title: Macedon Ranges Onsite Wastewater Management Plan 2025-2026 council: macedon-ranges state: vic category: infrastructure classification: MINOR status: adopted last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf
- 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf
- 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf
Macedon Ranges Onsite Wastewater Management Plan 2025-2026
The Onsite Wastewater Management Plan 2025-2030 shifts Macedon Ranges Shire from a mainly permit-and-complaint model toward a mapped, risk-based management system for unsewered land, septic assets, planning referrals, and catchment protection (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.220; Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1614). Its planning significance is that wastewater capacity becomes a practical constraint on subdivision, dwelling approvals, rural residential intensification, and reticulated sewer prioritisation across 12,023 unsewered developable lots, including high-risk areas around Mount Macedon, Woodend, Macedon, and Riddells Creek (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1630, 1775). Council adopted the plan on 17 December 2025, so its implementation now sits in operational budgets, planning referral practice, GIS risk-layer maintenance, and annual water authority review rather than in draft policy preparation (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.15; Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1803-1807).
Background
Council presented the draft Technical Document and Operational Plan to the 17 December 2025 Scheduled Council Meeting for adoption as the Onsite Wastewater Management Plan 2025-2030 (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.220). The agenda report states that Council must develop and maintain an OWMP under the Environment Protection Act 2017 and the Obligations of Managers of Land or Infrastructure framework, and that the previous plan had reached its five-year review point in 2024 (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.220). The same report records earlier Domestic Wastewater Management Plans in 2007, 2013 and 2019, making the 2025-2030 plan the fourth generation of council-level wastewater management planning for the municipality (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.220).
The plan was prepared by Whitehead & Associates Environmental Consultants for Macedon Ranges Shire Council, with the Technical Document issued as final on 18 November 2025 under job reference 3749_OWMP_Technical_Document_002 (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1614). The Technical Document states that it was developed to accompany and direct the Operational Plan and to assess the ability of unsewered development lots to sustainably accommodate wastewater onsite (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1614). The document also states that it was updated for recent Victorian legislative and regulatory changes and aligned with a standardised risk-based assessment approach (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1614).
Consultation occurred in two stages: Stage 1 used a public survey with 26 resident responses, compared with seven responses in the previous review, and Stage 2 targeted higher-risk properties through 350 letters to landholders (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.221-222). Council met directly with Coliban Water, Greater Western Water, Southern Rural Water and Goulburn-Murray Water, and the agenda report states that all four authorities supported the direction of the plan and emphasised sustainable resourcing for inspections, monitoring and education (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.222). Council also met with neighbouring councils including Mount Alexander Shire, Moorabool Shire and Hepburn Shire about shared Special Water Supply Catchments and inspection models (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.222). The EPA declined engagement during the plan’s development, and the officer report states that further EPA input was not required for adoption (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.222).
Analysis
Wastewater as a Settlement Constraint
The key planning mechanism is simple: where reticulated sewer is absent, each lot must have enough suitable land, soil capacity, slope, climate conditions, and separation from sensitive water receptors to treat and retain wastewater onsite (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1632-1634). The plan identifies approximately 32,290 lots in the Shire, excludes 5,719 non-developable or very small lots, and classifies 26,571 lots as developable for the purpose of the wastewater analysis (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1630). It then excludes approximately 14,548 lots in areas with sewer availability, leaving approximately 12,023 unsewered developable parcels not within reasonable distance of sewer or not connected to sewer (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1630, 1632).
This is not only an environmental health program; it is a land-use filter for rural and township-edge development (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1632-1634). The Technical Document states that planning applications on land requiring onsite wastewater management may need a Land Capability Assessment, and that applications in Special Water Supply Catchments must be referred to the relevant Water Corporation, with Council required to refuse the application if the Water Corporation objects (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1619). This means wastewater risk can directly determine whether dwellings, subdivisions, or intensified unsewered settlement patterns can proceed (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1619).
The Shire’s environmental setting makes that filter unusually important because 13 Special Water Supply Catchment areas, covering 23 individual catchments, occupy about 57% of the municipality (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1629). Those catchments include Djerriwarrh, Eppalock, Gisborne-Sunbury, Lake Merrimu, Lancefield, Macedon, Mollison Creek, Monument Creek, Mount Macedon, Riddells Creek, Romsey, Rosslynne Reservoir and Sunbury catchments (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1629-1630). The Operational Plan also links Special Water Supply Catchment areas to the 1 dwelling per 40 hectares policy setting and to case-by-case review where higher density unsewered development is proposed (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.221; Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1760).
