title: Riddells Creek CFA Community Safety Building at 180 Main Road council: macedon-ranges state: vic category: infrastructure classification: MINOR status: approved last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf
- 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf
- 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf
Riddells Creek CFA Community Safety Building at 180 Main Road
The Riddells Creek CFA Community Safety Building is a local emergency-services infrastructure approval that relocates the brigade function from the existing 67 Main Road facility to a new fire station at 180 Main Road because the existing station was described as no longer fit for purpose. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.147) Its planning significance is not land-supply scale, but mechanism scale: a non-residential emergency-services use is being inserted into a Neighbourhood Residential Zone setting beside Main Road, so the approval turns on whether emergency response, residential amenity, road access, parking, vegetation, stormwater, and school-bus safety can be managed by permit conditions. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.16-17)
Background
The application is PLN/2025/109 for use and development of land for an emergency services facility, described as a fire station, and for creating access to a road in the Transport Zone 2 at Lot 18 LP111070, 180 Main Road, Riddells Creek. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.16-17) The permit triggers were Clause 32.09-2 for use of land as an emergency services facility, Clause 32.09-10 for buildings and works associated with that use, and Clause 52.29-2 for creating or altering access to a Transport Zone 2 road. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.16)
The subject land is in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 7 and had no overlays identified in the council officer report. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.16, 25) The site is on the north-western side of Main Road, is approximately 4,097 square metres, has a 42 metre frontage and 97 metre depth, and is accessed from an unsealed Main Road service road. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.17) The previous single-storey dwelling had been demolished before the council report, and the site was vacant of buildings at the time of assessment. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.17)
The council report records that the application was received on 16 April 2025, advertised on 2 September 2025, and referred to the Council meeting because nine objections were received, exceeding the reporting threshold of more than five objections. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.16, 35) A consultation meeting occurred on 13 November 2025 between the applicant, CFA representatives, objectors who attended, planning officers, and councillors. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.28)
Analysis
Planning mechanism and land-use fit
The approval uses the planning scheme’s capacity for limited non-residential uses in residential areas rather than rezoning the land. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.28-29) The council officer report frames the key planning test as a balance between a local emergency service that must be near the population it serves and a residential context where noise, traffic, lighting, building bulk, vegetation loss, and safety concerns are more sensitive than in a commercial or civic precinct. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.27-36)
The statutory pathway is relatively narrow: the use is permissible with a permit in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, the buildings and works require approval, and the Main Road access requires Transport Zone 2 permission. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.16) This means the proposal did not require a planning scheme amendment, but it did require a merits assessment of whether the non-residential use would serve local community needs in an appropriate location. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.28-29)
The policy tension is clear. Clause 19.02-5S seeks suitable locations for emergency services, including in or near activity centres and together in newly developing areas, while the site is in a residential zone about 1.1 kilometres north-east of Bolithos Street and generally near the Riddells Creek activity centre. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.29) The officer report also states that broader strategic policy for managing emergency services within settlements had not been prepared for Macedon Ranges Shire, which leaves the application to be resolved through site-specific statutory assessment rather than a shire-wide emergency-services location framework. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.28)
Built form, site layout, and residential character
The proposed main emergency-services building is single storey, has a maximum height of approximately 6.61 metres to the roof apex, and is set back approximately 17.055 metres from the front boundary, 7.365 metres from the south-west side boundary, 3.2 metres from the north-east side boundary, and 53.7 metres from the rear boundary. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.21) The supporting town planning report gives a similar built-form description, including a 461 square metre main building containing a three-bay motor room, turnout room, drying room, workshop, offices, multi-purpose room, kitchen, storage, toilets, and communications rooms. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.153)
The most conspicuous element is the hose drying tower, which is approximately 20 metres high and located in the rear setback. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.24) The officer assessment treats the tower as visually noticeable but not a decisive amenity impact because it is narrow, visually permeable, and made of poles rather than an enclosed mass. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.32)
The character issue is that Schedule 7 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and the local Riddells Creek neighbourhood character policy seek spacious, low-scale, well-vegetated residential settings. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.29-30) The officer report found the proposal acceptable against this context because the building is single storey except for the tower, uses muted colours, retains much rear vegetation, adds front setback planting, avoids street-tree loss from the extra crossover, and keeps the ancillary shed and tanks modest and set back. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.30)
