title: Amendment C53 - Gordon Structure Plan council: moorabool state: vic category: amendment classification: MAJOR status: unknown last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf
- 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf
Amendment C53 - Gordon Structure Plan
Amendment C53 was the statutory vehicle proposed to turn the Gordon Structure Plan into planning scheme controls for Gordon, shifting the township from a broad Township Zone framework toward separate residential, commercial, design and landscape controls. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.39) Its practical purpose was to manage the development pressure created by reticulated sewerage: sewerage could unlock smaller lots, subdivision and different housing forms, but it also exposed Gordon to faster change than its roads, drainage, landscape setting and water-catchment context could absorb without more precise controls. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.1, 18-21)
Background
The structure plan covered Gordon township and surrounds, bounded by the freeway to the north, the railway to the south, and the land already within the Township and Rural Living zones. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.4) It was prepared after meetings with residents, school children, Council officers, Councillors and agencies, and it was placed on formal public exhibition as an amendment to the Moorabool Planning Scheme. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.1)
The old planning framework was considered inadequate because Clause 21.09 and the Township Zone had been prepared for an unsewered township. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.4) That matters because the arrival of reticulated sewerage changes the basic development equation: lots previously too small for on-site wastewater disposal may become capable of housing, existing large lots may be subdivided, and business or medium-density proposals become more plausible. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.18-20)
The regional policy setting also pointed toward managed growth in selected settlements on transport corridors rather than scattered rural development. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.8-9) Gordon sat in the Melbourne-Ballarat corridor, approximately 23 kilometres from central Ballarat, with Western Freeway access and a closed railway station less than one kilometre south of the town centre. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.5, 38)
Analysis
Statutory Mechanism and Planning Effect
Amendment C53 proposed five main planning scheme changes: replace the Gordon local policy at Clause 21.09, rezone the town centre to Business 1 Zone, rezone the residential part of the Township Zone to Residential 1 Zone, apply Design and Development Overlay Schedule 5 across the town centre, township and rural surrounds, and apply Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 2 to the town centre and rural living surrounds. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.39) In plain terms, the amendment tried to replace one loose planning bucket with separate drawers: one for commercial activity, one for residential land, one for built-form expectations, and one for landscape and vegetation protection. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.24, 39-45)
The proposed Clause 21.09 would have made the Gordon Structure Plan the assessment framework for all land use, development and subdivision applications in Gordon. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.40) This is important because the structure plan was not only a growth map; it also set a sequence: infill first, then longer-term expansion between the existing township and the railway line, with possible western investigation along Old Melbourne Road only if southern expansion proved constrained by infrastructure or drainage. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.25-27, 36)
The proposed DDO5 was the main tool for translating village-character objectives into permit controls. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.41-44) It proposed an 800 m2 minimum lot size in residential areas, a 40 percent building site coverage threshold, a 300 m2 total floor area threshold for permit exemptions, 9 metre height limits for buildings within the exemption pathway, 2 metre side setbacks, 5 metre rear setbacks, and a 1.2 metre front fence threshold. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.41-42) The mechanism is direct: sewerage allows more subdivision, while DDO5 slows the shift toward small-lot suburban form by requiring larger lots, setbacks and visible landscape space. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.29-31, 41-42)
The proposed SLO2 was the vegetation and landscape-control counterpart to DDO5. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.44-45) It would have required a permit to remove, destroy or lop most trees, subject to exemptions including trees with trunk circumference of 0.4 metres or less at one metre above ground level, vegetation needed for utility maintenance, unsafe vegetation assessed by a qualified arborist, dead vegetation, and approved management-program works. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.45) This would have made tree loss a planning decision rather than a background consequence of subdivision. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.13-14, 44-45)
Land Supply, Housing Capacity and the Sewerage Trigger
The structure plan identified about 1,000 people in Gordon township and surrounds, with about 270 houses in the study area, approximately 120 in the surrounding rural living area and approximately 150 in the Township Zone area. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.1) A more detailed housing section counted 264 houses in the study area, including 118 in the Rural Living Zone area and 146 in the Township Zone area. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.10-11) The discrepancy between the rounded executive-summary figures and the detailed counts is small, but it signals that the plan should be read as a strategic capacity exercise rather than a cadastral audit. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.1, 10-11)
Recent growth before the plan was modest but real: 47 building permits were issued for new dwellings in Gordon township and the surrounding rural residential area between 2000 and 2008, equating to growth of 2-3 percent per annum. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.10) The township contained 93 vacant lots, but 29 were part of a single property often used with an adjoining house, meaning not every titled lot could be assumed to become available for housing. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.10) The Rural Living Zone contained 43 vacant properties, and recent trends suggested about 12 years supply in that surrounding rural living area. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.11)
