Grange Planning Brain

title: Amendment VC90 - Residential Zones Reform council: moorabool state: vic category: amendment classification: MAJOR status: unknown last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:

  • 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf
  • 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf
  • 2015-07-01-010715-omc-agenda-no-attachments.pdf
  • 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf

Amendment VC90 - Residential Zones Reform

The available Moorabool source set does not support the title “Amendment VC90 - Residential Zones Reform” as a clean description of the residential-zone reforms affecting the municipality. The July 2015 council material identifies VC90 as a statewide amendment introduced on 5 June 2012 to update Clause 52.06 car parking rates and decision guidelines, while the residential-zone reform chain in the February 2015 material is described through the 2013 new residential zones, Amendment VC116, and local Amendment C72 rather than VC90 (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-agenda-no-attachments.pdf, p.22; Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, pp.10-12).

For planning intelligence purposes, the important mechanism is not the label VC90 itself, but the way statewide Victoria Planning Provision changes displaced older local controls and forced Moorabool to reconcile local strategic work, zone schedules, overlays, car parking rates, and amendment sequencing. In simple terms: the state changed the rulebook, and Moorabool then had to tidy up local pages in the rulebook so the same site was not being told two different things at once (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, pp.9-12, 25-26; Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.25-27).

Background

The residential-zone reform pathway recorded in these sources began with the Victorian Government’s introduction of a new suite of residential zones on 1 July 2013, with the zones coming into effect on 15 July 2013 (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.10). The reforms removed the Residential 1, Residential 2 and Residential 3 zones from planning schemes and introduced the General Residential Zone, Neighbourhood Residential Zone and Residential Growth Zone (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.10). The reform intent was to separate places where housing growth should be directed from places where neighbourhood character should carry more weight (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, p.10).

Moorabool’s local implementation work was undertaken through draft Amendment C72, which was prepared to apply the new residential zones in Bacchus Marsh, Ballan and Gordon (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.11). Council linked that translation exercise to the draft Bacchus Marsh Housing Strategy so that zoning decisions would reflect where and how future housing was expected to occur, rather than simply replacing old zone names with new ones (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.11). Draft Amendment C72 was publicly notified in March and April 2014, and Council and submitters presented to the Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee at a Bacchus Marsh hearing in May 2014 (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.11).

The Minister required councils to implement the reformed residential zones by 30 June 2014, and where a local amendment was not finalised by 1 July 2014 the General Residential Zone would replace former Residential 1, Residential 2 and Residential 3 land as the default zone (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.10). Because the Standing Advisory Committee report and decision on draft Amendment C72 were not released before 30 June 2014, Amendment VC116 applied the General Residential Zone to land formerly zoned Residential 1 and Residential 2 in Bacchus Marsh from 1 July 2014 (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.11). Amendment C72 was then gazetted on 9 October 2014 after the Standing Advisory Committee report was released on 25 September 2014 (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, pp.11-12).

The only direct VC90 material in the source set appears in the July 2015 Darley Plaza / Amendment C74 material, where officers state that VC90 was introduced to all planning schemes on 5 June 2012 to update Clause 52.06 parking rates and introduce new decision guidelines for reducing or waiving car parking requirements (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-agenda-no-attachments.pdf, p.22). That creates a classification problem: the manifest labels VC90 as a residential-zone reform, but the source documents identify VC90 as a car parking amendment and identify the residential-zone reforms through other amendment numbers (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, p.25; Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.10-12).

Analysis

State Reform as a Local Control Reset

The residential-zone reform was a statewide reset that changed the base grammar of residential planning controls in Moorabool. The old Residential 1, Residential 2 and Residential 3 zones were removed, and the new suite separated residential land into General Residential Zone, Neighbourhood Residential Zone and Residential Growth Zone pathways (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.10). The practical consequence was that older local strategic documents and draft amendments could not simply continue using Residential 1 language once the new zones took effect (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, pp.10, 25-26).