Operating profile and amenity controls
The operating model is a volunteer brigade rather than a permanently staffed station. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.20) The facility is proposed to cater for 33 active operational members and total membership of 56, with no permanent staff on site. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.20) Call-outs were recorded as averaging about 154 per year, including 29 primary responses, with day-to-day call-outs typically involving up to 10 volunteers and large fire events involving up to 25 responders and support members on site. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.20)
The amenity mechanism is therefore frequency management rather than elimination of impacts. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.30-33) Council did not require an acoustic report because the primary noise sources were expected to be emergency sirens and equipment used in emergencies, which the officer report described as exempt noise sources under the Environment Protection Regulations 2021. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.31) That leaves non-emergency activity, such as training, meetings, siren testing, lighting, and general site operation, to be managed through conditions. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.31, 38-39)
The recommended conditions prohibit external sound amplification or loudspeakers for announcements or broadcasts, restrict vehicle sirens to vehicles in transit to emergency call-outs, limit emergency-siren testing to 11am to 1pm on Sundays unless otherwise approved or required by emergency circumstances, and restrict training exercises to Sundays from 10am to 1pm and Mondays and Tuesdays from 7pm to 9pm unless varied by written consent. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.38) The conditions also allow the responsible authority to require an acoustic assessment if there is reasonable cause for concern that the use is adversely affecting locality amenity by noise emissions from the site, although this condition excludes noise generated by emergency-services vehicle sirens. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.38-39)
Traffic, access, and emergency response
Transport is the binding operational issue because the station needs fast access to Main Road while the site fronts a service road, has a nearby school bus shelter, and sits close to the future traffic influence of the Amess Road Precinct Structure Plan. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.33-35) Main Road is part of the Principal Road Network and is zoned Transport Zone 2, so direct or altered access required Clause 52.29 assessment and referral to Head, Transport for Victoria. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.16, 33-34)
Trafficworks assessed the road network as Main Road, Main Road Service Road, and Sandy Creek Road, and recorded Main Road as a secondary state arterial with a 70 km/h speed limit, an approximately 6.8 metre main carriageway, an approximately 5.5 metre service road, and a 60 metre road reservation. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.98, 103-104) The same report estimated 2020 two-way annual average daily traffic on Main Road between Sandy Creek Road and Edwards Street at 4,500 vehicles per day, applied a 3.6 percent annual growth rate, and estimated 2025 two-way peak-hour traffic at 537 vehicles per hour. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.107)
The Trafficworks assessment concluded that the proposed station was likely to generate a peak emergency traffic volume of 56 vehicles per hour and that there were no traffic engineering reasons preventing the development from proceeding, subject to recommendations. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.98-99) Those recommendations included sealing Main Road Service Road between Sandy Creek Road and the southern property boundary, checking driveway sight-distance compliance during detailed design, and installing static warning signs about 80 metres in advance on both Main Road approaches. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.98-99)
The officer report records that Head, Transport for Victoria did not object after further information was supplied, subject to conditions. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.34) The final condition set is more prescriptive than a simple access approval: it limits the layout to one restricted emergency access from the Main Road service road directly to Main Road, one access point from the land to the service road, physical measures restricting the direct Main Road access to emergency vehicles, warning signage, formalisation of a school bus hardstand and associated car parking, a functional layout plan, and a functional-layout-stage road safety audit. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.40-41)
The Amess Road Precinct Structure Plan is a downstream traffic consideration rather than a direct approval dependency. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.34) The officer report states that the Amess Road PSP is expected to facilitate approximately 1,360 new dwellings and around 3,800 additional residents, and that the Riddells Creek Strategic Plan Movement Network Plan 2024-2033 identifies a potential upgrade of the Main Road, Amess Road, and Sandy Creek Road intersection involving realignment and a four-leg roundabout. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.34) The officer report’s mechanism is that a future roundabout could limit service-road access via Sandy Creek Road, so direct emergency access to Main Road is proposed in both the short term and long term to preserve response times. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.34)
Parking and event demand
The planning scheme does not specify a car-parking rate for an emergency services facility, so parking is assessed to the responsible authority’s satisfaction. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.33) The proposal provides 23 formal car spaces plus three internal appliance spaces, while the car-parking demand assessment identified likely peak demand of 25 car spaces. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.24, 33) The practical shortfall is two formal spaces under the assumed peak, with the officer report accepting surrounding on-street capacity for occasional overflow rather than requiring more hardstand that could displace vegetation or landscaping. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.33)
