title: Gordon Structure Plan council: moorabool state: vic category: growth-area classification: MAJOR status: exhibited last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf
Gordon Structure Plan
The Gordon Structure Plan is a township-growth control framework built around one central mechanism: reticulated sewerage changes what can be built, so the planning scheme must decide where that added development capacity should go and what form it should take. The plan supports infill inside the existing township first, uses overlays to protect village and landscape character, and keeps longer-term expansion tied to serviced growth south toward the railway corridor rather than dispersed rural-living expansion (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.2; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.26).
Background
Gordon is identified as Moorabool Shire’s third largest town, located on the Western Freeway about 23 kilometres from central Ballarat and positioned between Bacchus Marsh and Ballarat in the Melbourne-Ballarat regional transport corridor (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.6; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.39). The structure plan area is bounded by the freeway to the north, the railway to the south, and the existing Township and Rural Living zones to the east and west (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.5).
The immediate trigger for the plan was the planned Central Highlands Water sewerage scheme, because the earlier Clause 21.09 framework had been prepared on the basis that Gordon was not sewered (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.5). Before sewerage, development relied on septic systems, which limited smaller-lot housing and shaped a fragmented, lower-density township pattern (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.24). Once reticulated sewerage is introduced, vacant small lots, re-subdivision of larger lots, commercial premises on small main-street lots, and some multi-unit development become more feasible (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.20).
The structure plan was exhibited through Amendment C53 and was intended to become part of the Moorabool Planning Scheme after the statutory process of exhibition, submissions, possible Panel review, Council adoption, and Ministerial approval (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.2; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.6). The source corpus does not include the later Panel report, Council adoption material, Ministerial approval, or gazettal notice, so this page can establish the exhibited planning intent but cannot confirm the final statutory outcome (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.39).
Analysis
Sewerage as the Binding Growth Mechanism
The plan treats sewerage as the threshold infrastructure issue because it changes both environmental risk and lot-capacity economics. Existing septic-based development in an open potable water catchment creates water-quality risk through surface drainage and sub-surface movement toward waterways, while sewering the township is expected to reduce polluted runoff into Paddock Creek (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.17; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.19). This matters because the entire study area sits within a Proclaimed Water Supply Catchment, with Paddock Creek draining east to Bostock Reservoir and the East Moorabool River (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.17).
Central Highlands Water identified 141 existing properties for reticulated sewerage and made provision for an upper limit of 280 properties in the declared sewerage district (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.19). The plan is explicit that 280 is not necessarily the ultimate physical capacity of the system, but it is a practical cost threshold because connections beyond that number may require local or site augmentation and may shift additional development into a substantially higher cost regime (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.19; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.22).
The mechanism is simple. Sewerage makes smaller and more intensive lots technically possible, but the initial scheme capacity may ration how much of that possibility is realised (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.20; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.22). If the township adds only 4 houses per year, the plan’s base additional capacity of 172 dwellings could represent more than 40 years of demand; if growth rises to 8 houses per year after sewerage, the same capacity falls to about 20 years (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.21). If the 34 additional existing houses near or inside the sewer district are counted against the 280-property threshold, the effective supply at 8 dwellings per year is described as about 13 years (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.22).
That means the structure plan is not only a land-use document. It is also a sequencing document for sewer allocation, because one substantial residential proposal, such as a development using vacant land with mixed lot sizes or an aged-persons village, could absorb a large share of the connection capacity within a short period (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.22). Without a clear servicing strategy beyond the first 280 properties, infill capacity may be theoretically available but practically constrained by connection costs (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.22).
Land Supply and Housing Capacity
The township and immediate surrounds had about 1,000 people, while the core Gordon urban centre had 437 people and 202 dwellings at the 2006 census (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.7; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.10). The study area contained 264 houses, including 146 in the Township Zone and 118 in the Rural Living Zone (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.11). Between 2000 and 2008, 47 building permits for new dwellings were issued in Gordon township and the surrounding rural residential area, equating to about 2 to 3 percent annual growth (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.11).
The existing land-supply picture is uneven. The Township Zone had 93 vacant lots, but 29 of those lots formed part of a single property, often used with an adjoining house as yard area, so they may not convert to separate housing supply in the short to medium term (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.11). The plan identifies 64 remaining vacant lots in the Township Zone and estimates that, at recent building rates, this would represent 28 years of supply, subject to change after sewerage (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.11). The Rural Living Zone had 43 vacant properties and, based on recent demand, about 12 years supply (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.12).
