Grange Planning Brain

title: Amendment C154 Rezoning of 1 Wills Street, Malmsbury council: macedon-ranges state: vic category: amendment classification: MAJOR status: approved last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:

  • final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf
  • web-research-L0-amendment-c154-primary-amendment-material-evidence-761dac08c0.txt
  • Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf
  • GG2025G025.pdf

Amendment C154 Rezoning of 1 Wills Street, Malmsbury

Amendment C154macr is a small-area but strategically important township-edge rezoning: it converts about 1.85 hectares at 1 Wills Street, Malmsbury from Farming Zone to Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 13 and enables a nine-lot residential subdivision with lots of about 2,000 square metres (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.9; Source: GG2025G025.pdf, p.75). Its planning significance is not the volume of new housing, but the mechanism it confirms: land already inside the Malmsbury township boundary can be moved from rural zoning to low-density township residential use where services, neighbourhood character and catchment controls are resolved (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.17-18).

The amendment was approved by the Minister for Planning and came into operation when the approval notice was published in the Victoria Government Gazette on 19 June 2025 (Source: GG2025G025.pdf, p.75). The Minister also granted Permit PLN/2022/198 under Division 5 of Part 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for Crown Allotment 1, Section 24A, Parish of Lauriston, 1 Wills Street, Malmsbury (Source: GG2025G025.pdf, p.75).

Background

The amendment was a combined planning scheme amendment and planning permit application for 1 Wills Street, Malmsbury and parts of adjacent road reserves (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.5). The amendment was authorised on 16 June 2023 with conditions, exhibited from 26 February to 1 April 2024, heard by a Panel on 12 and 13 August 2024, and reported on 2 September 2024 (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.5). Council later recorded Planning Scheme Amendment C154 as a completed 2024-25 strategic planning project that rezoned land at 1 Wills Street, Malmsbury (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.642).

The subject land sits on the eastern edge of Malmsbury, has frontages to Wills Street, Walsh Street and Mitchell Street, and is about 800 metres from the commercial centre of Malmsbury (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.9). Before the amendment, the site was in the Farming Zone, covered by Heritage Overlay HO148, and covered by Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 4 for the Eppalock Special Water Supply Catchment; the Erosion Management Overlay applied to surrounding land but not to the site (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.9). The surrounding zoning pattern placed Farming Zone land to the north-east, General Residential Zone land to the west and north-west, and Rural Living Zone land to the south (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.9).

The permit application sought a nine-lot subdivision with individual lots ranging from 2,000 to 2,182 square metres (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.9). The road mechanism is modest but material: Wills Street was already made but unsealed along the site boundary, Walsh Street was made and unsealed for part of the northern frontage and was proposed to be extended to a court bowl, and Mitchell Street was unmade along the southern frontage and was proposed to be extended from Wills Street to a court bowl (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.9).

Analysis

Statutory Effect and Approval Mechanism

The approved statutory change is narrower than the exhibited ambition in one important respect: the gazettal notice says the amendment rezoned the land from Farming Zone to Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 13, inserted Schedule 13 to Clause 32.09, and enabled the nine-lot draft permit, but it does not state that HO148 was removed (Source: GG2025G025.pdf, p.75). That absence matters because the Panel recommended retaining the Heritage Overlay on the site, finding that piecemeal removal would leave an awkward gap in the Malmsbury Precinct and that any adjustment to HO148 should follow a comprehensive precinct review (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.28).

NRZ13 is the core control that translates the settlement decision into built-form outcomes (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.8). It introduces neighbourhood character objectives, a minimum subdivision area of 2,000 square metres, and variations to Clauses 54 and 55 for one dwelling, a small second dwelling, two or more dwellings, and residential buildings (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.8). The exhibited subdivision layout used 12 metre front setbacks and 5 metre side and rear setbacks, which the Panel described as meeting the minimum setbacks under the proposed schedule (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.9).

The effect is a controlled rural-township residential form rather than conventional suburban infill (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.30-31). At nine lots over about 1.85 hectares, the gross lot yield is about 4.9 lots per hectare before road and service land is accounted for, and the lot-size mechanism deliberately keeps the subdivision closer to semi-rural residential character than standard-density General Residential Zone outcomes (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.9, 30-31). The Panel accepted that larger lots, generous setbacks and landscaping were the mechanism for managing the eastern township edge rather than a prohibition on residential use (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.30-31).

