Grange Planning Brain

title: Amendment C147macr Benetas Retirement Village, Gisborne council: macedon-ranges state: vic category: amendment classification: MAJOR status: adopted last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:

  • 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf
  • 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf
  • 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf

Amendment C147macr Benetas Retirement Village, Gisborne

Amendment C147macr is a site-specific combined planning scheme amendment and permit process for a retirement village on land bounded by Robertson Street, Neal Street and Hamilton Street in Gisborne. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.15) Its planning significance is not the absolute scale of land supply, but the way it resolves an older health-campus zoning and covenant framework into a contemporary aged-care and retirement-living precinct within the Gisborne township boundary. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.70-77)

The Council decision materially changed the risk profile of the amendment by adding a section 173 agreement requirement that restricts future use of the land to a retirement village and/or residential aged care facility, and excludes ordinary dwellings. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.8-9)

Background

The combined amendment and permit application was lodged by Anglican Aged Care Services Group, trading as Benetas, on 6 August 2021 under section 96A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.16) The proposal is the second stage of a two-stage aged care and retirement village master plan, with Council having approved the first stage under permit PLN/2020/473 in 2023. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.16)

The broader site has an area of approximately 3.78 hectares, while the amendment applies to approximately 15,433 square metres and the concurrent permit land is approximately 2.25 hectares. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.71-74) The subject land has a 156 metre frontage to Neal Street, a 231 metre interface with Robertson Street, and slopes approximately 9 metres from Hamilton Street down toward Robertson Street. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.13)

The land has a long health and aged-care history, including the Bush Nursing Hospital opening in 1958, expansion to 10 beds in 1960, expansion to 16 beds in 1976, Gisborne Oaks opening as a 30-bed nursing home in 1986, Elms Hostel opening as a 30-bed hostel in 1994, and the Bush Nursing Hospital closing in 1997. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.15-16) Existing and former uses at the time of the Panel report included Gisborne Oaks continuing to operate, St Mary’s medical centre having ceased using the former Bush Nursing Hospital site around 2021, affordable retirement housing units at 1 to 10/61A Robertson Street proposed for demolition, the Elms Hostel and Grevillea Court closed, and the Gisborne Opportunity Shop continuing pending the proposal. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.16)

Analysis

Statutory Mechanism and Land-Use Change

The amendment rezones part of the subject land and part of the Neal Street road reserve from Special Use Zone Schedule 4, Private Hospital, to General Residential Zone Schedule 1. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.16) The mechanism matters because the SUZ4 prohibits a retirement village, while the GRZ1 allows an aged care facility and retirement village subject to planning controls. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.75)

The amendment applies Design and Development Overlay Schedule 17 to the relevant land so that the aged-care and retirement-village precinct is controlled by a consistent built-form overlay. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.74-75) It also amends Clause 11.01-1L to insert a new New Gisborne Framework Plan, identify the land as a preferred area for medium density housing, and correct a General Residential Zone labelling error in the map legend. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.16)

The permit allows use and development of the land for a retirement village, removal of native vegetation, and alteration of access to a road in Transport Zone 2. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.57) The built proposal comprises two separate three-storey apartment buildings containing 34 independent living units and 46 semi-detached single and double storey retirement villas. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.17)

The planning logic is an infill-consolidation argument rather than an outward-growth argument: the site is inside the township boundary, close to the Gisborne town centre, and near medical, social and allied health uses. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.23-24) The Panel found that this location supports housing diversity while making a small but not insignificant contribution to maintaining township boundaries and protecting surrounding landscape character. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.24)

Need, Housing Diversity and Ageing-in-Place

The exhibited amendment received 21 submissions, comprising three supporting submissions and 18 submissions objecting to the amendment and permit or parts of them. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.17) Several objectors disputed whether Gisborne needed additional retirement living and pointed to existing or approved facilities including Westport Estate, Arcare Aged Care Facility, 110 Willowbank Road and Warrina Aged Care. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.25)

