Grange Planning Brain

title: Amendment C85moor - West Moorabool Heritage Study Stage 2A Review council: moorabool state: vic category: amendment classification: MAJOR status: pending last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:

  • attachment-3-west-moorabool-heritage-study-stage-2a-review-updated-november-2025_low-res.pdf
  • attachment-b-west-moorabool-heritage-study-stage-2a-review-reduced.pdf
  • attachment-c-moorabool-planning-scheme-amendment-c085-moor-reduced.pdf
  • c085moor-wmhs-factsheet.pdf
  • c85-statements-of-significance-combined.pdf
  • moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf

Amendment C85moor - West Moorabool Heritage Study Stage 2A Review

Amendment C85moor is a broad local heritage implementation amendment for Moorabool Shire, converting the West Moorabool Heritage Study Stage 2A Review into permanent Heritage Overlay controls across Ballan, Blackwood, Bungaree, Gordon, Lal Lal, Millbrook, Mount Egerton and Wallace (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.10). Its practical planning effect is not to rezone land or create new development capacity, but to add a permit-assessment layer for demolition, buildings and works where those actions could affect identified heritage values (Source: attachment-c-moorabool-planning-scheme-amendment-c085-moor-reduced.pdf, p.3).

The amendment is classified as MAJOR because it affects more than 100 places and precincts, proceeded to a Planning Panels Victoria hearing, and changes the statutory treatment of privately and publicly owned land across multiple towns (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.5, 10). The main unresolved analytical issue is a document-count mismatch: the exhibited amendment and Panel report refer to 106 individual places and 7 precincts, while the November 2025 updated study refers to 105 individual places and 7 precincts after the Panel process (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.10; Source: attachment-3-west-moorabool-heritage-study-stage-2a-review-updated-november-2025_low-res.pdf, p.5).

Background

The amendment sits inside a long-running local heritage work program rather than a single new policy exercise (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.11). The 2010 Stage 1 heritage study identified 720 places of potential heritage significance in West Moorabool, and the 2016 Stage 2A study assessed priority places from that list for possible Heritage Overlay implementation (Source: attachment-c-moorabool-planning-scheme-amendment-c085-moor-reduced.pdf, p.3). Council adopted the Stage 2A study in 2017 and resolved to seek authorisation for a planning scheme amendment, but a later review was needed because of elapsed time, consultant change, and the August 2018 update to Planning Practice Note 1: Applying the Heritage Overlay (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.11; Source: attachment-c-moorabool-planning-scheme-amendment-c085-moor-reduced.pdf, p.3).

Plan Heritage completed the 2021 Stage 2A Review after an earlier 2018 desktop review by Context Pty Ltd, with tasks including ground truthing, curtilage review, permit-exemption drafting, citation updates, and revision of the proposed Heritage Overlay schedule (Source: attachment-b-west-moorabool-heritage-study-stage-2a-review-reduced.pdf, p.7). The 2021 review confirmed 7 precincts and 106 individual places as locally significant, identified 5 individual places and 1 precinct as below threshold, and recommended 5 locally significant places for possible nomination to the Victorian Heritage Register (Source: attachment-b-west-moorabool-heritage-study-stage-2a-review-reduced.pdf, p.5). The November 2025 update records the same 7 precincts but reduces the individual-place count to 105, indicating that the implementation package changed after the Panel hearing (Source: attachment-3-west-moorabool-heritage-study-stage-2a-review-updated-november-2025_low-res.pdf, p.5).

Council adopted the Stage 2A Review on 6 December 2023, the Minister authorised Amendment C85moor on 28 February 2024, exhibition ran from 13 March to 20 April 2025 in the Panel report, and the public fact sheet described exhibition as running from 13 March to 30 April 2025 (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.5, 11; Source: c085moor-wmhs-factsheet.pdf, p.1). The date difference between the Panel report and the fact sheet should be treated as a source inconsistency rather than resolved from the available corpus (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.5; Source: c085moor-wmhs-factsheet.pdf, p.1).

Analysis

Statutory Mechanism and Practical Effect

The amendment applies the Heritage Overlay to individual places and precincts rather than changing zones, density controls, land-use permissions or infrastructure contribution settings (Source: attachment-c-moorabool-planning-scheme-amendment-c085-moor-reduced.pdf, pp.2-4). The legal mechanism is Clause 43.01, supported by updated Heritage Overlay maps, statements of significance as incorporated documents, and a permit-exemptions incorporated plan (Source: attachment-c-moorabool-planning-scheme-amendment-c085-moor-reduced.pdf, p.3). This means the control works like a statutory checkpoint: land can continue to be used and developed, but certain demolition, building, works, tree, paint, internal alteration or prohibited-use matters may require planning permission if they affect identified heritage fabric or setting (Source: c085moor-wmhs-factsheet.pdf, p.2; Source: attachment-c-moorabool-planning-scheme-amendment-c085-moor-reduced.pdf, p.3).