The mechanism is visible in the way Amendment C51 had to be adjusted after Amendment C72. Amendment C51 originally dealt with the Bacchus Marsh Activity Centre Structure Plan, including Taverner Street land and multiple Design and Development Overlay schedules, but Council delayed final consideration until it could understand the Standing Advisory Committee recommendations and the Minister’s decision on Amendment C72 (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.9). Officers described the reason plainly: the two amendments needed to be made consistent so that zone schedules and overlays did not duplicate or contradict each other (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.9).

The reform therefore operated through two layers. The first layer was statewide substitution of zone tools, including the default application of the General Residential Zone where councils had not completed local translations by the deadline (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, pp.10-11). The second layer was local calibration, where Moorabool used Amendment C72 to apply schedules to selected areas and then amended other planning controls so the scheme remained administrable (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, pp.12, 25-26).

Bacchus Marsh: Growth Capacity Versus Character Controls

The Standing Advisory Committee’s findings indicate that the main policy tension in Bacchus Marsh was between limiting change through Neighbourhood Residential Zone controls and allowing housing change through the General Residential Zone. The Committee found over-use of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone where the General Residential Zone was more likely to be appropriate, and it found that the Neighbourhood Residential Zone was inappropriate for newly developing greenfield sites such as Stonehill and Underbank (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.11). The Committee also found that some proposed standards could not be strategically justified, including a 20 per cent site coverage standard in an NRZ3 schedule and a 400 square metre lot-size standard in an NRZ1 zone (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.11).

That finding matters because a residential zone is not just a map colour. The zone and schedule determine the intensity of housing that can reasonably be considered, the built form standards that apply, and the level of discretion available to assess new dwellings or subdivisions (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.10). A broad use of Neighbourhood Residential Zone controls in areas intended for growth would have made the planning scheme pull in two directions: strategic documents would be asking for housing capacity, while zone controls would be suppressing the form and scale of that capacity (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.11).

The approved Amendment C72 retained the General Residential Zone in Bacchus Marsh and applied schedules to Central and Inner Residential Areas that represented about 10 per cent of residential land in Bacchus Marsh (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.12). GRZ2 was applied to designated areas within the Bacchus Marsh Activity Centre and near Maddingley Park and Bacchus Marsh Railway Station, while GRZ3 was applied to designated areas near community and retail facilities such as the Bacchus Marsh and Melton Regional Hospital (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.12). This indicates a targeted rather than blanket use of scheduled standards in locations with activity-centre, transport, open-space or community-facility relationships (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.12).

The numerical controls show how the schedules translated strategy into permit assessment. GRZ2 varied ResCode by setting a five metre minimum street setback, allowing 70 per cent maximum site coverage rather than 60 per cent, and setting a 1.2 metre maximum front fence height (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.12). GRZ3 set a six metre minimum street setback, required one tree per 600 square metres of lot size with at least one tree in the front setback, and set a 1.2 metre maximum front fence height (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.12). In mechanism terms, GRZ2 allowed a more compact built-form envelope in selected areas, while GRZ3 gave more weight to landscape and setback outcomes near community and retail facilities (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.12).

Overlay Duplication and Administrative Risk

The most concrete downstream effect of the residential-zone reform was the need to remove duplicated built-form controls from Design and Development Overlays. The gazetted GRZ schedules already specified minimum street setbacks, site coverage, front fence heights and landscaping requirements, and officers found that some of those requirements overlapped with Amendment C51’s Design and Development Overlay controls (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.25). The Standing Advisory Committee had warned that where several overlays apply, zone and overlay combinations may need review to reduce ambiguity, inconsistent provisions and complexity in administering the scheme (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.25).

Council’s response was precise: delete street setback requirements from DDO Schedules 6, 8 and 9 where those schedules applied to land zoned GRZ2 and GRZ3 (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.25). This is a good example of cause and effect in statutory planning. If the same setback rule appears in both the zone schedule and an overlay schedule, a permit officer, applicant or objector may have to interpret two overlapping controls, and a minor wording difference can create avoidable dispute (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.25). Removing the duplicated DDO setback control left the GRZ schedule as the relevant source for that standard while keeping the overlay available for other design matters (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, p.42).

