Grange Planning Brain

title: Amendment GC55 - Beveridge Central Planning Controls council: mitchell state: vic category: amendment classification: MAJOR status: approved last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:

  • amendment-gc55-planning-schemes.pdf
  • gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.pdf
  • gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf
  • gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf
  • gc55-psp-panel-report-ppv-2017-07.pdf
  • ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf

Amendment GC55 - Beveridge Central Planning Controls

Amendment GC55 converted the Beveridge Central precinct from a planned growth-area idea into statutory controls by incorporating the Beveridge Central Precinct Structure Plan, applying Urban Growth Zone Schedule 5, adjusting acquisition and heritage overlays, and setting permit requirements for staged subdivision, infrastructure, open space, environmental assessment, and transport interfaces (Source: gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.pdf, p.81). Its planning significance is not only the 291 hectare precinct or the expected 3,400 homes and population of up to 9,500, but the way it sits between Beveridge township, Mandalay Estate, Lockerbie North, and the future Beveridge North-West area, making it a connector precinct in the northern growth corridor rather than a standalone release area (Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.1-2).

Background

The precinct is approximately 291 hectares south and west of the existing Beveridge township and includes land on both sides of the Hume Freeway (Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, p.1). The amendment area is bounded by Rankin Street to the south, Patterson Street to the west, Camerons Lane and Kelly Street to the north, and Stewart Street, Spring Street, and the Hume Freeway to the east (Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, p.1). The planning context is explicitly corridor-based: the precinct adjoins Mandalay Estate to the west, approved Lockerbie North PSP land to the east and south-east, and the proposed Beveridge North-West PSP area to the north (Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, p.1).

The land entered the Urban Growth Boundary in August 2010 through Amendment VC68, and the North Growth Corridor Plan identified the PSP area for future urban development (Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, p.2). The Victorian Planning Authority prepared the amendment as planning authority at the request of the Victorian Planning Authority and Mitchell Shire Council (Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, p.1). Exhibition ran from 10 November 2016 to 12 December 2016, the Panel hearing ran from 31 May to 2 June 2017, further information was supplied on 9 June 2017, and the Panel report was dated 24 July 2017 (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, overview).

The Minister for Planning approved Amendment GC55, and the amendment came into operation when the notice was published in the Victoria Government Gazette on 17 January 2019 (Source: gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.pdf, p.81). On the same Gazette page, Amendment GC116 was also approved to introduce the Infrastructure Contributions Overlay into the Hume and Casey Planning Schemes and insert ICO schedules into Hume, Casey, and Mitchell planning schemes for a number of PSP areas, which matters because the GC55 explanatory material treated the Beveridge Central ICP as a later statutory step rather than something fully embedded in GC55 itself (Source: gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.pdf, p.81; Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, p.2).

Analysis

Statutory Mechanism and Why It Matters

GC55 used UGZ5 as the statutory container for the PSP, meaning future use, subdivision, buildings, works, local centres, roads, parks, heritage interfaces, and infrastructure staging are assessed through the incorporated PSP and the schedule rather than through ordinary rural-zone controls (Source: gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.pdf, p.81; Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.1-6). The amendment rezoned existing Urban Growth Zone, Farming Zone, and Rural Conservation Zone land in the precinct to UGZ5, deleted Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 2 and the Salinity Management Overlay, adjusted Public Acquisition Overlay 7 for Camerons Lane and Rankin Street road works, corrected Heritage Overlay mapping for HO332 and HO4, and amended referral requirements for Roads Corporation and floodplain management authority referrals (Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.1-2).

In simple terms, the amendment changed the precinct from a paddock-and-township edge area into a rulebook for a future urban neighbourhood (Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.1-3). Under the hood, the important mechanism is that subdivision permits now need to show how each development stage implements the PSP, provides land budgets, deals with road and drainage staging, manages environmental and heritage constraints, and contributes to the public infrastructure sequence (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.3-6). This means the PSP is not just a map: it becomes the reference point for permit design, infrastructure timing, open space transfer, arterial road land requirements, bus-stop delivery, heritage conservation management, and site-specific environmental assessment (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.3-6).

