title: Amendment C71 - Bulky Goods at Bacchus Marsh council: moorabool state: vic category: amendment classification: MAJOR status: abandoned last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf
- final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf
Amendment C71 - Bulky Goods at Bacchus Marsh
Amendment C71 was the earlier statutory attempt to enable a bulky goods development at 101 Gisborne Road, Bacchus Marsh, including a Bunnings warehouse, before Moorabool had completed a broader bulky goods location strategy (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.51). Its planning significance is less about the single site and more about the mechanism it exposed: Bacchus Marsh had measurable demand for restricted retail floorspace, but the most immediately visible sites conflicted with residential amenity, traffic access, gateway design and the absence of a settled strategic framework (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.51-52).
The later Strategic Bulky Goods Assessment reframed the C71 issue from a site-specific rezoning question into a town-wide sequencing problem: Site 3 at 101 Gisborne Road could meet about 90% of the forecast 2041 bulky goods floorspace requirement, but the preferred long-term location shifted to Maddingley, where land is larger and less sensitive but depends on future road and growth-area change to perform well (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.43-45, 51-54).
Background
The source base for this page is thin but direct. The 2017 Section 86 Urban Growth Strategy Committee agenda contains the March 2017 Bacchus Marsh Strategic Bulky Goods Assessment and the officer briefing that put the assessment before councillors (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.4-9). The 2015 attachments file listed in the manifest is a large growth and development attachment bundle, but the extracted text does not provide a direct C71 bulky-goods record comparable to the 2017 assessment (Source: 2015-12-02-021215-attachments-growth-and-development.pdf).
Council’s stated trigger for the bulky goods work was the Moorabool Retail Strategy 2041, adopted in December 2015, which identified high retail expenditure leakage and the need for an out-of-centre bulky goods component in Bacchus Marsh (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.20-21). The 2017 officer report states that major retailers, including Bunnings, had expressed interest and attempted rezonings in Bacchus Marsh before the strategic assessment was completed (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.4).
The specific C71 site was 101 Gisborne Road, Bacchus Marsh, identified in the Strategic Bulky Goods Assessment as Site 3 (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.51). The 2017 assessment records that the Minister for Planning authorised Moorabool Shire Council in 2014 to prepare and exhibit Amendment C71 to enable a bulky goods development containing a Bunnings warehouse (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.51). After exhibition, Council resolved in December 2015 to abandon the amendment, following more than 180 opposing submissions (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.51).
Analysis
Statutory Effect and Amendment Mechanism
C71 was a rezoning pathway for land in the General Residential Zone, because restricted retail use was prohibited on the 101 Gisborne Road site under its existing residential zoning (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.50-52). The practical effect of the amendment would therefore have been to move the land from a residential planning setting into a commercial or special-use setting capable of accommodating restricted retail premises (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.56-59).
That mechanism matters because Victorian planning controls treat bulky goods as restricted retail premises rather than as a separately named use category (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.13, 55). The assessment notes that Commercial 2 Zone supports bulky goods retailing but also allows other uses that may affect the role of the Bacchus Marsh Activity Centre if not managed through local policy (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.56-57). It also notes that a Special Use Zone can be drafted for a specific bulky goods purpose, but this requires clearer pre-commitment to that land-use outcome and careful schedule drafting (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.57).
The C71 failure shows why a site-specific rezoning was fragile. The amendment sought to solve a real supply problem, but it did so before Council had a town-wide framework for where bulky goods should sit in relation to the Bacchus Marsh Urban Growth Framework, the Bacchus Marsh Activity Centre, residential interfaces and the future arterial network (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.4-6, 51). The later 2017 recommendation was to use the bulky goods assessment as an input to the planning scheme review, including the Municipal Strategic Statement review, rather than treating bulky goods as a one-off permit-led outcome (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.4, 58-60).
Demand, Floorspace and Land Budget
The quantitative case for bulky goods provision was strong. Bacchus Marsh, Darley and Maddingley had about 18,580 residents in 2016, and the Bacchus Marsh urban area was forecast to grow by 11,940 residents between 2016 and 2041 (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.16). The assessment states that about 99% of forecast urban-area growth was expected south of the Western Freeway, split between Bacchus Marsh with 5,720 additional residents and Maddingley with 6,050 additional residents (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.16).
The retail leakage problem was also material. The Retail Strategy found that more than half of Moorabool residents’ retail expenditure was escaping the municipality, with household goods leakage estimated at 80% to 85% (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.20). The existing Bacchus Marsh bulky goods supply was only about 2,300 square metres, with Wilsons Home Timber & Hardware contributing about 1,500 square metres (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.32).
