Grange Planning Brain

title: Macedon Ranges Protected Settlement Boundary under the Statement of Planning Policy council: macedon-ranges state: vic category: growth-area classification: MAJOR status: in-progress last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:

  • 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf
  • 26-november-2025-agenda-scheduled-council-meeting.pdf
  • final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf
  • web-research-L0-romsey-outline-development-plan-page-76870f10a6.txt
  • odp-romsey.pdf
  • web-research-L0-macedon-ranges-protected-settlement-boundary-under-the-statement-of-planning-policy-source-c88f33a254.txt
  • macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf
  • statement-of-planning-policy-sopp-faq-webpage-update-document-updated-april-2022.docx
  • statement-of-planning-policy-sopp-faq-webpage-update-document-updated-april-2022.pdf
  • Macedon-Ranges-Statement-Planning-Policy.pdf
  • web-research-L0-macedon-ranges-protected-settlement-boundary-under-the-statement-of-planning-policy-source-5a0f0e2243.txt
  • gisborne-odp-section-one.pdf
  • gisborne-odp-section-two.pdf
  • gisborne-odp-section-three.pdf

Macedon Ranges Protected Settlement Boundary under the Statement of Planning Policy

The Macedon Ranges protected settlement boundary system is the statutory mechanism that turns the shire-wide Macedon Ranges Statement of Planning Policy from a broad landscape policy into a hard growth-management framework for the main townships. The practical effect is simple: future urban expansion is channelled into named settlements, while the surrounding rural, landscape, catchment, biodiversity and cultural values are given a higher threshold of protection than ordinary local policy would provide (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.32; Source: statement-of-planning-policy-sopp-faq-webpage-update-document-updated-april-2022.pdf, p.1).

The system is incomplete at the two townships with the largest unresolved land-supply implications. Protected settlement boundaries are specified for Kyneton, Lancefield, Riddells Creek and Woodend, but Gisborne and Romsey still depend on state resolution of structure-plan implementation, even though Council says adopted settlement boundaries for those two towns would release about 4,500 dwellings in Gisborne and 2,200 dwellings in Romsey (Source: web-research-L0-macedon-ranges-protected-settlement-boundary-under-the-statement-of-planning-policy-source-c88f33a254.txt; Source: 26-november-2025-agenda-scheduled-council-meeting.pdf, p.67).

Background

The declared area for the Statement of Planning Policy is the municipal district of Macedon Ranges Shire, and the SPP was prepared to protect the shire’s significant landscapes, settlement history, landforms, natural environment and Traditional Owner connections while still providing a framework for future land use and development (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.10). The policy builds on Statement of Planning Policy No. 8, introduced in 1975, but uses the later Distinctive Areas and Landscapes provisions of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to give the framework a more explicit statutory role (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.12).

The immediate trigger was the 2015 Ministerial appointment of an independent advisory committee to test whether the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme adequately protected the shire’s significant values, attributes and character (Source: statement-of-planning-policy-sopp-faq-webpage-update-document-updated-april-2022.pdf, p.1). The committee’s recommendations were endorsed by the Minister for Planning in 2016 and included preparing an SPP, strengthening future planning policy, and introducing long-term settlement boundaries (Source: statement-of-planning-policy-sopp-faq-webpage-update-document-updated-april-2022.pdf, p.1).

The SPP was endorsed by Council at its 24 July 2019 Ordinary Council Meeting, and Council’s public SPP page states that the document defines settlement boundaries and specifies protected settlement boundaries for Kyneton, Lancefield, Riddells Creek and Woodend that require parliamentary approval to change (Source: web-research-L0-macedon-ranges-protected-settlement-boundary-under-the-statement-of-planning-policy-source-c88f33a254.txt). The same Council page states that more work is required to finalise settlement boundaries for Gisborne and Romsey (Source: web-research-L0-macedon-ranges-protected-settlement-boundary-under-the-statement-of-planning-policy-source-c88f33a254.txt).

Analysis

Statutory Mechanism and Planning Effect

A protected settlement boundary is not just a line on a map. In the SPP glossary, it is a long-term boundary in a declared area, protected under a Statement of Planning Policy, and designed to contain township growth in towns identified for future growth (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.48). The SPP identifies Gisborne, Kyneton, Romsey, Riddells Creek, Lancefield and Woodend as the townships to which protected settlement boundaries apply or will apply (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.32; Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.48).

The legal weight sits in two layers. First, responsible public entities must act consistently with the SPP objectives, while the strategies are recommendations to which they must have regard (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.11). Second, the SPP is included in the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme through Clause 51.07, while existing zones, overlays and particular provisions continue to apply across the shire (Source: statement-of-planning-policy-sopp-faq-webpage-update-document-updated-april-2022.pdf, p.1). In child-friendly terms, the zoning is still the set of room-by-room rules, but the SPP is the house rule that says which rooms can get bigger and which parts of the garden must stay protected.