The plan’s more important calculation is not vacant lots alone, but post-sewerage latent capacity. A precinct methodology divided the township into 20 precincts and considered lot size, lot layout, road conditions, unconstructed roads, vegetation, proximity to the town centre, house siting, and amenity constraints (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.20). The plan used conservative assumptions, including 1,000 square metre lots in precincts close to the town centre and only 20 medium-density lots in or around the town centre (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.20).
On that basis, the plan identifies 172 potential additional dwellings in the Township Zone beyond the 141 existing connections identified by Central Highlands Water (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.20). It also identifies 34 existing dwellings that should be added to the sewer base because of proximity, effluent-disposal, drainage, or Paddock Creek catchment issues, plus a further 41 potential lots in those same areas subject to further investigation and rezoning (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.21). The combined upper scenario is therefore 247 further lots above the 141 Central Highlands Water connections, before allowing for 5 to 6 likely retail or business connections (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.21).
The effect is that Gordon’s land supply is not a single number. It is a range controlled by owner willingness, sewer connection rules, drainage costs, and whether land west and south of Old Melbourne Road and Brougham Street is later rezoned (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.21). The plan acknowledges that some landowners may not sell or develop, which means theoretical lot capacity may overstate realised supply (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.21).
Township Boundary, Infill, and Long-Term Expansion
The structure plan’s first spatial rule is containment. It supports planned growth but gives preference to vacant land within the existing township area before residential expansion outside the Residential Zone (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.25; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.26). It also maintains a clear township boundary separating township land from rural living and rural living from agricultural land (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.26).
The second spatial rule is a hierarchy of precincts. The town centre is land interacting with Old Melbourne Road between Russell and Brougham Streets and is proposed for Business 1 Zone to create a clearer commercial and community core (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.25). The core residential area is identified around Urquhart, Lyndhurst, and Tennyson Streets and the western edge of the built-up township, while the rural living surrounds remain the land in the Rural Living Zone around the township (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.25).
The third spatial rule is that long-term expansion should generally move south toward the railway corridor, linking the existing township with a possible reopened railway station (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.26; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.37). The plan gives several reasons for this southern direction: other directions are constrained by scenic value, steeper or undulating land, the southern land is relatively flat, Gordon-Mt Egerton Road can provide a main road focus, larger land parcels allow more comprehensive planning, and southern development better supports a railway station than other expansion directions (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.37).
The southern-growth strategy has an unresolved technical condition. The plan notes possible poor drainage in parts of the southern area and states that long-term residential development would need full urban servicing, including sewerage and drainage (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.37). It also keeps a western expansion investigation along Old Melbourne Road as a fallback if southern expansion proves unsuitable because of infrastructure or drainage issues (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.37).
Drainage, Roads, and Public Realm Infrastructure
Drainage is the strongest non-sewer infrastructure constraint identified in the document. The township has drainage problems between Nightingale Street and Main Street, along Urquhart Street, near Old Melbourne Road and Old Western Highway, at Foxes Lane and Cartons Road, around Stanley and O’Donnell Streets, around Gladstone and Hopwood Streets, in Main Street, and along Lyndhurst Street where periodic flooding cuts road access (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.17). The plan states that a full underground drainage system for part or all of the township may be warranted but is prohibitively expensive (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.17).
The practical effect is that drainage becomes a site-by-site development gate. The plan says further development in some parts of Gordon, and intensive development in particular, may require proponents to provide substantial drainage works at their own cost to manage stormwater impact (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.17). The proposed local policy also requires new development to provide adequate drainage infrastructure (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.40).
Road and movement infrastructure is also incomplete. Main roads are sealed, but long lengths of residential access streets are gravel and some surveyed roads are not open to traffic (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.15). Further residential development may require road opening or upgrades, and some development could depend on the proponent partly or fully upgrading roads or contributing to costs (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.15). Formal footpaths and walking trails are limited to the main street and the Paddock Creek Nature Reserve, so the structure plan proposes linked walking and cycling paths connecting schools, the town centre, residential areas, Paddock Creek, the Recreation Reserve, and a possible railway station (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.15; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.28).
Character Controls and Statutory Effect
The plan translates township character into planning controls rather than leaving it as general preference. It proposes to rezone existing Township Zone land to Residential 1 Zone except for part of the town centre, which is to become Business 1 Zone (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.30; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.39). It also proposes a Design and Development Overlay across the town centre, township, and rural surrounds, plus a Significant Landscape Overlay over the town centre and rural living surrounds (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.30; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.39).
The proposed DDO5 sets measurable built-form controls. Buildings or extensions can avoid a permit if they meet requirements including 2 metre side setbacks, 5 metre rear setbacks, site coverage not exceeding 40 percent, total floor area not exceeding 300 square metres, height under 9 metres, earthworks under 1 metre, and non-reflective external walls and roof cladding (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.42). Residential subdivision must have a minimum lot size of 800 square metres to retain the spacious character of the township (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.43). Front fencing under 1.2 metres does not require a permit in residential zones under the proposed schedule, which aligns the control with the preferred low, open street character (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.42).
