title: Community Infrastructure Planning Framework and Audit council: moorabool state: vic category: growth-area classification: MAJOR status: adopted last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- community-infrastructure-audit-report-2019-ms-word-version-for-a3-paper.pdf
- community-infrastructure-planning-policy-and-principle-sept-2017.pdf
- community-infrastructure-planning-process-feb-2020.pdf
- community-infrastructure-provision-standards-report-2019.pdf
- item-11.2.4-technical-report-2-community-infrastructure-audit-moorabool-facilities.pdf
- item-11.2.4-technical-report-3-community-infrastructure-audit-non-moorabool-facilities.pdf
- item-11.2.4-technical-report-5-results-of-quantity-assessment-version-2-arranged-by-infrastructure-type.pdf
Community Infrastructure Planning Framework and Audit
Moorabool’s Community Infrastructure Framework is the council’s evidence system for deciding which community facilities and services should be renewed, shared, expanded or added as the Shire grows. Its practical effect is to turn scattered facilities - halls, libraries, kindergartens, maternal and child health rooms, sports grounds and social support venues - into a measured network, using population forecasts, access standards, utilisation benchmarks and facility audits rather than one-off requests (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-process-feb-2020.pdf, pp.1-5).
The framework matters most in Bacchus Marsh, Darley, Maddingley, Ballan and rural settlements because it exposes a simple planning problem: growth is concentrated in some places, but usable buildings, rooms and sports assets are unevenly distributed and often controlled by different owners. The audit therefore functions like a stocktake before a shopping list: it counts what exists, tests whether residents can reach it, and then identifies where new or upgraded infrastructure is needed (Source: community-infrastructure-audit-report-2019-ms-word-version-for-a3-paper.pdf, pp.1-2; Source: community-infrastructure-planning-process-feb-2020.pdf, pp.30-32).
Background
Council adopted a Community Infrastructure Planning Policy in 2017 to define its role in planning and delivering community infrastructure (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-policy-and-principle-sept-2017.pdf, p.1). The policy describes community infrastructure as both physical facilities and services that need those facilities to operate (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-policy-and-principle-sept-2017.pdf, p.2). It also records the pressures that triggered the framework: ageing and single-purpose infrastructure, growth-related demand in parts of the Shire, long travel distances for isolated rural communities, changing needs among older residents, and the need to coordinate with non-council providers (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-policy-and-principle-sept-2017.pdf, pp.1-2).
The adopted policy gives Council three overlapping roles: owner of assets, provider or funder of services, and strategic planning authority that can seek financial or in-kind contributions where new development creates a demonstrated need for infrastructure (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-policy-and-principle-sept-2017.pdf, p.2). The 2020 Planning Process then converts that policy into four operational stages: Community Infrastructure Audit, Community Infrastructure Needs Analysis, Service-based Needs Prioritisation, and Strategic Project Prioritisation (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-process-feb-2020.pdf, p.1).
The framework is not a statutory planning control by itself. Its planning weight comes from how it feeds other decisions: business cases for the Capital Improvement Program, Moorabool 2041, service plans, planning studies, masterplans, grant applications, advocacy to external service providers, and potential Development Contributions Plan or Infrastructure Contributions Plan evidence (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-policy-and-principle-sept-2017.pdf, p.5; Source: community-infrastructure-planning-process-feb-2020.pdf, p.5).
Analysis
Framework Mechanism: From Audit to Capital Works
The framework works like a funnel. First, the audit records the existing supply of facilities and services within Moorabool and nearby external areas (Source: community-infrastructure-audit-report-2019-ms-word-version-for-a3-paper.pdf, p.1; Source: item-11.2.4-technical-report-2-community-infrastructure-audit-moorabool-facilities.pdf, p.1; Source: item-11.2.4-technical-report-3-community-infrastructure-audit-non-moorabool-facilities.pdf, p.1). Second, the needs analysis compares that supply against population, travel, suitability and utilisation standards (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-process-feb-2020.pdf, pp.30-32). Third, service managers test which gaps are genuine service needs rather than local preferences (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-process-feb-2020.pdf, p.31). Fourth, the strategic prioritisation stage favours projects that can serve multiple services across a wide area, especially multi-purpose and co-located facilities (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-process-feb-2020.pdf, p.31).
