title: Mount Macedon Memorial Cross View Lines Project under Clause 52.30 council: macedon-ranges state: vic category: strategy classification: MINOR status: active last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf
Mount Macedon Memorial Cross View Lines Project under Clause 52.30
The Mount Macedon Memorial Cross View Lines Project is a small works proposal with a larger planning-system consequence: the project has moved from a locally refused vegetation-removal pathway to a Minister-supported State Project pathway under Clause 52.30-2 of the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.108). The available council agenda material does not provide the Minister’s decision notice, Parks Victoria’s application, technical vegetation assessment, or the final council resolution, so the analysis is strongest on statutory tension and source gaps, and weakest on the precise ecological quantum and approval conditions (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108-110).
Background
The project concerns vegetation removal associated with the Mount Macedon Memorial Cross view lines, with Parks Victoria identified in the council notices of motion as the applicant seeking State Project consideration (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108, 110). The same vegetation removal on the same land had previously been refused by Macedon Ranges Shire Council’s Planning Delegated Committee on 12 July 2023 (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108, 110). By April 2026, the Victorian Minister for Planning, Sonya Kilkenny MP, had determined to support the project as a State Project under Clause 52.30-2 of the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108, 110).
The matter appeared in the 22 April 2026 Scheduled Council Meeting agenda through two notices of motion: Notice of Motion No. 16/2025-26 by Councillor Jennifer Anderson and Notice of Motion No. 17/2025-26 by Councillor Daniel Young (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108, 110). Both motions recorded concern that Council was not notified that the Minister had received Parks Victoria’s application for State Project consideration (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108, 110). The Anderson motion went further by stating that Council had no opportunity to provide feedback as part of the Minister’s decision, while the Young motion sought an explanation and briefing on the assessment process and decision (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108, 110).
Analysis
Statutory Mechanism and Planning Effect
The important planning mechanism is not only the removal of vegetation; it is the change in decision pathway after a local refusal (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108, 110). In ordinary local decision-making terms, the Planning Delegated Committee’s 12 July 2023 refusal meant Council did not support a permit for the same vegetation removal on the same land (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108, 110). The later Ministerial support under Clause 52.30-2 means the proposal was instead treated through a State Project pathway, which Council considered significant enough to trigger two separate notices of motion at the 22 April 2026 meeting (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108-110).
The statutory tension is therefore procedural and environmental. Procedurally, Council’s agenda records that it was not notified of the Parks Victoria application before the Minister’s decision and, in one motion, that it had no opportunity to provide feedback (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108, 110). Environmentally, the notices state that the Ministerial approval allows removal of Snow Gums and that the proposal creates permanent biodiversity loss without a planned replacement or offset requirement (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108, 110).
Clause 52.30-5 is specifically identified as a point requiring explanation because the Anderson motion asked the Minister to publicly release details of how the application was assessed as complying with the consultation requirements in that clause (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.109). The same motion also asked the Minister to explain how the application was assessed as consistent with the Macedon Ranges Statement of Planning Policy, which indicates that Council saw the State Project decision as needing to be reconciled with the declared planning policy framework for the Macedon Ranges area (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.109).
Vegetation, Biodiversity and Offset Issue
The vegetation issue is centred on Snow Gums at Mount Macedon, not general tree loss (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.108). The Anderson motion states that the Mount Macedon Snow Gum populations are the highest altitude stands within the Shire and are documented as among the largest occurring outside eastern Victoria and the Alpine regions, citing the May 2022 Assessment of the Distribution, Health and Ecology of Snow Gum populations in the Macedon Shire (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.108). That is an important ecological qualifier because it frames the affected trees as part of a distinctive local population rather than as isolated vegetation (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.108).
The Anderson motion also identifies associated flora around the Snow Gums as different from other Snow Gum populations because of the area’s geology and montane climate, and states that the area includes several rare and threatened understory species (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.108). The motion states that removal of the Snow Gums will have a detrimental impact on those understory species, but the agenda extract does not quantify the number of Snow Gums, the area of native vegetation, the species affected, or the biodiversity score that would normally support an offset calculation (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.108).
The offset issue is the most concrete downstream mechanism. Both notices state that Parks Victoria has an exemption from native vegetation provisions or offset requirements under Clause 52.17, and both describe the consequence as permanent biodiversity loss without an offset requirement (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108, 110). The motions respond by seeking a hypothetical offset assessment: what biodiversity or vegetation offset would have been required if the project had not proceeded through the State Project pathway or if the exemption did not apply (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108, 110). The Anderson motion asks Parks Victoria to obtain a DEECA assessment and provide an offset within the Macedon Ranges local government area, while the Young motion asks the Minister to direct Parks Victoria to provide the same type of assessment and local offset response (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108, 110).
This creates a practical planning question: even where a statutory exemption removes a formal offset trigger, Council is seeking a like-for-like or local compensatory response so that environmental loss is not simply left as an unmitigated consequence of the State Project pathway (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108-110). The available material does not show whether Parks Victoria or the Minister accepted that request, whether DEECA prepared any offset assessment, or whether any offset site within Macedon Ranges was identified (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108-110).
