title: Moorabool Heritage Strategy 2016-2020 council: moorabool state: vic category: constraint classification: MINOR status: unknown last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf
Moorabool Heritage Strategy 2016-2020
The Moorabool Heritage Strategy 2016-2020 framed heritage as a municipal planning constraint, public-realm management issue and cultural-tourism asset rather than only as a list of protected buildings (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.3-6). Its practical planning significance is that it identified a large unfinished statutory workload: the western heritage study had already found 720 heritage places, including 641 places without statutory heritage status, and recommended further assessment before many could be reliably translated into heritage-overlay controls (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.26-28).
Background
The strategy was included as Attachment 10.2.1 to the Moorabool Shire Ordinary Meeting of Council agenda for 6 April 2016 (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, p.1). It covered the period 2016 to 2020 and set out Council’s heritage vision, Council’s role, relevant Council Plan and Municipal Strategic Statement policy, heritage challenges, heritage achievements, strategic context and a four-year action plan (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, p.2).
The policy setting was a municipality with significant built, landscape, geological, botanical, zoological and Aboriginal cultural heritage values, but uneven statutory coverage (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, p.6). Clause 21.06 of the Municipal Strategic Statement recorded that heritage studies existed only for the eastern section of Moorabool Shire, being the former Bacchus Marsh Shire area, and identified further strategic work to undertake heritage studies in parts of the Shire not covered by the Bacchus Marsh Heritage Study, including Ballan, Myrniong, Blackwood, Gordon and Mount Egerton (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, p.6). That means the 2016-2020 strategy was not beginning from a complete municipal heritage baseline; it was attempting to move a partly documented heritage system toward broader coverage and better statutory certainty (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.6, 8).
The attached Moorabool Shire Heritage Study Stage 1, prepared in 2010 for the western region, explains the scale of that backlog (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, p.25). Stage 1 covered the former Ballan Shire and parts of the former Bungaree, Buninyong and Werribee Shires, prepared the thematic history Forest, Farmland and Gold, and identified places for more detailed Stage 2 assessment (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.25-26). The strategy’s reference to completing Stage 2a of the West Moorabool Heritage Study therefore sits inside a staged process: Stage 1 identified candidate places; Stage 2 would test significance and prepare citations; implementation would then require planning scheme amendment processes before new or revised controls could take statutory effect (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.8, 50).
Analysis
Statutory Mechanism and Control Gap
The strategy’s core planning problem is the difference between recognising heritage value and applying a legally operative planning control (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.6, 8). Council described its heritage roles as legislative, decision-making, promotional, supportive and owner-manager functions, including the statutory function to identify significant places and the role of assessing applications under the Moorabool Planning Scheme (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, p.4). In mechanism terms, this means Council is both the body that helps build the evidence base for heritage controls and the responsible authority that must later administer those controls through permits, referrals and asset decisions (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.4, 8).
The largest weakness identified in the source material is not absence of heritage value; it is incomplete translation of that value into statements of significance and planning scheme controls (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.8, 26-28). The strategy states that many sites within the Moorabool Planning Scheme did not have a statement of significance, making it difficult for owners and Council to determine what is significant when a permit application is assessed (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, p.8). The attached Stage 1 study makes that problem measurable: in the western study area, 720 heritage places were identified, but 641 places had no statutory heritage status at the time of that report (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.26-28).
The planning consequence is uncertainty at two points in the system (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.8, 42-43). First, existing heritage-overlay places without statements of significance create weak permit decision architecture because Clause 43.01 decision-making requires clarity about what is significant (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.8, 42). Second, candidate places outside the overlay can remain exposed to alteration or demolition unless interim controls, amendment progression or other statutory tools are pursued (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.42-43, 50). The strategy explicitly recognised that a long gap between completion of a heritage study and a planning scheme amendment reduces community knowledge of the study, increases uncertainty about future controls and can require rework when processes change (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, p.8).
Scale of the Western Heritage Workload
The Stage 1 study quantified a broad heritage assessment queue across individual places, precincts, archaeology, geology, water infrastructure, dry stone walls and bridges (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.26-28). It identified 7 places in the Victorian Heritage Register, 28 places in the Moorabool Planning Scheme Heritage Overlay but not the Victorian Heritage Register, 49 archaeological sites in the Victorian Heritage Inventory, and 641 places without statutory heritage status (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.26-28). The 641 unprotected or unconfirmed places included 267 single places, 20 complex places, 57 places within 3 potential heritage precincts, 109 conservation-desirable places, 75 archaeological sites, 9 dry stone walls, 19 water infrastructure sites, 80 geological sites, 2 bridges requiring further assessment and other bridge work requiring reconciliation with Council’s bridge mapping (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.27-28).
