title: Inverleigh Development Contributions Assessment and Cost Apportionment Model council: golden-plains state: vic category: strategy classification: MAJOR status: in-progress last_compiled: 2026-05-30 source_docs:
- PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf
- Att 8.3a Amendment documents.pdf
- Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf
Inverleigh Development Contributions Assessment and Cost Apportionment Model
The Inverleigh contribution model is being used as a site-specific infrastructure funding mechanism for the proposed rezoning and 56-lot low density residential subdivision at 9 Mahers Road and 60 Terrier Road, rather than as a formal Development Contributions Plan in the planning scheme. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.39; Source: Att 8.3a Amendment documents.pdf, p.5) Its practical effect is to attach an infrastructure charge to subdivision delivery through a section 173 agreement, while separately requiring works-in-kind, public open space, drainage, road, water, biodiversity and flood-management obligations through permit conditions. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.39; Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, pp.9-14)
Background
The contribution mechanism sits inside combined Planning Scheme Amendment C98gpla and planning permit P21334 for land at 9 Mahers Road and 60 Terrier Road, Inverleigh. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.16) The combined process under section 96A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 allows the rezoning and planning permit to be exhibited and considered together, with the Minister for Planning making the final permit decision after the amendment process. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, pp.16-17)
The amendment proposes to rezone the land from Farming Zone to Low Density Residential Zone, apply Design and Development Overlay Schedule 5, and apply Development Plan Overlay Schedule 18. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.16; Source: Att 8.3a Amendment documents.pdf, p.3) The planning permit proposes a staged multi-lot subdivision, native vegetation removal, subdivision adjacent to a principal road, alteration of access, and creation of easements. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.20)
The subject land is described in the council agenda as approximately 33 hectares, while the amendment documentation describes the broader affected land as approximately 38.36 hectares made up of nine allotments. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.19; Source: Att 8.3a Amendment documents.pdf, p.2) This discrepancy is analytically important because the contribution charge is expressed per net developable hectare excluding drainage, and the available source documents do not state the final net developable area used in the apportionment model. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.39)
Analysis
Contribution Mechanism and Legal Form
Council officers state that an apportionment of future infrastructure costs has been calculated from Inverleigh’s projected growth in infill and greenfield areas, together with an identified list of development infrastructure items needed to service the town as it grows in accordance with the Inverleigh Structure Plan 2019. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.39) Instead of preparing a formal Development Contributions Plan, Council proposes to collect contributions through a section 173 agreement because the land is in single ownership. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.39)
The model therefore uses DCP-style principles without creating a statutory DCP schedule in the planning scheme. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.39) This matters because a DCP would normally create a broader planning-scheme levy framework, while the proposed mechanism binds this specific land through an agreement registered on title before statement of compliance. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.39; Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, pp.9-10)
The stated charge is $22,720.89 per net developable hectare, excluding drainage. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.39) The exclusion of drainage land means that the charge is sensitive to the final subdivision design: every hectare classified as drainage rather than net developable land reduces the chargeable area by one hectare, while the permit still requires drainage reserves, stormwater infrastructure and easements to be delivered. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.39; Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, pp.6-7)
The source documents do not provide the October 2022 Mesh Planning Inverleigh Development Contributions Assessment or its cost apportionment table. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.39) That means the available evidence confirms the charge rate and collection method, but does not allow independent verification of the infrastructure item list, cost estimates, apportionment ratios, indexation assumptions, or the split between existing-community and new-growth demand. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.39)
Works-in-Kind and Cash Contribution Logic
The contribution model does not operate as a simple cash levy only. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.39) Council states that infrastructure items already agreed to be delivered or upgraded under the planning permit have been excluded from the assessment, and that the proponent is delivering the significant Hamilton Highway and Mahers Road intersection upgrade as works-in-kind before paying the outstanding amount as a cash contribution. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, pp.39-40)
This creates a two-part infrastructure funding mechanism. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, pp.39-40) First, direct works are imposed through permit conditions and delivered as part of subdivision staging; second, any residual contribution is collected through the section 173 agreement and cash payment pathway. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, pp.39-40; Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, pp.9-10)
