title: Amendment C62 - Underbank Rezoning council: moorabool state: vic category: amendment classification: MAJOR status: approved last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:

smc-agenda-170914.pdf
approved-underbank-development-plan-1-27.pdf
approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf

Amendment C62 - Underbank Rezoning

Amendment C62 converted the main Underbank Stud Farm landholding at Bacchus Marsh from rural planning control toward urban residential development, but its practical effect was not simply to change the zoning map; it created a staged planning mechanism that ties subdivision to traffic thresholds, landscape controls, waterway setbacks, service authority approvals and a Section 173 infrastructure funding agreement (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, pp.7-15). The later approved Underbank Development Plan shows the amendment operating as a site-specific delivery framework for a 151.72 ha development plan area with 82.7 ha of net developable area and 68.98 ha allocated to creek environs, escarpment land and open space (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, p.55).

Background

The rezoning request was lodged in 2011 by Taylors on behalf of Kataland for the Underbank Stud Farm land generally comprising 174 Mortons Road, Pentland Hills and the southern corner of 5 Randwick Avenue, Bacchus Marsh (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, p.7). The council report described the amendment land as approximately 153 ha of farming land, while the later development plan identifies the broader Underbank community as about 167 ha across 5 Randwick Avenue and 174 Mortons Road, with the 174 Mortons Road development plan area measured at 151.7 ha (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, p.7; Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-1-27.pdf, pp.4,16).

The exhibited amendment proposed to rezone the land from Farming Zone to General Residential Zone, apply Schedule 6 to the Development Plan Overlay, and remove Design and Development Overlay schedules 2 and 3 from the affected land (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, pp.7,14). Council sought authorisation on 13 July 2013, exhibited the amendment for eight weeks from 28 November 2013 to 26 January 2014, received 18 submissions, and then proceeded to a Panel hearing on 2 June and 4-6 June 2014 (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, p.7). On 17 September 2014, Council was asked to consider the Panel report and decide whether to adopt the amendment with changes or abandon it (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, pp.7,15-16).

The policy basis was that Bacchus Marsh was identified for regional-centre growth in Plan Melbourne and the Central Highlands Regional Growth Plan, and Council’s report stated that the Bacchus Marsh Framework Plan in the Municipal Strategic Statement envisaged urban development at Underbank (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, pp.7,14). The development plan later repeated the regional-growth setting, stating that Bacchus Marsh had about 6,840 dwellings in September 2015 and was anticipated under the Draft Housing Strategy to reach about 30,519 people by 2041, accommodating a further 6,414 households (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-1-27.pdf, p.9).

Analysis

Statutory mechanism and sequencing

The amendment’s main statutory mechanism was a layered control: General Residential Zone enabled residential use, while the Development Plan Overlay required an integrated development plan before subdivision permits could be issued (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, p.14). Council’s report was explicit that rezoning was only the earliest step, followed by approval of a development plan, then subdivision permits, certification, engineering approval, civil works, statement of compliance and title issue (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, pp.11-12). That sequence matters because the amendment did not by itself produce lots; it created a gatekeeping structure in which the form and timing of lots depended on later plans and authority approvals (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, pp.11-12).

Council estimated in 2014 that, even with a rapid transition from rezoning to development, it could take 3-5 years from that point, or about 2017-2019, before 100 lots were delivered on the ground (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, p.12). The March 2017 Development Plan confirms that the post-rezoning mechanism had moved from amendment design into a site-level plan, prepared by Taylors for Kataland under the Development Plan Overlay framework (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-1-27.pdf, pp.1,4,7). The corpus does not include the gazettal notice or final approved amendment ordinance, so the exact Ministerial approval date cannot be verified from the supplied documents; however, the existence of an approved March 2017 development plan indicates that the amendment framework had progressed beyond Council’s 2014 adoption decision into implementation (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, pp.15-16; Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-1-27.pdf, p.1).

Land budget, yield logic and landscape controls

The development plan land budget is the clearest numerical expression of the planning outcome: 44.5 ha, or 29.33 percent of the site, is assigned to creek environs; 18.1 ha, or 11.93 percent, is escarpment land unusable as open space; 6.42 ha, or 4.23 percent, is open space, local parks and active open space; and 82.7 ha, or 54.51 percent, is net developable area (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, p.55). Put simply, a little over half of the 151.72 ha development plan area is counted as developable, while nearly 45.5 percent is absorbed by waterways, escarpment land and open-space functions (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, p.55). This is why the amendment cannot be read as a conventional flat greenfield rezoning: the site’s physical structure converts a large gross landholding into a much smaller developable footprint (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-1-27.pdf, pp.16,18,21; Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, p.55).

