Grange Planning Brain

title: Macedon Ranges Biodiversity Strategy Refresh council: macedon-ranges state: vic category: strategy classification: MAJOR status: draft 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
  • final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf
  • web-research-L0-biodiversity-strategy-final-adoption-material-evidence-bae964d4ed.txt
  • web-research-L0-206-macedon-ranges-shire-council-redacted-pdf-a5a83c23f3.txt
  • Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-_2025_DRAFT.pdf
  • web-research-L0-biodiversity-strategy-final-adoption-material-evidence-84f1ebef69.txt
  • arts-culture-strategy-2018-2028.pdf
  • arts-culture-strategy-background.pdf
  • master-plan-ash-wednesday-park.pdf

Macedon Ranges Biodiversity Strategy Refresh

The Macedon Ranges Biodiversity Strategy Refresh is a draft 2025-2030 update to Council’s 2018 biodiversity strategy, with Council resolving on 17 December 2025 to release the updated draft for community consultation rather than adopt it immediately (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.14). Its planning significance is that it shifts biodiversity management from a broad conservation program into a cross-Council operating framework: planning controls, native vegetation compliance, private land conservation, road management, reserve management, Traditional Owner engagement, and monitoring are all treated as linked delivery mechanisms (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.64-74).

The core constraint is institutional rather than conceptual: the draft identifies many actions that rely on cooperation between Council units, state agencies, community groups, Traditional Owners and private landholders, but it only partly translates these actions into funded, enforceable or measurable delivery commitments (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.30, 66-72). The strategy therefore matters less as a standalone policy statement than as a coordination document for native vegetation, biolinks, conservation reserves, roadside conservation, climate adaptation, and the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.20-27).

Background

Council’s first Biodiversity Strategy was adopted in December 2018 and established the vision of connected native plants and animals, accessible natural places, and healthy waterways across Macedon Ranges (Source: web-research-L0-biodiversity-strategy-final-adoption-material-evidence-bae964d4ed.txt). The 2025 refresh was triggered by the five-year review cycle, an internal review by Council’s Biodiversity Officer in early 2025, new scientific knowledge, legislative changes, emerging threats and community feedback (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.8-10).

The implementation record of the 2018 strategy is material because it shows Council had an existing delivery base rather than starting from a blank policy position: of 97 previous actions, the draft reports 68 actioned, 16 partially complete and 13 not completed or no longer relevant (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-2025_DRAFT.pdf, p.9). The Your Say project page reports the same review in slightly different categories, recording 68 completed or fulfilled actions, 16 partially completed actions, 9 not completed actions and 4 not applicable actions (Source: web-research-L0-biodiversity-strategy-final-adoption-material-evidence-bae964d4ed.txt). The difference between those two presentations is not a substantive contradiction, but it does show that the completion status depends on whether discontinued programs are counted as incomplete or not applicable (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, p.9; Source: web-research-L0-biodiversity-strategy-final-adoption-material-evidence-bae964d4ed.txt).

The draft strategy was discussed at a Councillor briefing before the December decision, with the briefing attendee list including Council planning, governance and biodiversity officers (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.9). Council then resolved on 17 December 2025 to release the updated draft strategy for community consultation for six weeks (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.14). The Your Say page records an extended second consultation period from 18 December 2025 to 15 February 2026, followed by consideration of feedback and later tabling for final adoption at a future Council meeting (Source: web-research-L0-biodiversity-strategy-final-adoption-material-evidence-bae964d4ed.txt).

Analysis

Strategic Role and Statutory Effect

The refresh does not itself rezone land, apply overlays or amend the planning scheme, so its immediate statutory effect is indirect (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.21-27). Its practical effect is to guide the way Council uses existing planning scheme tools, especially Clause 12.01 biodiversity policy, Clause 52.17 native vegetation controls, Clause 52.37 canopy tree controls, Environmental Significance Overlays and Vegetation Protection Overlays (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.21-27). The key mechanism is simple: the strategy identifies where biodiversity risk sits, then directs Council to strengthen internal procedures, local policy content, land management plan templates and compliance reporting so existing permit systems do more consistent work (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.64-68).

This is important because the draft acknowledges that overlays alone cannot manage all biodiversity threats, since planning overlays generally control development rather than land use (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-2025_DRAFT.pdf, p.23). That distinction limits what Council can achieve through planning scheme mapping alone: farming practices, livestock access, weeds, pest animals, fire management, domestic animals and recreational disturbance often require land management programs, local laws, grants, education or inter-agency work rather than permit triggers (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.23, 56-59, 66-72).

