//
[325]
austlii:vic/PPV/2026/2
General information, not legal advice.
PPV
2026-01-29
Abiwood Creekside P
Original judgment source is linked above.
[For the reasons set out in this report, the Panel concludes that the Amendment:](For the reasons set out in this report, the Panel concludes that the Amendment:)
The approach to the proposed Development Infrastructure Levy amounts including open space contributions and project apportionment is appropriate and justified.
The proposed Development Infrastructure Levy amounts are comparable with those in other regional Victorian locations and there is no evidence they will unreasonably impact development feasibility and housing affordability over the life of the Development Contributions Plan.
The methodology for indexing all DCP project costs is appropriate.
Land allocation for community infrastructure at Delacombe Major Activity Centre
It is appropriate and justified to reduce land allocated for projects DI_LA_1 and DI_LA_2 in the Delacombe Major Activity Centre from 2.6 hectares to 1.9 hectares.
Ballarat-Carngham Road/Presentation Boulevard intersection (JNC_02) design
It is not appropriate to signalise the Ballarat-Carngham Road/Presentation Boulevard intersection (JNC_02) because:
The intersection was not exhibited as a roundabout, however its cost as a roundabout is included in the current Development Contributions Plan and can be translated into the revised Plan.
It is reasonable for the developer to pay the increased projected costs resulting from revised scopes because paying for the indexed specified amount will result in a serious funding shortfall within the Development Contributions Plan.
The Development Contributions Plan should not be revised to limit contributions to indexation.
Bridge Project - Schreenans Road Creek Crossing (DI_RD_31c)
The Schreenans Road Creek Crossing (DI_RD_31c) bridge length, width and cross-section should be reviewed before the Development Contributions Plan is finalised to ensure it has been accurately costed. The crossing project performs an important strategic east-west connector function and should remain as a project in the Development Contributions Plan.
Requests for additional DCP infrastructure projects
It is not appropriate or justified for the Development Contributions Plan to be revised to include the:
The proposed reduced active open space and increased public open space contribution amounts are justified and appropriate through a sound methodology.
It is not appropriate or justified to increase the public open space contribution rate from 5.31 to 5.91 per cent of gross developable area for land covered by the Ballarat West Precinct Structure Plan in the Clause 53.01 Schedule.
The updated drainage strategy provides a sound basis for the Precinct Structure Plan and Development Contributions Plan.
No change should be made to the Precinct Structure Plan and Development Contributions Plan for DCP-funded pipes, as they are already installed under the existing strategy for drainage infrastructure design in the P and T sub-catchments. It is not appropriate to revise pipe sizes in the Ballarat West Development Contributions Plan to match specifications of pipes that have been already installed.
The Development Contributions Plan has accurately estimated and reflected:
The drainage design standards are sufficiently clear, and further clarification will be provided by explicitly stating in the Precinct Structure Plan that the trunk drainage system has been and will be designed and constructed for a 10 per cent annual exceedance probability storm event.
Ballarat West Native Vegetation Precinct Plan sunset clause
There should be a sunset clause in the Ballarat West Native Vegetation Precinct Plan to recognise the precinct's urban context and changes since 2012.
Growling Grass Frog conservation and offset management
There should be provisions in the Precinct Structure Plan and the Planning Scheme to protect the Growling Grass Frog because they were recently detected within the accepted dispersal range of the Miles Farms Pty Ltd land.
Growling Grass Frog matters cannot be solely managed through the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) because this legislation does not extend to interrelated planning issues in the Precinct Structure Plan area.
The 2011 Conservation Management Plan for the Growling Grass Frog should continue to be referenced in the Ballarat West Precinct Structure Plan and the Planning Scheme until the draft 2023 plan is finalised.
It is appropriate and justified to specify a target of 20 dwellings per net developable hectare in the Ballarat West Precinct Structure Plan to align with policy objectives and guidelines.
Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends that Council:
a) its bridge design including its length, width and cross-section is the minimum necessary for Schreenans Road to perform its function in the transport hierarchy > > b) its cost reflects the outcome of this review.
The Amendment seeks to update the Ballarat West Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) and Development Contributions Plan (DCP). The PSP and DCP were first implemented in 2012 and 2014 respectively and reviewed in 2024 to respond to changes and ensure future development delivers acceptable planning outcomes. Proposed updates to the PSP and DCP include changes to the future urban structure plan, housing standards, environmental protections, zoning, and development and public open space contributions.
The Amendment applies to the PSP area as shown in Figure 1 (the subject land). The PSP area contains the three sub-precincts:
Figure 1 PSP area (red outline) with sub-precincts (shaded)
The Amendment was informed by the following supporting documents:
Ballarat West PSP originally incorporated into the Planning Scheme [Ballarat Amendment C158]
Ballarat West DCP originally incorporated into the Planning Scheme
The Ballarat West Precinct Structure Plan Review (2012) recommended changes were introduced into the Planning Scheme [Ballarat Amendment C203]
Council started reviewing the existing Ballarat West PSP and DCP
Community and Recreation Infrastructure Report completed
Council resolved to adopt the updated Ballarat West PSP (revised August 2024) and DCP (revised July 2024) and apply to the Minister for Planning to authorise the Amendment
DTP, on behalf of the Minister for Planning, requested further information
Council completed the PSP and DCP review process with updated versions
Council resolved to adopt the PSP (revised February 2025) and DCP (revised February 2025)
Council formally exhibited the Amendment and received submissions
Council considered the submissions and resolved to request the Minister for Planning appoint a planning panel to consider unresolve submissions
The Panel has assessed the Amendment against the principles of net community benefit and sustainable development, as set out in Clause 71.02-3 (Integrated decision making) of the Planning Scheme.
The Panel considered all written submissions made in response to the exhibition of the Amendment, observations from site visits, and submissions, evidence and other material presented to it during the Hearing. All submissions and materials have been considered by the Panel in reaching its conclusions, regardless of whether they are specifically mentioned in the Report.
This Report deals with the issues under the following headings:
This report refers to the following experts called by parties at the Hearing.
Nordic Pty Ltd and Miles Farms Pty Ltd (Mondous Property Group) called:
This chapter identifies planning context relevant to the Amendment.
No submission requested the Amendment be abandoned due to insufficient strategic justification. Council outlined in its submission how the Amendment aligns with planning policies (see summary in Chapter 1.5). The Amendment seeks to implement the outcomes of a five-year review of the PSP and DCP, as sought by relevant guidelines.
The review process was supported by the technical reports set out in sub-chapter 1.1(iii) that helped informed its recommendations. The Panel considers that Council has applied good practice in its approach to reviewing the PSP and DCP. It is appropriate and common for a DCP review process to review project costs based on evolving scope details, standards and escalating construction costs that exceed the specified DCP indexation.