The amendment also deletes three existing individual Heritage Overlay listings where those places are proposed to be absorbed into new precincts: Ballan Railway Station at Atkinson Street, All Saints Anglican Church at Byers Road, and Lal Lal Railway Station and Water Tank at Eaglesons Road (Source: attachment-c-moorabool-planning-scheme-amendment-c085-moor-reduced.pdf, pp.2-3). The mechanism is consolidation rather than deregulation, because each place is proposed to be described through the relevant precinct rather than removed from heritage consideration altogether (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.10).

The amendment package amends existing Heritage Overlay maps 5HO, 6HO, 19HO, 22HO, 25HO, 26HO, 27HO, 28HO and 41HO, inserts new maps 7HO, 9HO, 10HO, 11HO, 12HO and 23HO, updates Clause 72.03, inserts statements of significance and permit exemptions into Clause 72.04, and inserts the Stage 2A Review as a background document at Clause 72.08 (Source: attachment-c-moorabool-planning-scheme-amendment-c085-moor-reduced.pdf, p.3). The mapped-curtilage element matters because the permit trigger follows the overlay extent, not the whole historical story attached to a place (Source: attachment-b-west-moorabool-heritage-study-stage-2a-review-reduced.pdf, pp.5-6).

The incorporated permit-exemptions document is a moderation tool, not a removal of heritage control (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.11). It distinguishes non-contributory precinct places, contributory or significant precinct places, individual residential or commercial places, and individual rural places, so minor or low-risk works may be filtered out while works affecting significance remain assessable (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.11; Source: c085moor-wmhs-factsheet.pdf, p.2). The fact sheet states that the Heritage Overlay cannot compel restoration to a previous state or require a higher maintenance standard than similar non-overlay properties, which is important for understanding the control as a development-assessment mechanism rather than a maintenance enforcement regime (Source: c085moor-wmhs-factsheet.pdf, p.2).

Spatial Pattern and Heritage Themes

The amendment has a dispersed settlement pattern, applying to land in Ballan, Blackwood, Bungaree, Gordon, Lal Lal, Millbrook, Mount Egerton and Wallace (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.10). The precinct component is concentrated in Ballan, Blackwood and Lal Lal, with two precincts in Ballan, four in Blackwood and one in Lal Lal (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.10). The individual-place component extends beyond those precinct towns into rural and small-settlement contexts, which is why the incorporated exemptions need separate categories for rural heritage places and residential or commercial places (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.11).

The 113 statements of significance are not merely supporting descriptions; they become incorporated statutory reference points for deciding what is significant, how it is significant, and why it is significant (Source: c85-statements-of-significance-combined.pdf; Source: attachment-c-moorabool-planning-scheme-amendment-c085-moor-reduced.pdf, p.3). The combined statements show the breadth of place types, including dwellings, churches, schools, hotels, public halls, cemeteries, post offices, industrial dairying sites, farm complexes and precinct streetscapes (Source: c85-statements-of-significance-combined.pdf). The recurring significance values are local historical, aesthetic, representative, social, technical and rarity values, which means future planning decisions will often turn on whether proposed works alter fabric, setting or legibility rather than whether the land use itself is permissible (Source: c85-statements-of-significance-combined.pdf).

Several examples show how the control will operate at a fine grain. The Steiglitz Street Heritage Precinct in Ballan is defined around four dwellings at 91-97 Steiglitz Street constructed between about 1874 and 1890, with significance tied to single-storey residential form, hipped roofs, verandahs, chimneys, weatherboard cladding and related detailing (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.17). The Whalebone Road Heritage Precinct in Blackwood is significant for six modest log or pise huts at 20, 21, 22 and 40 Whalebone Road and 3 and 10 Richards Road, plus an Edwardian timber dwelling at 11 Whalebone Road and informal rural road settings (Source: attachment-b-west-moorabool-heritage-study-stage-2a-review-reduced.pdf, pp.261-262). The Wallace butter factory and creamery complex is significant for commercial dairy production from the 1890s to the mid-20th century, showing that the amendment protects rural-industrial heritage as well as township streetscapes (Source: c85-statements-of-significance-combined.pdf).