The DPO mechanism used topography to shape density rather than imposing a single site-wide density number (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, pp.8-9). Council reported that about 55.5 percent of the gross land area, including encumbered land, was above the 125 m contour and generally suited to minimum 700 sq m lots, while about 45.5 percent was below the 125 m contour and generally suited to minimum 400 sq m lots, except near planned activity or community infrastructure (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, p.8). The development plan carried this through by identifying neighbourhood lots generally around 400 sq m below the 125 m contour, conventional lots generally around 700 sq m on steeper land, and larger rural-interface lots at sensitive edges and steeper locations (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, p.50).

The planning effect is that density is constrained by slope, landscape visibility and service proximity rather than by one headline dwelling-per-hectare assumption (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, pp.8-9; Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, pp.50,53). The development plan requires lots and buildings to respond to topography, minimise cut and fill, limit retaining walls, protect ridgelines and place roads at the base or top of escarpments to manage access and visual impacts (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, pp.50,52-53). The practical consequence is a variable lot pattern: smaller lots are directed to flatter, better-serviced and higher-amenity areas, while larger lots and more conservative built form are pushed toward slope, rural interfaces and landscape-sensitive edges (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, pp.50,52-53).

Transport thresholds and Halletts Way dependency

Traffic was one of the main community concerns recorded during the Panel process, and Council distinguished local access impacts near Underbank from the wider Bacchus Marsh road-network task (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, pp.9-10). The central network dependency was Halletts Way: Council described it as a key outcome for Bacchus Marsh traffic movement and stated that, until the link was provided, main access for the development would be through the existing Underbank Estate (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, p.10). The adopted resolution required the Section 173 Agreement to be amended so that no more than 300 lots, unless otherwise justified by a revised Traffic Impact Assessment, could be issued titles before full construction of Halletts Way from Bacchus Marsh Road to Werribee Vale Road (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, p.36). The same resolution required a 600-lot title threshold before a road connection from the development area to Halletts Way, again unless an alternative threshold was justified through a revised Traffic Impact Assessment (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, p.36).

There is an important tension in the traffic evidence. The Traffix letter attached to the agenda supported an 800-lot trigger for Halletts Way based on intersection capacity analysis, using 9.5 external daily trip ends per dwelling and 0.9 peak-hour trip ends per dwelling for the interim assessment (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, pp.42-44). That letter modelled the Ascot Avenue/Bacchus Marsh Road intersection and found degree-of-saturation results of 0.249 in the AM peak and 0.331 in the PM peak, below the 0.85 level generally considered good operating conditions for roundabouts (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, p.44). It also estimated Ascot Avenue and Rosehill Drive daily traffic would rise to about 4,100 vehicles per day, below both the earlier 5,000 vehicles-per-day allocation for the 800-lot trigger and the 7,000 vehicles-per-day environmental-capacity upper limit referenced from Clause 56.06 (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, p.44).

Council nevertheless resolved to use lower 300-lot and 600-lot thresholds unless later traffic work justified alternatives (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, p.36). That makes C62 a conditional growth-area amendment rather than a simple traffic-capacity acceptance: the amendment accepted the residential principle but placed the early delivery rate under road-network staging discipline (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, pp.10,36). The later development plan kept the traffic control pathway by requiring the Rosehill Drive/Ascot Drive intersection to be formalised with give-way line marking and a splitter island before occupancy of 100 lots in Neighbourhood 6 (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, pp.40-41). The same development plan identified a proposed bus route linking Bacchus Marsh Railway Station, the town centre, Underbank, Halletts Way, Stonehill/Maddingley and back to the station, subject to further discussion and sign-off from Public Transport Victoria (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, p.39).

Infrastructure funding and service authority dependencies

C62 used a Section 173 Agreement rather than a Development Contributions Plan in the supplied documents (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, p.14). Council stated that the agreement would fund major infrastructure projects to the value of $13 million, including contributions to Halletts Way, Bacchus Marsh Road/Halletts Way roundabout upgrades, Grant Street/Main Street/Gisborne Road intersection upgrades, Werribee Vale Road upgrades and shared path, Bacchus Marsh Road/Underbank Boulevard intersection upgrades, Ascot Avenue/Rosehill Street upgrades and pedestrian link, an integrated recreation and community facility, regional open-space upgrades, integrated path and passive open-space networks, and family and children’s services facility upgrades (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, pp.14-15). The mechanism is significant because Council stated that contributions would be collected at completion of each subdivision stage, unlike Stonehill where contributions were payable at an 800-lot threshold and unlike other Bacchus Marsh subdivisions where no contributions had been collected (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, p.12).