The 2041 demand calculation was built in layers. The Retail Strategy forecast about 12,000 square metres of additional bulky goods floorspace by 2041 after accounting for existing supply (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.33). The Strategic Bulky Goods Assessment then added 10% for demand from beyond the Bacchus Marsh and Ballan regions and 20% for non-retail and trade-related uses associated with bulky goods precincts (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.34-36). On that basis, the total 2041 floorspace requirement was 16,600 square metres, requiring about 4.2 to 4.7 hectares at 35% to 40% site coverage (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.36).
This land budget is the key benchmark for reading C71. The 101 Gisborne Road site was about 3.7 hectares and could accommodate about 15,000 square metres at 40% site coverage, equal to about 90% of the 2041 forecast floorspace requirement (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.51-52). In simple planning terms, Site 3 was almost large enough for the demand task, but its location and access conditions made the statutory task difficult.
Site 3: Why C71 Was Attractive but Vulnerable
Site 3 had clear functional strengths. It was vacant, flat, visible from the Western Freeway and Grant Street, and highly accessible to northern and southern Bacchus Marsh residents because of its position near the Western Freeway and Grant Street (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.51-52). Those attributes explain why the site remained attractive for bulky goods use in the 2017 assessment, even after C71 was abandoned (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.51-52).
The same location also created the planning risks that undermined the amendment. Access would need to be taken from Clifton Drive, a local street, and large-truck access was identified as an issue requiring resolution (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.52). The site was close to sensitive uses, including housing and childcare, and the assessment found that physical separation from those sensitive uses could not be achieved, meaning building siting, loading areas and access points would have to carry much of the mitigation burden (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.52).
The gateway role was another constraint. The assessment states that Site 3 is located at a key gateway to Bacchus Marsh and that development on the site could impede views from Gisborne Road towards Lerderderg State Park (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.53). This means the design issue was not only whether a restricted retail building could fit on the land, but whether the built form would alter the arrival experience and landscape setting of Bacchus Marsh (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.53).
The community response was decisive in the amendment lifecycle. More than 180 submissions opposed the C71 rezoning, and the recorded reasons included traffic impacts on Gisborne Road, the scale and impact of development on adjoining residential uses, and the lack of a clear strategic vision for bulky goods retailing in Bacchus Marsh (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.51). Council then resolved to abandon the amendment in December 2015 (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.51).
Preferred Long-Term Planning Direction
The 2017 assessment did not conclude that Bacchus Marsh should avoid bulky goods retailing. It concluded that no perfect site existed and that long-term planning should prefer Site 1 near the Geelong-Bacchus Marsh Road and Fisken Street intersection in Maddingley (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.5-6, 54). Site 1 comprised three sub-sites: 11 East Maddingley Road at about 18.2 hectares, 51 Geelong-Bacchus Marsh Road and adjoining land at about 11.6 hectares, and 30 Fisken Street with an indicative developable area of about 5 hectares (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.43-44).
Those three sub-sites each exceeded or matched the 4.2 to 4.7 hectare 2041 land requirement, giving the Maddingley location more strategic redundancy than Site 3 (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.36, 43-45). Site 1A had an indicative floorspace capacity of 72,000 square metres, Site 1B about 46,000 square metres and Site 1C about 20,000 square metres, using 40% site coverage (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.44). The preferred long-term location therefore had more land capacity than the forecast need, allowing a precinct to be planned without relying on a tight residential-edge site (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.44-45).
The weakness of the Maddingley option was timing. Site 1 was not considered strong in the short to medium term because Geelong-Bacchus Marsh Road did not yet carry enough traffic exposure to attract a major anchor tenant (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.45-46). The assessment linked Site 1’s future performance to Parwan residential and employment growth and to the Eastern Link, which would improve access between Site 1 and the Merrimu growth area (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.44-46).
This creates the central cause-and-effect chain. C71 tried to use a highly exposed but constrained site to meet near-term demand; the later assessment preferred a less sensitive long-term precinct, but that precinct depends on future growth-area development and road-network change before it functions as well (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.45-46, 51-54). The planning problem is therefore not simply site selection; it is whether Council should prioritise immediate access to bulky goods floorspace, long-term land-use fit, or a staged combination of both (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.54, 60).
Controls, Interfaces and Downstream Risks
The 2017 control recommendations show how Council intended to avoid a repeat of the C71 problem. The assessment recommended that bulky goods outcomes be embedded in the Bacchus Marsh Urban Growth Framework, tested through consultation with government, community and stakeholders, and then supported by an appropriate planning framework for selected sites (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.58-61). It also recommended targeted consultation with relevant landholders before exhibition of the bulky goods strategy (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.7, 60).
