Warragul and Drouin DCP Review

Warragul and Drouin DCP Review

Directions Paper

Baw Baw Shire Council

April 2020

Level 2, 299 Clarendon Street South Melbourne VIC 3205 office. +61 3 9070 1166 I meshplanning.com.au

Warragul and Drouin DCP Review Directions Paper

Baw Baw Shire Council

April, 2020

Client Baw Baw Shire Council

Project Warragul and Drouin DCP Review

Version 1.2

Prepared By Laura Caccamo and Leah Wittingslow

Date April 2020

Copyright © Mesh Livable Urban Communities 2020

This document is subject to copyright. The use and copying of this document in whole or in part, other than as permitted by M esh constitutes

an infringement.

Disclaimer

All professional care has been taken to ensure that the content of this report is current and accurate. However, it is not purported that it is

complete, and it is not guaranteed that the content of the report is f ree from errors. Mesh accepts no liability for error, loss, damages or other

consequences arising from reliance on information contained in this report.

Level 2, 299 Clarendon Street South Melbourne VIC 3205 office. +61 3 9070 1166 I meshplanning.com.au

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Context .................................................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Current context ...................................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Expected benefits of the review ............................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Project methodology ............................................................................................................................... 3

2 DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT .......................................................................................................................... 5

3 OVERVIEW OF DCPS .................................................................................................................................. 8 3.1 Attributes underpinning the preparation of the Warragul and Drouin DCPs ................................................ 8 3.2 What has been collected to date? ............................................................................................................ 9 3.3 Impacts of changes to existing permits .................................................................................................. 10 3.4 Comparative analysis ........................................................................................................................... 10

4 ENGAGEMENT OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 13

5 THEMES OF KEY ISSUES ......................................................................................................................... 17

6 OVERVIEW OF ISSUES ............................................................................................................................. 18 6.1 Agency standards ................................................................................................................................. 18 6.2 Land take discrepancies ....................................................................................................................... 19 6.3 DCP projects questioned ...................................................................................................................... 21 6.4 Cost discrepancies ............................................................................................................................... 22 6.5 Internal policies and procedures ............................................................................................................ 23

7 ACTION PLAN........................................................................................................................................... 24

8 NEXT STEPS............................................................................................................................................. 25

9 APPENDIX 1 ............................................................................................................................................. 26 9.1 WARRAGUL DCP – DCP PROJECT SPECIFIC ISSUES ......................................................................... 26 9.2 DROUIN DCP – DCP PROJECT SPECIFIC ISSUES ............................................................................... 39

10 APPENDIX 2 ............................................................................................................................................. 49 10.1 Warragul – Issues ...................................................................................................................... 49 10.2 Drouin – Issues ......................................................................................................................... 50

Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 1

1 INTRODUCTION

Mesh Planning has been engaged by Baw Baw Shire Council to undertake a comprehensive review of

the Warragul and Drouin Development Contributions Plans (DCP).

The Warragul and Drouin Precinct Structure Plans (PSPs) and DCPs were gazetted and incorporated

into the Baw Baw Planning Scheme in 2014 and are now due to be reviewed and updated as p art of

the five yearly review period specified in the DCPs (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

Council is also undertaking a review to both PSPs concurrently. Mesh and Council officers on both

PSP and DCP review projects are working closely together to ensure these reviews are aligned.

1.1 Purpose

1.1.1 The Project

The overall purpose of this project is to review and update both DCPs and implement the revised

documents into the Baw Baw Planning Scheme, through a planning scheme amendment. Council and

the development community have had the benefit of progressively implementing these documents over

the last five years and there are some emerging issues and discrepancies that have surfaced. This

project provides an opportunity to address these issues holistically.

The key elements of this project are:

• Assessing project scope and costs to ensure they are appropriate and deliverable;

• Achieving an appropriate balance between any increase in costs and overall affordability of the

DCP levies;

• Assessing potential conflicts between DCP project scope and agency standards;

• Correcting anomalies / errors within the DCPs;

• Identifying and addressing cost gaps in the DCP projects;

• Identifying issues and challenges associated with infrastructure delivery;

• Identifying risks to Council and the development community; and

• Analysing Council’s current framework for implementing and administering DCPs.

Figure 1 Warragul DCP Figure 2 Drouin DCP


This review will attempt to update the documents to a point that addresses the key areas of

contention, to deliver two amended DCPs that are user-friendly, fair and affordable.

1.1.2 The Directions Paper

The purpose of this Directions paper is to provide a thorough recording of the issues and discrepancies

identified through this process and provide strategic recommendations for addressing some of the key

challenges.

A substantial amount of work went into preparing both DCPs in terms of undertaking specific designs

and costings and therefore each DCP is underpinned by a robust evidence base. It is not within the

scope of this review to reassess every aspect from the beginning. This review will continue to leverage

off the body of work already undertaken with the intent of improving the documents.

1.2 Context

Preparation of each PSP and DCP was undertaken by Baw Baw Shire Council with the assistance from

the Victorian Planning Authority - VPA (formerly Metropolitan Planning Authority - MPA). As these

DCPs were the first prepared for the Gippsland region, Council required some additional support from

those with expertise and technical experience in preparing DCPs. The VPA provided that assistance at

that point in time.

Each PSP and respective DCP was underpinned by the Baw Baw Settlement Management Plan (2014)

which identified Warragul and Drouin as areas suitable to develop as “sustainable high-growth

settlements”. These areas had experienced growth pressure for many years, dating back to 2005 when

the Growth Management Strategy identified these areas as locations for long-term population growth.

Each DCP was thoroughly prepared with inputs from local and state government and contained the

necessary strategic justification to be implemented into the Baw Baw Planning Scheme.

These documents were implemented into the Baw Baw Planning Scheme through a simplified

amendment process which utilises provisions of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, known as

Section 20(4). This process enables the Minister to amend a planning scheme, wi th exemptions from

the standard notice requirements. This means the Minister had the authority to implement the Drouin

and Warragul DCPs into the Baw Baw Planning Scheme without first needing to notify the public or go

through an independent Panel Hearing. However, it is acknowledged that during preparation of the

PSP and the DCP, extensive informal consultation was undertaken with stakeholders, including

government and service agencies, and the development community.

Because these documents weren’t put before a Panel, they didn’t have the opportunity to be thoroughly

analysed and this is one of the reasons some issues and discrepancies weren’t identified and resolved

earlier.

1.3 Current context

This review is an opportunity to correct errors and resolve some of the prevalent issues that have

emerged over the past few years. This review will focus on DCP matters only, specifically DCP

projects, costs, infrastructure delivery and anything contained in the existing DCP documents. While

the outcomes of this project will align with the PSP review, each project will be addressing different

matters. The PSP review process will be broader and focus on land uses, development outcomes,

density, character, environmental matters, open space etc.

Some of the key challenges which have emerged since the documents were implemented are:

• Discrepancies in project scope and costs for various projects and specifically in relation to

expectations and standards required by the Roads Authority for infrastructure projects which

concern that agency;

• Use of standard 2 dimensional functional layouts did not fully capture the impact of topography

on infrastructure designs and costs;

• Some projects contain insufficient land area to accommodate the proposed infrastructure

design;


• Partial and interim delivery of infrastructure projects has added complications to

implementation;

• Relocation of DCP projects has had impacts on the serviceability of particular land parcels;

and

• Relocation of DCP projects and certain land uses requires changes to the land budget of the

DCP.

The key issues identified have contributed in some form or another to the impact on development

progress and additionally presented some risks to Council along the way. This paper provides some

strategic recommendations for addressing the challenges and key issues identified.

1.4 Expected benefits of the review

There are a number of anticipated benefits to undertaking this health check to both DCPs, such as:

• Correcting basic document errors;

• Achieving a more user friendly document;

• Resolving key issues which are preventing development progress;

• Providing the general public and development community an opportunity to be involved in the

process;

• Improvements to Council’s internal approach to implementation of DCPs.

Any amendments to the DCPs will need to be mindful of, and balanced against overall impacts on

affordability.

1.5 Project methodology

The project is being undertaken in five stages and finalisation of this Directions Paper will conclude

stage two (refer to Figure 3).

The initial two stages of the project have centred around information collection by reviewing material

and engaging with a range of stakeholders, all of which have a vested interest in thi s review process.

Mesh has been working closely with Council officers from various departments such as Priority

Development, Strategic Planning, Statutory Planning, Property and Finance. Implementation and

administration of DCPs extends beyond the respons ibility of the planning department which is why it’s

important to have representatives from these different areas in Council involved in this process.

This Directions Paper identifies the work that needs to be undertaken in stage three, before each DCP

is amended in draft form and exhibited for public review as part of stage four.

