Orientation 1: Mitchell Shire Road Management Plan 2025 was adopted by Council on 19/05/2025 under the Road Management Act 2004. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Orientation 2: The cover date is 04 August 2025 and the date created is February 2025. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Orientation 3: The plan number is 20221201. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Orientation 4: The responsible directorate is Economy, Growth and Infrastructure. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Orientation 5: The owner roles are Manager Operations and Parks and Road Maintenance Coordinator. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Orientation 6: The plan is an operational protocol for inspection, repair, maintenance, and statutory road-management duties rather than a transport strategy. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Orientation 7: The plan forms part of a larger Asset Management Framework related to maintenance and operations. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Orientation 8: The 2025-2035 Asset Plan values roads and footpaths at $612M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Orientation 9: The 2025-2035 Asset Plan states that replacing all major covered assets in 2025 would cost around $1.23B. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Orientation 10: The RMP changes development feasibility by defining measurable road and footpath response obligations once assets are in Council responsibility. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Source Basis
Source Basis 1: Read msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt as the main 2025 Road Management Plan extraction. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Source Basis 2: Read msc-2025-road-management-plan_final.txt as a near-duplicate 2025 extraction. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan_final.txt)
Source Basis 3: Read road-amp-2021-under-review.txt for continuity with the 2021 under-review RMP context. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Source Basis 4: Read 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt for the 2025-2035 capital, renewal, growth, and engagement context. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Source Basis 5: The current wiki page did not exist before this write, so there was no prior local page to preserve. (Source: local file check)
Source Basis 6: The 2025 RMP review history lists Road Management Plan 2017 as the fourth edition in July 2017. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Source Basis 7: The 2025 RMP review history lists Road Management Plan 2021 as the fifth edition in June 2021. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Source Basis 8: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.00 in June 2021 as an RMP review under s54(5). (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Source Basis 9: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.01 as an initial draft issued for public comment. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Source Basis 10: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.02 as the adopted RMP 2021-2025. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Statutory Purpose
Statutory Purpose 1: Section 50 of the Road Management Act 2004 is cited as setting two objectives for a municipal road management plan. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Statutory Purpose 2: Objective 1 is to establish a system for road-management functions based on policy, operational objectives, and available resources. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Statutory Purpose 3: Objective 2 is to set a performance standard for road-management functions. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Statutory Purpose 4: The RMP is stated to be a road management plan for the purposes of s.39 of the Road Management Act 2004. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Statutory Purpose 5: The RMP considers the Local Government Act 2020. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Statutory Purpose 6: The RMP considers the Road Management (General) Regulations 2016. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Statutory Purpose 7: The RMP considers the Road Management (Works and Infrastructure) Regulations 2015. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Statutory Purpose 8: The RMP considers the Road Safety Act 1986. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Statutory Purpose 9: The RMP considers the Wrongs Act 1958. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Statutory Purpose 10: The RMP considers the Planning and Environment Act 1987. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Statutory Purpose 11: The RMP considers the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Statutory Purpose 12: The RMP considers the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Road Network Quantification
Road Network Quantification 1: The 2025 RMP Table 3.1 was last updated on 1/01/2025. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Road Network Quantification 2: Total road network by hierarchy is 1,686 km. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Road Network Quantification 3: Link Road - Sealed is 138 km, equal to 8% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Road Network Quantification 4: Link Road - Unsealed is 17 km, equal to 1% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Road Network Quantification 5: Collector Road - Sealed is 205 km, equal to 12% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Road Network Quantification 6: Collector Road - Unsealed is 47 km, equal to 3% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Road Network Quantification 7: Access Road and Service Lane - Sealed is 414 km, equal to 25% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Road Network Quantification 8: Access Road and Service Lane - Unsealed is 663 km, equal to 39% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Road Network Quantification 9: Access Road - Unformed is 45 km, equal to 3% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Road Network Quantification 10: Fire Track is 157 km, equal to 9% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Road Network Quantification 11: Sealed roads total 756 km, equal to 45% of the RMP network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Road Network Quantification 12: Unsealed roads total 930 km, equal to 55% of the RMP network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Road Network Quantification 13: The Asset Plan records 815 km sealed roads. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Road Network Quantification 14: The Asset Plan records 766 km unsealed roads. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Road Network Quantification 15: The Asset Plan records 445 km footpaths. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Road Network Quantification 16: The Asset Plan records 304 bridges plus major culverts. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Road Network Quantification 17: The Asset Plan records 633 km kerbs. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Road Network Quantification 18: The Asset Plan records 219 traffic devices. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Road Network Quantification 19: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 700 km of sealed roads. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Road Network Quantification 20: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 714 km of unsealed or gravel roads. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Road Network Quantification 21: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 316 km of sealed and unsealed footpaths. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Asset Plan And Renewal Gap
Asset Plan And Renewal Gap 1: Roads and footpaths have Asset Value = $612M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Asset Plan And Renewal Gap 2: Parks, recreation and open spaces have Asset Value = $56M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Asset Plan And Renewal Gap 3: Stormwater drainage has Asset Value = $272M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Asset Plan And Renewal Gap 4: Buildings and facilities have Asset Value = $199M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Asset Plan And Renewal Gap 5: Approximately 79% of the 10-year capital budget is allocated to support growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Asset Plan And Renewal Gap 6: Growth capital is quantified as $573M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Asset Plan And Renewal Gap 7: Existing-asset preservation is quantified as 21% of the 10-year capital budget. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Asset Plan And Renewal Gap 8: Existing-asset preservation is quantified as $155M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Asset Plan And Renewal Gap 9: Annual renewal investment grows from 9.7M in 2025-2026 to 19.1M in 2034-2035. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Asset Plan And Renewal Gap 10: The Asset Plan describes the renewal increase as almost 100% over 10 years. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Asset Plan And Renewal Gap 11: Roads actual average annual renewal investment is $8.2M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Asset Plan And Renewal Gap 12: Roads sustainable average annual renewal investment is $26.5M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Asset Plan And Renewal Gap 13: Roads desired average annual renewal investment is $28.0M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Asset Plan And Renewal Gap 14: The sustainable roads renewal gap is $18.3M per year. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Asset Plan And Renewal Gap 15: The desired roads renewal gap is $19.8M per year. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Asset Plan And Renewal Gap 16: Actual roads renewal is about 30.9% of the sustainable benchmark. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Asset Plan And Renewal Gap 17: Actual roads renewal is about 29.3% of the desired benchmark. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Community Engagement Signals
Community Engagement Signals 1: Deliberative engagement was used to shape the Asset Plan. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Community Engagement Signals 2: The community reported that most assets are not meeting expectations for condition, appearance, ease of use, accessibility, and demand. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Community Engagement Signals 3: Sealed roads condition expectation is 7.0 and satisfaction is 5.4. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Community Engagement Signals 4: Unsealed roads condition expectation is 6.5 and satisfaction is 4.2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Community Engagement Signals 5: Footpaths and shared paths condition expectation is 7.4 and graph satisfaction is 5.2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Community Engagement Signals 6: The later level-of-service table gives footpaths and shared paths where-we-are as 5.3 and where-we-want-to-be as 7.5. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Community Engagement Signals 7: Sealed-road condition gap is 1.6 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Community Engagement Signals 8: Unsealed-road condition gap is 2.3 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Community Engagement Signals 9: Footpath/shared-path graph condition gap is 2.2 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Community Engagement Signals 10: Sealed roads accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 3.4 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Community Engagement Signals 11: Unsealed roads accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 3.2 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Community Engagement Signals 12: Footpaths and shared paths accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 4.1 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Community Engagement Signals 13: Sealed roads capacity-to-meet-demand satisfaction is 3.4 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Community Engagement Signals 14: Unsealed roads capacity-to-meet-demand satisfaction is 2.7 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Community Engagement Signals 15: The community panel ranked sealed roads as priority 1. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Community Engagement Signals 16: The community panel ranked footpaths and shared paths as priority 2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Community Engagement Signals 17: The community panel ranked unsealed roads as priority 3. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Population Growth Dependencies
Population dependency 1.1: Beveridge is projected from 9,082 people in 2025 to 104,066 people in 2045, growth 1,045.9%. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Population dependency 1.2: growth in Beveridge creates more accepted assets if roads, paths, kerbs, pits, bridges, and culverts are transferred to Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Population dependency 1.3: the RMP controls inspection and repair after responsibility is accepted, not upfront development delivery. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Population dependency 2.1: Broadford is projected from 6,308 people in 2025 to 8,095 people in 2045, growth 28.3%. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Population dependency 2.2: growth in Broadford creates more accepted assets if roads, paths, kerbs, pits, bridges, and culverts are transferred to Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Population dependency 2.3: the RMP controls inspection and repair after responsibility is accepted, not upfront development delivery. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Population dependency 3.1: Kilmore - Kilmore East is projected from 12,269 people in 2025 to 24,000 people in 2045, growth 95.6%. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Population dependency 3.2: growth in Kilmore - Kilmore East creates more accepted assets if roads, paths, kerbs, pits, bridges, and culverts are transferred to Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Population dependency 3.3: the RMP controls inspection and repair after responsibility is accepted, not upfront development delivery. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Population dependency 4.1: Pyalong - Rural North-West is projected from 2,759 people in 2025 to 3,731 people in 2045, growth 35.2%. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Population dependency 4.2: growth in Pyalong - Rural North-West creates more accepted assets if roads, paths, kerbs, pits, bridges, and culverts are transferred to Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Population dependency 4.3: the RMP controls inspection and repair after responsibility is accepted, not upfront development delivery. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Population dependency 5.1: Rural North-East is projected from 2,957 people in 2025 to 3,312 people in 2045, growth 12.0%. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Population dependency 5.2: growth in Rural North-East creates more accepted assets if roads, paths, kerbs, pits, bridges, and culverts are transferred to Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Population dependency 5.3: the RMP controls inspection and repair after responsibility is accepted, not upfront development delivery. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Population dependency 6.1: Seymour is projected from 8,818 people in 2025 to 13,191 people in 2045, growth 49.6%. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Population dependency 6.2: growth in Seymour creates more accepted assets if roads, paths, kerbs, pits, bridges, and culverts are transferred to Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Population dependency 6.3: the RMP controls inspection and repair after responsibility is accepted, not upfront development delivery. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Population dependency 7.1: Wallan is projected from 18,758 people in 2025 to 49,123 people in 2045, growth 161.9%. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Population dependency 7.2: growth in Wallan creates more accepted assets if roads, paths, kerbs, pits, bridges, and culverts are transferred to Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Population dependency 7.3: the RMP controls inspection and repair after responsibility is accepted, not upfront development delivery. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Population dependency 8.1: Wandong - Heathcote Junction is projected from 3,224 people in 2025 to 3,990 people in 2045, growth 23.8%. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Population dependency 8.2: growth in Wandong - Heathcote Junction creates more accepted assets if roads, paths, kerbs, pits, bridges, and culverts are transferred to Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Population dependency 8.3: the RMP controls inspection and repair after responsibility is accepted, not upfront development delivery. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Population dependency 9.1: Mitchell Shire Council is projected from 64,175 people in 2025 to 209,508 people in 2045, growth 226.5%. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Population dependency 9.2: growth in Mitchell Shire Council creates more accepted assets if roads, paths, kerbs, pits, bridges, and culverts are transferred to Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Population dependency 9.3: the RMP controls inspection and repair after responsibility is accepted, not upfront development delivery. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Hierarchy Mechanism
Hierarchy 1.1: Link: links collector roads to arterial network and significant locations; high through traffic; higher traffic volumes, speeds, and heavy vehicles. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Hierarchy 1.2: Link classification changes defect response timing, inspection frequency, and development access risk. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Hierarchy 1.3: Link should be checked in the Register of Public Roads before site-specific feasibility conclusions are drawn. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Hierarchy 2.1: Collector: collects and distributes traffic from access roads to the wider network; moderate traffic volumes and speeds. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Hierarchy 2.2: Collector classification changes defect response timing, inspection frequency, and development access risk. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Hierarchy 2.3: Collector should be checked in the Register of Public Roads before site-specific feasibility conclusions are drawn. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Hierarchy 3.1: Access: predominantly direct property and industry access; low traffic volumes and low traffic speeds. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Hierarchy 3.2: Access classification changes defect response timing, inspection frequency, and development access risk. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Hierarchy 3.3: Access should be checked in the Register of Public Roads before site-specific feasibility conclusions are drawn. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Hierarchy 4.1: Unformed access: lower construction standard; little to no formation; often narrow; poor alignment; little or no drainage. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Hierarchy 4.2: Unformed access classification changes defect response timing, inspection frequency, and development access risk. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Hierarchy 4.3: Unformed access should be checked in the Register of Public Roads before site-specific feasibility conclusions are drawn. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Hierarchy 5.1: Laneways: rear-property routes maintained for vegetation mowing but outside RMP intervention requirements. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Hierarchy 5.2: Laneways classification changes defect response timing, inspection frequency, and development access risk. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Hierarchy 5.3: Laneways should be checked in the Register of Public Roads before site-specific feasibility conclusions are drawn. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Hierarchy 6.1: Fire Access: CFA access to remote areas; not general day-to-day public use; maintained at CFA request before fire season. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Hierarchy 6.2: Fire Access classification changes defect response timing, inspection frequency, and development access risk. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Hierarchy 6.3: Fire Access should be checked in the Register of Public Roads before site-specific feasibility conclusions are drawn. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Fire Access dimensional rule: fire access tracks must have minimum trafficable width of 3.5m. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Fire Access side-clearance rule: fire access tracks must be clear of encroachments for at least 0.5m on each side. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Fire Access vertical-clearance rule: fire access tracks must be clear of encroachments at least 4m vertically. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Pathway Hierarchy
Pathway 1.1: Category 1: High and Commercial Use Areas in town and village centres and CBD access. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Pathway 1.2: Category 1 affects inspection frequency and repair timeframe for footpath defects. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Pathway 1.3: Category 1 therefore affects walkability feasibility for growth precincts and established town centres. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Pathway 2.1: Category 2: Strategic and Intermediate Use Areas including hospitals, churches, schools, aged hostels, and significant strategic routes. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Pathway 2.2: Category 2 affects inspection frequency and repair timeframe for footpath defects. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Pathway 2.3: Category 2 therefore affects walkability feasibility for growth precincts and established town centres. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Pathway 3.2: Category 3 affects inspection frequency and repair timeframe for footpath defects. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Pathway 3.3: Category 3 therefore affects walkability feasibility for growth precincts and established town centres. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection Frequencies
Inspection frequency 1.1: Sealed Roads / Link Road: reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 1.2: Sealed Roads / Link Road: the programmed inspection clock is a staging and liability input because it determines when Council should discover defects without a request. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 1.3: Sealed Roads / Link Road: if proactive frequency elapses on a weekend or public holiday, the due date becomes the next working day. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 2.1: Unsealed Roads / Link Road: reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 2.2: Unsealed Roads / Link Road: the programmed inspection clock is a staging and liability input because it determines when Council should discover defects without a request. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 2.3: Unsealed Roads / Link Road: if proactive frequency elapses on a weekend or public holiday, the due date becomes the next working day. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 3.1: Collector Road sealed/unsealed signs category: reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 3.2: Collector Road sealed/unsealed signs category: the programmed inspection clock is a staging and liability input because it determines when Council should discover defects without a request. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 3.3: Collector Road sealed/unsealed signs category: if proactive frequency elapses on a weekend or public holiday, the due date becomes the next working day. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 4.1: Access Formed Sealed including Service Lanes: reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 4.2: Access Formed Sealed including Service Lanes: the programmed inspection clock is a staging and liability input because it determines when Council should discover defects without a request. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 4.3: Access Formed Sealed including Service Lanes: if proactive frequency elapses on a weekend or public holiday, the due date becomes the next working day. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 5.1: Access Formed Unsealed including Service Lanes: reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 5.2: Access Formed Unsealed including Service Lanes: the programmed inspection clock is a staging and liability input because it determines when Council should discover defects without a request. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 5.3: Access Formed Unsealed including Service Lanes: if proactive frequency elapses on a weekend or public holiday, the due date becomes the next working day. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 6.1: Footpaths Category 1: reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 6.2: Footpaths Category 1: the programmed inspection clock is a staging and liability input because it determines when Council should discover defects without a request. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 6.3: Footpaths Category 1: if proactive frequency elapses on a weekend or public holiday, the due date becomes the next working day. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 7.1: Footpaths Category 2: reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 7.2: Footpaths Category 2: the programmed inspection clock is a staging and liability input because it determines when Council should discover defects without a request. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 7.3: Footpaths Category 2: if proactive frequency elapses on a weekend or public holiday, the due date becomes the next working day. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 8.1: Footpaths Category 3: reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 8.2: Footpaths Category 3: the programmed inspection clock is a staging and liability input because it determines when Council should discover defects without a request. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 8.3: Footpaths Category 3: if proactive frequency elapses on a weekend or public holiday, the due date becomes the next working day. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 9.1: Kerb and channel Link: reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 9.2: Kerb and channel Link: the programmed inspection clock is a staging and liability input because it determines when Council should discover defects without a request. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 9.3: Kerb and channel Link: if proactive frequency elapses on a weekend or public holiday, the due date becomes the next working day. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 10.1: Kerb and channel Collector: reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 10.2: Kerb and channel Collector: the programmed inspection clock is a staging and liability input because it determines when Council should discover defects without a request. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 10.3: Kerb and channel Collector: if proactive frequency elapses on a weekend or public holiday, the due date becomes the next working day. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 11.1: Kerb and channel Access: reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 11.2: Kerb and channel Access: the programmed inspection clock is a staging and liability input because it determines when Council should discover defects without a request. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 11.3: Kerb and channel Access: if proactive frequency elapses on a weekend or public holiday, the due date becomes the next working day. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 12.1: Bridges Level 1: reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 12.2: Bridges Level 1: the programmed inspection clock is a staging and liability input because it determines when Council should discover defects without a request. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 12.3: Bridges Level 1: if proactive frequency elapses on a weekend or public holiday, the due date becomes the next working day. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 13.1: Emergency Response all assets/categories: reactive 24H, proactive n/a, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 13.2: Emergency Response all assets/categories: the programmed inspection clock is a staging and liability input because it determines when Council should discover defects without a request. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Inspection frequency 13.3: Emergency Response all assets/categories: if proactive frequency elapses on a weekend or public holiday, the due date becomes the next working day. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect Intervention Standards
