title: Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan council: mitchell state: vic category: strategy classification: MAJOR status: in-progress last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf
- Mitchell C152mith 45.06s03_mith Exhibition Gazetted.pdf
- Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf
- web-research-L1-beveridge-township-dcp-hia-submission.txt
- web-research-L1-beveridge-township-dcp-north-central-review.txt
- web-research-L1-beveridge-township-dcp-not-found-log.txt
Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan
The Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan is the infrastructure funding mechanism for the southern redevelopment part of the older Beveridge Township, rather than for the whole Beveridge growth area. It applies to 38.02 hectares of net developable land expected to accommodate 625 dwellings, and it converts a fragmented township road, open-space and community-facility problem into a single levy framework of 280,837 per net developable hectare plus 1,182 per dwelling for community infrastructure. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.4)
Its practical importance is that the DCP sits between three systems: the older township fabric, the surrounding Lockerbie North Precinct Structure Plan and Beveridge Central Precinct Structure Plan, and state-led transport changes around the future Camerons Lane interchange. The Panel supported the amendment in principle but identified two material implementation risks: road project RD-02 required re-costing before adoption, and the northern Spring Street upgrade remained unfunded and may fall back to Council if it is not delivered through the interchange or a later cost-sharing mechanism. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, pp.7-9)
Background
Beveridge Township was established in 1853 at the base of Mount Fraser and had approximately 143 dwellings and 453 residents when the DCP was prepared. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.6) The township was brought inside Melbourne’s Urban Growth Boundary in 2011 and sits within the North Growth Corridor, where Council projections identify approximately 81,000 new homes and 252,000 people across the corridor. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.6)
The DCP is tied to the Beveridge Township Development Plan, which divides the township into three precincts plus Beveridge Reserve. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.8) The broader Development Plan was expected to accommodate approximately 700 to 800 dwellings and 2,100 to 2,400 residents, while the DCP charge area covers only Precinct 3, the Southern Development Area, expected to accommodate 625 dwellings at 16.5 dwellings per hectare. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.8)
Amendment C152mith proposed to give statutory effect to the Development Plan and DCP by rezoning land, applying the Development Contributions Plan Overlay to the DCP area, and applying the Development Plan Overlay to Precinct 3. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, p.7) The Panel described the existing Township Zone as no longer fit for purpose because Beveridge is inside the Urban Growth Boundary and surrounded by PSP areas at different stages of planning and development. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, p.16)
Analysis
Levy Architecture and Cost Distribution
The DCP funds 11.415877 million of attributable infrastructure cost from a broader 62.730545 million package of roads, intersections, recreation, community activity centres and planning costs. (Source: Mitchell C152mith 45.06s03_mith Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.1) This means the DCP does not fund the full infrastructure environment around the township; it funds an 18.2 percent attributable share, with large parts of regional open space and community infrastructure apportioned to broader catchments. (Source: Mitchell C152mith 45.06s03_mith Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.1)
The development infrastructure levy is 280,837 per net developable hectare, made up of 188,665 for roads, 55,760 for intersections, 34,176 for recreation and 2,236 for planning costs. (Source: Mitchell C152mith 45.06s03_mith Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.1) The community infrastructure levy is 1,182 per residential dwelling and applies to community activity centre infrastructure. (Source: Mitchell C152mith 45.06s03_mith Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.1)
At the planned 16.5 dwellings per hectare, the DIL equates to approximately 17,020 per dwelling before the 1,182 CIL, or approximately $18,202 per dwelling combined. This is an analytical conversion from the DCP levy rate and density assumption, not a separate figure stated in the DCP. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.4, 20)
The DCP is built around a single charge area, so the same per-hectare DIL applies across the residential developable land rather than different levies for different sub-catchments. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.20) This simplifies administration but places greater importance on the accuracy of the net developable area calculation, because the DCP states that minor subdivision-design changes will not normally change the levy calculation. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.20)
Infrastructure Items and Mechanisms
The largest attributable item is RD-01, a Level 2 access street abutting the recreation reserve, with 2.238242 million in construction cost, 0.82 hectares of land, 1.584303 million in land cost, and a total DCP cost of $3.822545 million. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.14) Mechanically, RD-01 prevents residential lots backing onto public open space and creates road frontage to Beveridge Reserve, which is a planning outcome as much as a transport outcome. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.18)