The DCP review process has demonstrated that indexation is not always sufficient to keep pace with actual construction costs of community infrastructure over time. Indexation helps to minimise the extent of this misalignment between DCP reviews - it is not a substitute for re-costing projects where required.
The approach to specific aspects of these documents is explored further in this report.
For the reasons set out in this report, the Panel concludes that the Amendment:
Adopt Ballarat Planning Scheme Amendment C234ball as exhibited with the changes recommended in this report.
2.1 Approach to levy amount and project apportionment
Section 4.2 of the exhibited DCP sets out the method for calculating levies.
The existing DIL for the 2025/26 financial year is:
The above figures are expressed in 2024/25 financial year dollars.
There were individual submissions which objected to the increasing the DIL. Reasons included:
One submitter considered it inexplicable to increase the total DCP cost from $257 million to $511 million. Another submitter considered that increasing the residential DIL by about $80,000 per hectare generally resulted from:
Council explained the DIL has remained unchanged for 11 years, and that development has benefitted from unusually low DIL rates during strong market activity and government incentives. It submitted the proposed DIL changes result from the first substantive review of the DCP since 2014. It compared the proposed DIL of $421,701 per net developable hectare with other DILs in regional Victoria and found it is well within the range of:
Council submitted that assertions regarding economic impacts, development viability and housing affordability are unsupported by expert evidence including any feasibility modelling. It added that freezing DCP levies conflicts with the review's objective to ensure infrastructure delivery meets community needs in a financially responsible manner.
Regarding construction costs, Mr Shipp stated the proposed DIL rates were due to increased construction costs and an increased cost apportionment to development. He explained that costs include:
Mr Shipp added that higher construction costs were identified through the review of all infrastructure items. He considered the materially higher construction costs compared to indexed costs confirms:
Regarding apportionment, Mr Shipp stated project costs were apportioned based on:
Mr Shipp compared the proposed DIL amounts with DILs in other precincts. He stated:
The DCP has applied a methodology that is consistent with the DCP Guidelines. By doing so, it has appropriately calculated the extent of demand generated by future residents in the PSP area so that it can apportion it from external demand. The latter will be funded through other sources.
The DCP review included reassessing catchments for individual projects due to changing circumstances over that past 11 years. While this will help reduce the DCP project funding gap, there is no evidence that Council readjusted the external demand apportionment with that intention.
There are two perspectives regarding the increased DILs. One perspective is they will unreasonably impact development viability and housing affordability during challenging economic times and a housing shortage. On the other hand, not applying the DIL to appropriately fund future infrastructure may result in:
The Panel was not presented with information to support submissions regarding the impact of the increased DIL. Mr Shipp's evidence demonstrated the proposed DILs are comparable with other areas in regional Victoria. Of note, the DCP has a 30-year horizon and current economic conditions are generally cyclical and represent a relatively small point in the overall timeframe. Current economic conditions should therefore not be considered when determining the approach to the levy amount.
The issue is whether the methodology for indexing costs for all DCP projects is appropriate.
Section 5.1 of the exhibited DCP sets out the method for adjusting values and indexing DILs:
There were submissions which raised concern regarding the approach to project cost indexation. They requested:
One submission considered the approach in the Infrastructure Contributions Plan Guidelines (State Government, March 2021) (ICP Guidelines) should be used as a guide for the Ballarat West DCP:
Indexation and adjustment of levies, values and amounts
The following levies, values and amounts must be annually indexed or adjusted in accordance with the applicable timing and methods specified in the Ministerial Direction:
Do land credit amounts that have been paid need to be adjusted?
No. If a land credit amount has been paid, its value remains fixed for the remainder of the life of the ICP and is not subsequently adjusted. The value of any outstanding land equalisation amounts is based on the land credit amount's value at the time it was paid.[1]
Mr Shipp considered indexation to be essential for development contributions and for ensuring sufficient funds to deliver infrastructure over long periods of time involving changes in construction costs and land values. He explained it is standard practice and essential for all DCP items to be indexed annually, including completed and credited items. He said Council would have to fund the additional costs generated from not indexing completed projects.
Mr Shipp referred to the Development Contributions Guidelines (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2003, amended 2007) (DCP Guidelines) which state:
The infrastructure levies in the DCPO schedule should be adjusted according to the specified index on an annual basis at the beginning of each new financial year within the timeframe of the DCP.
To calculate the indexed levy for any year after the first financial year the DCP is approved use the following formula:
(Original levy calculated in the DCP x by the index figure for the year you are calculating) divided by the index figure for year 1 of the DCP = Indexed DCP levy for year n of the DCP
Respond to the submissions, he stated the ICP Guidelines do not apply to DCPs, though not indexing completed projects would:
Council submitted that indexation must continue to apply to all DCP items including completed and credited projects so that levy revenue keeps pace with growth in construction costs and land values over the life of a long-term infrastructure program. It was concerned that deviating from this principle will:
Council it is standard practice for indexation to apply to all DCP items irrespective of whether they have been delivered or credits have been issued. It explained that across a DCP's 20-plus year life, infrastructure is delivered at different stages, sometimes well in advance of levy collection and sometimes long after.
Council considered a financially sound DCP relies on all item costs being indexed annually so revenue and expenditure remain aligned over time. If completed items were excluded from indexation, Council would bear the full impact of escalation on those works, creating an unfunded shortfall and shifting costs away from developers and onto ratepayers. This outcome, as Mr Shipp notes, would be "unreasonably... financially punitive for Councils tasked with implementing the plans".
Council submitted that the DCP expressly requires annual indexation of the levies throughout the life of the DCP, and they do not distinguish between completed and uncompleted items. It considered the ICP Guidelines and related Ministerial Direction are irrelevant, as they do not apply to DCPs.
Council noted the Melton Amendment C232melt (Toolern DCP) Panel accepted that indexing completed projects is a 'sound approach' consistent with established DCP practice.
One of the purposes of the DCP review is to ensure the DCP continues to be relatively accurate and implementable. This includes aligning project costs as closely as possible with the ultimate actual project cost. Accordingly, the Panel accepts Mr Shipp's evidence and agrees with Council's submission. Indexation does not always align with escalating construction costs such as what Victoria has experienced in recent years. However, it helps to minimise the difference until the next DCP review. All projects need to be indexed to avoid serious funding shortfalls that the broader City of Ballarat community would need to subsidise. This includes completed and credited projects because they form part of the overall DIL and should be indexed to current value consistent with incomplete projects. As noted by Mr Shipp, this is standard practice and essential for a DCP.