The draft also marks a retreat from some previous planning-control ambitions because it states that planning actions such as introducing new Vegetation Protection Overlays were removed after rejection by the State Government (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-2025_DRAFT.pdf, p.10). Council’s climate resilience submission gives the underlying policy tension: the 2018 strategy’s proposed expansion of VPOs met resistance from the Department of Transport and Planning and the Country Fire Authority because more vegetation in the landscape was treated as increasing bushfire risk (Source: web-research-L0-206-macedon-ranges-shire-council-redacted-pdf-a5a83c23f3.txt, p.14). The consequence is that the refreshed strategy relies more heavily on internal practice, voluntary conservation and targeted compliance than on a broad new overlay program (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.10, 66-72).

Biodiversity Baseline and Land Management Numbers

The draft strategy gives a quantified municipal baseline: Macedon Ranges Shire covers 1,747 square kilometres or 174,700 hectares, has a population of 53,738, and contains 58,391 hectares of native vegetation based on 2005 Ecological Vegetation Class coverage (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-2025_DRAFT.pdf, p.29). On those figures, modelled native vegetation covered about one-third of the municipality in 2005, but the strategy warns that the mapped extent is likely to have declined further because the dataset is based on 2005 modelling (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.29, 37-39). The shire contains 33 known EVCs, of which 13 are endangered, 9 vulnerable, 4 depleted and 6 least concern (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, p.29).

The threatened-species baseline has worsened materially since 2018: the draft records 156 threatened species and 5 threatened communities under state or federal legislation, with 60 species added to threatened or endangered lists since the 2018 strategy (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.8, 29, 34). At the national level, the draft states that 5 threatened communities and 63 EPBC-listed species are known or likely to occur within the shire, compared with 2 communities and 18 species in the 2018 strategy (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-2025_DRAFT.pdf, p.13). This means the refresh is being prepared in a more constrained legal and ecological context than the original strategy, because more places and species now require explicit consideration under Commonwealth and Victorian biodiversity law (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.13-14).

Council’s direct land management footprint is meaningful but limited relative to the whole landscape: the draft records more than 70 Council-managed conservation reserves covering 693 hectares, compared with a municipal land area of 174,700 hectares (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.29, 48). The reserve estate has increased by 34% since adoption of the 2018 strategy, which creates a resourcing issue because more conservation land requires management planning, weed control, monitoring and community coordination (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-2025_DRAFT.pdf, p.48). The draft responds through Action 2.05, which proposes increased funding for on-ground works in conservation reserves, and Action 2.07, which proposes regular review and preparation of reserve management plans with community groups and Traditional Owners (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.69-70).

Private land is structurally central because the draft identifies biolinks, remnant patches and waterway corridors across multiple tenures, including farming, rural living and rural conservation land (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.30, 44-46, 97-102). The strategy’s private-land mechanisms include Trust for Nature covenant promotion, rate rebates for covenanted land, Healthy Landscapes, possible offset programs, landholder engagement and review of land management plan requirements for planning permits (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.50-51, 66-70). These tools are less direct than Council reserve works, but they are necessary because several biolinks are mostly private land and because Council-managed reserves alone cannot maintain functional landscape connectivity (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.44-46, 97-102).

The strategy’s spatial logic is built around landscape connectivity rather than isolated reserve management (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.44-46). The established biolink areas are Kyneton Woodlands, Cobaw, Upper Coliban, Mount William Range, Riddells Hills and Wombat-Pyrete, with three waterway links covering Campaspe River and headwaters, Deep Creek, and Riddells-Jackson Creeks (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-2025_DRAFT.pdf, p.44). The mechanism is to treat remnant corridors, waterway vegetation, road reserves, scattered paddock trees and small bushland patches as stepping stones that support movement, breeding, foraging and climate refuges (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, p.44).

Roadside management is a high-impact operational dependency because Council manages about 1,700 kilometres of roadside vegetation for biodiversity, fire risk, access and safety (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-2025_DRAFT.pdf, p.46). Road reserves are both habitat corridors and hazard interfaces: the draft states that linear infrastructure can fragment habitats and that Macedon Ranges is one of Victoria’s highest areas for wildlife collision (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.46-47). Action 2.11 therefore makes wildlife road toll reduction a very high priority, but its proposed delivery tools are still exploratory and include data, education, advocacy and technology rather than a defined capital program (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.64-65, 70).

Waterway work connects biodiversity with flood, stormwater and catchment management because the shire sits at the top of major catchments flowing north to the Murray system and south to Port Phillip Bay (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-2025_DRAFT.pdf, p.40). The draft identifies the Campaspe, Coliban, Deep Creek and Jacksons Creek systems as both habitat corridors and water quality assets, with threatened or significant species including Platypus and Yarra Pygmy Perch (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.40, 100-101). Council’s climate resilience submission adds that heavier rainfall, stormwater pollution, erosion and under-designed drainage infrastructure are already placing pressure on natural waterways and built assets (Source: web-research-L0-206-macedon-ranges-shire-council-redacted-pdf-a5a83c23f3.txt, p.5). The practical planning implication is that waterway biodiversity cannot be separated from integrated water management, flood mapping, drainage design and urban development controls (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.40, 70; Source: web-research-L0-206-macedon-ranges-shire-council-redacted-pdf-a5a83c23f3.txt, p.5).

