Grange Planning Brain

title: Lancefield Development Plan and Development Plan Overlay Schedule 24 Review council: macedon-ranges state: vic category: constraint classification: MAJOR status: in-progress last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:

  • 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf
  • 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf
  • web-research-L0-lancefield-dpo24-review-material-evidence-f2cf01edfe.txt
  • lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf
  • lancefield-community-meeting-minutes-20-december-2021.pdf
  • lancefield-community-meeting-presentation-20-december-2021.pdf
  • web-research-L0-lancefield-dpo24-review-material-evidence-f1de0b9d05.txt
  • c117-approval-planning-scheme-amendment-fact-sheet-march-2020.pdf
  • c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf

Lancefield Development Plan and Development Plan Overlay Schedule 24 Review

DPO24 is a coordination control over three already-residential parts of Lancefield rather than a rezoning mechanism: it does not create the residential zoning, but it changes the sequence and evidence required before subdivision can proceed (Source: c117-approval-planning-scheme-amendment-fact-sheet-march-2020.pdf, p.2). The practical planning issue is that small-town residential land is being held back until road, drainage, sewer, bushfire, landscape, lot-size and staging questions are resolved across fragmented landholdings (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, pp.9-10). Current council activity in early 2026 indicates the control remains politically and administratively live, with councillor briefings, community communication work and a specific DPO24 follow-up occurring in February and March 2026 (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.6; Source: 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.8, 12-13).

Background

Amendment C117 inserted Schedule 24 to the Development Plan Overlay for three large undeveloped residentially zoned areas in Lancefield and corrected a township-boundary mapping error at 8 Kilmore-Lancefield Road (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, p.9). The amendment applied to about 60 hectares across 27 properties, generally in fragmented ownership, with land zoned either General Residential or Low Density Residential (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, p.9). The amendment was exhibited from 10 July to 13 August 2018, received 16 submissions and was heard by an independent Panel on 10 December 2018 (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, p.7). The Minister for Planning approved and gazetted the amendment on 16 January 2020 (Source: c117-approval-planning-scheme-amendment-fact-sheet-march-2020.pdf, p.1).

The planning reason for the overlay was not that Lancefield needed new residential zoning; the land was already capable of residential development (Source: c117-approval-planning-scheme-amendment-fact-sheet-march-2020.pdf, p.2). The problem was that, without a statutory plan, separate landowners could lodge isolated subdivisions that produced court-bowl layouts, disconnected roads, uneven drainage obligations and character outcomes inconsistent with Lancefield’s wide-street grid and rural-town edges (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, pp.9-10). The Panel accepted that a Development Plan Overlay was strategically justified because it could coordinate future subdivision while retaining flexibility that an Incorporated Plan Overlay would not provide without further scheme amendments (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, pp.21-23).

Analysis

Statutory Effect and Review Rights

The key mechanism is sequencing. DPO24 requires a development plan to be approved before permits can be granted for subdivision and other relevant development, but the overlay does not force an owner to develop land (Source: c117-approval-planning-scheme-amendment-fact-sheet-march-2020.pdf, pp.3-4). Once a development plan has been prepared to the responsible authority’s satisfaction, later planning permit applications are exempt from ordinary third-party notice and review rights under the Development Plan Overlay head provision (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, p.21). This makes the development-plan stage the main public and landowner-facing checkpoint; after that, detailed permit applications have reduced external challenge pathways (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, p.21).

That loss of downstream notice and review rights was one of the central objections during C117 exhibition (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, p.21). The Panel acknowledged the concern but accepted the control because the land already had residential zoning and because the overlay did not increase the underlying development potential (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, pp.21-22). In simple terms, the overlay is like requiring the whole jigsaw picture before individual pieces are cut; it slows individual applications so that roads, drainage and lot patterns are not decided one block at a time (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, pp.9-10).

Land Areas, Ownership and Development Plan Structure

DPO24 covers three precincts: Area 1 at the western edge fronting High Street, Area 2 north of Noel Street and the core town centre, and Area 3 east of Melbourne-Lancefield Road (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, p.10). Area 1 contains General Residential and Low Density Residential land in a small number of ownerships, Area 2 contains mixed GRZ and LDRZ land in multiple ownerships, and Area 3 is LDRZ land with one main landowner plus several smaller ownerships along Melbourne-Lancefield Road (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, p.10).