The proposed SLO2 makes tree removal the key landscape trigger. A permit is required to remove, destroy, or lop a tree unless an exemption applies, including small-trunk trees, some regrowth, utility maintenance, unsafe trees, pruning, dead vegetation, or approved arborist management (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.45). This matters because the plan identifies remnant vegetation, isolated trees, windbreak planting, forested ridgelines, and Paddock Creek vegetation as defining parts of Gordon’s landscape character (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.44; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.45).
Railway Station and Regional Settlement Logic
The plan supports reopening Gordon railway station, but it does not make the structure plan dependent on that outcome (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.28; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.37). The station has been closed for several years, and the upgraded Ballarat line track was built away from the existing station platform (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.13). The Department of Transport advised in June 2010 that there was no commitment to reopen the station, but that the option should be kept open and land-use planning should preserve the potential (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.13).
The planning rationale is regional rather than only local. The plan says there is no station between Ballan and Ballarat, a distance of about 40 kilometres, and estimates the Gordon station catchment at about 2,500 people when nearby communities such as Mount Egerton, Wallace, and areas north of the freeway are considered (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.13). The plan also notes that 16 rail services a day pass through Gordon and that not all would need to stop (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.13).
The station issue affects the growth pattern because southern expansion creates a stronger physical relationship between new residential areas and the rail corridor (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.37). If the station remains closed, the southern-expansion logic still has advantages through larger parcels and road structure, but the public-transport justification becomes weaker and car dependence remains a larger risk (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.37).
Current Status
The available source is the December 2013 exhibition version of the Gordon Structure Plan and proposed Amendment C53 material (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.1; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.39). The document states that the structure plan was being placed on formal public exhibition as an amendment to the Moorabool Planning Scheme, with submissions invited (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.2). The corpus does not include later adoption, approval, or gazettal documents, so the current statutory status cannot be verified from the supplied source set (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.6).
Dependencies
- Blocks: Unplanned outward township expansion, ad hoc rural-living intensification, and development forms inconsistent with the proposed DDO5, SLO2, township boundary, and infill-first settlement pattern (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.26; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.39).
- Blocked by: Sewerage capacity and cost beyond the 280-property threshold, drainage constraints in existing township streets, possible drainage constraints south of the township, and the absence of a confirmed railway-station reopening commitment (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.19; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.22; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.37).
- Informed by: Community consultation, Central Highlands Water servicing discussions, the existing Clause 21.09 policy framework, Regional Blueprint policy, the Central Highlands Regional Strategic Plan, and State Planning Policy Framework Clause 12.03 as described in the structure plan (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.2; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.8; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.9).
- Implements: A compact-town strategy based on infill, walkable access to community facilities, protection of rural character, a clear township boundary, and long-term growth tied to the railway corridor (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.6; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.40).
- Conflicts with: Any servicing approach that leaves larger township lots unsewered despite catchment risks, because the structure plan questions whether that approach is consistent with water-quality policy and catchment-protection decisions (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.19).
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
Gordon’s planning framework is tied to the Melbourne-Ballarat corridor, with growth pressure linked to Ballarat employment, Melbourne’s western fringe, the Western Freeway, and the regional rail corridor (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.7; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.8). The plan links Gordon to the Central Highlands Regional Strategic Plan’s identified Gordon-Ballan settlement and transport corridor, alongside the Creswick-Clunes and Smythesdale-Linton corridors (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.9). Central Highlands Water is a critical cross-agency actor because sewerage design, connection limits, and catchment protection directly shape how much residential growth can occur (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.18; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.19).
Gaps in This Analysis
The corpus contains only the exhibited structure plan, so this page cannot verify the final form of Amendment C53, whether the proposed Business 1 Zone, Residential 1 Zone, DDO5, and SLO2 were approved, or whether the exhibited controls were changed after submissions or Panel review (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.39). The corpus also lacks the Gordon Background Report, detailed drainage investigations, Central Highlands Water design and capacity documents, railway patronage analysis, heritage study, community submissions, Panel report, Council adoption report, Ministerial approval notice, and gazettal material (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.6; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.40). These gaps limit the ability to quantify drainage costs, confirm servicing capacity beyond 280 connections, assess the final statutory effect, or test whether heritage and landscape controls were strengthened or reduced after exhibition (Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.17; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.22; Source: gordon-structure-plan-2013_-c53-exhibition_final.pdf, p.40).