The Infrastructure Contributions Plan Guidelines are not relevant to DCPs and should not be used as a guide for the Ballarat West DCP.
The Panel concludes the methodology for indexing all DCP project costs is appropriate.
3.1 Land allocation for community infrastructure at Delacombe Major Activity Centre
The issue is whether it is appropriate and justified to reduce land allocated for projects DI_LA_1 and DI_LA_2 in the Delacombe Major Activity Centre from 2.6 hectares to 1.9 hectares.
The Delacombe Major Activity Centre (Delacombe MAC) contains community infrastructure projects, comprising a library, multipurpose community centre, and Early Years Hub.
These projects are identified in and partially funded by the existing DCP as follows:
Total land area: 1 hectare | Cost: $400,000
Land acquisition: 0.5 hectares | Cost: $200,000
An Urban Design Framework for the Delacombe MAC dated March 2017 was prepared. The Urban Design Framework:
Council has acquired 1.06 hectares of land for community facilities (0.06 hectares and 1.0 hectares at 10 and 26 Valiant Road, Smythes Creek respectively). The land at 10 Valiant Road is remote from where the community facilities are now to be located so Council is considering disposing of this land.
There are section 173 agreements (Delacombe and Magee) and related planning approvals providing for land transfers to the Council and developer contributions for the community facilities.
The PSP and DCP propose reducing the land requirement from 2.6 hectares to 1.9 hectares, reflecting the updated assessment of the amount of land needed to accommodate these facilities.
The previous developer of PSP properties 3 and 4, where the community facility projects are located, submitted that enough land has already been provided for the facilities. It added:
The submitter considered that Council is effectively seeking a 'second bite of the cherry' by requiring additional land, which will increase both land acquisition costs and construction costs, thereby impacting the DIL.
Council considered the acquired 1.06 hectares of land for community facilities to be insufficient to accommodate the community facilities and that the shortfall would need to be addressed through DCP and Council funds. It explained there continues to be a need to provide the early years hub, library and multi-purpose community centre in the Delacombe MAC. The facilities in the Delacombe MAC are co-located with schools and on a connector street network in an activity centre, maximising community access by walking, cycling and public transport.
Council referred to the Community and Recreation Infrastructure Report which demonstrates both the need for the facilities and the area of land to accommodate the facilities. It submitted:
The Community and Recreation Infrastructure Report supports the need for the facilities and the land required. The proposed update of the DCP provides for the land now required to deliver these facilities considering land or funding already provided under the existing DCP, section 173 agreements and associated planning approvals. The Panel is satisfied:
The Panel concludes it is appropriate and justified to reduce land allocated for projects DI_LA_1 and DI_LA_2 in the Delacombe Major Activity from 2.6 hectares to 1.9 hectares.
3.2 Ballarat-Carngham Road/Presentation Boulevard intersection (JNC_02) design
The issue is whether it is appropriate and justified to signalise the Ballarat-Carngham Road/Presentation Boulevard intersection (DCP Project JNC_02).
The exhibited DCP proposes to change DCP Project JNC_02 from a roundabout to a signalised intersection.
Mr De Young modelled the performance of the intersection for a roundabout and traffic signals using SIDRA INTERSECTION, traffic software that defines the Level of Service (LoS) as a qualitative, letter-based ranking (A through F) representing the operational performance of traffic at intersections, roundabouts, and networks. LoS A represents the best/free flow conditions while LoS F represents the worst/stop-start conditions based on performance measures such as average delay per vehicle, degree of saturation, and queue lengths.
Abiwood opposed the change to a signalised intersection from the roundabout in the existing DCP.
Council preferred the alternative signalised intersection treatment for DCP Project JNC_02. It explained that its preference is based on a comprehensive technical review, including consideration of a concept layout design and SIDRA modelling of ultimate traffic volumes.
Council relied on Mr De Young's evidence and submitted:
Head, Transport for Victoria (Head TfV) disagreed with Mr De Young's conclusion that a signalised intersection with two through lanes in each direction can be expected to operate with an acceptable level of performance in peak periods. Head TfV said it would require a minimum level of service (LoS) of C for this intersection. It submitted that Mr De Young's SIDRA modelling demonstrates:
Council acknowledged that Ballarat-Carngham Road is a declared arterial road controlled by Head TfV, and the final decision on the intersection treatment ultimately rests with that authority. Council added that if Head TfV determines the roundabout treatment in the current DCP should be retained, it will respect that decision and implement it accordingly.
Head TfV submitted that it will require Council to revisit the DCP estimated cost of works and land for this intersection, based on contemporary build cost for urban 4-lane 2-way roundabout treatments similar to what is required at this location.
Council submitted the current DCP includes a 4-lane 2-way roundabout for the Ballarat-Carngham Road/Presentation Boulevarde intersection. It said the Amendment process cannot be used to revisit those DCP cost and land assumptions for this intersection because no change is now proposed to the roundabout specified in the current DCP.
As Ballarat-Carngham Road is a declared arterial road managed by Head TfV, the intersection treatment is determined by Head TfV, and not by Council. Mr De Young agreed that, based on the SIDRA analysis, a roundabout will provide a more efficient LoS as submitted by the Head TfV. The view of the Council supported by Mr De Young is a signalised intersection remains the most appropriate and future-ready treatment for the Ballarat-Carngham Road and Presentation Boulevard intersection.
However, when considering Mr De Young's SIDRA analysis that a roundabout will provide an efficient LoS and that Head TfV is the responsible road manager that will make the ultimate decision, the Panel considers the proposed intersection should be the 4-lane 2-way roundabout provided for in the current DCP rather than the proposed signalised intersection.
The costing of a 4-lane 2-way roundabout at this intersection is specified in the current DCP. As no change is now proposed to the treatment of this intersection, the Panel does not support revisiting the DCP cost and land assumptions through the Amendment.
Amend the Ballarat West Development Contributions Plan to replace Project DI_JNC_02 (Carngham Rd / New N-S Rd (North) Signalised Intersection) with Project DI_JNC_02 (Carngham Rd / New N-S Rd (North) Roundabout) from the current Ballarat West Development Contributions Plan.
The issue is whether the developer should pay specified community facility construction costs subject to indexation rather than the increased projected costs resulting from revised scopes.
The exhibited DCP includes nine development infrastructure items for community facilities and associated land with a total project cost of $23,918,266.83. This cost differs to the Community Infrastructure Levy which is capped at $1,450 per dwelling.
A submission requested the revised community facility construction costs be limited to indexation rather than rely on rescoped projects that will further inflate their costs.
