Grange Planning Brain

title: Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 2 Public Land Rationalisation council: greater-bendigo state: vic category: constraint classification: MAJOR status: in-progress last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:

  • agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf
  • agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-minutes-april-20-2026.pdf

Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 2 Public Land Rationalisation

The Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 2 rationalisation is a contested component of Planning Scheme Amendment C285gben, which seeks to delete VPO2 from public land where Council considers the overlay duplicates the role of public conservation or public park zoning and public land management (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.34-36). The planning issue is not whether the affected land has environmental value, but whether that value is better protected through the VPO2 permit trigger or through Public Conservation and Resource Zone, Public Park and Recreation Zone, Parks Victoria management, and state public-land responsibilities (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.36, 110-113).

Background

Amendment C285gben is a municipal corrections amendment prepared by the City of Greater Bendigo to correct zoning and overlay mapping errors, remove redundant overlays, update planning scheme text, rezone one privately owned property from Industrial 3 Zone to Neighbourhood Residential Zone, and apply the Heritage Overlay to two properties and part of 23 other properties (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.33-34). The amendment affects land across Bendigo, California Gully, Eaglehawk, Epsom, Flora Hill, Golden Gully, Golden Square, Jackass Flat, Kangaroo Flat, Kennington, Marong, Quarry Hill, Spring Gully, West Bendigo, Heathcote, Argyle, Big Hill, Lockwood South and Shelbourne (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.33, 101).

The VPO2 component proposes to delete Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 2 from eight publicly owned properties because those properties are either already zoned PCRZ or PPRZ, or are being treated as public conservation or public park land through the amendment (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.105, 110). The affected VPO2 deletion sites identified in the explanatory material include CA115 Bright Street and CA125B Bright Street in California Gully, 70-74 Woodward Road, CA2061 Ham Street and 20-28 MacCullagh Street in Golden Gully, 14 Connelly Street and 47-85 Houston Street in Quarry Hill, and CA190D Faugh-A-Ballagh Road in Spring Gully (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.105, 127-130).

Council’s rationale is that PCRZ already protects and conserves the natural environment and processes, including native vegetation, while PPRZ includes a purpose to protect and conserve areas of significance where appropriate (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, p.110). Council also relies on the Victorian Government Practitioner’s Guide to Victoria’s Planning Schemes 2025, which it says recommends that overlays should not be applied to public land where the overlay duplicates the function of the public land manager (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, p.36).

Analysis

Planning Mechanism

The practical effect of deleting VPO2 is to remove a vegetation-specific overlay control from selected public land parcels, not to rezone those parcels for private development or remove all planning controls from them (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.34-36, 110). Council’s position is that the environmental protection mechanism shifts from an overlay-plus-zone model to a zone-and-land-manager model for public land within or associated with the Bendigo Regional Park and other public reserves (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.36, 110).

This matters because VPO2 is a planning permit trigger and assessment framework, while PCRZ, PPRZ and Parks Victoria management operate through broader public-land use and management responsibilities (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.36, 64-66, 110). Submitters objecting to the deletion treated the overlay as a visible and locally specific safeguard for native vegetation, fauna habitat and wildlife corridors, while Council treated the overlay as a redundant duplicate once public conservation zoning and public land management are in place (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.34-36, 57-70).

The central planning question for the Panel is therefore one of regulatory substitution: whether the replacement reliance on PCRZ, PPRZ and Parks Victoria management provides an equivalent or better planning outcome than retaining VPO2 as an additional control (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.36, 40-41, 110). The documents do not include a clause-by-clause comparison of VPO2 decision guidelines against Parks Victoria management instruments, which is a material analytical gap because the submitters’ main concern is whether the deleted overlay functions are actually replicated elsewhere (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.64-66).

Land Affected

The VPO2 deletion is geographically focused on public land in California Gully, Golden Gully, Quarry Hill and Spring Gully, rather than a municipality-wide removal of VPO2 from all land (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.105, 127-130). The Golden Gully component includes 20-28 MacCullagh Street, which the objecting submitter understood to be part of the Bendigo Regional Park and owned by DEECA, with Parks Victoria involved in management under DEECA’s direction (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.57, 88-89).