Risk Mapping and What It Changes
The Technical Document uses a GIS-based risk algorithm that combines soil suitability, slope, useable lot area and climate, with useable lot area weighted twice in the equation (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1633). The algorithm is expressed as ((Soil Suitability + Slope) x ((2 x Useable Lot Area) + Climate)) / 10, which means small usable area is deliberately treated as a dominant constraint rather than as a minor site design issue (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1633). Lots inside Special Water Supply Catchments receive an additional treatment in the framework because even a low-risk lot is lifted to moderate risk so that a Land Capability Assessment is required before development (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1633).
The overall risk distribution is 535 very high risk lots, 2,885 high risk lots, 7,510 moderate risk lots and 1,093 low risk lots across the 12,023 unsewered developable lots (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1775). The Operational Plan separately reports the same pattern as 4.4% very high risk, 24.0% high risk, 62.5% moderate risk and 9.1% low risk (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1778). The practical effect is that about 28.4% of unsewered developable lots are in the high or very high bands, so a substantial minority of rural and township-edge land requires more intensive investigation, design scrutiny, monitoring or servicing intervention before additional wastewater load can be treated as acceptable (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1775, 1778).
The strongest physical drivers are useable lot area and soil suitability, not a single isolated constraint (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1778). Soil risk is severe across the unsewered dataset, with 7,775 lots rated high and 4,248 lots rated moderate for soil suitability, and no lots rated low for soil risk (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1637). Useable lot area is also binding, with 2,649 lots rated very high risk and 3,485 rated high risk on that parameter alone (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1646). Slope is more localised, with 2,795 lots rated high, 2,742 moderate and 6,486 low, which explains why the Mount Macedon area is materially different from flatter localities (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1639; Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1716).
Locality Priorities
Mount Macedon is the most constrained locality in the plan because it has 645 unsewered developable lots, 243 very high risk lots, 378 high risk lots, 24 moderate risk lots and no low risk lots (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1715-1716). Its constraint stack is unusually tight: all 645 lots are in Climate Zone 3, all 645 lots are high soil-suitability risk, 494 lots are high slope risk, and 359 lots are very high useable-lot-area risk (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1716). The locality also contains multiple reservoirs and watercourses, including McDonalds, Orde Hill, Willimigongon, Kitty English, Frank Mann and Pierce reservoirs, and is within several Special Water Supply Catchments (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1715-1716). Planning decisions in Mount Macedon therefore face a compounded problem: rainfall, slope, soil, catchment sensitivity and small usable areas align in the same place (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1715-1718).
Woodend is the largest targeted unsewered locality by lot count, with 1,078 unsewered developable lots and 540 recorded OWM permits (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1700). Its final risk profile is 35 very high risk lots, 606 high risk lots, 437 moderate risk lots and no low risk lots (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1701). Woodend’s constraints include Climate Zone 3 across the locality, 913 lots rated high for soil suitability, 410 lots rated very high for useable lot area, and 447 lots rated high for useable lot area (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1700-1701). The plan’s Cumulative Risk Assessment identifies Woodend as one of the highest-risk study catchments, with 899 OWM systems in the assessed catchments and moderate groundwater environmental risk in two sub-catchments (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1663; Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1780).
Riddells Creek has 923 unsewered developable lots and 445 OWM permits, with a final profile of 83 very high risk, 252 high risk, 488 moderate risk and 100 low risk lots (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1705-1706). Its risk is shaped by 820 lots with high soil-suitability risk, 176 lots with very high useable-lot-area risk, and 296 lots with high slope risk (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1706). Gisborne has 715 unsewered developable lots and 337 OWM permits, with only 3 very high risk lots but 83 high risk, 436 moderate risk and 193 low risk lots (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1710-1711). Macedon has 335 unsewered developable lots and 217 permits, with 38 very high risk, 184 high risk, 112 moderate risk and 1 low risk lot, which makes its proportional high-or-very-high risk burden more severe than Gisborne’s (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1724-1725).
Lauriston and Darraweit Guim show different forms of unsewered settlement risk (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1734-1740). Lauriston is entirely unsewered, has 251 unsewered developable lots, and records 16 very high risk lots, 99 high risk lots, 136 moderate risk lots and no low risk lots (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1734-1735). Darraweit Guim is also entirely unsewered, has 229 unsewered developable lots, and records no very high risk lots, 27 high risk lots, 93 moderate risk lots and 109 low risk lots (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1739-1740). This contrast matters because the same absence of sewer does not produce the same planning outcome; the risk result depends on whether small usable areas, climate, soils, slope and sensitive receptors combine on the same lots (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1633-1634, 1734-1740).
