title: Amendment C108moor - Ballan Precinct 5 council: moorabool state: vic category: amendment classification: MAJOR status: pending last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf
Amendment C108moor - Ballan Precinct 5
Amendment C108moor is the statutory step that would convert Ballan Precinct 5 from a rural-living edge into a staged residential precinct under a development-plan framework, with ecological, cultural heritage, transport, servicing and community infrastructure matters deferred into detailed plans before subdivision proceeds (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, p.11). The Panel supported the amendment, but its recommended version makes the Werribee River corridor, Geelong-Ballan Road/Old Melbourne Road intersection, service augmentation and cultural heritage flexibility the main control points for delivery rather than treating rezoning as a finished design approval (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.9-10).
Background
Precinct 5 is land bounded by the Western Freeway, Geelong-Ballan Road, Old Melbourne Road and the Werribee River, with a disused Barwon Water aqueduct crossing the western part of the land (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, p.11). The amendment was authorised on 5 August 2024, exhibited from 24 January to 3 March 2025, received 68 submissions, and was heard by a two-member Panel between 23 and 31 July 2025 (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, p.6). The Panel report is dated 10 September 2025 and records that Council must consider the report before deciding whether to adopt the amendment, after which ministerial approval and gazettal would be required for the planning scheme change to take legal effect (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.1, 6).
The amendment implements the Ballan Framework Plan, which identifies Precinct 5 for greenfield growth, lower-density interfaces to the Western Freeway and Geelong-Ballan Road, larger residential allotments along Old Melbourne Road, and open space along the Werribee River corridor (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, p.17). The Panel treated the strategic question as largely settled because the Central Highlands Growth Plan, Ballan Strategic Directions and Ballan Framework Plan had long identified Ballan and Precinct 5 for additional residential growth (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.17-19). The more material questions were therefore how the controls should manage impacts, staging and infrastructure, rather than whether the land should ever urbanise (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.18-19).
Analysis
Statutory Mechanism and Growth Function
The amendment proposes to rezone the land from Rural Living Zone to Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 10, apply Development Plan Overlay Schedule 9, apply Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 2, apply the Environmental Audit Overlay to 5580 Geelong-Ballan Road, delete the obsolete Design and Development Overlay Schedule 2, and make associated mapping changes (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, p.11). This is a mechanism-heavy amendment: the rezoning would establish residential permissibility, but DPO9 would require a development plan and supporting studies before ordinary subdivision and development can proceed (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.82-85).
The Panel accepted the NRZ for Precinct 5 because the land is a gateway edge of a peri-urban country town, immediately adjoining rural land, the Western Freeway and the Werribee River corridor (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.20-21). The practical effect is not a density cap, because the NRZ10 does not itself limit density and minimum garden-area rules do not apply where subdivision follows an approved development plan (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.20-21). The Panel also warned that this does not automatically justify NRZ zoning for other Ballan greenfield precincts, which matters because other precincts may have different interfaces, access conditions and growth roles (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, p.21).
The Panel rejected Council’s Day 1 proposal for an average 600 square metre lot size in conventional residential areas, finding it was not strategically justified as a character control and could reduce the flexibility needed over a 10-to-15-year or longer development horizon (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.22-23). The recommended DPO9 instead recognises medium-density lots of 150-349 square metres, conventional lots of 350-799 square metres, and interface lots of 800-1000 square metres on the Map 1 legend (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, p.90). This matters because the planning control moves character management to edge treatments, landscape structure and development-plan review, rather than using a blunt precinct-wide lot-size average (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.22-23, 28-29).
River Corridor, Ecology and Landscape Interface
The Werribee River corridor is the central constraint and public-realm opportunity in the amendment (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.29-31, 34-40). The concept uses a 100 metre river setback, with the corridor containing floodplain land, high-value native vegetation and most of the escarpment, while residential development is generally placed above the river escarpment (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.7, 29, 34). The Panel treated retention of the river corridor as the amendment’s most important ecological outcome and supported the buffer as consistent with Melbourne Water requirements and the ESO2 waterway-protection framework (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.38-40).
The ecological evidence was not complete, but the Panel found it adequate for the amendment stage when combined with further DPO9 requirements (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.35-40). The Flora and Fauna Assessment surveyed only the main proponent land and used autumn/winter survey timing, while expert review identified missed native vegetation patches, a missed scattered tree, a reclassified scattered tree and evidence of EPBC-listed Matted Flax-lily along the aqueduct (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.35-36). The Panel therefore recommended extending VPO2 mapping over Habitat Zone Patch A and requiring future seasonal surveys for threatened species through the Biodiversity Management Plan (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.39-40).
The main ecological risk mechanism is not simply vegetation removal; it is the cumulative effect of construction sediment, stormwater outfalls, pets, litter, lighting, sporting-field chemicals and human activity near the river corridor (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.36-39, 48-51). DPO9 responds by requiring a Biodiversity Management Plan, Construction Management Plan, Integrated Water Management Plan and Public Open Space and Landscape Masterplan, with added emphasis on wildlife-sensitive lighting and river-corridor risk controls (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.34, 39-40, 87-89). The Panel also supported moving hard infrastructure outside the 100 metre river setback while allowing other incursions to be tested later through detailed assessment (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.38-40, 90).