Stage three will involve testing a range of scenarios in respect to the impact on the overall DCP levy

rate, as various projects are re-costed and errors rectified. It is intended that the DCPs maintain their

affordability (relative to growth area councils) and this process will allow a range of options to be

tested in advance of amending the documents.


Figure 3 Project overview


2 DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT

Development is currently being carried out in accordance with the PSP and DCP which applies to each

area. Figure 4 and Figure 5 show spatially where development is progressing using current permit

data. These plans show pending and approved permits within and outside the DCP area. It is important

to note that some of these permits contain a significant number of stages and may be delivered over a

5 – 10 year development horizon relative to the rate of absorption.

Drouin is expected to accommodate 7,403 new dwellings and 18,500 new residents. While Warragul

has a much larger developable land area and will accommodate approx imately 12,574 dwellings and

30,000 new residents over the next 25 years.

It is understood that the majority of residential subdivision development in Drouin is controlled by one

developer that is not contingent on pre-sales to progress development staging, which can lead to

misconceptions regarding the perceived rate of growth.

In understanding the status of permits across both areas, its is important to note that there are a

number of subdivision permits where there are disagreements over works-in-kind (WIK), which relate to

costs and design standards.


Figure 4 Warragul - Permits


Figure 5 Drouin - Permits


3 OVERVIEW OF DCPS

In reviewing these DCPs, it is important to understand how they were formulated, and the assumptions

used to underpin certain decisions. Table 1 provides an analysis and breakdown of each DCP.

Table 1 - Overview of DCP Charges

Warragul DCP

(residential)*

Drouin DCP

(residential)* Observations

Transport $7,303 $12,430

Recreation $23,518 $20,414

Community $12,586 $11,517

Drainage $27,321 -

Drouin DCP is within the

Melbourne Water Drainage

Scheme and therefore does not

fund drainage infrastructure.

DCP

Preparation $46 $61

Total standard

levy charge $70,773 $44,423

The standard levy charge

excludes local transport charges

which demonstrates the relatively

low rate of the DCP levy if local

transport projects were excluded

and undertaken as developer

works.

Local

transport $69,564 $89,766

Warragul DCP is funding 49% of

local transport projects and

Drouin DCP is funding 68% of

local transport projects.

Total

supplementary

levy charge

$69,564 $89,766

Local transport projects are not

usually funded under a DCP, they

are typically developer funded.

Total charge $140,337 $134,189

*rates sourced directly from 2014 documents. Not indexed.

3.1 Attributes underpinning the preparation of the Warragul and Drouin DCPs

Each DCP, was prepared based on the following:

• 20(4) amendment – a fast track process employed by the Minister to implement the DCPs without

notifying the broader community or going through a panel hearing. This has had implications on the

understanding of the documents by the community and developers and means many aspects of

each DCP were not evaluated by an independent panel. A 20(4) process was considered

appropriate in this context given the strategic importance of planning for growth in the area, and

the extensive ‘informal’ consultation undertaken with stakeholders.

• A single Main Catchment Area (MCA) – An MCA is the area that each infrastructure project

benefits (i.e. that there is a demonstrated need and nexus between the land in the MCA and the

infrastructure project). The MCA is then used as the basis for calculating the proportional charges

to the development area. In each DCP, a single MCA has been adopted, even though many of the


projects will only have a localised benefit (particularly local connector roads and intersections).

This decision was taken to ensure the DCP was able to be practically implemented, and to ensure

equitable DCP costs across each of the respective growth areas. Given local infrastructure was

provided across all parts of the growth area, it is likely that the costs of localised infrastructure

‘balances out’ across the MCA.

• Functional Layout Plans prepared as 2D – Preparation of 2D functional layouts are considered

an appropriate standard of justification for DCP costings in most situations. However, Baw Baw

has more topographic constraints than most other areas, and as such, 2D designs have impacted

on the feasibility of delivering the proposed designs (in terms of scope, land area and costs) as

they did not adequately consider topography.

• Intersection and road designs were prepared using ‘absolute minimum’ design criteria– the

Road Authority has since asserted that they generally only accept ‘absolute minimum’ design

criteria when faced with some physical constraint to achieving the ‘desirable minimum’. As such,

there have been challenges at time of development in achieving Roads Authority approval for

arterial road intersection designs in accordance with the DCP.

• Local roads and intersections included and funded by the DCPs – A large number of local

roads and intersections were included in the DCP (construction only, not land costs). In most

DCPs, these projects are usually undertaken as developer works, however, it is understood that a

decision was taken to include these roads given the high degree of land fragmentation, and to

facilitate orderly coordination of infrastructure that crosses property boundaries.

• Land take costs only included for arterial road intersections – Land take costs for local

intersections and roads are not funded by the DCP, even if they are included as construction

projects. This is not unusual, as the land for these projects would have normally been a

‘development cost’. However, developers in Warragul and Drouin seem to have an expectation

that the DCP will fund these standard costs, and that planning tools or Council intervention will be

used to assist with negotiating access. It is noted that other than in extreme circumstances,

negotiating access to land in growth areas is usually the responsibility of the developer.

3.2 What has been collected to date?

Each DCP area has progressively developed over the last five years as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5

where there are a number of permits pending or issued. These permit areas are usually in stages,

where land is subdivided, and infrastructure is progressively delivered. Before a developer can finalise

construction of a stage of development, Council must issue ‘Statement of Compliance’(SoC). At the

time of SoC, a developer is obligated under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to pay the DCP

levy to Council as the collection agency. This levy is payable on any land within the DCP area

considered developable, known as Net Developable Area (NDA).

A component of the subdivision process which enables Council to ensure a developer has

complied with any agreements or conditions in their planning permit.

Table 2 Statement of Compliance Statistics for Warragul and Drouin

Warragul Drouin

SoC issued (hectares) 116 ha 9.6 ha

% of total residential NDA 10.38% 1.5%

Table 2 provides a snapshot of the proportion of land that has received SoC in Warragul and Drouin. It

is important to note that any changes to the DCP will only be applicable to future stages of

development (unless mutually agreed between Council and the developer) ; it is understood that

charges for increased levies cannot be retrospectively applied (i.e. to development that has already

achieved SOC), nor can the total increase in DCP project costs be apportioned equally across future

development. Any increase in levies that would have been apportioned to existing development may


become the responsibility of Council (the ‘gap’) or to the developer (or Authority) who has a direct

nexus.

In addition to the areas that have achieved SOC, there are also a number of developments in progress

that have entered into Section 173 agreements to confirm payment of future DCPs and delivery of

Works in Kind (WIK). WIK is generally implemented via reference to a Public Infrastructure Plan (PIP),

which identifies the projects to be delivered by the developer as part their development, and the total

credit amount.

Based on our initial review of current Section 173 agreements in Warragul and Drouin, which is not a

legal review, many will not need to be renegotiated as a result of changes to the DCP, given the

agreements refer to external documents (PIPs) endorsed by Council. However, the endorsed PIPs will

likely need to be reviewed. There will be costs incurred for any s.173 Agreement which requires

amendment following the DCP Review and these costs will need to be accounted for as part of the

budget.

Based on the recommendations later in this report, many of the WIK projects nominated in approved

PIPs will increase in scale (either in land area, construction cost or both). If that is the case, it would

be in the developer’s interest to renegotiate their PIPs, in order to access the higher credit value

associated with the WIK projects. The renegotiation process would be an opportunity to look at a

development holistically (i.e. including completed stages of development) in the context of overall

changes to the DCP (i.e. both DCP levies and WIK credits). As such, the ‘gap’ identified earlier,

regarding retrospective levies, could potentially be narrowed.

It is recommended that an audit be conducted of current Section 173 agreements, and that developers

that are likely to be affected are notified and invited to participate in a review of their agreements.

3.3 Impacts of changes to existing permits

There may be cases where changes to projects will impact on subdivision permits that have already

been approved (for example, where an intersection may change in scale, impacting the subdivision

design and total yield of development). While it is appreciated that this change may result in the need

for some redesign, which will be a cost to developers, it is also noted that the changes will ultimately

benefit developers where development progress has been stalled by DCP challenges. There may also

be a requirement to amend the drafting of existing permit conditions to reflect the DCP Review

changes.

We consider that these benefits outweigh the commercial costs to developers if the changes were not

implemented, and that many of these issues can be resolved through proactive discussion and

negotiation between the developer and Council . It is not recommended that the DCP or Council be

responsible for any commercial impacts on development as a result of the DCP changes. The

development community will have ample access to due process to minimise these impacts where

possible, by providing submissions to this Directions report, and ultimately via the Exhibition and Panel

process associated with the future Planning Scheme Amendment.

