title: Mandalay Comprehensive Development Plan council: mitchell state: vic category: strategy classification: MAJOR status: approved last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-2026.txt
- web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt
Mandalay Comprehensive Development Plan
The Mandalay Comprehensive Development Plan is a statutory growth-area control for approximately 260 hectares south of Camerons Lane and west of Patterson Road in Beveridge, structured around a residential community, golf course, accommodation and conference uses, and a small retail centre. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.439) Its planning significance is that it uses the Comprehensive Development Zone rather than the Urban Growth Zone / PSP model used elsewhere in southern Mitchell, so site outcomes are mediated through the incorporated CDP, approved layout plans, permit exemptions, referral triggers, and negotiated servicing contributions rather than a visible precinct structure plan and infrastructure contributions plan in the extracted corpus. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.426, 439-441, 1212, 1241, 1306)
Background
Mitchell Shire contains part of Melbourne’s Northern Growth Corridor, and most of the municipality’s projected growth to more than 90,000 people by 2036 is expected to occur inside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.7) The planning scheme identifies Beveridge as a future activity centre and locates southern Mitchell’s long-term urban structure around Wallan, Beveridge, West Beveridge, Lockerbie North, Lockerbie, and the Beveridge Interstate Freight Terminal. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.9)
The Mandalay land sits within this southern growth context but is not described in the available source text as a PSP precinct. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.439, 1305) The planning scheme applies the Comprehensive Development Zone to the residential development area west of Beveridge and to Hidden Valley north of Wallan, while the Urban Growth Zone is applied to land identified for growth within Melbourne’s Urban Growth Boundary excluding Wallan. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.1305)
The Mandalay Comprehensive Development Plan, April 2017 is listed as an incorporated document introduced by Amendment C119. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.1241) An incorporated document forms part of the planning scheme under section 6(2)(j) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, while a background document does not form part of the planning scheme. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.1239-1240)
Analysis
Statutory Mechanism and Planning Effect
The Comprehensive Development Zone exists to provide for a range of uses and development in accordance with a comprehensive development plan incorporated in the planning scheme. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.426) For Mandalay, this means the incorporated April 2017 CDP is the key spatial and policy instrument for assessing whether subdivision, buildings, works, activity-centre uses, and signs are consistent with the planned estate structure. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.439-442)
The Mandalay CDZ schedule identifies the estate as approximately 260 hectares, located south of Camerons Lane and west of the north-south oriented section of Patterson Road in Beveridge. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.439) The schedule’s purpose is to facilitate development generally in accordance with the Mandalay Comprehensive Development Plan and to enable residential development based around a golf course with associated accommodation, conference facilities, and a small retail centre. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.439)
The statutory effect is stronger than an ordinary policy reference because the CDP is incorporated rather than merely listed as background material. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.1239-1241) In simple terms, the planning scheme treats the CDP like a rulebook attached to the zone, while the CDZ schedule supplies the gatekeeping rules for land use, subdivision, works, signage, referrals, and permit-process exemptions. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.426-442)
Land Use Structure
The Mandalay schedule allows several uses without a permit where conditions are met, including dwellings, child care centre, display home, education centre, food and drink premises, function centre, office, residential hotel, shop, and informal outdoor recreation. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.439-440) Several of those uses are spatially tied to the CDP: education centres and food and drink premises must be located generally in accordance with the Mandalay CDP, while offices and shops must be located in the Commercial Precinct or Club House Precinct. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.439-440)
The prohibited-use list excludes several uses that would materially change the estate’s intended role, including department store, extractive industry, most industry, intensive animal husbandry, motor racing track, racecourse, restricted retail premises, saleyard, warehouse, and most retail premises outside specified food, postal and shop uses. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.440) This creates a clear planning boundary: Mandalay is intended as a residential and recreation-based estate with limited local commercial and visitor accommodation functions, not as a freight, industrial, restricted retail, or extractive-industry precinct. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.439-440)
The CDZ schedule permits a residential hotel and function centre, and it frames the estate around a golf course with associated accommodation and conference facilities. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.439-440) The practical implication is that Mandalay’s non-residential role is embedded in estate amenity and visitor/community functions rather than in the larger employment-land role assigned elsewhere in southern Mitchell to BIFT, Merrifield North, and the Northern Highway Gateway. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.169-170, 439-440)