RD-02 is a Level 2 access street between Lithgow Street and Arrowsmith Street, costed in the exhibited DCP at 628,000 for construction, 0.40 hectares of land, 838,000 in land cost and $1.466 million total DCP cost. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.14) RD-02 is the most sensitive DCP item because the Panel found the benchmark costing may not adequately reflect steep topography and recommended re-costing before adoption using bespoke costings and having regard to Chisel Developments’ Marcon Infrastructure costing. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, pp.31-33)
RD-03 is the Heritage Trail project, with 1.901 million in construction cost, no land cost, 50 percent apportionment and a 950,500 DCP cost. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.14) Its function is to upgrade an existing rural-standard road environment with spoon drains and no footpath into a safer active-transport connection serving commercial land and township movement. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.18)
RD-04 is a Local Green Street along Arrowsmith Street between Spring Street and Stewart Street, with $934,000 in construction cost and 100 percent DCP apportionment. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.14) The DCP treats RD-04 as necessary to improve connectivity to Beveridge Primary School, while the remainder of Arrowsmith Street is expected to be developer-funded works. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.18)
IN-01 is the Bellyn Court/Lithgow Street intersection upgrade, with 1.412 million in construction cost, 0.37 hectares of land, 708,000 in land cost and a $2.12 million total DCP cost. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.14) Its mechanism is road safety and network integration: it links the new connector street system to Lithgow Street and is timed for land acquisition at subdivision and construction when traffic or access demand requires it. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.18-19)
The DCP contributes 1.299375 million toward a 30 hectare district active open space item in Lockerbie North, using a 4.1 percent apportionment against a 31.5 million land acquisition cost. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.14) The logic is that the township population will use higher-order open space outside the DCP charge area, so the DCP buys into a regional facility rather than duplicating a district-scale reserve inside the older township. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.16-17)
The CIL funds 119,708 toward the Northern Level 3 Community Centre and 618,750 toward the Indoor Sports Centre, both in the Lockerbie North infrastructure framework. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.14) This is a cross-precinct service model: local development pays a small proportional share of higher-order community facilities that serve a broader Beveridge catchment. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.16-17)
Net Developable Area and Land Take
The DCP land budget identifies 51.21 hectares of total land, 1.99 hectares of other land associated with the primary school, 9.82 hectares of passive open space, 1.26 hectares of road projects, 0.12 hectares of intersection projects and 38.02 hectares of net developable residential land. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, Appendix A) On those figures, approximately 25.8 percent of the gross land in the DCP table is outside the residential net developable base used for the levy calculation. This percentage is an analytical calculation from the DCP land budget. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, Appendix A)
The DCP assumes 625 dwellings at 16.5 dwellings per hectare, which means the levy framework is calibrated to conventional suburban densities rather than high-density redevelopment. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.8, 20) If actual density falls below the assumed 16.5 dwellings per hectare, the DIL remains payable per net developable hectare, but the effective infrastructure cost per dwelling increases. This is an analytical implication of a hectare-based DIL combined with a fixed dwelling assumption. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.20)
Precinct 1 at 100 Minton Street is excluded because it had planning approval under Mitchell Permit PLP303/17, issued in July 2018, for 229 residential lots plus two superlots, and 115 lots had been constructed by September 2022. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.9) This exclusion matters because infrastructure obligations for that land are dealt with through the existing permit rather than the new DCP charge area. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.9)
Cross-Subsidy and Surrounding PSP Dependencies
The DCP explicitly relies on surrounding infrastructure contributions plans, including Lockerbie North DCP and Beveridge Central ICP, because those plans fund major road, open-space and community infrastructure around the township. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.11-12) This creates a two-way cross-subsidy: the township benefits from externally funded infrastructure, while some DCP-funded items also serve movement or community demand from outside the charge area. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.11-12)
The DCP uses a full-cost-recovery approach for most items, partly because adjacent contribution plans also use full recovery for surrounding infrastructure and because the township charge area is treated as an isolated funding cell. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, p.12) The planning risk is that this approach depends on correct item selection: if an item has a broader catchment but is fully loaded onto the township, the levy can overstate the township’s fair share; if an item is excluded because another project may fund it, Council may inherit an unfunded gap. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, pp.34-36)