Design Consequences for Development Assessment
The plan changes development assessment by tying the level of Land Capability Assessment to mapped risk rather than treating all unsewered lots the same (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1775-1779). Low and moderate risk lots can use the system selection and sizing tables as part of assessment, while high and very high risk lots require a standard LCA and additional viral die-off modelling (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1788). The Technical Document states that system sizing tables are applicable only for low and moderate risk properties, so high-risk sites cannot rely on generic sizing tables to justify wastewater capacity (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1669).
The design numbers show why this matters for lot capacity (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1669-1672). The water balance assumes 180 litres per person per day for standard household fixtures, producing design wastewater loads of 720 litres per day for a three-bedroom dwelling, 900 litres per day for a four-bedroom dwelling and 1,080 litres per day for a five-bedroom dwelling (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1670). In high-rainfall or heavy-clay settings, the required effluent dispersal footprint can become very large or not applicable under generic sizing, which pushes assessment toward site-specific investigation, advanced systems, reduced wastewater generation, or in some cases no feasible onsite solution (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1671-1672).
For example, the Mount Macedon sizing table shows medium-to-heavy clay constraints where some irrigation options are not applicable due to climatic constraints, and LPED irrigation basal areas can reach 3,710 square metres for larger dwellings in the modelled table (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1718). Woodend’s sizing table similarly shows irrigation not applicable in some soil and climate combinations, and LPED irrigation basal areas reaching 1,830 square metres for larger dwellings before spacing and setbacks are added (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1704). These figures are basal areas rather than full footprints, and the Technical Document states that final effluent dispersal footprints must also account for spacing between trenches or beds and mandatory setbacks (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1672).
Existing Systems, Legacy Risk and Compliance
The plan identifies approximately 8,000 registered OWMS in Council’s permit management system, with approximately 4,500 of those systems in Special Water Supply Catchment areas (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1630, 1781). It also states that some OWMS are likely unknown to Council because they were constructed without permits, pre-date permit requirements, or were affected by record continuity issues from the 1995 shire amalgamation (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1630). That is a core operational risk because the risk model depends on records being complete enough to target inspections, maintenance requests and enforcement (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1781, 1793-1796).
Older systems are a particular problem because many use conventional septic tanks and absorption trenches, and the plan states that buried tanks are often difficult for owners to locate, leading to inadequate maintenance and insufficient desludging (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1631, 1781). Without periodic desludging every 3-5 years depending on occupancy, solids can carry over into the effluent dispersal system, block soil, and cause trench failure and effluent surcharge at the ground surface (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1631). Newer secondary systems provide higher treatment through AWTPs, sand filters or greywater treatment systems, but the plan states that these systems require more maintenance and quarterly servicing as an EPA approval requirement (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1631, 1781).
The monitoring program is therefore targeted rather than universal (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1794-1796). The Operational Plan states that Council no longer has permission to enter residential premises without consent unless it reasonably believes a contravention of the Environment Protection Act 2017 or Regulations is occurring, about to occur, or has occurred (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1794). Inspection triggers include complaints, planning permits to alter lot development, and maintenance records indicating that an OWMS is not in good working order (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1794). The plan sets quantified monitoring targets to request maintenance reports from 200 OWMS within Special Water Supply Catchment areas and 150 very high risk lots by December 2029, and from 100 high risk lots by December 2030 (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1796, 1805).
Reticulated Sewer as the Structural Intervention
The OWMP treats reticulated sewer connection as a strategic intervention where onsite wastewater risk is too concentrated or costly to manage lot-by-lot (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1779, 1806). The Operational Plan states that Mount Macedon presents the most significant OWM risk to public health and the environment, and notes previous works to provide reticulated sewer to part of that area (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1779). It also identifies outer regions of Macedon, Woodend, Tylden and Kyneton as elevated-risk areas where investigation, prioritisation and feasibility of reticulated sewer connection should be considered (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1779).
This creates a planning dependency between wastewater risk mapping and future sewer servicing decisions (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1779, 1806). Action 9c requires Council to identify properties where sewer connection is available but has not been made by December 2029, while Action 9d requires prioritisation of areas where connection to the existing reticulated sewer network is the most cost-effective intervention by December 2030 (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1806). Action 9e requires Council to embed reticulated sewer servicing into broader land-use planning and development assessments by December 2029 (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1806). The practical result is that wastewater servicing becomes a forward-planning input, not just a permit condition applied after a development proposal is lodged (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1806).
