Grange Planning Brain

title: Housing Bacchus Marsh to 2041 council: moorabool state: vic category: strategy classification: MAJOR status: adopted last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:

  • housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf
  • moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf

Housing Bacchus Marsh to 2041

Housing Bacchus Marsh to 2041 is the adopted housing and neighbourhood character strategy for Bacchus Marsh, prepared in 2017 and updated in 2018 to guide residential growth, infill change, greenfield supply and character protection to 2041. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.1) Its planning importance is that it converts Bacchus Marsh from a generally broad residential zone setting into a differentiated settlement framework: some areas are directed toward medium-density change, some toward conventional infill, and some toward low-change character protection. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.7, 17)

The strategy matters because Bacchus Marsh is identified as both an emerging regional centre and a peri-urban housing location west of Melbourne, with projected growth pressures that cannot be managed by a single town-wide residential setting. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, pp.5, 27) The key planning question is not whether Bacchus Marsh grows, but where growth is absorbed, what form it takes, and which landscape, heritage, flood, infrastructure and character limits prevent a simple density uplift across the whole town. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, pp.49-55; Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.21-29)

Background

The strategy was commissioned by Moorabool Shire Council as one of the key studies informing the broader Moorabool 2041 work program, alongside urban growth, retail, economic development, transport, industrial and community infrastructure work. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.5; Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.9-10) It was prepared to respond to greenfield and infill pressure, provide housing supply and demand analysis, guide neighbourhood character outcomes, and give Council a statutory basis for changing zones, schedules and policy. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, pp.6-8)

The statutory trigger was Amendment C79, which sought to implement the strategy by amending the Municipal Strategic Statement, introducing and amending residential zones and schedules, and making the strategy a reference document in the Moorabool Planning Scheme. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.7) Amendment C79 applied to existing residential-zoned land in Bacchus Marsh, Darley and Maddingley, while the related Amendment C81 addressed the broader urban growth framework for new greenfield areas near Merrimu, Parwan and Hopetoun Park. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.7, 9-10)

The Panel history is important because Council had previously attempted residential zone reform through draft Amendment C72, but the Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee found that the proposed widespread Neighbourhood Residential Zone application lacked an adopted housing strategy, adequate neighbourhood character analysis and sufficient justification. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.10-11) Housing Bacchus Marsh to 2041 therefore functions as the missing strategic layer that allowed Council to move from interim broad General Residential Zone coverage toward a more selective zone framework. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.11, 17)

Analysis

Growth Role and Demand Settings

Bacchus Marsh is treated in the strategy as a regional service centre, a peri-urban town and an alternative housing destination west of Melbourne. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.5) The Urban Growth Strategy context expected Bacchus Marsh to accommodate more than 30,000 residents by 2041, and the strategy noted that both Plan Melbourne and the Central Highlands Regional Growth Plan identified Bacchus Marsh as an emerging regional centre. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.5)

The demand base is substantial but not unlimited. The strategy records that id forecast projected Bacchus Marsh to reach 30,519 people by 2041, averaging 2.2 per cent annual growth over 2011-2041. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.27) It also records that VIF and id projections diverged after 2021, with VIF projecting 31,085 people by 2031 at 2.7 per cent annual growth and id projecting 26,223 people by 2031 at 1.9 per cent annual growth. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.27) The practical planning effect is that the strategy uses a range rather than a single growth number, identifying likely population growth of about 11,800 to 13,600 people between 2021 and 2031 and at least 14,500 people by 2041. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.27)

Household change is the mechanism behind the preferred housing mix. The strategy projected an additional 6,414 households between 2011 and 2041, with about 12,306 households by 2041. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.28) Lone-person and couple-without-dependent households were projected to account for more than 60 per cent of household growth from 2011 to 2041, while couple families with dependents were still projected to remain the largest household type by 2041. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.28) This creates a two-sided housing task: detached family housing remains necessary, but the ageing and smaller-household profile creates a stronger need for smaller, lower-maintenance and more diverse housing forms. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, pp.28, 68)

Supply, Density and the Greenfield/Infill Balance

The strategy found that Bacchus Marsh had 5,828 lots of identified residential land supply as at September 2015. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.61) Of that supply, 5,003 lots were zoned broadhectare lots, 646 were dispersed infill lots, 150 were designated future residential lots requiring or undergoing rezoning, and 29 were vacant rural residential lots. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.61) This means the supply base was heavily greenfield weighted, with zoned broadhectare lots making up 86 per cent of identified supply. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.61)