3.4 Comparative analysis

Of course, Warragul and Drouin are unique in terms of their context, pace of growth and the place-

space challenges faced (including substantial land fragmentation and topographic variation), however,

it is still useful to understand how the Warragul and Drouin DCPs compare to other DCPs in

neighbouring areas, and in other regional areas experiencing a fast pace of growth (refer to Figure 6).

Comparison between Warragul and Drouin

While Warragul and Drouin have similar DCP levies per hectare, it is important to note that Drouin

does not fund drainage through the DCP (drainage charges are levied separately via a Melbourne

Water DSS). Instead, the Drouin DCP includes a higher proportion of local transpor t infrastructure,

such as connector roads and intersections.


Comparison to neighbouring DCP areas

Warragul and Drouin are often compared to their neighbouring municipalities Casey and Cardinia.

Overall, the DCP per hectare levies in these metropolitan municipalities are substantially higher than

Warragul and Drouin, however, there are a number of key matters that should be recognised when

making a comparison:

- Metropolitan growth operates at a much faster pace, with a higher rate of sales, and often, is

developed by larger scale developers. These conditions enable developers to more easily

‘forward fund’ infrastructure

- The Casey and Cardinia DCPs focus on funding higher order infrastructure only, and do not

usually fund localised infrastructure. As such, the local transport infrastructure is delivered as

a standard ‘cost of development’.

- Metropolitan DCPs do not include funding for drainage (neither does Drouin). Charges for

drainage are levied through the relevant Melbourne Water DSS.

Comparison to fast growing regional DCP areas

DCPs in regional areas are subject to a high degree of variation, in terms of their overall per hectare

levy, and the projects contained within the DCP. For comparison purposes, we have shown below in

Figure 6 two very different DCPs in fast growing regional areas of Ballarat and Geelong.

These areas experience similar issues in terms of fragmentation of landholdings, involve smaller scale

developers and slower rates of sales than metropolitan Melbourne. While the Ballarat West DCP

includes a drainage component, the Lara West DCP in the Geelong region does not1.

Summary of Comparison

This comparison demonstrates that Warragul and Drouin are currently relatively affordable on a

comparative basis, but that the types of projects funded are substantially different to other comparable

DCPs.

Local transport projects such as connector roads and local intersections were included in each DCP.

As mentioned, funding local transport infrastructure is not entirely uncommon. However, compared to

other DCP’s which fund local transport, Warragul and Drouin are funding a much larger proportion of

local transport projects. This approach is justified in regional settings as it addresses funding and

delivery constraints resulting from land fragmentation and other land coordination issues.

1 Lara West requires developers to independently fund drainage works as a cost of development; there is no overarching DDS or drainage scheme that shares the cost.


Figure 6 DCP Rates comparison

34% 41%43%

35% 69%

26% 24%

65%59%

57%

24%

31%

5% 9%

42%

19%

50%

67%

1%

0%0%

O F F I C E R D C P

C L Y D E D C P C A R D I N I A C R E E K

S O U T H I C P

B A L L A R A T W ES T D C P

L A R A W EST D C P

W AR R A G U L D C P

D R O U I N D C P

DCP RATES COMPARISON

Community + recreation Transport Drainage Local transport DCP Preparation


4 ENGAGEMENT OVERVIEW

Between February and March 2020, Mesh Planning and Council facilitated workshops, meetings and

presentations with a range of stakeholders to provide information on the project being undertaken,

collect information and obtain advice where necessary.

This consultation-based approach saw Council, developers and agencies participate in this process

collaboratively, with a positive, solutions oriented approach.

Figure 7 Developer workshop


Table 3 provides an overview of the purpose of engaging each stakeholder and some of the notable

statements and information that was heard through this process. This information provides some

context for the issues that are discussed in Section 6.


Table 3 Engagement overview and outcomes

Stakeholder Purpose of engagement What did we hear through this engagement?

Baw Baw

Shire Council

To collect information,

reports, data and anecdotal

feedback on the pressure

points, errors, and

discrepancies that may need

to be addressed as part of

this review process.

• Council’s approach to prioritising infrastructure funding

and delivery is underpinned by a set of criteria, whereby

infrastructure must:

o Provide a community benefit;

o Unlock land;

o Have a significant cost saving;

o Avoid piecemeal delivery

• The above criteria is imbedded in the DCP

Implementation Policy which Council is currently

developing. This DCP Policy will contain a set of

principles to guide decision making by Council regarding

the implementation of the Warragul and Drouin DCPs.

• Developers that have obtained Council issued credits for

the delivery of an approved WIK DCP project/s will be

placed in a queuing system for repayment when Council

has accumulated funds in the applicable account in

accordance with the adopted DCP Policy.

• Historically, DCP projects have been conditioned in

planning permits and referred to in the Precinct

Infrastructure Plan (PIP) conditioned separately.

• The 20(4) amendment process lacked sufficient

engagement with the development community,

stakeholders and agencies to resolve issues. The

PSPs/DCPs for Drouin and Warragul are poorly

understood by external stakeholders.

• Council and developers experiencing ongoing issues

surrounding the design and appropriate location of

significant pieces of infrastructure in the DCP, especially

those that relate to RRV and do not accord with RRV’s

current design standards/expectations.

• Cross-sections in the PSP have a different standard than

the IDM, e.g. separated bicycle and walking paths, while

the IDM has shared paths. This was a deliberate

decision during the creation of the PSP to address town

character and diversity of streetscapes, but is causing

concerns2.

• Local intersections are not paying for land take –

generally $0 attributed to land for local intersections in

both DCPs, which is causing issues with developers

negotiating access to land.

2 The matter of cross-sections is being considered in more detail as part of the PSP review, having regard to neighbourhood character aspirations.


Local

developers

To collect information and

anecdotal feedback on the

pressure points and



this review process.

• Concerns surrounding the lack of certainty provided to

applicants on the timing of reimbursements for WIK –

this is a major concern for cashflow and overall project

delivery.

• Developers are facing a number of challenges

concerning RRV intersections as RRV are requiring

different intersection designs (larger roundabouts) to the

FLP designs in the DCP. Developers are considering

taking these matters to VCAT to force an outcome.

• Some developers are unable to secure access to land

for infrastructure projects (i.e. for intersections and

drainage). There appears to be an expectation that the

DCP and/or Council should be responsible for resolving

access to land.

• Developers are facing complications when proposing to

undertake interim or partial completion of infrastructure

projects, some of which are not in accordance with the

PSP.

Victorian

Planning

Authority

(VPA)

To provide information on the

project being undertaken and

understand some of the

assumptions and information

used when initially preparing

the DCPs.

• The DCPs adopted a different standard for

road/intersection designs, compared to the standards

used by RRV.

• VPA advise that allowing appropriate, low cost interim

intersection treatments could overcome the barrier of

constructing large, costly intersections early on. VPA

confirm interim treatments (that are not sacrificial works)

can still be considered in accordance with the DCP/PSP.

• VPA question whether different types of intersection

options could be explored, such as signalisation.

• VPA acknowledge there is tension associated with the

intersection designs in the DCP and RRV’s expectations.

They appreciate this tension is associated with the

designation of freight routes and balancing the design

speed expectations in rural areas vs. future urban areas.


Regional

Roads

Victoria (RRV)

To collect information and

anecdotal feedback on the

pressure points and



this review process and to

discuss specific project

issues that RRV are vested

in.

• RRV provided comments and a response to certain

project issues (refer to Appendix 1 for specific

responses).

• RRV requires intersection designs to be at a ‘desirable

minimum’ standard and they will not accept or approve

plans based on ‘absolute minimum’ standards. RRV

only accept ‘absolute minimum’ criteria when faced with

some physical constraint to achieving the ‘desirable

minimum’. RRV have also asserted that they don’t

accept the ‘stacking’ of ‘absolute minimum’ criteria

within the same design e.g. absolute minimum stopping

distance + absolute minimum clearance to roadside

hazards + absolute minimum lane width + absolute

minimum roundabout radius.

• RRV require intersections to cater for existing freight

movements, resulting in larger, more costly intersection

designs.

• RRV acknowledge that the existing DCP 2D designs do

not factor in topography.

• Require intersections to be designed to accommodate

80km speeds for freight movements, however the speed

limit is ultimately expected to reduce as development

progresses.

• All intersection designs must adhere to road safety

guidelines, particularly when considering speeds.

However, noted that a reduction in design speed to

reflect the future urban condition of the land would be

difficult.

Department of

Environment,

Land, Water

and Planning

(DELWP)

To provide information on the

project being undertaken and

obtain some advice on the

imminent amendment

process.

• DELWP agreed that this review process should attempt

to balance the strategic justification needs for an

amendment, with the need to update the document in a

timely manner, to avoid further development delays.

DELWP noted that there was substantial strategic

justification underpinning the original document. Where

possible, this should be leveraged.