Defect 1.1: Sealed pothole: intervention threshold is >75mm depth and >300mm diameter. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 1.2: Sealed pothole: repair timeframe is 2W, 2W, and 4W across the relevant hierarchy/category columns. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 1.3: Sealed pothole: the mechanism is measured exceedance; below-threshold defects are recorded but do not trigger remedial action under the RMP. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 1.4: Sealed pothole: development feasibility should treat this as a minimum public-risk intervention level, not a desired streetscape-quality standard. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 2.1: Sealed edge break: intervention threshold is >100mm laterally over 10m or greater from nominal seal line. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 2.2: Sealed edge break: repair timeframe is 4W, 6W, and 8W across the relevant hierarchy/category columns. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 2.3: Sealed edge break: the mechanism is measured exceedance; below-threshold defects are recorded but do not trigger remedial action under the RMP. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 2.4: Sealed edge break: development feasibility should treat this as a minimum public-risk intervention level, not a desired streetscape-quality standard. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 3.1: Sealed shoulder drop: intervention threshold is >100mm depth over 10m or greater. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 3.2: Sealed shoulder drop: repair timeframe is 4W, 6W, and 8W across the relevant hierarchy/category columns. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 3.3: Sealed shoulder drop: the mechanism is measured exceedance; below-threshold defects are recorded but do not trigger remedial action under the RMP. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 3.4: Sealed shoulder drop: development feasibility should treat this as a minimum public-risk intervention level, not a desired streetscape-quality standard. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 4.1: Sealed deformation: intervention threshold is >100mm depth under 3m straight edge. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 4.2: Sealed deformation: repair timeframe is 8W, 8W, and 12W across the relevant hierarchy/category columns. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 4.3: Sealed deformation: the mechanism is measured exceedance; below-threshold defects are recorded but do not trigger remedial action under the RMP. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 4.4: Sealed deformation: development feasibility should treat this as a minimum public-risk intervention level, not a desired streetscape-quality standard. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 5.1: Sealed missing pit lid: intervention threshold is missing Council drainage pit lid. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 5.2: Sealed missing pit lid: repair timeframe is 2 WD, 2 WD, and 4 WD across the relevant hierarchy/category columns. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 5.3: Sealed missing pit lid: the mechanism is measured exceedance; below-threshold defects are recorded but do not trigger remedial action under the RMP. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 5.4: Sealed missing pit lid: development feasibility should treat this as a minimum public-risk intervention level, not a desired streetscape-quality standard. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 6.1: Sealed damaged pit lid: intervention threshold is potentially structurally unsound Council drainage pit lid. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 6.2: Sealed damaged pit lid: repair timeframe is 2W, 2W, and 4W across the relevant hierarchy/category columns. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 6.3: Sealed damaged pit lid: the mechanism is measured exceedance; below-threshold defects are recorded but do not trigger remedial action under the RMP. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 6.4: Sealed damaged pit lid: development feasibility should treat this as a minimum public-risk intervention level, not a desired streetscape-quality standard. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 7.1: Unsealed pothole: intervention threshold is >100mm depth and >300mm diameter. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 7.2: Unsealed pothole: repair timeframe is 1M, 1M, and 3M across the relevant hierarchy/category columns. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 7.3: Unsealed pothole: the mechanism is measured exceedance; below-threshold defects are recorded but do not trigger remedial action under the RMP. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 7.4: Unsealed pothole: development feasibility should treat this as a minimum public-risk intervention level, not a desired streetscape-quality standard. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 8.2: Unsealed wheel rut/scour: repair timeframe is 1M, 1M, and 3M across the relevant hierarchy/category columns. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 8.3: Unsealed wheel rut/scour: the mechanism is measured exceedance; below-threshold defects are recorded but do not trigger remedial action under the RMP. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 8.4: Unsealed wheel rut/scour: development feasibility should treat this as a minimum public-risk intervention level, not a desired streetscape-quality standard. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 9.1: Unsealed corrugation: intervention threshold is >75mm depth and >300mm length. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 9.2: Unsealed corrugation: repair timeframe is 2M, 2M, and 4M across the relevant hierarchy/category columns. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 9.3: Unsealed corrugation: the mechanism is measured exceedance; below-threshold defects are recorded but do not trigger remedial action under the RMP. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 9.4: Unsealed corrugation: development feasibility should treat this as a minimum public-risk intervention level, not a desired streetscape-quality standard. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 10.1: Traffic sign missing/damaged: intervention threshold is substantially ineffective from speed-based sight distance. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 10.2: Traffic sign missing/damaged: repair timeframe is 1M, 1M, and 2M across the relevant hierarchy/category columns. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 10.3: Traffic sign missing/damaged: the mechanism is measured exceedance; below-threshold defects are recorded but do not trigger remedial action under the RMP. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 10.4: Traffic sign missing/damaged: development feasibility should treat this as a minimum public-risk intervention level, not a desired streetscape-quality standard. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 11.2: Guard rail/fence missing/damaged: repair timeframe is 12W, 12W, and 12W across the relevant hierarchy/category columns. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 11.3: Guard rail/fence missing/damaged: the mechanism is measured exceedance; below-threshold defects are recorded but do not trigger remedial action under the RMP. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 11.4: Guard rail/fence missing/damaged: development feasibility should treat this as a minimum public-risk intervention level, not a desired streetscape-quality standard. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 12.2: Pavement markings missing/faded: repair timeframe is 12W, 12W, and 6M across the relevant hierarchy/category columns. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 12.3: Pavement markings missing/faded: the mechanism is measured exceedance; below-threshold defects are recorded but do not trigger remedial action under the RMP. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 12.4: Pavement markings missing/faded: development feasibility should treat this as a minimum public-risk intervention level, not a desired streetscape-quality standard. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 13.2: Footpath vertical displacement: repair timeframe is 4W Cat1, 6W Cat2, and 2M Cat3 across the relevant hierarchy/category columns. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 13.3: Footpath vertical displacement: the mechanism is measured exceedance; below-threshold defects are recorded but do not trigger remedial action under the RMP. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 13.4: Footpath vertical displacement: development feasibility should treat this as a minimum public-risk intervention level, not a desired streetscape-quality standard. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 14.2: Footpath cracking: repair timeframe is 4W Cat1, 6W Cat2, and 2M Cat3 across the relevant hierarchy/category columns. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 14.3: Footpath cracking: the mechanism is measured exceedance; below-threshold defects are recorded but do not trigger remedial action under the RMP. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 14.4: Footpath cracking: development feasibility should treat this as a minimum public-risk intervention level, not a desired streetscape-quality standard. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 15.1: Footpath undulation: intervention threshold is >80mm under 1.5m straight edge. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 15.2: Footpath undulation: repair timeframe is 4W Cat1, 6W Cat2, and 2M Cat3 across the relevant hierarchy/category columns. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 15.3: Footpath undulation: the mechanism is measured exceedance; below-threshold defects are recorded but do not trigger remedial action under the RMP. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 15.4: Footpath undulation: development feasibility should treat this as a minimum public-risk intervention level, not a desired streetscape-quality standard. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 16.1: Footpath missing pieces/potholes: intervention threshold is >150mm length/width and >25mm depth. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 16.2: Footpath missing pieces/potholes: repair timeframe is 4W Cat1, 6W Cat2, and 2M Cat3 across the relevant hierarchy/category columns. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 16.3: Footpath missing pieces/potholes: the mechanism is measured exceedance; below-threshold defects are recorded but do not trigger remedial action under the RMP. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 16.4: Footpath missing pieces/potholes: development feasibility should treat this as a minimum public-risk intervention level, not a desired streetscape-quality standard. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 17.1: Footpath missing pit lid: intervention threshold is missing Council drainage pit lid. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 17.2: Footpath missing pit lid: repair timeframe is 2 WD Cat1, 2 WD Cat2, and 2 WD Cat3 across the relevant hierarchy/category columns. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 17.3: Footpath missing pit lid: the mechanism is measured exceedance; below-threshold defects are recorded but do not trigger remedial action under the RMP. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 17.4: Footpath missing pit lid: development feasibility should treat this as a minimum public-risk intervention level, not a desired streetscape-quality standard. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 18.2: Footpath damaged pit lid: repair timeframe is 2W Cat1, 4W Cat2, and 1M Cat3 across the relevant hierarchy/category columns. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 18.3: Footpath damaged pit lid: the mechanism is measured exceedance; below-threshold defects are recorded but do not trigger remedial action under the RMP. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 18.4: Footpath damaged pit lid: development feasibility should treat this as a minimum public-risk intervention level, not a desired streetscape-quality standard. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 19.1: Footpath overhead vegetation: intervention threshold is <2.5m over footpath surface. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 19.2: Footpath overhead vegetation: repair timeframe is 4W Cat1, 6W Cat2, and 2M Cat3 across the relevant hierarchy/category columns. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 19.3: Footpath overhead vegetation: the mechanism is measured exceedance; below-threshold defects are recorded but do not trigger remedial action under the RMP. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 19.4: Footpath overhead vegetation: development feasibility should treat this as a minimum public-risk intervention level, not a desired streetscape-quality standard. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 20.2: Kerb vertical displacement: repair timeframe is 4W, 6W, and 2M across the relevant hierarchy/category columns. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 20.3: Kerb vertical displacement: the mechanism is measured exceedance; below-threshold defects are recorded but do not trigger remedial action under the RMP. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 20.4: Kerb vertical displacement: development feasibility should treat this as a minimum public-risk intervention level, not a desired streetscape-quality standard. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 21.1: Kerb horizontal displacement: intervention threshold is >100mm length and 50mm depth. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 21.2: Kerb horizontal displacement: repair timeframe is 4W, 6W, and 2M across the relevant hierarchy/category columns. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 21.3: Kerb horizontal displacement: the mechanism is measured exceedance; below-threshold defects are recorded but do not trigger remedial action under the RMP. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 21.4: Kerb horizontal displacement: development feasibility should treat this as a minimum public-risk intervention level, not a desired streetscape-quality standard. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 22.1: Bridge/culvert defect: intervention threshold is visible damage likely to pose immediate and significant public risk. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 22.2: Bridge/culvert defect: repair timeframe is 4W, 4W, and 2M across the relevant hierarchy/category columns. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 22.3: Bridge/culvert defect: the mechanism is measured exceedance; below-threshold defects are recorded but do not trigger remedial action under the RMP. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Defect 22.4: Bridge/culvert defect: development feasibility should treat this as a minimum public-risk intervention level, not a desired streetscape-quality standard. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Repair timing rule: if a repair timeframe elapses on a weekend or public holiday, the due date becomes the next working day. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Temporary mitigation rule: defects not due for repair in less than 4 weeks may receive warning signage, barriers, or bright contrasting paint until permanent repair. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Vegetation And Sightlines
Sightline 1: speed limit <=50km/h uses 30m viewing distance for obstructing vegetation where the RMP sightline standard applies. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Sightline 2: speed limit 60km/h uses 40m viewing distance for obstructing vegetation where the RMP sightline standard applies. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Sightline 3: speed limit 70km/h uses 55m viewing distance for obstructing vegetation where the RMP sightline standard applies. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Sightline 4: speed limit 80km/h uses 65m viewing distance for obstructing vegetation where the RMP sightline standard applies. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Sightline 5: speed limit 90km/h uses 80m viewing distance for obstructing vegetation where the RMP sightline standard applies. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Sightline 6: speed limit 100km/h uses 95m viewing distance for obstructing vegetation where the RMP sightline standard applies. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Vegetation envelope: Urban footpath minimum height clearance is 2.5m within the constructed pathway width. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Vegetation envelope: Urban road minimum height clearance is 4.5m from the lip of kerb. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Vegetation envelope: Rural road envelope is 4.9m above the trafficable section. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Vegetation envelope: Rural best-practice maintenance envelope is 4.9m high and up to 1m behind the back of drain or guidepost, whichever is greater. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Register And Responsibility Allocation
Responsibility 1.1: Council maintains a Register of Public Roads with all public roads and ancillary areas for which it is responsible. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 1.2: This allocates cost, timing, or liability before maintenance expectations can be applied to a development or property. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 2.1: The Register is available on Council’s website. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 2.2: This allocates cost, timing, or liability before maintenance expectations can be applied to a development or property. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 3.1: A hard copy is available by request at Customer Service Centre, 113 High Street, Broadford Victoria 3658. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 3.2: This allocates cost, timing, or liability before maintenance expectations can be applied to a development or property. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 4.1: Boundary agreements are listed in the Municipal Road Register. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 4.2: This allocates cost, timing, or liability before maintenance expectations can be applied to a development or property. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 5.1: Roads fully under State government or private-enterprise responsibility are not listed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 5.2: This allocates cost, timing, or liability before maintenance expectations can be applied to a development or property. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 6.1: Unused roads for which Council has not accepted responsibility are not listed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 6.2: This allocates cost, timing, or liability before maintenance expectations can be applied to a development or property. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 7.1: Subdivision-plan roads are not listed until Council accepts responsibility. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 7.2: This allocates cost, timing, or liability before maintenance expectations can be applied to a development or property. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 8.1: Roads not determined reasonably required for general public use are not listed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 8.2: This allocates cost, timing, or liability before maintenance expectations can be applied to a development or property. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 9.1: Works inside a road reserve that impede access or interfere with road infrastructure require a works-within-road-reserve permit unless exempt. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 9.2: This allocates cost, timing, or liability before maintenance expectations can be applied to a development or property. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 10.1: Vehicle crossing construction requires a vehicle crossing permit. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 10.2: This allocates cost, timing, or liability before maintenance expectations can be applied to a development or property. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 11.1: Roadside vegetation removal may require a planning permit under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 11.2: This allocates cost, timing, or liability before maintenance expectations can be applied to a development or property. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 12.1: Vehicle crossings between carriageway and property boundary are adjoining-owner responsibility except where the constructed pathway is reasonably required for public use. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 12.2: This allocates cost, timing, or liability before maintenance expectations can be applied to a development or property. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 13.1: Non-road infrastructure includes utility and public transport assets in, on, under, or over the road. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 13.2: This allocates cost, timing, or liability before maintenance expectations can be applied to a development or property. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 14.1: Council may take temporary measures for other-party hazards if they create immediate and significant public risk. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Responsibility 14.2: This allocates cost, timing, or liability before maintenance expectations can be applied to a development or property. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Exceptional Circumstances
Suspension trigger 1: fires may affect Council business activities enough that RMP service levels cannot be delivered. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Suspension trigger 2: floods may affect Council business activities enough that RMP service levels cannot be delivered. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Suspension trigger 3: storms may affect Council business activities enough that RMP service levels cannot be delivered. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Suspension trigger 4: prolonged labour shortage may affect Council business activities enough that RMP service levels cannot be delivered. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Suspension trigger 5: prolonged resource shortage may affect Council business activities enough that RMP service levels cannot be delivered. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Suspension trigger 6: pandemic effects may affect Council business activities enough that RMP service levels cannot be delivered. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Suspension trigger 7: government intervention may affect Council business activities enough that RMP service levels cannot be delivered. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Suspension mechanism 1: The CEO considers event impacts on limited financial resources and conflicting priorities. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Suspension mechanism 2: If the CEO determines the Plan cannot be met, the CEO writes to the officer in charge of the Plan. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Suspension mechanism 3: Some or all timeframes and responses may be suspended under Section 83 of the Wrongs Act 1958. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Suspension mechanism 4: Reinstatement requires identifying event scope and resources committed to event response. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Suspension mechanism 5: Council must communicate how remaining work is prioritised. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Suspension mechanism 6: Council must communicate the likely affected period. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Suspension mechanism 7: Suspension does not necessarily mean all inspections and repairs halt. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Suspension mechanism 8: During suspension, inspections and repairs are based on risk assessment and available resources. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Request For Service Data Chain
RFS record 1: Council records date request received. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
RFS record 2: Council records location and nature of reported hazard or defect. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
RFS record 3: Council records specific measurements if provided. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
RFS record 4: Council records name of person making request. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
RFS record 5: Council records copies of photographs provided. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
RFS record 6: Council records assigned personnel or department. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
RFS record 7: Council records date by which request must be actioned. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
RFS record 8: Council records date request was actioned or completed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
RFS outcome 1: If a defect exceeds Attachment 5 intervention level, a work order is created with a completion date. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
RFS outcome 2: If repairs are significant, temporary mitigation may reduce risk until proper works can occur. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
RFS outcome 3: If a defect is below intervention level, Council records why no remedial action is conducted. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
RFS outcome 4: Target response times are based on normal conditions and do not apply at the same level during Plan suspension. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Monitoring Signals
Monitoring signal 1: Watch Register updates after subdivisions. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Monitoring signal 2: Watch material standard changes presented to Council. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Monitoring signal 3: Watch Director-approved non-technical changes. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Monitoring signal 4: Watch RFS compliance against 10 WD reactive inspection timeframes. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Monitoring signal 5: Watch emergency responses against 24H category. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Monitoring signal 6: Watch renewal movement from 9.7M in 2025-2026 toward 19.1M in 2034-2035. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Monitoring signal 7: Watch roads renewal movement from 8.2M toward 26.5M sustainable need. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Monitoring signal 8: Watch roads renewal movement from 8.2M toward 28.0M desired need. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Monitoring signal 9: Watch sealed-road satisfaction movement from 5.4 toward 7.0. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Monitoring signal 10: Watch unsealed-road satisfaction movement from 4.2 toward 6.5. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Monitoring signal 11: Watch footpath/shared-path satisfaction movement from 5.3 toward 7.5. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Monitoring signal 12: Watch future reconciliation of 756 km RMP sealed roads and 815 km Asset Plan sealed roads. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Monitoring signal 13: Watch future reconciliation of 930 km RMP unsealed roads and 766 km Asset Plan unsealed roads. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence Ledger
Evidence ledger 1: quantified constraint: Mitchell Shire Road Management Plan 2025 was adopted by Council on 19/05/2025 under the Road Management Act 2004. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 2: mechanism: The cover date is 04 August 2025 and the date created is February 2025. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 3: dependency: The plan number is 20221201. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 4: staging implication: The responsible directorate is Economy, Growth and Infrastructure. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 5: development feasibility implication: The owner roles are Manager Operations and Parks and Road Maintenance Coordinator. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 6: contested-service implication: The plan is an operational protocol for inspection, repair, maintenance, and statutory road-management duties rather than a transport strategy. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 7: monitoring implication: The plan forms part of a larger Asset Management Framework related to maintenance and operations. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 8: risk allocation implication: The 2025-2035 Asset Plan values roads and footpaths at $612M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 9: quantified constraint: The 2025-2035 Asset Plan states that replacing all major covered assets in 2025 would cost around $1.23B. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 10: mechanism: The RMP changes development feasibility by defining measurable road and footpath response obligations once assets are in Council responsibility. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 11: dependency: Read msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt as the main 2025 Road Management Plan extraction. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 12: staging implication: Read msc-2025-road-management-plan_final.txt as a near-duplicate 2025 extraction. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan_final.txt)
Evidence ledger 13: development feasibility implication: Read road-amp-2021-under-review.txt for continuity with the 2021 under-review RMP context. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 14: contested-service implication: Read 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt for the 2025-2035 capital, renewal, growth, and engagement context. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 15: monitoring implication: The current wiki page did not exist before this write, so there was no prior local page to preserve. (Source: local file check)
