Grange Planning Brain

title: Gisborne Development Plan and Development Contributions Plan council: macedon-ranges state: vic category: strategy classification: MAJOR status: approved last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:

  • 08-october-2025-council-meeting-agenda-final.pdf
  • final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf
  • web-research-L0-romsey-dcp-and-structure-plan-project-page-307ba88394.txt
  • mrsc-residential-land-demand-and-supply-assessment-final.pdf
  • romsey-residential-character-study-design-guidelines.pdf
  • romsey-development-contributions-plan-july-2012.pdf
  • web-research-L0-gisborne-development-plan-and-development-contributions-plan-source-evidence-e0fe5a3c2b.txt
  • gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf
  • Gisborne Development Contributions Plan (SGS Economics and Planning, December 2023).pdf

Gisborne Development Plan and Development Contributions Plan

The Gisborne Development Contributions Plan is the funding mechanism that links Gisborne and New Gisborne growth to a defined package of shared infrastructure, rather than leaving each subdivision to provide only its own internal roads, drainage and open space works (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.4). Its practical effect is a town-wide cost-sharing system: new residential, commercial and industrial development is charged according to projected use of 18 listed infrastructure projects across 15 charging areas (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, pp.7-18).

The plan is significant because Gisborne is one of the municipality’s higher-order growth settlements, with existing zoned residential land assessed in 2020 as capable of accommodating 2,629 additional separate-dwelling lots, equivalent to about 20-24 years of separate-dwelling demand depending on the demand scenario used (Source: mrsc-residential-land-demand-and-supply-assessment-final.pdf, pp.12, 23). The DCP therefore sits at the hinge between land supply and infrastructure delivery: it does not itself rezone land, but it determines how a material share of the infrastructure burden is recovered as development proceeds (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, pp.4, 16).

Background

The DCP was prepared for the Gisborne township area, comprising Gisborne and New Gisborne, approximately 52 kilometres northwest of Melbourne and positioned near both the Calder Freeway and the Melbourne-Bendigo regional fast rail corridor (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.1). The DCP states that growth in the township will demand road, open space and community facility infrastructure, and that Macedon Ranges Shire Council resolved that new development should meet its share of the capital cost of scheduled infrastructure in accordance with Victorian development contributions policy (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.1).

The strategic base for the DCP is the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme, the Gisborne-New Gisborne Outline Development Plan, and supporting studies including the Gisborne Movement Network Study, Fersfield Road Development Plan, Gisborne Commercial Assessment, Early Years Infrastructure Plan, Macedon Ranges Leisure Strategy and Gisborne Population Projections (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.5). The DCP identifies three growth fronts: South Gisborne between Brooking Road, Brady Road, Willowbank Road and the Calder Freeway; West Gisborne south of Ross Watt Road near Rosslynne Reservoir; and the extension of New Gisborne west of Station Road (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.5).

The statutory mechanism is the Development Contributions Plan Overlay: the DCP states that it forms part of the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme under section 46I of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and is linked to Schedule 2 to the Development Contributions Plan Overlay (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.6). The incorporated version was amended in December 2023 through VC249, meaning the operative source is not only the April 2013 report but the amended incorporated document in the planning scheme (Source: Gisborne Development Contributions Plan (SGS Economics and Planning, December 2023).pdf, p.1).

Analysis

Statutory Effect and Charging Mechanism

The DCP is built around the nexus principle, which means each use or development is charged only where its occupants or visitors are expected to use an infrastructure item (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.4). Because infrastructure contributions are levied upfront, the DCP uses projected demand rather than observed future use, converting different development types into demand units so costs can be apportioned before the infrastructure is fully used (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, pp.4, 10).

The DCP divides Gisborne and New Gisborne into 15 charging areas, with boundaries intended to approximate infrastructure catchments and reduce cross-subsidy between parts of the town (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.7). The charging model recognises three development types: residential lots, commercial gross floor area and industrial gross floor area (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.9). At full development in 2036, the DCP assumes 5,961 residential lots, 71,120 square metres of commercial gross floor area and 394,200 square metres of industrial gross floor area across the DCP area (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.9).

The demand-unit method is the key under-the-hood mechanism. One residential lot is one demand unit for roads, planning and drainage; 38.54 square metres of commercial floor area is treated as one road demand unit; 259.14 square metres of commercial floor area is treated as one planning demand unit; and 324 square metres of commercial floor area is treated as one drainage demand unit (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.10). Industrial floor area has lower assumed road intensity per square metre than commercial floor area, with 88.39 square metres treated as one road demand unit, 595.24 square metres as one planning demand unit and 410 square metres as one drainage demand unit (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.10).

