title: Macedon Ranges Housing Target of 13,200 Additional Dwellings by 2051 council: macedon-ranges state: vic category: strategy classification: MAJOR status: active last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf
Macedon Ranges Housing Target of 13,200 Additional Dwellings by 2051
Macedon Ranges Shire Council has treated the State-assigned housing target of 13,200 additional homes by 2051 as a governance and infrastructure-capacity issue, not merely as a numerical growth objective. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16) The immediate planning significance is that Council has formally asked the Minister for Planning to clarify when the target starts, what baseline it is measured against, which housing types count, how State-intervened approvals are attributed, and how infrastructure delivery will be monitored against mandated growth. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17)
The available source base is thin: the corpus contains a council minutes record of the resolution, but not the State target methodology, township-level baseline data, infrastructure-capacity datasets, or any Ministerial response. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17) This page therefore analyses the mechanism created by Council’s resolution, the practical uncertainties it identifies, and the planning risks that remain unresolved until the requested State response and July 2026 public report are available. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.17)
Background
At its 25 February 2026 meeting, Macedon Ranges Shire Council considered Notice of Motion No. 13/2025-26, titled “Housing Targets.” (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16) The motion was moved by Cr Cassy Borthwick, seconded by Cr Rob Guthrie, and carried as Resolution 2026/16. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16)
The resolution requests that the CEO write to the Minister for Planning, with copies to the Minister for Housing and Building, the Minister for Local Government, and the Local State Member for Macedon. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16) The purpose of the correspondence is to seek detailed clarification about Macedon Ranges Shire Council’s assigned housing target of 13,200 additional housing by 2051. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16) Council framed the clarification request around the need for mandated growth to be measurable, trackable, and constrained within available and planned infrastructure capacity. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16)
The motion sits beside other growth-management issues recorded in the same meeting. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.15-16) In Notice of Motion No. 12/2025-26, Council acknowledged correspondence from the Executive Director, State Planning Assessment and Facilitation dated 22 November 2024 regarding the Development Facilitation Program for the Clarkefield Growth Area. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.15) That Clarkefield motion recorded that the Minister for Planning had determined a request from ADP Projects that she become the planning authority for the amendment. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.15) The same motion described a proposal for 2,000-plus lots at Clarkefield and asked the Minister to communicate the proposal to the public because of its scale, township-amenity implications, rural-character implications, and relationship to the Macedon Ranges Statement of Planning Policy’s shire-wide approach to managing growth. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.15-16)
This context matters because the 13,200-home target is not operating in isolation. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.15-17) Council is simultaneously dealing with State-intervened growth-area processes, a major proposed township-scale development at Clarkefield, and unresolved questions about whether State-led approvals count toward the municipal target. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.15-17)
Analysis
The Target Is a Measurement System Before It Is a Delivery System
Council’s resolution identifies a basic sequencing problem: a housing target cannot be managed unless the baseline, activation date, counting rules, and review process are known. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16) In simple terms, the target is like a scoreboard where Council has been told the final score to reach by 2051, but has not yet been given the starting score, the date the game begins, or the rulebook for what counts as a point. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16)
Council specifically asks for the activation date for the municipal housing target, the housing baseline for the whole municipality, and the housing baseline for each township on that date. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16) Those three pieces of information determine whether the 13,200 figure functions as a shire-wide aggregate only or as a target capable of being monitored geographically across settlements. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16) Without township-level baselines, Council cannot know whether delivery is occurring in settlements with planned capacity, infrastructure capacity, and policy support, or whether growth is being counted in places where the local planning framework intends a more constrained role. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17)
The requested review cycle, triggers, data sources, and validation process are equally important. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16) If the State’s baseline or pipeline data is not open to correction, Council may be required to plan against numbers it cannot verify. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16) If review triggers are unclear, changes in approvals, lapsing permits, infrastructure constraints, or realised construction rates may not be reflected in the target-monitoring system quickly enough to guide land-use decisions. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17)
Counting Rules Could Change the Practical Size of the Target
Council’s motion asks the Minister to define “housing” for the purposes of the State target. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16) It also asks whether retirement living, aged care, land-lease communities, apartments, build-to-rent, tiny homes, townhouses, and stand-alone dwellings contribute to the target. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16) This is not a minor technicality: different housing categories create different infrastructure demands, household profiles, planning controls, built forms, and service needs. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16)
The definitional issue is visible elsewhere in the same minutes. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.6-8) Council considered Amendment C147macr and planning permit application PLN/2022/354 for a retirement village on land bound by Robertson Street, Neal Street and Hamilton Street in Gisborne. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.6) The officer report summary said the Planning Panel found the amendment and permit well founded, strategically justified, and capable of fulfilling an important role for the Gisborne community. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.6) The alternative motion to abandon the amendment argued that the proposal conflicted with the Gisborne/New Gisborne Framework Plan, Clause 11.01-1L, the Gisborne Outline Development Plan 2009, the structure plan, and Gisborne Futures as approved in July 2024. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.6-7)