Delivery Model, Monitoring and Resourcing

The refresh consolidates delivery into five objectives: protect existing biodiversity and native vegetation, improve biodiversity across public and private land, improve understanding and connection to biodiversity, strengthen community group capacity, and establish monitoring for landscape change (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.8, 66-72). The action plan uses priority categories from as-opportunity-arises through very high, and resource bands from internal delivery to less than 5,000, 5,000-25,000, 25,000-50,000 and 50,000-$100,000 (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-2025_DRAFT.pdf, p.66). The main delivery risk is that many actions are listed as internal or ongoing, which may be feasible for coordination work but may be insufficient for compliance, reserve works, monitoring databases and private land extension if workloads increase (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.66-72).

The strongest mechanism-level improvement is the proposed adaptive management model (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-2025_DRAFT.pdf, p.73). The draft proposes to collect data on threats, on-ground outputs, indicator species, significant species, behaviour change, community awareness and engagement reach, then use that evidence to adjust management actions (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.73-74). The proposed indicator set includes vegetation removed legally and illegally, protected land area, indicator species presence and abundance, biodiversity enhancement outputs, photo-point monitoring, Wildlife Victoria incident data, engagement survey results, and grant project outputs (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.73-74).

The monitoring model has an important unresolved dependency: Action 5.03 proposes a formal database to record monitoring outcomes and management actions and make data publicly available (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-2025_DRAFT.pdf, p.72). Without that database, annual reporting risks remaining a list of activities rather than an evidence loop that shows which interventions are improving condition, connectivity or species persistence (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.72-74). The Council Plan Year One Action Plan also anticipates that Year One will capture baselines for biodiversity indicator areas, which confirms that some measurement architecture still needs to be established after adoption (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.25-26).

Climate, Bushfire and Planning Tensions

Climate change is not a background issue in the refresh; it changes the operating conditions for biodiversity, infrastructure and settlement management (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.60-61). Council’s climate resilience submission states that the shire is expected to become warmer and drier, infrastructure will need to withstand three times as many days above 38 degrees annually by 2040, annual rainfall is likely to decline, and heavy rainfall events are expected to increase (Source: web-research-L0-206-macedon-ranges-shire-council-redacted-pdf-a5a83c23f3.txt, p.2). The same submission states that bushfire season is predicted to extend by up to six weeks and into late April by 2050 (Source: web-research-L0-206-macedon-ranges-shire-council-redacted-pdf-a5a83c23f3.txt, p.2).

The planning tension is that biodiversity strategy favours more vegetation retention, revegetation and connectivity, while bushfire planning controls prioritise life safety and can enable vegetation removal for defendable space (Source: web-research-L0-206-macedon-ranges-shire-council-redacted-pdf-a5a83c23f3.txt, p.14). The draft tries to manage this by keeping Environment Unit involvement in municipal fire management planning, community education, roadside slashing and planned burns as ongoing work (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.67-68). This is a governance mechanism rather than a full resolution: the strategy cannot remove the primacy of bushfire life-safety policy, but it can improve the quality of vegetation decisions inside fire, roadside and reserve management processes (Source: web-research-L0-206-macedon-ranges-shire-council-redacted-pdf-a5a83c23f3.txt, p.14; Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.67-68).

Relationship to Other Strategies and Place-Based Plans

The refresh is aligned with Shaping the Ranges 2025-2035, whose Our Environment theme includes restoring native vegetation, reducing environmental risks in land use planning, reducing pest and weed impacts, supporting sustainable agriculture, and integrating evidence-based environmental management with Traditional Owner and community knowledge (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, p.20). The Council Plan Year One Action Plan specifically includes reviewing and updating the Biodiversity Strategy and commencing implementation, and it also includes improving biodiversity of the Upper Maribyrnong Catchment (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.13-14). The Climate Emergency Plan action tracker on Council’s strategies page separately records continued implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy as commenced, indicating that biodiversity delivery is already embedded in climate action reporting (Source: web-research-L0-biodiversity-strategy-final-adoption-material-evidence-84f1ebef69.txt).

The Open Space Strategy consultation material in the December agenda shows a live policy overlap: multiple submitters argued for stronger biodiversity recognition, protection of Public Conservation and Resource Zone reserves, waterway biodiversity linkages and integration with the Biodiversity Strategy (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.205-206). This matters because open space policy can shift land between recreation, tourism, conservation and access functions, while the biodiversity strategy treats some reserves as conservation assets requiring ecological management (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.205-206; Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.46-49). The Ash Wednesday Park Master Plan is a smaller example of the same interface because it considers natural environmental attributes, cultural history and connectivity in a local open-space setting, although it is not a major biodiversity strategy source (Source: master-plan-ash-wednesday-park.pdf, pp.2-5).

