Grange Planning Brain

title: Open Space Maintenance Management Plan council: moorabool state: vic category: strategy classification: MINOR status: adopted last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:

  • open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf
  • zz11.4.4a-att-1-openspace-mmp.pdf
  • zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf

Open Space Maintenance Management Plan

The Open Space Maintenance Management Plan is an operational service-level framework rather than a land-use strategy: it converts Moorabool Shire’s open-space, roadside, garden, play-space and public-amenity assets into categories, inspection cycles, intervention thresholds and maintenance frequencies (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, pp.6-7). Its planning significance is that new subdivisions and capital works do not only create parks; they create recurring mowing, inspection, cleaning, furniture, playground and risk-management obligations that must fit within Council staffing, plant and budget capacity (Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, pp.10-15).

Background

The plan was prepared for a fast-growing, semi-rural municipality where Council was already responsible for maintaining public open space, roadside areas and associated park assets (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, p.5). The stated trigger was a mismatch between rising community expectations, an increasing asset base and the previous practice of applying similar service levels across different assets regardless of function or need (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, p.6). In plain terms, the plan is the roster and rulebook for Council’s parks: instead of treating every reserve like the same backyard, it sorts each place by use, importance and risk, then assigns how often it should be inspected, mown, cleaned or repaired (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, pp.11-12).

The October 2017 draft was attached to the 1 November 2017 Ordinary Meeting agenda as Attachment 11.4.4(a), and the service review was attached as 11.4.4(b) (Source: zz11.4.4a-att-1-openspace-mmp.pdf, p.1; Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, p.1). The April 2018 version carries the plan forward as a stand-alone Open Space Maintenance Management Plan for 2017-21 and identifies Moorabool Shire Council as the adopting body in the document control table, although the extracted text does not show a completed adoption date (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, p.5). The final plan says it is available from Council’s website and will be reviewed at least every four years (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, pp.7,17).

Analysis

Service Model and Asset Base

The plan covers a quantified maintenance task, not a general aspiration: Council maintained 214 hectares of public open space and 583 kilometres of roadside mowing or slashing across a 1,440 kilometre road network, meaning 41 percent of the road network received some form of roadside vegetation service (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, p.8). The roadside program was fragmented across 591 individual locations and included both amenity mowing and fire-prevention activities (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, p.8). The ancillary open-space asset inventory included 78 garden beds, 16 public conveniences, 42 playgrounds, 8 barbeques and 22 dog-bag units, with irrigation systems and park furniture also maintained as part of the broader asset set (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, p.8).

The mechanism is a hierarchy-based service model. Open space is divided into active sports fields, passive parks, linear linkages, undeveloped land and conservation land; each type is then assigned to primary, township, local or minor hierarchy levels where applicable (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, pp.20-22). This matters because the hierarchy drives maintenance frequency: a primary active sports field or primary passive park receives GM1 grass mowing, while a minor linear linkage receives GM4, local undeveloped land receives GM5, and minor undeveloped land receives GM6 (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, p.22). The plan therefore embeds a deliberate service gradient: high-use, high-visibility places receive frequent attention, while lower-use or hazard-management areas receive lower-frequency maintenance (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, pp.20-22).

The grass-mowing codes translate the hierarchy into measurable work. GM1 is weekly mowing with grass maintained between 25 millimetres and 50 millimetres, GM2 is every two weeks in peak season and every three weeks off-peak with grass below 75 millimetres, GM3 is every three weeks in peak season and every four weeks off-peak with grass below 120 millimetres, GM4 is every six weeks in peak season and every eight weeks off-peak with grass below 300 millimetres, GM5 is six-monthly with grass below 450 millimetres, and GM6 is annual with grass below 450 millimetres (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, p.37). This is the plan’s main control lever: Council can absorb growth or seasonal pressure by changing frequency, hierarchy assignment or the balance between in-house and contractor delivery (Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, pp.10-15).

Risk, Inspections and Liability Controls

The plan links asset maintenance to risk management through programmed inspections, reactive inspections, intervention levels and response times (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, pp.14-16,31-36). Primary and township open-space categories are subject to proactive inspections not exceeding six months for active sports fields and passive parks, while local and minor linear linkages, undeveloped land and conservation land are subject to proactive inspections not exceeding twelve months (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, p.31). Reactive inspections after a customer request are required within 10 weekdays for primary and township open space and within 15 weekdays for local and minor open space (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, p.31).

The response framework is more important than the mowing schedule for public safety. Damaged open-space areas that are unfit for use must be made safe within one weekday across all hierarchy levels, while open-space repairs are due within 10 weekdays for primary and township sites and within four weeks for local and minor sites (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, p.35). Damaged play equipment unfit for use must be made safe within two weekdays, equipment repairs are due within 15 weekdays for primary and township sites and within one month for local and minor sites, and softfall top-ups needed for Australian Standards compliance are due within five weekdays across all hierarchy levels (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, p.35). Public toilet consumable depletion or bad soiling triggers a one-weekday response, while public-health danger from a toilet component triggers a two-weekday response (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, p.35).