UGZ5 applies General Residential Zone provisions to residential land, Commercial 1 Zone provisions to local convenience centres, Road Zone Category 1 provisions to arterial roads, and Road Zone Category 2 provisions to connector streets and boulevards (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, p.1). The schedule allows shops without a permit in the Commercial 1 applied-zone areas only up to defined floorspace caps: 3,000 square metres for the Camerons Local Convenience Centre and 1,000 square metres for the Lithgow Street Local Convenience Centre (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, p.2). These caps keep the centres at local convenience scale and prevent the PSP from functioning as an uncontrolled retail-centre expansion mechanism (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, p.2).

Land Supply, Yield, and Density

The PSP is expected to deliver approximately 3,400 homes and accommodate up to 9,500 residents across approximately 291 hectares (Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, p.2). That implies an average of about 2.8 residents per dwelling if the upper population estimate is divided by the dwelling estimate, but the statutory density control is expressed differently: the explanatory report states that housing delivery must achieve at least 15 dwellings per net developable hectare (Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, p.3). The difference matters because gross precinct area includes roads, open space, heritage land, drainage, public acquisition, and other non-residential land, while net developable hectare is the land base used for residential yield testing (Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, p.3; Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, p.3).

The exhibited PSP had a higher density setting of 16.5 dwellings per hectare, but the VPA, Mitchell Shire Council, and Beveridge Central Developer Group agreed during the Panel process that 16.5 dwellings per hectare would be difficult to achieve in the untested Beveridge residential market (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.9-10). The Panel accepted the change to 15 dwellings per hectare and noted that requirements, guidelines, and population and dwelling calculations should be amended accordingly (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.9-10). The practical effect is that GC55 reduced the target intensity to improve deliverability while still requiring a minimum growth-area density benchmark (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.9-10).

Small-lot delivery is supported through the Small Lot Housing Code mechanism, with no planning permit required for one dwelling on a lot under 300 square metres where the lot is identified by title restriction for assessment under the code and complies with the incorporated code (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, p.4). Any subdivision permit creating lots under 300 square metres must identify which lots will carry the Small Lot Housing Code restriction and whether Type A or Type B code standards apply (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, p.4). This is a process-efficiency mechanism: it shifts detailed dwelling control for eligible small lots into a code pathway while requiring the subdivision stage to identify where that pathway applies (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, p.4).

Infrastructure Funding and Sequencing

The amendment deliberately separated the PSP approval from the detailed ICP funding instrument, and this was the main structural tension in the Panel process (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.16-19). The explanatory report said GC55 established the basis for future levies and that an ICP would be incorporated later to set out infrastructure levies applying to the precinct (Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, p.2). The Panel recorded Mitchell Shire Council’s concern that it was difficult to assess a PSP involving infrastructure delivery without the accompanying infrastructure funding plan (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.6).

The key contested issue was whether some local roads should be included in the Precinct Infrastructure Plan and potentially funded through the ICP, because local streets are usually a developer responsibility rather than a contribution-plan item (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.16-19). The VPA and Beveridge Central Landowner and Developer Group argued that the precinct’s fragmented ownership pattern meant some local roads were enabling infrastructure that no single small project could reasonably deliver upfront (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.17-19). Mitchell Shire Council accepted that some local roads could be justified where they enabled development across fragmented ownership, but it wanted evidence that the projects could be accommodated within the standard levy system and did not expose Council to unfunded shortfalls (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.16-18).

The Panel accepted the unusual inclusion of local roads because the land budget identified 80 properties across the 291 hectare PSP area, and many were small lots with limited capacity to deliver joined-up infrastructure independently (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.19). The Panel’s mechanism-first conclusion was that without enabling infrastructure, development could stall, which would also delay acquisition or delivery of public open space and increase implementation risk for Council (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.19). The Panel therefore supported a facilitative approach, endorsed the VPA commitment to delay approval until an ICP was prepared, and said assessing the PSP and ICP together would reduce the risk of misidentified projects and overestimated costs (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.19).