The consequence is that non-residential development contributes to roads, drainage and planning but not to open space or community facility items, because the DCP treats those latter categories as principally generated by residential population growth (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.9). In simple terms, the DCP is like a shared shopping list for town infrastructure: housing pays into the whole basket, while commercial and industrial development pay only for the basket items they are expected to use (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, pp.9-10).

Infrastructure Package and Cost Exposure

The DCP funds 18 infrastructure projects with a total estimated capital cost of $8.867 million and no external funding assumed in the project schedule (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.30). The package comprises 2 development infrastructure community facility projects, 7 open space projects, 2 open space land projects, 1 drainage works project, 1 drainage land project, 1 planning project and 4 road projects (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.12).

The largest single listed project is the Jacksons Creek pedestrian and bicycle link at 1.25 million, intended to connect future western residential areas to the existing path network along Jacksons Creek (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.30). The next largest items are the additional netball complex with lighting at 1.1 million, the New Gisborne Open Space System 1 at 900,000, and the Gardiner Reserve oval surface upgrade at 800,000 (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.30). The New Gisborne Open Space System 1 includes a 2.5 metre shared path, landscaping and excavation works, equipment, a footbridge and contingency, with the shared path component alone costed at $437,500 (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.13).

Drainage is concentrated in the Fersfield-Willowbank catchment, with 450,000 for detention and treatment system works and 367,000 for associated drainage land (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.30). This means drainage charges are not town-wide in the same way as the community facility items; they are targeted to Area 011, where the Fersfield Development Plan creates a direct infrastructure nexus (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, pp.17, 30).

Road projects are narrower and more location-specific than the open space package. The DCP includes a 450,000 roundabout at Willowbank Road, Mt Gisborne Road and Aitken Street, 60,000 for bus shelters, a 335,000 upgrade to the Station Road/Ferrier Road intersection, and 250,000 for intersection works at the entry to a new estate on Station Road (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.30). The roundabout has a 5 per cent external-use discount, and the two Station Road items each have a 10 per cent external-use discount, showing that the DCP recognises some use by traffic beyond the immediate development catchment (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.30).

Levy Rates and Uneven Spatial Burden

Residential charges vary sharply by charging area, from 410.35 per residential lot in Areas 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 to 5,436.55 per residential lot in Area 11 (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, pp.17-18). Area 11 has the highest charge because it carries open space, open space land, roads, drainage works and drainage land, while the low-charge areas largely carry the common community facility, open space land and planning components (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, pp.17-18).

The levy structure therefore has a strong spatial effect. A residential lot in Area 11 pays about 13.25 times the $410.35 charge applying in the lowest-rate areas, reflecting the location of the Fersfield-Willowbank infrastructure package rather than a uniform town-wide infrastructure burden (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, pp.17-18). This is consistent with the DCP’s stated intent to reduce cross-subsidy by using charging areas that approximate project catchments (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.7).

Commercial and industrial charges also vary by area, but the drivers are different because those uses are not charged for open space or community facility items (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, pp.9, 18-21). For commercial development, Area 1 has a charge of 2,889.77 per 100 square metres of gross floor area, Area 11 has a charge of 1,345.77 per 100 square metres, and many areas have charges of only 15.45 per 100 square metres (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, pp.18-19). For industrial development, Area 1 has a charge of 1,259.86 per 100 square metres, Area 11 has a charge of 866.95 per 100 square metres, and several areas have charges of 6.73 per 100 square metres (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, pp.20-21).

Land Supply Interface

The DCP’s 2013 development scenario and the 2020 residential supply assessment are not identical exercises, but together they show why infrastructure collection remains live. The DCP assumes 2,423 future residential lots between 2013 and 2036, taking the DCP area from 3,538 existing residential lots to 5,961 lots at full development (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.9). The 2020 land supply assessment separately estimated that existing zoned land in Gisborne could accommodate 2,629 new separate-dwelling lots, with 2,598 of those in the General Residential Zone and 244 specifically identified in the Fersfield Road component (Source: mrsc-residential-land-demand-and-supply-assessment-final.pdf, p.12).