In his expert report, Mr Shipp stated that while the rationale for the project scope and cost changes were beyond his expertise:
The Panel agrees with Mr Shipp and Council on this matter. The DCP review process has demonstrated that indexation is not always sufficient to keep pace with actual construction costs of community infrastructure beyond a five-year period. Indexation helps to minimise the extent of this misalignment between DCP reviews - it is not a substitute for re-costing projects where required. Consistent with Mr Shipp's view, the notably higher revised construction costs (compared to the indexed costs) justify the review exercise and confirm the indexed costs cannot be relied on to appropriately fund community infrastructure.
3.4 Intersection Projects (DI_JNC_05 and DI_JNC_08)
The issue is whether the increased costs for Intersection Projects (DI_JNC_05 and DI_JNC_08) are appropriate and justified.
The exhibited DCP proposes to increase the cost of Project:
One submitter raised issues regarding Intersection Projects (DI_JNC_05 and DI_JNC_08).
The submitter stated the cost increase associated with converting a roundabout to signals is unnecessary and that Council should negotiate alternative land acquisition.
Council responded that this misunderstands the physical constraints at this location. It submitted a roundabout will require land from multiple existing dwellings to the north.
Council relied on Mr De Young's evidence and concluded that a signalised intersection is not only consistent with contemporary design standards but is the most feasible and technically justified outcome for this location.
The submitter was concerned the cost increase for DI_JNC_08 resulted from cost overruns or mismanagement, asserting the intersection should be delivered within the current DCP estimate.
Council considered the submitter's position misunderstands the nature of the update. It explained:
As discussed earlier in this report, the Panel considers the DCP was reviewed through a good practice approach. It is appropriate and common for a DCP review process to review project costs based on evolving scope details, standards and escalating construction costs that exceed the specified DCP indexation. The submitter did not explain how the increased project costs fail to meet the principles of need, nexus and equity - the ultimate test for justifying the project and its associated cost.
The Panel accepts that the land required to provide for a roundabout at the Greenhalghs Road/Innsbruck Road intersection will impact existing dwellings and that a signalised intersection provides a more acceptable intersection treatment given the development constraints.
Regarding Project DI_JNC_08 (Glenelg Highway), it is appropriate for the works to be specified to a standard mandated for an arterial road intersection. The DCP appropriately appropriations 55 per cent of the cost increase externally to recognise the Glenelg Highway serves a broader regional catchment beyond the PSP area.
The Panel concludes the increased costs for Intersection Projects DI_JNC_05 and DI_JNC_08 are appropriate and justified.
The issue is whether the revised costing and apportionment for the Indoor Recreation Centre (DI_OS_6) are appropriate and justified.
The exhibited DCP includes Project DI_OS_6 (Indoor Recreation Centre (8 courts) adjacent to LAC (sub-precinct 2)) to construct an indoor recreation centre with eight courts next to the Greenhalghs Active Open Space Reserve. The total cost is $58,004,362.39, of which $29,002,181.20 is apportioned to the PSP area.
In his expert report, Mr Shipp explained the existing DCP:
Mr Shipp found the apportionment changes to be appropriate and consistent with:
The cost of the Indoor Recreation Centre (DI_OS_6) has been appropriately scoped and costed based on modern standards for such a facility. The centre has been appropriately apportioned based on the Community and Recreation Infrastructure Report findings. Information provided through the Hearing process did not persuade the Panel otherwise. While the change in circumstances will result in an increased DIL, it agrees with Council that consolidating the courts to the Indoor Recreation Centre (DI_OS_6) will improve efficiency and represents a better outcome for the community.
The Panel concludes the revised costing and apportionment for Indoor Recreation Centre (DI_OS_6) are appropriate and justified.
3.6 Active Open Space Reserve at MR Power Park (DI_OS_1)
The issue is whether the proposed costing and apportionment for Project DI_OS_1 (Active Open Space Reserve at MR Power Park) are appropriate and justified.
An existing regional park, MR Power Park, is located in the east of Sub-Precinct 1. This park is currently underutilised and offers excellent potential to improve the quality of the recreational provision and landscape character.
PSP Table 6 categorises MR Power Park as a 'District Park'.
For Project DI_OS_1 (Active Open Space Reserve at MR Power Park), the exhibited DCP specifies:
Council explained that when the original DCP was prepared, the cost apportionments of several major community and open space projects including Project DI_OS_1 were deliberately suppressed after exhibition. This occurred through Council making voluntary contributions to reduce the DIL during the early stages of development in Ballarat West. It submitted that consequently, the DCP apportionment for active open space was set artificially low, reflecting policy choices made to stimulate development rather than accurately representing need, nexus or demand generated by the PSP.
Council added that as the PSP has matured and construction cost escalated, these historical discounts have shifted a disproportionate share of the project cost onto Council and increased the unfunded DCP shortfall.
Two submissions objected to the apportionment for Project DI_OS_1 (Active Open Space Reserve at MR Power Park) increasing from 41 per cent to 100 per cent. They noted the apportionment increase even though the project area reduced by about 78 per cent (18 hectares to 4 hectares).
Consistent with his view on Project DI_OS_6, Mr Shipp found the apportionment changes to be appropriate and consistent with principles of need, nexus and equity and current practice in preparing DCPs.
The Panel had some concern when reviewing Project DI_OS_1. As categorised by the PSP, a regional or district park would generally attract people from a catchment beyond the PSP area. It would not be strategically justified to apportion the entire project cost of a regional or district facility to the PSP area, given development outside the PSP contributes to the need for the facility.
The Panel understands Council's explanation as to why Project DI_OS_1 was not originally fully costed to the PSP area to help reduce the DIL amount. However, whether the project should be fully apportioned to all developers in the PSP area depends on the degree to which it will attract demand beyond this area.
However, having reviewed the indicative concept plan for MR Power Park in the PSP, the Panel considers this downscaled version is not of the scale and nature of a typical regional park that would attract a notable proportion of demand beyond the PSP area.
Accordingly, the Panel agrees with Mr Shipp that the proposed 100 percent apportionment to the PSP area is appropriate and consistent with principles of need, nexus and equity and current practice in preparing DCPs.
The Panel concludes the revised costing and apportionment for MR Power Park - Active Open Space (DI_OS_1) are appropriate and justified.
3.7 Bridge Project - Schreenans Road Creek Crossing (DI_RD_31c)
The exhibited DCP includes Project DI_RD_31c (Schreenans Lane Creek Crossing) with cost of $ $13,031,298.76 and 89 per cent apportionment to the Ballarat West PSP area. The project is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Project DI_RD_31c (Schreenans Lane Creek Crossing)
Council considered the crossing is necessary for enabling Schreenans Road to operate as planned within the PSP hierarchy for the strategic transport network originally envisaged for the Ballarat West PSP. It explained without a vehicular crossing at this location, the network lacks an important east-west connector, causing traffic to be redistributed onto less suitable routes and reducing overall network resilience.
