title: New Gisborne Development Plan and Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16 council: macedon-ranges state: vic category: constraint classification: MAJOR status: active last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf
- final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf
New Gisborne Development Plan and Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16
The New Gisborne Development Plan and Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16 operate as a site-scale growth-management framework for land including 72 and 74 Ferrier Road, where residential development is allowed only through a controlled interface with conservation land, drainage infrastructure, heritage fabric, and Aboriginal cultural heritage sensitivity (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.14; Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.38). The available documents show DPO16 doing three practical jobs: fixing the split between development and conservation areas, requiring technical plans before works proceed, and removing notice and appeal rights once an approved development plan is in place (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.15,26). The primary New Gisborne Development Plan, DPO16 schedule, Conservation Management Plan, Development Contributions Plan, and regional stormwater strategy are not included as standalone source documents, so this page analyses DPO16 through the council agenda report and attached technical reports rather than through the full statutory source set (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.55,80,324,330,390-391).
Background
The immediate planning evidence comes from Macedon Ranges Shire Council’s 22 October 2025 agenda item for amended planning permit PLN/2019/315/A at 72 and 74 Ferrier Road, New Gisborne (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.14). The original permit PLN/2019/315 was issued on 30 July 2021 for a retirement village, partial demolition, alterations and additions to a heritage building, native vegetation removal, and two-lot subdivision (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.15). The 2025 amendment seeks to increase the retirement village from 96 to 116 villas, amend villa designs, change the internal road network, update landscaping, and remove additional non-native trees within the Heritage Overlay (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.15,21-22).
The land is controlled by the General Residential Zone, Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 2, Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16, and Heritage Overlay Schedule 270 (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.14). The two lots have a combined area of 16.3 hectares, with 72 Ferrier Road recorded as approximately 7.9 hectares and 74 Ferrier Road recorded as approximately 8.4 hectares (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.15). The 72 Ferrier Road lot contains sparse tree vegetation and a declared waterway running northwest to southeast through the centre of the site, while 74 Ferrier Road contains Westport, a 1904 single-storey former residence covered by HO270, formal gardens, scattered trees, and land associated with a declared waterway and Melbourne Water basin (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.15).
DPO16 sits within a wider New Gisborne growth setting rather than a single-lot permit setting, because the subject site adjoins a recently approved 148-lot residential subdivision to the east and an approved 180-lot residential subdivision to the south (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.16). Those adjoining subdivisions are also subject to public infrastructure works for Ferrier Road access, drainage, and landscaping, which means DPO16 is part of a staged development environment where access and drainage works must align across multiple estates (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.16). The New Gisborne Development Plan is also identified in Council’s asset and service strategy list, confirming it remains part of Council’s active planning framework rather than a dormant historical document (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.738).
Analysis
DPO16 as the Gatekeeping Mechanism
DPO16 changes the planning pathway by allowing permit decisions to proceed without public notice or appeal rights where an approved development plan is in place (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.26). The practical effect is that the key public planning judgment is shifted upstream into the development plan approval and technical-condition stage, while later permit amendments are assessed mainly against whether they remain inside the approved development footprint and satisfy conditions (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.26-27). In this case, Council’s officer assessment states that the section 72 amendment does not reopen the original approval and is focused on the proposed changes only, which limits reconsideration of the broader retirement village use, subdivision concept, and development-plan structure (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.26).
The DPO16 mechanism works like a rulebook agreed before play starts: once the board is set, later moves are checked against the agreed board rather than restarting the whole game (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.26-27). This matters because the 2025 proposal adds 20 villas but Council accepts the change largely because the development remains within the original approved footprint and does not reduce communal or recreational areas originally approved (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.27,30). The control therefore manages intensity indirectly through footprint, conservation boundaries, internal layout conditions, and design parameters rather than through a new public test of whether 116 villas is the right total yield for the site (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.28-32).
DPO16 also requires a technical package before subdivision or works proceed, including a Construction Environmental Management Plan, updated flora and fauna material, landscape and revegetation planning, weed management, vegetation offset management, stormwater management, and a Conservation Management Plan addressing the Gisborne Racecourse Marshlands Reserve (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.79-81). This is the core planning mechanism: DPO16 does not simply say development is allowed; it says development must be sequenced through technical evidence that protects remnant vegetation, natural drainage lines, water quality, wetland buffers, fauna habitat, and the interface with environmentally sensitive areas (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.79-81).