Council relied on projections that Gisborne’s population would grow to between 18,000 and 20,000 people by 2036, with the retirement-age population projected to grow by 21 per cent. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.25) Council also relied on the Gisborne Futures Structure Plan finding that detached homes form 91 per cent of housing stock and that 92 per cent of those detached homes contain three or more bedrooms. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.25-26)

The practical planning issue is that a housing stock dominated by larger detached dwellings reduces the ability of older residents to downsize within the town and reduces options for smaller households. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.25-26) The Panel did not treat retirement-unit demand as a precise arithmetic question because the supply picture changes depending on whether approved but unbuilt projects are counted, including the Westport Park Retirement Estate and Mayflower approval. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.26-27)

The Panel’s key analytical move was to shift from exact numerical undersupply to functional need: the Community Infrastructure Assessment supported residential aged care and diversity of service uses and service mix, and the Structure Plan explicitly identified the subject land for proposed aged care and retirement village use. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.27) On that basis, the Panel concluded that there is a need for retirement living on the subject land and that use of the subject land for a retirement village is appropriate. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.27)

Covenant Removal and the Council’s Section 173 Response

A central issue is the restrictive covenant N077525L affecting Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 205979T, which restricted use without consent to a hospital, nursing home or similar use and restricted subdivision, sale, transfer or disposal. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.37) The amendment modifies the Schedule to Clause 52.02 to authorise removal of the whole restriction from 61 Robertson Street, Gisborne, being Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 205979T. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.87)

The Panel accepted that all legal beneficiaries were directly notified through broad notice, two signs on the subject land, and targeted Council correspondence dated 31 May 2024. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.39) The Panel also recorded that no legal beneficiary objected to removal of the covenant, although beneficiaries and other interested parties objected to the use and development. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.40)

The Panel concluded that covenant removal was justified because it would enable orderly provision and coordination of a large land parcel, facilitate use of underutilised and well-located land, and permit a development outcome contributing to housing diversity in Gisborne. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.40) It also found that removal would enable a use and development that complies with the Planning Scheme and that the amendment would deliver net community benefit. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.41-42)

Council’s final resolution did not simply adopt the Panel position. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.8-9) Council added a permit requirement for a section 173 agreement before development starts, requiring the only use of the land to be retirement village and residential aged care facility, or only one of those uses, and prohibiting use of the land for a dwelling. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.8-9)

This section 173 agreement is the main downstream control introduced by Council to address the concern that GRZ1 could otherwise permit broader residential outcomes after covenant removal. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.7-9) Council also resolved that any future amendment, removal or variation of that section 173 agreement under permit PLN/2022/354 must be considered and determined by Council. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.9)

Built Form, Interface and Amenity

The proposal includes apartment buildings with a maximum height of 14 metres, while most of the built form is one or two storeys. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.10) The Panel found the taller buildings were positioned toward the centre of the site and that the natural slope from Hamilton Street toward Robertson Street reduces their perceived height from the southern interface. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.29-30)

The most sensitive amenity interface is the northern side of Hamilton Street, where nearby residents raised concerns about dwelling numbers, height, southern setbacks, density, open space, natural light and landscape access. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.28) The Panel accepted that the development would be visible from that interface, but found the majority of that edge would comprise single-storey units and that the three-storey element would be set back, landscaped and partly cut into the slope. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.30)

Council submitted that shadow diagrams showed no adverse overshadowing of surrounding open space areas or Dixon Field Reserve during the Spring equinox, including properties to the south along Hamilton Street. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.29-30) The Panel agreed that Standard B21 on overshadowing was comfortably met and that overlooking had been appropriately addressed. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.30)

The permit conditions require amended plans before use and development start, including revisions to apartment 1, apartment 2, the communal pavilion, bowling green, village green, RD02, the turnaround area east of RD05, car parks, footpath alignments, lighting, waste, stormwater, Neal Street pedestrian crossing, native vegetation reporting, emergency vehicle turning and garage dimensions. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.57-59)

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage and Design Modification

A Cultural Heritage Management Plan was required because part of the activity area is in an area of Aboriginal cultural heritage sensitivity and the retirement village is a high-impact activity. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.17-18) At the Panel hearing, CHMP 18698 had been prepared but not finalised, and the proponent advised that in-principle support had been achieved with the Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.18)