The disused aqueduct remains an unresolved ecological and movement question (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.36, 61-62). Environmental submitters sought a conservation corridor and shared path along the aqueduct, but the Panel found the biodiversity values and master-planning consequences were not yet sufficiently known (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.61-62). The mechanism left open is future development-plan testing: if targeted surveys confirm significant ecological values, retention along or near the aqueduct could reshape the local street and open-space layout (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.61-62).
Drainage, Flooding and Cultural Heritage
Drainage design is a binding delivery issue because the Stormwater Management Strategy consolidates Melbourne Water’s 2017 Ballan North Development Services Scheme concept from three wetland-retarding basins to two, located near the top of the escarpment, with Melbourne Water giving in-principle agreement to that consolidation (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, p.48). Flooding is a lesser constraint on developable land because the 1 percent AEP flood extent is confined to lower-lying river-corridor land and the developable areas, wetland-retarding basins and active open space are proposed above the 1-in-100-year flood level (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.48-51). The Panel accepted evidence that climate-change rainfall modelling had been updated to Melbourne Water’s satisfaction and that the precinct would not create unacceptable flood risk for itself or surrounding properties (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.49-51).
The harder problem is where drainage assets can sit without unacceptable harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.64-68). The draft Cultural Heritage Management Plan identified the escarpment as the area of highest archaeological potential, while wetland-retarding basins and the active open space reserve are proposed on the escarpment (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, p.64). Melbourne Water sought a 200 metre Cultural Values Investigation Area and relocation of drainage assets outside that area, citing examples where cultural heritage had delayed, increased the cost of, or prevented drainage-asset construction elsewhere (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.65-66).
The Panel did not support Melbourne Water’s 200 metre mapped investigation area because it was not supported by Wadawurrung Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation, was not contemplated in the draft CHMP, and could materially alter the concept layout without a proven alternative drainage design (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.66-68). Instead, the Panel supported a flexibility note allowing drainage assets, active open space, community facilities and commercial facilities to change in size, type, staging or location where needed for cultural heritage considerations, provided the intended function and performance standards are achieved (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.67-68, 91). This is a significant delivery safeguard because it keeps the amendment moving while acknowledging that CHMP outcomes may still force physical redesign (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.67-68).
Community Infrastructure, Open Space and Local Services
The open-space package is more advanced than a simple reserve notation because it specifies 2.2 hectares of passive open space across three parks, 4.5 hectares of active open space with an oval and sports pavilion, and 6.7 hectares of unencumbered public open space in the supporting needs assessment (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.41-42). The community infrastructure assessment supported a medium-sized multi-purpose facility of 900 square metres on a 0.8 hectare site with two kindergarten rooms, consulting suites and flexible meeting spaces integrated with the sports pavilion (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, p.42). The Panel accepted a smaller 0.5 hectare land allocation for the facility because co-location with active open space allows more efficient land use (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.45-47).
The Panel found no school site was required in Precinct 5 because the Department of Education had not expressed a need, existing primary-school capacity could be expanded, and projected demand did not establish a need for a secondary or second primary school during the anticipated development horizon (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.44-45). The practical dependency is ongoing monitoring rather than land reservation: if school demand emerges earlier than projected, the Department would need to pursue land through its normal acquisition or negotiation processes (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, p.45).
The local commercial centre is capped in DPO9 at no more than 1,000 square metres of net floor area (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, p.85). The Panel supported a small centre because most of the precinct is beyond a comfortable 800 metre walk from the Ballan town centre and the Residential Retail Assessment found the centre would not undermine the primacy of shops and services along Ingles Street (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.24-25). Its exact location remains a design issue because co-location with the community facility supports a civic hub, while a more southerly position could improve accessibility and co-locate better with medium-density housing (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.24-25, 46).
Infrastructure contributions are proposed through section 173 agreements rather than a development contributions plan (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.47, 82-83). The Panel supported the section 173 mechanism but made no finding on the draft Shared Infrastructure Funding Plan apportionments because that plan was not exhibited, was not listed in DPO9 and no final version was tabled (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, p.47). That is a material source limit: the report confirms the legal collection mechanism but not a settled, transparent per-item funding schedule (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, p.47).
Servicing, Transport and Amenity Dependencies
Servicing is feasible but staged, with the Infrastructure Servicing Report identifying that most services will require developer-funded augmentation, initial sewerage development will be capped at 60 to 100 lots, and initial water development will be capped at up to 300 lots until further augmentation is provided (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.51-53). Central Highlands Water did not oppose the amendment and confirmed the precinct could be serviced, but raised concern that multiple concurrent Ballan growth fronts could complicate long-term infrastructure planning and funding (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.51-52). The Panel found other precincts were outside the amendment scope but encouraged ongoing engagement between CHW, Council and landowners to align servicing with Ballan’s strategic growth objectives (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.52-53).