Land Use, Yield, and Layout Consequences
The amendment increases the retirement village yield from 96 villas to 116 villas, which is an increase of 20 villas or approximately 20.8 percent over the previously approved villa count (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.15,27). Council’s acceptance of that increase is tied to the statement that the overall development footprint remains consistent with the original approval, which means the planning pressure is absorbed through smaller or reconfigured indicative villa lots rather than through expansion into conservation or heritage-sensitive land (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.20,27). Indicative lot areas range from approximately 230 square metres to 508.92 square metres, while villa designs range between approximately 201.81 square metres and 220.33 square metres when compared in the officer report (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.29).
The layout assessment shows that the DPO16 framework does not remove micro-level design risk, because Council identified specific lots where the proposed villa types do not fit cleanly within the indicative lot geometry (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.29). Lots 1-9 require a minor 0.2 metre variation to accommodate Villa Type A, lots 22, 23, 26, 56 and 57 require amended floor-plan orientation, and lot 108 must be removed so lot 113 can be adjusted to accommodate an approved dwelling design (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.29). The cause-and-effect chain is direct: raising the villa count inside a fixed footprint creates tighter lot geometry; tighter lot geometry creates design compliance issues; those issues are then resolved by permit conditions requiring plan changes before endorsement (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.29,34-35).
The internal road network is also part of the yield mechanism, because the amendment removes a roundabout east of the clubhouse, adds a roundabout north of the formal garden area, and provides internal connector roads to connect eastern and north-eastern villa areas (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.21). Council’s engineering support indicates that the amended internal road layout is acceptable, but the officer report still requires reinstatement of the one-sided internal footpath network that existed in the original approval (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.31,34-35). This shows DPO16 operating as a movement and accessibility control as well as a land-use control, because added yield cannot come at the cost of removing the pedestrian network embedded in the approved design (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.31,34-35).
Biodiversity, Native Vegetation, and Conservation Areas
The flora and fauna assessment covers an approximately 23.3-hectare study area in New Gisborne and was updated in August 2025 to consider defined structural root zones, tree protection zones, and previous permitted clearing (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.43). The study area contains 6.123 hectares of native vegetation in patches across 16 habitat zones and includes 114 large trees within those patches (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.60-63). The same assessment records 46 scattered trees, comprising 17 large scattered trees and 29 small scattered trees (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.63).
The dominant ecological frame is Higher Rainfall Plains Grassy Woodland, because all recorded habitat zones are assigned to Higher Rainfall Plains Grassy Woodland EVC 55_63 (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.60-63). The site is not an intact woodland remnant, because the assessment describes mown understorey, ornamental gardens, orchards, exotic grassland, a large dam, and high-threat weeds including Hawthorn, Blackberry, Sweet Briar, Spear Thistle, and Gorse (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.44,60-62). The planning value is therefore not simply preservation of untouched vegetation; it is management of fragmented remnant vegetation, hollow-bearing trees, drainage-line habitat, and revegetation obligations inside a changing urban edge (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.60-63,79-81).
The amendment reduces approved native vegetation removal from 1.457 hectares to 1.316 hectares in the officer report, and reduces large-tree removal from 32 large trees to 23 large trees (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.22,32). The final DEECA permit conditions use a slightly different quantified removal figure of 1.41 hectares, comprising 0.683 hectares of native vegetation patches including 16 large trees, 7 scattered large trees, and 15 scattered small trees (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.45-46). The difference between the 1.316-hectare officer-summary figure and the 1.41-hectare DEECA-condition figure is an analytical warning that the native-vegetation accounting is technically sensitive and should be checked against the endorsed Native Vegetation Removal Report before relying on a single headline number (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.22,32,45-46).
The offset obligation is 0.5950 general habitat units, with a minimum strategic biodiversity value of 0.6289, located within the Melbourne Water Catchment Management boundary or the Macedon Ranges municipal area, and protecting at least 23 large trees (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.45-46). The flora and fauna assessment states that the required offset is available from the Native Vegetation Credit Register and would be secured following approval, which means the biodiversity loss is being handled through the Victorian avoid-minimise-offset mechanism rather than entirely through on-site retention (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.43,74-75). The practical planning consequence is that DPO16 allows some vegetation loss, but only where it is quantified, referred to DEECA, offset, and paired with conservation-area management and tree-protection conditions (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.40-46).
The avoid-and-minimise pathway relies heavily on the New Gisborne Development Plan because the flora and fauna assessment states that the Hansen Partnership 2015 plan identified two vegetation-retention areas north and south of the Melbourne Water drainage corridor (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.73). Site-level planning then places most lots and internal roads in areas of non-native vegetation, avoids the south-eastern conservation area, and avoids impacts to large trees outside conservation areas where feasible (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.73). The reported use of cellular confinement systems and reduced construction buffers allows an additional 17 trees to be retained, showing how engineering detail changes the ecological outcome after the strategic plan has set the broad conservation structure (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.73).