Subdivision, Layout Control, and Public Process
Subdivision in the CDZ requires a permit, and residential subdivisions must meet Clause 56 objectives and standards according to lot-count thresholds. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.427-428) For Mandalay specifically, subdivision must be generally in accordance with an approved Mandalay Layout Plan. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.440)
The Mandalay subdivision control is process-light once the layout is accepted because subdivision applications are exempt from notice, decision, and appeal rights under sections 52, 64, and 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.440) That mechanism can streamline staged subdivision, but it also makes the initial CDP and approved layout plan more important because later permit-stage community review is narrowed where the application fits the statutory pathway. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.440)
The responsible authority must consider the relationship of a proposed subdivision to existing subdivisions and adjoining land use, relevant comprehensive development plans or policies, traffic and network effects, loading and unloading, waste removal, emergency services, pedestrian and cycling paths, public transport, and the need for financial and other contributions toward reticulated service infrastructure, community facilities, and transport systems. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.440) This is the main visible mechanism in the available corpus for coordinating subdivision staging with infrastructure delivery. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.440)
Buildings, Works, and Design Control
No permit is required for buildings or works for a Section 1 use if the proposal is generally in accordance with the Mandalay Comprehensive Development Zone Plan approved by the responsible authority. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.441) No permit is also required for a single dwelling or dwelling works on a lot larger than 300 square metres, and outbuildings are exempt where the gross floor area does not exceed 10 square metres and building height does not exceed 3 metres. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.441)
Where a buildings-and-works permit is required, the application must include a layout plan showing the relationship between the site and the Mandalay CDP and demonstrating consistency with the CDP. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.441) The required layout material must address car parking, access, service areas, loading and unloading, waste disposal, larger vehicle access, public transport integration, community facilities, public spaces, services, and health-practitioner office space where relevant. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.441)
The application requirements also require site plans, servicing details for water, sewerage, drainage and garbage collection, external materials and colours, elevations, drainage works, driveways, pedestrian and cycling paths, vehicle parking, loading areas, and landscape works. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.441-442) These requirements make the CDZ schedule the operational bridge between the high-level CDP and detailed permit assessment. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.441-442)
Infrastructure and Servicing Dependencies
Mandalay’s subdivision decision guidelines require consideration of financial and other contributions toward reticulated service infrastructure, community facilities, transport systems, and footpath construction. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.440) The buildings-and-works application requirements separately require details of water and sewerage connections, drainage provisions, garbage collection, drainage works, driveways, pedestrian and cycling paths, parking, and loading areas. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.441-442)
The planning scheme’s broader infrastructure policy states that timely delivery of community and development infrastructure is a significant challenge as rapid growth occurs within the Urban Growth Boundary and larger townships. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.16) The same policy states that Mitchell aims to be a leader in wastewater reuse, especially in growth areas. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.16)
The extracted corpus does not identify a Mandalay Development Contributions Plan or Infrastructure Contributions Plan. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.901, 1306) The planning scheme instead identifies the Development Contributions Plan Overlay for Lockerbie and Lockerbie North and the Infrastructure Contributions Overlay for Donnybrook-Woodstock and Beveridge Central. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.1306) This means the available documents do not provide a quantified Mandalay levy rate, itemised works schedule, contribution-per-hectare figure, or contribution-per-lot estimate. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.901, 1306)
The public open space contribution schedule lists requirements for Lockerbie, Lockerbie North, and infill development within Kilmore and Kilmore East, but it does not list Mandalay. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.901) The planning implication is that open-space delivery for Mandalay cannot be quantified from the available source documents and must be checked against the missing April 2017 CDP, approved layout plans, permits, subdivision agreements, or any section 173 agreements. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.440-441, 901, 1241)
Transport and Access Dependencies
The Mandalay CDZ schedule requires subdivision assessment to consider traffic and network impacts, loading and unloading, waste removal, emergency services, pedestrian and cycling paths, and public transport. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.440) The buildings-and-works provisions require layout material showing access, service areas, larger vehicle access, public transport integration, driveways, pedestrian and cycling paths, parking, and loading areas. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.441-442)