Central Highlands Water was central to the plan because sewerage changes both environmental performance and development feasibility. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.17-18) CHW identified 141 existing properties for connection and made provision for an upper limit of 280 total properties in the declared sewerage district. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.18) That 280-connection design assumption created an immediate planning tension: the structure plan’s precinct methodology found potential for 172 additional dwellings inside the Township Zone, and a broader scenario of 247 additional lots when nearby existing dwellings and further lots west and south of Old Melbourne Road and Brougham Street were included. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.19-21)
The arithmetic shows the constraint. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.20-21) If only the 141 CHW base connections are counted, a 280-property allowance leaves 139 additional connections. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.29) If 34 nearby or currently unsewered existing dwellings are also connected, the starting point becomes 175 connections, leaving only 105 additional connections before the 280 threshold. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.20-21) At 8 dwellings per year, that scenario provides approximately 13 years supply, well short of a 20-year planning horizon. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.21)
This is the core mechanism of C53: the amendment encourages infill because sewerage makes infill possible, but the first-stage sewerage allowance may itself become a cap on infill if connections beyond 280 require substantial additional cost or augmentation. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.18, 21) The plan explicitly warned that one substantial proposal, such as an aged-persons village or medium-density development, could consume much of the spare connection allowance quickly. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.21) The practical consequence is that sewerage is both an enabling infrastructure item and a staging risk. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.18-21)
Water Catchment, Drainage and Physical Servicing Constraints
Gordon is within a legally proclaimed water supply catchment, with Paddock Creek draining east to Bostock Reservoir and the East Moorabool River. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.16) The structure plan tied sewerage to water-quality protection because septic systems in potable water catchments can contribute pollutants through surface drainage and sub-surface movement. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.16-17) It also recorded that a relevant VCAT decision applying state catchment policy supported a 1 dwelling per 40 hectares density and 40 hectare minimum lots in open potable water catchments where dwellings rely on septic systems. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.17)
This catchment context explains why the Rural Living Zone could not simply absorb growth. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.17-18) The Rural Living Zone had a 6 hectare minimum subdivision size, 33 vacant lots under 6 hectares, and only one lot larger than 12 hectares. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.18) The plan stated that applying the catchment decision across the Rural Living Zone could preclude further residential development anywhere in that zone. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.18) The policy logic is therefore containment: serviced township infill is the lower-risk option compared with additional septic-dependent rural living. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.16-18, 25-26)
Drainage is the second binding physical constraint. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.16) The plan identified drainage problems between Nightingale Street and Main Street, stormwater from Old Melbourne Road and Careys Road East affecting properties near Old Western Highway, major drainage problems at Foxes Lane and Cartons Road, problems around Stanley and O’Donnell Streets and Gladstone and Hopwood Streets, periodic complaints in Main Street, and flooding on Lyndhurst Street that cuts road access. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.16) The plan concluded that a full underground drainage system for part or all of the township may be warranted but would be prohibitively expensive. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.16)
The amendment response was not a development contributions plan; it was a permit-control and proponent-works model. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.2, 16, 27, 41-44) The structure plan stated that intensive development may require proponents to provide substantial drainage works at their cost, and proposed DDO5 required applications to address drainage, stormwater runoff and possible flooding. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.2, 16, 41-44) That makes drainage a site-by-site feasibility and sequencing issue rather than a single funded township project in the supplied documents. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.16, 27, 41-44)
Movement, Rail and Long-Term Growth Direction
The structure plan treated the closed Gordon railway station as a long-term organising feature, but not as a prerequisite for implementation. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.12, 27, 36) The Department of Transport had indicated in June 2010 that there was no commitment to reopen the station, but that land use planning should preserve the option and reflect its potential. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.12) The plan estimated the station catchment at about 2,500 people, including Gordon, Mount Egerton, Wallace and areas north of the freeway. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.12)
The growth-direction consequence is clear. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.36) Long-term residential expansion was directed south of the existing township toward the railway station because that location is relatively flat, aligned with Gordon-Mt Egerton Road, held in larger parcels, more likely to support comprehensive planning, and better able to support a reopened station than other expansion directions. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.36) However, the plan also acknowledged possible poor drainage in parts of that southern area and nominated westward investigation along Old Melbourne Road as a fallback if southern expansion was not possible because of infrastructure or drainage constraints. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.36)
Road and pathway infrastructure was treated as incremental rather than fully resolved. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.14, 27) Long lengths of residential access streets were gravel, some surveyed roads were not open to traffic, and further residential development could require proponents to partly or fully upgrade roads or contribute to costs. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.14) The plan proposed a network of existing and new walking and cycling paths linking schools, the town centre, residential areas, Paddock Creek and a possible reopened station. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.27)
