title: Amendment VC226 Telecommunications Facility Controls council: macedon-ranges state: vic category: amendment classification: MINOR status: pending last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf
Amendment VC226 Telecommunications Facility Controls
Amendment VC226 appears in the Macedon Ranges corpus as a state planning-control change that affected Clause 52.19, not as a locally initiated Macedon Ranges amendment. In the only available source, Council officers treated VC226 as a changed planning-control context for an extension request for a telecommunications facility at 198 Mount Gisborne Road, Gisborne, but concluded that the amendment did not materially alter the assessment pathway for that proposal because the facility would still require a permit, would still require public notice, and would still be assessed against design and siting considerations (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.18-19).
The practical meaning is narrow but important: VC226 widened some statewide exemptions for telecommunications facilities, yet it did not remove Council’s statutory role for this Mount Gisborne facility. The live planning issue before Council was therefore not whether VC226 should be supported, but whether Planning Permit PLN/2020/165 should receive a further two-year extension after earlier delays in access and lease arrangements (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.15-20).
Background
The relevant Council item was PE.1 in the Scheduled Council Meeting Agenda for 22 April 2026, concerning Planning Permit PLN/2020/165 at 198 Mount Gisborne Road, Gisborne (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.15). The applicant was Greater Western Water, and the officer report identified the proposal as development of a telecommunications facility on land affected by the Public Conservation and Resource Zone, Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 5 in part, and Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 2 (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.15).
The permit triggers identified by Council were Clause 36.03 for buildings and works in the Public Conservation and Resource Zone, Clause 42.03-2 for buildings and works under the Significant Landscape Overlay, and Clause 52.19-1 for buildings and works for a communication facility (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.15). This combination matters because the telecommunications control did not operate alone; the site also sat within environmental and landscape controls that continued to shape the assessment framework (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.15).
The site is on the summit of Mount Gisborne and is accessed from Woodland Drive, which also forms the northern boundary of the site (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.16). A 22.5 metre telecommunications mast had been erected on the summit in 1987 to relay two-way radio signals, but that mast was destroyed in a storm in July 2019 while the associated concrete pad and underground conduits were not affected (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.16). Temporary facilities were located on the adjoining property at the time of the officer report (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.16).
Planning Permit PLN/2020/165 was approved on 22 December 2021 for development of a telecommunications facility in accordance with endorsed plans (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.16). The permit originally required commencement within two years of issue, and a two-year extension was granted on 16 February 2024 so that development had to commence by 22 December 2025 (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.16, 27). The 2026 request sought a further two-year extension so that development would commence by 22 December 2027 and be completed by 22 December 2029 (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.15).
Analysis
Statutory Effect of VC226 in This Local Decision
The source identifies three changes made to Clause 52.19 through Amendment VC226: it expanded the list of permit-exempt telecommunications facilities, increased the list of permit applications exempt from notice and review requirements, and removed A Code of Practice for Telecommunications Facilities in Victoria (2004) as an incorporated document in the planning scheme (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.18). In simple terms, VC226 changed some of the doors that telecommunications proposals can walk through, but Council found that this particular proposal still had to use the ordinary permit door (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.18-19).
Council’s mechanism-level finding was that VC226 did not change the outcome for PLN/2020/165 because the Mount Gisborne facility would still require a permit, would still require public notice, and would still be assessed against design and siting matters considered in the original permit process (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.18-19). That finding means VC226 was relevant enough to be checked under the extension-of-time tests, but not strong enough to make the old permit inconsistent with the current planning scheme (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.18-19).
The local planning effect is therefore defensive rather than transformative. VC226 may reduce permit or notice requirements for some telecommunications facilities, but the available record shows that it did not release the Mount Gisborne proposal from permit control, public notice, or design and siting assessment (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.18-19). For telecommunications infrastructure, this is a useful warning against reading statewide exemptions as a blanket removal of local assessment, particularly where land is also affected by environmental, landscape, or conservation controls (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.15).
Extension-of-Time Mechanism
The Council report framed the 2026 decision as an extension-of-time request rather than a new merits assessment (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.17-18). Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 was identified as the power allowing the time for a planning permit to start or be completed to be extended, and the officer report noted that more than one extension can be granted (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.17). Because the Act does not set out detailed assessment criteria for these requests, the report relied on the Kantor and AMV Homes principles from Victorian case law (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.17-18).