The CHMP negotiated design changes included reducing the clubhouse extent in apartment building 1, deleting the retaining wall along the southern edge of the bowling green, relocating the bowling green north of the east-west access road, adding a pavilion structure, and deleting the turning area at the eastern end of RD05. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.18-19) The Panel found these changes were internal to the permit land, did not fundamentally alter the proposal, did not increase the number of independent living units or villas, did not alter use intensity, and did not alter impacts on surrounding dwellings. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.19)

The CHMP was finalised on 7 November 2025 after the hearing process. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.17) Council officers supported the negotiated modifications because they reduced soil disturbance, removed the Robertson Street entry point, consolidated vehicle entry and exit, improved Robertson Street activation, and reduced building footprint and retaining walls. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.18-19)

Vegetation, Landscape and Ecological Offsets

One native tree, identified as tree 35, is proposed for removal. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.32) Council advised that the Native Vegetation Removal Report incorrectly recorded tree 35’s circumference as 124 centimetres and misclassified it as a small scattered tree, requiring correction through permit conditions. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.32)

The Panel considered retention of tree 35 but found that its location and very large tree protection zone made retention impossible without major redesign and significant loss of dwelling numbers. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.32) The Panel found removal acceptable because the design retained other significant trees, the landscape response proposed substantial new planting, retention would unreasonably affect the design, and DEECA supported the proposal on ecological matters. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.32-33)

The permit requires an amended Native Vegetation Removal Report before any native vegetation is removed, correcting tree 35’s circumference and recalculating the offset. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.65) The permit currently identifies an offset for 0.031 hectares of native vegetation, subject to any variation arising from the amended report, and requires offset evidence before vegetation removal. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.65-66)

Transport, Access and Construction Management

Submitters raised traffic and access concerns including emergency access to Robertson Street properties, access to Manna Gum kindergarten, congestion on Hamilton Street and Neal Street, construction impacts, elderly pedestrian safety at Robertson Street and Neal Street, and whether the internal road network could support public transport. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.34)

DTP’s submission stated that there must not be direct vehicle access from the subject land to Robertson Street and that generated traffic must not adversely affect operation of the Neal Street and Robertson Street roundabout. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.35) DTP also recommended pedestrian access along the Neal Street frontage and encouraged safe pedestrian crossing opportunities near the Robertson Street and Neal Street intersection. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.35)

The Panel found that traffic effects would be negligible and that the existing road network can accommodate the additional vehicles safely and efficiently. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.36) The Panel supported a condition requiring improved pedestrian infrastructure, including a pedestrian crossing and traffic calming measures at Neal Street. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.36)

The adopted permit requires a raised pedestrian crossing at the existing Neal Street crossing before the permitted use commences. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.65) The permit also requires a construction management plan before works start, including measures for erosion and sediment control, noise, dust and emissions, weed and pathogen prevention, stockpiles, construction access and parking, temporary buildings or yards, and a traffic management plan. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.63-64)

Infrastructure, Contributions and Servicing

The permit requires payment of the levy under the Gisborne Development Contributions Plan prepared by SGS Economics and Planning in December 2023 before an occupancy permit is issued, unless the applicant enters into an agreement with the responsible authority to pay within a specified time. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.62) The available documents do not state the levy amount, so this page cannot quantify the DCP charge per dwelling, per hectare or per occupancy permit trigger. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.62)

Greater Western Water advised during amendment preparation that the owner needed to enter into an agreement with Greater Western Water for water supply and sewerage to the site. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.81) Downer and the former Department of Transport advised that they had no objections during amendment preparation. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.81)

The permit requires a stormwater management plan before works start, including detention so that 1 per cent annual exceedance probability post-development flows are restricted to pre-development 20 per cent annual exceedance probability levels. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.64) The permit also requires the stormwater management plan to demonstrate compliance with the Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines and to show all legal points of discharge. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.64)

Economic and Social Effects

Council’s officer report stated that all costs associated with the amendment would be payable by the applicant. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.22) The officer report stated that the overall development cost is approximately 30 million and that economic modelling identified a possible additional 30 million in flow-on effects, including jobs and local economic activity. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.22)