The plan also creates a documented defence against unavoidable service failure. Council says it will endeavour to meet the plan, but may suspend compliance during natural disasters, multiple emergencies or human-resource constraints, and the Chief Executive Officer may direct that some or all timeframes be suspended where limited financial resources and competing priorities prevent compliance (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, p.15). This mechanism is not just administrative wording; it defines how the service standard bends under storms, fires, staff shortages or budget pressure without pretending that every scheduled task can always be delivered (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, pp.14-16).

Growth Area and Subdivision Implications

The service review identified that new development was already creating near-term maintenance obligations. Open space within Mason Views, Underbank, Riverbend, Essence and Stonehill was expected to be handed over within 12 months of the 2017 review, and the review estimated that this immediate handover would require 0.2 equivalent full-time staff (Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, pp.10-11). The review also noted that Stonehill Estate and the recently rezoned Underbank Estate would add significant open space in coming years, requiring annual staffing review to maintain service levels (Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, pp.10-11).

This is the plan’s main connection to growth-areas and development-contributions. A subdivision that transfers open space to Council shifts a capital asset into an operating liability: the developer may build the reserve, but Council inherits mowing, litter collection, playground inspection, furniture repair, garden maintenance and customer-response obligations once the land is handed over (Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, pp.10-12; Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, pp.22,31,35,37). The service review did not quantify hectares from each named development, so the analysis cannot calculate a reliable cost per hectare for future subdivision handovers from the provided documents (Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, pp.10-11).

The open-space register shows why this operating liability is spatially uneven. Bacchus Marsh, Darley, Maddingley and Ballan contain many small reserves, drainage reserves, walkways and linear reserves assigned to GM3, GM4 or GM6, while higher-profile sites such as The Village Green, Eddie Toole Park, Rotary Park, McLean Reserve and the Darley Civic and Community Hub are assigned GM1 (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, pp.58-61). The register also identifies ownership and maintenance responsibility, including Council-owned, DELWP-owned and private land maintained by Council in some instances (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, pp.58-61). For planning assessment, this means the location and design of drainage reserves, local links and passive open space influence long-term service cost even where the land has limited recreation function (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, pp.20-22,58-61).

Roadside Mowing Reform and Fire Interface

The service review found that current roadside mowing had grown through historical agreements, complaint locations and councillor requests, and officers considered that ad hoc model unsustainable (Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, p.11). Option 3 proposed a fit-to-principles approach where Council-owned or managed land, road reserves adjacent to Council-managed land, urban public-authority frontages, urban land with no street frontage, Avenues of Honour and town entrances would be maintained, while road reserves with residential frontage would not be maintained (Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, pp.11-12). Applying those principles would remove 384 of 591 currently maintained roads from the register, equivalent to 65 percent of the roadside locations then maintained (Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, p.12).

The financial mechanism is clear. Roadside service costs were modelled at 626,575 under the current approach and 549,632 under the fit-to-principles approach, producing a 77,000 external contractor saving because most roadside slashing was already contractor-delivered (Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, p.12). The review proposed reallocating 25,000 of that saving to a parks furniture maintenance budget and $52,000 to staff budget capacity for bringing some mowing in-house and maintaining open space handed over from developments (Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, p.12). This is a service reallocation rather than a pure service cut: fewer roadside locations would be maintained, but selected town entrances in small towns would receive six-weekly amenity mowing rather than annual slashing (Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, pp.11-12).

The review considered, but did not recommend, using the Bushfire Management Overlay as the roadside maintenance basis (Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, p.13). The BMO option identified 335 kilometres of road network within the overlay, of which 115 kilometres were already mown, and estimated a 45,000 saving if maintenance were limited to the BMO and Municipal Fire Management Plan basis (Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, p.13). Officers did not recommend that option because it was not a requirement under the Municipal Fire Management Plan 2014-2017 (Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, p.13). A separate road-hierarchy option noted 583.94 kilometres currently maintained from a 1,425.1 kilometre road network and estimated a 50,000 saving, but it was also not recommended (Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, p.13).

Budget, Staffing and Delivery Model

Before reform, the service review modelled total annual costs at 1,462,981, comprising 703,113 staff time, 453,168 plant costs and 306,700 contractor charges across open space, road reserves and garden beds (Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, p.7). Current mowing-related Parks staffing was 9 full-time equivalent staff plus two apprentices, with contractors used for particular activities needed to sustain service levels (Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, p.6). The review’s final recommended model increased full-time equivalent staffing to 10.5 EFT, reduced contractor costs to 158,000, created a 25,000 parks furniture maintenance budget and reduced total annual cost from 1,462,981 to 1,410,168, an overall saving of $52,813 (Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, pp.14-15).

