Grange Planning Brain

title: Amendment GC116 - Beveridge Central Planning Controls council: mitchell state: vic category: amendment classification: MAJOR status: approved last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:

  • web-research-L1-amendment-gc116-planning-api.txt
  • web-research-L1-gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.txt
  • GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf
  • web-research-L1-gc116-explanatory-report-planning-schemes.txt
  • 45_11s02_mith.pdf

Amendment GC116 - Beveridge Central Planning Controls

Amendment GC116 was a state-led holding mechanism for infrastructure funding across five approved Precinct Structure Plan areas, including the Beveridge Central PSP in Mitchell Shire. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) Its practical effect in Beveridge Central was not to approve new urban land use controls, but to place an Infrastructure Contributions Overlay schedule over the PSP land while the detailed Infrastructure Contributions Plan was still being prepared. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf; Source: 45_11s02_mith.pdf)

The amendment matters because it separated two planning decisions that often arrive together: the PSP land-use framework had already been approved through Amendment GC55, while GC116 prevented subdivision, use and development from moving ahead without a future infrastructure-contributions mechanism. (Source: web-research-L1-gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.txt; Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)

Background

The Beveridge Central PSP was approved through Amendment GC55 to the Mitchell and Whittlesea Planning Schemes, which incorporated the Beveridge Central Precinct Structure Plan, May 2018 into the Mitchell Planning Scheme, inserted Urban Growth Zone Schedule 5, rezoned land to UGZ5, applied overlays and made consequential changes to facilitate urban development within the precinct. (Source: web-research-L1-gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.txt)

GC116 followed as a separate amendment prepared by the Minister for Planning as the planning authority. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) It applied to PSP areas approved through Casey Amendment C221pt1 for Cardinia Creek South, Casey Amendment C228 for Minta Farm, Hume Amendment C207 for Sunbury South, Hume Amendment C208 for Lancefield Road, and Amendment GC55 for Beveridge Central. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)

For Mitchell, GC116 inserted Schedule 2 to Clause 45.11 Infrastructure Contributions Overlay and applied it to land in the Beveridge Central PSP. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) It also amended the Schedule to Clause 72.03 to insert new Planning Scheme Map No. 23, inserted Planning Scheme Map No. 23 to apply ICO2 to Beveridge Central PSP land, and amended Planning Scheme Map No. 24 to apply ICO2 to Beveridge Central PSP land. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)

Analysis

The Planning Mechanism: A Holding Overlay, Not the Contributions Plan

GC116 introduced Clause 45.11 Infrastructure Contributions Overlay into the Hume and Casey Planning Schemes and inserted ICO schedules into the Hume, Casey and Mitchell Planning Schemes. (Source: web-research-L1-amendment-gc116-planning-api.txt; Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) Mitchell did not need the base Clause 45.11 inserted by GC116 in the same way as Hume and Casey; the Mitchell-specific action was the insertion and mapping of Schedule 2 to Clause 45.11 over the Beveridge Central PSP. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)

The Schedule 2 instrument for Mitchell contained no operative content at approval: the schedule was labelled as ICO2 and stated “NO CONTENT”. (Source: 45_11s02_mith.pdf) That matters because the amendment did not itself set levy rates, list infrastructure items, identify land-credit arrangements, or incorporate a final Infrastructure Contributions Plan. (Source: 45_11s02_mith.pdf; Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)

The under-the-hood mechanism is therefore simple: the PSP opened the door to urban development through GC55, while GC116 placed a gate on the same land so that subdivision, use and development would not proceed before infrastructure contributions were ready. (Source: web-research-L1-gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.txt; Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) In everyday terms, GC55 set out the future neighbourhood plan, while GC116 put a temporary lock on the door until the infrastructure payment rules could be fitted. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)

Why the Amendment Was Required

The explanatory report states that Infrastructure Contributions Plans were being prepared for the affected PSP areas and that those ICPs required further work before they could be approved and incorporated into the relevant planning schemes. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) The stated purpose of GC116 was to ensure subdivision, use and development within the PSP land did not commence before finalised ICPs were included. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)

This makes the amendment a sequencing control rather than a growth-area design document. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) The design and zoning framework for Beveridge Central came through GC55, while GC116 dealt with the risk that land could start developing before the infrastructure-funding regime was settled. (Source: web-research-L1-gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.txt; Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)