The Benetas item shows why housing categories matter for the 13,200 target. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.6-8) If retirement living is counted as housing, a proposal of that kind may contribute to the municipal target even where local debate focuses on whether the site should remain reserved for civic, health, hospital, aged-care, community, or public-use functions. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.6-8) If retirement living is not counted, then the same proposal may affect land use and service planning without reducing the remaining target task. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.6-8)
Council also asks for the counting method, data source, and responsible reporting entity for each category. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16) This matters because a single development pathway can produce several administrative events: planning approval, building approval, commencement, completion, occupancy, and later changes in use. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16) Council asks the State to identify the milestone at which a dwelling is counted and the verification process used to prevent double counting or counting lapsed approvals. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16)
The mechanism is straightforward. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16) If dwellings are counted at planning approval, the target may show progress before construction or occupation occurs. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16) If dwellings are counted at occupancy, the target will align more closely with actual housing supply but will lag behind planning decisions. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16) Council’s request indicates that it wants the State to identify a single counting point and a verification process so that approvals, lapsed permits, and completed dwellings are not confused. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16)
State-Intervened Development Is the Key Governance Pressure
Council’s housing-target motion specifically asks how yields from Ministerial call-ins, State significant projects, or other State-intervened approvals are attributed to Macedon Ranges Shire Council. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17) This question is directly relevant because the same meeting records that the Minister for Planning had determined a request to become the planning authority for the Clarkefield Growth Area amendment. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.15)
The governance issue is not whether a State-led approval occurs inside the municipal boundary. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.15-17) The issue is how its dwelling yield is counted, updated, and connected to infrastructure-capacity decisions. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17) Council asks the Minister to clarify the data source, update frequency, and adjustment process where realised outcomes differ from assumptions. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.17) That request recognises that an estimated yield at amendment stage may not match final subdivision, construction, or occupancy outcomes. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.17)
Clarkefield is the concrete example available in the source set. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.15-16) Council’s Clarkefield motion refers to a proposal for 2,000-plus lots and asks the Minister to communicate the proposal to the public because the community needs to understand and provide feedback on the scale and detail of a new township proposed within the Shire. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.15-16) If those lots are counted toward the 13,200-home target, they may represent a substantial portion of the municipal delivery task. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.15-17) If they are counted without a clear infrastructure-capacity framework, the target may appear numerically achievable while service-delivery questions remain unresolved. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17)
Council also asks how infrastructure capacity is assessed in State-intervened decisions and whether Council may seek review where constraints exist. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.17) That is a statutory-governance question as much as a technical-planning question. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.17) If the State becomes the planning authority for a major amendment, Council may not control the amendment pathway, yet the municipality may still face local infrastructure, service-delivery, and settlement-planning consequences. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.15-17)
Infrastructure Alignment Is the Binding Implementation Test
Council’s stated purpose is to ensure that mandated growth is measurable, trackable, and constrained within available and planned infrastructure capacity. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16) The resolution then asks the Minister to identify the datasets and indicators the State will use to ensure infrastructure delivery keeps pace with housing growth. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.17) It also asks how gaps will be identified, reported, and addressed. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.17)
The practical mechanism is that a housing target can create land-use pressure before infrastructure is funded, sequenced, or delivered. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17) Council’s request tries to connect the housing-delivery scoreboard to an infrastructure-delivery scoreboard. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.17) Without that connection, a township can record approved or counted dwellings while roads, drainage, water, sewer, community facilities, open space, or local services lag behind. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.17)
The resolution also asks how the State will ensure mandated targets do not place Macedon Ranges Shire Council at a financial or service-delivery disadvantage. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.17) This is important because the target is assigned at a municipal level, while many infrastructure systems are delivered through separate State, regional, utility, council, developer-contribution, or project-specific pathways. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.17) The available minutes do not identify the State datasets, responsible agencies, funding pathways, or thresholds that would determine whether infrastructure is keeping pace with the 13,200-dwelling task. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.17)
Township-Level Data Is the Missing Spatial Layer
Council asks for the housing baseline for each township and later requires a public report with particular emphasis on township-level dwelling and pipeline data. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17) This indicates that the shire-wide number is not enough for local planning purposes. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17) A single municipal target can hide very different settlement outcomes depending on whether growth occurs in Gisborne, New Gisborne, Kyneton, Romsey, Riddells Creek, Clarkefield, smaller settlements, or dispersed rural areas. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.15-17)