The Arts and Culture Strategy sources are thin for this biodiversity page, but they show that Macedon Ranges policy documents repeatedly frame natural environment, cultural identity and Traditional Owner history as linked municipal values (Source: arts-culture-strategy-2018-2028.pdf, pp.3-5; Source: arts-culture-strategy-background.pdf, pp.1-8). These documents do not add operational biodiversity controls, so they should be treated as context rather than delivery evidence (Source: arts-culture-strategy-2018-2028.pdf; Source: arts-culture-strategy-background.pdf).

Current Status

As at the latest source material, the Biodiversity Strategy Refresh is not finally adopted (Source: web-research-L0-biodiversity-strategy-final-adoption-material-evidence-bae964d4ed.txt). Council resolved on 17 December 2025 to release the updated draft for consultation, and the Your Say page records the second consultation round running from 18 December 2025 to 15 February 2026 (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.14; Source: web-research-L0-biodiversity-strategy-final-adoption-material-evidence-bae964d4ed.txt). The next procedural step is consideration of second-round feedback, internal briefings, updating the draft as required, and tabling the final document at a future Council meeting for adoption (Source: web-research-L0-biodiversity-strategy-final-adoption-material-evidence-bae964d4ed.txt).

Dependencies

  • Blocks: The refresh does not legally block permit decisions, but it delays final policy clarity for biodiversity impact assessments, updated land management plan guidelines, local policy review, illegal native vegetation reporting, the refreshed monitoring database and post-2025 action priorities until adoption (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.64-72).
  • Blocked by: Final adoption is blocked by completion of the second consultation round, officer review of submissions and a further Council adoption decision (Source: web-research-L0-biodiversity-strategy-final-adoption-material-evidence-bae964d4ed.txt).
  • Informed by: The refresh is informed by the internal review of the 2018 strategy, community feedback, updated threatened species listings, changes to the FFG Act, climate change risks and existing local plans including the Environment Strategy, Climate Emergency Plan, Roadside Conservation Management Plan and reserve EMPs (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.9-10, 20-27, 64).
  • Implements: It implements the Our Environment theme of Shaping the Ranges 2025-2035 and aligns with the Council Plan Year One action to review, update and begin implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, p.20; Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.13-14).
  • Conflicts with: It operates in tension with bushfire controls and vegetation removal exemptions where life-safety policy can override biodiversity retention, and with open-space recreation objectives where conservation reserves are also valued for access and visitor use (Source: web-research-L0-206-macedon-ranges-shire-council-redacted-pdf-a5a83c23f3.txt, p.14; Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.205-206).

The strategy spans three catchment management contexts: North Central CMA, Melbourne Water/Port Phillip and Westernport, and Goulburn Broken CMA (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.15, 40). It also depends on Traditional Owner engagement with Dja Dja Wurrung, Taungurung and Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung peoples, who are recognised as Registered Aboriginal Parties for land encompassing Macedon Ranges Shire (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.14, 16-20). Major public land and waterway outcomes require coordination with Parks Victoria, DEECA, VicTrack, V/Line, water authorities, VicRoads and community environment networks because Council directly controls only part of the land and infrastructure relevant to biodiversity movement (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.30, 40, 46-49).

Gaps in This Analysis

The main gap is final adoption material: the corpus contains the draft strategy, Council’s consultation resolution and the Your Say timeline, but not the final adopted strategy, final officer report responding to second-round submissions, or adopted action plan changes after consultation (Source: 17-december-2025-scheduled-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.14; Source: web-research-L0-biodiversity-strategy-final-adoption-material-evidence-bae964d4ed.txt). The second gap is submission detail: the Your Say page summarises first-round issues as private land conservation, urban development, habitat connectivity and restoration, weeds and wildlife road trauma, but the corpus does not include the underlying individual submissions or a full second-round engagement report (Source: web-research-L0-biodiversity-strategy-final-adoption-material-evidence-bae964d4ed.txt). The third gap is implementation cost: the action plan uses broad resource bands, but it does not provide a consolidated five-year budget, staff capacity model or funded capital works schedule for reserves, roadsides, monitoring or private land programs (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy_-2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.66-72). The fourth gap is spatial precision: the draft includes maps and biolink descriptions, but the extracted text does not provide GIS layers, parcel-level priorities or measurable corridor-width targets, limiting analysis of which land parcels carry the highest delivery burden (Source: Refreshed_Biodiversity_Strategy-_2025_DRAFT.pdf, pp.44-46, 82-102).

Graph View