The design logic is important. Council’s policy says existing infrastructure should be optimised before new facilities are funded, and new facilities should be planned only where evidence shows a priority shortfall (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-policy-and-principle-sept-2017.pdf, p.4). This means a raw numerical shortfall is not automatically a capital project. A facility can be short on quantity but still be deferred if a nearby shared facility, altered service model, longer opening hours, or external provider can meet the need. Conversely, a place can appear numerically adequate but still need intervention if the available building is unsuitable, inaccessible, overused or not available at the times people need it (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-process-feb-2020.pdf, pp.30-31).
The technical spine is CASIMO, Council’s Community and Social Infrastructure Model. CASIMO stores audit data, provision standards, gap analysis and needs prioritisation, and it is linked to GIS so that facility gaps can be assessed spatially rather than only by municipal totals (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-process-feb-2020.pdf, p.32). This is a material governance feature because it lets Council rerun assumptions as forecasts, standards or facility data change, instead of treating the 2019 audit as a fixed endpoint (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-process-feb-2020.pdf, pp.4-5).
Existing Supply: A Network With Uneven Access and Ownership
The audit separates facilities inside Moorabool from facilities outside the Shire that may still be accessible to Moorabool residents (Source: community-infrastructure-audit-report-2019-ms-word-version-for-a3-paper.pdf, p.1). Inside Moorabool, the audit records a mix of Council, Crown, private and other ownership across community halls, education facilities, recreation reserves, libraries, early-years facilities and social support venues (Source: item-11.2.4-technical-report-2-community-infrastructure-audit-moorabool-facilities.pdf, pp.1-12). Outside Moorabool, the audit records nearby facilities in places such as Ballarat, Buninyong, Melton, Meredith, Daylesford, Creswick, Sebastopol, Wendouree and other regional settlements (Source: community-infrastructure-audit-report-2019-ms-word-version-for-a3-paper.pdf, pp.24-29; Source: item-11.2.4-technical-report-3-community-infrastructure-audit-non-moorabool-facilities.pdf, pp.1-10).
The audit’s access rules affect the numbers. Facilities classified as public are included in calculations, while limited public and private facilities are treated differently because residents cannot rely on them in the same way as open-access public assets (Source: item-11.2.4-technical-report-2-community-infrastructure-audit-moorabool-facilities.pdf, p.1; Source: item-11.2.4-technical-report-3-community-infrastructure-audit-non-moorabool-facilities.pdf, p.1). This matters for schools, churches, clubs and private providers: a building may exist in a settlement, but if access is restricted, it does not provide the same planning capacity as a public facility.
Bacchus Marsh contains several municipal or district assets, including Lerderderg Library, Bacchus Marsh Town Hall/Public Hall and the Andy Arnold Centre/Quamby Rooms (Source: item-11.2.4-technical-report-2-community-infrastructure-audit-moorabool-facilities.pdf, pp.5-6). Darley contains the Darley Civic and Community Hub, Darley Early Years Hub, Darley Neighbourhood House and several recreation assets, which gives it a different facility profile from Maddingley despite the settlements being part of the broader Bacchus Marsh urban area (Source: item-11.2.4-technical-report-2-community-infrastructure-audit-moorabool-facilities.pdf, pp.3-6). Rural areas have many local halls, recreation reserve pavilions and courts, but the framework treats travel distance, public access and fitness for purpose as separate questions from the existence of a building (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-process-feb-2020.pdf, pp.30-32).