The 2020 assessment found 3,978 residential-zoned lots across 993.22 hectares in Gisborne, including 718.96 hectares of GRZ1 land and 206.46 hectares of Low Density Residential Zone land (Source: mrsc-residential-land-demand-and-supply-assessment-final.pdf, p.10). It also identified 90.11 hectares of vacant residential-zoned land across 185 properties, with 72.1 hectares of that vacant land in GRZ1 (Source: mrsc-residential-land-demand-and-supply-assessment-final.pdf, p.11). These figures matter because the DCP collects only as development proceeds; latent zoned capacity does not produce infrastructure cash until subdivision, building or use triggers the levy (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, pp.16, 22).

Demand pressure is also documented. The 2020 assessment found that the Gisborne SA2 grew by about 3,600 people between 2008 and 2018, at about 3 per cent per annum, and accounted for 41 per cent of municipal population growth over that decade (Source: mrsc-residential-land-demand-and-supply-assessment-final.pdf, p.14). It adopted a medium-term township dwelling demand range of 120-130 dwellings per annum, with a 144 dwellings per annum growth scenario to reflect latent demand and likely short-term land release (Source: mrsc-residential-land-demand-and-supply-assessment-final.pdf, pp.22-23). Against 2,629 lots of separate-dwelling capacity, the assessment calculated 24 years of supply under Scenario 1, 22 years under Scenario 2 and 20 years under the growth scenario (Source: mrsc-residential-land-demand-and-supply-assessment-final.pdf, p.23).

The main planning implication is timing rather than theoretical capacity. The assessment notes that 789 lots, or 30 per cent of zoned lot capacity, sit within the Barro land and had not commenced development at the time of assessment, creating uncertainty about when that supply would reach the market (Source: mrsc-residential-land-demand-and-supply-assessment-final.pdf, p.23). That uncertainty affects DCP cash flow because infrastructure delivery can be required before all chargeable development occurs, while contributions accumulate progressively as land is subdivided or developed (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, pp.15-16).

Governance, Funds and Delivery Performance

Council’s annual reporting shows that the Gisborne DCP is still financially active. In 2024-25, Council reported 165,978 in levies received for the Gisborne Development Plan (2013), compared with 295,541 for the Romsey Development Plan (2012) (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.685). The 2024-25 reserves note records the Gisborne development plan reserve increasing from 1.209 million to 1.375 million, with a 166,000 transfer in and no transfer out during the reporting period (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.736). The same reserve had fallen from 2.250 million to 1.209 million in 2023-24 after a 1.300 million transfer out, which indicates prior use of the reserve or transfer to accumulated surplus during that reporting year (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.736).

The 2024-25 annual report also states that no DCP land, works, services or facilities were accepted in-kind in that year, and that no land, works, services or facilities were delivered in 2024-25 using DCP levies collected (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.685). This creates an important distinction between collection and delivery: the fund is receiving Gisborne contributions, but the annual report does not identify any 2024-25 infrastructure output funded by those contributions (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.685).

Council’s broader strategic program also creates a live dependency. The 2024-25 annual report says implementation had not begun on the Gisborne Futures Structure Plan and the Romsey Structure Plan because Victorian Government resolution of the Protected Settlement Boundary under the Macedon Ranges Statement of Planning Policy was still pending (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.640). That does not invalidate the approved DCP, but it means the next generation of Gisborne settlement planning may be held back by a state-level boundary decision rather than by the DCP mechanism itself (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.640).

Relationship to Romsey Comparator Material

The Romsey sources in the manifest show that Macedon Ranges has used a similar town-based DCP model elsewhere in the municipality. The Romsey project page states that the Romsey DCP applies to all new residential, commercial and industrial development in Romsey and was introduced through Amendment C80 (Source: web-research-L0-romsey-dcp-and-structure-plan-project-page-307ba88394.txt). The Romsey DCP itself uses a similar nexus-based method, charging new development for its share of infrastructure costs while existing development is funded by other means (Source: romsey-development-contributions-plan-july-2012.pdf, pp.5-6).

This comparator matters only to the extent that it confirms a council-wide pattern: Gisborne and Romsey both use settlement-specific contribution plans tied to local growth frameworks, rather than a single municipal infrastructure levy (Source: web-research-L0-romsey-dcp-and-structure-plan-project-page-307ba88394.txt). The Romsey Residential Character Study and Guidelines are not materially probative for Gisborne, except as evidence that Macedon Ranges has paired growth planning with built-form controls in other settlements (Source: romsey-residential-character-study-design-guidelines.pdf).