Historic production also shows a greenfield-dominant market. Broadhectare lot construction averaged 236 lots per year between July 2008 and September 2015, representing 86 per cent of all residential lot construction activity, while infill lot construction averaged 30 lots per year over the same period. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.61) The strategy estimated that zoned broadhectare land stocks were sufficient for 16 to 27 years of demand and considered about 20 years of broadhectare supply the most likely position. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.62)

The planning implication is that the strategy does not need to force every established residential area into higher-density development to meet the broad supply task. Instead, it uses infill selectively to increase choice near centres and public transport while relying on Stonehill and Underbank as critical greenfield supply sources. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, pp.53-54, 61-62) The Panel accepted this logic when it found that the General Residential Zone Schedule 3 areas provided sufficient medium-density opportunity in locations well serviced by public transport, facilities and services. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.27)

Greenfield density is also moderated rather than maximised. The strategy identifies Stonehill and Underbank as the two broadhectare greenfield areas on the western boundary of the study area and states that both are subject to Development Plan Overlay controls. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.53) It seeks an overall greenfield density target generally in the range of 10-15 dwellings per hectare, with reductions or increases possible where constraints or housing diversity outcomes justify variation. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.53) This is a deliberately lower-density greenfield framework than a metropolitan growth-area model, reflecting the strategy’s emphasis on landscape character, larger lot choice and Bacchus Marsh’s regional-town setting. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, pp.33-35, 53)

Settlement Framework and Statutory Mechanism

The core mechanism is the four-part settlement framework: Minimal Residential Growth Areas, Natural Residential Growth Areas, Increased Residential Growth Areas and Greenfield Residential Growth Areas. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.49) Minimal Residential Growth Areas apply to fringe, constrained or character-sensitive residential land and are intended mainly for detached dwellings, with dual occupancies only where the settlement type and preferred character are not compromised. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.50) Natural Residential Growth Areas apply to most established residential areas and allow modest change, townhouses and multi-dwelling development in suitable locations while detached houses continue to dominate. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.51)

Increased Residential Growth Areas apply to land well located to services, facilities, activity centres and public transport, and are intended for townhouses, multi-dwelling development, alternative housing types and some apartment opportunities. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.52) Greenfield Residential Growth Areas apply to fringe land suitable for future residential development or already being developed over multiple years, particularly Stonehill and Underbank. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.53)

The statutory translation is important. The strategy recommended that Minimal Residential Growth Areas use the Neighbourhood Residential Zone or Low Density Residential Zone, while Natural, Greenfield and Increased Residential Growth Areas generally use the General Residential Zone with tailored schedules. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, pp.57, 86-89) The Panel records that Amendment C79 introduced two General Residential Zone schedules, four Neighbourhood Residential Zone schedules and one Low Density Residential Zone schedule, and included the strategy as a reference document. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.7)

The effect is more precise than a blanket upzoning or downzoning. About 85 per cent of existing residential lots were proposed to remain in the General Residential Zone, about 30 per cent were within GRZ3 Increased Residential Growth areas, and only about 13 per cent were within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.27) The Panel contrasted this with Amendment C72, where only about 10 per cent of residential land was proposed for the General Residential Zone and the balance was proposed for the Neighbourhood Residential Zone or Low Density Residential Zone. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.10-11, 27)

Character, Heritage and Built Form Control

The strategy’s density framework is inseparable from its neighbourhood character framework. It identified 32 character precincts across Darley, Bacchus Marsh and Maddingley, with existing and preferred character statements prepared for each precinct. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.45) The strategy states that preferred character must be considered together with housing needs, because some precincts are not suitable for the same level of development due to service access, transport access, activity centre proximity, landscape or character factors. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.45)

The character analysis identifies Bacchus Marsh’s natural landscape setting, gorges and forests, undulating landform, waterways, open rural feel, Avenue of Honour entry, historic main street, wide road reserves, street planting and regional service role as key elements shaping the town’s character. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, pp.40-41) It also identifies risks from poorly contextual development, loss of rural views, weak landscaping, remote medium-density development, inconsistent road cross-sections and inward-facing multi-unit housing. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.42)

The statutory response is not a new overlay system. The strategy states that no new overlays were recommended to implement the housing strategy because the reformed residential zones could carry the desired development and character outcomes. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.90) It also notes that Development Plan Overlays already apply to Stonehill and Underbank and should be retained. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.90) Heritage remains a source limit: the strategy recognises that some dwellings in the study area have heritage significance and that broader Heritage Overlay application may be possible, but it states that this work is outside the scope of Housing Bacchus Marsh to 2041. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.90)

