Grange Planning Brain

title: Amess Road, Riddells Creek Precinct Structure Plan and Amendment C161macr council: macedon-ranges state: vic category: amendment classification: MAJOR status: approved last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:

  • 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf
  • 25-march-2026-council-meeting-agenda-attachments-updated-version.pdf
  • 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf
  • 26-november-2025-agenda-scheduled-council-meeting.pdf
  • agenda-attachments-24-september-2025-council-meeting.pdf
  • final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf
  • MRSC Amess Road PSP project page
  • submission-on-draft-amendment-c161mar-to-the-macedon-ranges-planning-scheme.pdf
  • mrsc-c161macr-amess-road-riddells-creek-second-round-consultation-letter-draft-addendum.pdf
  • amess-road-riddells-creek-site-analysis-and-key-ideas-summary-paper-final.pdf
  • Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf
  • C161macr Urban Growth Zone Schedule generated ordinance
  • Priority Projects Referral 45 project page
  • navigating-the-basis-of-documents-process
  • Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Amess-Road-PSP-Letter-of-Referral_Redacted.pdf
  • Amess Road Development Contributions Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf
  • Amess Road Precinct Structure Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf

Amess Road, Riddells Creek Precinct Structure Plan and Amendment C161macr

Amess Road is now the statutory growth framework for about 131 hectares on the north-eastern edge of Riddells Creek, converting long-identified Urban Growth Zone land into a residential PSP with a DCP, native vegetation controls, open-space equalisation, and a Stage 1 subdivision permit pathway. The planning mechanism is important because it shifts the question from whether the land should urbanise to how the township absorbs roughly 1,360 dwellings, about 3,808 new residents, and a $31.39 million infrastructure program while managing drainage, traffic, heritage, bushfire, and settlement-character impacts. (Source: Amess Road Precinct Structure Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf, p.20; Source: Amess Road Development Contributions Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf, p.4)

Background

The precinct sits between Frost Lane, Farming Zone land to the east, Amess Road, and Gisborne-Kilmore Road, about 65 kilometres north-west of Melbourne and close to the Riddells Creek town centre and railway station. (Source: Amess Road Precinct Structure Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf, p.9; Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, p.14) The land was identified as a priority residential development area in the Riddells Creek Structure Plan 2013 and was rezoned from Rural Living Zone to Urban Growth Zone through Amendment C100macr in June 2017. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, p.22; Source: MRSC Amess Road PSP project page)

Council resolved not to support the proponent-led PSP in April 2023 after considering planning-framework issues and a submission containing 1,231 signatures. (Source: MRSC Amess Road PSP project page) The proponent then used the Victorian Government Development Facilitation Program, and the Minister for Planning referred draft Amendment C161macr and draft permit PLN2024/219 to the Priority Projects Standing Advisory Committee on 24 October 2024 after two consultation rounds from 10 June to 10 July 2024 and 30 July to 27 August 2024. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Amess-Road-PSP-Letter-of-Referral_Redacted.pdf, p.1) The referral letter recorded 1,339 public submissions and eight agency submissions, with most public submissions objecting and raising growth suitability, landscape character, lot size, development contributions, drainage, traffic, flora and fauna, heritage, and planning-scheme compliance. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Amess-Road-PSP-Letter-of-Referral_Redacted.pdf, pp.1-2)

The Advisory Committee held hearings across February 2025 and reported on 11 April 2025. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, p.8) Council later stated that the Department of Transport and Planning, under delegation from the Minister, approved draft Amendment C161macr and draft permit PLN2024/219 in August 2025. (Source: MRSC Amess Road PSP project page) The generated UGZ1 schedule is marked Historic 28 August 2025 for C161macr, indicating the post-approval planning-scheme control. (Source: C161macr Urban Growth Zone Schedule generated ordinance, p.1)