The Spring Gully component includes CA190D Faugh-A-Ballagh Road, which Council says is zoned PCRZ, forms part of the Bendigo Regional Park, and is managed by Parks Victoria (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.35, 40-41). The 20-28 MacCullagh Street site is described in officer correspondence as zoned PPRZ, affected by the Bushfire Management Overlay, Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 2 and VPO2, and not proposed for a change of current use or development through the amendment (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.88-89).

The documents identify the VPO2 deletion sites by address and mapping reference, but they do not quantify the total hectares of VPO2 removed, the vegetation communities on each parcel, or the proportion of each parcel currently covered by VPO2 (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.105, 127-130). This limits the ability to assess the scale of the regulatory change across the Bendigo Regional Park interface and other public reserves (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.105, 127-130).

Public Submissions and Contested Issues

Nine submissions were received during exhibition, comprising five opposing submissions and four supporting submissions (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, p.34). Four opposing submissions raised concern about the removal of VPO2 from public land near residents’ properties, and one opposing submission sought to add two additional properties to the amendment (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.34-35). Three of the supporting submissions were from public authorities, and one supporting submission was from the Taungurung Land and Waters Council (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, p.34).

Two submissions remained unresolved when the April 20, 2026 Council report was prepared, and both unresolved submissions related to vegetation protection within the Bendigo Regional Park (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-minutes-april-20-2026.pdf, pp.18-20). Council resolved to refer all submissions to an independent Planning Panel and to endorse the officer response as the basis for the City’s submission to the Panel (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-minutes-april-20-2026.pdf, pp.19-20).

The most substantive objection concerns 20-28 MacCullagh Street, Golden Gully, where submitters argued that Council had not clearly explained what replacement vegetation controls would apply after VPO2 deletion (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.57-66). The same submission raised concerns about unclear mapping, the use of the MacCullagh Street address rather than Bendigo Regional Park naming, road reserve status, possible easements, wildlife corridors, rare flora, fauna movement, heritage features, and the absence of detailed Parks Victoria management information in the exhibited material (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.57-70, 76-86).

Council’s response to the MacCullagh Street objection was that the site is PPRZ, part of Bendigo Regional Park, and sufficiently protected through its zoning and management regime (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.34-36, 40). Council also stated that Parks Victoria, not Council, is responsible for land-management issues such as illegal waste dumping, fire management, grass slashing, weed management and biodiversity at that property (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, p.40).

Environmental Protection Logic

Council asserts that the VPO2 deletion will have no adverse environmental effects because the affected public land is protected through PCRZ or PPRZ and because public land managers have responsibility for conserving natural values (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.36, 110-113). Council specifically states that removal of VPO2 from publicly owned PCRZ land will have no adverse environmental effects because the underlying PCRZ is adequate to protect environmental and conservation values against inappropriate development or uses (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, p.112).

The objecting submitters did not accept that proposition without evidence of equivalent replacement controls, and they identified native grasses, native daisies, wattle regeneration, grey box regeneration, bird species, echidna, sugar glider, kangaroo use and potential wildlife corridor functions around the MacCullagh Street interface (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.76-86). Those observations are not a formal ecological assessment, but they are relevant to the Panel’s assessment of whether residents were raising site-specific values that warranted a more detailed response than a general redundancy rationale (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.64-70, 76-86).

The weakness in the exhibited evidence is that the agenda material does not include a site-specific biodiversity assessment for each VPO2 deletion parcel, nor does it include a table comparing existing VPO2 permit triggers, exemptions, application requirements and decision guidelines against the proposed post-amendment controls (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.64-66, 105, 110-113). The amendment may still be strategically justified, but the available material supports the policy logic more strongly than it supports the site-level ecological conclusion for each affected parcel (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.36, 110-113).

Statutory Process and Decision Pathway

Council exhibited Amendment C285gben from October 23 to November 24, 2025, and extended the exhibition period to December 22, 2025 after a minor administrative error required additional notifications (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.37, 101). Exhibition included approximately 800 letters to owners, occupiers and adjoining landowners, Government Gazette notices on October 23 and November 20, 2025, prescribed minister notices, authority notices, public newspaper notices, and access to amendment documents through Council and Department of Transport and Planning websites (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, p.37).