West

Gippsland

Catchment

Management

Authority

(WGCMA)

To inform of the project being

undertaken and obtain advice

on some of the drainage

project issues for Warragul.

• WGCMA provided advice on a number of issues relating

to drainage projects in Warragul (refer to Appendix 1 for

specific responses).


5 THEMES OF KEY ISSUES

The purpose of this Directions report is to record and understand the range of issues, errors and

discrepancies associated with the DCPs which would need to be addressed as part of Planning

Scheme Amendment. As these issues were recorded, a series of themes began to emerge. These are

identified and explained further below and in Section 6 and are applied to specific project issues shown

in Appendix 1.

Agency standards - DCP projects which don’t accord with the standard or expectations of relevant

agencies, such as Regional Roads Victoria. These issues tend to have consequent impacts on land

area and cost of projects.

Land take discrepancies - Identified for DCP projects with insufficient land area to accommodate the

proposed design.

DCP projects questioned - The inclusion of particular DCP projects have been questioned as a result

of pending VCAT proceedings, review by proponents, independent traffic advice etc. Or there are

projects which are considered appropriate for inclusion in the DCP.

Cost discrepancies - Matters that are categorised as cost discrepancies contain issues with the

actual cost of the project and include matters relating to land acquisition requirements.

Internal policies and procedures - These issues are associated with Council’s internal approach to

implementing and administering DCPs.

Document errors - Basic errors in tables, plans, annotations in the DCP documents. These are shown

in Appendix 1.


6 OVERVIEW OF ISSUES

Through engagement with various stakeholders, including Council officers, it was clear that there were

a number of issues which need to be addressed as a priority in this rev iew. These select issues are

described below, with a recommended response to each and an overview o f the implications this

potential response will have on the DCP or development generally.

6.1 Agency standards

‘Absolute minimum’ standards used for intersection design

At the time the DCPs were being prepared, a traffic engineering firm (GHD) was engaged to prepare a

series of intersection designs at FLP level. These designs were prepared using ‘absolute minimum’

road design standards and were costed and included in the DCPs. The VPA chose to use ‘absolute

minimum’ design standards for all intersection projects as at the time there was a focus on urban

design outcomes in order to address township character objectives. It was also considered that the

‘absolute minimum’ better reflected the ultimate urban condition of development along these roads (i.e.

as opposed to providing a standard that catered for an interim ‘rural’ condition ).

Through engagement with RRV and the appreciation of some of the pain points for developers, we

understand that the design standards chosen by VPA at the time do not accord with RRV standards or

expectations for intersection designs for projects that concern that agency. In each DCP, there are a

number of major intersections which connect to arterial roads that require design approval from RRV

before construction can commence. So far, each intersection has failed to meet RRV’s expectations

and standards due to issues such as:

the existing freight functionality of the arterial road requires larger format intersections, and

there is a reluctance to disrupt freight in terms of vehicle speeds or routes.

the current ‘rural’ condition of adjoining land requires much higher design speeds than the

ultimate urban condition.

the topography of the land has not been adequately factored into the design.

RRV has worked closely with developers and Councils to communicate their expectations for how

these intersections should be designed. Because RRV is requiring intersections to be redesigned to a

‘desirable minimum’ standard factoring in topography (further explained below), this has resulted in a

substantial increase in the construction costs of these intersections. Redesigning these intersections to

accommodate RRV’s requirements means the intersections are substantially larger than initially

intended and therefore more land must be acquired to adequately accommodate the infrastructure.

There is ongoing contention between RRV, Council and developers on this issue, particularly as the

impact on intersection project costs are substantial (in some cases the costs are estimated to be at

least three times more than the amount specified in the DCP). It is understood that this continues to be

an ongoing, unresolved matter and developers have sought legal advice which in some cases may

result in appeals to VCAT being the logical next step recommended by that advice. The direction

undertaken by RRV has resulted in significantly higher infrastructure delivery costs in many instances,

which negatively impacts development budgets and impedes development activity.

There have been examples where developers have undertaken a significant design process over many

months for infrastructure where they have a permit requirement to deliver requiring RRV approval, only

to be refused consent by the agency at the end of a protracted negotiation process. Impacted

developers have been unable to commence development works or the refusal has brought the

development to a halt where works have already commenced requiring reprogramming, permit

amendments and redesign costs to be absorbed to enable development activity to conti nue.

Recommended response

This is a substantial issue that has been identified in this review and has been an ongoing challenge. It

is proposed to continue discussions with RRV through Stage 3 to reach a compromised solution on

some of these matters.


These discussions will centre around exploring the opportunity for proponents to deliver interim

standards of intersections to address funding constraints, as developers, particularly in regional

contexts, don’t have the capital to fund millions of dollars worth of infrastructure at the outset.

It is also recommended that Council and RRV explore options for funding revised designs of priority

intersections on arterial routes, to understand the full cost and land take impact of alternative designs.

Implications for DCP or development

It is likely that adopting a higher intersection design standard for arterial roads will result in a

significant increase in the per hectare DCP levy for both Warragul and Drouin. However, as this is a

substantial blockage to development, the benefits of a compromised solution may outweigh the costs.

The next phase of this project will explore a range of scenarios and the impact on overall DCP

affordability.

6.2 Land take discrepancies

Acquisition of land for DCP projects

Through engagement with the development community, issues were raised regarding access and

acquiring land for infrastructure projects, in particular drainage assets. Key issues related to roles and

responsibility in gaining access to land, and land values.

Roles and Responsibility

The development community appears to perceive that negotiating land access and acquiring land for

DCP projects should be the responsibility of Council. While ultimately, Council does have powers to

acquire land, this power is rarely exercised in growth areas, given the substantial costs in terms of

time, compensation and concerns with market intervention.

The general, and practical expectation in growth areas is that negotiating access to land for services

and infrastructure is a core component of land assembly, undertaken by the developer. The DCP

provides a mechanism to assist with these negotiations for certain projects by providing funding for

land. However, the funding is not provided to a level that would compensate an affec ted landholder if

compulsory acquisition powers were exercised (i.e. under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act

– known as LACA). This is generally accepted in situations where the affected land holder has already

received a substantial uplift in the value of their overall land parcel, by virtue of the land being rezoned

for urban development purposes.

During consultation, a number of developers suggested Council should identify a staged approach to

infrastructure delivery (similar to servicing authorities), to give certainty and confidence to development

and infrastructure sequencing. It is noted that this is not consistent with current Council policy to allow

development to progress on multiple fronts and to be led by market forces. A fixed sequence of

development would likely limit development to a few locations and would prevent development in other

areas. This raises other concerns with regard to competition and affordability, which are outside the

scope of this study.

A key challenge in Warragul and Drouin, however, is where land is required for infrastructure outside

the PSP/DCP area. These sites don’t have the benefit of overall uplift in value, and a more reasonable

compensation amount may be required to facilitate negotiations. Council may also consider playing an

active role in mediating and facilitating these negotiations, before resorting to compulsory acquisition

powers. These projects are identified in Appendix 1.

Land Values

Developers have noted that the land values contained within the DCP do not reflect current market

value for the land.

The DCP adopts a broad hectare land valuation methodology. This approach was common in

greenfield growth areas in 2014, at the time of preparation of the Warragul and Drouin DCP. However,

since that time, there has been a shift in the sophistication of land valuation methodologies.


It has been recognised that broad hectare valuations are a very simple and practical method where

there are large land parcels and where development potential is generally equitable across the DCP

area.

Where there is a high degree of land fragmentation, and where the development potential of individual

parcels is highly variable (such is the case in Warragul and Drouin), more site specific valuation

approaches are more appropriate from an equity and practicality perspective (i.e. a value closer to

market rates will better aid land access negotiations). It is also acknowledged that changes to projects

(i.e. scale and scope) may impact on the developable potential of the remainder of the parcel. These

impacts should be considered on a case by case basis in the next phase of this review and should be

used to inform the instructions to the valuer.

Since 2014, the Public Land Equalisation Method (PLEM) has been broadly adopted in a number of

DCPs. This approach uses a combination of broad hectare and site-specific valuations, as a means of

balancing the impacts of potentially inflated land values (mainly seen in metropolitan Melbourne) on

the overall affordability of the DPC. This approach is complicated to administer and is not

recommended in this case.


Roles and responsibility

It is recommended that Council and the development community engage in open and transparent

conversations about roles and responsibilities with regard to land assembly and land acquisition.

It is recommended that Council continue to facilitate development and DCP infrastructure in

accordance with their infrastructure priority list and DCP Implementation Policy. However, it is also

recommended that Council considers strategically facilitating the unlocking of land, under their set

criteria for prioritising infrastructure funding and delivery (i.e. avoids piecemeal delivery).

