1. The Gisborne Area 1 Development Plan dated 16 June 2023 is approved as a development plan under clause 43.04 of the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme that has been prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
2. The responsible authority must endorse the Gisborne Area 1 Development Plan dated 16 June 2023 and give the applicant and each referral authority a copy.

1. In Application P510/2022, ID Ross Watt Road Pty Ltd ('RWR') sought a review of the failure by Macedon Ranges Shire Council (the 'Council') to approve the substituted Gisborne Area 1 Development Plan dated 3 February 2023 (the 'February DP') under clause 43.04 of the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme.
2. In orders dated 1 May 2023,[1] I found that the February DP could be approved if RWR prepared specified amendments to the February DP. I specified those amendments in Appendix A to the orders.
3. I gave RWR leave to prepare an amended February DP and, if it filed an amended February DP, gave the other parties leave to file submissions about whether the amended February DP had correctly included the specified amendments and was therefore sufficient.

1. On 16 June 2023, RWR filed an amended DP, being the Gisborne Area 1 Development Plan dated 16 June 2023 (the 'June DP'). It is a document that has grown to 95 pages.
2. As required by my orders, the June DP includes amended design guidelines, building envelopes for specified lots and a project infrastructure plan. These are additional appendices of the June DP and account for most of the additional size of the document.
3. In relation to cultural heritage matters, in my orders I found that RWR was not required to prepare a cultural heritage management plan (a 'CHMP') under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic) before a development plan could be approved.[2]
4. Nonetheless, RWR filed an updated report dated 15 June 2023 from its cultural heritage advisor that a CHMP would be submitted for approval on 16 June 2023. The report includes a statement that the CHMP will include a 15 metre buffer around a registered scarred tree (identified as tree 42 on the February DP).
5. This buffer required, in the June DP, westward extension of the central open space opposite the Local Convenience Centre (the 'LCC') in which the tree was located, with consequential changes to the alignment of the road and pipeline adjoining the LCC.

1. In correspondence dated 7 July 2023, the Council states the June DP includes the amendments specified in Appendix A and does not seek a practice day hearing to consider future conduct.
2. In correspondence dated 7 July 2023, the Head, Transport for Victoria does not expressly comment on whether or not the June DP includes the amendments.[3]
3. In correspondence dated 7 July 2023 and 10 July 2023, Southern Rural Water and Greater Western Water respectively state the June DP includes the amendments specified in Appendix A and they do not seek a practice day hearing to consider future conduct.
4. In correspondence dated 28 June 2023, Melbourne Water states it has no concerns or comments in relation to the June DP.

1. I have reviewed the June DP against the amendments specified in Appendix A. The wide-ranging nature of the amendments included provision for 'consequential amendments to the whole of [the February DP] for consistency with all modifications referred to in this order and Appendix'.[4]
2. The February DP included a wide range of reports prepared by experts on various topics. My order dated 1 May 2023 did not require all those reports to be updated.
3. Nonetheless, RWR filed amended flora and fauna, conservation management, bushfire, infrastructure servicing, traffic impact, traffic noise, stormwater, groundwater and social impact and updated the references to these reports in the June DP. Although these documents do not form part of the June DP, I support the references to them in the June DP as background documents because they may help the Council administer the June DP.
4. In my opinion, it would be appropriate to refer to these reports if there was uncertainty about whether a future permit application was generally in accordance with the June DP and whether particular conditions or requirements should be included in a permit.
5. Having regard to the broad scope of the required amendments, I rely heavily on the parties' assessment that the June DP has correctly included the amendments. I have briefly reviewed the June DP against the amendments and agree with the views of the parties.
6. None of the parties are seeking a practice day hearing to consider whether the June DP should be approved and are content with my deciding the matter without a further hearing.
7. In my orders of 1 May 2023, I adjourned the review of the Council's refusal to grant permission to subdivide stage 1 in the February DP (being Application P511/2023) to a practice day hearing on 21 July 2023. In these orders, I therefore do not need to make any further orders for that Application.

1. As the Council's decision under review was a refusal to approve the February DP and as I have given leave for the preparation of the June DP, I will dispose of the proceeding by setting aside the Council's decision and approving the June DP.

[1] ID Ross Watt Road Pty Ltd v Macedon Ranges SC [2023] VCAT 471.

[3] The Head, Transport for Victoria nevertheless includes three comments on RWR's traffic adviser's report dated 28 March 2023. Those comments refer to the requirements to upgrade intersections with Station Road upgrade before creation of specified numbers of lots. It is unclear if those triggers are consistent with the project infrastructure plan in the June DP. As the parties make no submission about any inconsistency, I will proceed on the basis there is none.

[4] ID Ross Watt Road Pty Ltd v Macedon Ranges SC [2023] VCAT 471, Appendix A [44].