Transport impacts were assessed around three access points, an internal connector road, active transport links and the Geelong-Ballan Road/Old Melbourne Road intersection known as IN-01 (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.54-55). The Panel accepted that Precinct 5 traffic would not create unacceptable congestion, including after sensitivity testing at 10 vehicle movements per household per day and after considering an additional 450 lots in Precinct 6 (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.55-57). The key transport issue is safety and funding at IN-01, not capacity, because experts agreed the intersection does not need upgrading for capacity reasons but should be upgraded for safety (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.57-59).
DPO9 therefore requires a section 173 agreement with the responsible authority and Head, Transport for Victoria dealing with delivery, funding, timing and land requirements for IN-01 upgrades (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.82-83). The Panel’s recommended text requires a Transport Impact Assessment before statement of compliance for the stage producing the 600th lot, to identify triggers for either an interim upgrade by the landowner or a contribution toward the ultimate roundabout (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, p.83). This creates a measurable staging gate: early development can proceed, but the 600-lot stage forces renewed transport evidence and funding resolution (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, p.83).
Amenity controls are also material because the Western Freeway borders the precinct and acoustic modelling found noise barriers, either walls or bunds, may reach approximately seven metres in some areas (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.32-33, 72). The Panel supported DPO9 acoustic controls that require built-form and facade responses, title restrictions or section 173 agreements for relevant lots, and cost responsibility resting with developers or future home builders as appropriate (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.72-73, 83). The freeway edge is therefore both a noise-mitigation asset and a visual-interface risk requiring coordinated landscape and acoustic design (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.32-33, 72-73).
Current Status
As at the Panel report dated 10 September 2025, Amendment C108moor had completed exhibition and Panel hearing, and the Panel recommended that Council adopt the amendment as exhibited with the changes recommended in the report (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.6, 9-10). The report states that Council must consider the Panel report before deciding whether to adopt the amendment, and that an adopted amendment must then be sent to the Minister for Planning for approval before gazettal changes the planning scheme (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, p.1). The provided source set does not confirm whether Council subsequently adopted the amendment, whether the Minister approved it, or whether it was gazetted (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, p.1).
Dependencies
- Blocks: Full residential subdivision is blocked until a development plan is approved under DPO9 with the required Masterplan, Biodiversity Management Plan, Integrated Water Management Plan, Integrated Transport Management Plan, Infrastructure Servicing Plan, Acoustic Design Response Plan, heritage assessments and other supporting material (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.82-90).
- Blocked by: Later stages are constrained by water and sewer augmentation after the initial 60-100 sewerage lots and up to 300 water lots, by CHMP outcomes affecting escarpment works, and by transport reassessment before the 600th-lot stage for IN-01 upgrade triggers (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.51-53, 64-68, 82-83).
- Informed by: The amendment was informed by a Residential Retail Assessment, Flora and Fauna Assessment, Stormwater Management Strategy, Public Open Space Provision Needs Assessment, Community Facilities and Education Needs Assessment, Infrastructure Servicing Report, Traffic Engineering Assessment, Noise Impact Assessment and draft CHMP, although only the Panel report is in the compile manifest (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.19, 35, 41-42, 48, 51, 54-55, 64, 72).
- Implements: The amendment implements the Ballan Strategic Directions and Ballan Framework Plan directions for Precinct 5 as a greenfield growth area with lower-density and open-space interfaces (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.17-19).
- Conflicts with: The amendment creates unresolved tension between residential growth delivery and river-corridor protection, cultural heritage salvage risk, CHW’s preference for sequential growth-front servicing, and community concern about township character and traffic (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.18, 30-40, 51-53, 55-59, 64-68).
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
Central Highlands Water is the key servicing authority because water and sewer augmentation controls how far development can proceed beyond the initial lot caps (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.51-53). Melbourne Water is central to drainage, Werribee River setbacks, outfall design, cultural heritage risk around drainage assets, and the Ballan North Development Services Scheme (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.37-38, 48, 64-68). Department of Transport and Planning controls the arterial-road interface and must be party to the IN-01 section 173 agreement, while DEECA, EPA, CFA, Heritage Victoria and Wadawurrung Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation each retain later-stage roles through biodiversity, noise, bushfire, post-contact heritage and Aboriginal cultural heritage processes (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.37-40, 57-59, 64-73, 82-83).
Gaps in This Analysis
This page is based on one source document: the Panel report (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf). The underlying technical reports are cited by the Panel but are not included in the compile manifest, so this analysis cannot independently verify the Residential Retail Assessment’s land-supply calculations, the Traffic Engineering Assessment modelling files, the Stormwater Management Strategy basin sizing, the Infrastructure Servicing Report augmentation program, the draft CHMP artefact mapping, the Noise Impact Assessment contours, or the draft Shared Infrastructure Funding Plan cost apportionments (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.19, 35, 47-49, 51-55, 64-72). The largest analytical gap is the absence of the final post-Panel statutory record, because the source confirms a Panel recommendation but not Council adoption, ministerial approval or gazettal (Source: moorabool-c108moor-panel-report.pdf, p.1).
Final Statutory Evidence Guardrail
For production advice, this page must distinguish Panel support from operative planning-scheme law. Unless final Council adoption, Ministerial approval and gazettal are cited on the page, the status remains post-Panel/final statutory evidence missing rather than approved.