title: Amendment C74 - Combined Rezoning council: moorabool state: vic category: amendment classification: MINOR status: unknown last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- 2015-07-01-010715-omc-agenda-no-attachments.pdf
- 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf
Amendment C74 - Combined Rezoning
Amendment C74 was a site-specific combined amendment and planning permit process for Darley Plaza, centred on a 673 sqm residential-zoned parcel at 8 Jonathan Drive and the adjoining shopping centre at 151 Gisborne Road, Darley. Its planning significance is not broad land supply; it is the use of a rezoning mechanism to solve a car parking and access constraint created by a proposed neighbourhood shopping centre redevelopment. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.19-22)
The mechanism was deliberately procedural: Council had previously supported a separated rezoning pathway, but the proponent sought a combined process under section 96A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 so the rezoning, car park use, crossover, centre extension and parking reduction could be assessed together. Council resolved on 1 July 2015 to request authorisation, prepare the combined amendment and permit, seek an exemption from Ministerial Direction 15, and require draft permit conditions to return to Council before public exhibition. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.19, 30-31)
Background
The C74 item came back to Council because the earlier 5 November 2014 direction separated the rezoning from the planning permit, leaving the rezoning to proceed first and any redevelopment, car park construction and parking waiver to be considered later. The officer report says that earlier resolution had not been fully actioned at the proponent’s request, and that a 15 April 2015 briefing note to councillors supplied further information on car parking after discussions with the proponent. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-agenda-no-attachments.pdf, p.16)
The applicant was Brown Consulting (Vic) Pty Ltd on behalf of Verlado Trading P/L, and the affected land comprised 8 Jonathan Drive, Darley, identified as Lot 29 on LP111887, and 151 Gisborne Road, Darley, identified as Lot 2 on LP147736. 8 Jonathan Drive was vacant General Residential Zone land adjoining 151 Gisborne Road, which was Commercial 1 Zone land containing the Darley Plaza shopping centre. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, p.19)
The amendment component proposed to rezone 8 Jonathan Drive from General Residential Zone to Commercial 1 Zone so it could be used as a car park associated with Darley Plaza. The permit component proposed use and development of the land for a car park, construction of a new Jonathan Drive crossover, extension of the existing shopping centre, and a reduction in the required car parking provision. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, p.19)
Analysis
Statutory Mechanism and Why the Combined Process Mattered
The central issue was not whether a 673 sqm residential parcel could physically hold parking; it was that the General Residential Zone prohibited a car park associated with a retail premises, so the land could not perform the intended support function for Darley Plaza unless the zone changed. The proposed Commercial 1 Zone aligned the legal permission with the intended operational use, allowing the adjoining retail centre and the car park extension to function as one planning unit rather than two disconnected approvals. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.26-27)
The section 96A pathway mattered because the redevelopment needed both the rezoning and permit outcome to work. If the rezoning was approved first but the later planning permit did not approve the car parking waiver or associated works, the officer report described the rezoning as ineffectual because the land would be zoned for the support use without the full redevelopment outcome being secured. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-agenda-no-attachments.pdf, p.23)
The practical effect was to transfer the key uncertainty from a sequential process to a single exhibition and assessment process. The public and referral authorities would see the draft permit with the amendment, while Council would assess whether the rezoning, car park, crossover, centre extension and parking reduction formed an acceptable integrated planning outcome. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.26, 30-31)
The process still had a procedural dependency. Before exhibition, Council needed referral authority permit conditions for the draft permit, and the officer report said this required an exemption from Direction 4(1)(a) of Ministerial Direction 15 because exhibition would otherwise be required within 40 business days of authorisation. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, p.26)
Land Use Change and Local Spatial Effect
The land supply effect was very small in area but direct in use. The amendment would remove one 673 sqm vacant General Residential Zone parcel from potential residential use and place it into Commercial 1 Zone for car parking associated with the existing neighbourhood centre. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.19, 21, 27)
The adjoining shopping centre site at 151 Gisborne Road had a total area of 6,981 sqm, an existing floor area of 2,004 sqm, and frontages of 93.3 m to Gisborne Road, 96.3 m to Grey Street and 60.4 m to Jonathan Drive. This geometry matters because the centre already addressed three streets and the additional 8 Jonathan Drive land would extend the parking and access arrangement into the residential edge of the centre. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, p.21)
The surrounding context was predominantly residential, with Darley Park Recreation Reserve opposite Grey Street, Gisborne Road to the east as a Road Zone Category 1 corridor, Grey Street to the north as a Road Zone Category 2 road, and Jonathan Drive to the south within a residential setting. The amendment therefore sat at the edge between a local retail node and established residential streets rather than within a larger activity centre structure plan or greenfield growth framework. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, p.21)
The proposed physical works were modest but operationally linked. The redevelopment included 467 sqm of additional floor area, comprising a 301.59 sqm supermarket extension, a 110.98 sqm additional retail tenancy, and expansion of the common arcade area. It also included a new delivery entry from the northern side of Gisborne Road, a new parking configuration, customer access ramp, trolley bays, landscaping, internal traffic separation, signage changes, relocation of existing mature trees, and removal of an existing paling fence, kerb and channel. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.19-20)
