title: Stormwater and Flood Management Asset Planning council: macedon-ranges state: vic category: infrastructure classification: MAJOR status: in-progress last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf
- 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf
Stormwater and Flood Management Asset Planning
Macedon Ranges Shire’s stormwater and flood management task is not just a pipe-renewal program; it is a risk-management system for older township drainage, new subdivision runoff, creek water quality, flood-prone localities and future climate exposure. Council’s draft Asset Plan identifies a $96.5 million stormwater drainage network, but it also states that the network does not yet have structured condition assessment data, which means the headline “good” condition rating is an age-based estimate rather than a measured hydraulic or structural finding (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.924).
The practical planning issue is simple: Council knows the drainage network is large and valuable, but it does not yet know enough about pipe condition, capacity under climate change, or the most critical open drains to fully target investment. The result is an asset-planning framework that currently funds maintenance and renewal, uses development controls to manage runoff at site level, and flags flood-study implementation as a 2025/26 planning action, while leaving major evidence gaps around network performance and flood-prone-property reduction (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.925-927; Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.942).
Background
The stormwater and flood management program sits inside Council’s Asset Plan 2025-2035, which is part of the integrated strategic planning and reporting framework under the Local Government Act 2020 (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.866). The Asset Plan focuses on four physical infrastructure classes: transport, buildings, open space and recreation, and stormwater and flood management (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.866). Council’s broader physical infrastructure asset base is valued at 990 million, while its total land, building, plant, equipment and infrastructure portfolio is valued at 1.4 billion (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.865-866).
The Shire context matters because drainage demand is not evenly distributed across the municipality. Macedon Ranges covers 1,747 square kilometres, has a population forecast to rise from 56,073 in 2025 to 75,303 in 2046, and expects most population growth to occur in the south and southeast of the Shire (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.865). Around 35% of residents live outside town boundaries in rural settings, which means Council must manage both urban pipe-and-pit systems and rural drainage interfaces, including open drains, waterways, culverts and road-related drainage assets (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.865; Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.926).
The 2025/26 Year One Action Plan gives flood and water management a statutory-planning pathway as well as an asset pathway. It commits Council to commencing a planning scheme amendment process to implement flood studies for Kyneton, Lauriston, Tylden and Malmsbury prepared by the North Central Catchment Management Authority (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.942). It also commits Council to supporting integrated water management through local stormwater and on-site wastewater management plans with stakeholders (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.942).
Analysis
Network Scale, Value and Asset-Register Reliability
Council’s stormwater and flood management asset class comprises 316.6 kilometres of stormwater pipes, 11,857 stormwater pits and 70 drainage basins (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.924). The replacement value is estimated at 96,468,932, made up of 66,832,724 for pipes, 24,691,787 for pits and 4,944,421 for drainage basins (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.924). In plain terms, about 69% of the stormwater replacement value sits in pipes, about 26% sits in pits, and about 5% sits in basins, so the biggest financial exposure is buried infrastructure that is expensive to inspect and disruptive to replace (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.924).
The Asset Plan labels current average stormwater condition as “Good”, but the same figure states that Council does not have a structured condition assessment for stormwater assets and that the displayed condition is based on asset-age information (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.924). That caveat changes the meaning of the rating: it is not evidence that the network has adequate hydraulic capacity, clear pipes, structurally sound joints or climate-ready design; it is a conservative proxy based on what Council currently knows about asset age (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.924-925).
The mechanism is like judging a buried garden hose by the date it was bought rather than by checking whether water still flows through it properly. Council can estimate likely condition from age, but it cannot confidently rank renewal priorities until it has more direct information about pipe condition, blockage, deformation, capacity and failure consequence (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.925). The Asset Plan therefore correctly identifies a structured stormwater condition assessment program as necessary to proactively identify assets requiring renewal or maintenance (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.925).
Funding Architecture and the Absence of Growth Capital
The 10-year stormwater and flood management expenditure plan totals 14.154 million from 2025/26 to 2034/35 (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.928). This total comprises 7.804 million in recurrent expenditure and $6.350 million in renewal expenditure, with no growth expenditure shown for the asset class over the 10-year period (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.928). Recurrent expenditure therefore accounts for about 55% of planned stormwater spending and renewal accounts for about 45%, while programmed growth capital accounts for 0% (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.928).
That funding profile is significant because the Asset Plan separately states that subdivision growth will create more stormwater runoff, place pressure on the existing stormwater network and require local stormwater treatment assets (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.926). The plan also states that further growth and development areas may be conditioned with additional stormwater treatment devices, increasing ongoing maintenance and renewal costs for Council (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.926). The cause-and-effect chain is therefore visible: growth creates runoff and treatment assets; treatment assets become Council maintenance liabilities; but the 10-year stormwater table does not identify a separate growth allocation for network expansion or hydraulic upgrades (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.926-928).
