title: Amendment C79 - Housing Bacchus Marsh and Neighbourhood Character council: moorabool state: vic category: amendment classification: MAJOR status: unknown last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf
Amendment C79 - Housing Bacchus Marsh and Neighbourhood Character
Amendment C79 is the statutory bridge between Housing Bacchus Marsh to 2041 and day-to-day permit decisions in established residential areas of Bacchus Marsh, Darley and Maddingley. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.1) Its practical effect is to sort existing residential land into different levels of expected change, using residential zones, zone schedules, Municipal Strategic Statement changes and neighbourhood character guidance rather than opening new greenfield fronts. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.1, 11-12)
The available source is the July 2018 Panel report, so this page can analyse the Panel’s findings and recommended statutory mechanics, but it cannot confirm adoption, approval or gazettal without the final amendment documents or Government Gazette notice. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.40-42)
Background
C79 arose because Moorabool Shire needed a stronger strategic basis for residential-zone translation in Bacchus Marsh after the earlier C72 process. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.4-5) The Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee had criticised the earlier broad proposed use of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone because Bacchus Marsh did not then have an adopted housing strategy, adequate neighbourhood character analysis, or overlay-based justification for widespread development limitation. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.5) In simple terms, the earlier approach tried to put many streets into a smaller-change box before the evidence base was strong enough; C79 comes after Council prepared the missing housing and character work. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.5, 11-13)
The amendment sits inside the broader Moorabool 2041 program, which the Panel described as an umbrella for strategic documents guiding growth and change across the Shire to 2041. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.3-4) Within that program, C79 deals with housing and neighbourhood character in existing residential-zoned Bacchus Marsh areas, while Amendment C81 - Bacchus Marsh Urban Growth Framework deals with new greenfield growth areas at Merrimu, Parwan and Hopetoun Park. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.4) This division matters because C79 is mainly an infill and character-control amendment, whereas C81 carries the larger urban expansion and later precinct-structure planning implications. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.3-4, 17)
The amendment was authorised on 24 July 2017, exhibited from 2 November to 15 December 2017, and considered by a Panel following hearings on 28-29 May and 14 June 2018. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, Overview) The Panel considered 25 submissions, including one late submission, and recorded that 16 submissions objected to the amendment. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, Overview)
Analysis
Statutory Mechanism and Settlement Typology
C79 changes the planning scheme by introducing two General Residential Zone schedules, four Neighbourhood Residential Zone schedules, one Low Density Residential Zone schedule, Municipal Strategic Statement changes at Clauses 21.01, 21.03 and 21.07, and the Housing Strategy as a reference document. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.1) The mechanism is not simply a map change; it is a three-part control system where the strategic plan identifies the desired level of change, the residential zone and schedule set the statutory envelope, and the neighbourhood character brochures guide design assessment. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.1, 11-12)
The Housing Strategy applies four settlement types across established residential Bacchus Marsh: Minimal Residential Growth Areas, Natural Residential Growth Areas, Increased Residential Growth Areas and Greenfield Residential Growth Areas. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.12) Minimal areas generally apply to fringe land with poorer access to services or development limitations and are generally translated into NRZ schedules or the LDRZ; Natural areas allow gradual infill and multi-unit development that complements preferred character and are generally translated into GRZ2; Increased areas are well located to services and facilities and are generally translated into GRZ3; Greenfield areas are fringe residential areas already identified or being developed for residential purposes and are generally translated into GRZ2. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.12)
The amendment therefore uses location and character as filters. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.11-13) A parcel close to activity centres, public transport and services is more likely to receive a growth-supportive GRZ3 control, while a parcel with intact streetscape character, limited connectivity, flood exposure, steep land, large-lot landscape character or edge-of-town constraints is more likely to sit in a lower-change category. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.18-19, 23, 29-30, 35-36)
Housing Capacity, Diversity and the GRZ/RGZ Decision
The central policy dispute was whether Increased Residential Growth Areas should use GRZ3 or the stronger Residential Growth Zone. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.15) City of Melton argued that using the GRZ missed a chance to increase densities around the railway station and established activity centres, while other submitters argued that the GRZ3 would allow too much development and create infrastructure pressure. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.15)
The Panel accepted Council’s middle position. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.21) Council argued that the expected demand for infill to 2041 did not require the RGZ, that existing single-storey character remained important, and that the Bacchus Marsh Activity Centre could later be assessed separately for more intensive housing. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.16-17) Council also pointed to expected demand for smaller dwellings, units and townhouses across established areas, but said that demand would remain balanced by broad-hectare supply and by the continued relative affordability of separate dwellings unless price pressures changed. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.16)
The key number is the distribution of residential lots. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.21) The Panel recorded that about 85 per cent of existing residential lots would be in the GRZ, about 30 per cent would be in GRZ3, and about 13 per cent would be in the NRZ. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.21) That is materially different from C72, where only about 10 per cent of residential land was proposed for GRZ and the balance was proposed for NRZ or LDRZ. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.4-5, 21) The planning consequence is that C79 does not lock most of Bacchus Marsh into minimal change; it creates a broad GRZ base while using targeted NRZ schedules for the more sensitive precincts. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.21)
