title: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan council: mitchell state: vic category: infrastructure classification: MAJOR status: approved last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf
- Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf
Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan
The Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan is the funding and land-equalisation mechanism for infrastructure required by the Beveridge Central Precinct Structure Plan. It applies a combined residential monetary levy of 313,766 per net developable hectare across 224.62 hectares of net developable residential land, producing a total monetary contribution pool of 70.477 million. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.1)
The plan is significant because it does not only collect money for roads, intersections, community facilities and recreation works; it also redistributes the cost of public purpose land across the precinct through a 10.10% land contribution requirement. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, pp.2, 33) The main planning issue tested through Amendment C145mith was whether land wholly required for a sports reserve could still be treated as contribution land, with the Panel concluding that parcel 34 at 4 Lithgow Street remained contribution land and that the ICP was correctly applied to it. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, pp.i, 13-16)
Background
The ICP was prepared by the Victorian Planning Authority with assistance from Mitchell Shire Council, service authorities and government agencies. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.15) It was prepared in conjunction with the Beveridge Central PSP, which provides the strategic basis for the infrastructure items funded or secured through the ICP. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.16)
The statutory pathway ran through several planning scheme amendments. Amendment GC55 incorporated the Beveridge Central PSP into the Mitchell and Whittlesea Planning Schemes and was described by the Panel as having been gazetted in January 2019. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, pp.i, 1) Amendment C143mith introduced the interim Beveridge Central ICP by applying Infrastructure Contributions Overlay Schedule 2 to land in the Beveridge Central Precinct on 5 September 2019. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, p.2) Amendment C148mith then corrected the interim incorporated ICP on 5 December 2019. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, p.2) Amendment C145mith replaced the interim ICP with the final ICP and amended Schedule 2 to Clause 45.11 and Clause 72.04. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, p.1)
The final February 2021 ICP states that it has been incorporated in the Mitchell Planning Scheme and implemented through Schedule 2 to the Infrastructure Contributions Overlay. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.16) The plan adopts a long-term development horizon and states that it ends when development within the ICP area is complete, projected at about 20 years after gazettal, or when the ICP is removed from the planning scheme. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.16)
Analysis
Levy Structure and Cost Mechanism
The ICP applies only to the residential class of development. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.17) Its contribution base is 224.62 hectares of residential net developable area and 239.13 hectares of contribution land within an ICP plan area stated as 291.79 hectares. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.17)
The monetary component has two layers. The standard levy is 217,763 per net developable hectare and raises 48.913 million. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.1) The supplementary levy is 96,003 per net developable hectare and raises 21.564 million. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.1) Together, these levies form a total monetary levy of 313,766 per net developable hectare and a total monetary contribution of 70.477 million. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.1)
The mechanism is important because the levy is not applied to the gross precinct area. It is applied to net developable hectares, meaning land removed for roads, open space, public purpose land and other encumbrances is not the levy base. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, pp.48-49) The land budget records 224.62 hectares of net developable area out of a 290.95 hectare total precinct area, so about 77.2% of the total precinct area is counted as NDA. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, pp.61-62)
The standard levy is split between 126,713 per net developable hectare for transport and 91,050 per net developable hectare for community and recreation. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.49) The supplementary levy is entirely transport-related at 96,003.10 per net developable hectare. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.49) The practical effect is that transport infrastructure accounts for 222,716.10 per net developable hectare, or about 71% of the total monetary levy, while community and recreation accounts for $91,050 per net developable hectare, or about 29%. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.49)
Transport Infrastructure and Fragmented Land Delivery
Transport is the largest cost category in the ICP. Standard-levy transport projects have a total estimated cost of 63.751 million, of which 28.462 million is apportioned to the Beveridge Central ICP. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.24) Supplementary-levy transport projects have a total estimated cost of 23.162 million, of which 22.677 million is apportioned to the ICP before applying the community and recreation surplus offset. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.25)
The standard transport program funds arterial and connector works including Camerons Lane RD-01, Patterson Street RD-02, Rankin Street RD-03, Lewis Street RD-04, Murray Street RD-05 and part of Whiteside Street RD-06a. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, pp.22-24) The largest fully internal standard transport item is Lewis Street RD-04 at 6.742 million, followed by Patterson Street RD-02 at 3.650 million and Murray Street RD-05 at $2.710 million. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.22)
The supplementary transport program is concentrated on local access and connector roads through fragmented landholdings. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.25) It funds the supplementary share of Whiteside Street RD-06a, Whiteside Street RD-06b, Spring Street RD-07, Kelly Street RD-08, and four intersection projects, including Kelly Street and Spring Street IN-01, Murray and Lewis to Lithgow Street IN-02, Whiteside Street and Lewis Street IN-07, and Spring Street and Lithgow Street IN-08. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.25)
The planning logic is that several roads which might ordinarily be delivered as development works are placed into the ICP because fragmented land ownership makes coordinated delivery difficult. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, p.6) The Panel accepted VPA post-exhibition changes that extended RD-05 by 56 metres within the Public Acquisition Overlay boundary for the Camerons Lane interchange, adding $356,031.79 to the levy to complete the connection to Beveridge North West. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, p.6)