Analysis

Statutory mechanism and practical effect

Amendment C161macr applies Schedule 1 to the Urban Growth Zone, Schedule 3 to the Development Contributions Plan Overlay, a Road Closure Overlay to Wohl Court, native vegetation scheme changes, public-open-space requirements, and incorporation of the PSP, DCP and Native Vegetation Precinct Plan. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.16-17) The UGZ1 makes the General Residential Zone the applied zone for residential land, so the PSP does not merely describe a preferred layout; it becomes the operating framework for subdivision, land use, building controls, infrastructure triggers, and permit application material. (Source: C161macr Urban Growth Zone Schedule generated ordinance, pp.1-3)

The approved framework is therefore a layered control. The PSP sets land use, density, open space, drainage, movement and interface outcomes; the DCP funds selected transport, recreation and community items; the UGZ1 requires supporting plans for public infrastructure, drainage and integrated water management, arboriculture, traffic, bus routes, bushfire, slope design, contamination and landscape canopy; and permit conditions manage Stage 1 delivery. (Source: Amess Road Precinct Structure Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf, pp.8-9; Source: C161macr Urban Growth Zone Schedule generated ordinance, pp.3-6)

The Stage 1 permit is narrower than the PSP but is the first implementation test. It covers 115 Amess Road and 12, 58 and 61 Wohl Court, proposing 182 lots between 350 square metres and 1,015 square metres, a 0.56 hectare local park, a 0.19 hectare linear park, a 3.3 hectare wetland, conservation area CA-03, a connector-road segment and a permeable street network. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.16-18)

Land supply, yield and township scale

The land budget is the core planning arithmetic. From a 131.18 hectare precinct, the PSP deducts 0.38 hectares for arterial-road intersection flaring, 0.40 hectares for a community facility, 1.79 hectares for conservation reserve, 17.14 hectares for drainage infrastructure, 7.05 hectares for credited local parks, and 4.05 hectares for a post-contact heritage reserve, leaving 100.37 hectares of net developable area. (Source: Amess Road Precinct Structure Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf, p.20) That means about 23.49 per cent of the precinct is removed from NDA before normal lot and street design is counted, with the largest single deduction being drainage land at 13.07 per cent of the total precinct. (Source: Amess Road Precinct Structure Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf, p.20)

The PSP assumes an average yield of 13.5 dwellings per net developable hectare, producing about 1,360 dwellings and about 3,808 residents. (Source: Amess Road Precinct Structure Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf, p.20) The Advisory Committee treated the 13.5 dwellings per hectare figure as a significant regional-context moderation from the VPA PSP Guidelines benchmark of 20 dwellings or more per net developable hectare, because the site is in a regional township context rather than metropolitan Melbourne. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, p.38)

The mechanism is a compromise between two pressures. The land has had strategic support for urban growth since the 2013 structure plan and the 2017 UGZ rezoning, but the surrounding built form is generally lower density and the township is inside the Macedon Ranges declared area and protected settlement boundary. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.21-23) The PSP responds by placing lower urban density lots along the eastern, southern and western boundaries, concentrating smaller amenity-based lots near parks and the linear open-space network, and using edge treatments along Kilmore Road, Amess Road and the rural interface. (Source: Amess Road Precinct Structure Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf, pp.22-24)

The downstream implication is that Riddells Creek moves from a district-town growth question to a service-delivery question. Council’s later open-space material estimated that Amess Road may add 4,270 people by expected completion in 2046 and may elevate Riddells Creek into the 6,000 to 10,000 population category within the Open Space Strategy horizon, depending on development pace. (Source: 25-march-2026-council-meeting-agenda-attachments-updated-version.pdf, pp.39, 3879-3880) Council also recorded that works had not yet commenced by March 2026, which means the statutory capacity exists before the population effect is visible on the ground. (Source: 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.765)

Infrastructure funding and DCP mechanics

The DCP is sized at 31,391,462.60 across development and community infrastructure, with 29,419,462.60 recovered through the Development Infrastructure Levy and 1,972,000 through the Community Infrastructure Levy. (Source: Amess Road Development Contributions Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf, p.4) The residential charge area is listed at 100.37 net developable hectares and a DIL of 293,110.12 per net developable hectare, broken into 177,049.63 for transport, 33,117.37 for recreation and $82,943.11 for community infrastructure. (Source: Amess Road Development Contributions Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf, p.4)