Land values

It is recommended that the DCP be recast with site specific land valuations (including land projects

located outside the DCP area), instead of broad hectare valuations. The instructions to the valuer will

need to have regard to the existing conditions of the land and the impact to the project NDA (i.e. noting

that the development potential of the remainder of the parcel may be compromised as a result of some

of the changes to DCP projects noted in the section below).


The above recommendations regarding roles and responsibilities are largely implementation

recommendations and will have limited impact on the DCP document.

A review of land values for projects outside the PSP area will result in an increase to land acquisition

costs and the overall DCP levy.

Topography was not considered in preparation of the DCPs

In preparing the Drouin and Warragul DCPs it is evident that topography was poorly considered. This

has resulted in a number of DCP projects across both areas containing unfeasible and inaccurate

designs. This has had an impact on connector road projects, intersection projects, drainage projects

and sporting reserve projects.

Not only is this impacting on the DCP project designs and delivery, it also suggests that topography

wasn’t properly considered across the board and the developability of some properties is inaccurate.

For example, some areas are low lying, and not able to be developed due to flooding constraints,

whereas other areas are too steep to reasonably develop. Topography also has substantial impacts on

a property’s ability to meet density targets set in the PSP.

Furthermore, it is also acknowledged that the costings and land areas for active open space did not

take into consideration topographic constraints. To manage the impacts, larger areas of land are likely

to be required (to provide suitable space for benching of reserves), and/or high construction costs will

be required. This issue was captured through consultation and an assumption has been applied in

Appendix 1 to all projects this is likely to impact on.



Given the large number of projects affected by topography, it is considered unfeasible (in terms of time

and cost) to redesign all projects. As mentioned earlier, this review needs to find a balance in terms of

the information needed to justify changes to the DCP. Therefore, it is recommended that a percentage

increase be applied to the cost and land take of affected projects. It is recommended that this

assumption (based on advice on a number of existing sample projects) be used to change the costs in

the DCP as part of the amendment.


This will change the costings and potentially land area for particular projects in the DCP with the

intention to establish a reasonable ‘buffer’ to resolve the current cost gaps.

Land budgets

Through implementation of these documents, there has been a number of changes and issues

identified which has impacted on the land budget contained in each DCP. Some of these matters relate

to relocation of uses such as schools and designation of land for development when the actual site

conditions demonstrate the land is in fact encumbered and cannot be developed as per the PSP/DCP.


It is recommended that the land budgets be updated to reflect these changes and ensure the

developability of land parcels is appropriately reflected.

The PSP review process will address this matter in more detail


This will result in changes to NDA and the overall DCP levy rate.

6.3 DCP projects questioned

Relocating DCP projects

There are several intersections which have been or are proposed to be relocated. While it is

understood that some of these new locations have been analysed and recommended by Council and

developers together, it is important that the flow on traf fic and land acquisition implications of these

new locations are properly considered more broadly than the proposed development in question.

As a result of some intersections being relocated without appropriate consideration, there are some

properties which are no longer serviced by the intersection that has been moved and may require an

additional intersection to service the land and provide suitable access.


Moving forward, the notion of relocating intersection projects, and substantially changing the location

of any DCP project should consider the below criteria, to ensure the change does not generate new

traffic issues that will need to be addressed in the future, such as exploring the need for an additional

intersection, beyond what is required in the DCP.

Criteria for considering the relocation of DCP projects:

It is generally in accordance with the PSP;

This new location will continue to benefit/service multiple properties;

This new location doesn’t unreasonably result in the need for additional infrastructure;

The new location does not require an unreasonable or inappropriate land acquisition

requirement to facilitate;

This new location has a broader community benefit , including a safety benefit;

This new location is required to unlock development;


This new location and its subsequent flow on impacts do not detrimentally impact upon

preferred PSP outcomes, requirements and guidelines or relevant sections of the planning

scheme for the surrounding locality;

This new location doesn’t significantly vary the land or construction costs identified in the DCP

OR results in design improvements that could reduce the cost or land take .


DCP projects which have had their new locations confirmed/delivered are to be reflected in the

amended DCPs. If there are new intersections required to service properties due to the matters

described above, they should be undertaken as developer works, or if they are sou ght to be included in

the DCP, a substantial amount of work will be required such as traffic modelling, detailed designs and

costings and an indication that the infrastructure will benefit multiple land parcels in order to establish

the necessary strategic justification that would be required by a Panel. However, this is not

recommended for the reasons outlined earlier in the paper due to the financial liability of adding

additional projects which will likely rest with Council.

DCP projects to be added and removed

As development progresses in each DCP area, there are a number of applications which are being

appealed to VCAT, some of which include DCP projects as part of a broader appeal. Through these

proceedings, some DCP projects are being questioned in terms of their need to be delivered at all. This

is being supported by technical traffic inputs.

There is also a desire to include some new projects in the DCPs, at the request of developers and

Council. Lillico Road is one example that has been raised for inclusion in the DCP. As mentioned

earlier, there is an intention that this DCP review process considers overall affordability and this is an

important consideration when contemplating the inclusion of new projects.

Through our discussions with DELWP, it is important to understand that all new projects and

substantial changes to the DCPs will require robust strategic justification to satisfy a Panel. This may

include undertaking traffic modelling, detailed designs and costings which is a cost ly and timely

exercise.


It is not the intention of this DCP review to reopen the entire process. The initial DCPs were prepared

on a breadth of in-depth work with a strong evidence base. Unless this review identifies that there are

DCP projects missing (as a matter of error) or there is a compelling reason to include new projects,

then the recommendation is to not consider new projects for inclusion. This review cannot add a wish

list of new projects by virtue of the process being undertaken.

It is also important to understand the implications of increasing the DCP levy (by adding new projects),

when a substantial amount of development has already been carried out. Meaning the financial liability

may fall to Council, it is currently understood that increased rates cannot be retrospectively applied to

land that has already received SoC.

6.4 Cost discrepancies

Drainage designs are inadequate and unfeasible

Warragul DCP funds the delivery of new/upgraded drainage infrastructure, while Drouin’s drainage

infrastructure is funded by Melbourne Water’s Drainage Services Scheme (DSS). Drainage projects in

Warragul are problematic as there are a number which do not contain a sufficient amount of land to

accommodate the proposed drainage design.

There are also several drainage projects which do not have land acquisition budgets, even though land

must be acquired to facilitate delivery of the drainage asset. Similarly, there are some more errors

relating to construction costs, resulting in funding gaps – these specific issues are identified in

Appendix 1.



It is understood that Council has since reviewed all drainage projects for Warragul (using Alluvium) and

new concept plans for drainage projects are available, some of which have been re-costed. It is

recommended that these updates be reflected in the amended DCP.


It is likely that the overall DCP rate for drainage will increase slightly in Warragul. No change for

Drouin.

DCP preparation costs

To update the DCPs, some further work is proposed which may involve re-designing and re-costing a

number of projects. This is estimated to be a costly exercise, it may be appropriate to recoup some of

these costs through the DCP.


If other funding sources aren’t available to support the additional work that is required, it is

recommended that some of these costs are recovered through the DCP.


This recommendation will have a minor impact on the overall DCP rates.

6.5 Internal policies and procedures

Council implementation approach to DCPs

Council has an established approach to implementing DCPs and these policies and procedures have

been analysed as part of this review. Council’s priority development team in collaboration with the

planning department have a well-rounded knowledge base of the DCP related matters in each area and

reliable DCP tracking data which have been heavily relied on through this review.

Through stakeholder consultation, a number of issues were raised regarding Council’s approach to

DCPs:

• Interpretation of ‘generally in accordance’ with the PSP;

• Queuing process for WIK reimbursements; and

• Limited scope for interim or partial delivery of projects.

‘Generally in accordance ’ is a provision contained in PSPs and consequently in the Urban Growth Zone

which enables a degree of flexibility to be administered for planning permit applications when

assessing them against the provisions of a PSP. An application that is considered generally in

accordance with the PSP continues to achieve the objectives of the PSP and reflec ts an appropriate

planning outcome, but may differ in some respects (i.e. layout or location changes).

It is understood that there are proponents who have attempted to utilise these provisions to achieve

different outcomes for infrastructure delivery but have been unable to negotiate these outcomes with

Council due to interpretations of generally in accordance.


Mesh will prepare an infrastructure priority list as part of the tasks to be carried out in stage 3 which

will provide assistance to council in forecasting the delivery of infrastructure and WIK reimbursements.

Having regard to some of the issues raised above, it is recommended that Council continues to adopt a

pragmatic approach to the delivery of infrastructure by exercising discretion in accordance with their

DCP Implementation Policy to consider alternative designs, where required. It is recommended that

this discretionary approach be exercised for minor variations and interim works (those of which are not

completely sacrificial) to adopt a more facilitative role and make use of the ‘generally in accordance’

provisions (supported by appropriate legal advice as required).