Diversity, Affordability and Social Housing

Housing diversity is a central reason for directing infill to accessible locations. The strategy found that 92 per cent of housing stock added in Bacchus Marsh since 2001 was separate dwellings and that townhouses and apartment-type dwellings grew by only 110 dwellings between 2001 and 2011. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.68) It also found that, among 6,840 residential dwellings in September 2015, 58 per cent were on lots between 500 and 1,000 square metres, 22 per cent were on lots over 1,000 square metres, and 18 per cent were on lots below 500 square metres. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.68)

The affordability mechanism is land consumption. The strategy states that Bacchus Marsh’s 2014 median house price was 342,700 compared with 550,000 for metropolitan Melbourne, and that Bacchus Marsh house prices grew by 4.5 per cent between 2004 and 2014 compared with 5.9 per cent for metropolitan Melbourne. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.28) It then links affordability to smaller dwellings and less land per dwelling, noting that villa units and townhouses can consume half to a quarter of the land previously occupied by a separate house. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.28)

The social housing position is much thinner than the general market analysis. The strategy records nearly 1,200 low-income households in housing stress in Bacchus Marsh and states that this rate was slightly below the Outer Western Region and metropolitan Melbourne averages. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.75) It also records 218 Department of Health and Human Services dwellings and 28 community housing sector dwellings in Bacchus Marsh. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.75) The proposed response is mainly facilitative: engage with government, social housing providers and the private sector, investigate Council-owned land, and consider pilot projects including co-housing or social housing. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.76)

Infrastructure and Staging Dependencies

The strategy repeatedly links housing location to infrastructure cost, service access, public transport and walkability, but the available source documents do not provide a costed infrastructure program. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, pp.49, 57-58; Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.22-23) The strategy calls for audits of each neighbourhood to identify infrastructure upgrades, review of Council’s capital works program against residential growth outcomes, and continued advocacy for public transport and road upgrades including service to greenfield areas and neighbourhood activity centres. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, pp.58-59)

This is a major analytical gap because the strategy depends on transport, community infrastructure and servicing work that sits outside the two documents in this manifest. The Panel noted that the Housing Strategy did not directly consider infrastructure needs and that Council relied on other strategies, including the Bacchus Marsh Integrated Transport Strategy and a draft Community Infrastructure Framework expected in late 2018. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.22-23) Amendment C81 was also expected to identify infrastructure through future Precinct Structure Plans for new growth areas. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.23)

Contested Issues and Panel Resolution

Amendment C79 was exhibited from 2 November to 15 December 2017, and the Panel considered 25 submissions, including one late submission and 16 objections. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.4) The main issues were zone selection, whether controls were too restrictive or too permissive, whether more land should be protected, Manor Street’s proposed Increased Residential Growth designation, height/setback/site coverage controls, infrastructure adequacy and site-specific boundaries. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.5, 12)

The most important strategic contest was whether Increased Residential Growth Areas should use the Residential Growth Zone rather than GRZ3. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.21) The City of Melton argued that using the General Residential Zone missed an opportunity to increase densities around the station and activity centres, while some local submissions argued that GRZ3 allowed too much development. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.21-22) The Panel accepted Council’s middle position, finding that GRZ3 appropriately facilitated medium-density development while balancing neighbourhood character. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.27)

Transport for Victoria supported the focus on activity centres and public transport but sought increased-growth designation for Precincts 17, 19, 20, 21, 30, 31 and 32. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.23) Council resisted this broader designation because of constraints including channel connectivity in Precinct 17, Lerderderg Street’s intact character in Precinct 20, garden-estate character in Precinct 21, flooding issues in Precinct 30, and rail-line severance affecting Precincts 31 and 32. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.24-25) The Panel accepted Council’s reasoning and found the extent of Increased Residential Growth designation appropriate. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.27)

The Panel did recommend targeted site changes. Lot C Holts Lane, Darley was recommended for Increased Residential Growth and GRZ3, while Lot A Holts Lane remained Natural Residential Growth and GRZ2. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.30-32) The Panel also recommended that 101 Gisborne Road be included in Precinct 15, designated Increased Residential Growth and zoned GRZ3, correcting an omission caused by an abandoned commercial amendment pathway. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.32-34) Other site-specific objections at Durham Street, Underbank Estate and 126-128 Holts Lane did not result in the requested broader changes. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.34-42)

