Grange Planning Brain

title: Shire-Wide Development Contributions Framework / Policy council: golden-plains state: vic category: strategy classification: MAJOR status: in-progress last_compiled: 2026-05-30 source_docs:

  • Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf
  • Att 7.02a Draft Budget 2024-25.pdf
  • Att 8.2a Draft Budget 2024-25.pdf
  • Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf
  • Att 7.3 Draft Budget 2023-24 Adoption Copy.pdf
  • 7.3 Draft Budget 2023-24 V10 (Exhibition Copy).pdf

Shire-Wide Development Contributions Framework / Policy

Golden Plains Shire’s development contributions work is best understood as a funding and sequencing mechanism for growth, not as a completed levy schedule. The available documents show a clear policy direction: Council considered a single shire-wide contribution approach unsuitable, but requires contribution frameworks to be built into structure plans, precinct structure plans and development plans so that growth areas fund the infrastructure and services they require (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.10).

The framework matters because Golden Plains has a large geographic area, a low rate base, and several growth locations where housing delivery depends on transport, drainage, recreation, community facilities and reticulated sewerage (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.10; Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.23). In simple terms, the Shire is trying to avoid inviting more homes into places before the roads, drains, parks, community facilities and servicing arrangements have a clear funding path (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.16).

Background

The need for a development contributions framework sits inside the broader Growing Places Strategy, which identifies where future housing growth should be directed and what infrastructure conditions must be met before that growth can proceed (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.8; Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.23). The Strategy notes that Bannockburn’s Growth Plan identifies three growth precincts expected to accommodate an additional 18,000 people over about 30 years, but also notes that this land was not yet appropriately zoned and that undersupply of zoned residential land had reduced Bannockburn’s growth rate over the preceding five years (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.8).

The 2022 Housing Needs Assessment is reported as finding that the north of the Shire had not realised the same growth rate because supply did not match demand: rural living lots were available, but low-density residential and larger suburban-style lots were lacking (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.8). The Strategy therefore frames infrastructure planning and contributions as part of a pipeline problem: land must be zoned, serviced and sequenced before it can meet housing need in a sustainable way (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.8).

The 2022 Planning Scheme Review had already identified a local policy gap in infrastructure planning, especially subdivision stormwater and road corridor planning in growth areas (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf). It recommended stronger infrastructure guidance for new subdivisions and observed that the scale of growth in parts of Golden Plains may require more guidance than the Infrastructure Design Manual, with VPA precinct planning guidance potentially more appropriate in larger growth areas (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf).

Analysis

The Framework Is Place-Based, Not a Single Shire-Wide Levy

The most important finding is that the available documents do not support treating this as one uniform shire-wide Development Contributions Plan. The Growing Places Strategy says a developer contribution scheme could be explored for key townships, but that a shire-wide approach had been found unsuitable (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.10). That sentence changes the architecture of the policy: the contribution mechanism is not intended to apply the same charge across all development in Golden Plains, but to attach infrastructure obligations to each township or precinct planning process (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.10).

The practical mechanism is then specified through planning process. The Strategy states that township-wide structure plans, precinct structure plans for large greenfield development, and development plans for smaller-scale development areas must include a Development Contribution framework requiring development proponents to provide funds for infrastructure and services needed to support healthy communities (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.10). This makes contributions a condition of strategic planning maturity: a growth area should not move from concept to rezoning without an identified infrastructure list and funding method (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.10).

The Planning Scheme Review reinforces this direction by recommending that preparation and implementation of a Development Contribution Policy be included in further strategic work (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf). It also records a later formulation to prepare a Developer Contributions Policy and to implement a Development Community Contribution Policy as further strategic work associated with Council policy (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf). The terminology is not fully consistent across the extracted documents, which is itself an analytical issue: the corpus refers to a Development Contribution Policy, Developer Contributions Policy, Development Community Contribution Policy, Development Contributions Plan and shire-wide DCP without providing the actual adopted instrument (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf; Source: Att 7.3 Draft Budget 2023-24 Adoption Copy.pdf; Source: 7.3 Draft Budget 2023-24 V10 (Exhibition Copy).pdf).

Infrastructure Cost Recovery Is a Sequencing Tool

The contribution framework is tied to sequencing because Golden Plains’ growth locations have different infrastructure starting points. The Growing Places Strategy states that developer contributions require estimates of required infrastructure upgrades, including transport, community and recreation facilities, and adequate drainage infrastructure (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.16). It distinguishes areas needing substantial infrastructure from areas where existing infrastructure can be upgraded, with contributions in the latter case directed to amenity and upgrades such as streetscape improvements, drainage, street lighting and footpaths (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.16).