Provision Standards: The Rulebook Behind the Gap Analysis
The 2019 Provision Standards report sets the numerical and access standards used in the needs analysis (Source: community-infrastructure-provision-standards-report-2019.pdf, p.1). Examples show how different infrastructure types are deliberately measured differently: four-year-old kindergarten uses 1 enrolment place per resident four-year-old child, competition basketball uses 1 court per 4,000 people, local community venues use 1 facility per 3,000 people, long day care uses 1 enrolment capacity place per 3 children aged 0-4, maternal and child health uses 1 full-time nurse per 500 children aged 0-6, and competition soccer uses 1 pitch per 5,000 people (Source: community-infrastructure-provision-standards-report-2019.pdf, pp.2-4).
The travel standards are settlement-sensitive. In settlements of 6,000 or more people, local playgrounds are expected within a 400 metre or 5 minute walk, local community venues within a 1.6 kilometre or 20 minute walk or 2 minute drive, kindergartens within a 10 minute drive, and libraries within a 10 minute drive (Source: community-infrastructure-provision-standards-report-2019.pdf, pp.6-8). In smaller settlements, the same facility types often use longer drive-based standards, reflecting lower density and a more dispersed rural service pattern (Source: community-infrastructure-provision-standards-report-2019.pdf, pp.6-8).
Utilisation standards stop the framework from confusing theoretical supply with usable capacity. Kindergartens, maternal and child health rooms and sports ovals are treated as effectively full at 95 percent utilisation, while community venues and multipurpose community rooms use 70 percent of maximum available hours as an optimum utilisation setting to allow changeovers, cleaning and spare availability (Source: community-infrastructure-provision-standards-report-2019.pdf, pp.9-10). Several facility types lack utilisation data, including basketball courts, netball courts, playgrounds, skate or BMX facilities, tennis courts and youth space, which limits confidence in prioritising those assets only from utilisation evidence (Source: community-infrastructure-provision-standards-report-2019.pdf, pp.9-11).
Growth-Area Pressure Points
The quantity assessment shows that the strongest growth-related pressure is not uniform across the Shire. Maddingley is the clearest early-years pressure point: it had 30 four-year-old kindergarten places against a target of 58 in 2017, with the shortfall projected to widen to 112 places by 2041 (Source: item-11.2.4-technical-report-5-results-of-quantity-assessment-version-2-arranged-by-infrastructure-type.pdf, p.35). Rural East had no recorded four-year-old kindergarten places against a target of 62 in 2017 and 117 in 2041, while Bacchus Marsh moved from surplus capacity in 2017 to a projected 27-place shortfall by 2041 (Source: item-11.2.4-technical-report-5-results-of-quantity-assessment-version-2-arranged-by-infrastructure-type.pdf, pp.34-35). Ballan and Darley retained projected surpluses to 2041 under the quantity assessment, which suggests the first response may be spatial redistribution, service access or facility sharing rather than simply adding capacity everywhere (Source: item-11.2.4-technical-report-5-results-of-quantity-assessment-version-2-arranged-by-infrastructure-type.pdf, pp.34-35).
For local community venues, Bacchus Marsh and Maddingley show structural gaps while Ballan, Darley and rural areas show better numerical supply. Bacchus Marsh had 1 local venue against a target of 2 in 2017 and a target of 3 by 2041, while Maddingley had no local community venue against a target of 1 in 2017 and 2 by 2041 (Source: item-11.2.4-technical-report-5-results-of-quantity-assessment-version-2-arranged-by-infrastructure-type.pdf, pp.22-23). Rural West showed 15 local venues against a target of 2 by 2041, and Rural East showed 6 local venues against a target of 2 by 2041, but these surpluses do not automatically mean buildings are modern, accessible or fit for all services (Source: item-11.2.4-technical-report-5-results-of-quantity-assessment-version-2-arranged-by-infrastructure-type.pdf, pp.23-24; Source: community-infrastructure-planning-process-feb-2020.pdf, pp.30-32).