The draft permit requires, before statement of compliance for stage 1, a fully upgraded Hamilton Highway and Mahers Road intersection with a full-length left-turn lane from Hamilton Highway into Mahers Road and a basic right-turn lane from Hamilton Highway into Mahers Road. (Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, p.14) The draft permit also requires Terrier Road and its Hamilton Highway intersection to be upgraded with a left-turn lane from Hamilton Highway into Terrier Road. (Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, p.14)
The downstream planning effect is that the first stage cannot proceed to compliance unless the principal access upgrade is delivered, while later subdivision delivery must also resolve Terrier Road flooding and intersection works. (Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, pp.14-15) This makes road delivery a sequencing dependency, not merely a background contribution item. (Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, pp.14-15)
Land Supply Rationale
The contribution model is being applied to a proposal that Council frames as part of Inverleigh’s low density residential land supply response. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, pp.23-24) Council records show 22 new Low Density Residential Zone lots created in 2021, 42 in 2022, 96 in 2023, 8 in January-February 2024, and a projected 48 in 2024 based on January-February figures. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.23)
Council states that there are 267 zoned LDRZ lots in Inverleigh and no other rezoning applications for low density residential land in the town. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.24) Council also states that this equates to 11-12 years of demand at an average of 23 LDRZ houses per year, or about 9 years if demand increases to approximately 30 houses per year. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.24)
The proposed 56-lot subdivision is therefore materially smaller than the 96 lots created in 2023, but large enough to represent roughly 2.4 years of supply at 23 dwellings per year or roughly 1.9 years of supply at 30 dwellings per year if each lot ultimately supports one dwelling. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, pp.23-24) That arithmetic shows why the contribution model is not a town-wide growth-funding solution by itself; it is a contribution mechanism attached to one growth-front subdivision within a broader settlement strategy. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, pp.23-24, 39)
Drainage, Flooding and Chargeable Land
Flooding is a binding design constraint for the subdivision and therefore directly affects both development yield and the contribution base. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, pp.32-34) Council states that the land is partly affected by the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and Floodway Overlay, and that the subdivision design was modified in consultation with the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority so future dwellings, sheds and access points could be outside flood-affected areas. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, pp.32-34)
The stormwater concept includes grassed swales in public road reserves and private drainage easements, with a single end-of-line detention basin, wetland or retarding basin in an 8,820 square metre drainage reserve on adjoining lots 34 and 35 Terrier Road. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.37) Because the contribution charge excludes drainage, the 8,820 square metre drainage reserve alone would remove 0.882 hectares from the chargeable area if it is treated as excluded drainage land under the final model. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, pp.37, 39)
The permit conditions require stormwater analysis for major and minor events, pre-development peak flow retention or an agreed equivalent, drainage reserves for detention basins, BPEM water-quality treatment, and minimum 5 metre drainage easements where open drains run through lots. (Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, pp.6-7) These requirements show that drainage is not simply a land-use constraint; it is a staged civil infrastructure package that must be designed, easement-protected, vested or maintained before subdivision compliance. (Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, pp.6-7, 10)
The CCMA conditions require the detailed basin design to follow the Water Technology Stormwater Management Strategy, require swales on private land to be secured by easement and section 173 agreement or equivalent covenant, and require cut-and-fill plans and supporting flood modelling before certification of any stage. (Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, p.13) Building envelopes for lots intersecting the 1% AEP floodplain must not themselves intersect the 1% AEP floodplain, except for lot 58, and floodplain-management consent is required to alter the restriction. (Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, p.13)
The Terrier Road flood-access condition is especially consequential because the Flood Impact Assessment for the road upgrade must show that the road does not redirect or obstruct floodwater, reduce flood storage, or increase flood levels and velocities outside the property boundaries. (Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, pp.13-14) Access to each lot must also meet flood hazard safety criteria of depth no greater than 0.3 metres, velocity no greater than 3.0 metres per second, and depth multiplied by velocity no greater than 0.3 square metres per second. (Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, p.14)
Wastewater, Water Supply and Servicing