Settlement Logic and Land Supply

The strategic dispute was whether a Farming Zone parcel inside the township boundary should be rezoned without a demonstrated shortage of residential land (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.20-22). The Panel’s answer was mechanism-first: once land is inside the township boundary and otherwise suitable for residential use, the planning question is not whether the municipality has run out of residential land, but whether the proposal is consistent with the settlement hierarchy, services, character and constraints (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.17-22).

The site had been inside the Malmsbury township boundary since 2000, and the Panel treated that boundary as the long-standing strategic signal that the land’s future was urban rather than agricultural (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.17-18). Clause 2.03-1 identifies Malmsbury as a small town and supports limited infill development in smaller settlements while retaining their role, size, services and character (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.37). Clause 11.01-1L includes a Malmsbury strategy to restrict development to the town boundary and facilitate residential development on the periphery of the town with larger lots, significant landscaping and generous setbacks (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.37-38).

The land-supply evidence was mixed but not fatal to the amendment (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.20-22). The Settlement Strategy had identified enough land in Malmsbury to support about 1,200 people by 2036 while recommending growth to about 900 people because of servicing constraints and historically low demand (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.41). The proponent’s economics evidence estimated demand for 6 to 11 new dwellings per year in Malmsbury, counted 282 theoretical vacant lots including 187 within the township boundary, and noted that only 12 vacant residential lots were for sale in July 2024 (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.20-21). The Panel accepted that the evidence did not definitively prove a 15-year supply shortfall in Malmsbury, but found that proof unnecessary because Clause 11.02-1S requires at least 15 years of land supply and does not operate as a cap (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.21-22).

This creates an important precedent for Macedon Ranges housing supply analysis: township-boundary land can be rezoned in small increments even where theoretical lot counts appear adequate, because practical supply depends on road access, services, vendor willingness and whether lots are actually available to the market (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.20-22). The practical consequence is that strategic planning evidence cannot rely only on mapped vacant land; it must distinguish theoretical capacity from land that can be serviced, accessed and delivered (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.20-22).

Agriculture and Township Edge Transition

The agricultural issue turned on whether the Farming Zone label represented productive agricultural land that planning policy should protect (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.23-25). The Panel found that agricultural protection policy is directed to productive farmland and strategically important agricultural land, not every parcel that happens to be in the Farming Zone (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.24).

The agricultural evidence identified low agricultural utility due to soil constraints, including low pH, low nutrition, reactive clay, rocky soil, poor drainage in some areas, non-contiguous better-quality areas, lack of onsite water, poor vegetation for grazing, inadequate agricultural infrastructure, and insufficient scale for viable production (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.24). Council also submitted that surrounding residential zoning and uses made land consolidation highly unlikely and that likely agricultural uses around Malmsbury, including dryland cropping, animal husbandry, horse husbandry and hobby farming, could not operate viably on a parcel of this size (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.23).

The planning mechanism is therefore a boundary transition, not agricultural land conversion at a district scale (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.18, 24-25). The Panel described the proposal as a logical extension from standard-density residential lots west of Wills Street to lower-density rural residential development to the south and agricultural land to the east outside the township boundary (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.18). The downstream effect is that the amendment reinforces the township boundary as the line that protects broader rural land by absorbing limited residential growth inside the boundary rather than pushing dwellings into rural areas between settlements (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.17-18, 24-25).

Heritage, Character and the HO148 Problem

Heritage was the most important unresolved policy tension because the exhibited amendment proposed to remove HO148 from the site, while the Panel recommended retaining it (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.26-28). Council’s position was that the subject land had little or no visible heritage in the streetscape or immediate area and that HO148 was operating more as a character control than a heritage control over parts of the broader precinct (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.27). The proponent’s heritage evidence similarly concluded that the site did not demonstrate local historic heritage values and did not make a meaningful contribution to the Malmsbury Precinct (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.27).