The mechanism is straightforward. Where a growth area lacks essential assets, the contribution framework should identify the missing assets, estimate their cost, allocate responsibility, and connect delivery to development staging (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.16). Where a township already has some infrastructure, the framework should still account for the marginal cost of growth, because additional lots can require drainage upgrades, lighting, paths, open space improvements and transport works even when the base network exists (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.16).

The Growing Places Strategy names the Service Limitation and Civil Infrastructure Analysis 2024 as providing a methodology to identify optimum growth locations and sequence development to use existing infrastructure and services (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.16). That document is not in the manifest, so the available corpus does not allow testing the actual method, infrastructure scoring, cost assumptions, or staging thresholds (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.16).

Township Implications

Bannockburn is the largest identified growth focus. The Growing Places Strategy says Bannockburn remains the focus for future growth, consistent with the Bannockburn Growth Plan, and could cater for an additional 13,000 homes (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.22). The same Strategy also reports that the Bannockburn Growth Plan’s three growth precincts are estimated to accommodate an additional 18,000 people over about 30 years (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.8). The distinction between 13,000 homes and 18,000 people is not reconciled in the available extracts, so the contribution framework should not rely on either figure without the underlying growth plan, dwelling assumptions and precinct land budgets (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.8; Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.22).

Meredith is identified as the next location where future growth will be considered, but only subject to Barwon Water committing to reticulated sewerage (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.23). This means a contribution framework for Meredith cannot be treated as a local-road-and-open-space exercise only; the binding precondition is sewer servicing, and any local contribution framework must sit beside the water authority’s servicing commitment (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.23).

Lethbridge and Teesdale are identified for additional growth subject to significant infrastructure commitments to reticulated sewerage and public transport (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.23). That creates a different contribution problem: local development contributions can fund local infrastructure, but they may not be sufficient or appropriate for trunk sewer and public transport service commitments controlled by external agencies (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.23).

Cambrian Hill is identified as a growth location connected to Ballarat’s growth, with access to trunk infrastructure including sewerage, and the Strategy says its development should be sequenced with Ballarat’s growth areas (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.23). This gives Cambrian Hill a cross-boundary infrastructure dependency: Golden Plains’ contribution settings would need to align with Ballarat-side sequencing, servicing capacity and any state-led precinct planning work (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.23).

Stonehaven is identified as a location for further investigation because it is generally clear of constraints, but the Strategy says Hamilton Highway capacity and regional land supply or housing needs analysis must be resolved before growth can be considered there (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.23). This means any contribution framework for Stonehaven would be premature without transport capacity analysis and regional growth justification (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.23).

Budget Signals Show Contributions Exist, But Not Yet at Growth-Area Scale

The annual budgets show that contribution revenue exists, but the listed amounts are modest relative to the capital works program. In the 2023-24 adopted budget, monetary contributions were budgeted at 1.695 million, including 750,000 in public open space contributions and 100,000 in developer community contributions (Source: Att 7.3 Draft Budget 2023-24 Adoption Copy.pdf, p.54). The 2023-24 exhibition version carried the same 1.695 million total, 750,000 public open space contribution and 100,000 developer community contribution settings (Source: 7.3 Draft Budget 2023-24 V10 (Exhibition Copy).pdf, p.54).

The 2024-25 budget increased monetary contributions to 1.801 million, including 889,000 in public open space contributions and 100,000 in development contributions (Source: Att 7.02a Draft Budget 2024-25.pdf, p.56; Source: Att 8.2a Draft Budget 2024-25.pdf, p.56). The same budget identifies 4.258 million in non-monetary subdivisional assets handed to Council, up from a 2023-24 forecast of $3.586 million (Source: Att 7.02a Draft Budget 2024-25.pdf, p.56; Source: Att 8.2a Draft Budget 2024-25.pdf, p.56).

These numbers show that Golden Plains is already receiving open space contributions, development contributions and handed-over subdivision assets, but the budgets do not identify a precinct-specific DCP levy, per-hectare charge, per-lot charge, works-in-kind schedule or apportionment method (Source: Att 7.02a Draft Budget 2024-25.pdf, p.56; Source: Att 8.2a Draft Budget 2024-25.pdf, p.56). The 2024-25 capital works table shows total capital works expenditure of 13.374 million, with 11.435 million for infrastructure, $4.470 million funded by grants and no capital works funding shown from contributions in the summary table (Source: Att 7.02a Draft Budget 2024-25.pdf, p.64; Source: Att 8.2a Draft Budget 2024-25.pdf, p.63). That does not mean contributions are absent from Council finances; it means the published budget tables in the corpus do not show a direct growth-area contribution funding stream for the listed 2024-25 capital works program (Source: Att 7.02a Draft Budget 2024-25.pdf, p.64; Source: Att 8.2a Draft Budget 2024-25.pdf, p.63).