The SPP’s settlement objective is to manage growth consistently with protection of significant landscapes, catchments, biodiversity, ecological and environmental values, and the character, role and function of each settlement (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.34). Its settlement strategies direct urban development to a hierarchy of settlements, encourage infill that respects township character, limit settlement expansion in high-risk natural-hazard locations, support diverse housing inside settlement boundaries, and support employment land inside settlement boundaries (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, pp.34-35).

The ratchet is strongest once a boundary is protected. The SPP states that any amendment to a protected settlement boundary requires parliamentary ratification of a planning scheme amendment approved by the Minister for Planning (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.34). Council’s FAQ describes this as equivalent in rigour to Melbourne’s Urban Growth Boundary, which can only be altered with the approval of both houses of Parliament (Source: statement-of-planning-policy-sopp-faq-webpage-update-document-updated-april-2022.pdf, p.2).

Settlement Hierarchy and Growth Allocation

The SPP uses a settlement hierarchy rather than treating every town as equally available for expansion. Gisborne and Kyneton are identified as regional centres; Romsey is identified as a large district town; Riddells Creek, Lancefield and Woodend are identified as district towns; Bullengarook, Darraweit Guim and Malmsbury are small towns; Benloch, Carlsruhe, Lauriston, Macedon, Mount Macedon, Newham and Tylden are villages; and Ashbourne, Clarkefield and Monegeetta-Bolinda are localities or hamlets (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.32).

The mechanism matters because it separates population growth from township sprawl. Gisborne and Kyneton are expected to carry a regional-centre role for population growth, employment and infrastructure, while Romsey is expected to grow to the lower end of the large district-town population range (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, pp.32-33). Woodend is expected to remain a district town, while Lancefield and Riddells Creek are expected to grow from small towns to district towns (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.33). Smaller settlements are managed within existing township boundaries and are not identified for growth beyond those boundaries (Source: statement-of-planning-policy-sopp-faq-webpage-update-document-updated-april-2022.pdf, p.2).

For Kyneton, the SPP says areas identified for growth sit within the protected settlement boundary and are shown on the Kyneton Strategic Framework Plan as medium-term growth and long-term investigation areas south of the township (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.33). For Lancefield, the protected settlement boundary reflects the current town boundary because the Lancefield Township Framework Plan identifies that further land is unlikely to be required out to 2036 (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.33). For Riddells Creek, the SPP includes an urban investigation area south of the rail line inside the protected settlement boundary but says further work is required on infrastructure requirements in that location (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.33). For Woodend, three investigation areas were identified outside the protected boundary, meaning a Township Review Plan is required before any preferred growth option can be settled (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, pp.33-34).

The SPP is therefore not a blanket no-growth instrument. It is a sequencing and evidence instrument. Land between a township boundary and protected settlement boundary can still require a precinct structure plan or similar, an infrastructure contribution plan or similar, rezoning, a housing supply and demand assessment, and infrastructure assessment before it can be converted into urban land (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.34).

Gisborne and Romsey: The Unresolved Core

Gisborne and Romsey are the unresolved core because their protected settlement boundaries were deferred from the 2019 SPP and were to be determined through structure-plan reviews (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.33; Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.42). The SPP explicitly says rezoning beyond a town boundary for township growth should not be considered until a protected settlement boundary has been finalised (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.33). This means the boundary decision operates as a gate before major outward rezoning, even where Council has completed local strategic work (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.33; Source: 26-november-2025-agenda-scheduled-council-meeting.pdf, p.67).

The older Romsey Outline Development Plan was adopted in November 2009 and was replaced by the Romsey Structure Plan in July 2024 (Source: web-research-L0-romsey-outline-development-plan-page-76870f10a6.txt). The 2009 ODP planned for Romsey to reach 5,095 people by 2021 and 6,155 people by 2031, with about 650 new dwellings to 2021 and about 49 hectares of additional residential land to 2021 (Source: odp-romsey.pdf, pp.4-5; Source: odp-romsey.pdf, p.77). It also identified a further approximately 46 hectares of residential land between 2021 and 2031, at least 15% of new dwellings as medium-density housing, and some unsewered residential land to be shifted to low-density residential because wastewater services were absent or difficult to provide (Source: odp-romsey.pdf, pp.77-78). Those figures are now historical rather than current settlement-boundary approval material because Council’s page says the 2009 ODP has been replaced by the 2024 Romsey Structure Plan (Source: web-research-L0-romsey-outline-development-plan-page-76870f10a6.txt).

