Grange Planning Brain

title: Amendment C86 - Errors, Anomalies and Minor Corrections council: moorabool state: vic category: amendment classification: MINOR status: pending last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:

  • omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf
  • omc-agenda-07032018.pdf

Amendment C86 - Errors, Anomalies and Minor Corrections

Amendment C86 is a housekeeping amendment that corrects zoning and Heritage Overlay mapping errors across the Moorabool Planning Scheme, rather than creating a new strategic growth direction or infrastructure program (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.85). Its practical importance is that wrongly mapped public land, private land and heritage places can distort permit pathways, land-use expectations and notice obligations even when the underlying planning intent is not contested (Source: omc-agenda-07032018.pdf, p.143).

Background

Council initiated Amendment C86 because officers had accumulated a group of minor zoning, overlay and schedule anomalies raised by public authorities and private parties (Source: omc-agenda-07032018.pdf, p.143). The officer report described the bundling mechanism plainly: instead of many separate private planning scheme amendments for small mapping problems, Council could combine the corrections into one amendment and reduce pressure on the Strategic Planning and Development Unit (Source: omc-agenda-07032018.pdf, p.143).

At the Ordinary Meeting of 7 March 2018, Council was asked to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning under section 8A(3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to prepare and exhibit Amendment C86 (Source: omc-agenda-07032018.pdf, p.142). Council subsequently received conditional authorisation from the Minister on 9 April 2018, and the April 2019 officer report states that all conditions were met before exhibition (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.85).

The amendment was exhibited from 21 June 2018 to 23 July 2018 under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, with notice to prescribed Ministers, departments, agencies and affected landowners or occupiers (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.85). An administrative error meant five landowners or occupiers were not included in the original mailout, so Council undertook a further mailout on 30 July 2018 with a later submission closing date of 5 September 2018 (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.85).

Analysis

Statutory Mechanism and Planning Effect

C86 works by correcting maps, not by rewriting local policy or introducing a new precinct framework (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.85). That makes it a minor amendment in strategic scale, but it still has statutory consequences because zoning and overlay maps control what uses can occur, what permits are required and which land is subject to heritage assessment (Source: omc-agenda-07032018.pdf, p.143).

The main mechanism is alignment: private residential land is moved out of public-purpose zones, public utility land is moved into Public Use Zone 1, plantation land is moved out of a public conservation zone, and heritage overlays are shifted from incorrect parcels to the intended heritage places (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, pp.85-86). In simple terms, the amendment is like relabelling drawers in a filing cabinet so that the contents and the label match; the drawer is not new, but the wrong label can still cause the wrong process to be used (Source: omc-agenda-07032018.pdf, p.143).

The March 2018 report states that Amendment C86 proposed changes to zone and overlay mapping across 20 planning scheme map sheets (Source: omc-agenda-07032018.pdf, p.143). By April 2019, the adoption package identified 17 amendment map sheets in Attachment 11.2.2c, including Heritage Overlay deletions and applications, Rural Conservation Zone mapping, Farming Zone mapping, General Residential Zone mapping and Public Use Zone 1 mapping (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, pp.114-130). The source documents do not explain whether the difference between the 20 map sheets referenced in March 2018 and the 17 amendment maps in April 2019 reflects consolidation, removed changes, or a different counting method, so that remains an analytical limitation (Source: omc-agenda-07032018.pdf, p.143; Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, pp.114-130).

Zoning Corrections for Private Land

Several corrections remove private or residential land from zones intended for public purposes (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, pp.85-86). The clearest example is 249 Long Forest Road, Long Forest, where a residential dwelling was proposed to move from the Public Conservation and Resource Zone to the Rural Conservation Zone (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.85). Council’s stated reason was that the land is a residential dwelling in a public zone, while the Rural Conservation Zone better reflects its location adjoining the Long Forest Nature Conservation Reserve and helps limit intensification or subdivision in a densely vegetated area with associated fire risk (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.93).

The Long Forest correction is not just administrative because the selected replacement zone controls future development expectations (Source: omc-agenda-07032018.pdf, p.143). Council officers had previously considered the same land under Amendment C70, but the owners withdrew because they disagreed with officers about the replacement zone, and officers maintained in 2018 that the Rural Conservation Zone was appropriate because of native vegetation, adjacency to the reserve and high bushfire risk (Source: omc-agenda-07032018.pdf, p.143). The source record does not show that this landowner lodged an objection during the C86 exhibition period, and the April 2019 submission summary identifies the two objections as relating to HO24 at 140 Inglis Street, Ballan (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.85).

Other private-land corrections are smaller urban zoning alignments (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, pp.85-86). Part of 19 Gisborne Road, Bacchus Marsh was proposed to move from Commercial 1 Zone to General Residential Zone 1 because the land contains a dwelling, is primarily in the General Residential Zone and would then sit in one zone matching its residential use (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.95). Parts of 47, 49, 51, 53 and 55 Atkinson Street, Ballan were proposed to move from Public Use Zone 4 to General Residential Zone 1 because the land forms the rear of five residential lots that are mainly already in the residential zone (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.96). Part of 1A Simpson Street, Bacchus Marsh was proposed to move from Public Park and Recreation Zone to General Residential Zone 1 because the land is part of a residential unit block and should match the balance of that unit block (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.96).