Council relied on the evidence of Mr De Young that the crossing should be delivered to a 'basic and essential' standard including 'a single traffic lane in each direction and a shared path on one side'.
Council committed to undertake further work to ensure the bridge design is basic and essential, consistent with Mr De Young's recommendation to construct the bridge efficiently and proportionately, meeting minimum design needs without unnecessary embellishment.
The Panel accepts that Schreenans Road needs to perform an east-west connector function as planned within the PSP hierarchy for the strategic transport network originally envisaged for the Ballarat West PSP. Council's commitment to ensure that the bridge design is the minimum necessary for Schreenans Road to perform its function in the transport hierarchy addresses the submitter's concerns regarding the project costing.
Review the Schreenans Road Creek Crossing (DI_RD_31c) design and costings before finalising the Ballarat West Development Contributions Plan, to ensure:
a) the bridge design including its length, width and cross-section is the minimum necessary for Schreenans Road to perform its intended function in the transport hierarchy
b) the cost reflects the outcome of this review.
3.8 Requests for additional DCP infrastructure projects
The issues are whether it is appropriate and justified for the Development Contributions Plan to be revised to include:
One submission requested the Webb Road/Schreenans Road roundabout be included as a DCP item because it serves the wider Bonshaw and Ballarat community and forms part of the Schreenans Road upgrade.
Council opposed including the Webb Road/Schreenans Road roundabout as a DCP item as there is no technical material or evidence supporting this change. It relied on a review of transport projects by Milward Engineering (the Transport Projects Review) including the potential need for a new roundabout at the Schreenans Road/Webb Road intersection.
Council accepted a conclusion of the Transport Projects Review that because a funding and delivery mechanism already exists, the roundabout should be shown in the PSP but not included as a DCP item. It submitted:
Mr De Young found no exceptional circumstances arising that warrant including the intersection in the DCP. He considered the roundabout should not be included as a new transport infrastructure item in the updated DCP as it is an intersection of a link road and a key access street.
Similarly, Mr Shipp stated the Webb Road/Schreenans Road roundabout does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion in the DCP because the proposed roundabout is located "between a Link Road and a key access street" and this functional relationship "does not meet the criteria applied to include in the DCP".
Council relied on evidence of Mr De Young and Mr Shipp to support its submission that the roundabout should continue to be delivered through developer works rather than the DCP. It explained there is an established funding pathway and no basis for treating this intersection as an exceptional case.
A roundabout at the Webb Road/Schreenans Road intersection is shown in the PSP and is to be delivered as developer works rather than being funded through the DCP. The Panel is satisfied based on the expert evidence that the intersection is between a link road (typically a connector road or arterial road) and a key access street and does not meet the criteria for funding through the DCP. The DCP funds higher order road projects that serve a broader catchment. There is no other exceptional circumstance to justify changing the existing developer funding of the intersection to a DCP funded item.
3.8.3 Ballarat-Carngham Road and Mirelle Drive traffic signals
On 11 February 2014, Council issued Planning Permit PLP/2013/347 for:
The need for signalised Mirelle Intersection treatment was not identified in 2014 when:
The Traffic Impact Assessment (Driscoll Engineering, 3 December 2019) prepared for the Carringum Estate development:
The Planning Permit requires the ultimate intersection works be (whichever is first):
Landmack based its submission on the traffic expert evidence it called from Mr Walley. Mr Walley, stated:
Landmack purchased the property with a permit condition requiring an upgrade of the Ballarat-Carngham Road/Mirelle Drive intersection before Stage 5. It has acted on the permit to develop and subdivide the land.
The Panel considers the intersection upgrade should not be included as a DCP item because:
3.8.4 Ballarat-Carngham Road and Presentation Boulevard (DI_JNC_02) land acquisition
The exhibited DCP includes Project (DI_JNC_02) (Carngham Rd / New N-S Rd (North) Signalised Intersection), which the Panel has concluded should be a roundabout, consistent with the current DCP. The exhibited DCP does not include land required to deliver the intersection.
Nordic Pty Ltd (Nordic) which is part of the Mondous Property Group, advised it is developing nearby land as a Neighbourhood Activity Centre and the intersection will provide the primary access to the centre. Nordic requested:
Nordic advised it intends to start developing the Neighbourhood Activity Centre in July 2026. It submitted that Council and DTP should cooperate to undertake the design work as soon as possible and as part of finalising this Amendment.
Council supported the Panel providing guidance that further design work should be progressed with DTP (and completed when properly able to be undertaken), but did not support making a detailed Functional Layout Plan a condition precedent to finalising the Amendment. It submitted it is unrealistic and impractical to require a detailed Functional Layout Plan to be completed as a precondition to finalising the Amendment. Council explained that resolving this through the Amendment is unnecessary and would:
Council added that any delay will materially impact the ability for Council to resolve substantive terms in draft section 173 agreements in respect of ongoing negotiated works-in-kind and drainage for active developments in the precinct. It considered that such delays may impact the timing of delivery of infrastructure items.
In response to questions at the Hearing, Mr De Young stated that applying the Public Acquisition Overlay to the southeast land:
In its submission, Head TfV generally agreed the Public Acquisition Overlay should be applied to the part of 163 Ballarat-Carngham Road required to facilitate the roundabout. In response to a question from the Panel, Head TfV confirmed that it would be the acquiring authority for the Public Acquisition Overlay.
Council opposed applying the Public Acquisition Overlay through the Amendment. It explained:
Nordic requested the PSP and DCP be amended to include the cost of acquiring the land required to facilitate the construction of the roundabout as a DCP funded item.
In response to questions at the Hearing, Mr De Young stated there is merit in including the land necessary to deliver the intersection as an item in the DCP. This is because a small part of 163 Ballarat-Carngham Road in the southeast corner of the intersection is not in the Neighbourhood Activity Centre and is needed to complete the future intersection.
As recognised by parties, further detailed design work is needed to define the extent of land required for an urban 4-lane 2-way roundabout at Ballarat-Carngham Road and Presentation Boulevard. The Panel agrees with Council that it is unrealistic and impractical to require a detailed Functional Layout Plan to be completed as a precondition to finalising the Amendment. Without this work, it is not possible to strategically justify applying the Public Acquisition Overlay or including the item in the DCP.