Transport is the largest DIL component. The DCP funds land and construction for the Kilmore Road and Gyro Close roundabout, the Kilmore Road and Amess Road intersection, the Kilmore Road shared-path extension, the Amess Road upgrade, the Amess Road shared path, the Sandy Creek pedestrian bridge and the Wurundjeri Creek culvert crossing. (Source: Amess Road Development Contributions Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf, pp.16, 28) The largest transport costs are the Kilmore Road and Gyro Close roundabout at 5.8235 million, the Amess Road upgrade at about 3.506 million, the Kilmore Road and Amess Road intersection at about 3.064 million, and the Sandy Creek pedestrian bridge at about 2.245 million. (Source: Amess Road Development Contributions Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf, p.28)

Community infrastructure is also embedded in the DCP rather than deferred to later negotiation. The DCP funds 0.40 hectares of land for the Amess Road Community Hub at 1.1 million and construction of a multipurpose community centre with community rooms, childcare-related facilities, maternal and child health and one kindergarten room at 7.225 million. (Source: Amess Road Development Contributions Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf, pp.20, 29) The Advisory Committee supported an on-site centre, about 700 square metres of floorspace, 0.4 hectares of land, full DCP funding, and concept design and peer-reviewed costings before finalisation. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.42-45)

Active recreation is handled off-site. The DCP contributes 3,323,990.90 to the [[Riddells Creek Recreation Reserve]] upgrade, while the CIL funds 1.972 million for the recreation reserve pavilion upgrade at $1,450 per dwelling. (Source: Amess Road Development Contributions Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf, pp.18, 29-30) This means the PSP’s active open-space demand is not solved by reserving a new sports field inside the precinct; it relies on upgrading an existing township reserve and tying its master planning to incoming development contributions. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.45-53; Source: 25-march-2026-council-meeting-agenda-attachments-updated-version.pdf, pp.3921-3927)

The DCP deliberately excludes many developer works, including local and connector streets, most local path works, landscaping, local drainage, utility infrastructure and basic local-park improvements. (Source: Amess Road Development Contributions Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf, p.15) This creates a two-part funding reality: the levy funds selected shared infrastructure, while subdivision permits and servicing agreements still carry ordinary development costs for streets, services, drainage connections and public-realm delivery. (Source: Amess Road Development Contributions Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf, pp.15, 33)

Drainage as the binding design constraint

Drainage is the main land-take and staging mechanism. The PSP contains three catchments: Sandy Creek, Wurundjeri Creek and Jacksons Creek, with drainage infrastructure occupying 17.14 hectares and existing waterways, constructed waterways, stormwater quality assets, wetlands and retarding basins distributed across multiple properties. (Source: Amess Road Precinct Structure Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf, p.20; Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.59-63)

The Advisory Committee accepted a three-basin Sandy Creek solution so that each property abutting Sandy Creek treats its own runoff, reducing interdependence between landowners and avoiding a situation where downstream properties overcompensate for untreated discharge from another property. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.76-79) The Committee also accepted that Sandy Creek assets should remain developer funded rather than DCP funded, although it cautioned that the funding burden on Property 1 sits alongside possible heritage constraints. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.60-61)

For Jacksons Creek, the combined wetland and retarding basin limits peak flows to rural flow rates, but the Committee accepted expert evidence that urbanisation will increase stormwater volume, make smaller flow events more frequent and longer, fill downstream farm dams more often, and potentially worsen erosion in the tributary east of the PSP land. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.79-82) The practical fix is not a PSP-wide DCP item; it is a permit condition requiring revegetation and ancillary drainage and erosion-control works on the adjoining property, subject to landowner consent. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, p.82)