The ICP also depends on external infrastructure beyond the Beveridge Central boundary. It apportions costs to external transport projects in Lockerbie North, including Stewart Street, Rankin Street, Lithgow Street and several intersections, with 3.281 million apportioned to Beveridge Central from 21.293 million of external transport project costs. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, pp.23-24) This means Beveridge Central is financially connected to the broader northern growth corridor road network rather than functioning as a self-contained precinct. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, pp.23-24)
Community, Recreation and Open Space Infrastructure
The community and recreation program totals 47.852 million in estimated project costs, with 19.338 million apportioned to the Beveridge Central ICP. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, pp.27-28) The principal internal project is SR-01, a sports reserve at Lithgow and Patterson Street with three soccer pitches, eight tennis courts, a 900 square metre pavilion, landscape works and car parking, costed at $14.306 million and fully apportioned to Beveridge Central. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.27)
The ICP also contributes to external community and recreation facilities, including the Mandalay Level 2 Community Centre, the Northern Level 2 Community Centre, the Southern Level 1 Community Centre, Northern Active Playing Fields and further active playing fields in Lockerbie North. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, pp.27-28) These external contributions show that community infrastructure catchments do not follow the ICP boundary exactly. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, pp.27-28)
The land budget allocates 6.77 hectares to a local sports reserve and 4.89 hectares to local network parks, giving 11.66 hectares of credited open space and 5.19% of residential NDA. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, pp.61-62) The ICP states that the monetary levy contributes to construction of local sports reserves, while construction of local parks is treated as developer works outside the ICP. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.33)
Public Purpose Land and Equalisation
The land component is the other major mechanism in the ICP. The residential ICP land contribution percentage is 10.10%, calculated by dividing the public purpose land attributable to residential development by the residential contribution land area. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, pp.2, 33)
The ICP identifies 24.16 hectares of public purpose land attributable to residential development, made up of 14.51 hectares of inner public purpose land and 9.65 hectares of outer public purpose land. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.33) Inner public purpose land includes 2.37 hectares for transport and 11.66 hectares for community, recreation and open space. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.33)
The equalisation system exists because public purpose land is unevenly distributed across parcels. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, pp.33-34) Parcels that provide less than the 10.10% land contribution pay a land equalisation amount, while parcels that provide more than 10.10% are eligible for land credit amounts. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, pp.34, 50-51)
The ICP calculates 10.83 hectares of inner public purpose land above the ICP land contribution percentage and 3.69 hectares equal to or below the percentage. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.34) The value of the credited IPPL is 23.618 million, and the estimated value of outer public purpose land is 5.335 million, producing total land equalisation to be paid of 28.953 million and a land equalisation rate of 1.414 million per hectare. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.34)
The key effect is that the ICP separates land burden from land ownership pattern. A parcel that contains major public land can receive a land credit for over-provision, while a parcel with little public land pays an equalisation amount. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, pp.34, 50-51) This design was central to the Panel dispute because parcel 34 was wholly inside SR-01 and therefore had no ordinary residential yield, but the Panel still treated its transformation into sports reserve land as development for ICP purposes. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, pp.7, 13)
Parcel 34 and the Main Contested Issue
Amendment C145mith received five submissions, with one opposed submission. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, p.i) The submitters were Mitchell Shire Council, CDH Properties, Melbourne Water, Petar and Georgina Repic, and the Department of Transport. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, p.i)
The major unresolved issue was parcel 34 at 4 Lithgow Street, Beveridge, owned by CDH Properties. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, pp.i, 7) The parcel had an area of 2.4813 hectares and was entirely within SR-01, the local sports reserve shown in the PSP future urban structure. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, pp.i, 7)
CDH argued that parcel 34 should not be treated as contribution land because it could not be developed for residential purposes and was wholly required for a public reserve. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, pp.i, 8) CDH also argued that if the parcel remained in the ICP, the land credit should be $4.342 million and SR-01 should be acquired within two years. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, pp.8, 11)
Mitchell Shire Council proposed a practical solution involving a different calculation of the land credit for parcel 34 and early acquisition funded through finance costs added as a new supplementary levy item. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, pp.2, 11) Council also advised the Panel that the combined land credit amounts for SR-01 parcels 34, 30 and 31 were 12.163 million, which was significant against Council's 2020/21 capital works budget of 39.774 million. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, p.11)
The Panel rejected the argument that parcel 34 was not contribution land. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, pp.13-16) Its reasoning was that development under the Planning and Environment Act includes works, and the works needed to transform parcel 34 into part of SR-01 meant the land would be developed even though it would not be used for residential purposes. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, p.13)
The Panel also rejected the proposed Public Acquisition Overlay solution, noting that Council had not requested a PAO and that applying one to parcel 34 would likely need to extend to all parcels making up SR-01, making it beyond the scope of Amendment C145mith. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, p.14) The Panel supported recalculation of land credit amounts to include 1 July 2019 indexation because the interim ICP used a 2018 valuation and should have been indexed on 1 July 2019 as well as 1 July 2020. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, pp.14-16)
Staging, Payment and Implementation