The original exhibited approach contemplated one development plan per area, but the Panel recommended that Areas 1 and 2 be allowed more than one development plan because fragmented ownership made a single-plan requirement difficult to implement (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, pp.24-25). The Minister’s approved version allowed no more than two development plans in Area 1, replacing Council’s adopted version that had allowed up to three (Source: c117-approval-planning-scheme-amendment-fact-sheet-march-2020.pdf, p.1). By 2021, one Area 1 development plan had been approved for 69 Park Street, 128 High Street and 132 High Street, leaving the balance of Area 1 dependent on the remaining plan capacity (Source: web-research-L0-lancefield-dpo24-review-material-evidence-f2cf01edfe.txt).

The endorsed Area 1 Part 1 plan covers 4.8 hectares at 69 Park Street, 1.263 hectares at 128 High Street and 5,448 square metres at 132 High Street (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf, p.5). It yields an estimated 34 lots: 19 Low Density Residential lots and 15 General Residential lots (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf, p.11). The lot schedule allocates 19 lots to 69 Park Street, 10 lots to 128 High Street and 5 lots to 132 High Street (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf, p.17).

Lot Size and Settlement Character

The overlay uses lot size as a character-management tool, not only a yield-control tool. Area 1 must maximise lot-width frontage to High Street, provide High Street lots with at least 20 metres frontage and at least 700 square metres area, minimise additional High Street road connections, require a 6 metre front setback to buildings, limit front fences to 1.2 metres and require lots along McMasters Lane of at least 1,000 square metres (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf, pp.15-16). The endorsed Area 1 Part 1 plan responds by using larger Low Density Residential lots of 2,000 to 2,689 square metres to the north and General Residential lots from about 748 to 1,320 square metres closer to High Street (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf, pp.10-11).

The Panel accepted the lot-size framework because it balanced moderate growth with the protection of Lancefield’s historic form, including its grid streets, wide road reserves and transition to rural land (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, pp.28-29). A technical implication follows: yield is intentionally lower than a conventional suburban subdivision because road width, frontage width, rural-edge setbacks and Low Density Residential minimums are being used to hold a township-edge character (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, pp.28-29). That means the control is not simply delaying housing; it is specifying the form of housing that can occur on land already identified for residential use (Source: c117-approval-planning-scheme-amendment-fact-sheet-march-2020.pdf, p.2).

Infrastructure, Cost Sharing and Staging

DPO24 did not introduce a Development Contributions Plan, and the Panel accepted that a DCP was not required given the relatively small land area and infrastructure scale (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, p.34). Instead, the mechanism is an infrastructure report and staging plan that reviews capacity and identifies roads, intersections, drainage or other infrastructure reasonably required for development (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, pp.38-39). This places the practical burden on each development plan and permit sequence rather than on a single levy schedule (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, p.34).

The approved Area 1 Part 1 plan shows why this matters. Each landholding is expected to construct the infrastructure needed for its own development, while later Area 1 development may connect to or augment that infrastructure (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf, p.12). For 69 Park Street, stages C2 to C5 require Park Street, Showlers Lane, sewer, water, electricity and potential gas extensions in different combinations, while 128 and 132 High Street stages require McMasters Lane frontage works, internal roads, sewer extensions, water extensions and underground electricity works (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf, pp.37-39). This staged model reduces the need for a single upfront infrastructure package, but it leaves coordination risk where one parcel needs road or service continuity across land controlled by others (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, pp.38-39).

Open space is handled through contributions rather than a new park inside the Area 1 Part 1 land. The plan states there are no parks or open spaces within that study area and that Council would collect Clause 53.01 contributions equal to 5 percent of land value for use in existing recreation and community spaces in Lancefield (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf, pp.13-14). The planning consequence is that active and passive recreation capacity depends on existing Lancefield spaces and Council’s later allocation of those contributions, not on a dedicated local reserve within the first approved development plan area (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf, pp.13-14).

Transport and Movement

The overlay’s transport logic is to keep Lancefield’s grid-like permeability while limiting excessive direct access to arterial or main roads (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, pp.35-38). In Area 1 Part 1, the movement plan provides one new road connection to High Street, upgrades McMasters Lane and Showlers Lane to rural collector style, uses Park Street as a rural connector and provides internal township local streets (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf, pp.11-12). Required cross-sections include 7 metre carriageways with 11.5 metre verges for rural collector streets, 7.5 metre carriageways in 20 metre internal local road reserves, and 6.6 metre carriageways with 11.7 metre verges for rural connector streets (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf, p.11).

The Area 1 traffic assessment found that the three subdivisions would add about 150 vehicles per day to High Street from 128 and 132 High Street, about 200 vehicles per day to Park Street from 69 Park Street, about 30 vehicles per day to McMasters Lane and about 40 vehicles per day to Showlers Lane (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf, p.87). It concluded that High Street, Park Street, McMasters Lane and Showlers Lane would remain within relevant traffic-volume parameters after the proposed upgrades and that no external intersection upgrades were required (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf, pp.87-90). The same report recommends temporary court bowls for internal streets that initially terminate before adjoining land develops, which shows the dependency between staged land release and emergency-vehicle access (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf, p.88).

