The issue is whether the financials of the exhibited DCP (project costs, demand unit calculation and apportionment) are sufficiently justified.

The exhibited DCP is proposed to increase the project costs and alters the demand unit calculation, compared with the existing DCP. Council's Day 1 DCP includes further cost increases. There is no change proposed to the apportionment of costs within the DCP.

Table 2 shows the cost changes between the existing DCP, exhibited DCP, revised costs following exhibition[6] and Day 1 DCP[7] in June 2025 dollars:

Table 2 Costs comparison for different version of the DCP (June 2025 dollars)

• Accepted that the costs increases presented in the Day 1 DCP are 'not insignificant' when compared with the existing DCP.
• It is likely the costs in the original DCP were based on concept plans only.
• Council has undertaken significant work to scope out the DCP project and provide a realistic cost estimate (in June 2025 dollars).
• The updated costs presented in the Day 1 DCP includes water mains and rising sewer main that is not typically included in a DCP, noting an exception in the Arden Precinct[8].
• It is reasonable to include the costs associated with the water mains and rising sewer mains on the basis that:
  • - the infrastructure is relatively localised and would not otherwise be delivered by service authorities
  • - the overall cost is relatively minor
  • - Council would be funding at least 30 percent of the costs of the delivering the project
  • - if the cost of water infrastructure was not included in the DCP, Council would not be able to easily recoup costs through other mechanisms.
• It is reasonable to use the cost estimated prepared by Harlock in July 2025 in the DCP as this represents the best available information and the exhibited DCP anticipated some adjustment to the cost of infrastructure:

The infrastructure project in this DCP has been costed to a sufficient level of detail; however, the Council may amend or modify some aspects of the project, so long as they are still generally in accordance with any direction regarding the scope outlined in this DCP.

Where the Council or another agency seeks to change the scope of a DCP infrastructure item to meet changing standards imposed by adopted policy or a public regulatory agency, such changes of standards and the resulting cost changes should normally be made through a change to the DCP at the time of a regular review of the DCP.

Where, after the DCP has been approved, a Council or other agency proposes changes to the scope of a DCP infrastructure item for reasons other than changes in standards imposed by policy or regulation the net cost increases resulting from the change should normally be met by the agency requesting the change.

• No further notice of the Amendment would be required if the July 2025 costing were included in the DCP because:
  • - it is the best available information
  • - notification would further delay the recouperation of more accurate costs (noting that several properties[9] in the existing DCPO1 have already made contributions).

• That the apportionment costs, being 70 percent to landowners and 30 percent to Council is a pragmatic and reasonable approach given the small scale of the project.
• The apportionment approach has already been accepted by a Panel in Amendment C210morn (i.e. when the original DCP was introduced).

• That the demand unit should be calculated on the basis of lot area, rather than street frontage.
• A lot area demand unit calculation is consistent with the State's Development Contributions Guidelines.
• Demand units defined by the total size of the lot is more logical and equitable as it has regard to the development capacity of the site.

Ms Fisher gave the following evidence on behalf of Council:

• Do not support the inclusion of water mains and rising sewer mains in the DCP project. This type of water infrastructure is not typically included in DCPs, but there had been exceptions in the Arden precinct.
• The project costs prepared by Harlock in July 2025 should be reflected in the planning controls.

• In her peer review, she initially recommended that 100 percent of the costs should be apportioned to landowners in the DCP area.
• In her evidence statement she acknowledged that Council intended to contribute 30 percent of the project costs and considered this reasonable response in the circumstances.
• In her evidence statement she said:

I note that Council could have pursued 100% apportionment however Council's acceptance of 30% effectively deals with any external benefit that would be associated with the proposed DCP project and therefore I consider this approach reasonable in the circumstances.

• Supported the use of lot area to calculate demand.
• The use of lot area is reasonable as it aligns with common practice.

Mr Smith and Mr Dietzsch made the following submissions:

• That landowners of the former industrial zoned land should contribute 100 percent of the project costs, as they were the ones who benefited from the original rezoning.
• Council should not contribute 30 percent of the project costs.

Mr Smith submitted that he was concerned about the change in the demand unit calculation.

Council has accepted that the cost increases included in the exhibited DCP and Day 1 DCP are 'not insignificant'. These costs increases are attributed to several factors, including:

• the inclusion of financing costs
• plan preparation costs
• the inclusion of water infrastructure in the DCP project
• a further review of costs by a quantity surveyor in July 2025.