Utility servicing remained dependent on authority strategies and later engineering detail (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, pp.30,54). The servicing investigation stated that sewer outfalls would use 225 mm diameter sewers to the south-east corner of the site, but that an ultimate servicing assessment would not occur until the Bacchus Marsh sewerage model was verified or calibrated and the master plan updated (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, p.30). The development plan identified Western Water as responsible for sewer reticulation, potable water and recycled water reticulation, while the proponent was required to construct the reticulated sewer, potable water and recycled water within the development (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, p.54). Water servicing included an upgrade of the Underbank WPS, connection to a proposed 375 mm Underbank main, two looped 300 mm water mains totalling 2,400 m west of the Underbank main, and a lower-level 225 mm water-main loop of 1,800 m incorporating approximately 300 lots east of Korkuperrimul Creek (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, pp.30,54).

The sewer modelling caveat is one of the most material delivery risks in the available documents. The development plan says initial staging in the south-east is logical because it can connect to sewer for early stages, but the ultimate servicing assessment is tied to verification of the broader Bacchus Marsh sewerage model (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, pp.30,54). That means early stages may be serviceable while the full build-out still depends on broader catchment capacity and authority confirmation (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, pp.30,54).

Waterways, drainage and environmental constraints

The site is organised around the Werribee River, Korkuperrimul Creek and two tributaries of Korkuperrimul Creek (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-1-27.pdf, p.21). The development plan applies minimum waterway setbacks of 50 m from the top of bank or the 100-year ARI extent for the Werribee River, 30 m from the top of bank for Korkuperrimul Creek, and 20 m from the top of bank for the tributaries, subject to Melbourne Water confirmation (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-1-27.pdf, p.21). Flood extents were based on Melbourne Water information and a HEC-RAS model using one-metre interval contours (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-1-27.pdf, p.21).

Drainage is notable because Melbourne Water correspondence indicated no specific requirement for flood retarding, with the reasoning that the 167 ha Underbank Farm development is small relative to the approximately 4,000 ha Korkuperrimul Creek and tributary catchment and the larger Werribee River catchment (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, p.56). Instead of relying on retarding basins as the main mechanism, the plan uses waterway setbacks, natural and constructed waterways, wetlands, bioretention, stormwater harvesting and water-quality treatment (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, pp.56-57). Engeny identified potential treatment locations and noted that the final system required further investigation, design and modelling, including embankment-slope limits, a maximum 5 m fill-depth in gullies unless justified, and a costed construction, management and maintenance implementation plan (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, p.57).

The environmental consequence is that waterways are both a constraint and the main open-space structure. The creek and river corridors remove land from the developable budget but also supply ecological corridors, shared-path routes, landscape identity and passive-recreation spaces (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-1-27.pdf, p.21; Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, pp.42,55). The land budget confirms this mechanism numerically: creek environs alone account for 44.5 ha, which is larger than the 6.42 ha assigned to local parks, active open space and other open space (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, p.55).

Heritage, bushfire, contamination and acoustic controls

The heritage assessment identified five Aboriginal isolated artefact sites, registered as Underbank Stud Farm IA1 to IA5, and a possible scarred tree registered as Underbank Farm Scarred Tree 1 but classified as a non-site to prevent re-recording (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-1-27.pdf, p.24). The development plan states that cultural heritage sites are generally located within creek corridors, but IA4 and IA5 are located within proposed residential areas (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, p.58). Future subdivision and major earthworks trigger a mandatory Cultural Heritage Management Plan under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, p.58).

Historic heritage is also a delivery control rather than only a commemorative issue. The Underbank Stud Farm Equine and Water Management Project is listed on the Victorian Heritage Inventory and requires Heritage Victoria consent for further archaeological investigation or for damage or destruction associated with future development (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-1-27.pdf, p.24; Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, p.58). The Phar Lap Tree must be retained in a local open-space area of at least about 176 sq m, being the Tree Protection Zone area, and the development plan also identifies opportunities to retain and reuse existing stables within an owners corporation arrangement (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, p.58).

The preliminary contamination assessment found moderate contamination potential around sheds, ancillary buildings, a dumping area in the south-west corner, and possible residual pesticide or herbicide areas along the Werribee River, with the remainder of the site assessed as low potential (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-1-27.pdf, p.27). Bushfire controls are less about a Bushfire Management Overlay and more about site design: the plan states that Underbank is outside areas identified as requiring bushfire management but is designed to be bushfire ready through road access to all lots, static water supply, public-road buffers to open-space corridors and CFA-satisfactory access along the western boundary (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, p.59). Acoustic controls are more prescriptive near the Western Freeway: modelling indicated that 2022 traffic noise without a barrier would exceed LA10(18 hour) 63 dB(A), and the barrier solution was estimated at about 430 m long and 5 m to 5.5 m high, with updated acoustic assessment required when that part of the site is developed (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, p.59).