UGZ5 operationalises this sequencing by requiring applications to include a Public Infrastructure Plan addressing stormwater staging, infrastructure land requirements, road works internal and external to the land, potential works-in-lieu under an applicable ICP, public open space, and other infrastructure matters required by the responsible authority (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, p.3). Subdivision permits may also require a section 173 agreement to implement the approved Public Infrastructure Plan (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, p.5). The result is that infrastructure delivery is controlled at both the strategic PSP level and the individual permit-stage level (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.3-5).

Transport, Freeway Access, and Public Acquisition

The Hume Freeway is the physical divider of the precinct and the transport asset that makes the road-access strategy central to the amendment (Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, p.1; Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.4). VicRoads’ Hume Freeway Interchange Strategy proposed a new full diamond interchange at Camerons Lane, decommissioning of the existing Lithgow Street interchange while retaining the local underpass, and a new half diamond interchange with southern ramps at Rankin Street (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.14). GC55 implemented this direction by removing redundant Public Acquisition Overlay land and establishing new Public Acquisition Overlay land for the revised road-access projects (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.14-16; Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, p.1).

The Panel treated the road-access projects as critical to development of Beveridge and supported the use of the Public Acquisition Overlay as the acquisition mechanism (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.14-16). Affected landowners raised concerns about the Camerons Lane interchange and associated roadworks affecting their properties, including land at 1 Spring Street, 90 Minton Street, and 62 Arrowsmith Street (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.14). The Panel accepted that the projects would still acquire or affect land, but it endorsed VicRoads’ effort to minimise acquisition and recommended that VicRoads review access arrangements for affected land to minimise or restore access where possible (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.15-16).

The transport controls also work at permit level: applications creating or changing access to a primary or secondary arterial road must include a Traffic Impact Assessment Report, functional layout plans, and a feasibility or concept road safety audit to the satisfaction of the relevant road authority (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, p.4). Subdivision and buildings-and-works permits must show land required for road widening or intersection flaring, and land required for arterial-road widening or intersection flaring must be transferred or vested at no cost unless funded by an applicable ICP (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, p.5). Public transport is also embedded in permit conditions, with subdivision stages required to construct bus-stop hard stands with safe pedestrian access unless Public Transport Victoria agrees otherwise (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, p.5).

Open Space and Public-Benefit Land Allocation

The PSP’s open-space decisions were contested because they placed public open-space burdens on specific landholdings while serving the future community across the broader precinct (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.20-23). The active open-space proposal was revised from 7.5 hectares to 6.7 hectares and relocated to the south-east corner of Lithgow Street and Patterson Street after submissions and review with Mitchell Shire Council (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.20). The Panel supported the revised location because it was central, accessible to Beveridge Central residents, accessible to Mandalay Estate residents, near community facilities, and capable of accommodating the proposed sports uses in the reduced land area (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.20-21).

The Panel rejected relocation of local park LP-02 because the submitter opposed the land take but did not demonstrate that the selected site was unsuitable for open-space purposes or inconsistent with open-space principles (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.21-22). The Panel supported deletion of LP-04 because its 400 metre catchment was compromised by the Hume Freeway barrier and because LP-06, nearby Lockerbie North open space, and Beveridge township open space could serve the eastern side of the precinct (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.23). The Panel did not support increasing LP-05 at John Kelly’s former house because the heritage presentations had reduced and refined the curtilage rather than justified additional land around the heritage place (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.22-23).

UGZ5 converts these strategic choices into permit consequences by requiring land identified for local or district parks in the PSP to be transferred or vested in Council at no cost unless funded by an incorporated ICP (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, p.4). This creates a clear implementation rule, but the source set does not include the final ICP schedule or cost apportionment tables, so the analysis cannot quantify land-credit treatment, levy rates, or whether any landowner receives compensation through the ICP framework (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, p.4; Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.16-19).