The 2023-24 adopted budget states that Strategic Planning’s 2022-23 costs included development of the Growing Places Strategy and Development Contributions Plan (Source: Att 7.3 Draft Budget 2023-24 Adoption Copy.pdf). The 2023-24 exhibition version contains the same statement (Source: 7.3 Draft Budget 2023-24 V10 (Exhibition Copy).pdf). Both 2023-24 budget versions also list preparation of the Development Contributions Plan as a Development Services initiative, alongside the Growing Places Strategy, Bannockburn South East Precinct Structure Plan, Cambrian Hill Precinct Structure Plan input and Smythesdale Structure Plan sequencing (Source: Att 7.3 Draft Budget 2023-24 Adoption Copy.pdf; Source: 7.3 Draft Budget 2023-24 V10 (Exhibition Copy).pdf).

Planning Scheme Review Shows Why Ad Hoc Contributions Are Insufficient

The Planning Scheme Review identifies infrastructure planning gaps in subdivision design, especially stormwater runoff and road corridor planning in growth areas (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf). This matters because development contributions are only defensible if the infrastructure being funded is clearly identified, reasonably attributable to growth and embedded in an adopted planning framework (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf).

The Review also records legacy or precinct-specific contribution mechanisms. It refers to road work contributions required to be funded by developers for Inverleigh, notes that a Development Contributions Assessment and the Inverleigh Structure Plan would deal with that issue, and states that traffic impact assessment would be required as land develops (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf). It also states that a development contributions plan for infrastructure within the Gheringhap precinct would be subject to a Section 173 agreement and covered by the shire-wide DCP (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf).

There is a tension between the Planning Scheme Review’s reference to a shire-wide DCP for Gheringhap and the later Growing Places Strategy statement that a shire-wide approach had been found unsuitable (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf; Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.10). The most likely interpretation from the available corpus is that Council moved from an earlier shire-wide DCP concept toward a place-based contribution framework embedded in each structure plan, PSP or development plan (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf; Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.10). That interpretation should be checked against the actual Development Contributions Plan or policy document, which is not included in the manifest (Source: Att 7.3 Draft Budget 2023-24 Adoption Copy.pdf; Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.10).

The budgets separate monetary public open space contributions, development or developer community contributions, and non-monetary subdivisional assets handed to Council (Source: Att 7.3 Draft Budget 2023-24 Adoption Copy.pdf, p.54; Source: Att 7.02a Draft Budget 2024-25.pdf, p.56). This distinction matters because each stream performs a different planning function: open space contributions support public open space provision, monetary development contributions can support identified infrastructure or community needs, and non-monetary contributions transfer constructed assets such as subdivision infrastructure to Council (Source: Att 7.3 Draft Budget 2023-24 Adoption Copy.pdf, p.54; Source: Att 7.02a Draft Budget 2024-25.pdf, p.56).

The 2024-25 budget defines new assets as assets that did not exist before 1 July 2024 and states that new assets increase operating, maintenance and future renewal costs (Source: Att 7.02a Draft Budget 2024-25.pdf, p.56). It also states that capital expansion extends an existing asset to a new group of users and increases future operating and maintenance costs because it increases Council’s asset base (Source: Att 7.02a Draft Budget 2024-25.pdf, p.56). This is central to the contribution framework: collecting or receiving infrastructure from development does not remove lifecycle cost from Council, so the framework must consider not only upfront construction but also long-term maintenance and renewal obligations (Source: Att 7.02a Draft Budget 2024-25.pdf, p.56).

The same lifecycle issue appears in the non-monetary contribution line. The 2024-25 budget expects $4.258 million in subdivisional assets handed to Council, which means Council’s asset base grows through development even where cash contributions are limited (Source: Att 7.02a Draft Budget 2024-25.pdf, p.56). The planning implication is that contribution policy should be coordinated with asset management, because roads, drainage, paths and open space delivered through subdivisions become public assets with future maintenance and renewal costs (Source: Att 7.02a Draft Budget 2024-25.pdf, p.56).

Current Status

The available corpus supports an in-progress status rather than an adopted policy status. The 2023-24 budget says Strategic Planning costs included development of the Growing Places Strategy and Development Contributions Plan, and Development Services initiatives included preparing the Development Contributions Plan (Source: Att 7.3 Draft Budget 2023-24 Adoption Copy.pdf; Source: 7.3 Draft Budget 2023-24 V10 (Exhibition Copy).pdf). The Growing Places Strategy later states that a shire-wide approach was found unsuitable and that future structure plans, PSPs and development plans must include a Development Contribution framework (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.10).