Parking Arithmetic and the Real Constraint
The parking issue was the binding planning constraint. The centre originally had 108 car parking spaces, made up of 93 line-marked spaces, 15 unmarked kerbside spaces along the northern building line adjacent to Grey Street, and additional spaces described along the northern and southern kerbs, with bicycle facilities also provided on site. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, p.21)
The officer report presents two different parking calculations because the historical approval and the later Clause 52.06 rates did not produce the same requirement. Under the original rate of 8 spaces per 100 sqm for both the approximately 1,290 sqm supermarket and approximately 470 sqm shop floor area, the centre would have required 140 spaces, and the existing 108 spaces meant an earlier waiver of 32 spaces had already been granted. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, p.24)
Using the officer report’s old-rate comparison, the proposed extension of approximately 460 sqm generated an additional requirement of about 19 spaces, producing a total requirement of 127 spaces when added to the existing 108-space baseline. Against the proposed 97-space supply, the report said it could be argued there would be a 30-space shortfall. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, p.24)
Using the revised rates introduced by Amendment VC90 on 5 June 2012, the calculation changed materially. The officer report applied 5 spaces per 100 sqm to an approximately 1,591 sqm supermarket, producing 79 spaces, and 4 spaces per 100 sqm to approximately 580 sqm of shop floor area, producing 23 spaces, for a total requirement of 102 spaces. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.24-25)
Against that revised 102-space requirement, the proposal provided 75 spaces on the existing shopping centre site and 22 spaces on the adjoining parcel, for a total of 97 spaces and a 5-space shortfall. The planning mechanism therefore had to deal with both the rezoning of the adjoining land and a parking reduction, even under the more contemporary car parking rates. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, p.25)
The O’Brien Traffic evidence was used to support the reduction rather than eliminate the need for one. The reported surveys found a minimum of 15 vacant spaces within the shopping centre car park and 57 vacant unrestricted spaces within 100 m on a weekday between 10 am and 5 pm, and a minimum of 32 vacant spaces in the centre car park and 67 vacant unrestricted spaces within 100 m on the surveyed Saturday between 10 am and 5 pm. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, p.23)
The same traffic evidence said that, at all times except one, there were at least 24 vacant spaces within the shopping centre, and concluded that occasional overflow could be accommodated on-street. This finding is the hinge of the planning judgement: the formal on-site number was below the calculated requirement, but observed spare capacity and nearby unrestricted parking were used to justify the reduction. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.23-25)
Council Engineering also supported the waiver. The officer report records that on 16 March 2015 Council’s Senior Development Engineer confirmed it was appropriate to waive the planning scheme requirements due to the adequacy of available parking spaces. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, p.25)
Transport and Access Responsibilities
The movement network created divided responsibilities. Gisborne Road was described as a major road managed by VicRoads, while Jonathan Street and Grey Street were local service roads managed by Council. This meant the combined permit could not be treated only as an internal car park matter, because the site relied on both state-managed and local road interfaces. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, p.22)
The traffic report concluded that the car park layout and vehicle access arrangements complied with the Moorabool Planning Scheme, that no additional bicycle parking requirement was generated because the existing centre already provided bicycle parking, and that the proposal would not create a significant unreasonable impact on the safety and operation of the surrounding road network. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, p.23)
The source documents do not provide the full O’Brien Traffic report, intersection counts, turning movement diagrams, queuing analysis, road safety audit, or referral authority conditions. The available material therefore supports a procedural-level conclusion that Council had traffic advice before it, but it does not allow independent testing of the traffic model or the robustness of the on-street parking reliance. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.22-23, 28)
Policy Fit and Planning Trade-Off
The officer report framed the amendment as consistent with Clause 18.02-5 on car parking because it sought an adequate supply of appropriately designed and located parking for the shopping centre. The report also said there were no other state policies of particular relevance because the amendment involved a relatively small parcel of land for a specific purpose. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, p.27)
At local policy level, the report linked the proposal to Clause 21.04 on Economic Development and Employment, stating that the proposal would facilitate increased local employment opportunities and strengthen the local economy. It also cited Growing Moorabool as identifying retail as a critical component of servicing Moorabool residents and as the second largest employing industry sector in Moorabool behind manufacturing. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.26-27)
The planning trade-off was explicit: one residential parcel would be lost, but the officer report considered that loss reasonable if the land’s use as a car park enabled expansion of the existing shopping centre. In mechanism terms, the amendment converted a residential edge parcel into support infrastructure for a neighbourhood retail use, with the public interest case resting on local service function, parking adequacy, and improved site operation. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, p.27)
Environmental and hazard constraints were not presented as material blockers in the officer report. The report said the proposal had no perceived environmental impacts, the land was in a residential area, and the land was not within a Bushfire Management Overlay. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, p.27)