The recommended package combined three linked changes: implement peak and off-peak maintenance frequencies, use resulting staff-time savings to accommodate future development handovers, and implement the roadside fit-to-principles assessment after community engagement (Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, p.14). It also recommended bringing all mowing services in-house except fire slashing and sports-field mowing, and preparing a business case to investigate bringing sports-field maintenance in-house (Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, p.14). The plan therefore treats labour allocation as an infrastructure-management issue: the constraint is not only whether Council owns enough parks, but whether it has the recurrent workforce, plant and contractor budget to keep those assets within adopted service standards (Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, pp.7,10-15).

Governance and Document Controls

The plan uses registers as the operational source of truth. The Open Space Register records road, park or asset name, locality, hierarchy, demarcation responsibility and associated assets such as playgrounds, public toilets, barbeques and irrigation systems (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, p.9). Council states that the registers are updated frequently and available for inspection at service centres in Bacchus Marsh and Ballan and on Council’s website (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, p.9). The General Manager Infrastructure is delegated to amend appendices and periodically update registers, with reporting to occur under the powers of delegation (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, p.17).

This governance design creates flexibility but also reduces transparency unless register changes are reported clearly. Because the appendices contain the classifications, frequencies, maps and registers that determine actual service levels, delegated changes can alter the practical maintenance outcome without rewriting the front-end policy narrative (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, pp.17-19). The plan partly manages that risk through a minimum four-year review cycle and by stating that revisions of the plan are subject to community consultation and formal presentation to Council (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, p.17).

Current Status

The operative source in the manifest is the April 2018 Open Space Maintenance Management Plan 2017-21, while the October 2017 agenda attachment and service review provide the draft context and recommended implementation model (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, p.1; Source: zz11.4.4a-att-1-openspace-mmp.pdf, p.2; Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, p.1). The plan required review at least every four years, so the 2017-21 plan period had expired by 2026 unless Council adopted a later replacement outside the provided source set (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, p.17). The extracted documents do not include a later review, a current register, a post-implementation audit, or evidence that the recommended 10.5 EFT model and $1.410 million budget setting were actually implemented after the 2017 service review (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf; Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf).

Dependencies

  • Blocks: The plan does not appear to block statutory land-use approvals, but it influences whether new public open-space assets can be accepted into Council’s recurrent maintenance system without degrading adopted service levels (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, pp.6-7; Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, pp.10-11).
  • Blocked by: Service delivery is constrained by annual budget, staff availability, plant capacity, contractor availability, emergency events and CEO-directed suspension of timeframes where resources are insufficient (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, pp.14-15; Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, pp.7,14-15).
  • Informed by: The plan was informed by the Council Plan 2017-21, risk management framework, Road Management Plan 2017-21, Open Space Strategy 2015, Municipal Fire Management Plan 2011, customer requests, councillor feedback and the 2017 Community Satisfaction Survey (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, pp.11-12,18; Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, pp.8-9).
  • Implements: The plan operationalises open-space asset management by linking classification, inspection, maintenance frequency, intervention levels and register control (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, pp.7,11-12,31-37).
  • Conflicts with: The main tension is between community expectations for improved appearance and the need to set standards that are affordable and consistently achievable (Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, pp.8,14).

The plan has limited cross-jurisdictional content, but it depends on state and emergency-management frameworks. It references the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 2011, Aboriginal Heritage Amendment Act 2016, Heritage Act 1995, Planning and Environment Act 1987 and Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 as legislative requirements for works (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, p.6). It also relies on DELWP and Committee of Management arrangements for some Crown land recreation reserves, and Council’s maintenance agreements distinguish between Council land, leased Council land, Crown land managed by Council, Crown land managed by Council section 86 committees and Crown land managed by DELWP committees (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, pp.9-10). Fire-related roadside treatment is connected to CFA assessment criteria, the Municipal Fire Management Plan and VicRoads Road Bushfire Risk Assessment Guideline 2011 for priority access and egress roads (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, pp.21,37-38; Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, p.13).

Gaps in This Analysis

The provided source set is operationally useful but thin for current planning intelligence. It does not include the current post-2021 maintenance plan, the current open-space and roadside registers, GIS layers, annual budget adoption records, post-implementation reporting, community engagement submissions on the draft plan, or a later audit of whether the recommended contractor savings and 10.5 EFT staffing model were delivered (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf; Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf). It also does not provide the hectares or asset counts expected from each named development handover, which prevents calculation of recurrent maintenance cost per new subdivision or per hectare of transferred open space (Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, pp.10-11). A gap should be tracked in _gaps for the current Open Space Maintenance Management Plan or equivalent post-2021 service-level document, the current open-space register, and implementation reporting for the 2017 service review recommendations (Source: open-space-mmp-22052018-combined.pdf, p.17; Source: zz11.4.4b-171101-att-2-openspace-mmp.pdf, pp.14-15).

Graph View