Source: VIF23; Plan for Victoria
Note: Western metropolitan region includes the LGAs of Brimbank, Hobsons Bay, Maribyrnong, Melton, Moonee Valley, and Wyndham. Housing capcity target figures (which represent additional dwellings) for each LGA have been added to VIF23’s 2026 dwelling forecasts to derive a total dwelling figure for housing capacity targets
What to use for infrastructure planning
Where does this leave councils and other infrastructure providers trying to manage scarce financial resources to best serve their communities? Infrastructure decisions depend on both timing and scale. The targets indicate how much capacity to plan for, but not when it will be taken up. VIF23 does speak to timing, but is dated. Should planning be based on the housing targets, VIF23, or something else?
For infrastructure planning, one way to (partly) resolve this dilemma is to distinguish between ‘trunk’ infrastructure such as roads, drains, and public open space, and ‘local’ infrastructure such as kindergartens, libraries, and community health services.
For trunk infrastructure, it makes sense to align strategic planning with housing capacity targets. After all, housing capacity designated in a Planning Scheme cannot be deemed to be genuinely developable – or, in the language of Clause 16.01-1S, 'realisable' – if it cannot be supported, now or in the future, by roads, drains and open space. These networked infrastructure types are lumpy and land-hungry, and must be planned early.
Once an area is built out, expanding roads, upsizing drainage, or creating more open space is costly at best, and impossible at worst. Safeguarding land and sizing networks to higher capacity isn't wasteful. It’s necessary futureproofing that ensures growth can continue to be accommodated even beyond a projection horizon.
Planning for local infrastructure is less clear-cut. Local infrastructure can also carry land requirements, and suitable sites can be just as lumpy and hard to secure later in the development cycle. However, councils generally have more options for local infrastructure than for trunk infrastructure; alternatives to the traditional delivery model of a dedicated site and a purpose-built building are now commonplace.
Services can be delivered from leased premises, co-located in shared or multi-purpose facilities, or incorporated into new housing developments. Providers can also scale up services through programmatic changes, such as extending opening hours or delivering services through outreach.
These options mean councils do not necessarily need to reserve land to meet housing-capacity targets for local infrastructure. Instead, investment in service delivery and operation should be staged according to projected population over the planning period. This avoids committing precious funds to facilities and programs ahead of demand that may not eventuate. And if land needs have been addressed and/or alternative models are available, planning for current and near-term residents need not compromise councils’ ability to respond to future demand, even if that demand exceeds current projections.
What counts as a reasonable projection?
In short, councils should plan trunk infrastructure to the housing capacity targets, but local infrastructure delivery should be planned in alignment with reasonable projections of the future population.
What are ‘reasonable projections’? Typically, ones that estimate the most likely future using current trends as a starting point, take into account policy reforms and city-shaping projects that are already underway or committed, and are updated regularly as new development data becomes available. VIF23, the only official set currently available, meets the first requirement but not the second or third. Until a new release, forecasts that adjust for these changes, including SGS's own, offer a sound alternative for service planning.