The Panel accepted the site itself had no intrinsic heritage value and that redevelopment was highly unlikely to affect the heritage values of the precinct (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.27-28). However, it separated the question of redevelopment from the question of overlay surgery (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.28). The Panel found that removing one redevelopment site from HO148 would be a piecemeal change and that a precinct-wide review is the proper mechanism for any overlay boundary correction (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.28).

Neighbourhood character was resolved through NRZ13 and permit conditions rather than heritage removal (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.28-31). Clause 15.01-5L seeks canopy trees, a rural village theme, and semi-rural residential form on the town periphery with larger lots, significant landscaping and generous setbacks (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.40). The Panel found the proposal met these objectives through large lots, setbacks, garden area, site coverage limits, street trees and on-site landscaping (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.30-31). The Panel rejected the argument that rural character required single-storey development, noting no other part of Malmsbury, including the heritage core, was subject to such a restriction (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.30).

The setback dispute shows the fine grain of control (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.28-31). Council wanted permit condition 1(b) to require 12 metre street setbacks, 5 metre side and rear setbacks, and variable 12 to 15 metre front setbacks to avoid a continuous building line (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.28). The Panel recommended deleting condition 1(b), because the application plan already showed 12 metre and 5 metre setbacks, separate purchasers would likely produce varied dwelling designs, the 12 metre front setbacks and 10 metre minimum separation between dwellings were already generous, and landscaping conditions reduced the risk of uniform built form (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.30-31).

Infrastructure, Servicing and Risk Controls

Servicing is the binding implementation test because the site is within the Eppalock Special Water Supply Catchment and the permit depends on reticulated water and sewerage (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.9, 33-34). MRRA raised concern about certainty of sewerage connection and referred generally to other subdivisions where sewerage had been difficult, but the Panel found no substantiating material and noted that Council engineers and referral authorities had not identified a servicing barrier (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.33-34).

The permit conditions make servicing a hard gateway rather than an assumed outcome (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.53-54). Each lot must connect to reticulated sewerage before a statement of compliance is issued, and Coliban Water conditions require reticulated water and sewerage services, mains extensions through the developer-installed works process, water main linkups on Walsh Street and at the Wills-Urquhart Street intersection, asset easements, and customer contributions if pressure sewer is used (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.53-54). Goulburn-Murray Water conditions require referral of the plan of subdivision, reticulated sewerage connection, EPA civil construction controls, and stormwater compliance with Clause 56.07-4 Standard C25 (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.54-55).

Stormwater risk was treated as manageable through detailed engineering rather than resolved at the rezoning stage (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.31-32). The permit requires engineering plans for stormwater drainage before works start, a legal point of discharge, onsite underground detention reducing post-development 10 per cent annual exceedance probability discharge to pre-development 20 per cent annual exceedance probability discharge, design for upstream catchments, downstream works where required, and water-sensitive urban design measures (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.51-52). The Panel noted an informal depression crossing the site from Walsh Street that appears to act as a drainage line in heavy rain, but found no evidence of a watercourse through the site or Walsh Street road reserve (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.32).

Traffic impacts were found to be negligible at the scale of nine lots (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.32-33). O’Brien Traffic concluded that generated traffic would have negligible impact on the Ross Street/Mollison Street intersection, the Johnson Street/Mollison Street intersection, Mollison Street and the surrounding road network (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.32). The Panel found no traffic reason to refuse the proposal and noted that concerns about existing road conditions did not justify requiring the proponent to upgrade roads beyond the development’s impact (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.32-33).

Bushfire is controlled through subdivision design, defendable space, hydrants and access standards (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.55-56). CFA conditions require 19 metre setbacks for defendable space to keep radiant heat exposure no greater than 12.5 kilowatts per square metre, a section 173 agreement to maintain vegetation in defendable-space areas, hydrants within 120 metres of the rear of building envelopes and no more than 200 metres apart, all-weather roads capable of carrying 15 tonne vehicles, 3.5 metre minimum trafficable width, and turning areas where roads exceed 60 metres from the nearest intersection (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.55-56).

Current Status

Amendment C154macr is approved and in operation from 19 June 2025, the date of publication in the Victoria Government Gazette (Source: GG2025G025.pdf, p.75). Permit PLN/2022/198 has been granted for subdivision of the affected land into nine lots (Source: GG2025G025.pdf, p.75). Council’s October 2025 agenda attachment bundle records Planning Scheme Amendment C154 as completed in 2024-25 (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.642).