Resourcing and Implementation Risk
The main implementation risk is that the plan depends on staff capacity, data management and funding decisions that are not fully resolved in the adopted documents (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.224; Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1803-1807). The agenda report states that most actions will be funded through existing operational budgets, but that risk-based inspections, data digitisation and community education may require additional officer time or IT support through annual budget processes (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.224). The Operational Plan separately recommends investigation of annual fees or charges for owners of unsewered properties because many rural and regional councils use such charges to resource monitoring and education programs (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1794).
The action plan exposes the staged nature of implementation (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1803-1807). Policies and procedures for inspections, non-compliance, complaints, rectification, fines, permits and certificates are due by December 2026 (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1803). Sustainable resourcing options and staffing requirements are due by July 2026 (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1803). Input of remaining paper archived septic tank permit data into Pathway is due by December 2028 and is subject to a future budget bid or unconfirmed funding source (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1803-1804). The three-year audit and review is also subject to future budget bid or external funding, while the five-year public implementation report is due in April 2030 (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1807).
Current Status
Council adopted the Onsite Wastewater Management Plan 2025-2030 at the Scheduled Council Meeting held on 17 December 2025 under Resolution 2025/174 (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.15). The adopted resolution also required Council to respond to and thank all submitters to the consultation process in accordance with Council’s Community Engagement Policy (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.15). The plan is therefore in the implementation phase, with early short-term actions due in July 2026 and December 2026, medium-term monitoring and sewer-identification actions due through December 2029, and the five-year review due in April 2030 (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1803-1807).
Dependencies
- Blocks: Unsewered development proposals may be blocked where wastewater cannot be appropriately treated and retained onsite, especially in Special Water Supply Catchments or on high and very high risk lots requiring detailed LCA and specialist design (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.221; Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1633, 1788).
- Blocked by: Full implementation is constrained by operational resourcing, future budget bids for digitising paper septic records, potential external funding for the three-year audit, and the need to investigate sustainable funding or staffing requirements (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.224; Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1803-1807).
- Informed by: The plan is informed by the Environment Protection Act 2017, EP Regulations 2021, DEECA 2024 catchment planning permit guidance, EPA 2024 onsite wastewater guidelines, the Victorian Land Capability Assessment Framework, AS/NZS 1547:2012, and VAGO’s 2018 report on domestic wastewater impacts (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1615, 1686).
- Implements: The plan implements Council’s statutory wastewater-management obligations and supports Shaping the Ranges 2025-2035 themes relating to Our Places and Our Environment through regulation, monitoring, education and catchment protection (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.220, 223).
- Conflicts with: The plan creates tension with rural residential and small-town development pressure where site constraints, catchment controls, small usable lot areas, or lack of sewer servicing mean onsite wastewater cannot be assumed to be feasible (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.221; Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1778-1780).
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
The plan has direct cross-agency dependencies because Special Water Supply Catchments and water authority referral roles cut across municipal boundaries (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.222; Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, p.1619). Coliban Water, Greater Western Water, Southern Rural Water and Goulburn-Murray Water reviewed the draft plan and supported its direction, with the officer report noting their emphasis on inspections, monitoring, education and sustainable resourcing (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.222). Council also consulted Mount Alexander Shire, Moorabool Shire and Hepburn Shire about inspection programs in shared Special Water Supply Catchments and risk-management approaches, which makes the OWMP part of a broader regional catchment-protection governance setting rather than a purely local permit document (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.222).
Gaps in This Analysis
The source set contains the council agenda report, confirmed minutes, Technical Document and Operational Plan, but it does not include raw community submissions, the 350 higher-risk landholder letters, or written water authority feedback, so the analysis cannot independently test which issues were raised by residents, water authorities or internal departments beyond the officer summary (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.221-222). The source set does not include the underlying GIS layers, parcel-level risk table, inspection history, Pathway database extract or septic permit records, so this page cannot identify individual parcels, streets or system clusters beyond the locality-level statistics published in the plan (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1632-1633, 1775). The source set does not include a costed implementation budget or adopted fee model, so the financial analysis is limited to the plan’s statements that most actions sit within existing operational budgets and that some data, audit and resourcing actions depend on future budget bids or funding decisions (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.224; Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1803-1807). The source set does not include water authority sewer-servicing strategies for Mount Macedon, Macedon, Woodend, Tylden or Kyneton, so reticulated sewer feasibility and sequencing can only be identified as an action, not assessed as an infrastructure program (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda-attachments.pdf, pp.1779, 1806).