title: Amendment C101moor - Browns Lane Heritage Overlay Correction council: moorabool state: vic category: amendment classification: MINOR status: adopted last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- omc-agenda-010223.pdf
- omc-minutes-01022023.pdf
Amendment C101moor - Browns Lane Heritage Overlay Correction
Amendment C101moor is a targeted correction to the Moorabool Planning Scheme that moves Heritage Overlay HO194 from the wrong Browns Lane property to the property identified by Council officers as the locally significant heritage place (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18). The practical planning effect is not broad land-use change; it is the repair of a mapping and schedule error so that heritage controls attach to 81 Browns Lane, Parwan rather than 75 Browns Lane, Parwan (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18).
The amendment had reached Council adoption on 1 February 2023, when Council resolved to adopt the amendment under section 29(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and authorise officers to submit it to the Minister for Planning for approval under section 31(1) (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.17). The available source set does not include the final gazettal notice, the amendment documents under separate cover, or the new Statement of Significance, so this page can analyse the statutory mechanism and decision pathway but cannot independently test the heritage citation, curtilage, or final approved wording (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, pp.17-20).
Background
The amendment arose because HO194 was recorded against 75 Browns Lane, Parwan even though Council’s report states that the locally significant heritage place is at 81 Browns Lane, Parwan (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18). In plain terms, the planning scheme label was on the wrong front door: the control designed to protect one heritage place was sitting on a neighbouring property instead (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18).
Council had already resolved on 2 February 2022 to request authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit Amendment C101moor (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18). The Minister granted authorisation on 18 February 2022, and the Minister later approved the amendment for exhibition on 3 October 2022 (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18). Exhibition ran from 27 October 2022 to 27 November 2022 under section 19(4)(b) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18).
Public notice was given through the Moorabool News, Council’s website, letters to landowners, letters to adjoining properties, notice to prescribed ministers, and notice through the Victorian Government Gazette (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.19). The exhibition produced one submission, and that submission came from the landowner of 75 Browns Lane in support of the amendment (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18). No opposing submissions were received, so the officer report advised that Council was not required to appoint a Planning Panel (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18).
Analysis
Statutory Mechanism and Property Effect
The amendment changes where HO194 applies, rather than creating a new precinct-wide heritage regime (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18). Its two named land parcels are 75 Browns Lane and 81 Browns Lane, Parwan, and the correction is directional: remove HO194 from 75 Browns Lane and apply HO194 to 81 Browns Lane (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18).
The mechanism matters because a Heritage Overlay is administered through Clause 43.01 of the planning scheme, and Council’s report states that Amendment C101moor makes consequential changes to the Schedule to Clause 43.01 (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18). The correction therefore has two linked effects: the map or property application is corrected, and the schedule is aligned with the relevant heritage place and statement material (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18).
The amendment also introduces a new Statement of Significance for HO194 (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18). That is important because a heritage control is not just a boundary on a map; the statement explains what is significant, why it is significant, and what parts of the place should guide future permit decisions (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18). The available agenda and minutes confirm that a new Statement of Significance exists as part of the amendment package, but the actual statement was under separate cover and is not included in the extracted source set (Source: omc-agenda-010223.pdf, p.18; Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.17).
For 75 Browns Lane, the planning consequence is removal of an incorrectly applied HO194 control (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18). That reduces the heritage-permit burden on the property that Council identifies as wrongly affected by the overlay (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18). For 81 Browns Lane, the planning consequence is the opposite: the locally significant heritage place becomes subject to HO194 and future works are assessed through the heritage overlay controls (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18).
Amendment VC226 and Solar Panel Control
A later statewide planning scheme change affected the form of the amendment before Council adoption (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18). Amendment VC226 was approved for all Victorian planning schemes on 4 November 2022 and inserted an additional column into the Heritage Overlay Schedule relating to whether a planning permit is required for solar panels on a heritage building where visible from the public realm (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18).
Council officers advised that the option to turn off that solar-panel permit requirement would not be suitable for the subject building (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18). The practical effect is that, if the owner of the HO194 place proposes visible solar panels from the public realm in the future, a planning permit would still be required (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18). This is a narrow but real permit-pathway consequence: the amendment is not only moving the overlay, but also retaining a permit trigger for a specific class of visible external works because of the heritage sensitivity identified by Council officers (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18).
The officer report states that, other than the Heritage Overlay Schedule change required because of VC226, no changes were proposed to the Amendment C101moor documents (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18). That means the VC226 interaction was treated as a form-and-content update rather than a change to the underlying heritage proposition (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18).
Exhibition, Submissions and Panel Risk
The consultation record is unusually contained for a planning scheme amendment because only one submission was received, and the submission supported the amendment (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18). The single supporting submission came from the owner of 75 Browns Lane, which is the property from which the incorrect HO194 control would be removed (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18).
That submission pattern reduced procedural complexity because there were no unresolved opposing submissions requiring a Planning Panel pathway (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18). Council therefore had three practical options at the adoption meeting: adopt the amendment documents, propose changes, or abandon the amendment (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18). Council chose adoption and submission to the Minister for Planning for approval (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.17).
A supporter, Matt Woods, addressed Council on Item 12.1 before the amendment resolution (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.8). The minutes do not provide the substance of that address, so the available record cannot determine whether the speaker represented a landowner, heritage interest, or broader community position (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.8). The absence of recorded opposition is still meaningful for process risk, but it should not be over-read as a complete record of community views because the detailed Summary of Submissions was under separate cover and is not included in the extracted source set (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.17).