This is not a small housekeeping task (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.42-46). The Stage 1 recommendations gave high priority to assessing the existing 28 overlay places, 287 individual-significance places, 6 local water infrastructure sites, 9 dry stone walls, 2 heritage bridges, and 3 heritage precincts containing 57 places (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.42-43). It also recommended liaising with Barwon Water and Central Highlands Water about conservation management planning for 13 major water infrastructure sites, with heritage overlay assessment as the fallback if conservation management planning was not feasible (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, p.43).
The estimated cost of the priority Stage 2 program was 189,450 excluding GST, comprising 139,070 for individual places, 7,265 for the 3 heritage precincts, 9,880 for the 13 major water infrastructure places if treated as individual citations rather than through a conservation management plan, and $33,235 in other project costs (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.44-46). That estimate excluded assessment of conservation-desirable places, assessment of all bridges, heritage advisory services associated with permit applications, archaeological site costing and geological assessment costing (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.45-46). The financial implication is that the known priority heritage work was only the first layer of a larger municipal heritage program, not the full cost of resolving all identified places (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.44-46).
Settlement Character and Growth Management
The strategy links heritage protection to settlement character in Bacchus Marsh, Ballan, Blackwood, Gordon and Mt Egerton (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, p.6). This matters because heritage controls do not only preserve individual fabric; they can shape streetscape form, design response, demolition assessment, subdivision layout and the public realm interface around established town centres (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.6, 8-9). The strategy identifies heritage streetscapes as a specific challenge because gutters, tree planting, paths and street furniture can alter the cultural landscape even where private buildings are unchanged (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.8-9).
Ballan is a clear example of the connection between heritage evidence and future urban form (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.39-43). The Stage 1 study identified the Fisken Street, Ballan Precinct as an 18-place Victorian, Edwardian and interwar residential streetscape with the Ballan Railway Station as a southern landmark (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.39-40). It also recommended further planning assessment for the Inglis Street commercial streetscape for a possible Design and Development Overlay, not because it met the threshold for a heritage precinct, but because built form qualities such as one-storey streetscape character and front-boundary development warranted design management (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.42-43). That distinction is important: the heritage evidence base can lead either to a heritage-overlay where heritage significance is established or to built form controls where character management is the more appropriate planning mechanism (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.42-43).
The Central Highlands Regional Growth Plan material quoted in the strategy reinforces this settlement-management role (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.14-15). For Bacchus Marsh, the regional plan sought development that protects surrounding environmental, heritage, landscape, resource and agricultural assets and considers natural hazards (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, p.15). For Ballan, the regional plan identified strong historical and village character in a rural and environmentally sensitive landscape and stated that growth closer to metropolitan Melbourne needed careful management to protect and promote valued character (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, p.15). The strategy therefore sits alongside settlement-planning, landscape-protection and growth-management rather than operating as an isolated cultural document (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.14-15).
Aboriginal, Natural, Geological and Infrastructure Heritage
The strategy defines heritage broadly, including tangible and intangible heritage, buildings, structures, archaeological sites, geological formations, fossils, natural sites, scientific sites and objects (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, p.3). Its Municipal Strategic Statement extract also identifies numerous Aboriginal heritage sites, including burials, rock art, occupation sites and scar trees (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, p.6). Clause 15.03-2 is cited as requiring protection and conservation of Aboriginal cultural heritage through identification, assessment and documentation in consultation with Registered Aboriginal Parties, and through alignment between permit approvals and approved Cultural Heritage Management Plans under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, p.13).
For land-use assessment, this creates a layered constraint model (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.12-16). A single place or landscape may raise post-contact heritage, Aboriginal cultural heritage, geological significance, biodiversity, landscape character and tourism considerations at the same time (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.6, 9, 12-16). The strategy expressly notes that many places within Moorabool have both historic and Indigenous heritage values and that discussion with Traditional Owners or Registered Aboriginal Parties is required for significance and management practices (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, p.9). The practical effect is that heritage assessment cannot be reduced to building-by-building architectural review; some places require multi-disciplinary assessment and agency or Traditional Owner involvement before land-use change can be confidently resolved (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.9, 13).
Water infrastructure is a notable cross-agency issue (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.27-28, 43). The Stage 1 study identified 19 heritage water infrastructure sites, including 13 major infrastructure sites such as Bostock Reservoir, Moorabool Reservoir, Lal Lal Reservoir, Pincott Reservoir and Pykes Creek Reservoir, and 6 local water supply sites (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.27-28). It recommended liaison with Barwon Water and Central Highlands Water for conservation management planning, with the possibility that a conservation management plan could become an incorporated plan in the Heritage Overlay schedule to create permit exemptions for specified works (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, p.43). That mechanism matters because operating infrastructure needs maintenance and renewal; a poorly calibrated overlay can create unnecessary approval friction, while no control can leave significant infrastructure heritage without a clear management framework (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, p.43).