The highest-attendance activities are not daily operations. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.20) Monthly brigade business meetings are typically attended by up to 25 members, training sessions by an average of 25 members, an annual election night by up to 40 attendees, an annual awards event by up to 60 people including family members, and an annual open day by up to 40 people. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.20) The approval therefore accepts occasional parking pressure as a management issue rather than treating annual events as the design baseline for permanent parking supply. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.20, 33)
Biodiversity, vegetation, and cultural heritage
The biodiversity evidence is site-specific but limited by survey scope. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.7) The biodiversity assessment states that targeted surveys for threatened flora and fauna were not completed, some grasses and herbs could not be identified to species level because flowering or fruiting material was absent, and the site assessment was undertaken on 18 September 2023 by an accredited ecologist. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.7, 9)
The biodiversity assessment describes the 0.41 hectare site as highly modified, mostly planted exotic and planted native vegetation, with trees likely to provide habitat for birds and arboreal mammals. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.7, 9) Three scattered trees were identified in neighbouring parcels: two Manna Gums with DBH values of 55 centimetres and 75 centimetres and TPZs of 6.6 metres and 9 metres, and one River Red Gum with a DBH of 35 centimetres and a TPZ of 4.2 metres. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.9)
The biodiversity conclusion was that a planning permit for native vegetation removal under Clause 52.17 was not required, contingent on retention of the three adjacent scattered trees and avoiding more than 10 percent TPZ impact. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.14) The permit conditions operationalise that conclusion by requiring tree protection fencing around Trees 56, 57, and 58 before development starts, maintaining the fencing until development is complete, applying mulch and watering in the Tree Protection Zones except where impermeable surfaces exist, and limiting access into those zones to approved works. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.37-38)
The council officer report found that the site is within an area of Aboriginal cultural heritage sensitivity, that the proposal involves significant ground disturbance and a high-impact activity, and that a Cultural Heritage Management Plan was required. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.26) The officer report states that a CHMP prepared by a suitably qualified and registered person had been approved under Part 4 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.26) The attachments include the applicant’s March 2025 statement that a CHMP was still being finalised, so the council report appears to provide the later status at the time of decision. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.166; Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.26)
Stormwater and civil works
Stormwater risk is managed through detailed engineering conditions rather than a fully analysed public drainage design in the available source set. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.39-40) Before works start, engineering plans must address civil and drainage infrastructure, legal point of discharge, drainage of stormwater from buildings, tanks and paved areas, an underground on-site detention system, 1 percent AEP flow paths, and treatment infrastructure satisfying the Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.39)
The detention condition is specific: post-development 10 percent AEP discharge must be reduced to the 20 percent AEP pre-development discharge. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.39) That condition is the main control responding to objector concerns about increased impermeable surfaces and runoff to surrounding properties. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.27, 39)
The civil works obligations also include a service-road upgrade from Sandy Creek Road to Edwards Street with a minimum 7.3 metre carriageway, footpath, underground drainage, kerb and channel, full-depth pavement design, and at least 60 millimetres of hot mix asphalt. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.39-40) Before use commences, the service road from Sandy Creek Road to Edwards Street must be upgraded to a sealed road to the responsible authority’s satisfaction. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.40)
Objections and how the approval responded
Nine objections were received, and the recorded themes included noise from sirens and training, traffic capacity, access functionality, school-bus shelter safety, vegetation loss, cost, the option of upgrading the existing 67 Main Road facility, proximity to homes, building bulk, biodiversity impacts, runoff, property values, privacy, the unsealed service road, parking supply, pedestrian safety, the Main Road and Amess Road intersection, consultation, security, and transparency of the application process. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.27-28)
The council response separated planning matters from non-planning matters. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.35-36) Property devaluation was not treated as a valid planning consideration, demolition of the previous dwelling and some vegetation removal were not treated as within the permit scope because they did not require planning permission, and whether the existing 67 Main Road station could be repurposed was not treated as determinative because the application before council was for a new fire station at 180 Main Road. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.35-36)
The substantive planning objections were addressed through conditions rather than refusal. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.37-42) Noise is constrained by operating-hour conditions and a possible future acoustic report; lighting must be baffled and motion activated; the bus shelter must be relocated at least 50 metres from the development before use commences; road access is limited and physically controlled; the service road must be sealed; and stormwater must be detained, treated, and discharged to an approved legal point. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.37-42)