For Wurundjeri Creek, Melbourne Water’s Development Services Scheme is the funding and delivery pathway for constructed waterway and stormwater treatment assets, with Melbourne Water responsible for the waterway and banks and Council responsible for associated stormwater assets. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.83-85) This is a major dependency because final land-take, detailed design and compensation questions sit with Melbourne Water’s scheme process, not solely with the PSP document. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.84-85)

Movement network and safety dependencies

The traffic model used for the PSP estimated about 10,800 vehicle movements per day on the external road network at full development, based on 1,360 residential lots. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, p.86) The Stage 1 assessment estimated 1,456 vehicle movements per day from 182 lots and concluded the existing Kilmore Road and Amess Road intersection could accommodate Stage 1 traffic without upgrade works. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.86-87)

The road network mechanism is not simply capacity; it is safe integration with existing township routes. The Advisory Committee required road safety audits for the Kilmore Road and Gyro Close roundabout and the Kilmore Road and Amess Road intersection because pedestrian priority, school-bus operations, heavy vehicles, guardrail location and crossing form affected both safety and DCP cost accuracy. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.90-95) The Committee also supported a 2.5 metre tinted concrete Amess Road shared path, replacing the cheaper bituminous option because concrete better aligned with existing and planned path standards and reduced maintenance risk. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.89-90)

A separate local implication appears in later council material. A December 2025 agenda report for a nearby emergency services facility noted that the Amess Road PSP would generate traffic impacts much greater than the proposed emergency services facility, and that the Riddells Creek Movement Network Plan identified a potential upgrade of the Main Road, Amess Road and Sandy Creek Road intersection through realignment and a four-leg roundabout. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.1178-1186) This shows the PSP’s movement effects extend beyond the DCP items and interact with township network planning.

Character, heritage, ecology and bushfire risk

The Advisory Committee accepted that the PSP will change the character of Riddells Creek but found that planning policy required compatibility rather than replication of existing low-density patterns. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.37-39) The design response is concentrated on edges: no direct lot access to Amess Road or Kilmore Road, lower-density interface lots, landscape buffers or internal loop roads, a rural interface road, and higher-density housing positioned centrally near open space rather than at sensitive perimeter edges. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.38-39)

Heritage remains a managed risk rather than a settled constraint. Dromkeen and Monterey Pine are already protected by HO83, occupy a ten hectare site, and are shown in the PSP as a heritage reserve subject to a Conservation Management Plan. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.100-101) The miners cottage at 163 Main Road was identified as potential heritage and mapped as an element requiring further investigation, but the Committee did not require full heritage assessment before PSP approval. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.100-102) This leaves a possible future adjustment point if Council pursues a Heritage Overlay, with possible consequences for NDA and DCP liabilities. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.101-102)

The NVPP permits removal of 9.445 hectares of native vegetation and relies on the avoid, minimise and offset sequence under the planning scheme. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.64-65) DEECA and Council ultimately considered the biodiversity outcomes satisfactory, but the Committee recorded unresolved detailed-design sensitivity around possible additional vegetation removal for drainage infrastructure and the Amess Road culvert area. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.66-69)

Bushfire risk is addressed through setbacks, BAL-12.5 construction beyond setbacks, staged Bushfire Management Plans, emergency egress and a temporary-only Frost Lane emergency and evacuation access. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.106-110) The precinct is in a Bushfire Prone Area but not in a Bushfire Management Overlay, and the Committee accepted evidence that risk is lower than other parts of Riddells Creek because hazards are mainly grassland and small woodland patches rather than nearby forest. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.106-108)

Current Status

The initiative is approved and has moved from assessment into implementation. Council’s August 2025 project update states that the Department of Transport and Planning approved Amendment C161macr and permit PLN2024/219 under delegation from the Minister for Planning. (Source: MRSC Amess Road PSP project page) The C161macr UGZ1 schedule was generated as a historic planning-scheme control dated 28 August 2025. (Source: C161macr Urban Growth Zone Schedule generated ordinance, p.1)