The same minutes show that Council was considering site-specific and township-specific planning matters at the February 2026 meeting. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.6-11) These included the Gisborne retirement village amendment, a domestic animal husbandry permit in Romsey, a restricted recreation facility in Kyneton, and seven dwellings with seven-lot subdivision at Riddells Creek. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.6-11) These items are not equivalent in scale, but they show that housing delivery and settlement change are assessed through place-specific planning frameworks rather than through one undifferentiated municipal number. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.6-11)
The requested township-level pipeline data would allow Council to compare counted or forecast dwellings against local settlement policies, infrastructure capacity, and community-service planning. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17) Without that spatial layer, the 13,200 target cannot reliably show whether growth is aligned with the Macedon Ranges Statement of Planning Policy’s shire-wide approach to managing growth, which Council explicitly referenced in relation to Clarkefield. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.15-16)
Current Status
The initiative is active as a formal Council advocacy and reporting process. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17) On 25 February 2026, Council carried Resolution 2026/16 requesting that the CEO write to the Minister for Planning, with copies to the Minister for Housing and Building, the Minister for Local Government, and the Local State Member for Macedon. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16)
The next procedural milestone is a public report to a Council Meeting no later than July 2026. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.17) That report is required to summarise Ministerial responses, with particular emphasis on township-level dwelling and pipeline data, infrastructure alignment, and monitoring to track housing delivery and infrastructure milestones. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.17)
The source set does not include the outgoing CEO letter, any Ministerial reply, the State’s housing-target methodology, or the July 2026 report. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17) Until those documents are available, the implementation status of the 13,200-home target cannot be assessed beyond Council’s formal request for clarification. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17)
Dependencies
- Blocks: The resolution does not itself block housing approvals, but it identifies missing rules that affect how Council can monitor whether approvals, completions, and State-intervened projects contribute to the 13,200-home target. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17)
- Blocked by: Full analysis is blocked by the absence of the State’s activation date, municipal baseline, township baselines, counting rules, validation process, infrastructure indicators, and Ministerial response. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17)
- Informed by: The immediate source is Council’s 25 February 2026 minutes, including Resolution 2026/16 on housing targets and the related Clarkefield motion in Resolution 2026/15. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.15-17)
- Implements: The resolution responds to a State-assigned municipal housing target of 13,200 additional housing by 2051 and seeks to align that target with infrastructure capacity and monitoring. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17)
- Conflicts with: The minutes do not record a formal policy conflict, but they show tension between State-led housing delivery mechanisms, local settlement planning, infrastructure capacity, township amenity, and rural character. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.15-17)
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
The resolution addresses State-local coordination because it directs correspondence to the Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Building, Minister for Local Government, and Local State Member for Macedon. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16) The Clarkefield item also links the target issue to State Planning Assessment and Facilitation and the Minister for Planning’s role as planning authority for a growth-area amendment. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.15)
The source does not identify the water authority, transport agencies, drainage authorities, education providers, health-service agencies, or utility providers whose infrastructure programs would need to align with delivery of 13,200 additional dwellings by 2051. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17) The missing infrastructure datasets and indicators are central to the cross-jurisdictional analysis because Council has explicitly asked how the State will ensure infrastructure delivery keeps pace with housing growth. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.17)
Gaps in This Analysis
The critical gap is the State methodology for the 13,200 additional housing target, including the activation date, municipal baseline, township baselines, housing definitions, counting point, data source, reporting entity, and validation process. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.16) Without that methodology, this page cannot quantify how many additional dwellings remain to be delivered from the activation date, how the target is distributed across settlements, or whether particular housing categories reduce the remaining target task. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17)
A second gap is the absence of the Ministerial response requested by Council. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17) That response is needed to determine whether the State accepts Council’s requested framework for measurable, trackable, infrastructure-constrained growth. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.16-17)
A third gap is the July 2026 public report that Council requested from the CEO. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.17) That report should be treated as the next primary local source because it is expected to summarise Ministerial responses and focus on township-level dwelling and pipeline data, infrastructure alignment, and monitoring of housing and infrastructure milestones. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.17)
A fourth gap is the absence of primary material for the Clarkefield Growth Area, including the ADP Projects request, the Minister’s determination, the proposed amendment documentation, infrastructure assessments, public communication material, and any yield assumptions behind the 2,000-plus lot figure. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.15-16) That gap limits analysis because Clarkefield may materially affect how the shire-wide target is met, how State-intervened approvals are counted, and how infrastructure capacity is assessed. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, pp.15-17)
A fifth gap is the absence of infrastructure-capacity evidence. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.17) The available minutes record Council’s request for datasets and indicators, but do not provide capacity numbers, upgrade projects, delivery dates, responsible agencies, funding mechanisms, or thresholds for roads, drainage, water, sewer, community infrastructure, or other services. (Source: 25-february-2026-council-meeting-minutes-confirmed.pdf, p.17)
Production Caveat
This page identifies a major planning signal, but the current evidence base is not yet a complete technical package. Do not use it as final parcel-level or yield-level advice until the missing primary reports named in the gaps section are present. The defensible use today is to identify the mechanism, dependencies, current known status and exact evidence still needed for a complete statutory planning view.