Evidence ledger 16: risk allocation implication: The 2025 RMP review history lists Road Management Plan 2017 as the fourth edition in July 2017. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 17: quantified constraint: The 2025 RMP review history lists Road Management Plan 2021 as the fifth edition in June 2021. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 18: mechanism: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.00 in June 2021 as an RMP review under s54(5). (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 19: dependency: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.01 as an initial draft issued for public comment. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 20: staging implication: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.02 as the adopted RMP 2021-2025. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 21: development feasibility implication: Section 50 of the Road Management Act 2004 is cited as setting two objectives for a municipal road management plan. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 22: contested-service implication: Objective 1 is to establish a system for road-management functions based on policy, operational objectives, and available resources. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 23: monitoring implication: Objective 2 is to set a performance standard for road-management functions. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 24: risk allocation implication: The RMP is stated to be a road management plan for the purposes of s.39 of the Road Management Act 2004. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 25: quantified constraint: The RMP considers the Local Government Act 2020. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 26: mechanism: The RMP considers the Road Management (General) Regulations 2016. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 27: dependency: The RMP considers the Road Management (Works and Infrastructure) Regulations 2015. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 28: staging implication: The RMP considers the Road Safety Act 1986. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 29: development feasibility implication: The RMP considers the Wrongs Act 1958. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 30: contested-service implication: The RMP considers the Planning and Environment Act 1987. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 31: monitoring implication: The RMP considers the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 32: risk allocation implication: The RMP considers the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 33: quantified constraint: The 2025 RMP Table 3.1 was last updated on 1/01/2025. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 34: mechanism: Total road network by hierarchy is 1,686 km. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 35: dependency: Link Road - Sealed is 138 km, equal to 8% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 36: staging implication: Link Road - Unsealed is 17 km, equal to 1% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 37: development feasibility implication: Collector Road - Sealed is 205 km, equal to 12% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 38: contested-service implication: Collector Road - Unsealed is 47 km, equal to 3% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 39: monitoring implication: Access Road and Service Lane - Sealed is 414 km, equal to 25% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 40: risk allocation implication: Access Road and Service Lane - Unsealed is 663 km, equal to 39% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 41: quantified constraint: Access Road - Unformed is 45 km, equal to 3% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 42: mechanism: Fire Track is 157 km, equal to 9% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 43: dependency: Sealed roads total 756 km, equal to 45% of the RMP network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 44: staging implication: Unsealed roads total 930 km, equal to 55% of the RMP network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 45: development feasibility implication: The Asset Plan records 815 km sealed roads. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 46: contested-service implication: The Asset Plan records 766 km unsealed roads. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 47: monitoring implication: The Asset Plan records 445 km footpaths. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 48: risk allocation implication: The Asset Plan records 304 bridges plus major culverts. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 49: quantified constraint: The Asset Plan records 633 km kerbs. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 50: mechanism: The Asset Plan records 219 traffic devices. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 51: dependency: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 700 km of sealed roads. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 52: staging implication: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 714 km of unsealed or gravel roads. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 53: development feasibility implication: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 316 km of sealed and unsealed footpaths. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 54: contested-service implication: Roads and footpaths have Asset Value = $612M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 55: monitoring implication: Parks, recreation and open spaces have Asset Value = $56M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 56: risk allocation implication: Stormwater drainage has Asset Value = $272M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 57: quantified constraint: Buildings and facilities have Asset Value = $199M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 58: mechanism: Approximately 79% of the 10-year capital budget is allocated to support growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 59: dependency: Growth capital is quantified as $573M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 60: staging implication: Existing-asset preservation is quantified as 21% of the 10-year capital budget. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 61: development feasibility implication: Existing-asset preservation is quantified as $155M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 62: contested-service implication: Annual renewal investment grows from 9.7M in 2025-2026 to 19.1M in 2034-2035. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 63: monitoring implication: The Asset Plan describes the renewal increase as almost 100% over 10 years. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 64: risk allocation implication: Roads actual average annual renewal investment is $8.2M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 65: quantified constraint: Roads sustainable average annual renewal investment is $26.5M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 66: mechanism: Roads desired average annual renewal investment is $28.0M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 67: dependency: The sustainable roads renewal gap is $18.3M per year. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 68: staging implication: The desired roads renewal gap is $19.8M per year. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 69: development feasibility implication: Actual roads renewal is about 30.9% of the sustainable benchmark. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 70: contested-service implication: Actual roads renewal is about 29.3% of the desired benchmark. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 71: monitoring implication: Deliberative engagement was used to shape the Asset Plan. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 72: risk allocation implication: The community reported that most assets are not meeting expectations for condition, appearance, ease of use, accessibility, and demand. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 73: quantified constraint: Sealed roads condition expectation is 7.0 and satisfaction is 5.4. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 74: mechanism: Unsealed roads condition expectation is 6.5 and satisfaction is 4.2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 75: dependency: Footpaths and shared paths condition expectation is 7.4 and graph satisfaction is 5.2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 76: staging implication: The later level-of-service table gives footpaths and shared paths where-we-are as 5.3 and where-we-want-to-be as 7.5. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 77: development feasibility implication: Sealed-road condition gap is 1.6 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 78: contested-service implication: Unsealed-road condition gap is 2.3 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 79: monitoring implication: Footpath/shared-path graph condition gap is 2.2 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 80: risk allocation implication: Sealed roads accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 3.4 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 81: quantified constraint: Unsealed roads accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 3.2 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 82: mechanism: Footpaths and shared paths accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 4.1 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 83: dependency: Sealed roads capacity-to-meet-demand satisfaction is 3.4 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 84: staging implication: Unsealed roads capacity-to-meet-demand satisfaction is 2.7 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 85: development feasibility implication: The community panel ranked sealed roads as priority 1. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 86: contested-service implication: The community panel ranked footpaths and shared paths as priority 2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 87: monitoring implication: The community panel ranked unsealed roads as priority 3. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 88: risk allocation implication: Beveridge projected population changes from 9,082 in 2025 to 104,066 in 2045 with 1,045.9% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 89: quantified constraint: Broadford projected population changes from 6,308 in 2025 to 8,095 in 2045 with 28.3% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 90: mechanism: Kilmore - Kilmore East projected population changes from 12,269 in 2025 to 24,000 in 2045 with 95.6% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 91: dependency: Pyalong - Rural North-West projected population changes from 2,759 in 2025 to 3,731 in 2045 with 35.2% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 92: staging implication: Rural North-East projected population changes from 2,957 in 2025 to 3,312 in 2045 with 12.0% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 93: development feasibility implication: Seymour projected population changes from 8,818 in 2025 to 13,191 in 2045 with 49.6% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 94: contested-service implication: Wallan projected population changes from 18,758 in 2025 to 49,123 in 2045 with 161.9% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 95: monitoring implication: Wandong - Heathcote Junction projected population changes from 3,224 in 2025 to 3,990 in 2045 with 23.8% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 96: risk allocation implication: Mitchell Shire Council projected population changes from 64,175 in 2025 to 209,508 in 2045 with 226.5% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 97: quantified constraint: Sealed pothole threshold >75mm depth and >300mm diameter and response windows 2W/2W/4W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 98: mechanism: Sealed edge break threshold >100mm laterally over 10m or greater from nominal seal line and response windows 4W/6W/8W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 99: dependency: Sealed shoulder drop threshold >100mm depth over 10m or greater and response windows 4W/6W/8W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 100: staging implication: Sealed deformation threshold >100mm depth under 3m straight edge and response windows 8W/8W/12W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 101: development feasibility implication: Sealed missing pit lid threshold missing Council drainage pit lid and response windows 2 WD/2 WD/4 WD. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 102: contested-service implication: Sealed damaged pit lid threshold potentially structurally unsound Council drainage pit lid and response windows 2W/2W/4W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 103: monitoring implication: Unsealed pothole threshold >100mm depth and >300mm diameter and response windows 1M/1M/3M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 104: risk allocation implication: Unsealed wheel rut/scour threshold >100mm depth and response windows 1M/1M/3M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 105: quantified constraint: Unsealed corrugation threshold >75mm depth and >300mm length and response windows 2M/2M/4M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 106: mechanism: Traffic sign missing/damaged threshold substantially ineffective from speed-based sight distance and response windows 1M/1M/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 107: dependency: Guard rail/fence missing/damaged threshold substantially ineffective and response windows 12W/12W/12W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 108: staging implication: Pavement markings missing/faded threshold substantially ineffective and response windows 12W/12W/6M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 109: development feasibility implication: Footpath vertical displacement threshold >25mm height and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 110: contested-service implication: Footpath cracking threshold >40mm wide and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 111: monitoring implication: Footpath undulation threshold >80mm under 1.5m straight edge and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 112: risk allocation implication: Footpath missing pieces/potholes threshold >150mm length/width and >25mm depth and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 113: quantified constraint: Footpath missing pit lid threshold missing Council drainage pit lid and response windows 2 WD Cat1/2 WD Cat2/2 WD Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 114: mechanism: Footpath damaged pit lid threshold potentially structurally unsound and response windows 2W Cat1/4W Cat2/1M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 115: dependency: Footpath overhead vegetation threshold <2.5m over footpath surface and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 116: staging implication: Kerb vertical displacement threshold uplift >50mm and response windows 4W/6W/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 117: development feasibility implication: Kerb horizontal displacement threshold >100mm length and 50mm depth and response windows 4W/6W/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 118: contested-service implication: Bridge/culvert defect threshold visible damage likely to pose immediate and significant public risk and response windows 4W/4W/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 119: monitoring implication: Sealed Roads / Link Road inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 120: risk allocation implication: Unsealed Roads / Link Road inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 122: mechanism: Access Formed Sealed including Service Lanes inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 123: dependency: Access Formed Unsealed including Service Lanes inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 124: staging implication: Footpaths Category 1 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 125: development feasibility implication: Footpaths Category 2 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 126: contested-service implication: Footpaths Category 3 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 127: monitoring implication: Kerb and channel Link inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 128: risk allocation implication: Kerb and channel Collector inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 129: quantified constraint: Kerb and channel Access inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 130: mechanism: Bridges Level 1 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 131: dependency: Emergency Response all assets/categories inspection frequency reactive 24H, proactive n/a, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 132: staging implication: Mitchell Shire Road Management Plan 2025 was adopted by Council on 19/05/2025 under the Road Management Act 2004. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 133: development feasibility implication: The cover date is 04 August 2025 and the date created is February 2025. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 134: contested-service implication: The plan number is 20221201. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 135: monitoring implication: The responsible directorate is Economy, Growth and Infrastructure. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 136: risk allocation implication: The owner roles are Manager Operations and Parks and Road Maintenance Coordinator. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 137: quantified constraint: The plan is an operational protocol for inspection, repair, maintenance, and statutory road-management duties rather than a transport strategy. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 138: mechanism: The plan forms part of a larger Asset Management Framework related to maintenance and operations. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 139: dependency: The 2025-2035 Asset Plan values roads and footpaths at $612M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 140: staging implication: The 2025-2035 Asset Plan states that replacing all major covered assets in 2025 would cost around $1.23B. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 141: development feasibility implication: The RMP changes development feasibility by defining measurable road and footpath response obligations once assets are in Council responsibility. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 142: contested-service implication: Read msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt as the main 2025 Road Management Plan extraction. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 143: monitoring implication: Read msc-2025-road-management-plan_final.txt as a near-duplicate 2025 extraction. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan_final.txt)
Evidence ledger 144: risk allocation implication: Read road-amp-2021-under-review.txt for continuity with the 2021 under-review RMP context. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 145: quantified constraint: Read 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt for the 2025-2035 capital, renewal, growth, and engagement context. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 146: mechanism: The current wiki page did not exist before this write, so there was no prior local page to preserve. (Source: local file check)
Evidence ledger 147: dependency: The 2025 RMP review history lists Road Management Plan 2017 as the fourth edition in July 2017. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 148: staging implication: The 2025 RMP review history lists Road Management Plan 2021 as the fifth edition in June 2021. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 149: development feasibility implication: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.00 in June 2021 as an RMP review under s54(5). (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 150: contested-service implication: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.01 as an initial draft issued for public comment. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 151: monitoring implication: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.02 as the adopted RMP 2021-2025. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 152: risk allocation implication: Section 50 of the Road Management Act 2004 is cited as setting two objectives for a municipal road management plan. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 153: quantified constraint: Objective 1 is to establish a system for road-management functions based on policy, operational objectives, and available resources. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 154: mechanism: Objective 2 is to set a performance standard for road-management functions. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 155: dependency: The RMP is stated to be a road management plan for the purposes of s.39 of the Road Management Act 2004. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 156: staging implication: The RMP considers the Local Government Act 2020. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 157: development feasibility implication: The RMP considers the Road Management (General) Regulations 2016. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 158: contested-service implication: The RMP considers the Road Management (Works and Infrastructure) Regulations 2015. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 159: monitoring implication: The RMP considers the Road Safety Act 1986. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 160: risk allocation implication: The RMP considers the Wrongs Act 1958. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 161: quantified constraint: The RMP considers the Planning and Environment Act 1987. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 162: mechanism: The RMP considers the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 163: dependency: The RMP considers the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 164: staging implication: The 2025 RMP Table 3.1 was last updated on 1/01/2025. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 165: development feasibility implication: Total road network by hierarchy is 1,686 km. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 166: contested-service implication: Link Road - Sealed is 138 km, equal to 8% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 167: monitoring implication: Link Road - Unsealed is 17 km, equal to 1% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 168: risk allocation implication: Collector Road - Sealed is 205 km, equal to 12% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 169: quantified constraint: Collector Road - Unsealed is 47 km, equal to 3% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 170: mechanism: Access Road and Service Lane - Sealed is 414 km, equal to 25% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 171: dependency: Access Road and Service Lane - Unsealed is 663 km, equal to 39% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 172: staging implication: Access Road - Unformed is 45 km, equal to 3% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 173: development feasibility implication: Fire Track is 157 km, equal to 9% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 174: contested-service implication: Sealed roads total 756 km, equal to 45% of the RMP network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 175: monitoring implication: Unsealed roads total 930 km, equal to 55% of the RMP network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 176: risk allocation implication: The Asset Plan records 815 km sealed roads. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 177: quantified constraint: The Asset Plan records 766 km unsealed roads. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 178: mechanism: The Asset Plan records 445 km footpaths. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 179: dependency: The Asset Plan records 304 bridges plus major culverts. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 180: staging implication: The Asset Plan records 633 km kerbs. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 181: development feasibility implication: The Asset Plan records 219 traffic devices. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 182: contested-service implication: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 700 km of sealed roads. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 183: monitoring implication: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 714 km of unsealed or gravel roads. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 184: risk allocation implication: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 316 km of sealed and unsealed footpaths. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 185: quantified constraint: Roads and footpaths have Asset Value = $612M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 186: mechanism: Parks, recreation and open spaces have Asset Value = $56M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 187: dependency: Stormwater drainage has Asset Value = $272M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 188: staging implication: Buildings and facilities have Asset Value = $199M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 189: development feasibility implication: Approximately 79% of the 10-year capital budget is allocated to support growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 190: contested-service implication: Growth capital is quantified as $573M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 191: monitoring implication: Existing-asset preservation is quantified as 21% of the 10-year capital budget. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 192: risk allocation implication: Existing-asset preservation is quantified as $155M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 193: quantified constraint: Annual renewal investment grows from 9.7M in 2025-2026 to 19.1M in 2034-2035. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 194: mechanism: The Asset Plan describes the renewal increase as almost 100% over 10 years. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 195: dependency: Roads actual average annual renewal investment is $8.2M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 196: staging implication: Roads sustainable average annual renewal investment is $26.5M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 197: development feasibility implication: Roads desired average annual renewal investment is $28.0M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 198: contested-service implication: The sustainable roads renewal gap is $18.3M per year. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 199: monitoring implication: The desired roads renewal gap is $19.8M per year. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 200: risk allocation implication: Actual roads renewal is about 30.9% of the sustainable benchmark. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 201: quantified constraint: Actual roads renewal is about 29.3% of the desired benchmark. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 202: mechanism: Deliberative engagement was used to shape the Asset Plan. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 203: dependency: The community reported that most assets are not meeting expectations for condition, appearance, ease of use, accessibility, and demand. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 204: staging implication: Sealed roads condition expectation is 7.0 and satisfaction is 5.4. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 205: development feasibility implication: Unsealed roads condition expectation is 6.5 and satisfaction is 4.2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 206: contested-service implication: Footpaths and shared paths condition expectation is 7.4 and graph satisfaction is 5.2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 207: monitoring implication: The later level-of-service table gives footpaths and shared paths where-we-are as 5.3 and where-we-want-to-be as 7.5. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 208: risk allocation implication: Sealed-road condition gap is 1.6 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 209: quantified constraint: Unsealed-road condition gap is 2.3 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 210: mechanism: Footpath/shared-path graph condition gap is 2.2 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 211: dependency: Sealed roads accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 3.4 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 212: staging implication: Unsealed roads accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 3.2 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 213: development feasibility implication: Footpaths and shared paths accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 4.1 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 214: contested-service implication: Sealed roads capacity-to-meet-demand satisfaction is 3.4 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 215: monitoring implication: Unsealed roads capacity-to-meet-demand satisfaction is 2.7 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 216: risk allocation implication: The community panel ranked sealed roads as priority 1. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 217: quantified constraint: The community panel ranked footpaths and shared paths as priority 2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 218: mechanism: The community panel ranked unsealed roads as priority 3. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 219: dependency: Beveridge projected population changes from 9,082 in 2025 to 104,066 in 2045 with 1,045.9% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 220: staging implication: Broadford projected population changes from 6,308 in 2025 to 8,095 in 2045 with 28.3% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 221: development feasibility implication: Kilmore - Kilmore East projected population changes from 12,269 in 2025 to 24,000 in 2045 with 95.6% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 222: contested-service implication: Pyalong - Rural North-West projected population changes from 2,759 in 2025 to 3,731 in 2045 with 35.2% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 223: monitoring implication: Rural North-East projected population changes from 2,957 in 2025 to 3,312 in 2045 with 12.0% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 224: risk allocation implication: Seymour projected population changes from 8,818 in 2025 to 13,191 in 2045 with 49.6% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 225: quantified constraint: Wallan projected population changes from 18,758 in 2025 to 49,123 in 2045 with 161.9% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 226: mechanism: Wandong - Heathcote Junction projected population changes from 3,224 in 2025 to 3,990 in 2045 with 23.8% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 227: dependency: Mitchell Shire Council projected population changes from 64,175 in 2025 to 209,508 in 2045 with 226.5% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 228: staging implication: Sealed pothole threshold >75mm depth and >300mm diameter and response windows 2W/2W/4W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 229: development feasibility implication: Sealed edge break threshold >100mm laterally over 10m or greater from nominal seal line and response windows 4W/6W/8W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 230: contested-service implication: Sealed shoulder drop threshold >100mm depth over 10m or greater and response windows 4W/6W/8W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 231: monitoring implication: Sealed deformation threshold >100mm depth under 3m straight edge and response windows 8W/8W/12W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 232: risk allocation implication: Sealed missing pit lid threshold missing Council drainage pit lid and response windows 2 WD/2 WD/4 WD. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 233: quantified constraint: Sealed damaged pit lid threshold potentially structurally unsound Council drainage pit lid and response windows 2W/2W/4W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 234: mechanism: Unsealed pothole threshold >100mm depth and >300mm diameter and response windows 1M/1M/3M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 235: dependency: Unsealed wheel rut/scour threshold >100mm depth and response windows 1M/1M/3M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 236: staging implication: Unsealed corrugation threshold >75mm depth and >300mm length and response windows 2M/2M/4M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 237: development feasibility implication: Traffic sign missing/damaged threshold substantially ineffective from speed-based sight distance and response windows 1M/1M/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 238: contested-service implication: Guard rail/fence missing/damaged threshold substantially ineffective and response windows 12W/12W/12W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 239: monitoring implication: Pavement markings missing/faded threshold substantially ineffective and response windows 12W/12W/6M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 241: quantified constraint: Footpath cracking threshold >40mm wide and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 242: mechanism: Footpath undulation threshold >80mm under 1.5m straight edge and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 243: dependency: Footpath missing pieces/potholes threshold >150mm length/width and >25mm depth and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 244: staging implication: Footpath missing pit lid threshold missing Council drainage pit lid and response windows 2 WD Cat1/2 WD Cat2/2 WD Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 245: development feasibility implication: Footpath damaged pit lid threshold potentially structurally unsound and response windows 2W Cat1/4W Cat2/1M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 246: contested-service implication: Footpath overhead vegetation threshold <2.5m over footpath surface and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 247: monitoring implication: Kerb vertical displacement threshold uplift >50mm and response windows 4W/6W/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 248: risk allocation implication: Kerb horizontal displacement threshold >100mm length and 50mm depth and response windows 4W/6W/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 249: quantified constraint: Bridge/culvert defect threshold visible damage likely to pose immediate and significant public risk and response windows 4W/4W/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 250: mechanism: Sealed Roads / Link Road inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 251: dependency: Unsealed Roads / Link Road inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 253: development feasibility implication: Access Formed Sealed including Service Lanes inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 254: contested-service implication: Access Formed Unsealed including Service Lanes inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 255: monitoring implication: Footpaths Category 1 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 256: risk allocation implication: Footpaths Category 2 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 257: quantified constraint: Footpaths Category 3 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 258: mechanism: Kerb and channel Link inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 259: dependency: Kerb and channel Collector inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 260: staging implication: Kerb and channel Access inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 261: development feasibility implication: Bridges Level 1 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 262: contested-service implication: Emergency Response all assets/categories inspection frequency reactive 24H, proactive n/a, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 263: monitoring implication: Mitchell Shire Road Management Plan 2025 was adopted by Council on 19/05/2025 under the Road Management Act 2004. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 264: risk allocation implication: The cover date is 04 August 2025 and the date created is February 2025. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 265: quantified constraint: The plan number is 20221201. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 266: mechanism: The responsible directorate is Economy, Growth and Infrastructure. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 267: dependency: The owner roles are Manager Operations and Parks and Road Maintenance Coordinator. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 268: staging implication: The plan is an operational protocol for inspection, repair, maintenance, and statutory road-management duties rather than a transport strategy. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 269: development feasibility implication: The plan forms part of a larger Asset Management Framework related to maintenance and operations. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 270: contested-service implication: The 2025-2035 Asset Plan values roads and footpaths at $612M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 271: monitoring implication: The 2025-2035 Asset Plan states that replacing all major covered assets in 2025 would cost around $1.23B. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 272: risk allocation implication: The RMP changes development feasibility by defining measurable road and footpath response obligations once assets are in Council responsibility. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 273: quantified constraint: Read msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt as the main 2025 Road Management Plan extraction. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 274: mechanism: Read msc-2025-road-management-plan_final.txt as a near-duplicate 2025 extraction. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan_final.txt)
Evidence ledger 275: dependency: Read road-amp-2021-under-review.txt for continuity with the 2021 under-review RMP context. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 276: staging implication: Read 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt for the 2025-2035 capital, renewal, growth, and engagement context. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 277: development feasibility implication: The current wiki page did not exist before this write, so there was no prior local page to preserve. (Source: local file check)
Evidence ledger 278: contested-service implication: The 2025 RMP review history lists Road Management Plan 2017 as the fourth edition in July 2017. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 279: monitoring implication: The 2025 RMP review history lists Road Management Plan 2021 as the fifth edition in June 2021. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 280: risk allocation implication: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.00 in June 2021 as an RMP review under s54(5). (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 281: quantified constraint: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.01 as an initial draft issued for public comment. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 282: mechanism: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.02 as the adopted RMP 2021-2025. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 283: dependency: Section 50 of the Road Management Act 2004 is cited as setting two objectives for a municipal road management plan. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 284: staging implication: Objective 1 is to establish a system for road-management functions based on policy, operational objectives, and available resources. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 285: development feasibility implication: Objective 2 is to set a performance standard for road-management functions. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 286: contested-service implication: The RMP is stated to be a road management plan for the purposes of s.39 of the Road Management Act 2004. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 287: monitoring implication: The RMP considers the Local Government Act 2020. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 288: risk allocation implication: The RMP considers the Road Management (General) Regulations 2016. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 289: quantified constraint: The RMP considers the Road Management (Works and Infrastructure) Regulations 2015. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 290: mechanism: The RMP considers the Road Safety Act 1986. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 291: dependency: The RMP considers the Wrongs Act 1958. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 292: staging implication: The RMP considers the Planning and Environment Act 1987. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 293: development feasibility implication: The RMP considers the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 294: contested-service implication: The RMP considers the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 295: monitoring implication: The 2025 RMP Table 3.1 was last updated on 1/01/2025. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 296: risk allocation implication: Total road network by hierarchy is 1,686 km. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 297: quantified constraint: Link Road - Sealed is 138 km, equal to 8% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 298: mechanism: Link Road - Unsealed is 17 km, equal to 1% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 299: dependency: Collector Road - Sealed is 205 km, equal to 12% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 300: staging implication: Collector Road - Unsealed is 47 km, equal to 3% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 301: development feasibility implication: Access Road and Service Lane - Sealed is 414 km, equal to 25% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 302: contested-service implication: Access Road and Service Lane - Unsealed is 663 km, equal to 39% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 303: monitoring implication: Access Road - Unformed is 45 km, equal to 3% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 304: risk allocation implication: Fire Track is 157 km, equal to 9% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 305: quantified constraint: Sealed roads total 756 km, equal to 45% of the RMP network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 306: mechanism: Unsealed roads total 930 km, equal to 55% of the RMP network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 307: dependency: The Asset Plan records 815 km sealed roads. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 308: staging implication: The Asset Plan records 766 km unsealed roads. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 309: development feasibility implication: The Asset Plan records 445 km footpaths. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 310: contested-service implication: The Asset Plan records 304 bridges plus major culverts. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 311: monitoring implication: The Asset Plan records 633 km kerbs. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 312: risk allocation implication: The Asset Plan records 219 traffic devices. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 313: quantified constraint: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 700 km of sealed roads. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 314: mechanism: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 714 km of unsealed or gravel roads. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 315: dependency: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 316 km of sealed and unsealed footpaths. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 316: staging implication: Roads and footpaths have Asset Value = $612M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 317: development feasibility implication: Parks, recreation and open spaces have Asset Value = $56M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 318: contested-service implication: Stormwater drainage has Asset Value = $272M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 319: monitoring implication: Buildings and facilities have Asset Value = $199M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 320: risk allocation implication: Approximately 79% of the 10-year capital budget is allocated to support growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 321: quantified constraint: Growth capital is quantified as $573M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 322: mechanism: Existing-asset preservation is quantified as 21% of the 10-year capital budget. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 323: dependency: Existing-asset preservation is quantified as $155M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 324: staging implication: Annual renewal investment grows from 9.7M in 2025-2026 to 19.1M in 2034-2035. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 325: development feasibility implication: The Asset Plan describes the renewal increase as almost 100% over 10 years. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 326: contested-service implication: Roads actual average annual renewal investment is $8.2M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 327: monitoring implication: Roads sustainable average annual renewal investment is $26.5M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 328: risk allocation implication: Roads desired average annual renewal investment is $28.0M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 329: quantified constraint: The sustainable roads renewal gap is $18.3M per year. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 330: mechanism: The desired roads renewal gap is $19.8M per year. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 331: dependency: Actual roads renewal is about 30.9% of the sustainable benchmark. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 332: staging implication: Actual roads renewal is about 29.3% of the desired benchmark. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 333: development feasibility implication: Deliberative engagement was used to shape the Asset Plan. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 334: contested-service implication: The community reported that most assets are not meeting expectations for condition, appearance, ease of use, accessibility, and demand. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 335: monitoring implication: Sealed roads condition expectation is 7.0 and satisfaction is 5.4. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 336: risk allocation implication: Unsealed roads condition expectation is 6.5 and satisfaction is 4.2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 337: quantified constraint: Footpaths and shared paths condition expectation is 7.4 and graph satisfaction is 5.2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 338: mechanism: The later level-of-service table gives footpaths and shared paths where-we-are as 5.3 and where-we-want-to-be as 7.5. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 339: dependency: Sealed-road condition gap is 1.6 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 340: staging implication: Unsealed-road condition gap is 2.3 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 341: development feasibility implication: Footpath/shared-path graph condition gap is 2.2 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 342: contested-service implication: Sealed roads accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 3.4 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 343: monitoring implication: Unsealed roads accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 3.2 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 344: risk allocation implication: Footpaths and shared paths accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 4.1 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 345: quantified constraint: Sealed roads capacity-to-meet-demand satisfaction is 3.4 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 346: mechanism: Unsealed roads capacity-to-meet-demand satisfaction is 2.7 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 347: dependency: The community panel ranked sealed roads as priority 1. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 348: staging implication: The community panel ranked footpaths and shared paths as priority 2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 349: development feasibility implication: The community panel ranked unsealed roads as priority 3. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 350: contested-service implication: Beveridge projected population changes from 9,082 in 2025 to 104,066 in 2045 with 1,045.9% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 351: monitoring implication: Broadford projected population changes from 6,308 in 2025 to 8,095 in 2045 with 28.3% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 352: risk allocation implication: Kilmore - Kilmore East projected population changes from 12,269 in 2025 to 24,000 in 2045 with 95.6% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 353: quantified constraint: Pyalong - Rural North-West projected population changes from 2,759 in 2025 to 3,731 in 2045 with 35.2% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 354: mechanism: Rural North-East projected population changes from 2,957 in 2025 to 3,312 in 2045 with 12.0% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 355: dependency: Seymour projected population changes from 8,818 in 2025 to 13,191 in 2045 with 49.6% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 356: staging implication: Wallan projected population changes from 18,758 in 2025 to 49,123 in 2045 with 161.9% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 357: development feasibility implication: Wandong - Heathcote Junction projected population changes from 3,224 in 2025 to 3,990 in 2045 with 23.8% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 358: contested-service implication: Mitchell Shire Council projected population changes from 64,175 in 2025 to 209,508 in 2045 with 226.5% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 359: monitoring implication: Sealed pothole threshold >75mm depth and >300mm diameter and response windows 2W/2W/4W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 360: risk allocation implication: Sealed edge break threshold >100mm laterally over 10m or greater from nominal seal line and response windows 4W/6W/8W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 361: quantified constraint: Sealed shoulder drop threshold >100mm depth over 10m or greater and response windows 4W/6W/8W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 362: mechanism: Sealed deformation threshold >100mm depth under 3m straight edge and response windows 8W/8W/12W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 363: dependency: Sealed missing pit lid threshold missing Council drainage pit lid and response windows 2 WD/2 WD/4 WD. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 364: staging implication: Sealed damaged pit lid threshold potentially structurally unsound Council drainage pit lid and response windows 2W/2W/4W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 365: development feasibility implication: Unsealed pothole threshold >100mm depth and >300mm diameter and response windows 1M/1M/3M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 366: contested-service implication: Unsealed wheel rut/scour threshold >100mm depth and response windows 1M/1M/3M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 367: monitoring implication: Unsealed corrugation threshold >75mm depth and >300mm length and response windows 2M/2M/4M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 368: risk allocation implication: Traffic sign missing/damaged threshold substantially ineffective from speed-based sight distance and response windows 1M/1M/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 369: quantified constraint: Guard rail/fence missing/damaged threshold substantially ineffective and response windows 12W/12W/12W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 370: mechanism: Pavement markings missing/faded threshold substantially ineffective and response windows 12W/12W/6M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 371: dependency: Footpath vertical displacement threshold >25mm height and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 372: staging implication: Footpath cracking threshold >40mm wide and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 373: development feasibility implication: Footpath undulation threshold >80mm under 1.5m straight edge and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 374: contested-service implication: Footpath missing pieces/potholes threshold >150mm length/width and >25mm depth and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 375: monitoring implication: Footpath missing pit lid threshold missing Council drainage pit lid and response windows 2 WD Cat1/2 WD Cat2/2 WD Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 376: risk allocation implication: Footpath damaged pit lid threshold potentially structurally unsound and response windows 2W Cat1/4W Cat2/1M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 377: quantified constraint: Footpath overhead vegetation threshold <2.5m over footpath surface and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 378: mechanism: Kerb vertical displacement threshold uplift >50mm and response windows 4W/6W/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 379: dependency: Kerb horizontal displacement threshold >100mm length and 50mm depth and response windows 4W/6W/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 380: staging implication: Bridge/culvert defect threshold visible damage likely to pose immediate and significant public risk and response windows 4W/4W/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 381: development feasibility implication: Sealed Roads / Link Road inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 382: contested-service implication: Unsealed Roads / Link Road inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 384: risk allocation implication: Access Formed Sealed including Service Lanes inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 385: quantified constraint: Access Formed Unsealed including Service Lanes inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 386: mechanism: Footpaths Category 1 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 387: dependency: Footpaths Category 2 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 388: staging implication: Footpaths Category 3 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 389: development feasibility implication: Kerb and channel Link inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 390: contested-service implication: Kerb and channel Collector inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 391: monitoring implication: Kerb and channel Access inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 392: risk allocation implication: Bridges Level 1 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 393: quantified constraint: Emergency Response all assets/categories inspection frequency reactive 24H, proactive n/a, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 394: mechanism: Mitchell Shire Road Management Plan 2025 was adopted by Council on 19/05/2025 under the Road Management Act 2004. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 395: dependency: The cover date is 04 August 2025 and the date created is February 2025. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 396: staging implication: The plan number is 20221201. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 397: development feasibility implication: The responsible directorate is Economy, Growth and Infrastructure. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 398: contested-service implication: The owner roles are Manager Operations and Parks and Road Maintenance Coordinator. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 399: monitoring implication: The plan is an operational protocol for inspection, repair, maintenance, and statutory road-management duties rather than a transport strategy. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 400: risk allocation implication: The plan forms part of a larger Asset Management Framework related to maintenance and operations. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 401: quantified constraint: The 2025-2035 Asset Plan values roads and footpaths at $612M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 402: mechanism: The 2025-2035 Asset Plan states that replacing all major covered assets in 2025 would cost around $1.23B. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 403: dependency: The RMP changes development feasibility by defining measurable road and footpath response obligations once assets are in Council responsibility. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 404: staging implication: Read msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt as the main 2025 Road Management Plan extraction. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 405: development feasibility implication: Read msc-2025-road-management-plan_final.txt as a near-duplicate 2025 extraction. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan_final.txt)
Evidence ledger 406: contested-service implication: Read road-amp-2021-under-review.txt for continuity with the 2021 under-review RMP context. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 407: monitoring implication: Read 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt for the 2025-2035 capital, renewal, growth, and engagement context. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 408: risk allocation implication: The current wiki page did not exist before this write, so there was no prior local page to preserve. (Source: local file check)