The low density residential zoning relies on on-site wastewater treatment because Inverleigh is not serviced by reticulated sewerage in the short to medium term. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.31) Council cites the C87gpla Panel as noting that the absence of reticulated sewerage and flood limitations restrict smaller-lot supply near the township centre, making the Low Density Residential Zone one of the few available zones to increase lot supply. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.31)
The permit conditions require effluent to be treated to secondary standard on all lots under 8,000 square metres, require effluent disposal envelopes or exclusion zones for lots close to surface waters, and require all wastewater to be treated and retained within lots under the Environment Protection Regulations. (Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, p.6) The section 173 agreement must also require secondary-standard effluent on all lots and locate effluent management areas above the 1:100 year flood level. (Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, p.10)
Potable water is a separate infrastructure dependency. (Source: Att 8.3a Amendment documents.pdf, p.4) The amendment documentation states that the proposal will result in construction of a 2.6 kilometre water main extension to deliver potable water supply to western Inverleigh. (Source: Att 8.3a Amendment documents.pdf, p.4) Barwon Water permit conditions require reticulated potable water mains, servicing design through Barwon Water’s Developer Works process, possible strategic potable water infrastructure, easements for water infrastructure, and standardised New Customer Contributions for new or upsized connections. (Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, p.12)
This means the contribution model does not absorb all servicing costs. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.39; Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, p.12) Water authority charges, developer works, possible strategic potable water assets, and lot-level wastewater systems sit alongside the Council contribution framework rather than inside the stated $22,720.89 per net developable hectare charge. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.39; Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, p.12)
Open Space, Movement and Character Infrastructure
The draft permit requires a public open space contribution equal to 5% of site value before statement of compliance. (Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, pp.9-10) DPO18 separately requires a public open space contribution for passive open space equal to at least 5% of net developable area, while stating that encumbered land, including land required for future retarding basins, will not be credited as public open space. (Source: Att 8.3a Amendment documents.pdf, p.14)
This distinction prevents drainage land from doing double duty as credited public open space. (Source: Att 8.3a Amendment documents.pdf, p.14) The practical result is that land required for retarding basins remains an infrastructure and flood-management requirement, while open space must be accounted for separately through the subdivision and contribution framework. (Source: Att 8.3a Amendment documents.pdf, p.14; Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, pp.9-10)
The subdivision is also required to provide movement infrastructure that reflects the Inverleigh Framework Plan, including walking, cycling and horse-riding links to the recreation reserve, primary school, township, river environs and Victoria Park. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.31) DPO18 requires connected walkable streets and establishment of a bridle path through the subdivision, while the permit conditions require a 2.4 metre granitic sand bridle path along the identified route. (Source: Att 8.3a Amendment documents.pdf, p.14; Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, p.7)
DPO18 also requires 25 metre road reserves with 7 metre pavements where possible, or narrower pavements only where enough space remains in the 25 metre reserve for the bridle path network and landscaping. (Source: Att 8.3a Amendment documents.pdf, p.13) Council’s agenda states that 25 metre road widths are provided to accommodate open swale drains and street trees, so road reserves are functioning as transport corridors, drainage corridors and landscape-character infrastructure at the same time. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.32)
Environmental Offsets and Wetland Protection
Native vegetation removal is part of the permit and is quantified at approximately 1.374 hectares of native vegetation and one large tree in the council agenda. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.35) The draft permit requires the same 1.374 hectares of native vegetation offset, with 0.195 general habitat units located within the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority boundary or Golden Plains Shire and a minimum strategic biodiversity value of 0.288, plus protection of one large tree. (Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, p.10)
The ephemeral or seasonally herbaceous grassy wetland is a core retained constraint rather than a developable land component. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.20; Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, pp.10-11) DPO18 requires retention of the grassy ephemeral wetlands and protection from changed flow conditions, while the permit requires a Wetland Management Plan addressing sedimentation, litter controls, no-go zones, buffers, chemicals and wildlife management. (Source: Att 8.3a Amendment documents.pdf, pp.13-14; Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, pp.10-11)
The environmental mechanism is therefore layered. (Source: Att 8.3a Amendment documents.pdf, pp.13-14; Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, pp.10-11) The wetland is retained and protected through restrictions and management plans, while unavoidable vegetation removal is offset through habitat-unit requirements secured before statement of compliance. (Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, pp.10-11)
Current Status