Open space

The development community has raised concerns about the process for ‘equalising’ passive open

space contributions. While we appreciate that open space contributions are a substantial development

cost, they are not implemented through the DCP system. Instead, contributions are equalised through

Clause 53.01. However, it is acknowledged that there are some landholders that have large passive

open space areas designated on their parcels, and as such, substantial ‘credits’ will be owed to them

upon development.

This is a critical matter for Council to resolve, as it will substantially affect their cash flow position. We

understand that the matter is being considered as part of the PSP review, however, any changes to

open space provision will result in changes to the land budget. These changes will need to be reflected

in the DCPs to enable an accurate calculation of net developable area, and thus, the per hectare DCP

levies.


It is recommended that the position regarding passive open space contributions be resolved as a

priority through the PSP process and any changes to land budgets as a result are reflected in the

DCPs.

This is being considered as part of the Land Acquisition Strategy and Priority List (in progress) and

being led by the Property team.


This will impact on the net developable area, and thus the DCP levy charged per hectare.

7 ACTION PLAN

Based on the recommended responses to the broad issues in this paper, below is an overview of the

changes that can be undertaken immediately to address some of the issues and discrepancies, and a

brief of the further work that is recommended to attend to the more difficult issues.

Immediate changes

• Update basic document errors;

• Update costings (those of which have already been determined);

• Update road lengths and land areas;

• Update the land budget;

• Determine a percentage increase to be applied to the cost and land take of projects affected

by topography to establish a reasonable ‘buffer’ to resolve current cost gaps.

Further work

• Continue discussions with RRV to reach a compromised solution on intersection matters.

Explore opportunities for the delivery of interim standards and alternate designs.

• RRV, Council and VPA to explore options for funding revised designs of priority intersections

on arterial routes to understand the full cost and land take impact of alternative designs.

• Council to obtain traffic advice for INA-NW-02 (Warragul).

• Council and the development community to engage in open and transparent conversations

about roles and responsibilities with regard to land assembly and land acquisition .

• Council to prepare an infrastructure priority list based on Council’s policy to facilitate multiple

development fronts.

• Land values for projects located outside the PSP/DCP areas are to be reviewed (site-specific

valuations to be undertaken).

• Procure and or review any Active Open Space designs to determine appropriate land area and

cost.

• Undertake an audit of current Section 173 agreements / PIPs and notify affected developers,

with the opportunity to review agreements (as necessary).


8 NEXT STEPS

Following community consultation on this paper, stage three will commence which will explore a range

of potential scenarios and how it impacts on the overall DCP rates, before commencing the DCP

amendment process.

A draft amended DCP for Warragul and Drouin is expected to be available for public review in mid-

2020.


9 APPENDIX 1

9.1 WARRAGUL DCP – DCP PROJECT SPECIFIC ISSUES

Project Issue Agency feedback Recommendation Issue theme

INA-NW-01 –

Dollarburn Road

and Brandy

Creek Road

Construction of four-way roundabout

• DCP design assumes 60km speed and uses ‘absolute minimum’ standards

• Additional funds and land may be needed to address RRV design preferences

• Proponent is taking the matter to VCAT

RRV require this

intersection to be

designed to 80km

due to the

intersection being

located at the

gateway of the

town. This will

impact on design,

cost and land

take.

Compromised solution

to be negotiated with

RRV on appropriate

speed and design

outcome

AGENCY

STANDARDS

INA-NW-02 –

Bowen Street

extension and

Brandy Creek

Road

Purchase of land for reserve widening and construction of T-intersection with auxiliary lane and channelised turn

• VCAT hearing pending – applicant challenges the need for this intersection as part of a broader appal against Council’s determination to refuse the application

• $2M worth of retaining walls required due to significant gradients and initial designs not factoring in topography

RRV are

concerned with

the function of the

arterial network,

however they

haven’t made an

assessment of the

impact of the local

road network of

not providing this

intersection.

Council believes the

intersection is still

required and has

sought to receive

some independent

traffic advice to

support this.

DCP PROJECT

STATUS

QUESTIONED

INA-NE-01 –

Queen Street

and Copelands

Road extension

Purchase of land for reserve widening and construction of three-way roundabout

• This infrastructure project Is located outside the DCP area. This site, like others, doesn’t have the benefit of overall uplift in land value and may require a more reasonable compensation amount to facilitate negotiations.

It is recommended

that Council consider

playing an active role

in mediating and

facilitating these

negotiations, before

resorting to

compulsory

acquisition powers


INA-NE-02 –

East-west

connector

boulevard and

Brandy Creek

Road

Purchase of land

for reserve

widening and

construction of

four-way

roundabout

• An interim intersection arrangement has been delivered here (undertaken by developer as sacrificial works) to service a large development to the north

• Intersection design in the DCP does not consider the topography of the area and has been designed to ‘absolute minimum’ road standards

• RRV are concerned about the design of the ultimate roundabout.

RRV want to see

this intersection

designed to

‘desirable

minimum’

standards and

address

topography which

will require more

land.



RRV on appropriate

design outcome

Explore applying cost

assumptions to

projects to take into

account cost gaps

associated with

topography and road

design standards.

AGENCY

STANDARDS

INA-SW-01 –

Warragul-

Korumburra

Road and Murdie

Road

Purchase of land

for reserve

widening and

construction of

three-way

roundabout

• Council Is working with the applicant to determine a new location for this intersection – less land take in this new location but potentially more costly.

• Intersection design doesn’t address topography

Project location, cost

and scope being

reviewed with RRV.

Additional funds may

be needed to address

RRV design criteria

Amend location on

plans in DCP and

amend costs and land

area once determined

by Council

DCP PROJECT

QUESTIONED

INA-SW-02 –

East-West Road

and Warragul-

Korumburra

Road

Purchase of land

for reserve

widening and

construction of

four-way

roundabout

SP-NW-01 –

Hazel Creek trail

connection

SP-NE-01 –

Ellen Clare trail

connection

SP-SW-01 –

Burke Street

Park connection


RD-NW-01 –

Dollarburn Road

upgrade

RD-NW-02 –

Pharaohs Road

upgrade

RD-NW-03 –

Bowen Street

extension

RD-NW-04 –

Crole Drive

extension

• Incorrect road length contained in DCP, shown as 1,130m, Council records demonstrate it should be 869m

Amend length in

project description

and update costs and

land area

DOCUMENT

ERRORS

RD-NW-05 –

Crole Drive

extension

(boulevard)

RD-NW-06 –

North-south

connector street

between Crole

Drive and

Dollarburn Road

RD-NE-01 –

Dollarburn Road

extension

RD-NE-02 –

East-west

connector street

between Mills

Road extension

and east-west

connector

boulevard

RD-NE-03

East-west

connector

boulevard

between Brandy

Creek Road and

Copelands Road


RD-NE-04

Mills Road

extension to

Lillico Road

RD-NE-05

North-south

connector

extension

RD-NE-06

Copelands Road

upgrade

• Incorrect road length contained in DCP, shown as 1,100m, Council records demonstrate it should be 927m

Amend length in

project description


land area

DOCUMENT

ERRORS

RD-NE-07

Copelands Road

extension

RD-NE-08

North-south

connector street

between

Copelands Road

extension and

No.1 Road

RD-SW-01

Warragul-

Lardner Road

upgrade

RD-SW-02

Butlers Track /

King Street

upgrade

RD-SW-03

Butlers Track

upgrade

• Discrepancies between the cross-sections in the PSP and DCP. PSP requires 33.5m and DCP refers to a ‘standard connector’ with an associated width of 25.5m.

• Matter has been the subject of a legal review

Remove the word

‘standard’ from DCP

cross-section

reference

DOCUMENT

ERRORS


RD-SW-04

East-West Road

upgrade

• Incorrect road length contained in DCP, shown as 2,470m, Council records demonstrate it should be 2,712m

Amend length in

project description


land area

DOCUMENT

ERRORS

RD-SW-05

East-West Road

upgrade (outside

township

boundary)

RD-SW-06

East-West

connector street

between Butlers

Track and East-

West Road

• Incorrect road length contained in DCP, shown as 1,560m, Council records demonstrate it should be 1,870m

Amend length in

project description


land area

DOCUMENT

ERRORS

INL-NW-01

Dollarburn Road

and Pharaohs

Road

INL-NW-02

Crole Drive

extension and

Pharaohs Road

• $800k in DCP to construct roundabout – actual cost to deliver $1.37M

• Developer has been asked to deliver this as WIK – now disputing cost discrepancy

Undertake a review of

the design and cost

INL-NW-03

Sutton Street

and Pharaohs

Road

• Intersection is being redesigned and may require more land; however, construction cost may be reduced.