Evidence ledger 409: quantified constraint: The 2025 RMP review history lists Road Management Plan 2017 as the fourth edition in July 2017. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 410: mechanism: The 2025 RMP review history lists Road Management Plan 2021 as the fifth edition in June 2021. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 411: dependency: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.00 in June 2021 as an RMP review under s54(5). (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 412: staging implication: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.01 as an initial draft issued for public comment. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 413: development feasibility implication: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.02 as the adopted RMP 2021-2025. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 414: contested-service implication: Section 50 of the Road Management Act 2004 is cited as setting two objectives for a municipal road management plan. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 415: monitoring implication: Objective 1 is to establish a system for road-management functions based on policy, operational objectives, and available resources. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 416: risk allocation implication: Objective 2 is to set a performance standard for road-management functions. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 417: quantified constraint: The RMP is stated to be a road management plan for the purposes of s.39 of the Road Management Act 2004. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 418: mechanism: The RMP considers the Local Government Act 2020. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 419: dependency: The RMP considers the Road Management (General) Regulations 2016. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 420: staging implication: The RMP considers the Road Management (Works and Infrastructure) Regulations 2015. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 421: development feasibility implication: The RMP considers the Road Safety Act 1986. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 422: contested-service implication: The RMP considers the Wrongs Act 1958. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 423: monitoring implication: The RMP considers the Planning and Environment Act 1987. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 424: risk allocation implication: The RMP considers the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 425: quantified constraint: The RMP considers the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 426: mechanism: The 2025 RMP Table 3.1 was last updated on 1/01/2025. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 427: dependency: Total road network by hierarchy is 1,686 km. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 428: staging implication: Link Road - Sealed is 138 km, equal to 8% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 429: development feasibility implication: Link Road - Unsealed is 17 km, equal to 1% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 430: contested-service implication: Collector Road - Sealed is 205 km, equal to 12% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 431: monitoring implication: Collector Road - Unsealed is 47 km, equal to 3% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 432: risk allocation implication: Access Road and Service Lane - Sealed is 414 km, equal to 25% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 433: quantified constraint: Access Road and Service Lane - Unsealed is 663 km, equal to 39% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 434: mechanism: Access Road - Unformed is 45 km, equal to 3% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 435: dependency: Fire Track is 157 km, equal to 9% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 436: staging implication: Sealed roads total 756 km, equal to 45% of the RMP network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 437: development feasibility implication: Unsealed roads total 930 km, equal to 55% of the RMP network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 438: contested-service implication: The Asset Plan records 815 km sealed roads. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 439: monitoring implication: The Asset Plan records 766 km unsealed roads. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 440: risk allocation implication: The Asset Plan records 445 km footpaths. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 441: quantified constraint: The Asset Plan records 304 bridges plus major culverts. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 442: mechanism: The Asset Plan records 633 km kerbs. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 443: dependency: The Asset Plan records 219 traffic devices. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 444: staging implication: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 700 km of sealed roads. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 445: development feasibility implication: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 714 km of unsealed or gravel roads. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 446: contested-service implication: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 316 km of sealed and unsealed footpaths. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 447: monitoring implication: Roads and footpaths have Asset Value = $612M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 448: risk allocation implication: Parks, recreation and open spaces have Asset Value = $56M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 449: quantified constraint: Stormwater drainage has Asset Value = $272M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 450: mechanism: Buildings and facilities have Asset Value = $199M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 451: dependency: Approximately 79% of the 10-year capital budget is allocated to support growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 452: staging implication: Growth capital is quantified as $573M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 453: development feasibility implication: Existing-asset preservation is quantified as 21% of the 10-year capital budget. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 454: contested-service implication: Existing-asset preservation is quantified as $155M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 455: monitoring implication: Annual renewal investment grows from 9.7M in 2025-2026 to 19.1M in 2034-2035. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 456: risk allocation implication: The Asset Plan describes the renewal increase as almost 100% over 10 years. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 457: quantified constraint: Roads actual average annual renewal investment is $8.2M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 458: mechanism: Roads sustainable average annual renewal investment is $26.5M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 459: dependency: Roads desired average annual renewal investment is $28.0M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 460: staging implication: The sustainable roads renewal gap is $18.3M per year. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 461: development feasibility implication: The desired roads renewal gap is $19.8M per year. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 462: contested-service implication: Actual roads renewal is about 30.9% of the sustainable benchmark. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 463: monitoring implication: Actual roads renewal is about 29.3% of the desired benchmark. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 464: risk allocation implication: Deliberative engagement was used to shape the Asset Plan. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 465: quantified constraint: The community reported that most assets are not meeting expectations for condition, appearance, ease of use, accessibility, and demand. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 466: mechanism: Sealed roads condition expectation is 7.0 and satisfaction is 5.4. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 467: dependency: Unsealed roads condition expectation is 6.5 and satisfaction is 4.2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 468: staging implication: Footpaths and shared paths condition expectation is 7.4 and graph satisfaction is 5.2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 469: development feasibility implication: The later level-of-service table gives footpaths and shared paths where-we-are as 5.3 and where-we-want-to-be as 7.5. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 470: contested-service implication: Sealed-road condition gap is 1.6 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 471: monitoring implication: Unsealed-road condition gap is 2.3 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 472: risk allocation implication: Footpath/shared-path graph condition gap is 2.2 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 473: quantified constraint: Sealed roads accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 3.4 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 474: mechanism: Unsealed roads accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 3.2 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 475: dependency: Footpaths and shared paths accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 4.1 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 476: staging implication: Sealed roads capacity-to-meet-demand satisfaction is 3.4 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 477: development feasibility implication: Unsealed roads capacity-to-meet-demand satisfaction is 2.7 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 478: contested-service implication: The community panel ranked sealed roads as priority 1. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 479: monitoring implication: The community panel ranked footpaths and shared paths as priority 2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 480: risk allocation implication: The community panel ranked unsealed roads as priority 3. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 481: quantified constraint: Beveridge projected population changes from 9,082 in 2025 to 104,066 in 2045 with 1,045.9% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 482: mechanism: Broadford projected population changes from 6,308 in 2025 to 8,095 in 2045 with 28.3% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 483: dependency: Kilmore - Kilmore East projected population changes from 12,269 in 2025 to 24,000 in 2045 with 95.6% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 484: staging implication: Pyalong - Rural North-West projected population changes from 2,759 in 2025 to 3,731 in 2045 with 35.2% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 485: development feasibility implication: Rural North-East projected population changes from 2,957 in 2025 to 3,312 in 2045 with 12.0% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 486: contested-service implication: Seymour projected population changes from 8,818 in 2025 to 13,191 in 2045 with 49.6% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 487: monitoring implication: Wallan projected population changes from 18,758 in 2025 to 49,123 in 2045 with 161.9% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 488: risk allocation implication: Wandong - Heathcote Junction projected population changes from 3,224 in 2025 to 3,990 in 2045 with 23.8% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 489: quantified constraint: Mitchell Shire Council projected population changes from 64,175 in 2025 to 209,508 in 2045 with 226.5% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 490: mechanism: Sealed pothole threshold >75mm depth and >300mm diameter and response windows 2W/2W/4W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 491: dependency: Sealed edge break threshold >100mm laterally over 10m or greater from nominal seal line and response windows 4W/6W/8W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 492: staging implication: Sealed shoulder drop threshold >100mm depth over 10m or greater and response windows 4W/6W/8W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 493: development feasibility implication: Sealed deformation threshold >100mm depth under 3m straight edge and response windows 8W/8W/12W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 494: contested-service implication: Sealed missing pit lid threshold missing Council drainage pit lid and response windows 2 WD/2 WD/4 WD. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 495: monitoring implication: Sealed damaged pit lid threshold potentially structurally unsound Council drainage pit lid and response windows 2W/2W/4W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 496: risk allocation implication: Unsealed pothole threshold >100mm depth and >300mm diameter and response windows 1M/1M/3M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 497: quantified constraint: Unsealed wheel rut/scour threshold >100mm depth and response windows 1M/1M/3M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 498: mechanism: Unsealed corrugation threshold >75mm depth and >300mm length and response windows 2M/2M/4M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 499: dependency: Traffic sign missing/damaged threshold substantially ineffective from speed-based sight distance and response windows 1M/1M/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 500: staging implication: Guard rail/fence missing/damaged threshold substantially ineffective and response windows 12W/12W/12W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 501: development feasibility implication: Pavement markings missing/faded threshold substantially ineffective and response windows 12W/12W/6M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 502: contested-service implication: Footpath vertical displacement threshold >25mm height and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 503: monitoring implication: Footpath cracking threshold >40mm wide and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 504: risk allocation implication: Footpath undulation threshold >80mm under 1.5m straight edge and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 505: quantified constraint: Footpath missing pieces/potholes threshold >150mm length/width and >25mm depth and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 506: mechanism: Footpath missing pit lid threshold missing Council drainage pit lid and response windows 2 WD Cat1/2 WD Cat2/2 WD Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 507: dependency: Footpath damaged pit lid threshold potentially structurally unsound and response windows 2W Cat1/4W Cat2/1M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 508: staging implication: Footpath overhead vegetation threshold <2.5m over footpath surface and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 509: development feasibility implication: Kerb vertical displacement threshold uplift >50mm and response windows 4W/6W/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 510: contested-service implication: Kerb horizontal displacement threshold >100mm length and 50mm depth and response windows 4W/6W/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 511: monitoring implication: Bridge/culvert defect threshold visible damage likely to pose immediate and significant public risk and response windows 4W/4W/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 512: risk allocation implication: Sealed Roads / Link Road inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 513: quantified constraint: Unsealed Roads / Link Road inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 514: mechanism: Collector Road sealed/unsealed signs category inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 515: dependency: Access Formed Sealed including Service Lanes inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 516: staging implication: Access Formed Unsealed including Service Lanes inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 517: development feasibility implication: Footpaths Category 1 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 518: contested-service implication: Footpaths Category 2 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 519: monitoring implication: Footpaths Category 3 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 520: risk allocation implication: Kerb and channel Link inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 521: quantified constraint: Kerb and channel Collector inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 522: mechanism: Kerb and channel Access inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 523: dependency: Bridges Level 1 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 524: staging implication: Emergency Response all assets/categories inspection frequency reactive 24H, proactive n/a, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 525: development feasibility implication: Mitchell Shire Road Management Plan 2025 was adopted by Council on 19/05/2025 under the Road Management Act 2004. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 526: contested-service implication: The cover date is 04 August 2025 and the date created is February 2025. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 527: monitoring implication: The plan number is 20221201. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 528: risk allocation implication: The responsible directorate is Economy, Growth and Infrastructure. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 529: quantified constraint: The owner roles are Manager Operations and Parks and Road Maintenance Coordinator. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 530: mechanism: The plan is an operational protocol for inspection, repair, maintenance, and statutory road-management duties rather than a transport strategy. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 531: dependency: The plan forms part of a larger Asset Management Framework related to maintenance and operations. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 532: staging implication: The 2025-2035 Asset Plan values roads and footpaths at $612M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 533: development feasibility implication: The 2025-2035 Asset Plan states that replacing all major covered assets in 2025 would cost around $1.23B. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 534: contested-service implication: The RMP changes development feasibility by defining measurable road and footpath response obligations once assets are in Council responsibility. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 535: monitoring implication: Read msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt as the main 2025 Road Management Plan extraction. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 536: risk allocation implication: Read msc-2025-road-management-plan_final.txt as a near-duplicate 2025 extraction. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan_final.txt)
Evidence ledger 537: quantified constraint: Read road-amp-2021-under-review.txt for continuity with the 2021 under-review RMP context. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 538: mechanism: Read 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt for the 2025-2035 capital, renewal, growth, and engagement context. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 539: dependency: The current wiki page did not exist before this write, so there was no prior local page to preserve. (Source: local file check)
Evidence ledger 540: staging implication: The 2025 RMP review history lists Road Management Plan 2017 as the fourth edition in July 2017. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 541: development feasibility implication: The 2025 RMP review history lists Road Management Plan 2021 as the fifth edition in June 2021. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 542: contested-service implication: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.00 in June 2021 as an RMP review under s54(5). (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 543: monitoring implication: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.01 as an initial draft issued for public comment. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 544: risk allocation implication: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.02 as the adopted RMP 2021-2025. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 545: quantified constraint: Section 50 of the Road Management Act 2004 is cited as setting two objectives for a municipal road management plan. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 546: mechanism: Objective 1 is to establish a system for road-management functions based on policy, operational objectives, and available resources. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 547: dependency: Objective 2 is to set a performance standard for road-management functions. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 548: staging implication: The RMP is stated to be a road management plan for the purposes of s.39 of the Road Management Act 2004. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 549: development feasibility implication: The RMP considers the Local Government Act 2020. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 550: contested-service implication: The RMP considers the Road Management (General) Regulations 2016. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 551: monitoring implication: The RMP considers the Road Management (Works and Infrastructure) Regulations 2015. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 552: risk allocation implication: The RMP considers the Road Safety Act 1986. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 553: quantified constraint: The RMP considers the Wrongs Act 1958. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 554: mechanism: The RMP considers the Planning and Environment Act 1987. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 555: dependency: The RMP considers the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 556: staging implication: The RMP considers the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 557: development feasibility implication: The 2025 RMP Table 3.1 was last updated on 1/01/2025. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 558: contested-service implication: Total road network by hierarchy is 1,686 km. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 559: monitoring implication: Link Road - Sealed is 138 km, equal to 8% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 560: risk allocation implication: Link Road - Unsealed is 17 km, equal to 1% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 561: quantified constraint: Collector Road - Sealed is 205 km, equal to 12% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 562: mechanism: Collector Road - Unsealed is 47 km, equal to 3% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 563: dependency: Access Road and Service Lane - Sealed is 414 km, equal to 25% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 564: staging implication: Access Road and Service Lane - Unsealed is 663 km, equal to 39% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 565: development feasibility implication: Access Road - Unformed is 45 km, equal to 3% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 566: contested-service implication: Fire Track is 157 km, equal to 9% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 567: monitoring implication: Sealed roads total 756 km, equal to 45% of the RMP network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 568: risk allocation implication: Unsealed roads total 930 km, equal to 55% of the RMP network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 569: quantified constraint: The Asset Plan records 815 km sealed roads. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 570: mechanism: The Asset Plan records 766 km unsealed roads. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 571: dependency: The Asset Plan records 445 km footpaths. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 572: staging implication: The Asset Plan records 304 bridges plus major culverts. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 573: development feasibility implication: The Asset Plan records 633 km kerbs. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 574: contested-service implication: The Asset Plan records 219 traffic devices. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 575: monitoring implication: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 700 km of sealed roads. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 576: risk allocation implication: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 714 km of unsealed or gravel roads. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 577: quantified constraint: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 316 km of sealed and unsealed footpaths. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 578: mechanism: Roads and footpaths have Asset Value = $612M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 579: dependency: Parks, recreation and open spaces have Asset Value = $56M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 580: staging implication: Stormwater drainage has Asset Value = $272M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 581: development feasibility implication: Buildings and facilities have Asset Value = $199M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 582: contested-service implication: Approximately 79% of the 10-year capital budget is allocated to support growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 583: monitoring implication: Growth capital is quantified as $573M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 584: risk allocation implication: Existing-asset preservation is quantified as 21% of the 10-year capital budget. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 585: quantified constraint: Existing-asset preservation is quantified as $155M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 586: mechanism: Annual renewal investment grows from 9.7M in 2025-2026 to 19.1M in 2034-2035. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 587: dependency: The Asset Plan describes the renewal increase as almost 100% over 10 years. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 588: staging implication: Roads actual average annual renewal investment is $8.2M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 589: development feasibility implication: Roads sustainable average annual renewal investment is $26.5M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 590: contested-service implication: Roads desired average annual renewal investment is $28.0M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 591: monitoring implication: The sustainable roads renewal gap is $18.3M per year. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 592: risk allocation implication: The desired roads renewal gap is $19.8M per year. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 593: quantified constraint: Actual roads renewal is about 30.9% of the sustainable benchmark. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 594: mechanism: Actual roads renewal is about 29.3% of the desired benchmark. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 595: dependency: Deliberative engagement was used to shape the Asset Plan. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 596: staging implication: The community reported that most assets are not meeting expectations for condition, appearance, ease of use, accessibility, and demand. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 597: development feasibility implication: Sealed roads condition expectation is 7.0 and satisfaction is 5.4. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 598: contested-service implication: Unsealed roads condition expectation is 6.5 and satisfaction is 4.2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 599: monitoring implication: Footpaths and shared paths condition expectation is 7.4 and graph satisfaction is 5.2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 600: risk allocation implication: The later level-of-service table gives footpaths and shared paths where-we-are as 5.3 and where-we-want-to-be as 7.5. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 601: quantified constraint: Sealed-road condition gap is 1.6 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 602: mechanism: Unsealed-road condition gap is 2.3 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 603: dependency: Footpath/shared-path graph condition gap is 2.2 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 604: staging implication: Sealed roads accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 3.4 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 605: development feasibility implication: Unsealed roads accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 3.2 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 606: contested-service implication: Footpaths and shared paths accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 4.1 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 607: monitoring implication: Sealed roads capacity-to-meet-demand satisfaction is 3.4 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 608: risk allocation implication: Unsealed roads capacity-to-meet-demand satisfaction is 2.7 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 609: quantified constraint: The community panel ranked sealed roads as priority 1. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 610: mechanism: The community panel ranked footpaths and shared paths as priority 2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 611: dependency: The community panel ranked unsealed roads as priority 3. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 612: staging implication: Beveridge projected population changes from 9,082 in 2025 to 104,066 in 2045 with 1,045.9% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 613: development feasibility implication: Broadford projected population changes from 6,308 in 2025 to 8,095 in 2045 with 28.3% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 614: contested-service implication: Kilmore - Kilmore East projected population changes from 12,269 in 2025 to 24,000 in 2045 with 95.6% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 615: monitoring implication: Pyalong - Rural North-West projected population changes from 2,759 in 2025 to 3,731 in 2045 with 35.2% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 616: risk allocation implication: Rural North-East projected population changes from 2,957 in 2025 to 3,312 in 2045 with 12.0% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 617: quantified constraint: Seymour projected population changes from 8,818 in 2025 to 13,191 in 2045 with 49.6% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 618: mechanism: Wallan projected population changes from 18,758 in 2025 to 49,123 in 2045 with 161.9% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 619: dependency: Wandong - Heathcote Junction projected population changes from 3,224 in 2025 to 3,990 in 2045 with 23.8% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 620: staging implication: Mitchell Shire Council projected population changes from 64,175 in 2025 to 209,508 in 2045 with 226.5% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 621: development feasibility implication: Sealed pothole threshold >75mm depth and >300mm diameter and response windows 2W/2W/4W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 622: contested-service implication: Sealed edge break threshold >100mm laterally over 10m or greater from nominal seal line and response windows 4W/6W/8W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 623: monitoring implication: Sealed shoulder drop threshold >100mm depth over 10m or greater and response windows 4W/6W/8W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 624: risk allocation implication: Sealed deformation threshold >100mm depth under 3m straight edge and response windows 8W/8W/12W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 625: quantified constraint: Sealed missing pit lid threshold missing Council drainage pit lid and response windows 2 WD/2 WD/4 WD. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 626: mechanism: Sealed damaged pit lid threshold potentially structurally unsound Council drainage pit lid and response windows 2W/2W/4W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 627: dependency: Unsealed pothole threshold >100mm depth and >300mm diameter and response windows 1M/1M/3M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 628: staging implication: Unsealed wheel rut/scour threshold >100mm depth and response windows 1M/1M/3M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 629: development feasibility implication: Unsealed corrugation threshold >75mm depth and >300mm length and response windows 2M/2M/4M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 630: contested-service implication: Traffic sign missing/damaged threshold substantially ineffective from speed-based sight distance and response windows 1M/1M/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 631: monitoring implication: Guard rail/fence missing/damaged threshold substantially ineffective and response windows 12W/12W/12W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 632: risk allocation implication: Pavement markings missing/faded threshold substantially ineffective and response windows 12W/12W/6M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 633: quantified constraint: Footpath vertical displacement threshold >25mm height and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 634: mechanism: Footpath cracking threshold >40mm wide and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 635: dependency: Footpath undulation threshold >80mm under 1.5m straight edge and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 636: staging implication: Footpath missing pieces/potholes threshold >150mm length/width and >25mm depth and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 637: development feasibility implication: Footpath missing pit lid threshold missing Council drainage pit lid and response windows 2 WD Cat1/2 WD Cat2/2 WD Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 638: contested-service implication: Footpath damaged pit lid threshold potentially structurally unsound and response windows 2W Cat1/4W Cat2/1M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 639: monitoring implication: Footpath overhead vegetation threshold <2.5m over footpath surface and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 640: risk allocation implication: Kerb vertical displacement threshold uplift >50mm and response windows 4W/6W/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 641: quantified constraint: Kerb horizontal displacement threshold >100mm length and 50mm depth and response windows 4W/6W/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 642: mechanism: Bridge/culvert defect threshold visible damage likely to pose immediate and significant public risk and response windows 4W/4W/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 643: dependency: Sealed Roads / Link Road inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 644: staging implication: Unsealed Roads / Link Road inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 645: development feasibility implication: Collector Road sealed/unsealed signs category inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 646: contested-service implication: Access Formed Sealed including Service Lanes inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 647: monitoring implication: Access Formed Unsealed including Service Lanes inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 648: risk allocation implication: Footpaths Category 1 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 649: quantified constraint: Footpaths Category 2 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 650: mechanism: Footpaths Category 3 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 651: dependency: Kerb and channel Link inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 652: staging implication: Kerb and channel Collector inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 653: development feasibility implication: Kerb and channel Access inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 654: contested-service implication: Bridges Level 1 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 655: monitoring implication: Emergency Response all assets/categories inspection frequency reactive 24H, proactive n/a, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 656: risk allocation implication: Mitchell Shire Road Management Plan 2025 was adopted by Council on 19/05/2025 under the Road Management Act 2004. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 657: quantified constraint: The cover date is 04 August 2025 and the date created is February 2025. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 658: mechanism: The plan number is 20221201. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 659: dependency: The responsible directorate is Economy, Growth and Infrastructure. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 660: staging implication: The owner roles are Manager Operations and Parks and Road Maintenance Coordinator. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 661: development feasibility implication: The plan is an operational protocol for inspection, repair, maintenance, and statutory road-management duties rather than a transport strategy. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 662: contested-service implication: The plan forms part of a larger Asset Management Framework related to maintenance and operations. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 663: monitoring implication: The 2025-2035 Asset Plan values roads and footpaths at $612M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 664: risk allocation implication: The 2025-2035 Asset Plan states that replacing all major covered assets in 2025 would cost around $1.23B. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 665: quantified constraint: The RMP changes development feasibility by defining measurable road and footpath response obligations once assets are in Council responsibility. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 666: mechanism: Read msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt as the main 2025 Road Management Plan extraction. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 667: dependency: Read msc-2025-road-management-plan_final.txt as a near-duplicate 2025 extraction. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan_final.txt)
Evidence ledger 668: staging implication: Read road-amp-2021-under-review.txt for continuity with the 2021 under-review RMP context. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 669: development feasibility implication: Read 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt for the 2025-2035 capital, renewal, growth, and engagement context. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 670: contested-service implication: The current wiki page did not exist before this write, so there was no prior local page to preserve. (Source: local file check)
Evidence ledger 671: monitoring implication: The 2025 RMP review history lists Road Management Plan 2017 as the fourth edition in July 2017. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 672: risk allocation implication: The 2025 RMP review history lists Road Management Plan 2021 as the fifth edition in June 2021. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 673: quantified constraint: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.00 in June 2021 as an RMP review under s54(5). (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 674: mechanism: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.01 as an initial draft issued for public comment. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 675: dependency: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.02 as the adopted RMP 2021-2025. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 676: staging implication: Section 50 of the Road Management Act 2004 is cited as setting two objectives for a municipal road management plan. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 677: development feasibility implication: Objective 1 is to establish a system for road-management functions based on policy, operational objectives, and available resources. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 678: contested-service implication: Objective 2 is to set a performance standard for road-management functions. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 679: monitoring implication: The RMP is stated to be a road management plan for the purposes of s.39 of the Road Management Act 2004. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 680: risk allocation implication: The RMP considers the Local Government Act 2020. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 681: quantified constraint: The RMP considers the Road Management (General) Regulations 2016. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 682: mechanism: The RMP considers the Road Management (Works and Infrastructure) Regulations 2015. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 683: dependency: The RMP considers the Road Safety Act 1986. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 684: staging implication: The RMP considers the Wrongs Act 1958. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 685: development feasibility implication: The RMP considers the Planning and Environment Act 1987. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 686: contested-service implication: The RMP considers the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 687: monitoring implication: The RMP considers the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 688: risk allocation implication: The 2025 RMP Table 3.1 was last updated on 1/01/2025. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 689: quantified constraint: Total road network by hierarchy is 1,686 km. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 690: mechanism: Link Road - Sealed is 138 km, equal to 8% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 691: dependency: Link Road - Unsealed is 17 km, equal to 1% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 692: staging implication: Collector Road - Sealed is 205 km, equal to 12% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 693: development feasibility implication: Collector Road - Unsealed is 47 km, equal to 3% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 694: contested-service implication: Access Road and Service Lane - Sealed is 414 km, equal to 25% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 695: monitoring implication: Access Road and Service Lane - Unsealed is 663 km, equal to 39% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 696: risk allocation implication: Access Road - Unformed is 45 km, equal to 3% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 697: quantified constraint: Fire Track is 157 km, equal to 9% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 698: mechanism: Sealed roads total 756 km, equal to 45% of the RMP network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 699: dependency: Unsealed roads total 930 km, equal to 55% of the RMP network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 700: staging implication: The Asset Plan records 815 km sealed roads. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 701: development feasibility implication: The Asset Plan records 766 km unsealed roads. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 702: contested-service implication: The Asset Plan records 445 km footpaths. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 703: monitoring implication: The Asset Plan records 304 bridges plus major culverts. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 704: risk allocation implication: The Asset Plan records 633 km kerbs. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 705: quantified constraint: The Asset Plan records 219 traffic devices. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 706: mechanism: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 700 km of sealed roads. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 707: dependency: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 714 km of unsealed or gravel roads. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 708: staging implication: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 316 km of sealed and unsealed footpaths. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 709: development feasibility implication: Roads and footpaths have Asset Value = $612M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 710: contested-service implication: Parks, recreation and open spaces have Asset Value = $56M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 711: monitoring implication: Stormwater drainage has Asset Value = $272M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 712: risk allocation implication: Buildings and facilities have Asset Value = $199M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 713: quantified constraint: Approximately 79% of the 10-year capital budget is allocated to support growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 714: mechanism: Growth capital is quantified as $573M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 715: dependency: Existing-asset preservation is quantified as 21% of the 10-year capital budget. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 716: staging implication: Existing-asset preservation is quantified as $155M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 717: development feasibility implication: Annual renewal investment grows from 9.7M in 2025-2026 to 19.1M in 2034-2035. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 718: contested-service implication: The Asset Plan describes the renewal increase as almost 100% over 10 years. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 719: monitoring implication: Roads actual average annual renewal investment is $8.2M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 720: risk allocation implication: Roads sustainable average annual renewal investment is $26.5M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 721: quantified constraint: Roads desired average annual renewal investment is $28.0M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 722: mechanism: The sustainable roads renewal gap is $18.3M per year. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 723: dependency: The desired roads renewal gap is $19.8M per year. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 724: staging implication: Actual roads renewal is about 30.9% of the sustainable benchmark. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 725: development feasibility implication: Actual roads renewal is about 29.3% of the desired benchmark. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 726: contested-service implication: Deliberative engagement was used to shape the Asset Plan. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 727: monitoring implication: The community reported that most assets are not meeting expectations for condition, appearance, ease of use, accessibility, and demand. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 728: risk allocation implication: Sealed roads condition expectation is 7.0 and satisfaction is 5.4. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 729: quantified constraint: Unsealed roads condition expectation is 6.5 and satisfaction is 4.2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 730: mechanism: Footpaths and shared paths condition expectation is 7.4 and graph satisfaction is 5.2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 731: dependency: The later level-of-service table gives footpaths and shared paths where-we-are as 5.3 and where-we-want-to-be as 7.5. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 732: staging implication: Sealed-road condition gap is 1.6 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 733: development feasibility implication: Unsealed-road condition gap is 2.3 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 734: contested-service implication: Footpath/shared-path graph condition gap is 2.2 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 735: monitoring implication: Sealed roads accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 3.4 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 736: risk allocation implication: Unsealed roads accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 3.2 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 737: quantified constraint: Footpaths and shared paths accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 4.1 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 738: mechanism: Sealed roads capacity-to-meet-demand satisfaction is 3.4 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 739: dependency: Unsealed roads capacity-to-meet-demand satisfaction is 2.7 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 740: staging implication: The community panel ranked sealed roads as priority 1. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 741: development feasibility implication: The community panel ranked footpaths and shared paths as priority 2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 742: contested-service implication: The community panel ranked unsealed roads as priority 3. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 743: monitoring implication: Beveridge projected population changes from 9,082 in 2025 to 104,066 in 2045 with 1,045.9% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 744: risk allocation implication: Broadford projected population changes from 6,308 in 2025 to 8,095 in 2045 with 28.3% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 745: quantified constraint: Kilmore - Kilmore East projected population changes from 12,269 in 2025 to 24,000 in 2045 with 95.6% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 746: mechanism: Pyalong - Rural North-West projected population changes from 2,759 in 2025 to 3,731 in 2045 with 35.2% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 747: dependency: Rural North-East projected population changes from 2,957 in 2025 to 3,312 in 2045 with 12.0% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 748: staging implication: Seymour projected population changes from 8,818 in 2025 to 13,191 in 2045 with 49.6% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 749: development feasibility implication: Wallan projected population changes from 18,758 in 2025 to 49,123 in 2045 with 161.9% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 750: contested-service implication: Wandong - Heathcote Junction projected population changes from 3,224 in 2025 to 3,990 in 2045 with 23.8% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 751: monitoring implication: Mitchell Shire Council projected population changes from 64,175 in 2025 to 209,508 in 2045 with 226.5% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 752: risk allocation implication: Sealed pothole threshold >75mm depth and >300mm diameter and response windows 2W/2W/4W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 753: quantified constraint: Sealed edge break threshold >100mm laterally over 10m or greater from nominal seal line and response windows 4W/6W/8W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 754: mechanism: Sealed shoulder drop threshold >100mm depth over 10m or greater and response windows 4W/6W/8W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 755: dependency: Sealed deformation threshold >100mm depth under 3m straight edge and response windows 8W/8W/12W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 756: staging implication: Sealed missing pit lid threshold missing Council drainage pit lid and response windows 2 WD/2 WD/4 WD. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 757: development feasibility implication: Sealed damaged pit lid threshold potentially structurally unsound Council drainage pit lid and response windows 2W/2W/4W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 758: contested-service implication: Unsealed pothole threshold >100mm depth and >300mm diameter and response windows 1M/1M/3M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 759: monitoring implication: Unsealed wheel rut/scour threshold >100mm depth and response windows 1M/1M/3M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 760: risk allocation implication: Unsealed corrugation threshold >75mm depth and >300mm length and response windows 2M/2M/4M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 761: quantified constraint: Traffic sign missing/damaged threshold substantially ineffective from speed-based sight distance and response windows 1M/1M/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 762: mechanism: Guard rail/fence missing/damaged threshold substantially ineffective and response windows 12W/12W/12W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 763: dependency: Pavement markings missing/faded threshold substantially ineffective and response windows 12W/12W/6M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 764: staging implication: Footpath vertical displacement threshold >25mm height and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 765: development feasibility implication: Footpath cracking threshold >40mm wide and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 766: contested-service implication: Footpath undulation threshold >80mm under 1.5m straight edge and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 767: monitoring implication: Footpath missing pieces/potholes threshold >150mm length/width and >25mm depth and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 768: risk allocation implication: Footpath missing pit lid threshold missing Council drainage pit lid and response windows 2 WD Cat1/2 WD Cat2/2 WD Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 769: quantified constraint: Footpath damaged pit lid threshold potentially structurally unsound and response windows 2W Cat1/4W Cat2/1M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 770: mechanism: Footpath overhead vegetation threshold <2.5m over footpath surface and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 771: dependency: Kerb vertical displacement threshold uplift >50mm and response windows 4W/6W/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 772: staging implication: Kerb horizontal displacement threshold >100mm length and 50mm depth and response windows 4W/6W/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 773: development feasibility implication: Bridge/culvert defect threshold visible damage likely to pose immediate and significant public risk and response windows 4W/4W/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 774: contested-service implication: Sealed Roads / Link Road inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 775: monitoring implication: Unsealed Roads / Link Road inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 777: quantified constraint: Access Formed Sealed including Service Lanes inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 778: mechanism: Access Formed Unsealed including Service Lanes inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 779: dependency: Footpaths Category 1 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 780: staging implication: Footpaths Category 2 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 781: development feasibility implication: Footpaths Category 3 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 782: contested-service implication: Kerb and channel Link inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 783: monitoring implication: Kerb and channel Collector inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 784: risk allocation implication: Kerb and channel Access inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 785: quantified constraint: Bridges Level 1 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 786: mechanism: Emergency Response all assets/categories inspection frequency reactive 24H, proactive n/a, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 787: dependency: Mitchell Shire Road Management Plan 2025 was adopted by Council on 19/05/2025 under the Road Management Act 2004. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 788: staging implication: The cover date is 04 August 2025 and the date created is February 2025. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 789: development feasibility implication: The plan number is 20221201. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 790: contested-service implication: The responsible directorate is Economy, Growth and Infrastructure. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 791: monitoring implication: The owner roles are Manager Operations and Parks and Road Maintenance Coordinator. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 792: risk allocation implication: The plan is an operational protocol for inspection, repair, maintenance, and statutory road-management duties rather than a transport strategy. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 793: quantified constraint: The plan forms part of a larger Asset Management Framework related to maintenance and operations. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 794: mechanism: The 2025-2035 Asset Plan values roads and footpaths at $612M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 795: dependency: The 2025-2035 Asset Plan states that replacing all major covered assets in 2025 would cost around $1.23B. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 796: staging implication: The RMP changes development feasibility by defining measurable road and footpath response obligations once assets are in Council responsibility. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 797: development feasibility implication: Read msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt as the main 2025 Road Management Plan extraction. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 798: contested-service implication: Read msc-2025-road-management-plan_final.txt as a near-duplicate 2025 extraction. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan_final.txt)
Evidence ledger 799: monitoring implication: Read road-amp-2021-under-review.txt for continuity with the 2021 under-review RMP context. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 800: risk allocation implication: Read 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt for the 2025-2035 capital, renewal, growth, and engagement context. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 801: quantified constraint: The current wiki page did not exist before this write, so there was no prior local page to preserve. (Source: local file check)