On 23 April 2024, officers recommended that Council support preparation and exhibition of Amendment C98gpla, consider planning permit P21334 concurrently under section 96A, and request Ministerial authorisation to prepare and exhibit the amendment and permit. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.16) The council agenda states that a further report would be presented to Council after exhibition. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.42)
The process had not reached final approval in the available source documents. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, pp.16-17, 42) If submissions are received, Council must consider them and may need to request a Panel before recommending whether the amendment should be adopted and whether the permit should be granted. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, pp.26-27)
Dependencies
- Blocks: The contribution mechanism blocks statement of compliance unless the section 173 agreement is entered into and registered on title, because the draft permit requires that agreement before statement of compliance and registration before certification. (Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, pp.9-10)
- Blocks: Stage 1 compliance is blocked until the Hamilton Highway and Mahers Road intersection upgrade is designed and constructed to the Department of Transport condition. (Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, p.14)
- Blocked by: Final contribution certainty is blocked by the absence of the October 2022 Mesh Planning assessment and final net developable hectare calculation from the available corpus. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.39)
- Blocked by: Development staging is blocked by detailed stormwater design, flood modelling, drainage easements, Terrier Road flood-access design, potable water servicing, and authority approvals. (Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, pp.6-14)
- Informed by: The amendment is informed by the Inverleigh Structure Plan 2019, the Inverleigh Framework Plan, a Flood Impact Assessment, Stormwater Management Plan, Flora and Fauna Assessment, Traffic Assessment, Infrastructure Servicing Assessment, Land Capability Assessment, Bushfire Risk Assessment, Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report, Landscape Masterplan, Urban Design Concepts, Environmental Assessment and arboricultural assessment. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.22)
- Implements: The proposal implements Clause 11.03-6L-03 Inverleigh by supporting moderate residential growth within the settlement boundary, protecting environmental qualities, providing open space connections, and integrating pedestrian, cycle and bridle path networks. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, pp.29-30)
- Conflicts with: The proposal creates tension with floodplain management, farming interfaces, salinity risk, native vegetation protection, and the absence of reticulated sewerage, all of which are managed through overlays, building envelopes, section 173 restrictions and permit conditions rather than being removed as constraints. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, pp.31-37; Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, pp.6-14)
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
The project requires coordination with state and regional authorities, including the Department of Transport, Corangamite Catchment Management Authority, Barwon Water, Powercor, DEECA, EPA and Wadawurrung. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, pp.27-28) Barwon Water is a critical servicing authority because potable water mains, strategic potable water infrastructure, easements and New Customer Contributions are required before subdivision completion. (Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, p.12)
The Department of Transport is a critical transport authority because subdivision compliance depends on works affecting Hamilton Highway, a principal road corridor. (Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, p.14) The Corangamite Catchment Management Authority is a critical floodplain authority because basin design, swale protection, cut-and-fill modelling, building envelopes and Terrier Road flood behaviour all require floodplain-management satisfaction. (Source: Att 8.3b DP Draft conditions_1.pdf, pp.13-14)
Gaps in This Analysis
The primary analytical gap is the missing Inverleigh Development Contributions Assessment, October 2022, prepared by Mesh Planning. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.39) Without that document, this page cannot verify the infrastructure item schedule, cost estimates, apportionment shares, indexation method, assumed growth areas, net developable area calculation, credit methodology for works-in-kind, or whether the $22,720.89 per net developable hectare charge fully recovers the intended infrastructure costs. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, pp.39-40)
The second gap is the absence of the technical reports listed as supporting the rezoning, including the Traffic Assessment, Infrastructure Servicing Assessment, Land Capability Assessment, Flood Impact Assessment, Stormwater Management Plan, Flora and Fauna Assessment and Bushfire Risk Assessment. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.22) The available agenda and attachments identify the planning mechanisms and key conditions, but they do not allow independent testing of traffic generation, flood modelling, wastewater capability, servicing capacity, vegetation impact avoidance, or bushfire separation assumptions. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, p.22)
The third gap is the absence of post-exhibition material. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, pp.26-27, 42) The available documents pre-date submissions, any Panel report, any Council adoption decision, and any Ministerial approval decision, so the current analysis should be treated as a pre-exhibition assessment rather than a final account of the approved contribution model. (Source: PUBLIC Agenda - Council Meeting - 23 April 2024.pdf, pp.26-27, 42)