By late 2025 and early 2026, Council material treated Amess Road as an approved growth input for Riddells Creek open-space and community-infrastructure planning. (Source: 25-march-2026-council-meeting-agenda-attachments-updated-version.pdf, pp.3141-3144; Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.3832-3837) The practical next steps are subdivision-stage permits, DCP collection, public infrastructure plans, drainage design approval, Melbourne Water DSS delivery for Wurundjeri Creek, road safety audit resolution, community hub design, and Riddells Creek Recreation Reserve master planning. (Source: Amess Road Development Contributions Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf, pp.32-38; Source: C161macr Urban Growth Zone Schedule generated ordinance, pp.3-6)

Dependencies

  • Blocks: Full urban subdivision of the Amess Road UGZ land depends on PSP-consistent permits, DCP payment or works-in-kind agreements, infrastructure plans, drainage approvals, and servicing agreements. (Source: Amess Road Precinct Structure Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf, pp.8-9; Source: Amess Road Development Contributions Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf, pp.33-38)
  • Blocked by: Detailed drainage design, Melbourne Water’s Wurundjeri Creek DSS process, road safety audits for IN-01B and IN-02B, subdivision-stage bushfire plans, heritage assessment around Dromkeen and 163 Main Road where relevant, and permit-stage Aboriginal cultural heritage requirements may constrain staging or layout. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.60-63, 92-95, 100-105, 109-110)
  • Informed by: The PSP, DCP, NVPP, traffic and transport review, stormwater management plan, community infrastructure assessment, infrastructure costing assessment, biodiversity assessment, heritage assessments and Advisory Committee report. (Source: Amess Road Precinct Structure Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf, pp.8-9; Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.12-13)
  • Implements: The Riddells Creek Structure Plan, Amendment C100macr, the Macedon Ranges Settlement Strategy, the Macedon Ranges Statement of Planning Policy and state peri-urban housing policy settings. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.21-23, 26-28)
  • Conflicts with: Council and community positions on settlement character, density, drainage cost certainty and infrastructure readiness, as recorded through Council’s April 2023 non-support position, its SAC case and post-approval statement. (Source: MRSC Amess Road PSP project page; Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.28-39)

The primary cross-agency dependency is Melbourne Water’s role in Wurundjeri Creek drainage through a Development Services Scheme, with Council retaining maintenance responsibility for associated stormwater assets. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.83-85) The transport dependencies involve Head, Transport for Victoria because Kilmore Road intersections and arterial-road access treatments require state transport input and road safety audit resolution. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.90-95) The planning pathway itself was state-led through the Development Facilitation Program and the Priority Projects Standing Advisory Committee rather than a standard council-led amendment process. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Amess-Road-PSP-Letter-of-Referral_Redacted.pdf, pp.1-2)

Gaps in This Analysis

The source set is strong for the approved PSP, DCP, UGZ schedule and SAC reasoning, but it is thinner for the technical reports behind the final controls. The extracted source list references but does not fully provide the Stormwater Management Plan, Traffic and Transport Review, Community Infrastructure Assessment, Infrastructure Costing Assessment, Native Vegetation Precinct Plan, Biodiversity Assessment, heritage assessments, land valuation report, Bushfire Development Report and Stage 1 permit documents as standalone primary documents. (Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.12-13, 59, 64-67, 86-89, 100-107)

The largest analytical gap is parcel-level feasibility and staging sensitivity. The DCP gives property-specific NDA, but the corpus does not include full engineering drawings, servicing authority agreements, road safety audit outputs, Melbourne Water DSS documentation, or final permit conditions after approval. (Source: Amess Road Development Contributions Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf, p.40; Source: Priority-Projects-SAC-Referral-45-Report.pdf, pp.90-95) This limits assessment of when each sub-precinct can actually proceed, how much temporary drainage will be needed, and whether final infrastructure costs remain within the DCP assumptions. (Source: Amess Road Development Contributions Plan (Echelon Planning, May 2025).pdf, pp.35-36)

Graph View