Governance, Budget and Administrative Consequences
The amendment was recommended as a planning-scheme precision measure because Council officers stated that it would help the Moorabool Planning Scheme be administered efficiently (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.20). The underlying administrative problem is straightforward: if a heritage overlay is attached to the wrong property, permit triggers and heritage decision-making may apply to land that should not be burdened while failing to protect the land that contains the identified heritage place (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18).
The amendment was linked to the Council Plan 2021-2025, specifically Strategic Objective 2, “Liveable and thriving environments”, and Priority 2.1, “Develop planning mechanisms to enhance liveability in the Shire” (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.19). Council officers characterised the correction as consistent with that plan because it applies the Heritage Overlay to a property of local heritage significance (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.19).
The financial implications were limited to statutory fees, mail-outs, advertising, and staff time, with those costs accommodated within the 2022/23 Growth and Development budget (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.19). The report does not identify infrastructure costs, land acquisition, compensation, or development-contribution mechanisms associated with the amendment (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.19). That supports the minor classification of the initiative because the available sources describe a two-property heritage correction rather than a land-supply, infrastructure, or precinct-planning intervention (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, pp.18-19).
Risk if the Amendment Did Not Proceed
Council officers identified the key risk as heritage loss rather than financial exposure or occupational health and safety risk (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.19). The report states that not adopting the amendment would expose a significant heritage place to risk of loss and could risk Council not meeting its obligations under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 regarding conservation and enhancement of heritage places (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.19).
The cause-and-effect chain is direct: without the amendment, HO194 remains on 75 Browns Lane, while 81 Browns Lane remains without the intended HO194 protection identified by Council officers (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18). With the amendment adopted and approved, 75 Browns Lane is relieved of the incorrect heritage overlay, and 81 Browns Lane becomes subject to heritage controls intended to conserve the local heritage place (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, pp.18-20).
The available sources do not quantify the heritage place’s land area, building footprint, curtilage, fabric elements, or permit-exemption settings beyond the solar-panel issue affected by VC226 (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18). That limits the ability to assess how strongly the overlay might affect future buildings, demolition, external alteration, subdivision, fencing, vegetation removal, or other works at 81 Browns Lane (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18).
Current Status
Council adopted Amendment C101moor at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 1 February 2023 (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.17). The resolution authorised the Executive Manager - Community Planning and Development to submit the adopted amendment package to the Minister for Planning for approval under section 31(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.17). The resolution also authorised minor changes to the amendment package where those changes did not affect the intent of the amendment (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.17).
The source set stops at Council adoption and does not include a later Ministerial approval, gazettal notice, or final incorporated amendment documentation (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, pp.17-20). For this page, the defensible status is therefore “adopted by Council and submitted or authorised for submission to the Minister”, rather than confirmed as approved or gazetted (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.17).
Dependencies
- Blocks: The amendment blocks correction of the HO194 mapping and schedule error until Ministerial approval and gazettal occur, because Council adoption alone is not recorded in the available sources as the final planning scheme change (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.17).
- Blocked by: The next statutory step after Council adoption was Ministerial approval and gazettal, and the available source set does not confirm that this final step occurred (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18).
- Informed by: The amendment package included a Summary of Submissions and Amendment Documents under separate cover, and the report states that the amendment introduces a new Statement of Significance for HO194 (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, pp.17-18).
- Implements: The report links the amendment to the Council Plan 2021-2025 objective for liveable and thriving environments and the priority to develop planning mechanisms that enhance liveability in the Shire (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.19).
- Conflicts with: No policy conflict or unresolved opposing submission is identified in the available agenda or minutes (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18).
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
The available sources identify notice to relevant State Government agencies, prescribed ministers, the Victorian Government Gazette, and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning website as part of the amendment communication and statutory process (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.19). The amendment also required Ministerial authorisation, Ministerial approval for exhibition, and a further submission to the Minister for Planning after Council adoption (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, pp.17-18).
No adjacent-council, water-authority, transport-agency, infrastructure, or regional growth dependency is identified in the available source extracts (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, pp.17-20). The cross-jurisdictional dimension is therefore procedural rather than spatial: the matter depends on state planning-scheme amendment powers, not on shared infrastructure delivery or regional land-use sequencing (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, pp.17-19).
Gaps in This Analysis
The main gap is that both the Summary of Submissions and Amendment Documents were listed as attachments under separate cover and are not included in the extracted source set (Source: omc-agenda-010223.pdf, p.18; Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.17). This prevents independent review of the exact HO194 schedule wording, the new Statement of Significance, any mapped curtilage, the detailed submission content, and any permit exemptions beyond the solar-panel setting discussed in the officer report (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, pp.17-18).
A second gap is the absence of the original 2 February 2022 Council report that initiated the authorisation request (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18). Without that initiating report, this page cannot test whether earlier heritage assessment evidence, landowner correspondence, or mapping-error history was before Council at the start of the amendment process (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, p.18).
A third gap is the absence of the Ministerial authorisation letter dated 18 February 2022, the Ministerial exhibition approval dated 3 October 2022, and any final approval or gazettal notice after the 1 February 2023 Council adoption (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, pp.17-18). Those documents are needed to confirm the final statutory status and final planning scheme text (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, pp.17-18).
These gaps should be recorded in _gaps as missing amendment attachments and missing final approval material because they limit verification of the exact legal instrument even though the Council decision pathway is clear from the minutes (Source: omc-minutes-01022023.pdf, pp.17-20).