The Taverner Street land shows the same mechanism at parcel scale. The C51 Panel had recommended that the land be rezoned to Residential 1, subject to noise readings from the concrete batching plant being satisfactory to the planning authority (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, p.41). After the new residential zones were implemented, Council could no longer rezone the land to Residential 1 and had to select one of the new residential zones (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.26). Officers recommended General Residential Zone Schedule 1 because the Standing Advisory Committee preferred GRZ over Neighbourhood Residential Zone for broad hectare land identified for residential development or already in subdivision and development processes (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.26). Council adopted C51 with the additional change that the Taverner Street land be rezoned to General Residential Zone Schedule 1 (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, p.42).

VC90 as Car Parking Reform, Not Residential-Zone Reform

The July 2015 sources identify VC90 as a car parking reform rather than a residential-zone reform. In the Darley Plaza material, officers used VC90 to compare old and current Clause 52.06 parking rates for an existing supermarket and shop extension (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-agenda-no-attachments.pdf, p.22). Under the older calculation, the existing supermarket and shop generated a total requirement of 140 spaces, and the existing centre provided 108 spaces, meaning a 32-space waiver had been granted when the centre was originally approved (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-agenda-no-attachments.pdf, p.22). The proposed extension added about 460 square metres and about 19 additional required spaces, producing an argued 30-space shortfall against the proposal’s 97 spaces (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-agenda-no-attachments.pdf, p.22).

Using the post-VC90 parking rates, the same centre including the proposed extension required 102 spaces, based on 5 spaces per 100 square metres for a 1,591 square metre supermarket and 4 spaces per 100 square metres for 580 square metres of shop floor area (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-agenda-no-attachments.pdf, p.22). The proposal provided 75 spaces on the existing shopping-centre site and 22 spaces on the adjoining land, leaving a 5-space shortfall under the current-rate calculation (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-agenda-no-attachments.pdf, p.23). The important planning effect is that VC90 materially changed the scale of parking non-compliance from a large shortfall under the old rates to a much smaller shortfall under the updated rates, while still leaving a waiver decision to be made (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.25-26).

This has an indirect relationship to residential zoning because the land proposed for the Darley Plaza car park was General Residential Zone land at 8 Jonathan Drive, Darley, with an area of 673 square metres (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-agenda-no-attachments.pdf, pp.17, 19). Under the General Residential Zone, a car park associated with a retail premises was prohibited, so Amendment C74 proposed to rezone the land from General Residential Zone to Commercial 1 Zone to allow it to be used as part of the Darley Plaza car park (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-agenda-no-attachments.pdf, pp.17, 23). This is not evidence that VC90 created the residential zones; it is evidence that a statewide car parking amendment affected how Council assessed a commercial extension requiring use of adjacent residential-zoned land (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.25-27).

Amendment Sequencing and Decision Pathways

The residential-zone reform affected amendment sequencing in Moorabool because C51 could not be finalised cleanly until C72 had resolved the new zone schedules. Council officers explicitly waited for the Standing Advisory Committee recommendations and the Minister’s decision on C72 before asking Council to consider the C51 Panel Report (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.9). Council then adopted C51 on 18 February 2015 with changes recommended by the Panel and additional changes required by the new residential-zone framework (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.41-42).

The Darley Plaza matter shows a different sequencing mechanism. Council had previously resolved in November 2014 to separate the rezoning from the planning permit, but the proponent later sought a combined amendment and permit process under section 96A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 because the parking waiver was a necessary part of the redevelopment (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-agenda-no-attachments.pdf, pp.16, 23). On 1 July 2015, Council resolved to request authorisation for Amendment C74, prepare the amendment and permit together under section 96A, seek a Ministerial Direction 15 exemption, and exhibit the amendment under section 96C subject to authorisation and referral-authority permit conditions (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.30-31). VC90’s reduced parking rates did not remove the need for a waiver, but it changed the evidentiary context for whether the waiver was acceptable (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, pp.25-26).