Drainage, Sewer and Water Quality

Drainage is a binding design constraint because the precincts had gravel roads and limited existing drainage infrastructure when C117 was considered (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, pp.9-10). DPO24 requires development plans to address 1 percent annual exceedance probability flood events, drainage lines, stormwater outfalls, retarding basins, staging, water-sensitive urban design and 20 metre setbacks from the top of both banks of waterways where relevant (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf, pp.12-13). The Area 1 Part 1 stormwater plan identifies a retention basin and required 1 percent AEP retention of 544.59 cubic metres for 69 Park Street, 96.75 cubic metres for 128 High Street and 33.77 cubic metres for 132 High Street (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf, p.57).

Sewer is also central because subdivision in Low Density Residential land to 2,000 square metre lots depends on reticulated sewerage (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, pp.28-29). The Panel required that existing wells on adjoining Melbourne-Lancefield Road properties be identified with appropriate separation from sewer pipes, responding to concerns that sewer infrastructure could affect private potable-water wells (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, pp.39-40). The Area 1 sewer concept identifies one catchment of about 17.4 hectares needing an alternate sewer connection and another catchment of about 13.5 hectares to be serviced by existing gravity sewer (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf, p.41). That split indicates the servicing pathway is not uniform across Area 1 and that later development may face different sewer connection dependencies from the approved first part (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf, p.41).

Bushfire, Contamination and Vegetation

The Minister’s approval added a requirement that development in all DPO24 areas must have, or on completion have, no more than a BAL-12.5 rating under AS3959-2009 (Source: c117-approval-planning-scheme-amendment-fact-sheet-march-2020.pdf, p.1). The Panel found the land was not in the Bushfire Management Overlay but was in a designated Bushfire Prone Area, and accepted that bushfire risk could be managed through development-plan requirements rather than by refusing the control (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, pp.29-30). For Area 1 Part 1, the plan relies on 30 metre road reserves on Showlers Lane and McMasters Lane plus 6 metre dwelling setbacks to provide at least 36 metres of defendable space against unmanaged grassland, exceeding the 22 metre separation distance cited for BAL-12.5 in the report (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf, pp.7-8).

Contamination risk is narrower but unresolved in places. The Panel accepted DPO24’s requirement for preliminary site assessment at 82 and 114 High Street rather than applying an Environmental Audit Overlay, partly because EPA did not object on the information before it (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, pp.30-31). Area 1 Part 1 did not include those specified parcels, but it sits near a Council-managed former landfill area at the northern end of Park Street where Council-commissioned 2020 investigation reportedly found waste capped with clean soil and recommended ongoing inspection and maintenance of the cap (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf, pp.6-7). The development plan also notes that test excavations were not carried out beyond the known landfill perimeter and recommends further intrusive investigation of unmade government roads before infrastructure design and construction (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf, p.7).

Vegetation constraints are relatively site-specific in the approved Area 1 plan. The ecological assessment found no overstorey species of biodiversity value and one very small remnant patch of native understorey vegetation, whose loss was considered unavoidable and requiring an offset (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf, p.14). The arborist assessment considered 118 trees on and adjoining the subject sites, assigning 3 high-retention, 32 medium-retention, 62 low-retention and 21 third-party trees (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf, pp.104-105). The development plan states two high-retention trees would not be retained because they conflicted with subdivision road and design outcomes, while one Grey Box should be considered for retention in a future lot design (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf, pp.14-15).

Community and Governance Issues

The 20 December 2021 landowner meeting shows the continuing governance problem: landowners understood the overlay as a constraint on timing, cost and individual autonomy, even though the statutory purpose was coordination (Source: lancefield-community-meeting-minutes-20-december-2021.pdf, pp.2-6). Issues raised included the cost of preparing development plans, uncertainty about what could be done without triggering a development plan, difficulty coordinating with neighbours, fairness between different parts of Lancefield, compensation expectations and questions about whether one owner could advance a plan without full neighbour consent (Source: lancefield-community-meeting-minutes-20-december-2021.pdf, pp.2-6). The meeting presentation identified options previously put to Council in July 2021, including removing the DPO, modifying it, replacing it with an Incorporated Plan Overlay, having Council prepare plans for owners, preparing technical analysis to support owner-prepared plans or retaining the status quo (Source: lancefield-community-meeting-presentation-20-december-2021.pdf, p.18).