Methodology, Review Limits and Reliability

The Panel accepted the methodology as consistent with PPN01 and found that the application of the Heritage Overlay was strategically justified (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.14-15). That finding is important because the Panel did not re-open every listing; it reviewed submissions and accepted the exhibited form for places that were not the subject of submissions (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.7). In practice, the amendment survived strategic challenge because no submission broadly attacked the basis of the heritage study, and the objections were directed to specific properties (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.14).

The methodology still has limits that affect how the amendment should be read. The 2021 review was limited to places included in the 2016 study, and many assessments relied on external inspection from the public realm except where owner-accompanied access was obtained (Source: attachment-b-west-moorabool-heritage-study-stage-2a-review-reduced.pdf, p.7). This means the heritage controls are defensible as a planning-scheme implementation exercise, but they are not a complete municipality-wide heritage audit and do not resolve all known gaps from the 2010 Stage 1 list (Source: attachment-b-west-moorabool-heritage-study-stage-2a-review-reduced.pdf, pp.6-7).

The study itself identifies further work: additional assessment of Stage 1 places not assessed in 2016, nomination of potential state-significance places to the Victorian Heritage Register, uploading citations into HERMES, preparation of illustrated heritage guidelines, consideration of another control for Caledonian Park, a municipality-wide thematic environmental history, and a strategic review of gaps in existing documentation, geography and themes (Source: attachment-b-west-moorabool-heritage-study-stage-2a-review-reduced.pdf, p.6). These recommendations mean Amendment C85moor should be understood as one stage in a continuing heritage program, not the final settlement of Moorabool heritage policy (Source: attachment-b-west-moorabool-heritage-study-stage-2a-review-reduced.pdf, p.6).

Submissions and Contested Issues

The amendment received 13 submissions, with 4 opposed to the application of heritage controls (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.5). For an amendment covering more than 100 individual and precinct listings, the Panel treated the low objection rate as evidence of general acceptance and possibly as a reflection of earlier consultation in 2016 and continued engagement in 2020 and 2021 (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.14). The live issues were therefore narrow: objections to particular properties, claimed factual inaccuracies or changed circumstances, and objections to statement-of-significance content or additional controls (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.7).

The Panel reviewed eight place-specific matters: Steiglitz Street Heritage Precinct in Ballan, 49 Edols Street in Ballan, 146 and 146A Inglis Street in Ballan, 56 Simpson Street in Ballan, 190 Bungaree-Wallace Road in Bungaree, 67 Main Street in Gordon, 179 Donnellans Road in Millbrook and 52 Sullivans Road in Millbrook (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.7). Administrative corrections were supported for Steiglitz Street, 49 Edols Street and 146 and 146A Inglis Street, indicating that some post-exhibition changes were documentation corrections rather than changes to the underlying policy choice to apply heritage controls (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.8).

At 56 Simpson Street, Ballan, the Panel accepted the local significance of the bell tower and supported a modified Heritage Overlay polygon (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.8). At 190 Bungaree-Wallace Road, Bungaree, the Panel found that the 1992 fire did not significantly affect the original form of the former Bridge Hotel and accepted that local significance thresholds were met under Criteria A and E (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.8). At 67 Main Street, Gordon, the Panel found that disabled access to the post office could be achieved without a planning permit, which indicates that accessibility upgrades and heritage controls are not necessarily in conflict where exemptions or non-permit pathways apply (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.8).

The most materially restrictive Panel recommendation concerned additional controls rather than removal of places from the amendment (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.8-9). The Panel recommended adoption as exhibited subject to adding external paint controls for remnant external limewash on brickwork, internal alteration controls for specified internal layouts and fabric across three levels and two ground-floor rooms, and tree controls for four mature English Oak trees plus mature pear, apple and plum trees (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.8-9). These controls matter because they bring normally less-visible elements, including internal fabric and mature vegetation, into the permit-assessment frame where they form part of significance (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.8-9).

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Interface

The amendment is focused on post-contact heritage, but the Wurundjeri Woi-Wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation raised the cultural sensitivity of waterways within West Moorabool and sought greater acknowledgement of Aboriginal cultural heritage and sensitivity (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.16). The Panel concluded that Aboriginal cultural heritage is primarily managed under separate legislation and that the amendment is not inconsistent with Aboriginal cultural heritage values (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.16). This is an important boundary: C85moor does not substitute for obligations under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, and future works near culturally sensitive waterways may still require separate Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment even where the post-contact Heritage Overlay process is satisfied (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.16).