The detailed work needed to justify such changes would result in significant delay that would negatively impact:
Including such changes through the Amendment would also result in serious procedural issues. The Panel agrees with Council that seeking to apply the Public Acquisition Overlay would not be appropriate, as this did not form part of the exhibited Amendment and the affected landowner has not been consulted. Such a change would require the Amendment to be re-exhibited to fairly give the affected landowner an opportunity to respond.
The Panel concludes it is not appropriate or justified for the Ballarat West Development Contributions Plan to be revised to include:
The issue is whether the proposed reduced active open space and increased public open space contribution amounts are justified and appropriate.
A local resident considered the Amendment proposes to reduce active open space from 57.61 hectares (5.26 per cent of gross developable area) to 36.64 hectares (3.35 per cent), and further down to 18.63 hectares. They submitted:
Council acknowledged changes to the open space network mean there is now an undersupply of active open space in Ballarat West, however the Community and Recreation Infrastructure Report:
Council accepted that passive open space is not a like-for-like replacement for formal active recreation. It said the VPA benchmark of 6 per cent of net developable area is a useful starting point but is not mandatory.
Mr Shipp's instructions from Council included primary reasons for the changes to active open space. To consider whether the reduced amount of active open space will continue to meet the needs of the community, Mr Shipp:
The Panel notes Council's submission that the VPA benchmark of active open space equivalent to 6 per cent of net developable area is a starting point but is not mandatory. It should be what developments strive to achieve where possible, noting that not all precincts are equal or capable of achieving this target.
While there may be challenges in achieving 6 per cent active open space in the PSP area, Council seeks to offset this by seeking further active open space outside the PSP area that will be accessible to the PSP community.
The Panel accepts Mr Shipp's evidence on this matter, noting that he did not recommend any change to the PSP or DCP.
The Panel concludes the proposed reduced active open space and increased public open space contribution amounts are justified and appropriate through a sound methodology.
The issue is whether it is appropriate and justified to increase the public open space contribution rate from 5.31 to 5.91 per cent of gross developable area for land covered by the Ballarat West Precinct Structure Plan in the Clause 53.01 Schedule.
The Amendment proposes to increase the public open space contribution rate from 5.31 to 5.91 per cent of gross developable area for land covered by the Ballarat West Precinct Structure Plan in Clause 53.01 Schedule.
In explaining the approach to calculating the 5.91 per cent public open space contribution, Mr Shipp stated:
Mr Shipp considered the Clause 53.01 Schedule should not be revised as exhibited because - the proposed increase in public open space contributions to 5.91 per cent is not justified in quantitative terms. He stated:
Council accepted and adopted Mr Shipp's recommendation.
Mr Shipp clearly articulates why the Amendment should not revise the public open space contribution for land covered by the Ballarat West Precinct Structure Plan in Clause 53.01 Schedule. Like Council, the Panel accepts Mr Shipp's evidence. This resolves the issue raised in submissions.
The Panel concludes it is not appropriate or justified to increase the public open space contribution rate from 5.31 to 5.91 per cent of gross developable area for land covered by the Ballarat West Precinct Structure Plan in the Clause 53.01 Schedule.
Amend the Clause 53.01 Schedule to no longer revise the existing public open space rate for land covered by the Ballarat West Precinct Structure Plan from 5.31 to 5.91 per cent.
The current PSP and DCP are based on a 2011 drainage strategy. Since 2011, there have been major changes to the methods of assessing design drainage flows in Australian Engineering Practice. These changes include updated design rainfalls by the Bureau of Meteorology that impact the expected runoff volume and the release of the Australian Rainfall and Runoff 2019 that significantly changed the best practice analysis methods for the estimation of design rainfalls.
The proposed PSP and DCP are based on an updated drainage strategy that includes a detailed analysis of the drainage works completed to date in the PSP area and updates the drainage design for works not yet completed. The underlying hydrological and hydraulic analysis for the strategy has also been updated to reflect changes based on updates to Australian Rainfall and Runoff, 2019.
5.3 Installed pipes in the P and T sub-catchments and reduced pipe sizes
The installed pipes in the P and T sub-catchments were based on the 2011 drainage strategy. The updated drainage strategy using Australian Rainfall and Runoff 2019 produces lower peak flows compared to the 2011 strategy, therefore requires smaller pipes.
The updated drainage strategy has raised concerns relating to sub-catchments P and T affecting PSP properties 208 and 209, where DCP-funded pipes were installed compliant with the existing strategy. The reduced pipe sizes in the revised DCP will result in a reduced credit payable for Project DI_DR_P/T despite pipes already being designed, approved and installed to the previous standard.
The location of the P and T sub-catchments is shown in Figure 3
Source: Ballarat West PSP Review Drainage Strategy Update (Engeny, 19 December 2024)
Appendix A, Figure A.2: RORB Impervious Fractions, Annotated by the Panel
Integra Group, a landowner in the P and T sub-catchments:
Mr Swan gave drainage evidence for Council. He stated the revised PSP pipe sizes, the hydrological basis used to derive them, and the DCP costings remain sound and should not be amended. He conducted a pipe-by-pipe analysis which found developers had designed drainage with oversized of pipes, using different inputs and methodologies, different hydrology and different alignments and routes, and different local design decisions. Mr Swan considered the drainage strategy, PSP and DCP should not be revised based on these variations.
Council relied on the evidence of Mr Swan and submitted:
The updated PSP and DCP should reflect the relevant design standards that apply when the preparing the update. This is particularly important where more contemporary data on rainfall and climate change impact is available. The Panel accepts that it is appropriate to use Australian Rainfall and Runoff 2019 for the updated drainage strategy underpinning the Amendment.
The pipe sizes already installed took account of standards, design decisions based on local conditions applicable at the time. It is appropriate for the updated drainage strategy to apply the standards applicable now and for the PSP and DCP to reflect those standards. There is no basis to revise the PSP or DCP to account for drainage infrastructure already installed.
Mr Swan stated it was difficult to express an opinion on this matter because Integra Group did not provide any information on why the gross pollutant traps are significantly understated.
The Council relied on the evidence of Mr Swan and submitted:
In the absence of alternate costing, the Panel accepts the evidence of Mr Swan and sees no grounds for amending the drainage strategy or the DCP.
Integra Group submitted that "some of the costs associated with reducing the land area requirement have not been included". The submission did not provide any context or reasons to explain this issue.
Mr Swan considered it appropriate to reduce the expected land area to the original area in the DCP if Council accepts the design.
Council relied on the evidence of Mr Swan that there is no basis for Integra Group's claim as the revised areas in the drainage strategy are adopted in the DCP costings and the structural elements associated with the basin design were also addressed through that costing process.
Council concluded there is no need to change the revised drainage strategy or the DCP.