The GRZ3 schedule also moderates rather than maximises redevelopment. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.19-20) It allows the same 11 metre height available under existing controls, proposes a 5 metre minimum street setback, raises site coverage from the default 60 per cent to 70 per cent, and uses a 1.2 metre front fence height. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.16, 19-20) Council argued that average front setbacks in Increased Residential Growth precincts were 6-9 metres and median setbacks were 6-8 metres, so a 5 metre control could still allow a smaller setback than the existing streetscape pattern while retaining landscaped front setbacks. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.20) The Panel accepted those controls as soundly based. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.21)
Character Protection as a Spatial Constraint
C79 treats neighbourhood character as a spatial constraint that can redirect growth within the same town. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.18-23) The clearest example is the dispute over Manor Street and Lerderderg Street. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.22) Residents argued Manor Street shared historical and architectural characteristics with Lerderderg Street and should be moved from GRZ3 to NRZ3, while Council argued that Lerderderg Street had a more intact streetscape and that Manor Street’s heritage buildings were already protected by a Heritage Overlay and, for Manor House, the Victorian Heritage Register. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.22-23)
The Panel kept Lerderderg Street in the Minimal Residential Growth Area and NRZ3, but left Manor Street in the Increased Residential Growth Area and GRZ3. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.23) This shows how the amendment distinguishes individual heritage assets from a broader intact character precinct. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.23) In effect, C79 says that a street with some heritage buildings can still accommodate increased residential growth if the existing overlay system protects the individual heritage places and if the wider streetscape is not as intact as the nearby protected precinct. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.22-23)
The same logic appears in Precincts 10 and 12 near Holts Lane. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.33-36) Precinct 10 was kept in the Minimal Residential Growth Area and NRZ5 with a 1,500 square metre minimum lot size, while Precinct 12 was kept in the Natural Residential Growth Area and GRZ2 because it already contained a pocket of medium density housing and two large vacant parcels. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.33, 35-36) Council expressly described the existing medium density housing in Precinct 12 as the type of peripheral development the Housing Strategy sought to avoid, but the Panel accepted GRZ2 there as a pragmatic response to existing conditions. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.35-36)
Site-Specific Changes and What They Signal
The Panel recommended two growth-supportive site-specific changes. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.25-28) Lot C Holts Lane, Darley, a 3.6 hectare vacant parcel bounded by urban development on three sides and the Western Freeway to the south, was recommended to move from Natural Residential Growth and GRZ2 to Increased Residential Growth and GRZ3. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.24-26) The reason was proximity to Darley Plaza and public transport, the site’s size, and its potential to deliver more diverse housing. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.25)
The second change was 101 Gisborne Road, a 4.38 hectare site in three titles adjoining the Western Highway, Gisborne Road and Lerderderg Track. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.26) The Housing Strategy had left the land uncoloured on Figure 9 and shown it elsewhere as open space and golf course land because a separate commercial amendment, C71, had been underway when the strategy was prepared, but C71 was later abandoned. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.26-27) The Panel recommended including 101 Gisborne Road in Precinct 15, designating it as Increased Residential Growth, and applying GRZ3. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.27-28)
These two recommendations show that C79 is not a rigid character exercise. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.25-28) Where a large vacant parcel is centrally located, close to services, and capable of integrated housing, the Panel accepted higher-change controls even where that created split precincts with both GRZ2 and GRZ3 inside the same neighbourhood character precinct. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.25-28)
The Panel rejected or deferred more speculative site changes. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.29-32) For the 12.5 hectare Durham Street land, the Panel accepted that the site was already split between two zones, contained steep land, and required detailed site analysis before any integrated rezoning could be assessed. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.28-30) For Underbank Estate, the Panel rejected changes to accommodate a possible five-storey hotel because the submitted hotel site was not shown on an approved Development Plan, appeared inconsistent with the approved plan, and would need a Development Plan amendment before it could be properly assessed. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.31-32)
Infrastructure and Open Space Limits
C79 is strategically linked to infrastructure planning, but the Panel report shows that the amendment itself did not quantify infrastructure capacity or works programs. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.16-17, 37-39) Council relied on related work such as the Bacchus Marsh Integrated Transport Strategy, a draft Community Infrastructure Framework expected in late 2018, and later precinct-structure planning for new growth areas under C81. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.3-4, 16-17) This means C79 creates a housing-change framework for existing areas, but the source does not provide a quantified transport, drainage, sewer, open space or community infrastructure budget for the increased infill capacity. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.16-17, 37-39)
This is a material analytical limitation. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.16-17, 37-39) Submitters raised concern that Bacchus Marsh had insufficient infrastructure for future growth, and Mr Reid sought stronger Clause 21 wording for open space, natural areas, trails, pedestrian links, Main Street and the railway station. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.6, 37-38) The Panel accepted Council’s view that those open-space and movement-network provisions were beyond the scope of this housing and character amendment and should be based on separate investigations. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.37-39)