Heritage, Identity, and Constraint Management

GC55 corrected and refined heritage controls rather than treating heritage as a decorative theme (Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.1-2). The amendment corrected HO332 because the protected remnant chimney was located in the Hume Freeway road reserve rather than at 27 Spring Street, and it amended HO4 to align the overlay with the Victorian Heritage Register extent for former Kelly House (Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.1-2). The PSP also proposed interpretation and adaptive reuse principles for John Kelly’s former house, with surrounding open space used to complement and protect the heritage site (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.11-13).

Heritage Victoria initially submitted on the amendment but later reached an agreed position with the VPA and withdrew its submission (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.12). The Panel supported the amended heritage provisions because they would preserve an important element of Victorian heritage while leaving detailed restoration, management, and heritage-trail decisions for further work between the VPA, Heritage Victoria, and Mitchell Shire Council (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.12-13). UGZ5 reinforces this by requiring applications affecting heritage places to discuss future use or adaptive reuse, include a draft Conservation Management Plan, and provide sufficient space around heritage buildings for adaptive reuse requirements such as car parking and landscaping (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, p.4).

Environmental, Drainage, and Land Capability Controls

The explanatory report states that conservation investigations found no specific natural or man-made resources or conservation areas in the precinct, while also noting native vegetation and scattered trees and requiring offsets if conservation areas are removed in accordance with the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for Melbourne’s Growth Corridors (Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, p.3). The amendment deleted the Salinity Management Overlay because further land studies identified the risk of excessive salinity as low (Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, p.10). The amendment also requires stormwater flows to be managed through an integrated system that aims to keep flows beyond the precinct generally to pre-development levels (Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, p.3).

The most important environmental implementation controls appear at permit stage rather than in the high-level approval notice (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.3-5). A residential subdivision of 10 lots or more must include a hydrogeological assessment and a preliminary contaminated-land assessment (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, p.3). Sensitive uses at 55 Lewis Street, Beveridge require an Environmental Site Assessment that addresses potential contaminants, suitability for proposed uses, whether an environmental audit is recommended, surface and subsurface water conditions, geotechnical characteristics, and remediation actions (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.3-4). Subdivision permits must also include a Kangaroo Management Plan and salvage-and-translocation requirements for flora, fauna, threatened species, and ecological communities (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, p.5).

Hume Freeway noise is treated as a permit condition: any use or development directly abutting the freeway must comply with the VicRoads Traffic Noise Reduction Policy 2005 at no cost to the Roads Authority (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, p.5). This matters because the freeway is not only a movement corridor but also an amenity constraint that affects the design and cost of abutting residential land (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, p.5).

Current Status

Amendment GC55 is approved and came into operation on 17 January 2019 when the approval notice was published in the Victoria Government Gazette (Source: gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.pdf, p.81). The operative control in the source set is UGZ5 dated 17 January 2019, which sets applied zones, permit application requirements, permit conditions, public infrastructure requirements, open-space transfer requirements, freeway-noise requirements, public-transport requirements, road-network requirements, and heritage-place requirements (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.1-6). Amendment GC116 was approved on the same Gazette date to introduce and apply Infrastructure Contributions Overlay schedules to a number of PSP areas including Mitchell Planning Scheme areas, but the manifest source set does not include the final Beveridge Central ICP schedule, levy table, or infrastructure-cost schedule (Source: gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.pdf, p.81).