Waterways, Drainage, and Stormwater Dependency
The site contains a declared waterway and land associated with Melbourne Water drainage infrastructure, so the development plan is constrained by both flooding and water-quality management rather than by ordinary lot drainage alone (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.15). Melbourne Water conditions require a waterway reserve to be vested to Council and a 20-metre setback easement measured from the top of bank on both sides of the waterway in favour of Melbourne Water, with the top of bank determined as the Q100 flood line (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.47). Melbourne Water also requires new lots to be filled at least 300 millimetres above the 1-in-100-year flood levels associated with any pipeline and at least 600 millimetres above the 1-in-100-year flood level associated with any wetland, retarding basin, or waterway (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.46-47).
The stormwater strategy states that the development footprint occupies approximately 11.2 hectares excluding the waterway, wetland, and conservation areas (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.326). Stormwater is proposed to discharge to a wetland documented by Spiire as part of the regional stormwater management strategy, and the Westera strategy expressly states that it does not replace the regional Spiire strategy prepared for Melbourne Water (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.324,326). The development sits within Melbourne Water Drainage Scheme 6985, in catchment 9 and part of catchment 10, and stormwater management is addressed through retarding basin RB1 and wetland WL1 (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.330).
The internal drainage network is designed for flows up to the 1 percent AEP storm event because the internal road network has limited overland-flow capacity while maintaining dwelling and pedestrian accessibility (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.329). The design also assumes 50 percent blockage to grated inlets during the 1 percent AEP event, which is a conservative modelling assumption intended to protect buildings during major storm events (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.329). This is a key cause-and-effect relationship: a compact retirement-village layout reduces overland-flow capacity in streets, so the piped drainage system carries a higher burden, which in turn makes connection to the regional wetland and retarding basin critical (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.328-331).
Melbourne Water’s earlier referral concerns were that the application had not sufficiently demonstrated stormwater retardation, integrated water management, restriction of downstream flows to pre-development levels, lawful outfall, offsite drainage security, interim drainage, or consistency with the New Gisborne Development Services Scheme (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.392-393). The applicant response was that the Westera stormwater strategy identifies the lawful point of discharge as the Spiire-designed wetland and that the wetland will be developed at the same time as the site, making an interim solution unnecessary (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.392-393). The residual risk is therefore not whether a stormwater concept exists, but whether regional drainage infrastructure is delivered in the same sequence as the retirement village works (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.324,330,392-393).
Heritage and Landscape Interface
Westport is protected by Heritage Overlay Schedule 270, and the heritage place includes external paint controls, tree controls, solar energy system controls, and the ability to consider otherwise prohibited uses (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.287). The 2011 citation identifies Westport as historically, aesthetically, and architecturally significant to Macedon Ranges Shire, including its association with the Hamilton family, Indian Bungalow architecture, and landscaped setting (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.287-288). The 1994 citation identifies Westport as part of the Ferrier Road group of Indian Bungalow designs once sited within extensive display gardens, which makes the garden setting a heritage issue rather than just a landscaping issue (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.287-288).
The heritage impact statement describes the house as substantially intact, with hipped main roof, gabled attic dormers, red brick chimneys, and encircling verandah, but notes deterioration including removed floorboards and deterioration in windows and garden setting since earlier assessment (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.280-282). The gardens are described as neglected but still legible as semi-secluded interconnected gardens south of the homestead, with formal garden areas, a former stable garden, orchard elements, exotic trees, and surviving Monterey Cypress along the northern boundary (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.280-281). The development therefore has two heritage tasks: retain the built heritage fabric and keep enough garden structure for the place to remain interpretable (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.296-301).
The heritage assessment accepts partial demolition and new works because the original house and former stables are retained, the rear post-war cottage and shed are not treated as significant, and the clubhouse addition is located at the rear in the area of greatest previous change (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.295-297). The revised villas are more contemporary than the earlier scheme but retain pitched roofs, single-storey height, metal roofs, timber elements, and entry porches, which the heritage assessment treats as compatible design cues rather than replication (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.297-298). The main risk is incremental setting loss, because the heritage impact statement accepts a reduced garden setting only on the basis that formal gardens, mature exotic trees, the western driveway landscape, stable garden, orchard renewal, and homestead views remain legible (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.296-301).