Maternal and child health pressure is concentrated in Bacchus Marsh, Maddingley and Rural East. Bacchus Marsh is projected to need 2 offices by 2031 and 2041 against 1 existing office, Maddingley is projected to need 2 offices by 2031 and 2041 against none, and Rural East is projected to need 2 offices by 2041 against none (Source: item-11.2.4-technical-report-5-results-of-quantity-assessment-version-2-arranged-by-infrastructure-type.pdf, pp.40-42). These shortfalls have a different delivery mechanism from halls or sports grounds because the infrastructure need is tied to clinical room availability and staffing capacity, not just building floor area (Source: community-infrastructure-provision-standards-report-2019.pdf, pp.3,10).
Aged and disability services show a strong Darley and Maddingley gap in centre-based meals. Darley had no weekly meals recorded against a target of 45 in 2017 and 73 by 2041, while Maddingley had no weekly meals against a target of 16 in 2017 and 42 by 2041 (Source: item-11.2.4-technical-report-5-results-of-quantity-assessment-version-2-arranged-by-infrastructure-type.pdf, pp.1-2). Bacchus Marsh retained a surplus in centre-based meals to 2041, which indicates that the planning issue is likely distribution and access across the urban area rather than total municipal supply (Source: item-11.2.4-technical-report-5-results-of-quantity-assessment-version-2-arranged-by-infrastructure-type.pdf, p.1).
Sport and recreation findings are more mixed. Competition basketball shows shortfalls in Bacchus Marsh, Ballan and Darley, with Bacchus Marsh projected to need 3 courts by 2041 against 1 existing court and Darley projected to need 3 courts by 2041 against none (Source: item-11.2.4-technical-report-5-results-of-quantity-assessment-version-2-arranged-by-infrastructure-type.pdf, pp.42-43). Football ovals show projected 2041 shortfalls in Bacchus Marsh, Ballan, Maddingley and Rural East, including 3 ovals required in Bacchus Marsh against none and 3 in Rural East against none (Source: item-11.2.4-technical-report-5-results-of-quantity-assessment-version-2-arranged-by-infrastructure-type.pdf, pp.48-50). Soccer shows gaps across most areas, including 2 projected pitches in Darley, Maddingley, Rural East and Rural West by 2041 against no recorded provision in those areas (Source: item-11.2.4-technical-report-5-results-of-quantity-assessment-version-2-arranged-by-infrastructure-type.pdf, pp.61-63). Tennis is different: Maddingley and Rural West show large numerical surpluses, while Bacchus Marsh and Darley show shortfalls, which suggests the issue is geographic distribution rather than total court count (Source: item-11.2.4-technical-report-5-results-of-quantity-assessment-version-2-arranged-by-infrastructure-type.pdf, pp.70-72).
Planning Implications
The framework points toward integrated hubs rather than many single-purpose buildings. This follows directly from the policy principles requiring multi-use, flexible, adaptable, co-located and clustered facilities where appropriate (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-policy-and-principle-sept-2017.pdf, p.4). In growth areas, that means a kindergarten gap, maternal and child health room gap, local community venue gap and social support gap should be tested together before land is set aside for separate buildings (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-process-feb-2020.pdf, pp.31-32).
The framework also creates an evidence pathway for development contributions, but the supplied documents do not provide a costed DCP schedule, levy rate, land budget or project list. The policy allows Council to seek contributions where a nexus between new development and infrastructure need is demonstrated, and the planning process says the framework can provide evidence for Infrastructure Contributions Plans or Development Contributions Plans (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-policy-and-principle-sept-2017.pdf, pp.2,4-5; Source: community-infrastructure-planning-process-feb-2020.pdf, p.5). The missing step is translation from need to funded project: the available documents identify shortfalls and standards, but they do not state which projects are adopted, how much they cost, which land parcels they affect, or which contribution mechanism applies.
Current Status
The policy base was adopted in September 2017, the provision standards and audit outputs are dated April 2019, and the Planning Process was adopted in February 2020 (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-policy-and-principle-sept-2017.pdf, p.1; Source: community-infrastructure-provision-standards-report-2019.pdf, p.1; Source: community-infrastructure-planning-process-feb-2020.pdf, p.1). The available source set demonstrates an adopted framework and technical evidence base, but it does not include the Needs Analysis Key Findings and Recommendations report or the Strategic Community Infrastructure Priorities report that the process identifies as core outputs (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-process-feb-2020.pdf, pp.1,31-32).
