Warragul and Drouin DCP Review
Transcript of 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
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 2
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;
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 3
• 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.
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 4
Figure 3 Project overview
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 5
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.
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 6
Figure 4 Warragul - Permits
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 7
Figure 5 Drouin - Permits
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 8
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
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 9
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
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 10
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.
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 11
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.
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 12
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
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 13
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
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 14
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.
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 15
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.
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 16
Local
developers
To collect information and
anecdotal feedback on the
pressure points and
discrepancies that may need
to be addressed as part of
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.
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 17
Regional
Roads
Victoria (RRV)
To collect information and
anecdotal feedback on the
pressure points and
discrepancies that may need
to be addressed as part of
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).
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 18
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.
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 19
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.
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 20
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.
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 21
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.
Recommended response
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).
Implications for DCP or development
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.
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 22
Recommended response
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.
Implications for DCP or development
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.
Recommended response
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
Implications for DCP or development
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.
Recommended response
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;
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 23
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 .
Implications for DCP or development
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.
Recommended response
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.
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 24
Recommended response
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.
Implications for DCP or development
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.
Recommended response
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.
Implications for DCP or development
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.
Recommended response
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).
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 25
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.
Recommended response
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.
Implications for DCP or development
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).
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 26
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.
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 27
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
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 28
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.
Compromised solution
to be negotiated with
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
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 29
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
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 30
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
and update costs and
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
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 31
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
and update costs and
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
and update costs and
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
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 32
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
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 33
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
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 34
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
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 35
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
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 36
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
• 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-03
Spring Creek
sporting reserve
• Reserve is split by RD-SW-06
• 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-04
Municipal
improvement
fund
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 37
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
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 38
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.
• 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.
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
that Council consider
playing an active role
in mediating and
facilitating these
negotiations, before
resorting to
compulsory
acquisition powers
COST
DISCREPANCY
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 39
DR-NE-05
Dawson Drive
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
that Council consider
playing an active role
in mediating and
facilitating these
negotiations, before
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
that Council consider
playing an active role
in mediating and
facilitating these
negotiations, before
resorting to
compulsory
acquisition powers
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 40
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
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 41
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
Compromised solution
to be negotiated with
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.
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 42
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.
• 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.
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
negotiations, before
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.
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 43
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
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 44
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
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 45
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
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 46
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
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 47
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
• Land take issues – intersections abutting edge of PSP
Review designs to
confirm land take
requirements
LAND TAKE
DISCREPANCY
INL-BB-01
Buln Buln
Road &
Waterside
Drive
extension
• Land take issues – intersections abutting edge of PSP
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)
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 48
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
• Active open space designs did not take into consideration topography and larger areas of land may be required.
It is recommended to
review designs of active
open spaces and
determine land take
requirements and costs.
LAND TAKE
DISCREPANCY
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 49
SR-02
Weebar
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 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
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 50
10 APPENDIX 2
10.1 Warragul – Issues
Warragul and Drouin DCP Review – Directions Paper 51
10.2 Drouin – Issues