Current Status

The Gisborne DCP is approved and operative through the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme, with the incorporated document amended in December 2023 through VC249 (Source: Gisborne Development Contributions Plan (SGS Economics and Planning, December 2023).pdf, p.1). Council’s public project page states that the Gisborne DCP applies to all new residential, commercial and industrial development in Gisborne and requires those developments to pay a share of planned public infrastructure in the town (Source: web-research-L0-gisborne-development-plan-and-development-contributions-plan-source-evidence-e0fe5a3c2b.txt).

As at the 2024-25 annual reporting cycle, Council had received 165,978 in Gisborne DCP levies during the year and held a 1.375 million Gisborne development plan reserve at year end (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.685, 736). The same annual report records no in-kind DCP delivery and no works delivered in 2024-25 using DCP levies, so the current documentary record supports a status of active collection but does not demonstrate current-year infrastructure delivery (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.685).

Dependencies

  • Blocks: The DCP does not block all development by itself, but it creates a payment liability for new residential, commercial and industrial development in the Gisborne DCP area before or during approval and delivery processes (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, pp.22-23).
  • Blocked by: Future structure-plan implementation for Gisborne is affected by the unresolved Protected Settlement Boundary under the Macedon Ranges Statement of Planning Policy, according to Council’s 2024-25 annual reporting (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.640).
  • Informed by: The DCP is informed by the Gisborne-New Gisborne Outline Development Plan, Gisborne Movement Network Study, Fersfield Road Development Plan, New Gisborne Development Plan, Leisure Strategy, Early Years Infrastructure Plan and related local planning studies (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, pp.5-6, 30).
  • Implements: The DCP implements Part 3B development contribution principles under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 through Schedule 2 to the Development Contributions Plan Overlay in the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.6).
  • Conflicts with: No direct conflict is established in the available documents, but there is a timing tension between ongoing DCP collection, uncertain large-parcel land release, and delayed implementation of the Gisborne Futures Structure Plan (Source: mrsc-residential-land-demand-and-supply-assessment-final.pdf, p.23; Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.640).

Gisborne’s growth role is partly regional because the town is positioned on the Calder Freeway and Melbourne-Bendigo regional fast rail corridor, and the DCP identifies that strategic location as one reason for increased growth and development (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, p.1). The 2020 residential land assessment identifies Gisborne and Kyneton as regional centres within Macedon Ranges and notes that Gisborne has a strategic locational relationship with Riddells Creek, Macedon, Woodend and Romsey (Source: mrsc-residential-land-demand-and-supply-assessment-final.pdf, pp.4-5).

The strongest unresolved cross-jurisdictional dependency is the state-level Protected Settlement Boundary process under the Macedon Ranges Statement of Planning Policy, because Council reports that implementation of both Gisborne Futures and Romsey structure plans had not begun pending Victorian Government resolution of that boundary (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.640). This means local infrastructure funding and local land supply analysis are operating inside a settlement-policy framework whose next boundary decision sits with the Victorian Government rather than Council alone (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.640).

Gaps in This Analysis

The source set contains the DCP and useful annual reporting, but it does not contain the full Gisborne-New Gisborne Outline Development Plan, Gisborne Futures Structure Plan, Gisborne Movement Network Study, New Gisborne Development Plan, Fersfield Road Development Plan, Gisborne Commercial Assessment, Early Years Infrastructure Plan or the Servicing Strategy Engineering Report cited in the residential supply assessment (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, pp.5-6; Source: mrsc-residential-land-demand-and-supply-assessment-final.pdf, p.11). Those missing documents limit analysis of parcel-level staging, transport trigger thresholds, water and sewer servicing constraints, exact land-take impacts, and whether the 2013 DCP infrastructure list remains aligned with the later Gisborne Futures planning program (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, pp.15, 30; Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.640).

The available DCP tables provide project costs, catchments and charges, but they do not provide current indexed levy rates, completed-project status by item, or a reconciliation between reserve transfers and specific delivered infrastructure (Source: gisborne-development-contributions-plan-final-report-april-2013.pdf, pp.17-30; Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.685, 736). The annual report confirms 2024-25 collections and reserve balances, but it does not show a project-by-project delivery ledger for the Gisborne DCP (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, pp.685, 736). These should be treated as corpus gaps for _gaps.md, especially the Gisborne Futures Structure Plan and the servicing and movement network documents, because they are necessary to test whether the approved DCP still matches the current settlement and infrastructure program (Source: final-agenda-attachments-council-meeting-22-october-2025-reduced.pdf, p.640).

Graph View