A specific referral trigger applies to applications to create or alter access to Camerons Lane or Patterson Street, which are identified as future arterial roads, and the Roads Corporation is a determining referral authority for those applications. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.1212) This is a hard procedural dependency because a determining referral authority can affect whether access arrangements are acceptable before a permit can proceed. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.1212)
The wider Mitchell road policy supports intersection upgrades on the Hume Highway with major access roads, including Camerons Lane at Beveridge and Gunns Gully Road at Beveridge. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.208) The same local road policy seeks improved east-west links in Beveridge, Wallan and Kilmore to connect railway stations, BIFT and town centres. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.208)
The public transport policy supports building Beveridge Station, Upfield-to-Wallan electrification, and bus links between rural and urban towns and new estates including Beveridge. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.206) Mandalay’s internal public-transport integration requirement therefore sits within a broader policy setting where Beveridge growth depends on improved bus and rail access, although the available corpus does not provide a Mandalay-specific bus route, stop spacing, delivery trigger, or funding mechanism. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.206, 441)
Relationship to Growth-Area Policy
State growth-area policy seeks urban growth close to transport corridors and services with efficient infrastructure delivery. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.53) The same policy sets average residential density expectations of at least 30 dwellings per net developable hectare near activity centres, train stations, major transport routes and public open spaces, and 20 dwellings per net developable hectare in other growth-area locations. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.53)
The available Mandalay schedule does not state a dwelling yield, net developable area, average density, affordable-housing requirement, local centre floorspace cap, school site area, active open-space area, drainage-basin land take, or development staging sequence. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.439-442) Because those numbers are absent, this page cannot test whether Mandalay meets the current 20 or 30 dwellings per net developable hectare growth-area density benchmarks. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.53, 439-442)
Mitchell’s local settlement policy promotes Wallan and Beveridge as well serviced and attractive growth areas with access to jobs, services, open space and high-amenity landscaping. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.9) Mandalay aligns with the open-space and amenity component through its golf-course-based estate structure, but the available source material does not quantify how the estate contributes to jobs, local services, public open space, or broader housing diversity. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.9, 439-442)
Governance and Review Risk
The Mandalay CDP is an incorporated statutory document, so changing it would generally require a planning scheme amendment unless the scheme or incorporated document provides a specific administrative pathway. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.1239-1241) The extracted source does not provide the CDP text, so this analysis cannot determine whether the April 2017 document contains internal amendment, layout-approval, staging, or variation mechanisms. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.1241)
Mitchell’s further strategic work program requires review of Structure Plans, PSPs, ICPs and Development Plans every five years or as necessary given the amount of development that has occurred. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.1308) The same further-work program specifically calls for review of the Hidden Valley Comprehensive Development Zone, but it does not specifically call for review of the Mandalay Comprehensive Development Zone. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.1308-1309)
The absence of a named Mandalay review action does not mean the CDP is current in planning-performance terms, because the broader five-year review direction for development plans may still be relevant depending on how council classifies the Mandalay CDP. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.1308) The available corpus does not show whether council has reviewed Mandalay since the April 2017 CDP was introduced by Amendment C119. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.1241, 1308)
Current Status
The Mandalay Comprehensive Development Plan, April 2017 is incorporated in the Mitchell Planning Scheme and was introduced by Amendment C119. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.1241) The Mandalay land remains subject to Schedule 2 to Clause 37.02, the Comprehensive Development Zone, which sets current use, subdivision, buildings-and-works, signage, exemption, and decision-guideline controls. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.439-442)
The source corpus does not include the April 2017 Mandalay CDP itself, any approved Mandalay Layout Plan, any infrastructure funding agreement, any servicing strategy, any traffic assessment, any drainage report, any open-space schedule, any council report adopting the CDP, or any post-2017 review. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.439-442, 901, 1241, 1306) The current status can therefore be stated as statutory-approved but analytically under-documented in the available corpus. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.439-442, 1241)
Dependencies