Spring Street is the clearest example of this risk. The northern section of Spring Street between Minton and Lithgow Streets is expected to operate as a connector road with 3,000 to 7,000 vehicles per day, but design, costings and funding were unresolved at the Panel stage. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, p.34) DTP advised that future State funding was not committed and not guaranteed, and Council did not include the Spring Street upgrades in the DCP because design plans, costings and cross-precinct apportionment were not resolved. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, pp.34-35)
The Panel found there was insufficient information to include Spring Street upgrades in the DCP, but also found that leaving the matter unresolved could place Council in a position where it may need to fully fund the upgrades from its own funds. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, pp.35-36) In effect, Spring Street is not just a road-design issue; it is the main unfunded interface between the township DCP, the surrounding PSPs and the future Camerons Lane interchange. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, pp.34-36)
Drainage as the Binding Staging Constraint
The Panel identified interim drainage as a significant staging constraint for development south of Arrowsmith Street before the Kalkallo Creek Drainage Service Scheme is delivered. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, pp.39-41) Properties on the south side of Arrowsmith Street drain south and need a way to discharge to Lithgow Street, meaning that development may be held up until permanent drainage is available. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, p.40)
Chisel Developments’ childcare proposal at 106 Arrowsmith Street exposed the mechanism of the constraint because the proposal depended on constructing part of RD-02, but that road segment would also need an interim drainage solution if built before the permanent scheme. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, p.40) The Panel accepted that there are engineering options, including pumping systems with risk mitigation, but concluded there are no simple fixes because fragmented land ownership and piecemeal development make area-wide drainage sequencing difficult. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, pp.40-41)
The downstream effect is that the DCP can identify and fund road items, but road delivery may still be blocked if stormwater discharge is unresolved. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, pp.39-41) This is a critical implementation distinction: the DCP creates a funding pathway for infrastructure, but it does not by itself create a drainage outfall or guarantee that early subdivision can proceed. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, pp.39-41)
Contested Issues and Panel Resolution
The amendment received submissions raising zoning, superlot land use, road alignment, childcare and medical centre access, Spring Street funding, RD-02 cost accuracy, interim drainage, development contributions, indexation, quarry and freeway amenity, and potential contamination. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, pp.13-14) The submitter list included individual landowners, Housing Industry Association, Chisel Developments, Lauders Group, DELWP, EPA, CFA, VPA, former Department of Transport and Yarra Valley Water. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, p.47)
The Housing Industry Association objected to Amendment C152mith on the basis that the DCP included broader community, social and regional infrastructure costs that it argued should be funded from rates, borrowings or other mechanisms. (Source: web-research-L1-beveridge-township-dcp-hia-submission.txt) HIA also compared the 280,837 per hectare DIL with the 2022-23 standard ICP levy of 224,170 and argued that upfront levies can affect housing affordability. (Source: web-research-L1-beveridge-township-dcp-hia-submission.txt)
The Panel did not accept that objection as a basis to reject the DCP, finding that HIA presented no evidence that the levies would significantly affect housing affordability and that the amounts were relatively modest in the context of overall development costs. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, p.42) The Panel supported annual construction-cost indexation by the Building Price Index and annual land revaluation by a registered valuer as appropriate methods for keeping levies aligned with infrastructure costs. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, p.42)
The Panel’s strongest DCP-specific intervention was RD-02. It rejected borrowing costs as a DCP item for early delivery, but required RD-02 to be re-costed before adoption and recommended updated DCP and DCPO documents to reflect the revised costing. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, pp.31-33) This means the exhibited levy should be treated as provisional for analytical purposes because one road item may materially change before final approval. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, pp.31-33)
Amenity and Environmental Constraints
EPA requested that Council consider potentially contaminated former farming land, amenity impacts from the Hume Freeway, and amenity impacts from the Beveridge Scoria Quarry. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, p.43) Council prepared a Preliminary Site Investigation for small parcels proposed to be rezoned from Farming Zone and advised that the land was unlikely to be contaminated under Ministerial Direction 1. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, p.43)