The Panel accepts the uncontested evidence of Mr Swan. It agrees there is no basis for claims raised by Integra Group because the revised areas in the drainage strategy are adopted in the DCP costings and the structural elements associated with the basin design were also addressed through that costing process.
5.6 Drainage design standards and the 1-in-10 year issue
Submitters who collectively referred to themselves as 'Stakeholder Reference Group' queried a statement in the DCP that the local drainage system will have capacity to process a 1-in-10-year storm event and sought clarification about how this relates to the trunk drainage standard.
The Panel considers that Mr Swan has fully responded to the submitter's queries when he confirmed:
This does not represent a change to the drainage system. The local drainage system is (and always was) to be designed to cater for a different intensity storm event to the trunk infrastructure. The Panel agrees with Council's proposal to revise the PSP to make this clear and expressly identify the trunk drainage system has been and will be designed and constructed for a 10 per cent annual exceedance probability storm event.
5.7 Broader issues about drainage asset sizing, location and costing
Stakeholder Reference Group was concerned about the sizing, location and costing of drainage infrastructure across the PSP, including examples of pipe discrepancies provided after exhibition.
Council relied on the evidence of Mr Swan and submitted:
Having regard to Mr Swan's uncontested evidence on this matter and insufficient information in the submission, the Panel considers the drainage strategy proves a sound rationale for the PSP and the DCP.
Amend the Ballarat West Precinct Structure Plan to expressly identify at page 77 that the trunk drainage system has been and will be designed and constructed for a 10 per cent annual exceedance probability storm event.
6.1 Ballarat West Native Vegetation Precinct Plan sunset clause
The issue is whether the Ballarat West Native Vegetation Precinct Plan (the NVPP) should include a sunset clause to recognise the precinct's urban context and changes since 2012.
The NVPP was prepared in 2012 and incorporated into the Planning Scheme with the original PSP. It established offset requirements based on the 'net gain' framework, identified 25 hectares of first-party offsets and 22.7 hectares of potential offsets to compensate for scattered tree loss.
The PSP states it should be read with the NVPP and includes Section 1.2 (The Ballarat West Native Vegetation Precinct Plan).
Following further discussion with the Council, DEECA supported the inclusion of a sunset clause and recommended the following wording (or similar) is inserted into the NVPP:
DEECA requested PSP section 1.2 be revised to replace:
Council submitted that given DEECA's agreement, it is appropriate to:
The NVPP is incorporated into the Ballarat Planning Scheme through Clause 52.16 which exempts the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation that is in accordance with the NVPP.
Given that is recognised by both Council and DEECA that the current NVPP no longer provides a reliable statutory basis for managing native vegetation in the precinct, it is appropriate to sunset the current NVPP. The effect of sunsetting the current NVPP is that a permit will be required for native vegetation removal through Clause 52.17. This is an appropriate approach for managing native vegetation in the PSP, given the extent of urbanisation and historic loss of native vegetation.
The Panel concludes there should be a sunset clause in the Ballarat West Native Vegetation Precinct Plan to recognise the precinct's urban context and changes since 2012.
Amend the Ballarat West Native Vegetation Precinct Plan to include the following:
Amend the Ballarat West Precinct Structure Plan to revise section 1.2 regarding the Ballarat West Native Vegetation Precinct Plan as shown in Appendix B.
6.2 Growling Grass Frog conservation and offset management
The Growling Grass Frog is an endangered species protected under the EPBC Act. Any impact on the species is a 'Matter of National Environmental Significance'. This means that any actions, including development activities, which might impact the Growling Grass Frog are:
The Growling Grass Frog habitat is current managed under the 2011 Ballarat West Conservation Management Plan (2011 CMP). Council prepared an updated draft CMP in 2023 and explained it has deferred further work, as agreed by DTP and DEECA, to a subsequent process, to ensure the need for detailed ecological and strategic review does not delay the timely implementation of the Amendment or affect the funding and delivery of critical DCP items.
Development proponents are responsible for ensuring compliance with the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), including referral requirements for actions that may have a significant impact on the Growling Grass Frog (being a Matter of National Environmental Significance).
Subject to the production of evidence to the satisfaction of the responsible authority in respect of any application for the development of land which includes land identified on Plan 8 as potential Growling Grass Frog habitat, that approval exists under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) for the proposed development or that the proposed development is not a controlled action, none of the requirements or guidelines in the PSP relating to the Growling Grass Frog applies.
Miles Farms also request that Urban Growth Zone Schedule 2 be revised so that:
An application for development must provide evidence to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority that any approvals have been obtained where necessary under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth).
Miles Farms Pty Ltd submitted that the 2011 CMP is no longer appropriate to form part of the PSP. It called Mr Organ (an expert on ecology) who stated the 2011 CMP is no longer fit-for-purpose and is outdated because:
At the Hearing, Miles Farms explained that Council provided it with a copy of the draft 2023 CMP which was forwarded to Mr Organ with his brief.
Council acknowledged the 2011 CMP does not meet contemporary standards. It submitted:
Council considered the Amendment's purpose is to update and strengthen the existing planning framework, not to rewrite it wholesale. Accordingly, Council has committed to treating the Growling Grass Frog review as a priority project over this coming year, to be undertaken collaboratively with DEECA, DTP and specialist consultants. That commitment ensures continuity of protection and certainty for proponents while the detailed technical work proceeds in a structured and properly resourced way.
Council disagreed the 2011 CMP is not fit-for-purpose. It explained:
Council disagreed that the Growling Grass Frog matter could be entirely managed through the EPBC Act. It explained:
The PE Act requires Council as the planning authority to implement the objectives of planning in Victoria.[2] Section 4(1)(b) sets out the objectives of planning in Victoria, including:
To provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity.
The Growling Grass Frog has been recently recorded within 25 metres of Winter Creek and within 200 metres south of the PSP area, which are well within the accepted dispersal range. The Panel agrees with Council that the proper inference from such proximity is ongoing potential occupancy, warranting continued habitat protection.
The Panel considers that it is appropriate for the Council in meeting its obligations under the PE Act to include protection measures for the Growling Grass Frog in the PSP and the Planning Scheme. Council provided compelling reasons why the EPBC Act cannot be solely relied on to protect the Growling Grass Frog. Provisions in the PSP and the Planning Scheme would provide an integrated approach to consider this species within the context of other planning issues.
It would have been ideal for Council to have completed its review of the draft 2023 CMP to better inform the PSP review process. Nonetheless, Council is committed to finalising the updated CMP, and DEECA and DTP support retention of the current CMP until the new CMP is finalised. The updated CMP should be finalised and implemented through a separate process to avoid delaying the Amendment. The 2011 CMP should remain in the interim.