The older Gisborne/New Gisborne ODP was initially adopted in 2006 and later amended in response to Planning Scheme Amendment C59 submissions, while Council adopted the Gisborne Futures Structure Plan in July 2024 (Source: web-research-L0-macedon-ranges-protected-settlement-boundary-under-the-statement-of-planning-policy-source-5a0f0e2243.txt). The 2009 Gisborne ODP planned for a township population of about 12,000 and an additional 2,500 dwellings to 2031 (Source: gisborne-odp-section-one.pdf, p.1; Source: gisborne-odp-section-three.pdf, p.56). It identified approximately 210 hectares of vacant developable Residential 1 Zone land and estimated that, at 10 dwellings per hectare plus about 510 lots approved or being created as at July 2009, the area could accommodate about 2,830 dwellings (Source: gisborne-odp-section-two.pdf, p.43). It also identified infrastructure mechanisms including a New Gisborne retarding basin, drainage reserves west of Station Road, a Central Creek drainage scheme, reticulated potable water, reticulated sewerage and potential Class A recycled water (Source: gisborne-odp-section-three.pdf, pp.62-63).

The present implementation signal is much stronger than the old ODP figures. Council’s 2024-25 Annual Report states that implementation of the Gisborne Futures Structure Plan and the Romsey Structure Plan had not begun because it was pending Victorian Government resolution of the protected settlement boundary under the Macedon Ranges SPP (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.640). In November 2025, Council reported that the State Government had held both plans for more than 12 months and that approval of adopted settlement boundaries would enable rezoning to accommodate approximately 4,500 houses in Gisborne and 2,200 houses in Romsey (Source: 26-november-2025-agenda-scheduled-council-meeting.pdf, p.67). This is the main land-supply consequence of the current delay.

Infrastructure, Housing Targets and System Tension

The boundary framework is now interacting with the State’s broader housing-target system. Council’s draft Shaping the Ranges 2025-35 material states that Macedon Ranges is projected to reach 75,303 people by 2046, a 34% increase, and that the Plan for Victoria identifies a target of 13,200 new dwellings in the shire by 2051 (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.770). The same material says growth has been directed to six townships: Gisborne, Kyneton, Romsey, Riddells Creek, Woodend and Lancefield (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.770).

This produces a planning tension rather than a simple contradiction. The SPP seeks to contain growth within long-term settlement boundaries and to require detailed infrastructure assessment before land is rezoned (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.34). The housing target requires Council and the State to track additional dwellings toward a 2051 outcome, but Council’s February 2026 resolution asked the Minister for Planning to clarify the activation date, baseline data, township-level baselines, counting rules, data sources, and infrastructure-alignment indicators for the 13,200-dwelling target (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17). Until those definitions are settled, the target is a headline number without a fully transparent local delivery ledger (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17).

The infrastructure effect is direct. Council’s Shaping the Ranges material states that projected growth creates expectations for roads, footpaths, community spaces, parks and recreation, and that developer contributions only cover part of the cost of new facilities (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.770). Council’s Year One Action Plan includes actions to deliver budgeted road and footpath projects, advocate for priority transport funding, improve bus networks in Gisborne, deliver missing footpath links, prepare a Riddells Creek Recreation Reserve Master Plan, deliver an Open Space Strategy, and commence a development plan and planning controls for the Gisborne Business Park expansion (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.939-940). These actions do not substitute for settlement-boundary approval, but they show the downstream local infrastructure work that will need to line up with any new dwelling capacity (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.939-940).

Risk From State Planning Reform

The November 2025 Council agenda identifies a second risk: changes proposed through the Planning Amendment (Better Decisions Made Faster) Bill 2025 (Source: 26-november-2025-agenda-scheduled-council-meeting.pdf, p.66). Council’s report says the Bill would change the objectives of planning in Victoria, create three planning permit streams, reduce public notification and appeal rights for some streams, change the role of Parliament in amendment processes, and alter Distinctive Areas and Landscapes provisions (Source: 26-november-2025-agenda-scheduled-council-meeting.pdf, p.66).

Council’s specific concern is that a planning scheme amendment could amend an SPP, and if it also rezoned land for another purpose, the amendment category could follow the other amendment and be dealt with through the same panel process (Source: 26-november-2025-agenda-scheduled-council-meeting.pdf, p.67). Council also raised concern that removing the provision preventing responsible public entities from amending a planning scheme inconsistently with an SPP could weaken the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes regime (Source: 26-november-2025-agenda-scheduled-council-meeting.pdf, p.67). For protected settlement boundaries, Council’s concern was that undefined boundary “corrections” would not require parliamentary ratification and could be used for changes larger than a technical correction (Source: 26-november-2025-agenda-scheduled-council-meeting.pdf, p.67).

The mechanism-level implication is that the value of a protected settlement boundary depends not only on where the line sits, but also on the process required to move it. If parliamentary ratification remains the default, the boundary is a durable growth-management tool; if the category or correction pathway is broadened, the boundary becomes more vulnerable to ordinary amendment dynamics (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.34; Source: 26-november-2025-agenda-scheduled-council-meeting.pdf, p.67).