Dependencies

  • Blocks: Before GC55, ordinary urban subdivision could not proceed under the final Beveridge Central PSP framework because the PSP, UGZ5, overlay changes, and permit pathways had not been incorporated into the planning scheme (Source: gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.pdf, p.81).
  • Blocked by: Individual stages remain dependent on permit-level requirements including Public Infrastructure Plans, stormwater staging to Melbourne Water’s satisfaction, Traffic Impact Assessment Reports for arterial-road access changes, environmental assessment for sensitive uses at 55 Lewis Street, Kangaroo Management Plans, bus-stop delivery, road-widening land transfer, and heritage Conservation Management Plans where relevant (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.3-6).
  • Informed by: The amendment was informed by the North Growth Corridor Plan, the Beveridge Central PSP, VicRoads’ Hume Freeway Interchange Strategy, the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment material for the PSP area, and agency consultation with Mitchell Shire Council, City of Whittlesea, DELWP, Public Transport Victoria, VicRoads, Melbourne Water, Department of Education and Training, Yarra Valley Water, Heritage Victoria, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, EPA, and CFA (Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.2-11; Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.14).
  • Implements: GC55 implements the Beveridge Central PSP through UGZ5, PSP incorporation, rezoning, overlay changes, referral changes, and permit pathways (Source: gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.pdf, p.81).
  • Conflicts with: The Panel record shows implementation tension between a facilitative infrastructure approach for fragmented ownership and Council’s concern about unfunded ICP shortfalls or local-road projects consuming limited contribution-plan funds (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.16-19).

GC55 is formally a Mitchell and Whittlesea Planning Schemes amendment because it changed Mitchell controls for Beveridge Central and made referral-related consequential changes in the Whittlesea Planning Scheme (Source: gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.pdf, p.81; Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.1-2). The precinct also has functional links beyond Mitchell because it connects to Mandalay Estate, Lockerbie North, Beveridge North-West, the Hume Freeway, the future Outer Metropolitan Ring Road, the proposed Beveridge Intermodal Freight Terminal, the planned Beveridge railway station, and employment areas including Merrifield and Craigieburn North (Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.7-8; Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.1-4). Agencies with implementation roles include VicRoads for freeway and arterial-road interfaces, Melbourne Water for stormwater and outfall staging, Public Transport Victoria for bus-stop delivery, and Yarra Valley Water for servicing coordination (Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, p.11; Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.3-5).

Gaps in This Analysis

The manifest does not include the final Beveridge Central PSP document itself, even though the amendment incorporated the Beveridge Central Precinct Structure Plan, May 2018 (Source: gazette-g3-gc55-gc116-vic-gazette.pdf, p.81). This limits the ability to quantify the final land-use budget, net developable area, parcel-by-parcel open-space burdens, road cross-sections, infrastructure item list, and final changes made after the Panel process (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.20-23).

The manifest does not include the final Beveridge Central ICP, ICO schedule, infrastructure-cost table, levy rates, works-in-kind rules, or apportionment tables, even though the explanatory report and Panel both identify the ICP as central to infrastructure delivery and funding risk (Source: gc55-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, p.2; Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.16-19). Without that document, this page cannot state the per-hectare levy, per-lot equivalent, total infrastructure cost, council exposure, land-credit methodology, or whether the local-road items supported by the Panel were ultimately funded through the ICP (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.16-19).

The manifest does not include the technical reports behind transport, drainage, biodiversity, hydrogeology, contamination, noise, or servicing assumptions, although UGZ5 requires later applications to provide traffic, stormwater, hydrogeological, environmental, and infrastructure documentation (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.3-5). The analysis therefore identifies the control mechanisms and known dependencies but cannot independently verify modelled traffic volumes, drainage basin land take, sewer capacity, water capacity, biodiversity offsets, contamination extent, or construction-cost estimates (Source: ugz5-gc55-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.3-5).

The planning-schemes portal source listed in the manifest contains only a JavaScript application shell rather than substantive planning text, so it does not materially add evidence beyond confirming that one manifest item is thin and non-analytical (Source: amendment-gc55-planning-schemes.pdf). The duplicate panel-report source appears to contain the same Panel report text as the other panel-report item, so the duplicate document id is retained in the JSON source list but not treated as independent evidence (Source: gc55-panel-report-ppv.pdf; Source: gc55-psp-panel-report-ppv-2017-07.pdf).

Graph View