The costs associated with financing and plan preparation costs are typically included in a DCP. The Panel accepts this approach given it is consistent with the Development Contribution Guidelines and was supported by Ms Fisher in her evidence_._

The costs associated with water mains and rising sewer mains are not typically included in DCPs. The Panel accepts the evidence of Ms Fisher that these items should not be included. This is particularly the case given these works were not included in the exhibited DCP and already the 'not insignificant' cost increase flagged by Council. While the Panel understands Council's dilemma in terms of recovering funds, it is not reasonable to add additional infrastructure that would not normally be expected to be covered in a DCP. Council needs to identify an alternative funding mechanism.

The Panel accepts Ms Fisher's evidence that the project costs should be calculated using the best available information, being the estimates prepared by Harlock in July 2025. However, Harlock's July 2025 estimates will need to be adjusted to reflect the DCP project scope changes recommended by the Panel.

Council should consider if further exhibition of the Amendment is needed on the basis noting that:

• some level of cost review was anticipated in the exhibited DCP
• the Panel is recommending the removal of established residential land from the DCP area (see section 4 of this Report) so they will not be required to bear the costs, but these costs will need to be redistributed to the balance of properties within the DCP area.

The Council has proposed to continue with a 30 percent contribution towards the project costs. This approach is consistent with the existing DCP and effectively deals with any external benefit that would be associated with the DCP project.

This is a reasonable approach in the circumstances and removes the need for a detailed (and costly) analysis of the split between the beneficiaries of the DCP project.

The use of lot area to calculate the demand unit is logical. This approach more accurately reflects the development capacity of land (and associated demand on the planned infrastructure), is consistent with the Development Contribution Guidelines and is a more equitable that an approach relying on the length of a lot's frontage.

• The DCP should not include water mains and rising sewer mains (as presented in Council's Day 1 DCP).
• The updated project costings prepared by Harlock in July 2025 for the project scope presented in the exhibited Amendment can form the basis of the costings in the DCPO1 and DCP.
• The use of lot area to calculate demand is acceptable.
• The approach to apportionment is acceptable.

1. Revise the Creswell Street East, Crib Point Development Contributions Plan (December 2023) and the Development Contribution Plan Overlay Schedule 1 to reflect the Updated Quantity Surveying Estimates prepared by Harlock Consulting (31 July 2025) for the project scope presented in the exhibited Amendment.

• whether the additional road infrastructure should be added to the DCP.
• whether the additional properties should be added to the DCP.

The exhibited DCP expanded the extent of road infrastructure to be upgraded (as shown in Figure 1) that added 12 additional properties as shown in Figure 6 (New DCP land).

Figure 6 Residential properties proposed to be included in the New DCP area

Council's Day 1 Amendment reduced the scope of road works and properties proposed to be included in the DCP area (as described in section 1.3 of this Report). The extent of road works presented in Council's Day 1 Amendment are shown in Appendix B.

• It acknowledged that four submitters (from properties proposed to be added to the DCPO1) already had access to existing drainage infrastructure.
• The Day 1 DCP had been updated in response to submitter concerns to:
  • - remove 6 Cooma Street, 90 and 92 Disney Street, Crib Point from the Amendment
  • - remove infrastructure immediately adjacent to 6 Cooma Street, 90 and 92 Disney Street
  • - revise the DCP infrastructure costs to account for those changes (as discussed in section 3 of this Report).
• It did not have a position in relation to submitter 8. This was a late submission received after Council had resolved its position on the Amendment. No adjustments to the scope of the DCP project were proposed in response to submitter 8.

Ms Fisher gave the following evidence on behalf of Council:

• Did not support the road infrastructure changes presented in Council's Day 1 DCP for the following reasons:

I am concerned that the impact of the Day 1 DCP changes will result in an inconsistent road network that conflicts with the objective of the Exhibited DCP as it does not deliver a continuous local road network that is of shared benefit to the DCP area.

• Did not support the removal of 6 Cooma Street, 90 and 92 Disney Street, Crib Point from the Amendment on the basis that these properties would have a shared benefit from the DCP project. There was insufficient justification to exclude those submitters from the DCP area and reduce the DCP project extent noting the disbenefit to other landowners that would arise due to the delivery of a discontinuous network.
• If 6 Cooma Street, 90 and 92 Disney Street were removed from the DCP area, she would prefer to retain the exhibited DCP project scope but reallocate the costs to the remaining properties in the DCP area.
• In response to cross-examination, she accepted that there was a discrepancy between the cost of constructing the southern end of Cooma Street ($62,000) and the required contributions for those abutting properties under the DCP ($100,000). However, she gave evidence that the abutting properties still obtained a benefit from the project and they should still be required to contribute.
• If Council intended on removing 6 Cooma Street, 90 and 92 Disney Street from the DCP area, it would be consistent to remove the other properties in Creswell Street (west)[10].