Tree removal in the heritage precinct is not the same as native-vegetation removal, because many trees are exotic orchard or garden trees that contribute differently to heritage significance (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.22,30-31). The amendment proposes removal of 24 additional non-native trees within HO270, including Apples numbered 92C-95C, Common Aspen numbered 55C-60C, and orchard Apples numbered 96C-120C (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.22). Council’s officer assessment accepts the removal because the Common Aspen trees are not treated as significant structural heritage elements and because the orchard is proposed to be replaced with more resilient fruit-bearing species (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.31).
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage and Ground Disturbance
The planning property report states that all or part of 72 Ferrier Road is an area of Aboriginal cultural heritage sensitivity (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.268). The council officer assessment records that the proposal involves significant ground disturbance, is not exempt, is a high-impact activity, and therefore requires a Cultural Heritage Management Plan under the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.25). A CHMP approved under Part 4 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 was submitted and formed part of the original PLN/2019/315 assessment, and Council did not require an amended CHMP because the amendment does not change the approved use, development, or footprint (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.25-26).
The mechanism is similar to DPO16’s broader logic: if the amended works stay inside the already assessed activity footprint, the original cultural heritage approval continues to carry the assessment burden (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.25-26). The risk is that any later expansion outside the assessed footprint would likely reopen Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment requirements because the sensitivity trigger and high-impact activity trigger are already confirmed (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.25).
Infrastructure Contributions, Servicing, and Public Assets
The permit requires the owner to enter agreements with relevant authorities for water supply, drainage, sewerage, electricity, and gas services to each lot shown on the endorsed subdivision plan (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.35). Greater Western Water, referred to in the permit conditions as Western Water, requires an Integrated Water Management Plan incorporating water-efficiency measures and water-sensitive urban design techniques that reduce reliance on potable water by increasing fit-for-purpose alternative water supplies (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.47-48). Western Water also requires the operator to enter an agreement for the design and construction of sewerage or water works required for the development (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.48).
The permit requires a Section 173 Agreement that includes payment of development contributions under the Development Contributions Plan Gisborne/New Gisborne DCPO2, calculated per dwelling or unit as equivalent to the per residential lot demand figure for Residential Area 1 and adjusted annually on 1 July (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.36). The same agreement requires a pedestrian footbridge to be provided at the applicant’s cost before Statement of Compliance, maintained by the permit holder for at least 12 months after construction, and then taken over by Council (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.36). This creates a clear public-asset transfer pathway: private works deliver the bridge, private maintenance covers the initial liability period, and Council becomes the long-term asset manager after handover (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.36).
The Annual Report records that Council received 165,978 in Gisborne Development Plan levies in 2024-25 and held a Gisborne development plan reserve balance of 1.375 million at the end of the 2024-25 reporting period (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.685,736). The same Annual Report states that no land, works, services, or facilities were delivered in 2024-25 using DCP levies collected (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.685). The funding implication is that contributions are being collected and reserved, but the source documents do not identify which Gisborne/New Gisborne capital works are next to be delivered from those funds (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.685,736-737).
Referrals, Objections, and Decision Pathway
The amendment was referred to DEECA, Council engineering, Council heritage, and Council environment officers, with DEECA providing conditional consent and Council engineering providing consent with no changes to conditions (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.26). Council recorded one objection to the amendment even though public notice was not required because DPO16 exempts notice and appeal rights where an approved development plan is in place (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.14,26). The objection count therefore should not be read as a measure of community concern across the full New Gisborne Development Plan area, because the statutory pathway narrowed formal third-party participation at the permit-amendment stage (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.14,26).
The RFI history shows several issues were contested or unresolved during assessment, including heritage garden impacts, DEECA’s concerns about the native vegetation three-step approach, inconsistency between design footprints and vegetation mapping, cumulative native-vegetation impacts, and Melbourne Water concerns about stormwater quantity, integrated water management, downstream flows, drainage outfall, and the New Gisborne Development Services Scheme (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.388-393). The applicant response package included an updated landscape plan, updated heritage impact statement, stormwater management strategy, heritage landscape letter, section 50 form, and updated flora and fauna report (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.387-388). This assessment history shows that the final officer recommendation relied on iterative technical correction rather than a simple confirmation that the original approved development plan remained unchanged (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.388-393; Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.31-33).
Current Status
As at the 22 October 2025 scheduled Council meeting agenda, officers recommended issuing an amended planning permit for PLN/2019/315/A at 72 and 74 Ferrier Road, New Gisborne, subject to amended conditions (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.15,34-50). The amended conditions require further plan changes before endorsement, including removal of lot 108, changes to lot 113, reinstatement of the internal one-sided footpath network, removal of business-identification signage from the stone wall, clarification of custom-lot villa types, amended floor plans for specified lots, conservation-area fencing permeability, and removal of white hatching on land west of the site (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.34-35). The permit expiry table records that the permit was extended on 6 August 2025 so development must start and the subdivision must be certified by 30 July 2026, with development completed by 30 July 2028 (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.49-50).