The key extension tests were whether planning controls or policy had changed, whether a fresh permit would likely be granted, how much time had elapsed, whether the permit holder was warehousing the permit, whether circumstances had changed, and whether refusal would impose an economic burden (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.17-18). VC226 fitted into the first test because it was a change to Clause 52.19 after the permit was issued, but Council’s conclusion was that the change had no material effect on the original decision-making process (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.18-19).
The timing facts are precise. The permit was issued on 22 December 2021, the first extension was granted on 16 February 2024, the extended commencement date was 22 December 2025, and the new extension request was received on 3 March 2026 (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.15-16, 27). The permit condition allowed a written request before expiry or within six months afterward, and Council officers treated the March 2026 request as being within that grace period (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.16).
The officer report also found that a fresh permit would likely be granted because there had been no substantive change to policy affecting the proposal or site context since the permit was issued (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.20). That finding is the hinge between VC226 and the local permit: the state amendment changed the wording and machinery of Clause 52.19, but not in a way that made the existing Mount Gisborne approval outdated or inconsistent (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.18-20).
Site Constraints and Permit Conditions
The Mount Gisborne site is not a neutral infrastructure location. Council identified the subject land as a summit site, accessed from Woodland Drive, surrounded by land in the Rural Living Zone and Rural Conservation Zone (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.16). The report also identified the Macedon Ranges Statement of Planning Policy as a reference document under Clause 11.03-5S and stated that Council, as a responsible public entity, must not act inconsistently with the Statement of Planning Policy when exercising decision-making powers under section 46AZK of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.16-17).
The permit conditions show why the development remained sensitive even if the telecommunications control had been amended. The permit required amended plans showing temporary construction fencing, tree protection zones, and the colours and materials of the tower (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.22). It required construction and maintenance equipment to be free of soil, seed, and plant material before entering and leaving Mount Gisborne Reserve to reduce the risk of noxious weeds and Cinnamon Fungus Phytophthora cinnamomi (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.23). It also prohibited vehicle access, trenching, excavation, storage, dumping, and other damaging activities within tree protection zones (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.23).
The conditions required an environmental consultant to educate ground staff before works commenced, temporary fencing along the track to the summit, and an Environmental Outcome report after the project was completed (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.23-24). The permit also required a Tree Protection Management Plan by a Level 5 arborist, including mitigation for exposed roots and branches, native vegetation no-go zones, signage, inspection timing for crane activity, milestone reporting, on-site arborist supervision, and tree protection measures for a eucalypt located 30 metres from the entrance gate (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.24).
The Site Environmental Management Plan was required to address access during construction and operation, crane specifications limited to no more than 2.5 metres width, geofabric or similar protection over exposed roots and tight track turns, protection of overhanging limbs, temporary fencing, machinery storage, wash-down processes, vehicle paths through high conservation zones, construction staging, and remedial planting or weed control if disturbance occurred (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.25-26). These conditions indicate that the binding local planning questions are not only whether a tower is acceptable, but how equipment reaches the summit without damaging native vegetation, tree roots, access tracks, or sensitive reserve values (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.23-26).
Infrastructure Need and Delivery Dependency
Council officers accepted that the facility was linked to public infrastructure rather than a speculative land use. The applicant stated that the proposal related to critical infrastructure Greater Western Water relied on in fulfilling its obligations as a Water Corporation (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.19). The applicant also stated that the relevant communications systems were operating under temporary arrangements and that Greater Western Water wished to complete the permanent development as a matter of urgency (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.19).
The decisive delivery constraint was not VC226. The report states that the applicant was negotiating with the neighbouring landowner and Council to secure access and lease arrangements before commencing development (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.19). Council officers found that the development could not commence until access to the property was facilitated and that creating a lease agreement with multiple stakeholders could be time-consuming (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.20).
This creates a clear cause-and-effect chain. The mast was lost in July 2019, temporary arrangements were in place, the replacement facility received a permit in December 2021, endorsed plans were completed in September 2023, and the project still required access and lease resolution before construction could start (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.16, 19). VC226 changed the Clause 52.19 background, but the project delay was tied to tenure and access arrangements rather than a new telecommunications policy barrier (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.18-20).