Council’s broader asset funding framework explains why this may occur. The Asset Plan prioritises non-discretionary recurrent and renewal spending over discretionary growth spending, and states that existing assets are managed as a priority over new, upgraded or expanded assets (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.899-900). In drainage terms, this means pit cleaning, pipe cleansing, pollutant-trap maintenance, inspections, pipe relining and pit replacement are the base commitments, while larger hydraulic-capacity upgrades, network extensions, stormwater quality devices and stormwater harvesting initiatives are classified as discretionary growth activities (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.926-927).
The Financial Plan adds a second funding channel through restricted reserves. Drainage developer contributions are held for drainage projects, and some contributions have specific areas nominated for spending (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.855). The restricted drainage reserve is projected to rise from an opening balance of 612,000 in 2025/26 to a closing balance of 1.112 million in 2034/35, with $50,000 transferred in each year and no transfer out shown across the decade (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.856). This reserve trajectory suggests Council expects continuing drainage contributions, but the sourced material does not show which drainage projects will use those funds or whether the reserve is matched to known flood-study works (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.855-856).
Flood Risk, Climate Exposure and Local Hotspots
Council’s Asset Plan states that the ability of the stormwater network to withstand climate change impacts is yet to be determined (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.925). It also states that projected increases in extreme weather events will leave the Shire more vulnerable to flooding, especially in known hotspot locations (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.926). The plan does not identify the hotspot list, quantify the number of exposed properties, or provide design-standard comparisons for older systems, so the current evidence base identifies the risk class but not its spatial or financial scale (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.925-926).
The March 2026 agenda shows this issue appearing as a live community matter in Gisborne. The Mayor’s report acknowledged resident concerns around Swinburne Avenue and Cherry Lane, where development activity and recent flash flooding had caused disruption (Source: 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.8). A Councillor briefing record for 3 March 2026 also lists “Swinburne Avenue Drainage” as an item discussed, alongside a Greater Western Water presentation and budget workshop material (Source: 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.13-14). This does not prove the technical cause of the flooding, but it shows that local drainage performance, development activity and resident impacts had escalated into councillor-level discussion by March 2026 (Source: 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.8, 13-14).
The 2025/26 capital works report gives one concrete drainage delivery signal. Drainage capital works had an adopted budget including carry-forwards of 1.364 million for 2025/26, with 188,000 spent by 31 December 2025 against a year-to-date budget of 448,000 (Source: 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.179). The same report identifies Fersfield Road Drainage in Gisborne as a 450,000 carry-forward project delayed by Cultural Heritage Management Plan requirements (Source: 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.182). This means drainage delivery is exposed not only to engineering constraints but also to statutory cultural heritage processes where ground disturbance or sensitive land is involved (Source: 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.182).
Development Control as a Stormwater Asset Tool
Council is using planning permit controls to stop new development from worsening drainage risk. At 72 and 74 Ferrier Road, New Gisborne, the amended permit requires drainage, sewerage and other services to be provided to each lot in accordance with authority requirements and relevant legislation (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.174). The same permit requires engineering plans to include civil and drainage infrastructure documentation, flood modelling for pedestrian crossings or bridges over the waterway, underground stormwater drainage, a legal point of discharge, detailed drainage design with hydraulic grade line analysis, 1-in-100-year ARI flow paths and controls preventing private property inundation (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.175-176). It also requires downstream flows to be restricted to pre-development levels unless increased flows are approved and shown not to cause detrimental downstream impacts (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.176).
Those permit conditions show the asset-planning mechanism in miniature. A new development is not simply connected to the public system; it must model flood behaviour, treat stormwater quality, restrict discharge, manage temporary drainage before permanent infrastructure is in place, and provide asset information at handover (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.176-177). The Ferrier Road permit also requires as-constructed drawings and digital asset information for road, drainage and public open space assets, which matters because Council’s Asset Plan identifies gaps in underground drainage network data as a current performance objective (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.177; Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.925).
The March 2026 agenda shows Clause 53.18 Stormwater Management in Urban Development operating as a live statutory test. For the proposed childcare centre at 66 Howey Street, Gisborne, the officer report states that Clause 53.18 applied but that no relevant documentation had been provided to show how the stormwater management objectives would be met, apart from a purported drainage design plan (Source: 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.78). For the 38-40 High Street and 2-4 Dundas Street, Lancefield proposal, objectors raised drainage concerns about land slope toward Dundas Street, system capacity and additional hardstand, while officers recorded that a Water Sensitive Urban Design Report had been submitted and that Council’s Engineering Department supported the proposal subject to detailed drainage-plan conditions (Source: 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.138).
The pattern is important for infrastructure planning because Council is relying on site-level controls to prevent cumulative pressure on the public network. If every new hardstand area, roof, car park or subdivision is assessed in isolation, the public network still needs catchment-level capacity data to understand whether many compliant small changes create a larger downstream problem (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.925-927; Source: 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.78, 138). The source set does not include catchment modelling or flood-study outputs that would allow this cumulative-risk question to be answered (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.942).
