Grange Planning Brain

title: Amendment C51 - Bacchus Marsh Activity Centre Structure Plan council: moorabool state: vic category: amendment classification: MAJOR status: adopted last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:

  • 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf
  • 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf

Amendment C51 - Bacchus Marsh Activity Centre Structure Plan

Amendment C51 converted the Bacchus Marsh Activity Centre Structure Plan 2011 from a strategic planning exercise into planning scheme controls for central Bacchus Marsh, but Council adopted a modified version that removed the Structure Plan itself as a reference document and instead embedded its main mechanisms through Clause 21.07, Development Plan Overlays, and Design and Development Overlays (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.16-19). The amendment matters because it changed how the town centre, the Main Street commercial area, the land between Main Street and the railway station, and the Taverner Street residential land would be assessed at permit stage (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.13-14).

Background

Council initiated Amendment C51 to implement the Bacchus Marsh Activity Centre Structure Plan 2011, which Council had adopted on 7 December 2011 (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, p.7). The Structure Plan was prepared with substantial State Government financial assistance and arose from the Growing Moorabool Economic Development Strategy and Action Plan, which called for a concentrated activity centre in the core of Bacchus Marsh with additional retail floorspace, offices, service industries, medical and professional suites, and a range of residential offerings (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, p.7). Council requested ministerial authorisation on 31 January 2012, the Minister authorised preparation and exhibition on 16 February 2012, and authorisation A02186 was extended on 19 February 2013 after internal review and departmental consultation (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, p.7).

The exhibited amendment proposed five statutory moves: amend Clause 21.07 for Bacchus Marsh, include the Structure Plan as a Clause 21.11 reference document, add eight Design and Development Overlay schedules, rezone the Taverner Street Development Area from Farming Zone to a residential zone with DPO4 and an Environmental Audit Overlay, and apply DPO5 to the Greenway route between the Main Street area and the railway station (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, p.8). The amendment was exhibited from 30 May to 28 June 2013, Council accepted late submissions until 24 July 2013, and 17 submissions were received, comprising six within the formal exhibition period and eleven late submissions (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, p.8). Of those 17 submissions, nine opposed the amendment, three made comment without objection, one supported it in principle while seeking changes, and four supported or did not object to it (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, p.8).

Analysis

Statutory Mechanism and Practical Effect

The amendment did not simply endorse a plan; it translated a broad activity-centre vision into decision rules for permits, subdivision, built form, access, contamination, and master planning (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.13-14). The key under-the-hood mechanism is that the Municipal Strategic Statement sets the strategic basis, the DPO schedules require master plans before substantial development, and the DDO schedules control built form and design at permit stage (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.13-14). Like putting labels and gates in a playground, Clause 21.07 explains what each part is for, while the overlays decide where people can build, where paths must connect, and what extra checks are needed before sensitive land changes use (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.13-14).

The Planning Panel changed the statutory architecture by recommending that the Structure Plan and Strategic Vision Plan be deleted from Clause 21.07 and that the Structure Plan not be listed as a Clause 21.11 reference document (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.18-19). The mechanism is important: instead of requiring permit decision-makers to interpret the whole Structure Plan, the principal elements were to be carried through Clause 21.07 strategies and the DPO/DDO schedules (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.16-19). This reduced the risk of inconsistency because the Panel found that different versions of the Strategic Vision Plan had different precinct boundaries, and Council officers agreed that retaining the plan diagram could cause confusion in interpreting the planning scheme (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, p.18).

The amendment also had to be reconciled with the statewide residential-zone reform and local Amendment C72 (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.9-12). Amendment C72 was gazetted on 9 October 2014 and retained the General Residential Zone in Bacchus Marsh while applying GRZ2 and GRZ3 schedules to central and inner residential areas, which Council reported accounted for about 10 per cent of Bacchus Marsh residential land (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, p.12). GRZ2 set a five metre minimum street setback, 70 per cent maximum site coverage instead of 60 per cent, and 1.2 metre maximum front fence height; GRZ3 set a six metre minimum street setback, a tree requirement of one tree per 600 square metres of lot size with at least one front-setback tree, and a 1.2 metre maximum front fence height (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, p.12). Council therefore adopted C51 with extra changes to remove street setback requirements from DDO6, DDO8, and DDO9, so the newer residential-zone schedules and C51 overlays did not duplicate or contradict each other (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.25-27).

The most contested physical mechanism was the Greenway, later renamed the Bacchus Marsh Activity Centre Link (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.16-21). The original proposition sought a north-south pedestrian and cycle connection between Main Street and the railway station, but submitters challenged its form, location, land requirement, property impact, and lack of compensation mechanism (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.8, 16). The Panel accepted the strategic aim of a safe pedestrian and cycle link separated from vehicle traffic, but it rejected a fixed Greenway form that would unduly burden one or two landowners (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.16-17).