- Blocks: The CDP and approved Mandalay Layout Plan control the form of subdivision and the spatial acceptability of uses, buildings and works within the Mandalay estate. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.440-441)
- Blocked by: Applications altering access to Camerons Lane or Patterson Street depend on referral to the Roads Corporation as determining referral authority. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.1212)
- Blocked by: Subdivision and works depend on satisfactory arrangements for reticulated service infrastructure, community facilities, transport systems, water, sewerage, drainage, waste collection, pedestrian and cycling paths, parking, and loading. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.440-442)
- Informed by: The visible statutory controls are Schedule 2 to Clause 37.02 and the incorporated Mandalay Comprehensive Development Plan, April 2017. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.439-442, 1241)
- Implements: The initiative implements Mitchell’s settlement direction for well-planned growth in the Urban Growth Boundary and Beveridge’s role as a future activity centre. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.9)
- Conflicts with: No direct policy conflict is identified in the available source documents, but the missing CDP prevents assessment against current growth-area density, infrastructure, canopy, open-space and transport-integration benchmarks. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.53-54, 439-442)
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
Mandalay is part of the wider southern Mitchell growth context, which is linked to Melbourne’s Northern Growth Corridor and the activity-centre network around Wallan, Beveridge, West Beveridge, Lockerbie North and Lockerbie. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.9) Lockerbie is located in Hume Council and is identified as the major activity centre serving southern Mitchell, which means Mandalay’s local centre role should be read as subordinate to the broader cross-boundary activity-centre hierarchy. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.9)
The Beveridge Interstate Freight Terminal is identified as a significant state and national transport and logistics hub, and Mitchell policy seeks access improvements, freight compatibility, environmental response to Merri Creek, and additional east-west connections from Wallan South to BIFT. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.9, 169-170) Mandalay is not described in the available source as BIFT land, but its Beveridge location and access relationship to Camerons Lane and Patterson Street place it within the same southern Mitchell transport-planning environment. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.170, 439, 1212)
Gaps in This Analysis
The critical corpus gap is the Mandalay Comprehensive Development Plan, April 2017 itself, because it is the incorporated statutory document that defines the estate plan but is not included as a standalone extracted source document in the manifest. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.1241) Without that document, this analysis cannot quantify lot yield, net developable area, land budget, density, open-space provision, golf-course land area, drainage land take, road hierarchy, staging triggers, infrastructure costs, or community-facility requirements. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.439-442, 1241)
A second gap is the absence of an approved Mandalay Layout Plan, which the subdivision control makes central to permit assessment. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, p.440) Without the layout plan, the relationship between residential lots, the golf course, the commercial precinct, the club house precinct, local roads, open space, drainage, walking and cycling links, and service infrastructure cannot be mapped or tested. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.440-442)
A third gap is infrastructure funding evidence, because the available planning scheme text requires consideration of contributions toward reticulated services, community facilities and transport systems but does not provide a Mandalay DCP, ICP, section 173 agreement, works-in-kind schedule, or contribution rate. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.440, 901, 1306) This prevents calculation of who funds transport, drainage, open space, community infrastructure, footpaths, water, sewerage, and other local infrastructure. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.440-442, 901, 1306)
A fourth gap is transport evidence, because the source text identifies referral requirements for Camerons Lane and Patterson Street and broader support for Camerons Lane intersection upgrades, but it does not provide Mandalay traffic modelling, access warrants, intersection timing, bus planning, or pedestrian and cycling network plans. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.208, 440-442, 1212) This prevents assessment of whether Mandalay’s staging is constrained by arterial-road upgrades, Hume Highway access, Beveridge Station delivery, bus service timing, or internal active-transport links. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.206, 208, 440-442, 1212)
A fifth gap is environmental and drainage evidence, because the source text requires drainage and landscaping details for works but does not include a Mandalay drainage strategy, water-sensitive urban design report, flood assessment, biodiversity assessment, or cultural heritage assessment. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.441-442) This prevents assessment of stormwater storage, downstream water-quality effects, waterway buffers, native vegetation impacts, cultural heritage management requirements, and the land-take effect of drainage infrastructure. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.441-442)
These gaps should be recorded in _gaps as a critical corpus gap for the April 2017 incorporated CDP and as important supporting gaps for the approved layout plan, infrastructure funding instruments, transport assessment, drainage strategy, servicing strategy, and any post-2017 review material. (Source: web-research-L1-planning-scheme-current-mitchell-pdf.txt, pp.439-442, 901, 1212, 1241, 1306)