• Additional land to be purchased by Council

Detailed design

underway and cost

review to follow

Amend project

following design and

cost review

COST

DISCREPANCY

INL-NW-04

North-south

connector street

and Crole Drive

INL-NW-05

North-south

connector street

and Dollarburn

Road


INL-NE-01

Dollarburn Road

extension and

Lillico Road

• Relocated to the south – the intersection no longer services the land parcels initially intended to service as it has now been moved internal to an abutting land parcel.

• Additional intersection required to service the parcel that was missed, however this will only service one land parcel and challenges the principle of ‘shared infrastructure’

• Project scope changed from T-intersection to a roundabout.

• Intersection delivered as part of 270 Brandy Creek Road subdivision does not directly abut Lillico Road

Determine if

additional intersection

is to be added to the

DCP.

Amend location of

intersection and

project scope

DCP PROJECT

QUESTIONED

INL-NE-02

Lillico Road and

north-south

connector street

INL-NE-03

Lillico Road and

Copelands Road

INL-NE-04

East-west

connector

boulevard and

Mills Road

extension

INL-NE-05

East-west

connector street

and northsouth

connector street

at Lillico sporting

reserve


INL-NE-06

East-west

connector

boulevard and

northsouth

connector street

INL-NE-07

East-west

connector

boulevard and

Copelands Road

INL-NE-08

Albert Road and

Copelands Road

INL-NE-09

North-south

connector street

and Copelands

Road extension

INL-NE-10

North-south

connector street

and No.1 Road

INL-SW-01

Warragul-

Lardner Road

and Butlers

Track

• New concept design

• Construction cost increase from $800,000 to $1,010,361

FLP level of design

required to justify

design and costing

changes to DCP

Amend costs

COST

DISCREPANCY

INL-SW-02

East-West Road

and Butlers

Track

INL-SW-03

East-West Road

and east-west

connector street

INL-SW-04

Butlers Track

and east-west

connector street


BR-NW-01

Dollarburn Road

crossing of

waterway west of

Pharaohs Road

BR-NW-02

Dollarburn Road

crossing of

waterway west of

Pharaohs Road

BR-NW-03

Dollarburn Road

crossing of

waterway east of

Pharaohs Road

BR-NW-04

Crole Drive

extension

crossing of

waterway

BR-NW-05

North-south

connector street

crossing of

waterway

BR-NE-01

Lillico Road

extension

crossing of

waterway

BR-NE-02

Copelands Road

crossing of Moe

River

BR-NE-03

East-west

connector

boulevard

crossing of

waterway


BR-NE-04

Copelands Road

extension

crossing of Hazel

Creek

BR-NE-05

East-west

connector street

crossing of

waterway east of

Copelands Road

extension

• Project missing from Table 5

Update Table 5 DOCUMENT

ERRORS

BR-SW-01

Warragul-

Lardner Road

crossing of

waterway south

of Danes Road

BR-SW-02

Warragul-

Lardner Road

crossing of

waterway west of

Butlers Track

BR-SW-03

Warragul-

Lardner Road

crossing of

waterway east of

Butlers Track

BR-SW-04

Butlers Track

crossing of

waterway south

of Warragul-

Lardner Road

BR-SW-05

Butlers Track

crossing of

waterway north

of East-West

Road


BR-SW-06

East-West Road

crossing of

waterway west of

Butlers Track

BR-SW-07

East-west

connector street

crossing of

waterway west of

Butlers Track

SR-01

Dollarburn

sporting reserve

• Active open space designs did not take into consideration topography and larger areas of land may be required.

It is recommended to

review design intent

proposed for active

open spaces which

may involve the

procurement of

concept designs and

determine land take

requirements and

costs.

LAND TAKE

DISCREPANCY

SR-02

Lillico sporting

reserve

• Entire sports reserve located on one property, encumbering majority of the site




proposed for active

open spaces which

may involve the

procurement of

concept designs and

determine land take

requirements and

costs.

LAND TAKE

DISCREPANCY

SR-03

Spring Creek

sporting reserve

• Reserve is split by RD-SW-06




proposed for active

open spaces which

may involve the

procurement of

concept designs and

determine land take

requirements and

costs.

LAND TAKE

DISCREPANCY

SR-04

Municipal

improvement

fund


CO-01

Dollaburn

community

centre

CO-02

Carrington

community

centre

CO-03

Spring Creek

community

centre

DR-01

Channel works

DR-02

Pipe works

• Cost increase from $7,441,072 to $7,694,063

Update costs COST

DISCREPANCY

DR-NW-01

Tarwin Street

retardation basin

& wetlands

DR-NW-02

Pharaohs Road

retardation basin

& wetlands

• Project includes two wetlands and one retarding basin. DCP only costed the wetland.

• $0 attributed to construction of the retarding basin (wall).

• This retarding basin provides stormwater retardation for a large section of the PSP catchment (upstream of its location). The pre-existing retarding basin was not appropriate at the time to cater for the additional upstream flows associated with the future PSP development, nor did it meet the required level of protection for downstream development and therefore required upgrading.

Explore inclusion of

the retarding basin

construction cost into

the DCP (to be tested

in Stage 3)

COST

DISCREPANCY


DR-NW-03

Fir Place North

retention basin

DR-NW-04

Fir Place West

retention basin

• Developer states the Alluvium design is not feasible, in terms of land take

Review design and

determine suitable

project scope.

LAND TAKE

DISCREPANCY

DR-NW-05

Warragul golf

course retention

basin & wetland

DR-NE-01

Lillico retardation

basin & wetlands

DR-NE-02

Stoddarts Road

retention basin &

wetland

DR-NE-03

Copelands Road

above

Paramount

Springs retention

basin

DR-NE-04

Copelands Road

retention basin &

wetland

• Cost increase $1,584,347 to $1,972,525

• Construction of culverts not explicitly factored into initial DCP cost, however the funding is expected to be adequate to provide the required culverts.


WGCMA debates

whether culverts

should be included

at all in the DCP

as it benefits only

one landowner –

therefore, this

becomes difficult

to justify in terms

of the principle of

‘shared

infrastructure’

Determine if more

than one land parcel

benefits from the

culverts. If only one

land parcel benefits, it

is recommended not

to include this

additional cost into

the DCP.

It is recommended



in mediating and

facilitating these


resorting to

compulsory

acquisition powers

COST

DISCREPANCY


DR-NE-05

Dawson Drive

wetland


It is recommended



in mediating and

facilitating these


resorting to

compulsory

acquisition powers

DR-NE-06

Bloomfield Road

wetland

DR-SW-01

Landsborough

Road retention

basin & wetland

• Landowner is restricting access to the land to deliver this asset. Subject to legal review.

• Land take increased from 3.22 to 6.9ha

• Cost to increase by $1.5M

Investigate

potential to apply

an easement

Update costs and land

area

LAND TAKE

DISCREPANCY

DR-SW-02

Wills Street

wetland

• Need to acquire 1.38Ha of land based on updated concept design

• No funds allocated to land. A budget allocation of approx. $66K required (based on Dec 2019 val). Land located in a UFZ, FO and LSIO

WGCMA believes

this wetland could

accommodate the

capacity of DR-

SE-02

Explore the possibility

of accommodating the

capacity of DR-SE-02.

Include cost of land in

DCP

LAND TAKE

DISCREPANCY

DR-SE-01

Warragul-Bona

Vista Road

retention basin &

wetland

• This

infrastructure

project Is located

outside the DCP

area. This site,

like others,

doesn’t have the

benefit of overall

uplift in land

value and may

require a more

reasonable

compensation

amount to

facilitate

negotiations.

It is recommended



in mediating and

facilitating these


resorting to

compulsory

acquisition powers


DR-SE-02

Galloway Street

wetland

• Identified on Council land (Logan Park) which Is used for Warragul Fair and Disabled Horse Riding Facility, therefore preference is for relocation of this wetland to be explored.

• Council to acquire another site.

• More land required to deliver asset.

• No funds allocated to land

WGCMA suggests

to explore UFZ

land near new

Bunnings Site to

accommodate this

wetland location

Explore capacity of

DR-SW-02 and further

liaise with WGCMA.

DCP PROJECT

QUESTIONED

DR-SE-03

Bona Vista Road

wetland

• A component of the future wetland located on land with no permit. Application lodged for adjoining land parcel and proponent wishes to deliver part of the wetland.

• DCP only provides for construction cost of $968,048 for the wetland component. No land budget or RB budget allowed for. Total budget required is $2,558,184 (Dec 2019 val) based on 3.87Ha land take (Alluvium Design RB #13)

WGCMA claims

the location of the

proposed wetland

is an existing

swamp/wetland

and could be

retained and

managed as a

natural wetland.