The adopted mechanism was DPO5, not a Public Acquisition Overlay (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.20-21). This matters because a DPO works by requiring a development plan or master plan before permits are granted, while a Public Acquisition Overlay would reserve land for acquisition by a public authority (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.19-21). DPO5 required a development plan for land north of the Werribee River, including a safe, attractive linkage through commercially zoned land from Waddell Street to Main Street, a direct linkage from the railway station to Waddell Street through residential land, separation between pedestrian/cycle movements and vehicle traffic, passive surveillance from dwellings, and consideration of service-authority views (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, pp.141-142).

The Link also tied movement planning to road access because DPO5 required a through road connecting Waddell and Simpson Streets (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.141). Council described this road connection as parallel to Main Street and identified it as a key element of DPO5 (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.8, 39). The practical effect is that substantial development south of Main Street could not be assessed as isolated parcels; it had to show how roads, pedestrian/cycle movement, Werribee River interface, stormwater, contamination, and adjoining neighbourhood connections would work together (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, pp.141-142).

Taverner Residential Development Area

The Taverner Street land was a separate but linked residential implementation package (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.22-27). The exhibited amendment proposed rezoning land north of Taverner Street from Farming Zone to Residential 1 Zone, with DPO4, DDO5, and an Environmental Audit Overlay (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.8, 13-14). Because the new residential zones replaced Residential 1 Zone during the amendment process, Council adopted the final rezoning as General Residential Zone Schedule 1 rather than Residential 1 Zone (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.26-27, 42).

The Taverner site carried three planning constraints: contamination risk, interface risk, and infrastructure sequencing (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.14, 22-24). The Environmental Audit Overlay was applied because the land may have been contaminated by intensive horticultural use and Council required the land to be demonstrated free from contamination before residential use (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, p.14). The Panel also required actual noise readings from the Alsafe concrete batching plant in Park Street before the rezoning proceeded, because evidence on the reduction of the Clause 52.10 threshold buffer was not available during the hearing (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.22-23). Noise testing on 16 June 2014 used simulated plant operating conditions because the plant was not operational during measurement, and Council officers concluded the results indicated industrial noise would comply at the Taverner Street site boundary if the simulated conditions represented typical operation (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.23-24).

DPO4 made the Taverner land a master-planned precinct rather than a conventional residential subdivision (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, pp.143-147). It required construction management, developer contributions through a Section 173 Agreement for social and road infrastructure, retention of Southern Rural Water easements, potential contributions for irrigation infrastructure replacement where access is provided from Boyes Close, and a road along the Werribee River environs with a 10.1 metre sealed pavement, footpath, kerb and channel, and 2.3 metre indented parking bays (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, pp.143-144). It also required development plans to identify drainage lines, water features, retarding basins, floodways, infrastructure easements, transition to rural lots east of Fisken Street, a Werribee River pedestrian and bicycle network, and no more than one break in the Osage Orange Avenue and Windbreak Grove (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.144).

DDO5 then controlled design after the DPO had established the precinct layout (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, p.24). DDO5 described the preferred character as mixed-density residential development responding to the locality and respecting the historic Osage Orange avenue and windbreak (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.148). It required frontages to address Taverner Street, Fisken Street, Boyes Close, and the Werribee River corridor; it set a six metre minimum frontage setback to Taverner Street and Boyes Close to allow canopy planting; and it limited wall height along Fisken Street to seven metres from natural ground level (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.148). It also required subdivision to support passive surveillance of the Werribee River corridor and Boyes Close, active frontage along Taverner Street, and property boundaries that do not affect the Osage Orange Avenue and Windbreak plantings (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.149).

Built Form, Main Street, and Centre Function

The built-form package was the main long-term permit-control outcome of C51 (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.13-14, 39). Council adopted eight Design and Development Overlay schedules to introduce specific design and built-form requirements intended to respect Bacchus Marsh’s prevailing town character (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, p.8). The DDOs were not only aesthetic controls; they were the way Council turned character, access, surveillance, river interface, and active frontage objectives into permit assessment criteria (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.20-21, 39).

DDO11 for the Main Street precinct sought a commercial core with active ground-floor frontages, pedestrian amenity, a permeable street network, and a street-wall scale generally equivalent to 7.5 metres above natural ground level (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, pp.161-162). DDO11 allowed higher elements only where they adopt upper-level setbacks so they are not visible from 1.7 metres eye level on the opposite footpath, and it expected at least 50 per cent transparent ground-floor facade in the Commercial 1 Zone (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.162). This is a mechanism for centre consolidation without allowing taller built form to overwhelm the fine-grain Main Street streetscape (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, pp.161-162).