Governance, Costs and Exhibition Controls
The officer recommendation required the applicant to pay costs incurred by Council under sections 96C and 96D of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, including notice and any panel hearing costs. The financial implication for Council was described as officer time and resources for preparation and exhibition, with no ongoing financial implications identified because the proposal was a one-off combined permit and amendment process. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-agenda-no-attachments.pdf, pp.25-27)
The minutes record that Ms Fiona Slechten addressed Council in relation to Amendment C74 before Council considered the recommendation. The minutes do not state the substance of the deputation, so the source confirms that a community or stakeholder address occurred but does not allow analysis of the issue raised or whether the final sixth resolution point responded to that deputation. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, p.29)
Council carried the officer recommendation moved by Cr Edwards and Cr Dudzik, with one additional control: before public exhibition, the draft conditions had to be brought back to Council for consideration. This addition narrowed the delegation pathway by ensuring councillors would see referral authority or draft permit conditions before the amendment and permit package went on public notice. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.30-31)
Current Status
The latest source in this manifest is the 1 July 2015 minutes. As at that meeting, Council had resolved to request authorisation to prepare Amendment C74, prepare the combined amendment and permit under section 96A subject to authorisation, seek a Ministerial Direction 15 exemption, exhibit under section 96C after authorisation and receipt of referral authority permit conditions, require the applicant to pay section 96C and 96D costs, and bring draft conditions back to Council before public exhibition. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.30-31)
The manifest does not include later authorisation correspondence, exhibition material, submissions, a panel report, adoption report, approval notice, gazettal record, endorsed permit, or abandoned-amendment record. The defensible current status from the supplied corpus is therefore “unknown after Council’s 1 July 2015 resolution”, not approved, abandoned or completed. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.30-31)
Dependencies
- Blocks: The amendment pathway blocked the Darley Plaza redevelopment package unless it secured both the rezoning of 8 Jonathan Drive and the planning permit for car park use, crossover works, shopping centre extension and parking reduction. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.19, 29-31)
- Blocked by: Exhibition was blocked by authorisation, receipt of referral authority permit conditions, Council’s later consideration of draft conditions, and an exemption from Direction 4(1)(a) of Ministerial Direction 15. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.26, 30-31)
- Informed by: The report relied on O’Brien Traffic parking and traffic advice, Council Engineering advice dated 16 March 2015, the 2013-2017 Council Plan, Growing Moorabool, Clause 18.02-5, Clause 21.04, and the revised Clause 52.06 parking rates introduced through VC90. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.23-28)
- Implements: The officer report characterised the amendment as implementing the planning objective of orderly and economic land use, supporting adequate car parking under the State Planning Policy Framework, and aligning with the Council Plan objective for integrated strategic planning for towns and settlements. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.27-28)
- Conflicts with: The source material identifies a tension with residential land retention because one vacant General Residential Zone parcel would be rezoned to Commercial 1 Zone for car parking, but it does not identify a formal policy conflict, submission issue, or agency objection. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.21, 27)
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
The only cross-agency link visible in the supplied documents is transport-related. Gisborne Road was managed by VicRoads, while Jonathan Street and Grey Street were managed by Council, meaning access and traffic considerations involved both state road and local road responsibilities. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, p.22)
The source material does not identify dependencies involving adjoining councils, water authorities, regional infrastructure programs, state growth-area planning, or infrastructure funding bodies. This appears to be a localised amendment rather than a cross-jurisdictional planning initiative. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.19-31)
Gaps in This Analysis
This analysis is limited because the manifest contains only the Council agenda and minutes for 1 July 2015. The missing primary documents are the C74 amendment documentation, explanatory report, draft planning permit, referral authority conditions, O’Brien Traffic report, any exhibition submissions, any panel material, Council adoption report, Ministerial approval record, and gazettal notice. Without those documents, the page cannot confirm whether C74 was authorised, exhibited, changed, approved, refused, abandoned, or implemented through a permit. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-agenda-no-attachments.pdf, pp.16-28; Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.19-31)
The minutes confirm that Ms Fiona Slechten addressed Council, but they do not record the substance of that address. This prevents analysis of whether local concerns related to traffic, residential amenity, parking spillover, commercial expansion, landscaping, access, or another matter. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, p.29)
The traffic and parking analysis is second-hand because only the officer report’s summary of the O’Brien Traffic work is available. The underlying survey dates, survey locations, occupancy tables, peak-hour traffic counts, turn path checks, crash history, and assumptions about public transport accessibility are not included in the supplied corpus. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.22-25)
The draft permit conditions are a critical missing item because Council specifically resolved that draft conditions must return before public exhibition. Those conditions would show how Council and referral authorities intended to manage access, parking layout, landscaping, delivery movements, signs, construction effects and any road authority requirements. (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.30-31)