title: Amendment C58 - Camerons Road Rural Living Area council: moorabool state: vic category: amendment classification: MAJOR status: adopted last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf
- 2015-12-02-021215-omc-minutes.pdf
Amendment C58 - Camerons Road Rural Living Area
Amendment C58 is a constrained rural living amendment, not a broad growth-area release: it sought to convert about 547 hectares around Camerons Road from Farming Zone to a rural living planning framework, but the Panel reduced its practical effect to a tightly controlled set of additional dwellings tied to mapped envelopes, bushfire mitigation, extractive-industry buffers and land management obligations (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, p.380; Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, p.408). The key planning mechanism is therefore not the headline rezoning alone, but the way Design and Development Overlay controls, zone selection and permit-stage reports are used to prevent the rezoning from creating unmanaged housing expectations in a high-risk landscape (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.459-464).
Background
The amendment area sits on both sides of Camerons Road, extending north from Lerderderg Gorge Road toward Seereys Road, with Goodmans Creek to the east and Lerderderg State Park to the west and north-west (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, p.386). The Panel described the land as undulating to steep, falling about 180 metres to Goodmans Creek, with lot sizes from about 1 hectare to 71 hectares and an average lot size of 13.2 hectares (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, p.386). The adjoining land-use setting is unusually conflicted for rural living: large quarries are located to the east in Special Use Zone Schedule 2, Lerderderg State Park is to the north and north-west in Public Conservation and Resource Zone, and Farming Zone land remains to the south and west on river flats (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, p.386).
The amendment followed repeated attempts since 1990 to recognise Camerons Road as a rural residential or rural living area (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.390-393). Earlier planning processes resisted rezoning because the area had unresolved issues involving rural residential land supply, wildfire hazard, mineral resource protection, proximity to quarries, State Park interface, native vegetation and the risk that further subdivision would compromise the area’s landscape qualities (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.390-393). The 2011 authorisation for Amendment C58 was conditional on the amendment addressing bushfire risk and native vegetation, strategic justification for rural residential development, mining industry protection, and consultation with relevant authorities including the CFA and environment/resource agencies (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, p.387).
As exhibited, Amendment C58 proposed to rezone the land from Farming Zone to Rural Living Zone with a 6 hectare minimum subdivision lot size, amend the Bacchus Marsh Framework Plan to identify Camerons Road as a rural living area, apply a Design and Development Overlay to guide future development, and add notice requirements for dwellings within 500 metres of Lerderderg State Park (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.387-388). The Panel process ran after exhibition from 31 July to 1 September 2014, with 61 submissions recorded: 51 supporting, 8 opposing or seeking changes, and 2 agency submissions with no objection (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, p.380). The hearing occurred from 27 to 29 January 2015 and the Panel report was dated 31 March 2015 (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, p.381).
Analysis
Statutory Effect and Development Yield
The practical effect of C58 is narrower than a simple shift from Farming Zone to Rural Living Zone would suggest (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.405-408). The exhibited six hectare minimum lot size could theoretically have allowed additional subdivision across larger parcels, but the Panel found that this number was not justified by site-specific analysis and that relying on a generic Rural Living Zone minimum would leave too much uncertainty about dwelling numbers and locations (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.407-408). Terramatrix had initially assessed 32 potential dwelling envelopes, including 7 on Lot A, 4 across Lots B/C and 2 each on Lots E, G, H and I, but the later DDO map showed 20 indicative dwelling envelopes (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.407-408; Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, p.414).
The Panel’s mechanism was to treat the envelope plan as a control on dwelling yield rather than a loose diagram (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, p.408). This matters because the amendment area has several overlapping constraints: bushfire risk, native vegetation, quarry buffers, erosion-prone soils and landscape character (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, p.408). If the envelope plan were only advisory, later permit applications could test additional dwellings or alternative locations one by one, weakening the strategic assessment that justified the amendment (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.407-408). The Panel therefore recommended that the DDO make clear that dwelling envelopes identify the limit of additional development, and that vacant lots under 12 hectares without dwellings also be shown on the envelope plan (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.408-409).
Council’s adoption report accepted this logic and described the final amendment as allowing limited further subdivision and housing only after substantive changes to the exhibited proposal (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.136-139). In plain terms, the rezoning was allowed to proceed because the controls were reshaped from a broad rural living entitlement into a mapped, constraint-led permission system (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.139-142).
Bushfire as the Binding Constraint
Bushfire risk is the central planning constraint for C58 (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-omc-minutes.pdf, p.137). The Bushfire Management Overlay applied to all land west of Camerons Road and about half of the land east of Camerons Road, and the whole amendment area was identified as a Bushfire Prone Area (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.393-394). The Panel recorded that Clause 52.47 required subdivision applications in bushfire-affected rural residential land to show dwelling envelopes, defendable space, vegetation management, water supply and access measures (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.411-413).