DDO9 addressed the residential spine associated with the north-south pedestrian/cycle route, with a preferred character of medium-density residential development linking the Main Street commercial area and the railway station (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.157). DDO9 set a nine metre maximum wall height adjacent to the north-south pedestrian/cycle route, required at least five metres frontage setback for new buildings, and directed vehicle access to shareways, local access roads, or side/rear access to reduce conflict with pedestrians and cyclists (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.157). Subdivision creating a vacant lot under 300 square metres had to show a building envelope or development plans demonstrating that the lot could support a dwelling meeting the schedule’s design objectives (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.158).

Submissions, Panel Resolution, and Governance Risk

The amendment was contested but not overwhelmed by submissions, with 17 total submissions and seven parties making written and oral submissions at the Panel hearing (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.14-16). The substantive issues were the role of the Structure Plan, Main Street and the Civic Precinct, DDO11, the Greenway and compensation concerns, Taverner rezoning, and commercial-zone application in the town centre (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.8-9, 14-15). Expert town planning evidence was presented by Council and three submitters, and expert acoustic and buffer-constraint evidence was presented in relation to Taverner Street (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, p.16).

The Panel supported the amendment’s strategic basis but recommended modifications rather than simple approval of the exhibited version (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.16-17). Council accepted the Panel changes, adopted C51 with additional C72-related changes, and resolved to submit the adopted amendment to the Minister for Planning for approval under section 31(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.41-42). This means the supplied sources prove Council adoption and submission for ministerial approval, but they do not prove final ministerial approval or gazettal of C51 (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, p.42).

Current Status

As at the 18 February 2015 Special Meeting, Council adopted Moorabool Planning Scheme Amendment C51 with Panel-recommended changes and additional changes arising from Amendment C72 (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.41-42). Council also resolved to submit the adopted amendment and prescribed information to the Minister for Planning requesting approval under section 31(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, p.42). The supplied manifest does not include a gazettal notice, ministerial approval decision, final planning scheme ordinance, or incorporated amendment documentation confirming what was ultimately approved (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, p.42).

Dependencies

  • Blocks: Without C51, Council reported it would lack the strategic and statutory basis to secure an appropriate pedestrian/cycle link between Main Street and the railway station and to facilitate the Simpson Street to Waddell Street road connection (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.36-37).
  • Blocked by: At Council adoption stage, final effect depended on ministerial approval after Council submitted the adopted amendment under section 31(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, p.42).
  • Informed by: The amendment was informed by the Bacchus Marsh Activity Centre Structure Plan 2011, the Growing Moorabool Economic Development Strategy and Action Plan, the C51 Panel Report, the Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee process, the C72 residential-zone amendment, noise assessment work for the Alsafe concrete batching plant, traffic and community-infrastructure material for Taverner contributions, and environmental audit considerations for horticultural land (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.7, 16, 23-27, 35; Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, pp.143-146).
  • Implements: C51 implemented the MSS further strategic work task to prepare and adopt a local area structure plan for land between the railway station and Main Street and between Fisken and Grant Streets (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.13, 35).
  • Conflicts with: The exhibited C51 controls overlapped with newer residential-zone schedules introduced through Amendment C72, so Council removed duplicated street-setback requirements from DDO6, DDO8, and DDO9 and changed the Taverner rezoning from Residential 1 Zone to General Residential Zone Schedule 1 (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.25-27, 42).

The Taverner controls required Southern Rural Water easements to be maintained and required relevant water-authority views before approving a development plan (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, pp.143, 147). The amendment also relied on state-level planning processes, including ministerial authorisation, Planning Panels Victoria, the Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee, Amendment VC116, Amendment C72, and final ministerial approval (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.7, 10-12, 15-16, 27, 42). The supplied documents do not include separate water, sewer, transport-agency, or approval-stage records sufficient to test infrastructure capacity beyond the DPO reporting requirements (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, pp.143-147).

Gaps in This Analysis

The source set is thin for a MAJOR amendment because it contains the Council agenda and minutes but not the standalone Bacchus Marsh Activity Centre Structure Plan 2011, the full independent Panel Report, final approved C51 amendment ordinance and maps, gazettal notice, submissions, GHD noise reports, Community Infrastructure Report, Traffic Impact Assessment Report, environmental audit material, or final DPO/DDO schedules as approved by the Minister (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.16, 23, 35, 42; Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, pp.141-147). Because those documents are missing, this page can identify the statutory mechanisms and Council’s adopted position, but it cannot verify final approval, quantify total retail or housing yield, calculate contribution rates, map exact land take for the Activity Centre Link, or test whether the final planning scheme controls matched Council’s adopted Attachment 3 (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, p.42; Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, pp.141-147). These missing documents should be treated as a corpus gap for _gaps because they are primary sources for the final statutory effect of a major activity-centre amendment (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.41-42).

Graph View