One of the housing objectives of the current PSP is to achieve a density of 15 dwellings per net developable hectare throughout the Ballarat West PSP area. The Amendment proposes to revise the PSP to replace this objective with:
To achieve a minimum density of 16 dwellings per Net Developable Hectare (NDHa) throughout the Ballarat West PSP area and encourage a minimum density of 20 dwellings per NDHa for subdivisions on undeveloped sites to reflect the updated targets in the PSP Guidelines 2.0.
The PSP should facilitate increased densities with an average of 20 dwellings or more per NHDA across the entire PSP area.
Planning Scheme Clause 11.03-2S (Growth areas) seeks to:
To locate urban growth close to transport corridors and services and provide efficient and effective infrastructure to create sustainability benefits while protecting primary production, major sources of raw materials and valued environmental areas.
To help achieve this objective, it includes a strategy to:
Deliver residential densities in the growth areas of Melbourne and Major regional cities of an average of at least:
The issue is whether the target of 20 dwellings per net developable hectare specified in the PSP is appropriate and justified.
There were submissions that considered a target of 20 dwellings per net developable hectare may not result in what future generations will value or that is appropriate for Ballarat's fringe context. They objected to applying the target across the entire PSP and requested:
The Panel agrees with Council's submission on this matter. State planning policy, which has increased the target to an average of 20 dwellings per developable hectare in urban areas, reflects current and future expectations. While this target is sought by policy and guidelines, not through a mandatory provision, it should be achieved unless there is an exceptional reason not to. Specifying a lower target would send the wrong message about sustainable development and result in underperforming subdivisions. This would not align with what future generations would value.
It is appropriate and justified to specify a target of 20 dwellings per net developable hectare in the Ballarat West Precinct Structure Plan to align with policy objectives and guidelines.
Amend the Ballarat West Precinct Structure Plan to revise section 5.2 (Housing) to replace the relevant housing objective with:
To achieve a density of 20 dwellings per Net Developable Hectare (NDHa) throughout the Ballarat West PSP area.
Ballarat West Growth Area Growling Grass Frog Conservation Management Plan (December 2011)
Submitter map (confidential - provided to the Panel only)
a) Minister's authorisation - 30 May 2025
b) Summary of submissions and 'Version 1' changes - 24 Nov 2025
c) Indoor Recreation Centre Estimate Peer Review (WT, 14 July 2025)
d) DEECA's correspondence dated 23 October 2025
e) DEECA's correspondence dated 13 November 2025
Expert statement - Paul Shipp (development contributions)
Expert statement - Rob Swan (drainage and stormwater)
Expert statement - Tim De Young (transport engineering)
Email including key to amendment documentation tracked changes
a) Correspondence from Minister's delegate - 15 October 2024
b) DEECA's advice - 15 November 2024
c) DTP's correspondence - 16 December 2024
d) DTP's correspondence - 16 December 2024 - attachment - marked up PSP
e) Delacombe agreement
f) Magee agreement
j) Figure 3 - Noise Emissions
k) Plan 3 - Local Context
m) Plan 7 - Environmental Issues
n) Plan 8 - Future Urban Structure
o) Plan 9 - Land Use Budget
p) Plan 10 - Image and Character
q) Plan 12 - Employment & Activity Centres
r) Plan 14 - Open Space
s) Plan 17 - Road Network
t) Plan 19 - Walking and Trails
u) Plan 23 - Utilities - Natural Gas Network
a) Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 1
b) Urban Growth Zone Schedule 2
c) Clause 53.01 Schedule
Tim De Young's transport engineering evidence in reply
a) Email from DTP (1 April 2022)
b) Email from DTP (13 August 2024)
c) Development Plan
d) May 2020 RRV concept design
e) Planning Permit PLP-2013-347-F
f) Development Contributions Guidelines
Revised Traffic Impact Assessment for original permit
Ballarat West Precinct Structure Plans Future Traffic Estimates and Road Infrastructure Requirements (SMEC, 20 December 2011)
Planning Permit PLP-2024-313 (155 Carngham Road, Winter Valley)
Draft costing - Mirelle Drive - Ballarat-Carngham Road intersection
a) Carringum Estate title documents
b) Letter to Council regarding contributions
c) Reply from Council regarding contributions
d) Development cost estimate
Part C submission
Mirelle Drive and Ballarat-Carngham Road intersection costing master schedule
Beveridge Williams letter advising it is a highly qualified civil engineering consultancy
Email regarding Landmack costings and corrections to Version 1 Amendment documentation
Appendix B Panel recommended PSP section 1.2
1.2 The Ballarat West Native Vegetation Precinct Plan
The Ballarat West NVPP has been prepared to enable native vegetation issues to be considered in a co-ordinated way across the Ballarat West PSP area. The Ballarat West NVPP has been prepared in a manner consistent with the requirements of Clause 52.16 of the Ballarat Planning Scheme. It identifies:
The Ballarat West NVPP has beenis one of the planning tools used to facilitate development and is a separate incorporated document within the Ballarat Planning Scheme (Schedule to Clause 72.04).
Native vegetation surveys undertaken for the NVPP in 2011 recorded 57 remnant trees scattered widely over the precinct area. A total of 20 trees were shown to be retained with the other 37 being removed.
The Ballarat West NVPP proposed the creation of conservation area that can provide habitat and be sustained for the long term. A 13ha area of Plains Grassy Woodland in the west of sub-precincts of 2 and 4 was adopted to conserve the precinct's most intact native vegetation. In addition, two other small areas of Plains Grassy Woodland and Creekline Herb-rich Woodland areas were also recommended as offset areas in sub-precinct 2 and 4.
The Ballarat West NVPP required first party offsets to be established in the identified offset areas as well as some other potential offset areas. The offsets were to be secured through an on-title legal agreement before subdivision and include commitment to manage the offset in perpetuity.
Through permits that have been issued for subdivision and development in Ballarat West, the majority of offsets have actually been provided as third party offsets rather than the anticipated first party offsets.
Acknowledging the age of the Ballarat West NVPP and the changes in legislation since its drafting there is a need to review how native vegetation protection in the precinct will be managed in the future. All vegetation shown as being protected in the NVPP has been assessed through permit applications and the current NVPP as an effective planning tool is therefore redundant.
Reviewing the planning controls for removing and protecting native vegetation is outside the scope of this review but future strategic planning work will review the options for assessing native vegetation on undeveloped sites taking into account current legislation. This strategic planning work will also consider an update to the Ballarat West Conservation Management Plan for the Growling Grass Frog which is discussed further in section 5.6.