The planning risk being managed was a mismatch between development timing and infrastructure funding. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) If development occurred before an ICP was approved, future residents could arrive without a complete mechanism to collect contributions for community, transport, open-space or other PSP-related infrastructure. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)

Beveridge Central Implications

For Beveridge Central, the immediate statutory change was the application of ICO2 across the PSP land shown on Mitchell Planning Scheme Maps 23 and 24. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) The practical consequence was that the Beveridge Central PSP became subject to an infrastructure-contributions overlay while the final ICP work remained incomplete. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf; Source: 45_11s02_mith.pdf)

The amendment did not change the land-use policy settings, built-form policy, development scale, or PSP spatial structure for Beveridge Central. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) The explanatory report states that GC116 was concerned with infrastructure funding and did not propose to alter policy of land use or the form and scale of development in the affected PSP areas. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)

This distinction is important for interpreting the amendment. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) GC116 should not be read as evidence that Beveridge Central’s land-use layout, densities, town-centre role, open-space network, biodiversity response, drainage system or transport network were reconsidered in this amendment. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) Those matters sit in the PSP and related amendment material approved through GC55, which is only briefly referenced in the available Gazette extract. (Source: web-research-L1-gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.txt)

Infrastructure Funding Logic

The amendment’s central planning logic is that growth-area development should not proceed ahead of a contributions framework that funds the infrastructure needed by that growth. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) The explanatory report says the amendment was expected to have a positive effect by preventing development and subdivision in several PSP areas before infrastructure contributions were required. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)

The mechanism was also described as protecting the economic wellbeing of the community by delaying private-sector investment in development until comparable infrastructure could be provided as development occurred. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) In planning terms, the amendment tried to avoid an infrastructure backlog by tying development timing to the future introduction of contributions. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)

The available Schedule 2 document does not identify the infrastructure items to be funded for Beveridge Central. (Source: 45_11s02_mith.pdf) It also does not provide a per-hectare levy, per-dwelling estimate, land-credit method, project-cost schedule, apportionment method, or staging trigger. (Source: 45_11s02_mith.pdf) Those omissions are not defects in the extracted schedule; they reflect the stated purpose of inserting a blank schedule while the ICP work continued. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf; Source: 45_11s02_mith.pdf)

Policy and Statutory Fit

The explanatory report links GC116 to section 4(1) objectives of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, including orderly development, safe and efficient living environments, coordinated provision of public utilities and facilities, facilitation of development, and balancing present and future interests. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) Those objectives align with the amendment’s role as a timing and infrastructure-coordination control. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)

The explanatory report says GC116 was prepared having regard to Ministerial Direction 9 and Plan Melbourne 2017-2050. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) It identifies Plan Melbourne outcomes and directions relating to housing supply in the right locations, housing closer to jobs and public transport, local travel options, 20-minute neighbourhoods, social infrastructure, local parks and green neighbourhoods. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)

The amendment made no policy changes to the State Planning Policy Framework, Local Planning Policy Framework or Municipal Strategic Statement. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) Its policy role was indirect: it sought to support already-approved PSP implementation by ensuring infrastructure contributions would be in place before development proceeded. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)

The explanatory report says the amendment was not consistent with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes, but that the Minister granted an exemption from that direction. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) That is a notable procedural feature because the amendment deliberately used a blank schedule with no content, which is unusual in ordinary planning-scheme drafting. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf; Source: 45_11s02_mith.pdf)

Consultation, Exhibition and Decision Pathway

The planning API record classifies GC116 as a Ministerial amendment, records the planning authority decision as adopted on 17 December 2018, records submission on 18 December 2018, and records gazettal and operation on 17 January 2019. (Source: web-research-L1-amendment-gc116-planning-api.txt) The same API record states that exhibition was not required and that no panel was requested. (Source: web-research-L1-amendment-gc116-planning-api.txt)

The explanatory report states that agency consultation was not considered necessary because the amendment did not include development-contribution figures or incorporate an Infrastructure Contributions Plan. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) That means there is no available submission record, agency-issue matrix or panel report in the supplied corpus for GC116. (Source: web-research-L1-amendment-gc116-planning-api.txt; Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)

The absence of exhibition and panel review limits what can be analysed about contested issues. (Source: web-research-L1-amendment-gc116-planning-api.txt) The available documents show the state’s rationale for the amendment, but they do not show landowner, council, agency or community responses to the blank ICO mechanism. (Source: web-research-L1-amendment-gc116-planning-api.txt; Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)

