Archive:   Riddells Creek ODP/Structure Plan

Last Updated  23/8/16


See also Getting Riddell Right, and Riddells Creek Supermarket



 NEW  Council To Go With Panel Recommendations for Woodend, Kyneton and Riddells Creek "Structure Plans"

(23/8/16) Growth endorsed, more development added - based on Council's shonky population figures, the towns and SHIRE don't have enough land for residential development!  How much is "enough" - we already had enough for 16,000 extra people?

On Wednesday 24 August (tomorrow) Macedon Ranges Council will vote on Panel recommendations for planning scheme amendments relating to Structure Plans:  C98 Woodend, C99 C103 and C105 Kyneton and C100 Riddells Creek.  The officer's recommendation is to adopt the Panel recommendations for each town.


Structure Plans were already compromised in amendments at Kyneton and Riddells Creek, where Council ditched exhibited Neighbourhood Character Studies in favour of its own unexhibited character Profiles.  After the panels hearings finished, Council sent panels info on population figures and growth (including figures from developers) that were deficient, and misleading, but led the panels to conclude the towns, and Shire, don't have enough land - in 2011, the Shire's Settlement Strategy said we had enough for another 16,000 people out to 2036.  How much growth and development does Council want?  More and more.


Woodend goes from most of the town in Neighbourhood Residential Zone to most being back in General Residential Zone, and a lot of that changed to 'preferred medium density' to boot.  Riddell is definitely getting another 250ha of growth areas (even though only 57ha was needed).  Kyneton - well, just let developers decide what the character will be in new development.  The amendments have been measured against State-wide and Melbourne standards, but there is no evidence they have been measured against the State government's intention to protect Macedon Ranges towns.  Oh, and the amendments focussed too much on character protection, not enough on development.


Council's also being a little bit naughty with the panel recommendations for the former Kyneton pool site (C103) and the Kyneton equine precinct (C105). 


Panel said put a Design and Development overlay over the pool site and include Urban Design Principles in it instead of stapling them to the Vendors Statement (as Council proposed).  Council's putting a Design and Development overlay on the pool site, but, um, not all the Urban Design Principles.  And, as you do, Council is authorising itself to waive the overlay's requirements. 


Panel said do a masterplan to support rezoning at the equine precinct near the Kyneton Racecourse, and explain what "equine-related activities" means.  Nup.  Council's going for the rezoning but not the masterplan.  Oh, and the way Council explained (or rather, didn't explain) what "equine-related activities" means is just fine.  No change.


And that, people, is how you reject panel recommendations when you don't have the balls to say you are doing it.


For more information:

Summary of Panel Recommendations for Woodend C98

Summary of Panel Recommendations for Kyneton (Structure Plan, C103 Kyneton pool site, C105 equine precinct)

Summary of Panel Recommendations for Riddells Creek C100

MRSC Residential Land Supply Assessment (Council's land supply assesment, sent to panels after the hearings)


MRRA Says:

This shows yet again that this Council couldn't be trusted as far as you could throw it.


These amendments support the type of growth you get in metropolitan growth areas.  They aren't going to produce what communities in these towns supported, because the amendments aren't implementing the Structure Plans for those towns.  They aren't compatible with "protecting" towns or the Shire.  The State government has final say on amendments, and it's preparing legislation to protect Macedon Ranges.  Vent at Council, register your views and concerns with the State government. 

Minister for Planning, Richard Wynne ;

Member for Macedon, Mary-Anne Thomas






See Report on Council Meeting 16 December 2015 for update


Thought Amendments C98 (Woodend), C99 (Kyneton) and C100 (Riddells Creek) Are Implementing Each Town's Structure Plan?  Think Again

(13/10/15 - P)   These amendments take the towns in a different direction to the Structure Plans Council adopted.  Substantial additions, deletions and changes have been made since the Structure Plans were adopted and it is these changes, not the Structure Plans, that are in the amendments.  Changes at Riddells Creek and Kyneton are so substantial, Council isn't even including the adopted Structure Plans as Reference Documents for the policies in these amendments.  Residents must make submissions to Council requesting their Structure Plans replace what's in these amendments by October 23. Woodend Structure Plan Archive  Kyneton Structure Plan Archive 


C98 Woodend-Points to look for (corrected to show both Woodend Structure Plan documents have been exhibited)

C99 Kyneton-Points to look for

C100 Riddells Creek-Points to look for


Here we have another example of some of the few things this Council seems to excel at:  deception, manipulation, not listening to its community. 