• The infrastructure proposed in Cooma Street was not appropriate and would impact on the amenity of his property.
• Upgrades to Cooma Street were not warranted, and that Glossop Street was historically the preferred access for the former industrial land.
• Existing residential properties should not be required to contribute to the cost of the DCP on the basis that they did not need or benefit from the proposed works.
• It was not appropriate to charge properties a second time for existing infrastructure such as the drainage and road infrastructure.

• The infrastructure proposed in Cooma Street and Glossop Street was not consistent with the character of the area and should not be supported, noting a more particular concern with Cooma Street.
• It was not equitable for the properties in Cooma Street and Disney Street to contribute to the DCP project when they already have electricity, gas, sewerage, water and fibre optic cable infrastructure and sufficient road access to meet their needs.
• Properties in Disney Street already have access to a sealed road.
• The contributions required in the exhibited DCP for Cooma and Disney Street properties were not equitable. Council had calculated[11] that the costs of works in Cooma Street equated to $62,000, but that the properties in Cooma Street would need to contribute $100,000 through the exhibited DCP.
• The Amendment is inconsistent with Council's other plans, noting:

Council's Asset Plan requires Council to prioritise maintaining or renewing existing assets over new ones - this Development Plan [on the former industrial land] was privately led and will only benefit those properties clearly within Cresswell (sic) Street and should therefore be fully funded by those properties without subsidisation from adjoining existing properties already having the benefit from the other infrastructure proposed.

• That Cooma Street should be a no through road[12].

Submitters from properties in the New DCP land raised similar concerns to Mr Smith and Mr Dietzsch:

• Opposed the inclusion of established residential properties in the DCP area on the basis that it was unjust and disproportionate.
• Existing residential properties should not be required to contribute to the cost of the DCP on the basis that they did not need or benefit from the proposed works.
• At least 14 properties had already paid their contributions under the existing DCP, at a significantly lower rate than the rate proposed. It would not be fair for new properties, that did not accrue material benefit to pay a higher rate than those properties (who also benefited from the rezoning).
• It is fundamentally unfair to levy existing serviced property to fund infrastructure for future development for which they gain no benefit.

Most submissions were received from owners of established residential properties that are proposed to be included in the DCP area. The Council acknowledged that these properties (all zoned GRZ1) are already serviced by electricity, drainage, sewer and road access (though in some instances an unmade road).

The Panel agrees that these properties will receive some level of shared benefit, however the level of benefit will be generally equivalent to the benefit of other residential properties in the local area (i.e. other properties which are not liable for contributions under the exhibited DCP). The Council has acknowledged these broader local benefits by accepting that it will contribute 30 percent of the costs.

The additional properties would contribute disproportionately to the cost of the DCP project for the following reasons:

• They are only benefiting from a slight upgrade in their existing infrastructure (not the full upgrade which will be experienced by the former industrial properties).
• The costs these residents would be required to contribute would be disproportionate. As illustrated by the example provided by Mr Dietzsch, the Cooma Street properties would contribute $100,000 to a part of the infrastructure project that will cost $62,000.
• Several existing properties have already contributed at the lower rate; and it would be unreasonable for properties that receive less shared benefit to contribute higher costs.

The Panel agrees with Ms Fisher that if Council supported the removal of the Cooma and Disney Street properties from the DCP, all 11 of the established residential properties in the GRZ1 should be removed from the DCP for consistency.

• It is not equitable for established residential properties, that are already serviced to contribute towards the cost of infrastructure at the same rate as unserviced properties in the DCP.
• The established residential properties adjacent to the DCP project will receive some benefit from the works, however the benefit will be generally equivalent to the benefit of other residential properties in the local area which are not liable for contributions under the exhibited DCP.
• The scope of road upgrades identified in the exhibited DCP is appropriate and should not be altered.
• The cost of the road upgrades in the exhibited DCP should be redistributed among the properties already mapped in the Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 1.
• Council should consider whether further notification of the DCP is required, having regard to the increases costs and the recommendation to redistribute costs between less properties.

1. Revise the Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 1 mapping to delete the 11 additional residential properties (i.e. land zoned General Residential Zone 1).
2. Revise the Creswell Street East, Crib Point Development Contributions Plan (December 2023) and the Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 1 to redistribute the costs to the properties remaining in the Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 1.

• whether vegetation removal exemptions should be provided for in the Amendment
• whether the project delivery date in the exhibited DCP should be extended to allow for vegetation removal application processes.

The exhibited Amendment included the introduction of a native vegetation exemption through a modification to the schedule at Clause 52.17 (Native vegetation). The exemption was proposed to facilitate the removal of native vegetation required for the DCP project.