The mechanism problem was that site-level bushfire compliance did not fully answer the landscape-scale risk (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.414-418). Terramatrix considered the study area to be a high to very high risk landscape, with potential for extreme conditions in northern and western areas because fire could run from the Lerderderg State Park over steep terrain before reaching the amendment area (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.414-415). The CFA described the risk as significant, noting unmanaged vegetation extending long distances toward Daylesford, Trentham and Mount Macedon, with ember attack, fire-driven winds, radiant heat and local flames capable of affecting the subject land (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.416-418).
Access made the risk harder to resolve (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.415-416). Camerons Road and Lerderderg Gorge Road were the likely southern egress route, while Seereys Road was described as a potentially hazardous alternative route through forested landscape, and the Panel did not endorse relying on private land or an unmade government road for community egress in extreme conditions (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.415-416; Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.427-428). The Panel accepted that risk varied across the area, with land east of Camerons Road having lower fuel loads and greater distance from the main landscape hazard, while the north-west had the highest risk (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.421-428).
The adopted planning response was selective rather than uniform (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.427-429). The Panel recommended that no further residential development be provided in the north-west area excluded from Terramatrix assessment and Lot N, that envelope locations for specified lots relying on Camerons Road be reviewed with CFA and Council, and that bushfire protection measures above normal BMO standards may be required where landscape-scale risk warrants them (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.428-429). The recommended DDO required a Bushfire Development Report, allowed the responsible authority to consult CFA, extended BMO-style measures to Bushfire Prone Areas on the eastern side of Camerons Road, and required water storage of at least 10,000 litres within 60 metres of a dwelling or as required by CFA (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.460-462).
Extractive Industry Interface
The quarry interface is the second hard edge on the amendment (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.430-435). Quarries east of Goodmans Creek had operated since at least the 1970s and were described as major suppliers of sand and stone to Melbourne and surrounding areas (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, p.430). The Boral quarry alone was recorded as supplying about 1 million tonnes per year and as one of Victoria’s largest sand quarries (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, p.430). The Panel also recorded 24-hour weekday sand extraction and processing, periodic blasting to remove 8 to 15 metres of basalt rock, and quarry life expectations of 20 to 30-plus years (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, p.430).
The planning mechanism is a two-way buffer (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.433-435). Quarry operations can affect residential amenity through noise, dust, vibration and blasting, while new sensitive uses can generate complaints or constraints that affect quarry operations and resource extraction longevity (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.431-435). Most of the 147 hectares east of Camerons Road, representing 27% of the amendment area, was within 500 metres of the quarries (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, p.430). The Panel rejected reliance on a history of few complaints because new dwellings could create different amenity expectations from those of existing residents (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, p.434).
The Panel’s solution was not to abandon all Rural Living Zone east of Camerons Road, but to prohibit additional dwellings and other sensitive uses within 500 metres of the Special Use Zone boundary (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.434-435). This converts the quarry buffer from a discretionary consideration into a firm siting rule, so rural living recognition does not translate into further residential encroachment toward the extractive industry land (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.434-435). The recommended DDO states that new buildings must be at least 500 metres from the extractive industries defined by Special Use Zone Schedule 2 and that a permit cannot vary this requirement (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, p.459).
Biodiversity, Land Capability and Ongoing Land Management
C58 also relies on a land management bargain: if limited rural living subdivision is allowed, the new planning framework must avoid significant vegetation and create enforceable management duties for difficult land (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.435-445). The amendment area includes Rocky Chenopod Woodland, mainly west of Camerons Road, and Grassy Woodland, with conservation statuses of vulnerable and endangered respectively in the Central Victorian Uplands bioregion (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, p.386). The Oekologie assessment found no significant individual flora or fauna species recorded in or immediately around the review area, but recognised habitat values and significant native vegetation, especially west of Camerons Road (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.436-438).
The biodiversity issue is inseparable from bushfire (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.435-436). Defendable space can require vegetation removal, while ecological improvement can increase fuel continuity if not integrated with bushfire planning (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.417-421). The Panel therefore treated dwelling-envelope selection as the place where these objectives must be reconciled: if acceptable bushfire risk mitigation cannot be achieved while protecting significant vegetation, then additional development should not be identified for that lot (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.382-383).
Land capability reinforces the need for controls rather than broad entitlement (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.386-387). The middle and northern parts of the amendment area were identified as Agricultural Land Class 5, meaning low to nil agricultural capability due to constraints including steepness, shallow sandy or rocky soils and erosion susceptibility (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, p.386). The Panel observed evidence of erosion, sparse lower-storey ground cover, potentially unsustainable land use and poor natural regeneration capacity, and did not accept that subdivision into smaller parcels necessarily improves land management (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.442-443).