By early 2026, the issue was still active. The February 2026 agenda recorded a community listening post in Lancefield regarding DPO24 and a 29 January 2026 DPO24 Lancefield community meeting (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.6). The March 2026 agenda recorded that Council was working on community and communication initiatives around Lancefield Development Plan DPO24 and that councillor briefings considered DPO24 and 69 Park Street, followed by a DPO24 Review follow-up on 3 March 2026 (Source: 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.8, 12-13). These records do not show a formal amendment outcome, but they show the control remains under review or active management rather than settled as a purely historical amendment (Source: 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.12-13).

Current Status

Amendment C117 is approved and gazetted, so DPO24 is operative in the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme (Source: c117-approval-planning-scheme-amendment-fact-sheet-march-2020.pdf, p.1). Area 1 Part 1 has an endorsed development plan for 69 Park Street, 128 High Street and 132 High Street, but the available corpus does not include equivalent endorsed development plans for the balance of Area 1, Area 2 or Area 3 (Source: web-research-L0-lancefield-dpo24-review-material-evidence-f2cf01edfe.txt). Council activity in January to March 2026 shows a live DPO24 review or communication process, but the agendas available here do not include the review report, officer recommendation or a final Council decision changing DPO24 (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.6; Source: 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.12-13).

Dependencies

  • Blocks: Subdivision and relevant development in DPO24 land that requires a permit before an approved development plan is in place; later permit pathways depend on development plans resolving roads, drainage, sewer, open space, bushfire and staging (Source: c117-approval-planning-scheme-amendment-fact-sheet-march-2020.pdf, pp.3-4).
  • Blocked by: Fragmented ownership, the two-plan limit in Area 1, infrastructure cost-sharing uncertainty, sewer and drainage design, former landfill investigation near Park Street, and unresolved community concern about fairness and consent (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, pp.24-25, 34, 38-40; Source: lancefield-community-meeting-minutes-20-december-2021.pdf, pp.2-6).
  • Informed by: C117 Panel report, C117 approval fact sheet, the endorsed Area 1 Part 1 development plan, traffic, infrastructure, stormwater, ecology and arborist reports embedded in the endorsed plan (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf; Source: c117-approval-planning-scheme-amendment-fact-sheet-march-2020.pdf; Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf).
  • Implements: Lancefield settlement policy seeking moderate growth within established boundaries while retaining grid street patterns, wide road reserves, soft engineering and street planting consistent with older parts of town (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, pp.9-10).
  • Conflicts with: Individual landowner expectations for independent or low-cost subdivision timing, and community expectations for continuing notice and review rights at the permit stage (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, pp.21-23; Source: lancefield-community-meeting-minutes-20-december-2021.pdf, pp.2-6).

DPO24 depends on servicing and agency coordination beyond Council. The C117 concept planning involved Melbourne Water, Western Water, VicRoads and the Department of Transport and Planning (Source: web-research-L0-lancefield-dpo24-review-material-evidence-f1de0b9d05.txt). The Panel recorded CFA concerns about grassfire separation and firefighting water pressure, Western Water advice that no known water-supply issue existed, EPA acceptance of the contamination approach, and VicRoads input on the Melbourne-Lancefield Road service-road question (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf, pp.29-33). Greater Western Water presented to Council at the 3 March 2026 councillor briefing where DPO24 Review Follow Up was also discussed, but the agenda extract does not state whether the water authority presentation was directly about Lancefield servicing (Source: 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.12-13).

Gaps in This Analysis

The largest gap is the absence of the operative DPO24 schedule text as a clean statutory source; the analysis relies on the Panel report, fact sheet and endorsed development plan extracts for the schedule’s requirements (Source: c117-panel-report-february-2019.pdf; Source: c117-approval-planning-scheme-amendment-fact-sheet-march-2020.pdf). The corpus also lacks any full 2026 DPO24 review report, officer recommendation, consultation summary or Council resolution, so the current review pathway can only be inferred from agenda references to community meetings, communication initiatives and councillor briefings (Source: 25-february-2026-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.6; Source: 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.12-13). No endorsed development plans for Area 2, Area 3 or the remaining part of Area 1 are included, which prevents a complete yield, infrastructure and staging estimate across all 60 hectares (Source: web-research-L0-lancefield-dpo24-review-material-evidence-f2cf01edfe.txt). The Area 1 Part 1 technical appendices provide useful traffic, stormwater, ecology and arborist numbers, but they do not substitute for precinct-wide drainage, sewer, road-cost or open-space funding schedules across all DPO24 land (Source: lancefield-area-1-part-1-development-plan-endorsed-development-plan-d21-155095-dp-2020-2.pdf).

Graph View