Council relied on the Moorabool Shire Heritage Strategy 2024-2028 to address Aboriginal cultural heritage through staff capacity building, links to First Peoples State Relations resources, Traditional Owner storytelling, heritage-owner information kits and event promotion (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.16). The effect is that Aboriginal cultural heritage remains a parallel dependency in the planning system rather than a resolved element of this amendment (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.16).

Current Status

As at the Panel report dated 20 October 2025, the Panel recommended that Amendment C85moor be adopted as exhibited subject to specified additional controls (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.1, 8-9). Under the Planning and Environment Act process described in the Panel report, Council must consider the Panel report before deciding whether to adopt the amendment, and if the amendment proceeds it must be sent to the Minister for Planning for approval before gazettal changes the planning scheme (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.2). The manifest status is pending, and the supplied source set does not include a Council adoption resolution, Ministerial approval notice or Government Gazette notice confirming final approval (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.2).

The post-Panel November 2025 updated review indicates that Council or its consultants incorporated Panel-related updates into the study material, including the revised count of 105 individual places and 7 precincts (Source: attachment-3-west-moorabool-heritage-study-stage-2a-review-updated-november-2025_low-res.pdf, pp.1, 5). Until an approval instrument is available, the most reliable status is post-Panel and pending final statutory resolution (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.2; Source: attachment-3-west-moorabool-heritage-study-stage-2a-review-updated-november-2025_low-res.pdf, p.5).

Dependencies

  • Blocks: Final permanent heritage protection for the affected places and precincts cannot be settled in the planning scheme until Council adopts the amendment and the Minister approves it (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.2).
  • Blocked by: The next statutory steps are Council consideration of the Panel report, Council adoption or abandonment, Ministerial approval if adopted, and gazettal if approved (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.2).
  • Informed by: The amendment is informed by the 2010 Stage 1 heritage study, the 2016 Stage 2A study, the 2018 Context review, the 2021 Plan Heritage review, 113 statements of significance, and the 2025 Panel report (Source: attachment-c-moorabool-planning-scheme-amendment-c085-moor-reduced.pdf, p.3; Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.10-11).
  • Implements: The amendment implements local heritage policy in the Moorabool Planning Scheme, relevant provisions of the Planning Policy Framework, Ministerial Direction 11, PPN01, and the Moorabool Shire Heritage Strategy 2024-2028 priority to progress the Stage 2A Review amendment (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.13-15).
  • Conflicts with: The source set records no broad strategic objection to the amendment, but site-specific tensions arose around property-specific controls, documentation accuracy, disabled access, internal controls, tree controls and post-fire heritage integrity (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.7-9).

The amendment is local to Moorabool Shire, but it connects to state statutory systems through Ministerial authorisation and approval, Planning Panels Victoria review, PPN01 methodology, Clause 43.01 of the Victoria Planning Provisions, potential Victorian Heritage Register nominations, and separate Aboriginal cultural heritage legislation (Source: attachment-c-moorabool-planning-scheme-amendment-c085-moor-reduced.pdf, pp.3-4; Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, pp.2, 13, 16). The study recommends nomination of 5 places with potential state significance to the Victorian Heritage Register, but the supplied source set does not confirm whether those nominations have been lodged or determined (Source: attachment-b-west-moorabool-heritage-study-stage-2a-review-reduced.pdf, pp.5-6).

Gaps in This Analysis

The main corpus gap is the absence of a final Council adoption report, Ministerial approval decision and gazettal notice after the 20 October 2025 Panel report (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.2). This limits certainty about whether the Panel recommendations were accepted, whether the November 2025 count of 105 individual places became the final statutory package, and whether any further post-Panel modifications were made (Source: attachment-3-west-moorabool-heritage-study-stage-2a-review-updated-november-2025_low-res.pdf, p.5).

A second gap is the absence of a resolved reconciliation table explaining the change from 106 individual places in the exhibited amendment and Panel report to 105 individual places in the November 2025 updated review (Source: moorabool-c85moor-panel-report.pdf, p.10; Source: attachment-3-west-moorabool-heritage-study-stage-2a-review-updated-november-2025_low-res.pdf, p.5). A third gap is the lack of source material confirming progress on the study recommendations for Stage 1 unassessed places, HERMES uploads, illustrated heritage guidelines, Caledonian Park control selection, municipality-wide thematic history, and potential Victorian Heritage Register nominations (Source: attachment-b-west-moorabool-heritage-study-stage-2a-review-reduced.pdf, p.6). These should be tracked in _gaps because they affect whether C85moor is followed by a complete heritage framework or remains one implemented tranche of a larger unfinished program (Source: attachment-b-west-moorabool-heritage-study-stage-2a-review-reduced.pdf, p.6).

Graph View