The ICP classifies project timing as short term at about 0-5 years, medium term at about 5-10 years and long term at 10 years or beyond. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.20) The staging tables place several local road, intersection and sports reserve items in short or short-to-medium stages, including RD-04, RD-05, RD-06a, RD-06b, IN-01, IN-02, IN-07 and SR-01. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, pp.22, 25, 27)
Mitchell Shire Council is both the collecting agency and the development agency. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.48) As collecting agency, Council receives monetary contributions and land equalisation amounts and administers land credit payments. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.48) As development agency, Council is responsible for providing infrastructure projects and acquiring outer public purpose land identified in the ICP. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.48)
Payment timing is tied to subdivision and development milestones. For subdivision, the monetary component and any land equalisation amount must be paid after certification of the relevant plan of subdivision and cannot be required more than 21 days before statement of compliance. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, pp.50-51) For staged subdivision, only the contribution for the stage being developed is required before the statement of compliance for that stage, provided a schedule of infrastructure contributions is submitted. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.50)
The ICP permits works in kind where Council accepts provision of an ICP-listed work, service or facility in part or full satisfaction of the monetary component. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.52) Land components, land equalisation amounts and land credit amounts cannot be accepted as works in kind. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.52)
Current Status
The operative source available for this compilation is the February 2021 Beveridge Central ICP, which states that it has been incorporated in the Mitchell Planning Scheme and implemented through Schedule 2 to the Infrastructure Contributions Overlay. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.16) The Panel report recommended replacing the exhibited ICP with the October 2020 version and recalculating land credit amounts to include 1 July 2019 indexation. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, pp.ii, 16)
The ICP should be treated as an approved infrastructure funding and land-equalisation control for the Beveridge Central PSP area unless a later amendment has changed it. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.16) The source set supplied for this page does not include a later planning scheme extract, later amendment, council implementation report or contribution-accounting statement. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf; Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf)
Dependencies
- Blocks: Urban subdivision and development in the Beveridge Central PSP area must account for the ICP monetary levy, land equalisation obligations, public purpose land provision and works-in-kind rules before subdivision compliance or building/development commencement milestones. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, pp.50-52)
- Blocked by: Delivery of ICP-funded infrastructure depends on contributions becoming available, Council’s capacity to provide funding not collected by the ICP, and timing decisions by the collecting and development agencies. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.28)
- Informed by: The ICP is informed by the Beveridge Central PSP, the Ministerial Direction on the Preparation and Content of Infrastructure Contributions Plans, and Amendment C145mith Panel findings. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, pp.15-20; Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, pp.4-5)
- Implements: The ICP implements the infrastructure funding mechanism for the Beveridge Central PSP and supports Clause 19.03-1S by collecting contributions to fund infrastructure required for the PSP area. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, p.4)
- Conflicts with: The main identified implementation tension is between the ICP’s precinct-wide equalisation model and landowners whose entire parcel is required for public purpose land, particularly parcel 34 and the broader SR-01 land assembly issue. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, pp.7-16)
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
The ICP has direct infrastructure relationships with Lockerbie North because several external transport, open space and community infrastructure items are partly apportioned to Beveridge Central and funded alongside Lockerbie North mechanisms. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, pp.23-24, 27-32) It also links to Beveridge North West through RD-01 and RD-05, with the Panel accepting an RD-05 extension to complete a connection to Beveridge North West. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.22; Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, p.6)
The ICP also sits within the broader Mitchell and Whittlesea growth area framework because the Beveridge Central PSP was incorporated through Amendment GC55 to the Mitchell and Whittlesea Planning Schemes. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, p.1) The supplied source set does not include the GC55 Panel report, the Beveridge Central PSP itself, or the Lockerbie North DCP, so the cross-boundary cost and staging relationship can be identified but not fully tested. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, pp.18-19)
Gaps in This Analysis
The source set contains the final ICP and the Amendment C145mith Panel report, but it does not contain the Beveridge Central PSP, the Amendment GC55 Panel report, the transport background report, the land valuation report, detailed infrastructure cost reports, council contribution-accounting records, or any post-2021 amendment material. (Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, pp.18-19) This limits analysis of whether the road, open space and community infrastructure assumptions remain current, whether the costs have been indexed or amended since 2021, and whether land credit timing issues around SR-01 have been resolved. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, pp.53-54; Source: Panel Report Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C145mith Beveridge Central ICP December 2020.pdf, pp.14-16)
A critical corpus gap is the Beveridge Central Precinct Structure Plan and its technical background reports, because the ICP repeatedly states that infrastructure need and land provision were determined through the PSP process. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, pp.16, 20, 30) An important corpus gap is the Lockerbie North Development Contributions Plan or equivalent contribution mechanism, because multiple external items in the Beveridge Central ICP rely on Lockerbie North apportionment and funding assumptions. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, pp.23-24, 27-32) A further important gap is a current Mitchell Planning Scheme extract for ICO2 and the incorporated documents list, because the supplied ICP states incorporation but does not show whether later amendments have changed the levy, land budgets or implementation provisions. (Source: Beveridge Central Infrastructure Contributions Plan February 2021.pdf, p.16)