Plantation and Rural Land Corrections

C86 also addresses Crown land licensed indefinitely to a private plantation operator, where the Public Conservation and Resource Zone was considered unsuitable because the land had no public access rights and was being used by a private operator (Source: omc-agenda-07032018.pdf, p.143). The amendment proposed to rezone plantation-related land in the Parish of Borhoneyghurk, the Parish of Korweinguboora and the Parish of Moorabool West from Public Conservation and Resource Zone to Farming Zone (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.86).

The affected plantation parcels are identified as Parish of Borhoneyghurk CA 21e, Parish of Korweinguboora CA 12a of A, CA 12b of A, CA 16c of A and CA 19a of A, and Parish of Moorabool West CA 3 of 14 (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.86). The April 2019 changes table states that the Farming Zone was selected because the land is owned by a plantation company, the public zoning was not appropriate for a private operator, and the Farming Zone matched surrounding zoning and the land use (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.97). HVP Plantations lodged a submission supporting this rezoning and noted that similar rezonings for plantation land had occurred elsewhere in Victoria (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.86).

Central Highlands Water and Public Utility Land

A major share of the amendment corrects the zoning of Central Highlands Water assets so that operating or required water infrastructure sits in Public Use Zone 1, and land no longer required for public purposes returns to a private or rural zone (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, pp.85-86). Council described the public-utility corrections as cases where publicly owned land was partially or wholly in a private zone, with most such cases relating to Central Highlands Water assets such as water tanks (Source: omc-agenda-07032018.pdf, p.143).

The amendment proposed to rezone part of 23 Water Tank Road, Mount Egerton from Township Zone to Public Use Zone 1 to facilitate a new above-ground water tank by Central Highlands Water (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.98). It proposed to rezone the Barrys Reef Water Treatment Plant site, known as Crown Allotment 1 Section 11a, from Rural Conservation Zone to Public Use Zone 1 because the land contains a Central Highlands Water treatment plant (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.99). It proposed to rezone the Gordon Wastewater Treatment Plant site, known as Reserve 1 PS704622Q, from Farming Zone to Public Use Zone 1 because the land contains a Central Highlands Water wastewater treatment plant (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.100).

C86 also corrected a pair of Steiglitz basin sites off Blakeville Road, Ballan: Lot 1 PS8070654D was proposed to move from Farming Zone to Public Use Zone 1, while the former Steiglitz Water Basin site known as Lot 1 PS328933S was proposed to move from Public Use Zone 1 to Farming Zone because the basin location had moved (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.100). Additional Central Highlands Water assets proposed for Public Use Zone 1 included the Gordon Water Booster Station at 87 Gordon-Egerton Road, Gordon; the Clarkes Hill Water Storage Tank site at 272 Powells Road, Clarkes Hill; and a water tank site along Old Melbourne Road, Gordon known as Lot 1 TP19275R (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, pp.101-102). Lot 1 TP247038 Ralstons Road, Pootilla was proposed to move the other way, from Public Use Zone 1 to Farming Zone, because Central Highlands Water owned the land but no longer needed it for a public purpose (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.98).

The planning effect is to reduce friction between infrastructure ownership, infrastructure operation and statutory zoning (Source: omc-agenda-07032018.pdf, p.143). The documents do not identify construction costs, service capacity, delivery timing or growth-area dependencies for these water assets, so the amendment should not be read as evidence that new water or sewer capacity is being delivered beyond the specific Mount Egerton water tank facilitation noted in the changes table (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.98).

Heritage Overlay Corrections

The heritage component corrects three mapped heritage locations and adds a missing citation for HO24 (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, pp.85-87). HO24 was incorrectly mapped over 114, 116, 116A and 1/116B Inglis Street, Ballan, while the Schedule to Clause 43.01 identified the intended place as Dwelling - 140 Inglis Street (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, pp.86-87). C86 therefore proposed to delete HO24 from the wrongly mapped Inglis Street properties and apply HO24 to 140 Inglis Street, Ballan (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, pp.85-86).

The amendment also proposed to amend HO197 within 70 Nerowie Road, Parwan because the existing mapping covered vacant farmland instead of the intended church site (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.94). It proposed to amend HO45 at 4662 Geelong-Ballan Road, Fiskville so the overlay applied to the correct heritage site location (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.86). The source material provides the correction reasons for HO24 and HO197 in the changes table, but it does not include a comparable text explanation for the HO45 correction beyond the officer report’s statement that the mapping would be moved to the correct location (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, pp.86, 94).

