Grange Planning Brain

title: Amendment C145mith - Beveridge Central Interim Controls council: mitchell state: vic category: amendment classification: MAJOR status: approved last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:

  • amendment-c145mith-planning-schemes.pdf
  • beveridge-central-c145mith-planning-schemes-dtp.pdf
  • c145-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf
  • c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf
  • ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf

Amendment C145mith - Beveridge Central Interim Controls

Amendment C145mith is not a rezoning amendment; it is the mechanism that converts the Beveridge Central PSP infrastructure burden into collectable monetary and land contributions across the PSP area (Source: c145-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, p.1). Its planning significance is that it replaces the earlier interim ICP with a final ICP, applies the revised public land contribution model, and locks in a residential contribution framework made up of a 217,763 standard levy, a 96,003 supplementary transport levy, and a 10.10% residential land contribution percentage (Source: c145-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, p.1; Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.1-2).

Background

The affected land is the Beveridge Central PSP area in Mitchell Shire, and the Victorian Planning Authority was both the proponent and planning authority for Amendment C145mith (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.1). The Beveridge Central PSP had already been approved by the Minister for Planning and gazetted on 17 January 2019 under Amendment GC55, so C145mith operated downstream of the PSP rather than reopening the PSP’s land use structure (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.i; Source: c145-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, p.5).

The sequence matters because four amendments shaped the final ICP pathway: GC55 incorporated the PSP; C147mith retitled and amended the PSP documentation; C143mith introduced the interim Beveridge Central ICP through ICO2; and C148mith corrected errors in that interim ICP (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.1). The interim ICP was needed because the Planning and Environment Amendment (Public Land Contributions) Act 2018 commenced on 2 July 2018 and changed how public land was secured through ICPs (Source: c145-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, p.2). Under that model, public land in an ICP is provided as a direct land contribution and equalised across landowners, rather than being funded only through a monetary public land levy (Source: c145-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, p.2).

C145mith therefore performs a legal and funding conversion: it amends Schedule 2 to Clause 45.11, applies ICO2 to the Beveridge Central PSP area, and incorporates the Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan, February 2021 into the Mitchell Planning Scheme (Source: c145-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, p.1; Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, p.1). The amendment includes a supplementary levy component, and because supplementary levies require a full amendment process, the final ICP could not be treated as a simple administrative update (Source: c145-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, p.2).

Analysis

Infrastructure Funding Mechanism

The approved ICO2 schedule creates three linked contribution mechanisms for residential land in Beveridge Central: a standard monetary levy, a supplementary monetary levy, and a land contribution percentage (Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.1-2). The standard residential levy is 217,763, comprising 89,518 for community and recreation construction and 124,344 for transport construction (Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, p.1). The supplementary residential levy is 96,003 and applies only to transport construction, with no supplementary community and recreation construction amount specified (Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, p.1). The combined approved monetary impost for residential development is therefore $313,766 before land equalisation or land credit effects are considered (Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, p.1).

Commercial and industrial development is treated differently because the approved schedule specifies no standard levy, no supplementary levy, and a 0% land contribution percentage for that class of development (Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.1-2). This means the operative contribution architecture in the extracted schedule is materially residential-focused, and the page cannot quantify any commercial or industrial infrastructure recovery because the schedule does not prescribe those amounts (Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.1-2).

The 10.10% residential ICP land contribution percentage is the key equalisation setting (Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, p.1). In plain terms, the scheme works like a shared school project: every residential landowner is expected to carry the same fair share of public land, but some parcels physically contain more public land than others, so the schedule uses land credit and land equalisation amounts to balance the difference (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.13; Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.1-12). Landowners who under-provide public land are assigned land equalisation amounts, while landowners who over-provide public land are assigned land credit amounts (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.13; Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.1-12).

The financial mechanism has an important timing implication for Beveridge Central Precinct Structure Plan delivery because infrastructure contributions can only fund infrastructure if collection, land transfer, and delivery timing line up with actual development sequencing (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.13-15). The Panel accepted that the ICP mechanism was strategically justified, but the main dispute showed that a technically correct equalisation model can still create practical timing pressure where a whole privately owned parcel is needed for a public reserve before enough ICP funds have accumulated (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.13-15).

Public Land Equalisation and Parcel 34

Parcel 34 was the central unresolved issue before the Panel (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.i). The parcel is at 4 Lithgow Street, Beveridge, is owned by CDH Properties Pty Ltd, has an area of 2.4813 hectares, and is wholly within sports reserve SR-01 in the PSP future urban structure (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.i). The approved ICO2 schedule assigns parcel 34 a 100.00% parcel contribution percentage and a land credit amount of $3,880,307.40 (Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, p.10).

The mechanism is easy to misunderstand: CDH argued that parcel 34 should not be contribution land because the whole parcel was reserved for public sports reserve purposes and could not be used for residential development (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.i). The Panel rejected that argument because it treated development as broader than residential subdivision, and found that works to convert the land into SR-01 still fell within the planning concept of development (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.13). On that basis, the Panel concluded that parcel 34 was contribution land and that the ICP was correctly applied to it (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.13, 15).