Current Status

The source documents establish that Amendment C72 was gazetted on 9 October 2014 and that Council adopted Amendment C51 with residential-zone-related changes on 18 February 2015 (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.12; Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.41-42). The source documents also establish that VC90 had already been introduced on 5 June 2012 and was being applied in 2015 through Clause 52.06 car parking calculations (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-agenda-no-attachments.pdf, p.22). The current status of a distinct “VC90 - Residential Zones Reform” initiative cannot be confirmed from these four documents because the documents do not identify VC90 as the residential-zone amendment (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, p.25; Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.10-12).

Dependencies

  • Blocks: The residential-zone translation affected finalisation of Amendment C51 because C51’s design controls and Taverner Street rezoning had to be reconciled with Amendment C72 before Council adoption (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, pp.9, 25-26).
  • Blocked by: C51 decision-making was delayed until the Standing Advisory Committee recommendations and the Minister’s decision on C72 were available (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.9).
  • Informed by: The residential-zone implementation was informed by the draft Bacchus Marsh Housing Strategy, the Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee process, and Council’s recent or current strategic work for Bacchus Marsh, Ballan and Gordon (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.11).
  • Implements: The local changes implemented the statewide replacement of Residential 1, Residential 2 and Residential 3 zones with the General Residential Zone, Neighbourhood Residential Zone and Residential Growth Zone (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.10).
  • Conflicts with: The main internal tension was between proposed Neighbourhood Residential Zone controls and growth-area capacity, with the Standing Advisory Committee finding that NRZ was over-used and inappropriate for newly developing greenfield sites such as Stonehill and Underbank (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.11).

The source documents identify the residential-zone reform as a statewide Victorian planning scheme reform applying across all planning schemes, not a Moorabool-only change (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.10). The sources also identify VC90 as an amendment to all planning schemes affecting Clause 52.06 car parking rates and decision guidelines (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-agenda-no-attachments.pdf, p.22). No adjoining-council infrastructure, water-authority servicing, regional transport dependency or cross-boundary growth-area effect is documented in the four supplied sources for this initiative (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf; Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-agenda-no-attachments.pdf).

Gaps in This Analysis

The central gap is source identity. The manifest title describes “Amendment VC90 - Residential Zones Reform”, but the supplied documents identify VC90 as a 5 June 2012 car parking amendment and describe the residential-zone reform through the 2013 state zone reforms, Amendment VC116 and Moorabool Amendment C72 (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-agenda-no-attachments.pdf, p.22; Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, pp.10-12). A complete analysis would need the VC90 gazettal notice or explanatory material, the Amendment VC116 material, the Amendment C72 amendment documents, the Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee report, and the draft Bacchus Marsh Housing Strategy to confirm the amendment lineage and quantify the land area affected by each residential-zone schedule (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, pp.10-12, 25-26).

The source set also does not provide maps showing the exact boundaries of GRZ1, GRZ2 and GRZ3 in Bacchus Marsh, Ballan or Gordon, except for textual descriptions of the Central and Inner Residential Areas, activity-centre areas, Maddingley Park, Bacchus Marsh Railway Station, and areas near Bacchus Marsh and Melton Regional Hospital (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, p.12). Because those maps are absent, this page cannot calculate the number of lots, hectares or dwellings affected by each schedule, nor can it quantify the housing-capacity difference between the Council-proposed NRZ approach and the gazetted GRZ approach (Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-agenda.pdf, pp.11-12).

A further gap is that the Darley Plaza VC90 material is embedded in Amendment C74 rather than in a primary VC90 document. The available material can show how VC90 changed parking-rate calculations for one retail proposal, but it cannot show the full statewide rationale, all Clause 52.06 changes, or any municipality-wide parking effects in Moorabool (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-agenda-no-attachments.pdf, pp.22-23). This should be treated as a corpus gap in _gaps because the primary statutory source for VC90 is not present and the residential-zone source chain is incomplete (Source: 2015-07-01-010715-omc-minutes.pdf, p.25; Source: 2015-02-18-180215-smc-minutes.pdf, pp.10-12).

Graph View