determine whether C109 failed to resolve the anomaly, deferred it, or resolved a different map issue. (Source: City-Greater-Bendigo-Council-Meeting-April-20-2026-Agenda.pdf, pp.93-94)

Graph View