• The native vegetation exemption was initially introduced at the suggestion of Department of Transport and Planning officers who suggested it as a means of streamlining the approvals process for the DCP project.
• The exemption would have applied to native vegetation only and removed the formal requirement for Council to provide offsets for the losses incurred.
• Council was mindful of its lead role in protecting and enhancing Mornington Peninsula's biodiversity.
• Council had committed to voluntarily pay for native vegetation offsets as part of its resolution to proceed with the Amendment.
• Accepted the submissions of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action and had resolved to remove the native vegetation exemption in the Day 1 Amendment.
• Would pursue a separate planning application process to remove native vegetation to facilitate the DCP project. The permit application would be able to encompass other vegetation removal triggers that might exist (e.g. under the Vegetation Protection Overlay).

• Did not support the native vegetation removal exemption as proposed in the exhibited Amendment.
• The most appropriate statutory process to facilitate the removal of native vegetation to facilitate the DCP project was a permit application process.
• This permit application process would require referral to DEECA.

• Several submitters raised concerns about the extent of vegetation removal required, identifying particular trees that should be retained.

The Panel accepts that Council introduced the native vegetation exemption as part of the Amendment with a view to streamlining the process for the delivery of the DCP project. The Panel accepts Council's revised position and notes there are some benefits in terms of enabling the consideration of all vegetation removal requirements (for example, for native and non-native vegetation).

This approach is more likely to enable further avoidance of impacts and secure native vegetation offsets through the permit application process.

The Panel canvassed the implications of delays in the permit process with the overall DCP project delivery timelines at the Hearing (completion by 2028). Council did not have a formal position on project delivery, but was open to the Panel considering an extension. To ensure the DCP does not need to be amended another time, it is recommended the project delivery time be extended to 2030 (noting this will not affect the project finance costs which are capped at a 5 year period).

• The native vegetation removal exemptions should be deleted from the Amendment.
• The removal of vegetation can be considered through the usual planning application process, enabling a full consideration of options to avoid, minimise and offset any impacts on native vegetation.
• The project delivery date at sections 2.2.2 and 5.4 of the exhibited DCP should be extended to 2030, rather than 2028 to allow sufficient time to secure any required approvals.

1. Delete the exemptions for native vegetation removal from the Schedule to Clause 52.17.
2. Revise the Creswell Street East, Crib Point Development Contributions Plan (December 2023) to extend the project delivery date to 2030.

Late submission from Caitlin and David Phillips (referred to the Panel)

Email to late submitter providing opportunity to complete a request to be heard form for the Hearing

• - Photos of Amendment land
• - Map of photo locations
• - Authorisation Request for Further Information, responses and authorisation with conditions
• - Submitter map
• - Planning Permit applications map and table
• - Detailed design drawings (Rev E) (20 June 2025) (Preferred position), Updated Quantity Surveyor estimates (exhibited and preferred position), memorandum drainage within DCP (July 2025)

Expert evidence statement of Jo Fisher of Mesh Planning Pty Ltd

• - Explanatory report (tracked)
• - Instructions sheet (tracked)
• - Clause 45.06 Schedule 1 DCPO (tracked)
• - Clause 52.17 Schedule (tracked)
• - Clause 72.04 Schedule (tracked)
• - DCPO Map 33
• - Creswell Street East, Crib Point DCP (tracked)
• - Comparison Table - DCP costs using revised figures

Additional material referred to in Council's submissions:

• - Amendment C210morn Explanatory report
• - Amendment C210morn Panel report
• - Existing DCP sought to be amended
• - Aerial images (April 2019 and June 2025)

Drainage comparison plans (as presented at the Hearing)

Appendix B Council's preferred extent of road works in Day 1 Amendment

Figure 7 Council's preferred extent of works in Cooma Street

Figure 8 Council's preferred extent of works in Creswell Street (West)

Figure 9 Council's preferred extent of infrastructure Glossop Street

[3] Revised date introduced through Amendment C305morn which came into effect on 18 July 2024

[4] Council's Part A submission, page 25

[5] At that time the late submission had not been received, this was referred to the Panel in July 2025.

[6] This is the revised cost estimate of the project as exhibited (e.g. including the Cooma Street infrastructure)

[7] This is revised cost estimate of the project based on Council's preferred position (e.g. not including a portion of Cooma Street infrastructure).

[8] Arden Precinct Development Contributions Plan (Amended December 2023)

[9] Refer to discussion in section 1.2.4 of this Report

[12] The Panel clarified that this issue was outside the remit of the Hearing.