These three towns had considerable community consultation (compared with Council's usual consultation standards), with well respected consultants, which produced integrated Structure Plans, Neighbourhood Character Studies and recommendations for strong planning scheme controls to protect each town's character as it grows.  This fostered high community expectations that at last, towns would no longer have to be damaged by one suburban-style development after another. 


Council adopted these Structure Plans.  Now it has produced amendments that put something quite different in the planning scheme.  At Riddells Creek and Kyneton, Council hasn't just abandoned the Structure Plans, but their Neighbourhood Character Studies and Development Contributions Plans/Overlays as well. 


Council didn't say it had made these changes in the letters it sent to residents.  It also apparently didn't think it was necessary to consult communities about these substantial changes, before formalising them in a planning scheme amendment.  In fact, Council's comments in each amendment's Explanatory Report seem to suggest community consultation and support for the Structure Plans was consultation and support for what is in the amendments.  It wasn't.


The changes focus on promoting growth, economic development and residential development - all very familiar themes from this Council.  Little of the Structure Plans' focus on environmental or community issues is included in the amendments (for example, at Kyneton protecting the Campaspe River's environmental values is translated into making sure development faces the River).  Population figures are inflated at Riddells Creek and Kyneton, and poor old Kyneton has somehow become the Large District Town in 2011 that the Settlement Strategy said it would be in 2036.  The Riddell and Kyneton Neighbourhood Character Studies have been replaced with Council's homogenised version of neighbourhood character, and Council's generic neighbourhood character precincts.  Woodend fares better, but changes and omissions in C98 weaken or misrepresent the Structure Plan's policy. 


MRRA has prepared some information about what to look for in these amendments to help residents understand the problems, and make submissions.   Links are provided above.


RESIDENTS OF THESE TOWNS, AND PARTICULARLY KYNETON AND RIDDELLS CREEK, ARE URGED TO MAKE SUBMISSIONS BY 23 OCTOBER.  This is a formal planning scheme amendment process, and you will only have formal 'standing' in that process if you have made a submission by the closing date.


In your submissions, ask Council to change the amendments to remove its rewritten policy, replace it with the Structure Plan's policy, reinstate Structure Plan Neighbourhood Character Studies, add stronger and more planning scheme controls to deliver Structure Plan findings, and re-exhibit the amendments for further community comment.  


Submissions (clearly identifying the amendment they relate to) must be sent to Strategic Planning and Environment, Macedon Ranges Shire Council, either at PO Box 151, Kyneton 3444, or emailed to


You can download each town's amendment documentation from Council's website by going to


Draft Riddells Creek Structure Plan & Character Study On Exhibition Until 31 May & 'Drop In' Session 20 May

(6/5/13 - RA - P)  Have your say, Riddells Creek, and say it plainly 

Riddells Creek residents are urged to make sure they have a say on the town's future, as presented in the draft RC Structure Plan, and on the Neighbourhood Character Study that comes with it.


Written submissions can be made on both until Friday 31 May.  Address to Manager, Strategic Planning and Environment, Macedon Ranges Shire Council, PO Box 151, Kyneton, 3444.  Or send by email to   You can also attend a drop in session, 3 - 7 pm, at the Riddells Creek Senior Citizens.  Copies of the documents can be obtained from


MRRA Says:


Stick with Riddells Creek being a District Town in 2036.  Don't let Council talk you into agreeing to be a Large District Town, or you could get another 4,000 people on top of the 6,000 you are already ear-marked for.


Riddells Creek Supermarket:  'Getting Riddell Right' Becomes Getting Riddell Right Inc - Now An Incorporated Association

(23/4/13-RA-P)  Great stuff - community spirit everywhere and fundraising is underway as the vast Riddells Creek supermarket/shops development goes to VCAT 

'Getting Riddell Right Inc' is official.  At a public meeting held in Riddells Creek last Wednesday, the community came together to become members, fill committee spaces, make suggestions, get organised and get the fund-raising ball rolling.  The group's aim is to raise around $10,000 as a fighting fund for the VCAT case.  If you can help, or just want know more, click here for contact, email and website details.