Dependencies
- Blocks: Works on the retirement village are blocked until endorsed plans, engineering plans, native vegetation offset evidence, tree-protection measures, relevant Melbourne Water approvals, and required management plans are approved or satisfied (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.34-48).
- Blocks: Statement of Compliance is blocked until the Section 173 Agreement is registered, the pedestrian footbridge obligations are satisfied, Melbourne Water subdivision requirements are addressed, land restoration works for Conservation Reserve Area 2 are completed, and required road-reserve landscaping works are completed (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.36,42-43,46-47).
- Blocked by: Native vegetation removal is blocked until the required offset evidence is secured and provided to the responsible authority (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.45-46).
- Blocked by: Drainage delivery is dependent on Melbourne Water acceptance of surface and stormwater, regional wetland and retarding-basin delivery, and engineering confirmation of 1 percent AEP flow paths (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.37-38,46-47; Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.324,329-331).
- Blocked by: Water and sewer servicing are dependent on agreement with the relevant water authority for required water and sewerage works (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.35,47-48).
- Informed by: The available assessment package includes Nature Advisory’s flora and fauna assessment, Homewood Consulting’s tree protection management plan, Trethowan’s heritage impact statement, John Patrick’s heritage landscape input, MDG’s landscape plans, Westera’s stormwater management strategy, and the Council officer report (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.39,227,275,302,324,387-388; Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.14-50).
- Implements: The permit and DPO16 framework implement Macedon Ranges Statement of Planning Policy objectives for settlement growth within town boundaries, protection of significant landscapes, biodiversity, ecological values, catchments, and infrastructure provision (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.22-23).
- Conflicts with: The available record shows tension between added villa yield, fixed development footprint, native vegetation retention, heritage garden retention, and stormwater conveyance, but the officer report treats those tensions as manageable through revised plans and conditions (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.27-35).
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
Melbourne Water is a central cross-agency dependency because the site drains to regional stormwater infrastructure within Drainage Scheme 6985 and requires waterway reserve, easement, flood-level, bridge, construction, and stormwater-acceptance approvals (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.46-47; Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.330). DEECA is a key biodiversity referral authority because the native vegetation removal falls in the Detailed assessment pathway and requires offsets meeting specified location, strategic biodiversity value, and large-tree protection attributes (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.32,45-46). The relevant water authority is a servicing dependency because the permit requires an Integrated Water Management Plan and agreement for required water and sewerage works (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.47-48). VicTrack is a boundary-management dependency because the land adjoins railway land and conditions require railway-boundary fencing, graffiti treatment, drainage protection, and limits on planting near railway land (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.48). CFA is a fire-servicing dependency because hydrants must be provided within specified distances of building envelopes or lots (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.48).
Gaps in This Analysis
The primary New Gisborne Development Plan prepared by Hansen Partnership in 2015 is referenced but not included as a source document, which prevents full analysis of the original development-plan land budget, staging logic, interfaces, and adopted plan maps (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.55,73,390). The New Gisborne Conservation Management Plan prepared by Brett Lane & Associates in 2013 is referenced but not included as a source document, which prevents full analysis of required buffers, marshland hydrology, Growling Grass Frog and migratory bird management, and long-term conservation obligations (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.55,80-81). The full DPO16 schedule is quoted only through secondary excerpts in the flora and fauna assessment and applicant response, so the complete statutory wording, exemptions, and decision requirements should be checked against the current Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.79-81,390-391).
The Development Contributions Plan Gisborne/New Gisborne DCPO2 is not included, so this page cannot calculate the per-dwelling or per-lot contribution amount, the infrastructure project list, indexation basis, or whether the 116-villa amendment changes the expected contribution total (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.36). The New Gisborne Stormwater Management Strategy by Spiire and Melbourne Water Drainage Scheme 6985 technical package are referenced but not included, so this page cannot verify the regional wetland, RB1, WL1, catchment 9 and 10 sizing, or whether regional works are fully funded and staged (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.324,330). The adopted Council resolution from the 22 October 2025 meeting is not included in the manifest, so the current status is limited to the officer recommendation rather than the final Council decision (Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, pp.14-15).
These should be logged as corpus gaps in _gaps because they are primary or near-primary documents needed for a complete analysis of New Gisborne, DPO16, DCPO2, Melbourne Water Drainage Scheme 6985, and Gisborne Racecourse Marshlands Reserve (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.55,80-81,324,330,390-391; Source: final-agenda-council-meeting-22-october-2025_1.pdf, p.36).