Current Status
On 17 December 2025, Council resolved as Resolution 2025/167 to support Planning Permit Application PLN/2025/109 and issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for use and development of the land for an emergency services facility and creation of access to a Transport Zone 2 road at Lot 18 LP111070, 180 Main Road, Riddells Creek, subject to conditions. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.7) The minutes record the motion as moved by Cr Rob Guthrie, seconded by Cr Andrew Scanlon, and carried. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.7)
The available corpus does not include the final issued permit, any VCAT appeal material, building permit material, detailed engineering approvals, or confirmation that construction commenced. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.7; Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.37-42) The recommended expiry framework states that the permit expires if development is not commenced within three years, completed within five years, or the use not commenced within two years of development completion, subject to possible extension under section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.42)
Dependencies
- Blocks: The new fire station use cannot commence until key pre-use conditions are satisfied, including bus shelter relocation, landscaping, service-road upgrade, construction of approved engineering works, and completion of required road works to the satisfaction of Head, Transport for Victoria and the responsible authority. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.37-42)
- Blocked by: Commencement of buildings and works is blocked by amended plans, tree protection fencing, engineering plans, a Site Management Plan, a Head, Transport for Victoria functional layout plan, and a functional-layout-stage road safety audit. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.37-41)
- Informed by: The decision was informed by the application documentation, Trafficworks Traffic Impact Assessment, Howell Arboriculture tree assessment, DJCS biodiversity assessment, car-parking assessment, referral responses from Head, Transport for Victoria and council units, and an approved CHMP. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.24, 26-27; Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.7, 98)
- Implements: The approval implements local emergency-services infrastructure in line with Clause 19.02-5S, which seeks suitable locations for police, fire, ambulance, and other emergency services, and it is assessed in the context of bushfire policy that prioritises protection of human life. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.28-29, 36)
- Conflicts with: The proposal creates local tension with residential amenity, Riddells Creek neighbourhood character objectives, school-bus operations, service-road function, and future traffic changes associated with the Amess Road PSP area. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.27-35)
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
The main cross-agency link is Head, Transport for Victoria because the proposal affects Main Road, a Transport Zone 2 road forming part of the Principal Road Network. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.16, 33-34) Head, Transport for Victoria’s conditions require a functional layout plan, road safety audit, emergency-only access controls, warning signage, bus hardstand formalisation, and completion of road works at no cost to Head, Transport for Victoria. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.40-41)
The proposal also links to the Amess Road Precinct Structure Plan because future residential development opposite and near the site is expected to generate substantially more traffic than the fire station, and the potential Main Road, Amess Road, and Sandy Creek Road roundabout may affect Main Road service-road access. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.34) This means the emergency access design is not only a response to current road conditions but also a hedge against future intersection reconfiguration. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.34)
The cultural heritage pathway links the project to the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 because the site is within an area of Aboriginal cultural heritage sensitivity, the works involve significant ground disturbance and high-impact activity, and an approved CHMP was required before the statutory planning decision could be supported. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.26)
Gaps in This Analysis
The final issued planning permit and endorsed plans are not in the manifest, so this page relies on the council agenda conditions and confirmed minutes rather than a stamped permit package. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.37-42; Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.7) This limits verification of whether any conditions changed between the recommended Notice of Decision and the final permit. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.7)
The approved Cultural Heritage Management Plan is not included, even though the officer report states one had been approved. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.26) This prevents analysis of any cultural heritage management conditions, salvage requirements, monitoring obligations, or construction constraints that may sit outside the planning permit. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.26)
The final Head, Transport for Victoria functional layout plan, road safety audit, and detailed service-road engineering plans are not included. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.39-41) This limits the ability to assess the final geometry of emergency access, bus hardstand relocation, warning-sign placement, and whether the future Amess Road roundabout design is fully compatible with the station access strategy. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.34, 40-41)
The corpus does not include any later appeal, review, construction, or compliance record after the 17 December 2025 Notice of Decision resolution. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.7) This means current implementation status after the council decision remains unverified. (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.7)