MRRA Says:

Well done, and what enthusiasm!!  There's something so empowering for everyone when a community comes together with such passion and purpose.  Our contacts are also full of praise for Deb Dunn, who is helping GRR with the VCAT case. 


The supermarket proposal itself is enormous - more a 4 hectare outdoor MALL than supermarket - with a monster 2,800 square metre supermarket and 16 shops.  Just what Riddell needs - not.  If it all sounds like overkill, just remember that the person behind this extravagant proposal also gave Gisborne the AAMI Call Centre.  And what a disaster that still-almost-empty, 3 storey ugliness has been.  There's no way you can miss the towering building, but most of us are still looking for all those jobs it was going to create - you know, the hundreds of jobs that were used to justify approving it.  Anyone want to wager the same tired arguments won't be flowing for the supermarket thing? 


A quick look at the Riddells Creek supermarket proposal suggests the same tired over-development, over-riding of what the community values, and poor planning and development standards are also in play.  Yes, there will be plenty to work with at VCAT.


How, And  Why, Was The Riddells Creek Supermarket Rescission Motion Refused?

(23/4/13-RA-P)  Is Council picking and choosing process to favour some over others?  Is there even a "process" for rescission motions in Macedon Ranges anymore? 

On 27 February, 2013 Macedon Ranges Council decided, on a 5 to 4 vote, to approve the very large Riddells Creek supermarket/shops proposal.  First thing the following morning, Cr. McLaughlin attempted to lodge a rescission motion, presumably with the CEO, only to be told Council's decision the previous night had already been acted on, and a rescission motion could not be entertained.  


Council's Local Law 9 (which applies to its meetings and meeting processes) sets out the process for rescission motions.

47. Notice of Rescission


47.1 A Councillor may propose a notice of rescission provided:


47.1.1 the resolution proposed to be rescinded has not been acted on; and

47.1.2 the notice of rescission is in writing signed by a Councillor, and is lodged with the Chief Executive Officer at least 24 hours prior to the day of dispatch for the relevant meeting agenda, setting out - the resolution to be rescinded; and the meeting and date when the resolution was carried.


47.2 The Chief Executive Officer or an appropriate member of Council staff is entitled to implement a resolution at any time after the close of the meeting at which it was made. A resolution will therefore be deemed to have been acted on if:

47.2.1 its contents have or substance has been formally communicated to a person whose interests are materially affected by it; or

47.2.2 a statutory process has been commenced so as to vest enforceable rights in or obligations on Council or any other person.


As Council's decision to approve the application didn't trigger commencement of a statutory process that vested rights or obligations, the basis for refusing to accept the rescission motion appears to be that its contents/substance had been formally communicated to a person whose interests are materially affected by it - apparently with the speed of light. 


MRRA Says:

How did this happen by first thing the following morning?  Who was notified?  It needed to be more than giving the permit applicant a piece of paper. The Council officer's report noted 7 objectors (or 9, depending upon which part of the report is read).  Their interests too were 'materially affected' by the decision - were they all formally notified by first thing  the next morning?   Was, as is rumoured, the Notice of Decision to Grant A Permit completed BEFORE Council met and made a decision?


The usual process for giving formal notice of (i.e. formally communicating) planning decisions made at Council meetings is posting a 'hard copy' Notice of Decision to applicants and objectors, usually received some time in the week following the Council meeting. The date that the Notice is received is taken to be the commencement of the 21 or 60 day period in which an application can be taken to VCAT. 


In this case, that type of 'formal communication' could not have been achieved by first thing the next morning.  So what form of 'formal communication' occurred? Or did it?


This matter also raises another issue: where does this leave the Shire in regard to any future rescission motions, on any issue?  Are they all going to be formally communicated in the same 'speed-of-light' timeframe, because if they are, is there any point having a Local Law that says rescission motions can be made? 