This would remove

the need to

construct and

save on

construction costs.

Some outlet works

may be required to

service the

adjoining

landowner.

Explore potential for

the wetland to be

managed as a natural

wetland with minimal

works.

DCP PROJECT

QUESTIONED

9.2 DROUIN DCP – DCP PROJECT SPECIFIC ISSUES

Project Issue Agency

feedback

Recommendation Issue theme

INA-NW-01

Princes Way &

East-west

connector

boulevard

Construction of

three-way

roundabout


INA-NW-02

Princes Way &

Longwarry-

Drouin Road

Construction of

three-way

roundabout on

Princes Way and

T-intersection on

Longwarry-Drouin

Road at Princes

Way service road.

• Just under $1M allocated to construction of a roundabout. RRV have costed the project at approx. $7.8M

• Delivery of the intersection will impact a significant gum tree known as “Jack’s Giant”.

• Topography of the area wasn’t considered in the initial design of the intersection

• Difficult to draw a nexus to a developer to deliver the project as WIK

RRV state that

additional land

will be required

to accommodate

their preferred

intersection

design



RRV on appropriate

design and cost

AGENCY

STANDARDS

INA-NW-03

Longwarry-

Drouin Road &

Ritchies Road

Purchase of land

for reserve

widening and

construction of T-

intersection with

auxiliary lane and

channelised turn.

INA-NW-04

Longwarry-

Drouin Road &

Weerong Road

Purchase of land

for reserve

widening and

construction of

three-way

roundabout.


INA-SE-01

Main South

Road &

Weebar Road

Purchase of land

for reserve

widening and

construction of

four-way

roundabout.

• Land take discrepancies – substantially more land required than anticipated in the DCP.

• RRV have confirmed the land area required – this will impact on land in the north-west.


Council is being

assisted by RRV on

detailed design of the

intersection

It is recommended that

Council consider

playing an active role in

mediating and

facilitating these


resorting to compulsory

acquisition powers

AGENCY

STANDARDS

INA-SE-02

Main South

Road & Drouin

South Bypass

Purchase of land

for reserve

widening and

construction of

three-way

roundabout.

INA-SE-03

Main South

Road & East-

west connector

Purchase of land

for reserve

widening and

construction of

three-way

roundabout.


INA-SE-04

Princes Way /

Balfour Road

& Drouin

South Bypass

Purchase of land

for reserve

widening and

construction of

signalised T-

intersections on

Princes Way at

Balfour Road and

on Balfour Road at

Drouin South

Bypass. Project

also includes

widening of the

existing Balfour

Road railway

overpass.

• Significantly under-funded

• Intersection is required to unlock development.

RRV claim the

project to be

significantly

under-costed

due to the

substantial cost

associated with

constructing

over rail.

Undertake further work

to determine additional

land and funding

required to deliver

project.

COST

DISCREPANCY

SP-NW-01

Princes Way

trail

connection

SP-SE-01

Drouin Station

trail

connection

RD-NW-01

Ritchies Road

upgrade &

extension

RD-NW-02

North-south

connector

street between

Longwarry-

Drouin Road &

McGlone Road

north


RD-NW-03

East-west

connector

boulevard

between

Princes Way &

north-south

connector

street

RD-NW-04

Fairway Drive

extension to

north-south

connector

street

• Mis-labelled in Table 3 as RD-NW-05 and adjust error on Plan 4

Update Table 3 and

Plan 4

DOCUMENT

ERROR

RD-GH-01

Gardner &

Holman Road

upgrade

• Potentially not enough land in the existing road reserve to upgrade the road to a connector road cross-section specified in the DCP. There is no additional land acquisition budget for widening this road.

• However, this road is still required to carry connector road volumes.

• Developer may provide shared paths in part subject to a determination by VCAT and Council will deliver other upgrades to bring the road to an urban standard (at a minimum)

• Road length is incorrect. It is in the DCP as 1,750m but Council’s records indicate 1,520m

• Plan notation references in the DCP are inconsistent with the PSP with respect to the provision of a cycle path.

• Construction of this road will require removal of vegetation, some of which is considered to be significant and should be retained. This is not factored into the cross-section design.

VCAT will determine

what upgrade works

this developer must

undertake. Council will

need to separately

determine and likely

deliver the ultimate

cross section.

Prepare an updated

cost estimate to reflect

the ultimate cross

section and incorporate

funds for land

acquisition.

COST

DISCREPANCY

RD-GH-02

Old Drouin

Road upgrade


RD-GH-03

North-south

connector

street

RD-GH-04

East-west

connector

street

RD-SE-01

Drouin South

Bypass

between Main

South Road &

Princes Way

• Project title ‘bypass’ should be renamed to ‘Drouin South Boulevard’ as the road doesn’t contain service roads or any other features of a bypass.

• Road will primarily function as a connector boulevard through residential area, with direct driveway access and no service lanes

• Approx. 300m constructed in accordance with the construction in the PSP.

• The cross-section in the PSP is too narrow and creates an ongoing maintenance issue for Council (no kerb and channel).

• Next section of road will ask for increased road widths (this will be taken from the median which will not impact overall land take) – developer is requesting additional credit for extra construction and land.

Review changes to

cross-section and

reflect changes in the

document

DCP PROJECT

QUESTIONED

RD-SE-02

Weebar Road

upgrade

RD-SE-03

East-west

connector

street between

Main South

Road &

Weebar Road


RD-SE-04

East-west

connector

street between

Weebar Road

& Lardner

Road

RD-BB-01

Waterside

Drive

extension

INL-NW-01

Ritchies Road

extension &

North-south

connector

INL-NW-02

North-south

connector &

East-west

connector

boulevard

INL-NW-03

Fairway Drive

extension &

east-west

connector

street

INL-GH-01

Gardner &

Holman Road

& Longwarry

Road

• Traffix Group prepared a traffic investigation for a VCAT hearing for PLA0276/18 – the traffic assessment determined this intersection was not warranted.

• Council engineers have explored the potential for a roundabout treatment (instead of a T-intersection) – claiming this to be a more practical outcome

• Land take issues – intersections abutting edge of PSP

Project subject to VCAT

hearing – rationale for

intersection challenged

Council to undertake

their own traffic

analysis.

DCP PROJECT

STATUS

QUESTIONED

INL-GH-02

Gardner &

Holman Road

& East-west

connector


INL-GH-03

Gardner &

Holman Road,

Old Drouin

Road & North-

south

connector

• Potential land take issues – intersection abutting edge of PSP on south side.

• Detailed design may avoid the need for land take altogether or increase the amount of area required.

• $5K budget in DCP for land acquisition

Undertake detailed

design

LAND TAKE

DISCREPANCY

INL-SE-01

Drouin South

Bypass &

Weebar Road

INL-SE-02

Drouin South

Bypass &

Lardner Road

INL-SE-03

Weebar Road

& East-west

connector

INL-SE-04

Lardner Road

& East-west

connector


Review designs to

confirm land take

requirements

LAND TAKE

DISCREPANCY

INL-BB-01

Buln Buln

Road &

Waterside

Drive

extension


Review designs to

confirm land take

requirements

LAND TAKE

DISCREPANCY

BR-NW-01

North-south

connector

crossing of

waterway (1)

BR-NW-02

North-south

connector

crossing of

waterway (2)


BR-NW-03

North-south

connector

crossing of

waterway (3)

BR-SE-01

Drouin South

Bypass

crossing of

waterway (1)

BR-SE-02

Drouin South

Bypass

crossing of

waterway (2)

• Project has been the subject of design and cost review (currently ongoing)

• Currently forms part of a proponent’s PIP, however, due to significant reduction in construction cost $6.1M down to $1.2M – Proponent doesn’t wish to deliver this anymore.

Update project

description and costs

COST

DISCREPANCY

BR-SE-03

Weebar Road

crossing of

waterway

BR-SE-04

East-west

connector

crossing of

waterway (1)

BR-SE-05

East-west

connector

crossing of

waterway (2)

BR-BB-01

Waterside

Drive

extension

crossing of

waterway

SR-01

McGlone

sporting

reserve



review designs of active

open spaces and

determine land take

requirements and costs.

LAND TAKE

DISCREPANCY


SR-02

Weebar

sporting

reserve



review designs of active

open spaces and

determine land take

requirements and costs.

LAND TAKE

DISCREPANCY

SR-03

Municipal

improvement

fund

CO-01

Wellwood

community

centre

CO-02

Weebar

community

centre


10 APPENDIX 2

10.1 Warragul – Issues


10.2 Drouin – Issues

Documents

Warragul and Drouin DCP Review