Council Assets, Streetscapes and Tree Management
The strategy treats Council’s own assets as part of the heritage system, not only as sites regulated by Council (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.4, 8-11). Council stated that it owns or manages places included in the Heritage Overlay or the Victorian Heritage Register, supports committees of management for Crown land heritage places, and manages several state-listed sites (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.4, 8). It identified conservation management plans for state-listed sites as a way to identify cost-efficient management methods, streamline approvals and support grant applications (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, p.8).
The Bacchus Marsh Avenue of Honour shows how heritage management interacts with asset renewal (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.10-11). Council completed the Bacchus Marsh Avenue of Honour Master Plan in 2004 with the aim of ensuring the avenue reached its 2018 centenary and remained for future generations, and the avenue was later included on the Victorian Heritage Register (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, p.11). The strategy records that Council was undertaking a Conservation Management Plan incorporating new information on tree health and lessons from the master plan implementation (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, p.11). The planning mechanism here is lifecycle management: living heritage assets such as avenues require replacement planning, arboricultural management and powerline-clearance responses, not only one-off listing decisions (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.9, 11).
Current Status
The source document confirms that the strategy covered 2016 to 2020 and was attached to the 6 April 2016 Ordinary Meeting agenda, but the extracted text available in the manifest does not include a clear Council resolution adopting the strategy or a post-2020 review (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.1-2). The current status is therefore recorded as unknown rather than adopted, even though the strategy period has ended (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, p.2). The main unresolved status question is whether Stage 2a of the West Moorabool Heritage Study was completed, whether resulting places were implemented through a later planning scheme amendment, and whether statements of significance were prepared for existing overlay places lacking them (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.8, 42-46).
Dependencies
- Blocks: The strategy itself does not appear to block development approvals, but its implementation would affect future permit assessment, demolition review, streetscape works and asset management where new or revised heritage-overlay controls, statements of significance or design controls are introduced (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.4, 8, 42-43).
- Blocked by: Implementation depends on heritage study funding, Stage 2 assessment work, access to 42 properties requiring owner permission, specialist archaeological and geological input, and planning scheme amendment processes for any new statutory controls (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.8, 43-46, 277-278).
- Informed by: The strategy is informed by the Bacchus Marsh Heritage Study, Amendment C6, the West Moorabool Heritage Study Stage 1, the Council Plan, the Municipal Strategic Statement, the State Planning Policy Framework, the Planning and Environment Act, Aboriginal heritage policy, the Central Highlands Regional Growth Plan, the South West Regional Landscape Assessment Study and tourism strategies (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.5-17, 25-46).
- Implements: The strategy implements local policy directions to preserve, promote and enhance heritage places and state policy directions to identify, assess, document, conserve and manage cultural, natural and Aboriginal heritage values (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.6, 12-13).
- Conflicts with: The source does not identify a direct policy conflict, but it does identify operational tensions between heritage protection, timely amendment implementation, public-realm upgrades, tree management under post-bushfire powerline regimes and maintenance of Council-owned or managed heritage assets (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.8-9).
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
The strongest cross-jurisdictional connection is water infrastructure heritage because the Stage 1 study recommended liaison with Barwon Water and Central Highlands Water for conservation management planning of 13 major water infrastructure sites (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, p.43). The regional planning context also links Moorabool heritage to the Central Highlands region, including goldfields heritage, Aboriginal cultural heritage at Lal Lal Falls, significant landscapes and settlement breaks between metropolitan Melbourne and the Central Highlands (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.14-16). Tourism policy links Moorabool to the Daylesford and Macedon Ranges regional tourism theme and to regional cultural heritage visitation patterns between Melbourne and Ballarat (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.13-14).
Gaps in This Analysis
This page is constrained by a single manifest source, and that source is an agenda PDF containing the strategy and attachments rather than a full post-implementation file (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.1-2). The extracted action-plan pages for the strategy show headings but not readable action items, so this analysis cannot reliably list the four-year actions, responsible teams, timing or completion measures (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.18-19). The available text does not confirm whether Council adopted the strategy, whether Stage 2a was completed, whether a subsequent heritage amendment was gazetted, or whether a heritage advisory service was established after 2016 (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.8, 18-19, 42-46).
Priority gap-fill sources are the Council minutes resolution for Item 10.2.1, any final adopted version of the Moorabool Heritage Strategy 2016-2020 with readable action-plan tables, later West Moorabool Heritage Study Stage 2a reports, any planning scheme amendment documents implementing those recommendations, and current Heritage Overlay schedules and statements of significance for Moorabool (Source: 2016-04-06-060416-growth-and-development.pdf, pp.8, 18-19, 42-46).