Indeed, with this application, has Council's administration unofficially rewritten the current Local Law, or was this just a 'one-off' of what could be seen as obstruction to stop Councillors having another vote on this particular application?   Either way, after this a prudent Councillor will have a ready-to-go rescission motion with them at Council meetings, to ensure there is no future denial of the ability, provided for in the current Local Law, to revisit Council decisions.  But, hey, it shouldn't be this hard to have that Local Law operate as it is intended to operate.


Council Approves Draft Riddells Creek Structure Plan To Go On Exhibition - Watch For It

(23/4/13-RA-P)  It's a plan for the next 30 years, and feedback on it from Riddell residents is essential 

Lucky Riddells Creek - it has the services of Parsons Brinckerhoff (with Trevor Budge as consultant) on this Structure Plan.  What Riddells Creek residents must ensure is that this is the plan they want for the town.  It puts forward discussion about and options for how growth will be accommodated, as well as a neighbourhood character assessment that will be used to create guidelines to ensure future development adds to rather than detracts from the town's character.  A copy of the draft Plan was included in the agenda attachments for the 27th March Council meeting at Romsey, available from the meetings section of Council's website (but be quick, it might disappear tomorrow!). 


MRRA Says:

Council has agreed to move the Structure Plan forward to exhibition, and although that doesn't seem to have happened yet, look for it in coming weeks. 


One thing we strongly recommend the Riddells Creek community be on guard against is having the Structure Plan hijacked by the supermarket (or any other development) proposal, or by Council.  The Plan really does need to be about the town and its environment, and what the community - not individual or vested interests - want.  Go for it...


Riddells Creek Structure Plan Issues Paper - Community Comment By August 3

(28/7/12 - P)  Have your say on what's important to Riddells Creek's future and what the plan should address 

What's it all about?  Remember the Macedon Ranges Settlement Strategy?  That was a high level strategic planning project, looking at growth for all of the Shire's towns.  What it didn't address was where the growth goes within the towns themselves, and where and what type of development would occur.  That's now about to happen with the Riddells Creek Structure Plan.  It's only about Riddells Creek, and will set down where, what and how development rolls out until 2036.  The Settlement Strategy sets high growth for Riddells Creek, with the town population projected to double by 2036.  VERY IMPORTANT TO GET ALL THE IMPORTANT ISSUES IN THE PLAN, FROM THE OUTSET!  That's where you come in. 


Macedon Ranges Shire Council is about to hire a consultant to prepare the plan, but before it does that, it wants to know what residents think is important in Riddells Creek, and what issues the plan needs to address.  Council has posted an Issues Paper on its website, which contains the issues Council thinks are important.  You might agree or disagree with Council, or have some more issues you think should be there.  Here are some thoughts to get you going:

Now you've got your thinking caps on, the MOST IMPORTANT thing is to jot down a few notes about what you think the plan needs to address (doesn't have to be War and Peace!) and send it off to Council as your submission BY AUGUST 3RD (that's next Friday).  


People from outside the town or with different interests will be having their say about Riddells Creek, so make sure you have your say as well even if it is simply one point you feel passionately about. 


Send your submission to Macedon Ranges Shire Council, PO Box 151, Kyneton 3444; drop it off at Gisborne or Kyneton Shire Offices; or email it to but make sure it gets there no later than close of business Friday 3 August.


MRRA Says:


Those amongst you with more time might want to take up on some of the meatier issues MRRA thinks are important, including: 

Riddells Creek Outline Development Plan Consultation Kicks Off  25 & 29 November

(24/11/08 - P)  Workshops for strategic planning framework for future residential, commercial and industrial growth of Riddell

These workshops are a critical phase for Riddells Creek.  They signify the start of preparation of a plan for the town's future.  All residents are urged to attend, and have your say.  If you aren't there, someone else will influence where Riddell goes in future...


Three workshops will be held at the Riddells Creek Senior Citizens Centre, 74 - 76 Main Road, Riddells Creek.  Dates and times are as follows:


Tuesday 25 November, 4.00 pm and 7.00 pm

Saturday 29 November, 10.00 am


Please RSVP Lorna Pearson to advise which session would like to attend.  Email

or phone 5421 9603. 


Click here to see an explanatory brochure.  You can also check it out by going to Council's website