The dispute exposes the practical difference between land use capability and contribution liability (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.13). CDH’s position was that a parcel with no residential development pathway should not be drawn into a contribution system designed around development-triggered obligations (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.i). The Panel’s position was that the land was still being developed for public infrastructure and therefore formed part of the infrastructure contribution scheme (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.13). The result is that the public reserve parcel stays inside the equalisation pool, with the owner compensated through a land credit amount rather than excluded from the ICP (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.13; Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, p.10).

Parcel 34 was not unique in being wholly within SR-01, because the Panel also identified parcels 30 and 31 as individually owned parcels totally within that sports reserve (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.14). The approved schedule gives parcel 30 a 100.00% parcel contribution percentage and a land credit amount of 4,394,395.29, and gives parcel 31 a 100.00% parcel contribution percentage and a land credit amount of 3,786,677.49 (Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, p.9). Taken together, parcels 30, 31, and 34 have approved land credit amounts of $12,061,380.18, which is a substantial early public land funding exposure if acquisition occurs before contribution revenue has accumulated (Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.9-10; Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.14).

Contested Issues and Panel Findings

C145mith was exhibited from 9 April to 9 June 2020 and received five submissions, with one opposed submission (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.i). The submitters were Mitchell Shire Council, CDH Properties, Melbourne Water, Petar and Georgina Repic, and the Department of Transport (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.i). The Panel hearing occurred by video conference on 5 October and 23 November 2020, after a directions hearing on 13 July 2020 (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.i).

The resolved submission issues were technical but important: the exhibited Table 11 did not include all non-arterial transport-related Inner Public Purpose Land requirements, and there was an issue about funding for part of RD-05 within the Public Acquisition Overlay for the Cameron’s Lane interchange (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.i). These changes matter because public purpose land and transport project definitions determine both land equalisation and the scope of recoverable infrastructure costs (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.i).

The unresolved issues concentrated on parcel 34: whether it was contribution land, whether the ICP should apply to it, whether the land credit amount had been calculated correctly, and whether a Public Acquisition Overlay should apply (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.i). The Panel found that parcel 34 was contribution land, that the ICP correctly applied to it, and that the land credit calculation method was correct (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.13, 15). However, the Panel also found that the land value estimate should be adjusted to include 1 July 2019 indexation, because the interim ICP used a 2018 land value estimate and the required 2019 indexation had not been applied on the information before the Panel (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.13, 15).

The Panel recommended replacing the exhibited ICP with the October 2020 version and recalculating land credit amounts to include the 1 July 2019 indexation (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.ii). This is a narrow recommendation, but it is consequential because land credit amounts are the cash-equivalent balancing amounts for over-provided public land (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.13, 15). The approved schedule dated 24 June 2021 indicates that the final controls were subsequently inserted into ICO2 with the February 2021 ICP title (Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, p.1).

Acquisition Timing and the Rejected Practical Solution

Mitchell Shire Council proposed what it described as a practical solution for parcel 34, involving a different land credit calculation approach and early acquisition funded through finance costs added as an early works supplementary levy item (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.2). The hearing was adjourned from 5 October 2020 to 23 November 2020 to allow that proposal to be explored, but no agreement was reached (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.2).

The mechanism problem was simple: CDH was concerned that it could not sell or develop the land until Council was ready to purchase it, while Council argued that it could not afford the purchase until sufficient ICP funds were collected over about 10 years (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.14). The Panel acknowledged the practical difficulty but did not accept that early purchase alone was essential to orderly development, because the evidence did not establish that SR-01 itself needed to be delivered early or that financing costs for land purchase should be charged to the ICP (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.14-15).

This finding keeps the ICP architecture intact but leaves a delivery-management issue for Mitchell Shire Council and the VPA (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.i, 14-15). In practical planning terms, the amendment resolves the statutory collection framework but does not itself guarantee that the acquisition timing of SR-01 land will align neatly with the cash flow profile of ICP collections (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.14-15).

Indexation and Long-Term Cost Movement

The approved schedule indexes standard community and recreation construction levies using the ABS Producer Price Index for Non-Residential Building Construction in Victoria, while standard transport construction levies use the ABS Producer Price Index for Road and Bridge Construction in Victoria (Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, p.12). It also indexes the supplementary transport levy using the ABS Road and Bridge Construction Index for Victoria each 1 July (Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, p.12). The land component is adjusted by a revised estimate of inner public purpose land value every third year, or by the relevant Valuer-General Victoria public land index in years when a revised estimate is not prepared (Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, p.12).

The indexation structure is a protection mechanism rather than a minor accounting detail (Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, p.12). If construction costs or land values rise faster than unindexed levies, the ICP can under-recover against the real cost of infrastructure delivery; if indexation is misapplied to land credits, the burden can shift between over-providing and under-providing landowners (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.13, 15; Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, p.12). The Panel’s 1 July 2019 indexation recommendation therefore addressed an equalisation integrity issue, not merely a clerical error (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.13, 15).