In planning terms, the more durable social effect is additional age-specific housing choice in a town where the Structure Plan identifies the subject land as part of a civic and health precinct and specifically as existing and proposed aged care and retirement living. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.22) The Structure Plan direction is to locate aged care facilities and retirement or residential villages near the town centre, civic and health precinct, or within comfortable walking distance of activity centres, while avoiding places vulnerable to bushfire or environmental risks. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.22)

Current Status

On 25 February 2026, Council rejected a motion to abandon Amendment C147macr under section 28 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.6-8) On the same date, Council carried a resolution to adopt Amendment C147macr with changes, submit it to the Minister for Planning for approval under section 31 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, request the Minister to grant permit PLN/2022/354 under section 96i, notify submitters, and require Council determination of any future variation or removal of the section 173 agreement. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.8-9)

The amendment is therefore adopted by Council but dependent on Ministerial approval and permit issue through the combined amendment process. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.8-9) The permit conditions provide that the development expires if it is not started within two years of the permit issue date, not completed within four years of the permit issue date, or the use does not start within two years of completion. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.67-68)

Dependencies

  • Blocks: The amendment blocks the retirement village permit from operating until the amendment is approved and the permit can be granted through the section 96 process. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.15)
  • Blocked by: The next statutory step is Ministerial approval of Amendment C147macr and Ministerial grant of permit PLN/2022/354. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.9)
  • Blocked by: Development is also conditioned on a section 173 agreement restricting future land use to retirement village and/or residential aged care facility and prohibiting ordinary dwelling use. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.8-9)
  • Blocked by: Water and sewer servicing require an agreement with Greater Western Water. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.81)
  • Informed by: The Panel considered the Gisborne Outline Development Plan 2009, Gisborne Futures Structure Plan 2024, SGS Community Infrastructure Assessment 2023, Macedon Ranges Statement of Planning Policy 2019, urban design evidence, retirement-living evidence, traffic evidence, CHMP negotiated plans and permit-condition material. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.45-46)
  • Implements: The amendment implements the Gisborne Futures Structure Plan direction for aged care and retirement living in the civic and health precinct near the town centre. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.22)
  • Conflicts with: Objectors argued that rezoning from SUZ4 to GRZ1 would conflict with the former hospital and community-use expectations for the land, reduce future hospital-use potential, and weaken the covenant’s community-purpose function. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.6-8)

The amendment involved state and regional agencies rather than an adjacent-council growth dependency. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.21) The relevant external parties were Greater Western Water for water and sewer servicing, Downer for gas, the Department of Transport and Planning and Transport for Victoria for transport matters, Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation for cultural heritage, and the Country Fire Authority for emergency access and fire infrastructure. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.21; Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.81)

The strategic policy context includes Plan Victoria, the Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan 2014, the Macedon Ranges Statement of Planning Policy 2019, and the Macedon Ranges Settlement Strategy 2011. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.21)

Gaps in This Analysis

This analysis is limited by the absence of the standalone technical reports listed in the Panel document list, including the SGS Community Infrastructure Assessment 2023, urban design and planning evidence, healthcare and retirement-living evidence, traffic evidence, arborist material, native vegetation material, CHMP negotiated plan set, and detailed architectural drawings. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.45-46) The Panel report summarises those inputs, but the source corpus does not include the full reports needed to independently test assumptions such as retirement-unit demand, trip generation, car parking, tree protection-zone impacts, landscape replacement performance, and urban design sightline impacts. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.25-36)

The Gisborne Development Contributions Plan is referenced in the permit, but the source documents do not include the levy schedule or the infrastructure item list. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.62) Because of that gap, this page cannot quantify the contribution liability or compare the retirement village’s infrastructure burden with other Gisborne development. (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.62)

The Minister’s final approval decision, gazettal notice and final registered section 173 agreement are not present in the supplied source documents. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.8-9) The current status should therefore be treated as Council-adopted and awaiting the Ministerial process unless later gazettal or approval documents are added to _gaps. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.8-9)

Graph View