For Site 1, the recommended statutory tools were Commercial 2 Zone or a tailored Special Use Zone, supported by a Development Plan Overlay (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.58-60). The Development Plan Overlay mechanism is important because it enables precinct-level masterplanning and requires permits to be generally in accordance with an approved development plan, although it also removes third-party notice and review for permits that comply with the overlay (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.58). That removal of notice and review could reduce later process friction, but it increases the importance of getting the upfront framework, consultation and design requirements right (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.58-60).
The Maddingley sites also introduce a resource-interface risk that Site 3 did not have in the same form. Sites 1A and 1B are in Special Use Zone 1 - Coal Mining and lie beyond the mining licence area for the Maddingley Brown Coal Mine, but the assessment states that proposals would need to consider effects on the existing and future mine operation (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.43-46). The assessment identifies the need to engage with Maddingley Brown Coal, the EPA, state agencies, Council and landowners, and it flags dust and other environmental issues from proximity to the mine as practical matters requiring attention (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.45-46).
Current Status
On the documents available here, Amendment C71 was authorised in 2014, exhibited, opposed by more than 180 submissions, and abandoned by Council in December 2015 (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.51). The 2017 S86 agenda did not revive C71; it instead recommended landowner liaison and preparation of a report to the June 2017 Ordinary Meeting seeking a resolution to advertise the Strategic Bulky Goods Assessment for public comment (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.7).
The manifest status says pending, but the source document’s direct amendment history says C71 was abandoned in December 2015 (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.51). On the corpus evidence, the defensible status for this wiki page is abandoned, with unresolved follow-up questions about how Council later implemented the Strategic Bulky Goods Assessment through the Urban Growth Framework or planning scheme review (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.7, 58-61).
Dependencies
- Blocks: C71 no longer appears to block a live rezoning pathway because Council resolved to abandon it in December 2015 (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.51).
- Blocked by: The former 101 Gisborne Road pathway was blocked by residential-zone permissibility, local-street access, truck movement issues, sensitive-use interfaces, gateway design concerns and strong community opposition (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.51-53).
- Informed by: The post-C71 policy response was informed by the Moorabool Retail Strategy 2041, the Bacchus Marsh Strategic Bulky Goods Assessment, the emerging Bacchus Marsh Urban Growth Framework, the Housing Bacchus Marsh to 2041 strategy and local economic policy work (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.20-28).
- Implements: The bulky goods work implements the Retail Strategy direction for an out-of-centre bulky goods/homemaker centre and supports the broader regional-centre role of Bacchus Marsh (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.20-25).
- Conflicts with: The C71 site conflicted with residential amenity, childcare proximity, access via a local street, gateway landscape considerations and the absence of a settled bulky goods strategy at the time of exhibition (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.51-53).
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
The retail catchment logic is regional. Bacchus Marsh was assessed against Melton, Ballarat and Watergardens, which already provided a greater range of bulky goods retailing than Bacchus Marsh (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.15, 32-33). The demand model assumed that western Moorabool residents would continue to use Ballarat for bulky goods needs and that Bacchus Marsh would serve the Bacchus Marsh and Central Ballan regions (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.33).
The infrastructure dependency is also regional rather than purely local. The Strategic Bulky Goods Assessment links the preferred Maddingley outcome to the Eastern Link, future Parwan residential and employment development, and the Bacchus Marsh Urban Growth Framework, each of which affects the distribution of traffic exposure and access between growth areas (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.22-23, 45-46). VicRoads was identified as proposing a road corridor study for a future north-south arterial connection between Gisborne Road and Geelong-Bacchus Marsh Road via the Western Freeway, but the exact location and timing were unknown in the 2017 assessment (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.18).
Gaps in This Analysis
The most important gap is the absence of the actual C71 amendment documentation, including the amendment explanatory report, exhibited ordinance or map changes, officer report recommending abandonment, submission summary and any panel material if a panel was requested or avoided (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.51). Without those documents, this page can identify the mechanism and issues but cannot quote the exact statutory controls proposed by C71 or test how Council weighed each submission theme (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, p.51).
The second gap is the full adopted Moorabool Retail Strategy 2041, because the current source only quotes and summarises the Retail Strategy through the 2017 Strategic Bulky Goods Assessment (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.20-21, 33). The third gap is the later Urban Growth Framework implementation pathway, because the 2017 source states that the framework was expected to proceed to exhibition and later statutory implementation, but this corpus does not show whether a bulky goods investigation area or planning controls were ultimately adopted (Source: final-agenda-s86-urban-growth-strategy-committee-26-04-17.pdf, pp.2, 60-61). These gaps should be recorded in _gaps as critical for any final account of C71’s downstream policy legacy.