Implementation now depends on post-approval subdivision steps rather than further amendment decisions (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.53-58). The plan of subdivision must be certified, engineering plans approved, reticulated sewerage and water infrastructure provided, referral authority conditions satisfied, bushfire and hydrant requirements met, and the plan registered within the permit expiry framework (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.53-58).

Dependencies

  • Blocks: The amendment removes the Farming Zone barrier to the nine-lot residential subdivision, but individual lot creation is still blocked until subdivision certification, engineering approval, servicing works, bushfire conditions and statement-of-compliance requirements are satisfied (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.53-58; Source: GG2025G025.pdf, p.75).
  • Blocked by: Delivery is blocked by practical servicing and civil works requirements, especially Coliban Water mains extensions and linkups, possible pressure sewer contributions, legal point of discharge, stormwater detention, CFA hydrants and all-weather access (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.51-56).
  • Informed by: The Panel considered Council submissions, agricultural evidence from Cadeema Environmental, economics and land-supply evidence from Ethos Urban, heritage evidence from GJM Heritage, traffic advice from O’Brien Traffic, referral authority conditions and submitter material (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.5, 20-24, 27, 32-34).
  • Implements: The amendment implements the Malmsbury township-boundary strategy, the small-town settlement hierarchy, the 15-year urban land supply policy, the rural village character policy for Malmsbury, and the broader direction to place limited residential growth inside settlements rather than in rural areas (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.37-41).
  • Conflicts with: The key policy tension is HO148: the site may have little intrinsic heritage value, but the Panel found that removing it from the precinct overlay through a site-specific amendment would be disorderly without a comprehensive review of the whole Malmsbury Precinct (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.26-28).

The amendment has operational links to state and regional authorities rather than adjacent councils (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.53-56). Coliban Water controls the water and sewer servicing pathway, Goulburn-Murray Water is a referral authority because of catchment and water-quality responsibilities, the Country Fire Authority controls defendable-space, hydrant and access standards, and Powercor controls electricity supply and easements (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.53-57). The site’s location in the Eppalock Special Water Supply Catchment makes reticulated sewerage and stormwater quality controls central to subdivision delivery rather than secondary permit details (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.9, 33-34, 51-55).

Regionally, the Panel noted that the Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan identifies Malmsbury as a township near Bendigo and on key rail and freeway networks, but does not provide specific directions for Malmsbury’s future growth (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, p.41). The amendment therefore functions mainly as a local implementation of the Macedon Ranges settlement hierarchy rather than a regionally significant land-supply intervention (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.17-18, 41).

Gaps in This Analysis

The source set is strong for statutory status, Panel reasoning and approval effect, but thin for final approved ordinance details beyond the Gazette notice (Source: GG2025G025.pdf, p.75). The manifest includes the Your Say project page and the Panel report, but not the gazetted NRZ13 schedule, gazetted zoning map, final approved permit document or final explanatory report as extracted primary PDFs (Source: web-research-L0-amendment-c154-primary-amendment-material-evidence-761dac08c0.txt). This limits exact analysis of whether every Panel drafting change was carried into the final permit and whether any non-Panel refinements were made between Council adoption, Ministerial approval and gazettal (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.35-36; Source: GG2025G025.pdf, p.75).

The analysis also lacks the full underlying expert reports: Cadeema Environmental’s agricultural assessment, Ethos Urban’s land-supply evidence, GJM Heritage’s heritage assessment, O’Brien Traffic’s traffic reports, the subdivision plan, landscape master plan, bushfire report and detailed servicing correspondence are referenced but not separately available as source documents in the manifest (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.20-24, 27, 32-34). As a result, this page can trace the Panel-tested mechanisms and conclusions, but cannot independently audit the soil data, lot-by-lot servicing design, drainage catchment modelling, tree outcomes, bushfire modelling or road geometry beyond what the Panel report records (Source: Macedon_Ranges_C154macr_Panel_Report_2.pdf, pp.23-24, 31-34, 53-56). These should be treated as corpus gaps for any later update to _gaps.

Graph View