Current Status

Housing Bacchus Marsh to 2041 was adopted by Council on 3 August 2017 and updated in May 2018. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.1) Amendment C79 was authorised on 24 July 2017, exhibited from 2 November to 15 December 2017, heard by a Panel in May and June 2018, and reported on 13 July 2018. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, p.4) The Panel recommended that Amendment C79 be adopted as exhibited subject to targeted mapping, clause and drafting changes. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.5-6)

The manifest sources do not include the final adoption report, Ministerial approval notice, gazettal notice, or current planning scheme ordinance, so this page can confirm the adopted strategy and the Panel-recommended statutory pathway but cannot verify the final gazetted form of Amendment C79 from the supplied corpus. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.1; Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.46-48)

Dependencies

  • Blocks: A clear local basis for residential-zone differentiation in established Bacchus Marsh, because the earlier C72 process lacked an adopted housing strategy and adequate neighbourhood character analysis. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.10-11)
  • Blocked by: Final statutory confirmation outside the supplied corpus, including whether the Panel’s recommended changes were adopted, approved and gazetted. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.46-48)
  • Informed by: Housing supply and demand projections, 32 neighbourhood character precincts, settlement-type mapping, broadhectare supply analysis, affordability analysis, and Amendment C79 Panel review. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, pp.27-28, 45, 49-62, 74-76; Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.4-6)
  • Implements: Moorabool 2041’s Bacchus Marsh housing and neighbourhood character component, Plan Melbourne housing choice and peri-urban policy directions, and the Central Highlands Regional Growth Plan direction supporting Bacchus Marsh as a regional centre and key peri-urban growth location. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.9-18)
  • Conflicts with: Broader intensification expectations where transport accessibility suggests more growth near the station and activity centres, but character, flooding, severance and service-access factors limit which precincts can carry higher change. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.21-27)

Bacchus Marsh is positioned in the strategy as an alternative housing destination west of Melbourne and is affected by land supply and pricing conditions in adjacent growth areas, particularly Melton and Wyndham. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.27) The strategy recommends information sharing with Brimbank, Wyndham and Melton, especially the City of Melton, because housing demand, policy changes and development approvals in the Outer Western Region may affect demand in Bacchus Marsh. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.65)

The statutory context also links Bacchus Marsh to state and regional settlement policy. Plan Melbourne identifies Bacchus Marsh among peri-urban towns with capacity for more housing and employment-generating development, and the Central Highlands Regional Growth Plan supports Bacchus Marsh as a regional centre and key peri-urban growth location. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.16-17) These links mean Bacchus Marsh housing policy cannot be read only as local character management; it is also part of Victoria’s broader attempt to distribute growth beyond metropolitan Melbourne while protecting peri-urban landscape, agricultural and environmental assets. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.13-18)

Gaps in This Analysis

The source set is sufficient to explain the strategy, its statutory implementation logic and the Panel’s 2018 findings, but it is not sufficient to verify the final operative planning scheme controls after Amendment C79. The missing documents are the Council adoption decision after the Panel report, the Ministerial approval or refusal documentation, any gazettal notice, and the current planning scheme clauses and maps showing the final schedules. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.46-48)

The infrastructure analysis is also limited. The Panel says the Housing Strategy did not directly assess infrastructure needs and relied on separate transport, community infrastructure and Amendment C81 work. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.22-23) The missing documents include the Bacchus Marsh Integrated Transport Strategy, the draft or final Community Infrastructure Framework, Amendment C81 material, PSP documents for new greenfield growth areas, and any servicing strategies from relevant water, sewer, power and transport agencies. (Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.19, 22-23)

The affordability analysis is directionally useful but not complete. The strategy provides housing stress, social housing and median price figures, but the supplied corpus does not include a current housing needs assessment, updated 2021 or 2026 Census analysis, social housing waitlist data, or evidence of whether Council-owned land audits or pilot affordable housing projects occurred. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, pp.74-76)

The heritage and flood evidence is also partial. The strategy identifies possible broader Heritage Overlay work as outside scope, and the Panel records Melbourne Water’s flood concerns near the Werribee River and a possible Land Subject to Inundation Overlay process, but the underlying heritage study, flood modelling and later amendment material are not in the manifest. (Source: housing_bacchus_marsh.pdf, p.90; Source: moorabool-c79-panel-report_0.pdf, pp.18-19, 24)

Graph View