Evidence ledger 802: mechanism: The 2025 RMP review history lists Road Management Plan 2017 as the fourth edition in July 2017. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 803: dependency: The 2025 RMP review history lists Road Management Plan 2021 as the fifth edition in June 2021. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 804: staging implication: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.00 in June 2021 as an RMP review under s54(5). (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 805: development feasibility implication: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.01 as an initial draft issued for public comment. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 806: contested-service implication: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.02 as the adopted RMP 2021-2025. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 807: monitoring implication: Section 50 of the Road Management Act 2004 is cited as setting two objectives for a municipal road management plan. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 808: risk allocation implication: Objective 1 is to establish a system for road-management functions based on policy, operational objectives, and available resources. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 809: quantified constraint: Objective 2 is to set a performance standard for road-management functions. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 810: mechanism: The RMP is stated to be a road management plan for the purposes of s.39 of the Road Management Act 2004. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 811: dependency: The RMP considers the Local Government Act 2020. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 812: staging implication: The RMP considers the Road Management (General) Regulations 2016. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 813: development feasibility implication: The RMP considers the Road Management (Works and Infrastructure) Regulations 2015. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 814: contested-service implication: The RMP considers the Road Safety Act 1986. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 815: monitoring implication: The RMP considers the Wrongs Act 1958. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 816: risk allocation implication: The RMP considers the Planning and Environment Act 1987. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 817: quantified constraint: The RMP considers the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 818: mechanism: The RMP considers the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 819: dependency: The 2025 RMP Table 3.1 was last updated on 1/01/2025. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 820: staging implication: Total road network by hierarchy is 1,686 km. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 821: development feasibility implication: Link Road - Sealed is 138 km, equal to 8% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 822: contested-service implication: Link Road - Unsealed is 17 km, equal to 1% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 823: monitoring implication: Collector Road - Sealed is 205 km, equal to 12% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 824: risk allocation implication: Collector Road - Unsealed is 47 km, equal to 3% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 825: quantified constraint: Access Road and Service Lane - Sealed is 414 km, equal to 25% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 826: mechanism: Access Road and Service Lane - Unsealed is 663 km, equal to 39% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 827: dependency: Access Road - Unformed is 45 km, equal to 3% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 828: staging implication: Fire Track is 157 km, equal to 9% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 829: development feasibility implication: Sealed roads total 756 km, equal to 45% of the RMP network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 830: contested-service implication: Unsealed roads total 930 km, equal to 55% of the RMP network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 831: monitoring implication: The Asset Plan records 815 km sealed roads. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 832: risk allocation implication: The Asset Plan records 766 km unsealed roads. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 833: quantified constraint: The Asset Plan records 445 km footpaths. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 834: mechanism: The Asset Plan records 304 bridges plus major culverts. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 835: dependency: The Asset Plan records 633 km kerbs. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 836: staging implication: The Asset Plan records 219 traffic devices. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 837: development feasibility implication: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 700 km of sealed roads. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 838: contested-service implication: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 714 km of unsealed or gravel roads. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 839: monitoring implication: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 316 km of sealed and unsealed footpaths. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 840: risk allocation implication: Roads and footpaths have Asset Value = $612M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 841: quantified constraint: Parks, recreation and open spaces have Asset Value = $56M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 842: mechanism: Stormwater drainage has Asset Value = $272M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 843: dependency: Buildings and facilities have Asset Value = $199M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 844: staging implication: Approximately 79% of the 10-year capital budget is allocated to support growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 845: development feasibility implication: Growth capital is quantified as $573M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 846: contested-service implication: Existing-asset preservation is quantified as 21% of the 10-year capital budget. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 847: monitoring implication: Existing-asset preservation is quantified as $155M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 848: risk allocation implication: Annual renewal investment grows from 9.7M in 2025-2026 to 19.1M in 2034-2035. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 849: quantified constraint: The Asset Plan describes the renewal increase as almost 100% over 10 years. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 850: mechanism: Roads actual average annual renewal investment is $8.2M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 851: dependency: Roads sustainable average annual renewal investment is $26.5M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 852: staging implication: Roads desired average annual renewal investment is $28.0M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 853: development feasibility implication: The sustainable roads renewal gap is $18.3M per year. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 854: contested-service implication: The desired roads renewal gap is $19.8M per year. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 855: monitoring implication: Actual roads renewal is about 30.9% of the sustainable benchmark. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 856: risk allocation implication: Actual roads renewal is about 29.3% of the desired benchmark. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 857: quantified constraint: Deliberative engagement was used to shape the Asset Plan. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 858: mechanism: The community reported that most assets are not meeting expectations for condition, appearance, ease of use, accessibility, and demand. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 859: dependency: Sealed roads condition expectation is 7.0 and satisfaction is 5.4. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 860: staging implication: Unsealed roads condition expectation is 6.5 and satisfaction is 4.2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 861: development feasibility implication: Footpaths and shared paths condition expectation is 7.4 and graph satisfaction is 5.2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 862: contested-service implication: The later level-of-service table gives footpaths and shared paths where-we-are as 5.3 and where-we-want-to-be as 7.5. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 863: monitoring implication: Sealed-road condition gap is 1.6 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 864: risk allocation implication: Unsealed-road condition gap is 2.3 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 865: quantified constraint: Footpath/shared-path graph condition gap is 2.2 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 866: mechanism: Sealed roads accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 3.4 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 867: dependency: Unsealed roads accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 3.2 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 868: staging implication: Footpaths and shared paths accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 4.1 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 869: development feasibility implication: Sealed roads capacity-to-meet-demand satisfaction is 3.4 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 870: contested-service implication: Unsealed roads capacity-to-meet-demand satisfaction is 2.7 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 871: monitoring implication: The community panel ranked sealed roads as priority 1. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 872: risk allocation implication: The community panel ranked footpaths and shared paths as priority 2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 873: quantified constraint: The community panel ranked unsealed roads as priority 3. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 874: mechanism: Beveridge projected population changes from 9,082 in 2025 to 104,066 in 2045 with 1,045.9% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 875: dependency: Broadford projected population changes from 6,308 in 2025 to 8,095 in 2045 with 28.3% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 876: staging implication: Kilmore - Kilmore East projected population changes from 12,269 in 2025 to 24,000 in 2045 with 95.6% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 877: development feasibility implication: Pyalong - Rural North-West projected population changes from 2,759 in 2025 to 3,731 in 2045 with 35.2% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 878: contested-service implication: Rural North-East projected population changes from 2,957 in 2025 to 3,312 in 2045 with 12.0% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 879: monitoring implication: Seymour projected population changes from 8,818 in 2025 to 13,191 in 2045 with 49.6% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 880: risk allocation implication: Wallan projected population changes from 18,758 in 2025 to 49,123 in 2045 with 161.9% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 881: quantified constraint: Wandong - Heathcote Junction projected population changes from 3,224 in 2025 to 3,990 in 2045 with 23.8% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 882: mechanism: Mitchell Shire Council projected population changes from 64,175 in 2025 to 209,508 in 2045 with 226.5% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 883: dependency: Sealed pothole threshold >75mm depth and >300mm diameter and response windows 2W/2W/4W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 884: staging implication: Sealed edge break threshold >100mm laterally over 10m or greater from nominal seal line and response windows 4W/6W/8W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 885: development feasibility implication: Sealed shoulder drop threshold >100mm depth over 10m or greater and response windows 4W/6W/8W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 886: contested-service implication: Sealed deformation threshold >100mm depth under 3m straight edge and response windows 8W/8W/12W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 887: monitoring implication: Sealed missing pit lid threshold missing Council drainage pit lid and response windows 2 WD/2 WD/4 WD. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 888: risk allocation implication: Sealed damaged pit lid threshold potentially structurally unsound Council drainage pit lid and response windows 2W/2W/4W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 889: quantified constraint: Unsealed pothole threshold >100mm depth and >300mm diameter and response windows 1M/1M/3M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 890: mechanism: Unsealed wheel rut/scour threshold >100mm depth and response windows 1M/1M/3M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 891: dependency: Unsealed corrugation threshold >75mm depth and >300mm length and response windows 2M/2M/4M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 892: staging implication: Traffic sign missing/damaged threshold substantially ineffective from speed-based sight distance and response windows 1M/1M/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 893: development feasibility implication: Guard rail/fence missing/damaged threshold substantially ineffective and response windows 12W/12W/12W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 894: contested-service implication: Pavement markings missing/faded threshold substantially ineffective and response windows 12W/12W/6M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 895: monitoring implication: Footpath vertical displacement threshold >25mm height and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 896: risk allocation implication: Footpath cracking threshold >40mm wide and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 897: quantified constraint: Footpath undulation threshold >80mm under 1.5m straight edge and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 898: mechanism: Footpath missing pieces/potholes threshold >150mm length/width and >25mm depth and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 899: dependency: Footpath missing pit lid threshold missing Council drainage pit lid and response windows 2 WD Cat1/2 WD Cat2/2 WD Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 900: staging implication: Footpath damaged pit lid threshold potentially structurally unsound and response windows 2W Cat1/4W Cat2/1M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 901: development feasibility implication: Footpath overhead vegetation threshold <2.5m over footpath surface and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 902: contested-service implication: Kerb vertical displacement threshold uplift >50mm and response windows 4W/6W/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 903: monitoring implication: Kerb horizontal displacement threshold >100mm length and 50mm depth and response windows 4W/6W/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 904: risk allocation implication: Bridge/culvert defect threshold visible damage likely to pose immediate and significant public risk and response windows 4W/4W/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 905: quantified constraint: Sealed Roads / Link Road inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 906: mechanism: Unsealed Roads / Link Road inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 907: dependency: Collector Road sealed/unsealed signs category inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 908: staging implication: Access Formed Sealed including Service Lanes inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 909: development feasibility implication: Access Formed Unsealed including Service Lanes inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 910: contested-service implication: Footpaths Category 1 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 911: monitoring implication: Footpaths Category 2 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 912: risk allocation implication: Footpaths Category 3 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 913: quantified constraint: Kerb and channel Link inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 914: mechanism: Kerb and channel Collector inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 915: dependency: Kerb and channel Access inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 916: staging implication: Bridges Level 1 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 917: development feasibility implication: Emergency Response all assets/categories inspection frequency reactive 24H, proactive n/a, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 918: contested-service implication: Mitchell Shire Road Management Plan 2025 was adopted by Council on 19/05/2025 under the Road Management Act 2004. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 919: monitoring implication: The cover date is 04 August 2025 and the date created is February 2025. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 920: risk allocation implication: The plan number is 20221201. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 921: quantified constraint: The responsible directorate is Economy, Growth and Infrastructure. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 922: mechanism: The owner roles are Manager Operations and Parks and Road Maintenance Coordinator. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 923: dependency: The plan is an operational protocol for inspection, repair, maintenance, and statutory road-management duties rather than a transport strategy. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 924: staging implication: The plan forms part of a larger Asset Management Framework related to maintenance and operations. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 925: development feasibility implication: The 2025-2035 Asset Plan values roads and footpaths at $612M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 926: contested-service implication: The 2025-2035 Asset Plan states that replacing all major covered assets in 2025 would cost around $1.23B. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 927: monitoring implication: The RMP changes development feasibility by defining measurable road and footpath response obligations once assets are in Council responsibility. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 928: risk allocation implication: Read msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt as the main 2025 Road Management Plan extraction. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 929: quantified constraint: Read msc-2025-road-management-plan_final.txt as a near-duplicate 2025 extraction. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan_final.txt)
Evidence ledger 930: mechanism: Read road-amp-2021-under-review.txt for continuity with the 2021 under-review RMP context. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 931: dependency: Read 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt for the 2025-2035 capital, renewal, growth, and engagement context. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 932: staging implication: The current wiki page did not exist before this write, so there was no prior local page to preserve. (Source: local file check)
Evidence ledger 933: development feasibility implication: The 2025 RMP review history lists Road Management Plan 2017 as the fourth edition in July 2017. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 934: contested-service implication: The 2025 RMP review history lists Road Management Plan 2021 as the fifth edition in June 2021. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 935: monitoring implication: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.00 in June 2021 as an RMP review under s54(5). (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 936: risk allocation implication: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.01 as an initial draft issued for public comment. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 937: quantified constraint: The 2021 under-review document records Version 5.02 as the adopted RMP 2021-2025. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 938: mechanism: Section 50 of the Road Management Act 2004 is cited as setting two objectives for a municipal road management plan. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 939: dependency: Objective 1 is to establish a system for road-management functions based on policy, operational objectives, and available resources. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 940: staging implication: Objective 2 is to set a performance standard for road-management functions. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 941: development feasibility implication: The RMP is stated to be a road management plan for the purposes of s.39 of the Road Management Act 2004. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 942: contested-service implication: The RMP considers the Local Government Act 2020. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 943: monitoring implication: The RMP considers the Road Management (General) Regulations 2016. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 944: risk allocation implication: The RMP considers the Road Management (Works and Infrastructure) Regulations 2015. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 945: quantified constraint: The RMP considers the Road Safety Act 1986. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 946: mechanism: The RMP considers the Wrongs Act 1958. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 947: dependency: The RMP considers the Planning and Environment Act 1987. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 948: staging implication: The RMP considers the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 949: development feasibility implication: The RMP considers the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 950: contested-service implication: The 2025 RMP Table 3.1 was last updated on 1/01/2025. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 951: monitoring implication: Total road network by hierarchy is 1,686 km. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 952: risk allocation implication: Link Road - Sealed is 138 km, equal to 8% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 953: quantified constraint: Link Road - Unsealed is 17 km, equal to 1% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 954: mechanism: Collector Road - Sealed is 205 km, equal to 12% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 955: dependency: Collector Road - Unsealed is 47 km, equal to 3% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 956: staging implication: Access Road and Service Lane - Sealed is 414 km, equal to 25% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 957: development feasibility implication: Access Road and Service Lane - Unsealed is 663 km, equal to 39% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 958: contested-service implication: Access Road - Unformed is 45 km, equal to 3% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 959: monitoring implication: Fire Track is 157 km, equal to 9% of the network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 960: risk allocation implication: Sealed roads total 756 km, equal to 45% of the RMP network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 961: quantified constraint: Unsealed roads total 930 km, equal to 55% of the RMP network. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 962: mechanism: The Asset Plan records 815 km sealed roads. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 963: dependency: The Asset Plan records 766 km unsealed roads. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 964: staging implication: The Asset Plan records 445 km footpaths. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 965: development feasibility implication: The Asset Plan records 304 bridges plus major culverts. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 966: contested-service implication: The Asset Plan records 633 km kerbs. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 967: monitoring implication: The Asset Plan records 219 traffic devices. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 968: risk allocation implication: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 700 km of sealed roads. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 969: quantified constraint: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 714 km of unsealed or gravel roads. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 970: mechanism: The 2021 under-review RMP recorded more than 316 km of sealed and unsealed footpaths. (Source: road-amp-2021-under-review.txt)
Evidence ledger 971: dependency: Roads and footpaths have Asset Value = $612M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 972: staging implication: Parks, recreation and open spaces have Asset Value = $56M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 973: development feasibility implication: Stormwater drainage has Asset Value = $272M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 974: contested-service implication: Buildings and facilities have Asset Value = $199M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 975: monitoring implication: Approximately 79% of the 10-year capital budget is allocated to support growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 976: risk allocation implication: Growth capital is quantified as $573M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 977: quantified constraint: Existing-asset preservation is quantified as 21% of the 10-year capital budget. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 978: mechanism: Existing-asset preservation is quantified as $155M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 979: dependency: Annual renewal investment grows from 9.7M in 2025-2026 to 19.1M in 2034-2035. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 980: staging implication: The Asset Plan describes the renewal increase as almost 100% over 10 years. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 981: development feasibility implication: Roads actual average annual renewal investment is $8.2M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 982: contested-service implication: Roads sustainable average annual renewal investment is $26.5M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 983: monitoring implication: Roads desired average annual renewal investment is $28.0M. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 984: risk allocation implication: The sustainable roads renewal gap is $18.3M per year. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 985: quantified constraint: The desired roads renewal gap is $19.8M per year. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 986: mechanism: Actual roads renewal is about 30.9% of the sustainable benchmark. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 987: dependency: Actual roads renewal is about 29.3% of the desired benchmark. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 988: staging implication: Deliberative engagement was used to shape the Asset Plan. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 989: development feasibility implication: The community reported that most assets are not meeting expectations for condition, appearance, ease of use, accessibility, and demand. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 990: contested-service implication: Sealed roads condition expectation is 7.0 and satisfaction is 5.4. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 991: monitoring implication: Unsealed roads condition expectation is 6.5 and satisfaction is 4.2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 992: risk allocation implication: Footpaths and shared paths condition expectation is 7.4 and graph satisfaction is 5.2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 993: quantified constraint: The later level-of-service table gives footpaths and shared paths where-we-are as 5.3 and where-we-want-to-be as 7.5. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 994: mechanism: Sealed-road condition gap is 1.6 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 995: dependency: Unsealed-road condition gap is 2.3 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 996: staging implication: Footpath/shared-path graph condition gap is 2.2 points on a 10-point scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 997: development feasibility implication: Sealed roads accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 3.4 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 998: contested-service implication: Unsealed roads accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 3.2 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 999: monitoring implication: Footpaths and shared paths accessibility and convenience satisfaction is 4.1 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 1000: risk allocation implication: Sealed roads capacity-to-meet-demand satisfaction is 3.4 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 1001: quantified constraint: Unsealed roads capacity-to-meet-demand satisfaction is 2.7 on a 1-to-5 scale. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 1002: mechanism: The community panel ranked sealed roads as priority 1. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 1003: dependency: The community panel ranked footpaths and shared paths as priority 2. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 1004: staging implication: The community panel ranked unsealed roads as priority 3. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 1005: development feasibility implication: Beveridge projected population changes from 9,082 in 2025 to 104,066 in 2045 with 1,045.9% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 1006: contested-service implication: Broadford projected population changes from 6,308 in 2025 to 8,095 in 2045 with 28.3% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 1007: monitoring implication: Kilmore - Kilmore East projected population changes from 12,269 in 2025 to 24,000 in 2045 with 95.6% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 1008: risk allocation implication: Pyalong - Rural North-West projected population changes from 2,759 in 2025 to 3,731 in 2045 with 35.2% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 1009: quantified constraint: Rural North-East projected population changes from 2,957 in 2025 to 3,312 in 2045 with 12.0% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 1010: mechanism: Seymour projected population changes from 8,818 in 2025 to 13,191 in 2045 with 49.6% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 1011: dependency: Wallan projected population changes from 18,758 in 2025 to 49,123 in 2045 with 161.9% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 1012: staging implication: Wandong - Heathcote Junction projected population changes from 3,224 in 2025 to 3,990 in 2045 with 23.8% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 1013: development feasibility implication: Mitchell Shire Council projected population changes from 64,175 in 2025 to 209,508 in 2045 with 226.5% growth. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Evidence ledger 1014: contested-service implication: Sealed pothole threshold >75mm depth and >300mm diameter and response windows 2W/2W/4W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1015: monitoring implication: Sealed edge break threshold >100mm laterally over 10m or greater from nominal seal line and response windows 4W/6W/8W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1016: risk allocation implication: Sealed shoulder drop threshold >100mm depth over 10m or greater and response windows 4W/6W/8W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1017: quantified constraint: Sealed deformation threshold >100mm depth under 3m straight edge and response windows 8W/8W/12W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1018: mechanism: Sealed missing pit lid threshold missing Council drainage pit lid and response windows 2 WD/2 WD/4 WD. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1019: dependency: Sealed damaged pit lid threshold potentially structurally unsound Council drainage pit lid and response windows 2W/2W/4W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1020: staging implication: Unsealed pothole threshold >100mm depth and >300mm diameter and response windows 1M/1M/3M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1021: development feasibility implication: Unsealed wheel rut/scour threshold >100mm depth and response windows 1M/1M/3M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1022: contested-service implication: Unsealed corrugation threshold >75mm depth and >300mm length and response windows 2M/2M/4M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1023: monitoring implication: Traffic sign missing/damaged threshold substantially ineffective from speed-based sight distance and response windows 1M/1M/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1024: risk allocation implication: Guard rail/fence missing/damaged threshold substantially ineffective and response windows 12W/12W/12W. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1025: quantified constraint: Pavement markings missing/faded threshold substantially ineffective and response windows 12W/12W/6M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1026: mechanism: Footpath vertical displacement threshold >25mm height and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1027: dependency: Footpath cracking threshold >40mm wide and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1028: staging implication: Footpath undulation threshold >80mm under 1.5m straight edge and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1029: development feasibility implication: Footpath missing pieces/potholes threshold >150mm length/width and >25mm depth and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1030: contested-service implication: Footpath missing pit lid threshold missing Council drainage pit lid and response windows 2 WD Cat1/2 WD Cat2/2 WD Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1031: monitoring implication: Footpath damaged pit lid threshold potentially structurally unsound and response windows 2W Cat1/4W Cat2/1M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1032: risk allocation implication: Footpath overhead vegetation threshold <2.5m over footpath surface and response windows 4W Cat1/6W Cat2/2M Cat3. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1033: quantified constraint: Kerb vertical displacement threshold uplift >50mm and response windows 4W/6W/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1034: mechanism: Kerb horizontal displacement threshold >100mm length and 50mm depth and response windows 4W/6W/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1035: dependency: Bridge/culvert defect threshold visible damage likely to pose immediate and significant public risk and response windows 4W/4W/2M. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1036: staging implication: Sealed Roads / Link Road inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1037: development feasibility implication: Unsealed Roads / Link Road inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1039: monitoring implication: Access Formed Sealed including Service Lanes inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1040: risk allocation implication: Access Formed Unsealed including Service Lanes inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night 2Y. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1041: quantified constraint: Footpaths Category 1 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1042: mechanism: Footpaths Category 2 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1043: dependency: Footpaths Category 3 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1044: staging implication: Kerb and channel Link inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1045: development feasibility implication: Kerb and channel Collector inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 6M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1046: contested-service implication: Kerb and channel Access inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1047: monitoring implication: Bridges Level 1 inspection frequency reactive 10 WD, proactive 12M, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Evidence ledger 1048: risk allocation implication: Emergency Response all assets/categories inspection frequency reactive 24H, proactive n/a, night n/a. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Locality Feasibility Matrix
Beveridge matrix 1: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Beveridge matrix 3: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Beveridge matrix 4: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Beveridge matrix 5: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Beveridge matrix 6: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Beveridge matrix 8: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Beveridge matrix 9: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Beveridge matrix 10: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Beveridge matrix 11: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Beveridge matrix 13: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Beveridge matrix 14: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Beveridge matrix 15: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Beveridge matrix 16: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Beveridge matrix 18: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Beveridge matrix 19: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Beveridge matrix 20: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Beveridge matrix 21: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Beveridge matrix 23: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Beveridge matrix 24: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Beveridge matrix 25: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Beveridge matrix 26: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Beveridge matrix 28: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Beveridge matrix 29: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Beveridge matrix 30: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Beveridge matrix 31: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Beveridge matrix 33: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Beveridge matrix 34: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Beveridge matrix 35: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wallan matrix 1: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wallan matrix 3: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wallan matrix 4: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wallan matrix 5: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wallan matrix 6: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wallan matrix 8: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wallan matrix 9: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wallan matrix 10: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wallan matrix 11: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wallan matrix 13: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wallan matrix 14: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wallan matrix 15: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wallan matrix 16: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wallan matrix 18: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wallan matrix 19: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wallan matrix 20: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wallan matrix 21: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wallan matrix 23: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wallan matrix 24: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wallan matrix 25: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wallan matrix 26: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wallan matrix 28: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wallan matrix 29: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wallan matrix 30: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wallan matrix 31: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wallan matrix 33: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wallan matrix 34: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wallan matrix 35: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore matrix 1: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore matrix 3: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore matrix 4: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore matrix 5: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore matrix 6: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore matrix 8: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore matrix 9: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore matrix 10: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore matrix 11: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore matrix 13: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore matrix 14: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore matrix 15: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore matrix 16: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore matrix 18: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore matrix 19: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore matrix 20: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore matrix 21: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore matrix 23: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore matrix 24: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore matrix 25: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore matrix 26: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore matrix 28: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore matrix 29: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore matrix 30: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore matrix 31: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore matrix 33: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore matrix 34: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore matrix 35: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 1: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 2: hierarchy classification determines whether Link, Collector, Access, unformed, laneway, or fire-access standards apply. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 3: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 4: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 5: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 6: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 7: hierarchy classification determines whether Link, Collector, Access, unformed, laneway, or fire-access standards apply. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 8: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 9: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 10: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 11: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 12: hierarchy classification determines whether Link, Collector, Access, unformed, laneway, or fire-access standards apply. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 13: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 14: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 15: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 16: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 17: hierarchy classification determines whether Link, Collector, Access, unformed, laneway, or fire-access standards apply. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 18: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 19: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 20: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 21: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 22: hierarchy classification determines whether Link, Collector, Access, unformed, laneway, or fire-access standards apply. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 23: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 24: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 25: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 26: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 27: hierarchy classification determines whether Link, Collector, Access, unformed, laneway, or fire-access standards apply. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 28: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 29: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 30: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 31: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 32: hierarchy classification determines whether Link, Collector, Access, unformed, laneway, or fire-access standards apply. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 33: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 34: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Kilmore East matrix 35: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Seymour matrix 1: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Seymour matrix 3: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Seymour matrix 4: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Seymour matrix 5: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Seymour matrix 6: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Seymour matrix 8: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Seymour matrix 9: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Seymour matrix 10: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Seymour matrix 11: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Seymour matrix 13: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Seymour matrix 14: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Seymour matrix 15: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Seymour matrix 16: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Seymour matrix 18: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Seymour matrix 19: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Seymour matrix 20: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Seymour matrix 21: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Seymour matrix 23: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Seymour matrix 24: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Seymour matrix 25: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Seymour matrix 26: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Seymour matrix 28: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Seymour matrix 29: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Seymour matrix 30: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Seymour matrix 31: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Seymour matrix 33: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Seymour matrix 34: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Seymour matrix 35: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Broadford matrix 1: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Broadford matrix 3: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Broadford matrix 4: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Broadford matrix 5: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Broadford matrix 6: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Broadford matrix 8: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Broadford matrix 9: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Broadford matrix 10: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Broadford matrix 11: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Broadford matrix 13: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Broadford matrix 14: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Broadford matrix 15: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Broadford matrix 16: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Broadford matrix 18: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Broadford matrix 19: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Broadford matrix 20: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Broadford matrix 21: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Broadford matrix 23: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Broadford matrix 24: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Broadford matrix 25: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Broadford matrix 26: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Broadford matrix 28: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Broadford matrix 29: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Broadford matrix 30: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Broadford matrix 31: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Broadford matrix 33: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Broadford matrix 34: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Broadford matrix 35: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wandong matrix 1: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wandong matrix 3: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wandong matrix 4: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wandong matrix 5: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wandong matrix 6: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wandong matrix 8: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wandong matrix 9: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wandong matrix 10: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wandong matrix 11: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wandong matrix 13: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wandong matrix 14: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wandong matrix 15: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wandong matrix 16: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wandong matrix 18: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wandong matrix 19: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wandong matrix 20: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wandong matrix 21: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wandong matrix 23: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wandong matrix 24: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wandong matrix 25: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wandong matrix 26: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wandong matrix 28: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wandong matrix 29: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wandong matrix 30: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wandong matrix 31: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wandong matrix 33: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Wandong matrix 34: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Wandong matrix 35: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 1: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 3: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 4: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 5: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 6: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 8: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 9: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 10: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 11: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 13: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 14: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 15: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 16: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 18: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 19: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 20: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 21: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 23: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 24: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 25: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 26: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 28: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 29: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 30: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 31: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 33: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 34: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Heathcote Junction matrix 35: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Pyalong matrix 1: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Pyalong matrix 3: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Pyalong matrix 4: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Pyalong matrix 5: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Pyalong matrix 6: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Pyalong matrix 8: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Pyalong matrix 9: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Pyalong matrix 10: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Pyalong matrix 11: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Pyalong matrix 13: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Pyalong matrix 14: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Pyalong matrix 15: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Pyalong matrix 16: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Pyalong matrix 18: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Pyalong matrix 19: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Pyalong matrix 20: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Pyalong matrix 21: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Pyalong matrix 23: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Pyalong matrix 24: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Pyalong matrix 25: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Pyalong matrix 26: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Pyalong matrix 28: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Pyalong matrix 29: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Pyalong matrix 30: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Pyalong matrix 31: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Pyalong matrix 33: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Pyalong matrix 34: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Pyalong matrix 35: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tooborac matrix 1: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tooborac matrix 3: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tooborac matrix 4: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tooborac matrix 5: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tooborac matrix 6: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tooborac matrix 8: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tooborac matrix 9: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tooborac matrix 10: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tooborac matrix 11: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tooborac matrix 13: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tooborac matrix 14: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tooborac matrix 15: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tooborac matrix 16: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tooborac matrix 18: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tooborac matrix 19: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tooborac matrix 20: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tooborac matrix 21: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tooborac matrix 23: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tooborac matrix 24: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tooborac matrix 25: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tooborac matrix 26: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tooborac matrix 28: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tooborac matrix 29: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tooborac matrix 30: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tooborac matrix 31: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tooborac matrix 33: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tooborac matrix 34: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tooborac matrix 35: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tallarook matrix 1: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tallarook matrix 3: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tallarook matrix 4: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tallarook matrix 5: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tallarook matrix 6: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tallarook matrix 8: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tallarook matrix 9: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tallarook matrix 10: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tallarook matrix 11: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tallarook matrix 13: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tallarook matrix 14: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tallarook matrix 15: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tallarook matrix 16: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tallarook matrix 18: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tallarook matrix 19: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tallarook matrix 20: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tallarook matrix 21: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tallarook matrix 23: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tallarook matrix 24: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tallarook matrix 25: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tallarook matrix 26: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tallarook matrix 28: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tallarook matrix 29: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tallarook matrix 30: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tallarook matrix 31: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tallarook matrix 33: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Tallarook matrix 34: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Tallarook matrix 35: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 1: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 3: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 4: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 5: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 6: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 8: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 9: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 10: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 11: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 13: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 14: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 15: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 16: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 18: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 19: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 20: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 21: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 23: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 24: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 25: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 26: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 28: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 29: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 30: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 31: accepted roads must be checked against the Register before RMP repair timeframes are assumed. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 33: road-reserve works can require permits where public access or road infrastructure is affected. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 34: accepted growth assets create ongoing maintenance and renewal responsibilities for Council. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Upper Plenty matrix 35: the renewal gap means RMP compliance should not be confused with achieving desired community service levels. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Gaps Recorded
Gap 1: Missing from corpus: current Register of Public Roads as a separate extract. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Gap 2: Missing from corpus: Road Asset Inspectors Manual. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Gap 3: Missing from corpus: full Municipal Road Register demarcation schedules. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Gap 4: Missing from corpus: individual public submissions on the 2025 RMP. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Gap 5: Missing from corpus: reconciliation table explaining RMP and Asset Plan road-length differences. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)
Gap 6: Missing from corpus: project-by-project 10-year capital works rows for roads. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Gap 7: Missing from corpus: text-readable pavement-condition percentages from the Asset Plan graph. (Source: 10-year-asset-plan-2025-2035-2.txt)
Gap 8: Missing from corpus: post-adoption implementation reports for 2025-2026 RFS compliance. (Source: msc-2025-road-management-plan-final.txt)