The mechanism is important: C79 can shape where infill should be encouraged, but it cannot itself prove that every local street, open-space catchment, drainage system or community facility has capacity for the resulting incremental change. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.16-17, 37-39) The Panel’s acceptance of the amendment therefore depends partly on the existence of parallel or future strategic work rather than a single integrated infrastructure funding framework within C79. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.16-17, 37-39)
Clause 21 and Drafting Discipline
The Panel recommended pruning several Clause 21 provisions because they duplicated higher-order policy, were unclear, or referred to documents not ready for statutory reliance. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.37-39) It recommended deleting a proposed 15-year zoned-land strategy at Clause 21.03-2 because Clause 11.02-1 already dealt with urban land supply and the local wording risked confusion. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.37-39) It also recommended deleting a strategy to retain the intrinsic character elements of Bacchus Marsh and surrounds because the phrase was unclear and Clause 21.07-6 already dealt with character. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.38)
The Panel also recommended deleting a proposed strategy requiring new development to be consistent with adopted Urban Design Frameworks, Urban Design Guidelines or a Gateways Strategy, because those documents were not incorporated documents and the Urban Design Guidelines had not yet been completed. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.38-39) This is a useful statutory lesson from C79: local policy can guide discretion, but loose references to incomplete or non-incorporated documents can weaken clarity and should not be used as if they are binding controls. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.38-39)
Current Status
The source record confirms that the Panel recommended Amendment C79 be adopted as exhibited subject to modifications, including changes to the Housing Strategy maps, Clause 21, GRZ2 drafting, planning scheme maps 34 and 35, and consistency checks with Amendments C76, C78, C89 and C81. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.5-7, 40-42) The source record does not include Council adoption minutes, the Minister’s approval decision, final approved schedules, or gazettal notice. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.40-42) On the available corpus, the status should therefore be treated as unknown after the Panel report stage rather than assumed approved. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.40-42)
Dependencies
- Blocks: Final statutory certainty for the Housing Strategy’s settlement framework in established Bacchus Marsh residential areas depends on completing the amendment pathway after the Panel report. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.1, 40-42)
- Blocked by: The available source identifies required consistency checks with recently approved C76, C78 and C89 and consequential alignment with C81, but it does not provide the final post-Panel amendment package. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.40-42)
- Informed by: The amendment is informed by Housing Bacchus Marsh to 2041, neighbourhood character analysis for 32 precincts, Plan Melbourne, the Central Highlands Regional Growth Plan, and Council’s broader Bacchus Marsh transport, retail, economic development and industrial strategies. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.7-13)
- Implements: C79 implements local policy for settlement, housing diversity, urban design and Bacchus Marsh’s regional growth role within an existing settlement boundary. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.7-14)
- Conflicts with: The main tensions are between higher infill density near services and protection of intact neighbourhood character, between GRZ3 intensification and infrastructure concerns, and between housing-policy scope and wider open-space or movement-network objectives. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.15-23, 37-39)
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
The Panel report records that Bacchus Marsh is recognised in Plan Melbourne and the Central Highlands Regional Growth Plan as a regional centre and a peri-urban location capable of accommodating some population growth associated with Melbourne’s west and the Central Highlands region. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.3, 7-11) The City of Melton made a submission arguing that the RGZ should have been used to increase densities near the Bacchus Marsh station and activity centres, which shows that the amendment had relevance beyond Moorabool’s municipal boundary because nearby councils were interested in how Bacchus Marsh would absorb regional housing demand. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.15)
Transport for Victoria supported directing infill toward walking catchments of activity centres and public transport nodes, but sought more Increased Residential Growth precincts near the railway station and Bacchus Marsh Activity Centre. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.17-19) Western Water, V/Line, the Environment Protection Authority, the Department of Education and Training, Transport for Victoria, DELWP Grampians Region and the Country Fire Authority were listed as submitters, but the Panel report source does not provide detailed agency infrastructure requirements from each of those bodies. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.43)
Gaps in This Analysis
The corpus contains only the Panel report. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf) The most important missing source is Housing Bacchus Marsh to 2041 itself, because the Panel report relies on it for the 32 precincts, housing-market assessment, settlement framework and neighbourhood character brochures but does not reproduce the full technical evidence. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.11-13)
The final approved amendment documents are also missing. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.40-42) Without the adopted or approved Clause 21 text, residential schedules, maps and gazettal record, this page cannot confirm whether the Panel’s recommendations were fully implemented. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.40-42)
The infrastructure evidence base is thin in the available source. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.16-17, 37-39) The Panel report names the Bacchus Marsh Integrated Transport Strategy, draft Community Infrastructure Framework, Retail Strategy, Economic Development Strategy and Industrial Strategy, but those documents are not in this manifest and therefore cannot be used here to quantify road, open-space, community infrastructure, sewer or drainage effects. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.3-4, 12-13, 16-17)
The submission set is incomplete in the corpus. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.43-45) The Panel report lists 25 submitters and the document list includes several hearing submissions, but the actual submissions are not available here, so this page cannot independently count all issues by submitter category or test the full technical basis of agency concerns. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.43-45)