The recommended control is a Land Management Plan secured through permit processes and section 173 agreements (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.443-445). The LMP must describe topography, soils, vegetation, land-use potential and threats to sustainability, and must address access, pest plants and animals, biodiversity management, drainage, soil conservation and screening vegetation where required (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.443-445). This creates an ongoing compliance burden for Council, which Council acknowledged would require site-by-site consideration, monitoring and enforcement but considered manageable because the number of sites was limited (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.442-443).
Zone Choice and the Split Planning Framework
The most important post-panel shift was the Panel’s rejection of a single Rural Living Zone solution across the whole area (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.446-449). For land west of Camerons Road, the Panel recommended Rural Conservation Zone because it gives greater weight to environmental and landscape values, requires a permit for a dwelling, and does not start from the same residential-use predisposition as Rural Living Zone (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.447-448). For land east of Camerons Road, the Panel accepted Rural Living Zone because bushfire and biodiversity constraints were less severe, provided the DDO prohibited further sensitive-use encroachment into the 500 metre quarry buffer (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, p.448).
The Panel also supported lot-size averaging where linked to environmental gains, with no lot below 2 hectares and no further subdivision of larger balance lots (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.449-450). This is a mechanism to let subdivision boundaries follow environmental logic rather than a rigid six hectare geometry: smaller dwelling lots can be paired with larger retained vegetation or conservation lots where the overall outcome better protects vegetation and land management values (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.449-450). The Panel explicitly cautioned that this approach was site-specific and should not be treated as a general precedent for other Moorabool rural living areas (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, p.450).
Council adopted the amendment with the Panel-recommended direction, including Rural Conservation Zone west of Camerons Road, Rural Living Zone east of Camerons Road, specified building envelopes, and protection for state-significant extractive industry (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.139-142). This is why C58 should be read as a constrained amendment whose statutory architecture is designed to limit the consequences of rezoning rather than maximise housing yield (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.139-142).
Current Status
Council resolved on 2 December 2015 to adopt Amendment C58 after considering the Panel report, authorise the CEO to make technical changes to give effect to the resolution, and submit the amendment to the Minister for Planning once the proponent supplied a DDO map to the satisfaction of the CFA and Council’s General Manager Growth and Development (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.141-142). The available source set does not include a Ministerial approval notice, gazettal notice, final incorporated maps or the final approved planning scheme ordinance, so this page can confirm Council adoption but cannot confirm final approval or gazettal from the supplied documents (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.141-142).
Dependencies
- Blocks: Additional rural living subdivision and dwellings in the amendment area depend on the mapped dwelling envelopes, DDO requirements, Bushfire Development Reports, Land Management Plans, land capability assessment, quarry buffer compliance and permit-stage assessment (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.459-464).
- Blocked by: Final submission for approval was expressly dependent on an amendment map for the DDO schedule being provided to the satisfaction of the CFA and Council’s General Manager Growth and Development (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.141-142).
- Informed by: The amendment was informed by the Isis Planning rural living opportunities report, Oekologie flora and fauna assessment, Terramatrix bushfire reports and supplementary landscape risk material, although those technical reports are only available here through the Panel and officer-report summaries rather than as standalone source documents (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.134-135; Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.413-414).
- Implements: The amendment implements the local policy direction that identifies Camerons Road as a potential rural living location near Bacchus Marsh, but only after responding to bushfire, biodiversity and extractive-industry constraints (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.399-405).
- Conflicts with: The amendment sits in tension with bushfire planning, native vegetation protection, extractive industry buffers and rural landscape protection because each additional dwelling can increase exposure to fire, vegetation-management pressure, amenity conflict with quarries and demand for stronger land management controls (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.405-435).
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
The key external agency relationships are with the CFA for bushfire risk, DELWP or predecessor environment agencies for State Park and native vegetation matters, EPA and resource agencies for quarry separation distances, Western Water as a submitter, and the Commonwealth environment department for EPBC Act referral questions (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.380-381; Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.395-398; Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.453-454). The amendment also depends on the broader Central Highlands and Grampians bushfire planning context because regional bushfire assessments and the Central Highlands Regional Growth Plan framed the Panel’s precautionary approach to new rural residential development in hazard-prone landscapes (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.410-413).
Gaps in This Analysis
The source set is strong for the Panel’s reasoning and Council’s adoption decision, but thin for final statutory verification and technical detail. The standalone Isis Planning rural living report, Terramatrix bushfire reports, Oekologie flora and fauna reports, final DDO map, final approved amendment documents, Ministerial approval notice and gazettal notice are not included in the supplied manifest, so this page cannot independently test the exact final envelope locations, final zone mapping, later approval conditions or post-2015 status (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.134-135; Source: 2015-12-02-021215-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.141-142). A follow-up corpus gap should prioritise the final approved C58 amendment package and gazettal material because those documents determine whether the Council-adopted controls became operative planning scheme law (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.141-142).