Character, Landscape and Development Form
The amendment was as much a character-management amendment as a growth amendment. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.13-14, 24-31) Gordon’s valued form was described as a village-like settlement in a rolling rural landscape, with single-storey detached buildings, generous setbacks, gabled roofs, verandas, timber and brick materials, windbreak plantings, remnant vegetation, views to rural land, and Paddock Creek as a physical and open-space break. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.13-14) The proposed controls therefore sought to keep development visibly low-rise, separated, landscape-dominant and connected to Main Street rather than allowing sewerage-enabled infill to erase the rural-town pattern. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.30-31, 41-45)
The proposed commercial mechanism was to rezone the Main Street town centre to Business 1 Zone, generally along Old Melbourne Road between Russell and Brougham Streets. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.24, 39) The plan’s effect was to focus future business and community activity in the existing core, with active frontages, minimal front setbacks, rear parking and pedestrian-scale development. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.25-26, 41-44) This avoids scattering business uses through the broader Township Zone and reduces land-use conflict. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.24, 39-41)
For residential land, the amendment relied on the Residential 1 Zone and DDO5 rather than a growth-zone approach. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.29, 39-42) That choice fits the plan’s objective: more infill and subdivision are expected, but they are intended to sit within an 800 m2 minimum lot framework and larger setback expectations. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.29-31, 42) A later council agenda for Amendment C51 confirms that Amendment C72 subsequently implemented new residential zones in Bacchus Marsh, Ballan and Gordon, meaning C53’s exhibited Residential 1 Zone language sat in a wider transition from former residential zones to the General Residential, Neighbourhood Residential and Residential Growth Zone system. (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, pp.8-11)
Current Status
The supplied source set proves that the Gordon Structure Plan was placed on formal public exhibition as a planning scheme amendment and that the amendment process contemplated exhibition, possible Panel review, Council adoption and Ministerial approval. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.1, 5) The supplied source set does not include a C53 Panel report, Council adoption report, Ministerial approval notice or gazettal notice. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.1, 5) On the available evidence, the defensible status for this page is therefore unknown beyond exhibition-stage documentation. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.1, 5)
Dependencies
- Blocks: Without the C53-style controls, Gordon’s sewerage-enabled infill would be assessed through less tailored township controls that the structure plan considered inadequate for a sewered settlement. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.4)
- Blocked by: Growth beyond ordinary infill is constrained by sewerage capacity and connection costs after the 280-property allowance, drainage capacity in multiple township locations, potable water catchment policy, and the need for further investigation before long-term residential expansion south of the township or west along Old Melbourne Road. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.16-21, 36)
- Informed by: The plan was informed by community consultation, school engagement, Council officer and Councillor discussions, agency meetings, residential land supply analysis, catchment policy, CHW servicing advice, drainage observations and regional corridor policy. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.1, 8-21)
- Implements: The amendment implemented the local policy direction to prepare a Gordon structure plan, contain urban growth through infill, provide a clear township boundary, require development plans for future residential rezoning, and protect rural-town character. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.2, 5, 39-40)
- Conflicts with: The plan identified tension between CHW’s first-stage 280-property sewerage allowance and the structure plan’s broader infill capacity estimates, because the servicing allowance could become a practical cap before the 20-year land supply horizon is reached. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.18-21)
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
Central Highlands Water is the critical infrastructure authority because its sewerage district, 141 initial connections and 280-property allowance shape the amount and timing of Gordon’s feasible infill development. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.17-21) The Department of Transport is a second external dependency because it had no commitment to reopen Gordon station but advised that planning should preserve the option. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.12) The broader regional link is the Melbourne-Ballarat corridor: the structure plan tied Gordon’s future to Ballarat-region growth, Western Freeway access, rail infrastructure and the Central Highlands Regional Strategic Plan’s Gordon-Ballan corridor. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.7-9)
Gaps in This Analysis
The source set is thin for a major amendment because it contains the exhibited structure plan and an agenda item for another amendment, but not the C53 amendment ordinance, explanatory report, exhibited maps at planning-scheme-map quality, submissions, Panel report, Council adoption report, Ministerial decision or gazettal notice. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.1, 5; Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, pp.8-11) The biggest analytical gap is statutory outcome: the documents show what C53 intended to do, but not whether it was adopted, modified, approved, abandoned or overtaken by Amendment C72 and later planning scheme translations. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.39-45; Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, pp.8-11)
The second gap is infrastructure costing. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.16-21) The plan identifies drainage problems, road-upgrade dependencies and possible sewerage augmentation beyond 280 connections, but it does not provide capital costs, contribution rates, works triggers or a funded delivery program. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.14, 16, 18-21, 27) The third gap is mapped land-take precision: maps 4, 5 and 6 are referenced, but the extracted text does not provide parcel-level geometry, hectare areas or lot-by-lot constraints needed to quantify developable area loss from drainage, landscape controls or future roads. (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, pp.22, 26, 28)