The quarry issue was more nuanced because EPA’s recommended separation distance is 500 metres where blasting occurs and 250 metres where blasting does not occur, and the quarry is approximately 410 metres from the township boundary. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, p.44) The Panel noted that blasting was not part of ordinary quarry operations but could occur in some circumstances, and concluded there was no justification to change the amendment because blasting appeared irregular, existing residential development had already been permitted within 500 metres, and stakeholder engagement could manage future impacts. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, pp.44-45)
Freeway and future interchange amenity is addressed through standard mitigation rather than DCP funding. Council advised that properties fronting the freeway would require a noise attenuation wall and that the State Government would need to manage amenity impacts from the Camerons Lane interchange as the agent of change for that project. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, p.44)
Current Status
The Panel report is dated 25 July 2023 and recommended that Council adopt Amendment C152mith subject to changes, including re-costing RD-02 before adoption. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, pp.7-9) A North Central Review article published on 30 January 2024 reported that Council had adopted the planning scheme amendment but would submit it to the Minister for Planning only after revised costs were received and reviewed. (Source: web-research-L1-beveridge-township-dcp-north-central-review.txt)
The gap research log records that the DTP API still listed C152mith as “Approval Under Consideration” and that a final approved or gazetted ordinance package was not located during the source-gathering process. (Source: web-research-L1-beveridge-township-dcp-not-found-log.txt) On the available corpus, the safest status is therefore in-progress rather than approved or gazetted. (Source: web-research-L1-beveridge-township-dcp-not-found-log.txt)
Dependencies
- Blocks: The DCP blocks orderly cost recovery for Precinct 3 infrastructure until the amendment is approved and the final levy is settled, especially for RD-01, RD-02, IN-01 and community infrastructure contributions. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.14, 18-20)
- Blocked by: Final implementation is blocked by RD-02 re-costing, ministerial approval/gazettal, and unresolved interim drainage before the Kalkallo Creek Drainage Service Scheme is delivered. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, pp.31-33, 39-41)
- Informed by: The DCP relies on the Beveridge Township Development Plan, Cardno benchmark infrastructure costing, One Mile Grid traffic and transport analysis, and Opteon land valuation inputs. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.15, 20)
- Implements: The DCP implements the infrastructure funding component of Amendment C152mith and supports integration of Beveridge Township into the North Growth Corridor. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, pp.7, 16)
- Conflicts with: The main tensions are HIA’s objection to the breadth of development contributions, Chisel’s concern about RD-02 costing and early delivery, and DTP/Council uncertainty over Spring Street funding. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, pp.31-36, 42)
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
The DCP is functionally linked to Lockerbie North Precinct Structure Plan because the township contributes to district active open space, a Northern Level 3 Community Centre and an Indoor Sports Centre located in or associated with the Lockerbie North infrastructure framework. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.16-17)
The DCP is also linked to Beveridge Central Precinct Structure Plan and the Beveridge Central ICP because surrounding road and infrastructure works reduce the cost burden inside the township DCP area. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.11-12)
DTP is a critical state-agency dependency because Spring Street may function as part of access to the future Camerons Lane interchange, but DTP did not guarantee funding for the Spring Street upgrade and the Panel found state funding was unlikely if the road is treated as a collector road with limited state or regional trip benefits. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, pp.34-36)
Yarra Valley Water appears in the Panel submitter list, and the gap research log confirms that Beveridge servicing should be considered in the Yarra Valley Water context rather than Central Highlands Water. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, p.47; Source: web-research-L1-beveridge-township-dcp-not-found-log.txt)
Gaps in This Analysis
The final approved or gazetted C152mith ordinance package was not available in the source set, so the final levy, final RD-02 cost and final approval date cannot be confirmed from the corpus. (Source: web-research-L1-beveridge-township-dcp-not-found-log.txt)
The individual public submissions bundle was not located, so this page relies on the Panel’s issue summary and the separate HIA submission rather than a full submission-by-submission analysis. (Source: web-research-L1-beveridge-township-dcp-not-found-log.txt)
The primary technical reports supporting the DCP are referenced but not available as standalone source documents in this manifest, including the Cardno benchmark costing report, One Mile Grid traffic and transport analysis, Opteon valuation report and detailed drainage servicing material. (Source: Mitchell C152mith Beveridge Township Development Contributions Plan Oct 2022 Incorp Doc Exhibition Gazetted.pdf, pp.15, 20; Source: web-research-L1-beveridge-township-dcp-not-found-log.txt)
The Spring Street funding question remains a material corpus and implementation gap because the available sources do not include final DTP interchange scope, Spring Street design plans, traffic apportionment modelling or a later Council funding decision. (Source: Mitchell-C152mith-Panel-Report.pdf, pp.34-36)