Governance and Consultation Risk
The governance risk is that the Ministerial process appears, from Council’s agenda record, to have bypassed the local authority that had already made a refusal decision on the same vegetation removal (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108, 110). The council notices do not say that the State Project pathway was legally unavailable; instead, they challenge the transparency and consultation around how that pathway was used (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108-110). That distinction matters because the motions seek explanations, public release of assessment details, a briefing, and offset analysis rather than asking Council to recommence a local permit process (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108-110).
The Anderson motion is broader and more document-focused because it requests public release of the Minister’s assessment against Clause 52.30-5 and the Macedon Ranges Statement of Planning Policy (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.109). The Young motion is narrower and more briefing-focused because it asks for an explanation of why Council was not notified, a briefing on the assessment process and decision, and a Ministerial direction to Parks Victoria on the offset assessment (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.110). Both motions treat consultation failure and biodiversity mitigation as linked problems: if Council was not part of the process, it could not test whether local ecological values and local policy settings were properly weighed before approval (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108-110).
Planning Policy Tension
The Macedon Ranges Statement of Planning Policy is not included in the source set, but the Anderson motion expressly asks the Minister to explain consistency with it (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.109). That reference indicates that the project sits in a landscape where state-level policy recognition may be relevant to vegetation, landscape, heritage, and environmental values (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.109). The agenda does not provide the Statement’s objectives, the Minister’s consistency assessment, or any balancing exercise between view-line management and ecological protection (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.109).
The planning-policy tension can therefore only be stated cautiously. On the one hand, the project appears to be intended to manage view lines to the Mount Macedon Memorial Cross, which is the subject named in both notices of motion (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108, 110). On the other hand, Council’s motions present the affected Snow Gum and understory vegetation as locally significant biodiversity assets, with the Snow Gum population described as high-altitude, regionally distinctive, and associated with rare and threatened understory species (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.108). Without the Minister’s reasons, Parks Victoria’s application, and the ecological assessment, the available record does not show how visual, commemorative, access, safety, heritage, and biodiversity considerations were weighed (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108-110).
Current Status
As at the 22 April 2026 Scheduled Council Meeting agenda, the Minister for Planning had determined to support the project as a State Project under Clause 52.30-2, and Council had before it two notices of motion seeking correspondence with Parks Victoria and/or the Minister (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108-110). The agenda source does not include the meeting minutes, so it does not confirm whether either motion was carried, amended, lost, withdrawn, or consolidated (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108-110). The operational status of vegetation removal, any works timing, any DEECA assessment, and any offset response is not recorded in the source document (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108-110).
Dependencies
- Blocks: The available source does not show any land-use approval, subdivision, infrastructure staging, or development pathway blocked by this matter (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108-110).
- Blocked by: Council’s requested accountability actions depend on responses from Parks Victoria, the Minister for Planning, and potentially DEECA if an offset assessment is prepared (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108-110).
- Informed by: The agenda references a May 2022 Snow Gum assessment, but that assessment is not included in the manifest and cannot be independently analysed here (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, p.108).
- Implements: The source confirms use of the Clause 52.30-2 State Project pathway but does not include the Ministerial decision material explaining the statutory basis for that use (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108, 110).
- Conflicts with: The State Project pathway sits in tension with Council’s earlier 12 July 2023 refusal for vegetation removal on the same land and with Council’s concern that it was not notified of the Parks Victoria application before the Minister’s decision (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108, 110).
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
The source identifies three state-level or public-land agencies relevant to the matter: the Minister for Planning as decision-maker under the State Project pathway, Parks Victoria as the applicant identified in the notices, and DEECA as the agency from which Council sought a biodiversity or vegetation offset assessment (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108-110). The source does not identify an adjoining council, catchment authority, Traditional Owner organisation, Commonwealth environmental trigger, or regional biodiversity program linked to the project (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108-110).
Gaps in This Analysis
This page is based on one agenda item and should be treated as a thin-source analysis rather than a complete project record (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108-110). The missing documents are material because they would determine whether the State Project assessment was procedurally complete, whether the ecological loss was quantified, and whether any mitigation was required or voluntarily provided (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108-110).
Key missing documents are: the Minister’s Clause 52.30-2 decision or support instrument; Parks Victoria’s State Project application; the assessment against Clause 52.30-5 consultation requirements; the assessment of consistency with the Macedon Ranges Statement of Planning Policy; the 12 July 2023 Planning Delegated Committee refusal report and decision; the May 2022 Snow Gum distribution, health and ecology assessment; any vegetation-impact or arboricultural assessment for the view-lines works; any DEECA offset calculation; and the adopted minutes of the 22 April 2026 meeting confirming the fate of the two notices of motion (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108-110). These should be logged as gaps in _gaps because the available source identifies the statutory pathway and policy dispute but does not provide the technical basis needed to quantify vegetation loss, offset liability, or consultation compliance (Source: 22-april-2026-scheduled-meeting-agenda.pdf, pp.108-110).