Dependencies
- Blocks: The framework does not appear to legally block permits by itself, but it can block or delay unfunded community infrastructure projects from entering the Capital Improvement Program if they do not satisfy evidence, priority and multi-use tests (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-policy-and-principle-sept-2017.pdf, pp.3-5).
- Blocked by: Project delivery is blocked by missing project prioritisation, capital funding, land availability, service-provider participation, grant funding and any future contribution-plan mechanism needed to fund growth-related items (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-process-feb-2020.pdf, pp.5,31-32).
- Informed by: The framework is informed by the Community Infrastructure Audit, Provision Standards, population forecasts, GIS travel analysis, suitability assessments and utilisation audits where data exists (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-process-feb-2020.pdf, pp.1,30-32).
- Implements: The framework implements Council’s 2017 Community Infrastructure Planning Policy and is intended to inform Moorabool 2041, service plans, planning studies, masterplans, capital works, grants and infrastructure contribution evidence (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-policy-and-principle-sept-2017.pdf, p.5; Source: community-infrastructure-planning-process-feb-2020.pdf, p.5).
- Conflicts with: The documents reveal a tension between local settlement expectations and a network-based model that prioritises evidence, utilisation, co-location and multi-settlement benefit over duplicating facilities in every place (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-policy-and-principle-sept-2017.pdf, pp.3-4; Source: community-infrastructure-planning-process-feb-2020.pdf, p.31).
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
The audit explicitly includes external facilities because Moorabool residents may use community infrastructure outside the Shire boundary (Source: community-infrastructure-audit-report-2019-ms-word-version-for-a3-paper.pdf, p.1). Recorded external facilities include Ballarat social support venues, skate and BMX facilities, community venues, libraries, sports facilities and early-years services; this makes Ballarat, Melton, Golden Plains, Hepburn and other nearby municipalities relevant to service access analysis even though Council does not control their assets (Source: item-11.2.4-technical-report-3-community-infrastructure-audit-non-moorabool-facilities.pdf, pp.1-10; Source: community-infrastructure-audit-report-2019-ms-word-version-for-a3-paper.pdf, pp.24-29).
This cross-boundary approach is strongest for rural and edge settlements, where a facility outside Moorabool may be closer than one inside the Shire. However, external facilities are not equivalent to Council-owned capacity because access, programming, pricing, renewal priorities and service levels are controlled by other organisations (Source: item-11.2.4-technical-report-3-community-infrastructure-audit-non-moorabool-facilities.pdf, p.1; Source: community-infrastructure-planning-policy-and-principle-sept-2017.pdf, p.2).
Gaps in This Analysis
The main analytical gap is that the source set contains the audit, standards and quantity assessment but not the core prioritisation reports that would convert measured gaps into adopted projects. The missing reports are the Needs Analysis Key Findings and Recommendations report, the Strategic Community Infrastructure Priorities report, any current CASIMO update after 2020, and any costed capital works or contributions plan schedule tied to specific community infrastructure projects (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-process-feb-2020.pdf, pp.1,31-32).
The second gap is that several utilisation assessments were not conducted because data was unavailable for facilities such as basketball courts, netball courts, playgrounds, skate or BMX facilities, tennis courts and youth space (Source: community-infrastructure-provision-standards-report-2019.pdf, pp.9-11). This limits confidence in distinguishing between a genuine supply shortage and a management, access or programming problem.
The third gap is currency. The technical evidence uses projections to 2041, but the supplied documents do not show whether assumptions were updated after the February 2020 process adoption or how post-2020 growth, service reforms, capital works and asset renewals have changed the gap analysis (Source: community-infrastructure-planning-process-feb-2020.pdf, pp.4-5).