The Growing Places Strategy’s implementation list includes a Development Contributions Plan as one of the future work products associated with growth planning, alongside assessments for buffers, social and affordable housing, character, economic and retail matters (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.26). The documents in this manifest do not include the actual Development Contributions Plan, levy schedule, works schedule, apportionment report, Council adoption report or planning scheme amendment implementing the framework (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.26; Source: Att 7.3 Draft Budget 2023-24 Adoption Copy.pdf).

Dependencies

  • Blocks: Growth-area rezoning and structure planning should not proceed to implementation without an infrastructure list, cost estimates and contribution mechanism for local transport, drainage, open space, recreation and community infrastructure (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.10; Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.16).
  • Blocked by: The framework depends on infrastructure cost estimates, servicing commitments and sequencing information, including the Service Limitation and Civil Infrastructure Analysis 2024 and the Community Services and Infrastructure Plan Update 2023, neither of which is included in the manifest (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.10; Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.16).
  • Informed by: The framework is informed by the Growing Places Strategy, the 2022 Planning Scheme Review, annual budget contribution lines, and growth-area planning work for Bannockburn, Cambrian Hill, Smythesdale, Meredith, Lethbridge, Teesdale and Stonehaven (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.8; Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.23; Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf; Source: Att 7.3 Draft Budget 2023-24 Adoption Copy.pdf).
  • Implements: The framework implements the Growing Places Strategy’s direction that planned growth must be supported by infrastructure and services needed for healthy communities (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.10).
  • Conflicts with: The available corpus contains a potential policy inconsistency between the Planning Scheme Review’s reference to a shire-wide DCP covering Gheringhap and the Growing Places Strategy’s later statement that a shire-wide approach was unsuitable (Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf; Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.10).

Meredith’s growth depends on Barwon Water committing to reticulated sewerage, so the development contributions framework cannot be assessed in isolation from water authority servicing decisions (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.23). Lethbridge and Teesdale also require significant infrastructure commitments to reticulated sewerage and public transport before additional growth can be supported (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.23).

Cambrian Hill is explicitly linked to Ballarat’s growth because it is described as an extension of Ballarat’s growth with access to trunk infrastructure including sewerage (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.23). Stonehaven is linked to Geelong’s planned future growth and requires resolution of Hamilton Highway capacity and regional land supply or housing needs analysis before growth can be considered (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.23).

The budget also records bridge-related cross-council contributions, stating that Council seeks contributions from other councils where bridges are on council boundaries (Source: Att 8.2a Draft Budget 2024-25.pdf, p.17). This is not a development contributions mechanism, but it shows that Golden Plains already uses inter-council funding arrangements for shared infrastructure where assets cross administrative boundaries (Source: Att 8.2a Draft Budget 2024-25.pdf, p.17).

Gaps in This Analysis

The central gap is that the manifest does not include the actual Development Contributions Plan, Developer Contributions Policy, Development Community Contribution Policy, levy schedule, works schedule or Council adoption report (Source: Att 7.3 Draft Budget 2023-24 Adoption Copy.pdf; Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf; Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.26). Without those documents, this page cannot quantify levy rates per hectare, per lot, per dwelling, per precinct, or by infrastructure category (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.16).

The manifest also omits the Community Services and Infrastructure Plan Update 2023, which the Growing Places Strategy says will be used for the Development Contribution framework (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.10). This prevents analysis of which community facilities and services are benchmarked, what growth thresholds trigger new facilities, and whether costs are apportioned to development, Council or external agencies (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.10).

The manifest omits the Service Limitation and Civil Infrastructure Analysis 2024, which the Growing Places Strategy says provides the methodology for identifying optimum growth locations and sequencing development around existing infrastructure and services (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.16). This prevents testing the infrastructure capacity assumptions behind the contribution framework, including drainage, transport, servicing and staging logic (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.16).

The manifest also omits the underlying Bannockburn Growth Plan, Cambrian Hill PSP material, Smythesdale Structure Plan material, Inverleigh Structure Plan material, Gheringhap contribution material and any Barwon Water servicing commitments for Meredith, Lethbridge and Teesdale (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.8; Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.23; Source: Att 7.6.1 - Golden-Plains-Planning-Scheme-Review-2022_FINAL combined_3.pdf). Those omissions mean this page can identify the contribution architecture and policy tensions, but cannot produce a full precinct-by-precinct infrastructure funding table or test whether contribution revenue is sufficient for the growth program (Source: Att 08.09 Growing Places Strategy Draft Text and Maps.pdf, p.16).

Graph View