HO24 became the only contested matter during exhibition (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.85). Officers found that no heritage citation existed for HO24, and they engaged a heritage consultant because Planning Practice Note 1 requires a heritage place in a Heritage Overlay to have a citation with a statement of significance identifying what is significant, how it is significant and why it is significant (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.87). The adopted citation identifies 140 Inglis Street as the former Post and Telegraph Office, a two-storey Victorian rendered masonry building dating to circa 1874, used as the Ballan Post and Telegraph Office until 1911 and associated with the Flack family for 144 years (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, pp.104-105). The citation assesses the place as locally significant for historical, rarity and representative architectural values (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.105).

The mechanism-level issue in the HO24 objection was curtilage, not whether the building had heritage value (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, pp.87-88). One landowner requested that the overlay apply only to the building rather than the full site because they did not consider the outbuildings to have heritage value and may wish to alter them later (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.87). Officers and the heritage consultant did not support reducing the overlay to the building only, but supported reducing it from the entire site to the front half of the property, Lot 1 TP620887, so that it would not apply to the rear parcel, Lot 2 TP620887 (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.88). That compromise retained heritage control over the building and its immediate setting while reducing the regulatory reach over the rear part of the land (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.88).

Submissions, Panel Risk and Resolution

The exhibited amendment received four submissions: two supported the amendment and two objected (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.85). HVP Plantations supported the plantation rezonings, and DELWP supported the amendment (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.86). Ballan Shire Historical Society requested corrections to the HO24 citation, including references to the society, the location of the new post office and the construction date of the Commercial Hotel, and the heritage consultant accepted all requested changes (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.87). The landowner objection about the extent of HO24 was resolved after officers supported reducing the overlay to the front parcel but not to the building only (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.88).

This resolution mattered because section 23 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 required Council, after considering a submission requesting a change, to change the amendment as requested, refer the submission to a panel, or abandon the amendment or part of it (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.89). By resolving both objections before adoption, Council avoided the need to refer unresolved submissions to a Planning Panel for this amendment (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.90). The March 2018 report had flagged a Planning Panel as the main financial contingency if objections could not be resolved (Source: omc-agenda-07032018.pdf, p.144).

Current Status

At the 3 April 2019 agenda stage, officers recommended that Council adopt Amendment C86 under section 29 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and submit the adopted amendment to the Minister for Planning under section 31 for approval (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.91). The available source set does not include the Council minutes confirming the vote, the Minister’s approval decision, the approved amendment documentation, or the Government Gazette notice, so the post-adoption statutory status cannot be verified from these documents alone (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.91).

Dependencies

  • Blocks: The source documents do not identify any growth area, structure plan, development contributions plan or infrastructure program that is blocked by C86 (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, pp.85-91).
  • Blocked by: At the April 2019 agenda stage, the next statutory dependency was Council adoption followed by submission to the Minister for Planning for approval (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.91).
  • Informed by: The amendment was informed by officer-identified zoning and overlay anomalies, public authority and private-party queries, Central Highlands Water asset zoning requests, HVP Plantations’ submission and a heritageALLIANCE citation for HO24 (Source: omc-agenda-07032018.pdf, p.143; Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, pp.86-87, 104).
  • Implements: The amendment implements Council’s obligation to keep the planning scheme accurate and up to date, and Council considered it consistent with Strategic Objective 3, Context 3A Land Use Planning, in the Council Plan 2017-2021 (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.90).
  • Conflicts with: The source documents record no unresolved conflict after the two HO24 objections were resolved (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, pp.88-90).

The amendment has an infrastructure-authority link through Central Highlands Water, because multiple utility sites were rezoned to or from Public Use Zone 1 to match ownership and operational use (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, pp.98-102). It also has a state-agency link through DELWP, which supported the amendment during exhibition and supplied the Victorian amendment-process framework referenced in the officer report (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, pp.86, 89). The source documents do not identify adjacent-council dependencies, shared catchment infrastructure constraints, or regional transport effects arising from C86 (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, pp.85-91).

Gaps in This Analysis

The main gap is statutory closure: the available documents show authorisation, exhibition, resolved submissions and a recommendation to adopt, but they do not include the adopted minutes, Ministerial approval, final approved maps, explanatory report, instruction sheet or gazettal notice (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, pp.85-91). Without those documents, the final legal commencement date and any Ministerial changes cannot be confirmed from the source set (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.91).

A second gap is quantification: the agenda reports identify affected properties, zones and overlay controls, but they do not provide lot areas, mapped overlay hectares, water-infrastructure capacities, servicing catchments, cost estimates or permit-yield effects (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, pp.93-130). This limits the analysis to statutory mechanism and land-control consequences rather than land-supply modelling or infrastructure-capacity analysis (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, pp.93-130).

A third gap is heritage evidence beyond HO24: the source set provides a full citation for 140 Inglis Street, Ballan, but it does not provide equivalent citations or heritage assessments for HO45 at Fiskville or HO197 at Parwan (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, pp.104-111). The analysis can therefore explain that those overlays were remapped to intended locations, but it cannot independently assess the heritage values, curtilage logic or development effects for those two places (Source: omc-agenda-03042019-public.pdf, p.86).

Graph View