Exemptions and Scope Limits

The approved ICO2 schedule exempts use and development for a non-government school, use and development associated with a dwelling existing or approved at the approval date of the provision, and accommodation provided by or on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services (Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, p.12). These exemptions narrow the collection base, which means the burden of funding the prescribed infrastructure is not spread across every possible land use in the PSP area (Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, p.12).

The extracted documents do not include the full Beveridge Central ICP tables, the PSP land budget, technical transport cost schedules, drainage schedules, community infrastructure schedules, or parcel-by-parcel developable land assumptions (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.19; Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.1-12). As a result, this page can quantify the approved levy rates and land credit/equalisation settings, but it cannot independently test the cost base behind the standard and supplementary levies or calculate per-lot implications (Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.1-12).

Current Status

The operative ICO2 schedule is dated 24 June 2021 and identifies C145mith as the amendment source for the Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan, February 2021 (Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, p.1). The amendment should therefore be treated as approved in the planning scheme material available in the corpus, notwithstanding the manifest status field recording the initiative as pending (Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, p.1).

Dependencies

  • Blocks: The final ICP provides the statutory basis for collecting residential standard levies, supplementary transport levies, and land equalisation amounts for the Beveridge Central PSP area (Source: c145-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.1-2; Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.1-12).
  • Blocked by: The amendment itself is not shown as blocked in the extracted source set, but delivery of public land such as SR-01 can be practically constrained by the timing of acquisition and the accumulation of ICP funds (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.14-15).
  • Informed by: The amendment is informed by the approved Beveridge Central PSP, the interim ICP pathway, the 2018 public land contribution reforms, and the Panel process for C145mith (Source: c145-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.1-5; Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.1-15).
  • Implements: The amendment implements Clause 19 infrastructure policy by creating a mechanism to collect contributions for PSP infrastructure, and it supports Ministerial Direction 9 by funding infrastructure for future urban land within the Urban Growth Boundary (Source: c145-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.3-4; Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.4-5).
  • Conflicts with: The principal tension is not a policy conflict but a timing and fairness issue for wholly public-purpose parcels, especially parcel 34 and the other SR-01 parcels identified by the Panel (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.13-15).

The amendment sits within the Beveridge Central PSP, which was approved through Amendment GC55 to the Mitchell and Whittlesea Planning Schemes (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.1). This creates a direct planning-scheme relationship between Mitchell Shire and City of Whittlesea for the earlier PSP approval pathway, although the extracted C145mith documents focus on the Mitchell Planning Scheme ICO2 implementation (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.1).

The approved schedule notes that some community and recreation construction projects and transport construction projects in the Beveridge Central ICP are apportioned with the Lockerbie North Development Contributions Plan and indexed using the Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook 2018 Building Price Index (Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, p.12). This indicates a funding relationship between Beveridge Central and Lockerbie North, but the extracted source set does not include the Lockerbie North DCP or the Beveridge Central ICP project tables needed to quantify the shared items (Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, p.12).

Gaps in This Analysis

The two planning-schemes portal captures in the manifest contain only the portal application shell rather than readable amendment content, so they do not add substantive planning facts beyond confirming a source extraction problem (Source: amendment-c145mith-planning-schemes.pdf; Source: beveridge-central-c145mith-planning-schemes-dtp.pdf). This should be recorded as a corpus gap because the legal planning scheme portal content may contain amendment history, maps, or incorporated-document links not preserved in the extraction (Source: amendment-c145mith-planning-schemes.pdf; Source: beveridge-central-c145mith-planning-schemes-dtp.pdf).

The full Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan, February 2021 is not included as a standalone extracted document in the manifest, and the approved ICO2 schedule repeatedly directs readers to the incorporated ICP for full details and parcel ID plans (Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.11-12). Without that incorporated ICP, this page cannot list every funded infrastructure item, item cost, apportionment, delivery agency, timing trigger, or land take plan (Source: ico2-c145-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.11-12).

The approved Beveridge Central PSP is not included in the manifest, even though the explanatory report and Panel report both rely on the PSP as the source of the infrastructure need and land use structure (Source: c145-explanatory-report-approval-dtp.pdf, pp.1-5; Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, p.1). Without the PSP, this analysis cannot calculate gross-to-net developable land, lot yield implications, open space distribution, road reserve land take, or the detailed relationship between SR-01 and surrounding development stages (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.13-15).

The Panel document list identifies several documents that were before the Panel but are not included in the manifest, including VPA submissions, Council submissions, CDH submissions, the October 2020 ICP, explanation of ICP changes, and clarification of IPPL calculations and notice (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.18-19). Those missing documents limit the ability to audit the arithmetic behind land credit amounts, the full scope of post-exhibition changes, and the notice process for affected parcel owners (Source: c145-panel-report-ppv.pdf, pp.18-19).

Graph View