Current Status

The supplied record shows Council was at Step 6 of the Victorian amendment process on 17 September 2014, being adoption by Council before submission to the Minister for Planning for approval (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, pp.15-16). Council’s officer recommendation was to adopt Amendment C62 with changes, amend the Section 173 Agreement to include the 300-lot and 600-lot Halletts Way thresholds, remove Meikle Street works and reallocate funds to Labilliere Street and Franklin Streets, and submit the adopted amendment to the Minister under section 31(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, p.36). The later March 2017 approved Underbank Development Plan shows the amendment framework operating through an approved DPO-stage master plan, but the supplied corpus does not include the Ministerial approval notice, gazettal record or final planning scheme ordinance (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-1-27.pdf, p.1).

Dependencies

Blocks: Subdivision permits for the main 174 Mortons Road development plan area depended on an approved development plan generally in accordance with the DPO schedule and concept plan (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, pp.11,14).
Blocks: Title issue beyond 300 lots and 600 lots was linked to Halletts Way construction and connection thresholds unless an alternative threshold was justified by a revised Traffic Impact Assessment (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, p.36).
Blocked by: Ultimate sewer servicing depended on verification or calibration of the Bacchus Marsh sewerage model and update of the master plan (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, p.30).
Blocked by: Water, sewer, electricity, telecommunications and gas delivery required coordination with Western Water, Powercor, NBN Co and AusNet Services (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, pp.30,54).
Informed by: The development plan was prepared with acoustic, arboricultural, civil, contamination, drainage, flora and fauna, geotechnical, heritage, landscape, survey, town planning, traffic and urban design inputs (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-1-27.pdf, p.4).
Implements: The amendment implements the Bacchus Marsh Framework Plan direction for urban growth and sits within the regional-centre growth role identified for Bacchus Marsh in Plan Melbourne and the Central Highlands Regional Growth Plan (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, p.7).
Conflicts with: The main recorded policy tension was not the residential principle but the intensity, traffic timing and landscape character of development, including community concern about lot density and local traffic impacts (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, pp.8-10).

Cross-Jurisdictional Links

Underbank’s transport and servicing dependencies connect local subdivision timing to state and authority systems. VicRoads and Public Transport Victoria were required consultees for the Traffic Impact Assessment before development plan approval, and the future bus route required PTV discussion and sign-off (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, p.10; Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, p.39). Melbourne Water influenced waterway setbacks, shared-path design along waterways, constructed waterway crossings and drainage requirements (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-1-27.pdf, p.21; Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, pp.40,56-57). Western Water’s catchment-scale sewer modelling is a regional servicing dependency because the ultimate Underbank assessment had to align with the overall Bacchus Marsh sewerage strategy rather than only the estate’s internal reticulation design (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, p.30).

Gaps in This Analysis

The most important gap is the absence of the Planning Panel report itself, even though the Council agenda summarises its recommendations and states that the report was issued on 14 August 2014 (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, pp.7,15-16). Without the Panel report, this page cannot fully analyse each submission, the Panel’s reasoning on density, DDO3, traffic triggers or the contested evidence base (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, pp.15-16).

The second gap is the absence of the executed and amended Section 173 Agreement. Council stated that the agreement funded about $13 million of infrastructure and required amendment before submission to the Minister, but the supplied corpus does not provide payment timing, indexation, apportionment, works-in-kind rules, enforcement provisions or the final wording of the Halletts Way triggers (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, pp.14-15,36).

The third gap is the absence of the Ministerial approval and gazettal material for Amendment C62. The corpus supports Council adoption and later DPO implementation, but it does not verify the exact approval date, final ordinance wording or final overlay mapping (Source: smc-agenda-170914.pdf, pp.15-16; Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-1-27.pdf, p.1).

The fourth gap is that the development plan references annex reports for acoustics, arboriculture, archaeology, biodiversity, stormwater, escarpment management, geomorphology, geotechnical conditions, landscape, contamination, traffic, servicing and weed management, but the manifest supplies only the development plan text split across two PDFs rather than the annex reports themselves (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-1-27.pdf, p.3). This limits quantitative testing of lot yield, drainage asset sizing, transport modelling, biodiversity offsets, geotechnical treatment areas and servicing capacity beyond the summary figures reproduced in the development plan (Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-1-27.pdf, p.3; Source: approved-underbank-development-plan-28-66.pdf, pp.30,40,55-59).

Grange Planning Brain

Explorer