Risk and Planning Implications
The principal planning risk is procedural misclassification. If future telecommunications proposals are treated as exempt because VC226 expanded exemptions, Council will still need to check whether the specific facility type, notice pathway, and other planning controls actually remove or retain permit requirements (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.15, 18-19). In this case, the report demonstrates that a Clause 52.19 amendment did not override the need to consider the Public Conservation and Resource Zone, Significant Landscape Overlay, and local environmental management conditions attached to the permit (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.15, 22-26).
The second risk is delivery delay. Refusing the extension would have delayed what the officer report described as an important community asset, and Council officers considered that refusal would impose substantial costs associated with lodging a new application (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.20). The report also found it unlikely that the permit holder was warehousing the permit because the development related to Greater Western Water’s operational infrastructure, temporary communications arrangements were in use, and active negotiations were underway for access and lease arrangements (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.19).
The third risk is environmental execution. The permit conditions make construction methodology central to acceptability, especially access to the summit, crane width, exposed roots, tree limbs, vegetation no-go zones, wash-down, and remedial works if disturbance occurs (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.23-26). This means the planning permission is reversible only in a limited procedural sense: Council can refuse or condition extensions, but physical works in a sensitive reserve would need to be managed carefully once commenced because vegetation damage, weed spread, or pathogen introduction may not be easily reversed (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.23-26).
Current Status
As at the 22 April 2026 agenda, the officer recommendation was that Council extend Planning Permit PLN/2020/165 for a further two years so that development must commence by 22 December 2027 and be completed by 22 December 2029 (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.15). The available source is an agenda rather than adopted minutes, so this page can verify the officer recommendation but cannot verify the Council resolution or whether the extension was ultimately granted at the meeting (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.15).
Dependencies
- Blocks: The available record does not show VC226 blocking a local strategic planning process, but the extension decision affected whether the Mount Gisborne telecommunications facility could proceed under the existing permit rather than through a fresh application (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.15-20).
- Blocked by: The Mount Gisborne facility was blocked in practical delivery terms by unresolved access and lease arrangements involving the neighbouring landowner and Council (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.19-20).
- Informed by: The extension assessment was informed by section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the Kantor and AMV Homes extension-of-time principles identified in the officer report (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.17-18).
- Implements: The local decision sits within the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme controls for infrastructure, environmental and landscape values, built environment, the Public Conservation and Resource Zone, Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 2, and Clause 52.19 Telecommunications Facility (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.17).
- Conflicts with: The available source does not identify a direct policy conflict, and Council officers stated that the proposal was generally consistent with the Macedon Ranges Statement of Planning Policy (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.16-17).
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
Greater Western Water is the applicant, and Council officers described the facility as critical infrastructure used by Greater Western Water in fulfilling its obligations as a Water Corporation (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.19). That creates an operational link between local land-use permission and regional water-corporation communications, but the available source does not provide a broader network plan, service-area map, or water authority capital program showing how this mast connects to other infrastructure assets (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.19).
The site-specific controls also connect local decision-making to state-level landscape policy because the officer report refers to section 46AZK of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the Macedon Ranges Statement of Planning Policy under Clause 11.03-5S (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.16-17). The available record is therefore enough to identify a state-local planning relationship, but not enough to map broader telecommunications or water-corporation infrastructure dependencies across council boundaries (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.16-20).
Gaps in This Analysis
This analysis is based on one Council agenda item and one attached amended planning permit (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.15-28). The source does not include the text of Amendment VC226, the gazettal material, the revised Clause 52.19 wording, or the removed Code of Practice for Telecommunications Facilities in Victoria (2004), so this page cannot independently quantify the full statewide scope of the exemption changes (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.18).
The source also does not include the original 2021 officer report, the endorsed plans, the Atlas Ecology Management Plan: Access to Infrastructure and Mount Gisborne Reserve, the Atlas Ecology Vegetation Impact Assessment Report, or the VCAT Order P916/2021 referenced by the permit (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.24-27). Those missing documents limit assessment of tower design, exact construction footprint, vegetation impact, access route constraints, and the tribunal context for the original permit (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.22-27).
The available source is an agenda, not meeting minutes, so the final Council decision on 22 April 2026 is not confirmed in this corpus (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.15). The relevant _gaps.md entry should therefore identify the adopted minutes for 22 April 2026, the VC226 gazettal package, the current Clause 52.19 text, the 2021 permit assessment material, and the technical ecology/access reports as the priority evidence needed to convert this from a thin amendment note into a fully verified statutory-control analysis (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.15-28).