Environmental, Social, Economic, Bushfire and Transport Effects

The explanatory report states that the amendment was not anticipated to have an environmental impact. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) It also states that the amendment was not anticipated to have substantial social effects on the existing community, while preventing a shortfall in community services for future residents. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)

The explanatory report says GC116 did not propose to alter policy of land use or the form and scale of development, and therefore was not considered to increase bushfire risk. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) The same report states that the amendment was not considered to trigger Transport Integration Act 2010 requirements because it would not itself increase demand on the transport system. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)

These findings should be read narrowly. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) They assess the blank ICO amendment, not the broader environmental, social, economic, bushfire or transport effects of the Beveridge Central PSP itself. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf; Source: web-research-L1-gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.txt)

Current Status

GC116 is finished and approved. (Source: web-research-L1-amendment-gc116-planning-api.txt) The amendment was gazetted on 17 January 2019 and became operational on 17 January 2019. (Source: web-research-L1-amendment-gc116-planning-api.txt; Source: web-research-L1-gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.txt)

The Gazette notice states that the Minister for Planning approved GC116 to the Casey, Hume and Mitchell Planning Schemes and that the amendment came into operation on the date the notice was published in the Victoria Government Gazette. (Source: web-research-L1-gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.txt) The Gazette notice also states that GC116 introduced Clause 45.11 Infrastructure Contributions Overlay into the Hume and Casey Planning Schemes and inserted ICO schedules into the Hume, Casey and Mitchell Planning Schemes for several PSP areas. (Source: web-research-L1-gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.txt)

Dependencies

  • Blocks: GC116 was designed to prevent subdivision, use and development within the affected PSP land before finalised Infrastructure Contributions Plans were included in the relevant planning schemes. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)
  • Blocked by: The supplied documents identify the unfinished Infrastructure Contributions Plans as the reason the blank ICO schedule was needed. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)
  • Informed by: The amendment was informed by the approved PSP framework for Beveridge Central under Amendment GC55 and by the state-led need to coordinate infrastructure contributions across five PSP areas. (Source: web-research-L1-gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.txt; Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)
  • Implements: The amendment supports Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 directions relating to housing supply, jobs and public transport access, 20-minute neighbourhoods, social infrastructure and local parks. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)
  • Conflicts with: The explanatory report records an inconsistency with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes, for which the Minister granted an exemption. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)

GC116 was a cross-municipal amendment affecting Casey, Hume and Mitchell. (Source: web-research-L1-amendment-gc116-planning-api.txt; Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) The affected PSP areas were Cardinia Creek South and Minta Farm in Casey, Sunbury South and Lancefield Road in Hume, and Beveridge Central in Mitchell. (Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)

The cross-jurisdictional structure matters because the state used one amendment to create or apply ICO machinery across multiple growth fronts rather than treating Beveridge Central as an isolated Mitchell-only control. (Source: web-research-L1-amendment-gc116-planning-api.txt; Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) The Beveridge Central PSP itself also has a cross-boundary planning context because Amendment GC55 applied to the Mitchell and Whittlesea Planning Schemes. (Source: web-research-L1-gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.txt)

Gaps in This Analysis

The source set is thin for a MAJOR growth-area-related amendment because it contains the amendment API record, the Gazette notice, the explanatory report and the blank Mitchell ICO2 schedule, but not the final Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan. (Source: web-research-L1-amendment-gc116-planning-api.txt; Source: web-research-L1-gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.txt; Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf; Source: 45_11s02_mith.pdf)

The available documents do not provide levy rates, infrastructure project lists, item costs, land-credit assumptions, development-staging triggers, net developable area calculations or apportionment methods for Beveridge Central. (Source: 45_11s02_mith.pdf; Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) Those gaps prevent a full quantified analysis of how the infrastructure-contributions framework affected development sequencing, community infrastructure delivery, road and drainage funding, and land-take impacts within the Beveridge Central PSP. (Source: 45_11s02_mith.pdf; Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)

The available documents also do not include the Beveridge Central PSP, the GC55 explanatory report, technical background reports, PSP plans, transport assessments, drainage assessments, biodiversity assessments, servicing strategies or public submissions. (Source: web-research-L1-gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.txt; Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf) Those missing documents should be treated as corpus gaps for any future full analysis of Beveridge Central PSP, because GC116 can only be properly understood as an infrastructure-funding hold placed on the broader PSP framework. (Source: web-research-L1-gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.txt; Source: GC116 Explanatory Report Approval Gazetted.pdf)

Graph View