1. Leave is given to the responsible authority in application P325/2025 to file a submission as to whether the Development Plan version J, as lodged with the Tribunal on 19 December 2025, in accordance with orders of the Tribunal dated 3 December 2025, include the amendments in Appendix A to the 3 December 2025 order. Any submission must be filed and served by 19 January 2026. 2. If a submission is filed in accordance with order 1, the applicant has leave to file a reply submission by 27 January 2026. 3. If any party requests:

(a) a practice day hearing to consider the future conduct of the proceeding; or > > (b) a further hearing to consider whether the Tribunal should approve the substituted Development Plan, a request must be filed by 30 January 2026. Reasons for the request must be included. > > The Tribunal will then decide if a request will be approved. If no request is filed, the Tribunal will proceed to make final orders without a further hearing.

5. As a result of the 22 December 2025 orders, on 19 January 2026 the council provided a tabulated response to the changes made in GA1DP Version J, against the requirements we sought in Appendix A. The council response also included some further commentary about some wording of Version J in consistency with the Tribunal findings of 3 December 2025. We thank the council for its orderly and thorough response.
6. The applicant then provided its response, by additions to the table provided by the council, in a reply to the Tribunal on 27 January 2026, using the tabulated response of the council to provide further comments on items referred to by the council.
7. No party requested a practice day hearing by 30 January 2026 as set out in the 22 December 2025 order, and the Tribunal is satisfied that no practice day hearing is required as a result of the further submissions received.

TRIBUNAL ASSESSMENT OF CHANGES SOUGHT TO THE GA1DP VERSION D

1. We have reviewed the GA1DP Version J as provided by the applicant on 19 December 2025 against Appendix A to the 3 December 2025 orders and the tabulated response provided by the council and the applicant.
2. We are satisfied the changes made in Version J can form the basis of a determination for us to substitute a different decision to that made by the council, consistent with section 51(2)(c) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), make a different decision.
3. We concur with the council and the applicant that a minor consequential change to section 6.5 of the GA1DP Version J is required, to accord with other findings we made about changing references to the fence to the Southern Rural Water ('SRW') land. We find the proposed deletion of a paragraph at section 6.5, as proposed by the applicant, to be acceptable given the correspondence provided by SRW during the hearing about its acceptance of what was described as Option B, to the interface of SRW land to address bushfire matters.
4. The council's response of 19 January 2026 notes it was unable to confirm if figure 5 had correctly updated the land budget forming part of the legend to this figure as it was not sufficiently legible in Version J. The applicant tabled a clearer version of this figure 5 - 'Future Urban Structure' in its response to orders on 27 January 2026. We are satisfied from this clearer figure and legend that an appropriate mix of lots is provided, as required by the previously approved wording of the GA1DP. We find it appropriate that figure 5 in Version J, be updated to enable the land budget to be clearly read.
5. We note other comments of the council about some preferred other edits to the GA1DP Version J. In response to this we make the following findings in response to comments of the council and further response of the applicant, based on item numbers in the council tabulated response.
   • Item 3: we note the landscape plans in Appendix C to GA1DP Version D have not been further amended in Version J. We are satisfied that the amended label Appendix C of Version J sufficiently clarifies that the diagrams have not been updated, and that where any inconsistency exists the words and diagrams of the GA1DP take precedence.
   • Item 21: We note the council query about the area of vegetation offset. We also note the response of the applicant that the correct offset has been shown.
   • Item 23: We are satisfied that there is a minor, and we find inconsequential, loss of tree reserve as it relates to trees 25 and 26. We understand this results from the rearrangement of stage 12 to accommodate the Option B layout.
   • Item 27: The council makes comment that 'double-sided pathway from main transport line up to RV access gate is required'. We take this as a request to ensure there is footpath on both sides of road between the RV and the connector road that is the potential future bus route. We also note the comments about footpaths and acknowledge a one sided footpath for the road abutting the SRW land and stage 12 is consistent with findings in the 3 December order. We also note the response of the applicant to provide pedestrian path to both sides of the 16 metre wide road between the RV and stage 12. Any need to articulate this further can be reviewed by the Tribunal in determining the subdivision and RV permit applications.
   • Item 29: The council comments there are minor changes to tree species in landscape plans. This is a matter that can be further addressed in consideration of applications P323/2025 and P324/2025 noting that draft permit conditions for both matters, as discussed at the hearing include requirements for landscape plans to be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
   • Item 30: We acknowledge GA1DP Version J retains word reference to the RV potentially accommodating 220 dwellings when the proposed RV in the option B proposal considered in the October 2025 hearing includes only 214 dwellings. We are satisfied that the wording in the GA1DP Version J can remain. The DPO4 requires development to be generally in accordance with an approved development plan. A small change in the number of dwellings in the proposed RV does not warrant a further editorial change to the GA1DP so as to ensure a future permit is generally in accordance with the approved plan. Our reasons for changing the RV layout in the GA1DP Version D, as set out in the 3 December 2025 reasons, were not related to the specific number of dwellings proposed in the RV, but the layout and interface to the SRW land as they related to bushfire issues. This has been resolved in the GA1DP Version J, subject to the minor changes referred to in these orders.
6. From our review of documents we find no other need to make editorial changes and that all other changes we sought from our 3 December 2025 orders have been made.

1. The applicant's 27 January 2026 response sought the Tribunal to make orders to substitute the council's refusal to approve GA1DP Version D, with a different decision, being to approve version J, but with further change to delete the paragraph about SRW interface fencing in section 6.5.
2. We find it appropriate to receive a further updated version of the GA1DP including the minor fence wording change, and the clearer figure 5. This is to enable the Tribunal to then make final determination about whether an amendment to the existing GA1DP should be approved, and subsequently if permits in proceedings P323/2025 and P324/2025 should be granted, that need to be generally in accordance with the approved GA1DP.
3. Our interim orders facilitate the approach we take, being what we find to be the orderly planning for implementing the DPO4 provisions and subsequently considering permits under an approved development plan of the DPO4 provisions.

[2] The submissions and evidence of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[3] ID Ross Watt Road Pty Ltd v Macedon Ranges SC [2025] VCAT 1060.