Waterways, Basins and Environmental Function
Council defines the service objective for stormwater and flood management as protecting the community from flooding and improving the quality of stormwater runoff discharged to natural watercourses (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.924). The Asset Plan explains that pits and pipes capture stormwater from surfaces and move it to discharge points into natural creeks and waterways, while basins temporarily hold storm or floodwaters and release them in a controlled way (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.924, 926). Some basins also perform water-treatment functions, so the drainage network is both a flood-mitigation system and a water-quality system (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.926).
This dual role links drainage asset planning to the Year One Action Plan’s environmental program. Council proposes to deliver the Urban Rivers and Catchments Project to restore waterways and improve biodiversity of the Upper Maribyrnong Catchment (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.942). It also proposes to reduce environmental risks including bushfire, storm and flood in land-use planning and to facilitate sustainable water management and quality (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.942). The planning implication is that stormwater assets should not be treated as isolated pipes; their performance affects creek health, pollutant loads, flood risk, subdivision design and open-space waterway corridors (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.924-926, 942).
Current Status
As at the source material available for this page, the Asset Plan 2025-2035 appears in the 22 October 2025 council meeting agenda attachments as a draft document attached to the item “Draft Integrated Strategic Planning Documents for Adoption” (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.30; Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.862). The available source set does not include the confirmed minutes of that meeting, so this page treats the stormwater asset-planning framework as in-progress rather than confirmed as finally adopted (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.862).
By 31 December 2025, Council had delivered 11.006 million in total capital works against a 2025/26 full-year budget including carry-forwards of 62.472 million, and drainage capital works had delivered 188,000 against a 1.364 million full-year budget including carry-forwards (Source: 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.179). Fersfield Road Drainage was identified for carry-forward with a $450,000 budget because Cultural Heritage Management Plan requirements delayed commencement (Source: 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.182). Swinburne Avenue drainage and flash flooding around Swinburne Avenue and Cherry Lane were live matters in March 2026 councillor and community discussion (Source: 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.8, 13-14).
Dependencies
- Blocks: Weak condition and capacity data blocks precise prioritisation of stormwater renewal, hydraulic upgrades and climate adaptation works because Council states that structured condition assessment and further performance assessment are still needed (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.925).
- Blocked by: Some drainage delivery is blocked or delayed by statutory cultural heritage processes, as shown by the Fersfield Road Drainage carry-forward linked to Cultural Heritage Management Plan requirements (Source: 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.182).
- Informed by: The Asset Plan is informed by asset age, financial-plan affordability, annual budgets, various flood studies and service strategies, but the stormwater condition rating is not informed by a structured stormwater condition assessment program (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.889, 924-925).
- Implements: The program implements Council’s Asset Plan framework, the Shaping the Ranges 2025-2035 environmental and infrastructure objectives, and Year One actions on flood-study implementation, integrated water management and waterway restoration (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.866, 942).
- Conflicts with: The main internal tension is between growth-driven runoff and the 10-year stormwater expenditure profile, because subdivision growth is expected to increase pressure on the drainage network while the expenditure table shows no programmed growth allocation for stormwater and flood management (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.926-928).
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
The Year One Action Plan identifies North Central Catchment Management Authority flood studies for Kyneton, Lauriston, Tylden and Malmsbury as the basis for a planning scheme amendment process (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.942). The same action plan links waterway restoration to the Upper Maribyrnong Catchment, which is a catchment-scale system rather than a single municipal asset class (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.942). The March 2026 councillor briefing record also shows Greater Western Water presenting to Council on the same day that Swinburne Avenue Drainage was discussed, although the source does not state that Greater Western Water’s presentation concerned that drainage matter (Source: 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.13-14).
Gaps in This Analysis
This page is limited by the source set. The two documents are agenda packs, not the underlying technical flood studies, drainage models, asset registers, condition audits or adopted minutes confirming final Asset Plan adoption (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.862, 924-928; Source: 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.8, 13-14, 179, 182). The most important missing documents are the North Central Catchment Management Authority flood studies for Kyneton, Lauriston, Tylden and Malmsbury, the structured stormwater condition assessment program once prepared, hydraulic capacity modelling for known hotspots, the detailed project scope for Fersfield Road Drainage, and any technical material explaining Swinburne Avenue and Cherry Lane flooding (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.925-926, 942; Source: 25-march-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.8, 13-14, 182).
The source documents do not quantify the number of flood-prone properties, the location and severity of known hotspots, the age profile of pipes and pits, the percentage of the network without reliable GIS data, the hydraulic design standard of older systems, or the downstream capacity effects of planned growth areas (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.924-928). Those gaps should be recorded in _gaps because they prevent a full mechanism-level assessment of which townships, catchments and asset types carry the highest flood, renewal and service-risk exposure (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.925-927).