The Minister for Planning authorised preparation and exhibition of the amendment on August 22, 2025, subject to conditions, and the notable post-authorisation change was deletion of three properties to satisfy the Department of Transport and Planning that proposed rezonings were consistent with Clause 13.02-1S on bushfire planning (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, p.39). The amendment materials identified a directions hearing week commencing May 18, 2026 and a Panel hearing week commencing June 15, 2026 (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, p.101).

At its April 20, 2026 meeting, Council resolved unanimously by those present to request that the Minister for Planning appoint a Planning Panel and refer all submissions to that Panel (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-minutes-april-20-2026.pdf, pp.19-20). Seven councillors voted for the motion, none voted against, none abstained, and Cr Shivali Chatley was absent (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-minutes-april-20-2026.pdf, p.20).

Current Status

As at the April 20, 2026 Council meeting, Amendment C285gben had been exhibited, had received nine submissions, had two unresolved vegetation-protection objections, and had been referred by Council for appointment of a Planning Panel (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-minutes-april-20-2026.pdf, pp.18-20). A further Council report is expected after the Planning Panel provides recommendations, and that later report will inform Council’s decision on whether to adopt the amendment (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-minutes-april-20-2026.pdf, p.18).

Dependencies

  • Blocks: The VPO2 deletion cannot be finalised until Amendment C285gben progresses through the Panel process, Council adoption decision and Ministerial approval pathway (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-minutes-april-20-2026.pdf, pp.18-20).
  • Blocked by: The immediate procedural dependency is the Planning Panel’s assessment of unresolved submissions about vegetation protection in Bendigo Regional Park (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-minutes-april-20-2026.pdf, pp.18-20).
  • Informed by: The amendment is informed by Council’s explanatory report, officer response to submissions, redacted submissions, mapping schedules, the Victorian Government Practitioner’s Guide to Victoria’s Planning Schemes 2025, and public authority referral responses (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.36, 39, 96-113).
  • Implements: The amendment implements a planning scheme maintenance function by correcting zoning and overlay anomalies, removing redundant planning controls, and improving scheme legibility and efficiency (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.107-108, 111-113).
  • Conflicts with: The amendment conflicts with submitters’ preference to retain VPO2 or replace it with an explicitly documented equivalent vegetation-control framework for Bendigo Regional Park land before deletion occurs (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.57-70).

The relevant land-management relationship is between Council as planning authority, DEECA as public land owner for several affected sites, and Parks Victoria as public land manager for Bendigo Regional Park and other public conservation land (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.36, 40, 88-89, 134). Goulburn-Murray Water reviewed the amendment and raised no objection, while Head, Transport for Victoria advised that the amendment is administrative and mapping-focused, does not affect Transport Zone 1 or 2 land, does not affect State Transport Network operation, and has no material transport impact (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.96-99).

The available documents do not include direct Parks Victoria or DEECA management plans for the Bendigo Regional Park parcels affected by VPO2 deletion (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.57-70). That absence is important because the Council’s case depends on the public land manager’s statutory and operational role being sufficient to replace the overlay function (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.36, 110).

Gaps in This Analysis

The source set is thin for an environmental-control rationalisation because it contains Council agenda and minutes material rather than the full planning scheme controls, the operative VPO2 schedule, current PCRZ and PPRZ clauses, Parks Victoria management plans, DEECA land-management instruments, or site-specific ecological assessments for the affected parcels (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.36, 64-66, 105, 110-113). The key gap is an equivalence assessment showing whether VPO2’s vegetation significance statement, objectives, permit requirements, application requirements and decision guidelines are fully replaced by public zoning and public land management after deletion (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.64-66).

Specific missing documents that would materially improve the analysis are the full exhibited C285gben amendment package, the operative VPO2 schedule text, Parks Victoria’s management plan or operational management framework for the relevant Bendigo Regional Park parcels, DEECA correspondence supporting the VPO2 deletion, and any ecological or arboricultural assessment used to justify removal from each parcel (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.39, 57-70, 88-89, 110). Without those documents, the strongest conclusion available is that Council has a coherent planning-scheme efficiency rationale, but the available record does not prove site-by-site environmental equivalence between the deleted overlay and the replacement public-land control framework (Source: agendas-and-meeting-minutes-city-greater-bendigo-council-meeting-april-20-2026-agenda.pdf, pp.36, 64-66, 110-113).

Graph View