Current Status

The current status is in-progress and unresolved for the largest land-supply component. Kyneton, Lancefield, Riddells Creek and Woodend have protected settlement boundary maps in the SPP (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, pp.38-41). Gisborne and Romsey require finalisation through the Gisborne/New Gisborne and Romsey structure-plan implementation processes (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.42). Council adopted the Gisborne Futures Structure Plan and Romsey Structure Plan in July 2024, but its 2024-25 Annual Report says implementation had not begun because Victorian Government resolution of the protected settlement boundary was still pending (Source: web-research-L0-macedon-ranges-protected-settlement-boundary-under-the-statement-of-planning-policy-source-5a0f0e2243.txt; Source: web-research-L0-romsey-outline-development-plan-page-76870f10a6.txt; Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.640).

As at November 2025, Council’s position was that State approval of the adopted settlement boundaries would release rezoning capacity for about 6,700 dwellings across Gisborne and Romsey, made up of about 4,500 dwellings in Gisborne and 2,200 dwellings in Romsey (Source: 26-november-2025-agenda-scheduled-council-meeting.pdf, p.67). As at February 2026, Council was also seeking ministerial clarification on how the 13,200 additional dwelling target by 2051 would be measured, counted and aligned with infrastructure capacity (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17).

Dependencies

  • Blocks: Major outward rezoning for Gisborne and Romsey is blocked until protected settlement boundaries are finalised, because the SPP says rezoning beyond a town boundary for township growth should not be considered before finalisation (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.33).
  • Blocked by: Implementation of the Gisborne Futures Structure Plan and Romsey Structure Plan is blocked by Victorian Government resolution of the protected settlement boundary under the SPP (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.640).
  • Informed by: The SPP is informed principally by the Macedon Ranges Protection Advisory Committee Report 2017 and by earlier township structure planning, including the Gisborne/New Gisborne ODP and Romsey ODP (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, pp.43-44).
  • Implements: The boundary system implements the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes framework, Clause 51.07 of the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme, and the SPP’s settlement hierarchy (Source: statement-of-planning-policy-sopp-faq-webpage-update-document-updated-april-2022.pdf, p.1; Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.32).
  • Conflicts with: There is a live implementation tension between the protected-boundary approval process, the State housing target of 13,200 additional dwellings by 2051, and Council’s concern about infrastructure capacity and target-counting rules (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.770; Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17).

The SPP gives responsible public entities a coordinated decision-making role across government agencies, councils and other public bodies operating in the declared area (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, pp.11-12). Traditional Owner organisations are also embedded in the policy’s preparation and ongoing land-management context, with Dja Dja Wurrung, Taungurung and Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung identified as Traditional Owner groups involved in the SPP process (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, pp.4-7; Source: statement-of-planning-policy-sopp-faq-webpage-update-document-updated-april-2022.pdf, p.3).

Transport and infrastructure links extend beyond Council because the SPP recognises that settlements need essential services and transport connections, and the local Year One Action Plan relies partly on advocacy for external funding and public transport service improvements (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.35; Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.939). Water and drainage links are also cross-agency in practical terms because the Gisborne ODP refers to Melbourne Water drainage scheme analysis, Central Creek drainage, potable water, sewerage and possible recycled water servicing (Source: gisborne-odp-section-one.pdf, p.1; Source: gisborne-odp-section-three.pdf, pp.62-63).

Gaps in This Analysis

The key analytical gap is the absence of the July 2024 Gisborne Futures Structure Plan, the July 2024 Romsey Structure Plan, the adopted protected settlement boundary approval material, and any state decision documents explaining the status of those boundaries. Without those documents, this page can identify the statutory mechanism, current delay, and dwelling-capacity numbers reported by Council, but it cannot test the spatial boundary logic, land budgets, infrastructure staging, constraints mapping, or submission changes behind the 4,500-dwelling Gisborne figure and 2,200-dwelling Romsey figure (Source: 26-november-2025-agenda-scheduled-council-meeting.pdf, p.67; Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.640).

The second gap is infrastructure costing. The available documents identify the need for planning and infrastructure assessment, drainage, sewer, water, transport, open space and community infrastructure, but they do not provide a current post-2024 infrastructure contribution plan, development contributions plan, itemised cost schedule, or township-level staging triggers for the new Gisborne and Romsey structure plans (Source: macedon-ranges-statement-planning-policy.pdf, p.34; Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.939-940). This should be recorded in _gaps as a critical corpus gap because it limits a full mechanism-level assessment of how protected settlement boundary approval converts into serviced housing delivery (Source: docs/CLAUDE-v3.md).

Graph View