Armstrong Creek Town Centre DCP

Transcription

1 Armstrong Creek Town Centre DCP Expert Evidence Statement Matt Ainsaar, Managing Director, Urban Enterprise Pty Ltd CITY OF GREATER GEELONG AMENDMENT C267 OCTOBER 2013 U R B AN EN T ER PR I S E 3 89 ST G E O RG E S RD N OR TH FIT Z R OY VI C P H (03 ) F A X (03 ) w w w. u rbanent e rp r i s e.c om.a u

2

3 CONTENTS 1. QUALIFICATIONS 1 2. ENGAGEMENT 2 3. THE DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN 3 4. ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS CONCLUSION 14 U R B A N E N T E R P R I S E P T Y L T D O C T O B ER 2013

4

5 1. QUALIFICATIONS 1. My name is Matt Ainsaar and I am the Managing Director and founder of Urban Enterprise Pty Ltd. 2. Urban Enterprise is a firm of urban planners, land economists and tourism planners based in Melbourne. The firm has almost 25 years experience providing consultancy services to all levels of Government and a wide range of private sector organisations in Victoria and in other States of Australia. 3. I am a qualified planner and land economist with 35 years experience. 4. I and Urban Enterprise have expertise in the preparation of Development Contributions Plans for Councils as well as negotiating development contributions arrangements with Councils on behalf of developers. We have also had experience in negotiating appropriate open space contributions for a range of development situations. I have appeared as an expert witness at Planning Panel hearings in respect of development contributions, for both developers and Councils. 5. My educational qualifications and memberships of professional associations include: Bachelor of Town and Regional Planning, University of Melbourne Graduate Diploma of Property, RMIT University Member, Planning Institute of Australia Member, Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association Associate, Australian Property Institute (Certified Practising Professional). 1 A R M S T R O N G CREEK TO W N C E N TR E D CP E X P E R T E VI D E N C E ST AT E M E NT

6 2. ENGAGEMENT 6. I was instructed by the City of Greater Geelong (Council) to prepare an expert evidence statement to present at the Planning Panel hearing in relation to this matter. 7. My instructions were to outline the method used in preparing the Armstrong Creek Town Centre Development Contributions Plan (DCP), to review and comment on the submissions made to Amendment C267 in respect of the DCP, and to provide a comparison of the proposed levy amounts with those included in recently approved DCPs. 8. I have reviewed the amendment documentation and other relevant documents and policies. Documentation reviewed includes: Planning Scheme Amendment documentation; Armstrong Creek Town Centre Development Contributions Plan, Draft Version 4.1 (exhibition version), Urban Enterprise (May 2013); Armstrong Creek Town Centre Precinct Structure Plan Development Contributions Plan Costings, Prowse Quantity Surveyors (21 May 2013); Armstrong Creek Town Centre DCP Valuations, Westlink Consulting (May 2013); Armstrong Creek Town Centre Precinct Structure Plan (exhibition version), Tract Consultants and City of Greater Geelong (March 2013); and Armstrong Creek West Precinct DCP, Urban Enterprise (February 2013). 9. I am familiar with the site and the surrounding area. 10. A copy of the relevant information that is required to accord with the Planning Panels Victoria Expert Evidence is attached at Appendix A to this report. CITY OF GREATER G E E L O N G A M E N D M E N T C267 O CTOBER

7 3. THE DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN INTRODUCTION 11. Urban Enterprise was engaged by the City of Greater Geelong to prepare a DCP for the Armstrong Creek Town Centre Precinct (ACTC ACTC). Our role was to compile information provided to us by Council, including items of infrastructure required to support the development, the standard of provision relating to that infrastructure, estimated costs of the infrastructure items and information regarding likely development yields. 12. The background technical information to support the DCP was commissioned and co-ordinated by Council officers. BACKGROUND 13. Amendment C267 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme proposes to facilitate the use and development of the ACTC through the application of a range of schedules and Incorporated Documents. 14. The ACTC Precinct is one of 7 precincts within the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area (ACUGA ACUGA), south of Geelong. The ACTC Precinct is centrally located within the ACUGA, bounded by the Surf Coast Highway to the west, Boundary Road to the north, Burvilles Road to the south and the Armstrong Creek Horseshoe Bend Precinct (Old Barrwarre Road) to the east. 15. Schedule 5 to the Urban Growth Zone (UGZ UGZ) proposes to support commercial, civic, residential and recreation use and development of the land. 16. The Amendment proposes to apply Schedule 6 of the Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO DCPO) to the ACTC Precinct, supported by the Armstrong Creek Town Centre Development Contributions Plan (DCP DCP). 17. The DCPO applies to the entire ACTC Precinct as shown in Figure 1. This area is known as the Main Catchment Area (MCA MCA) for the DCP. 3 A R M S T R O N G CREEK TO W N C E N TR E D CP E X P E R T E VI D E N C E ST AT E M E NT

8 Figure 1 ACTC DCPO / MCA Source: Urban Enterprise METHODOLOGY 18. The methodology used to prepare the DCP is broadly consistent with the preparation of the Armstrong Creek East Precinct and Armstrong Creek West Precinct DCPs, both of which have been approved and are incorporated into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. 19. In the ACUGA, infrastructure items were identified to support the entire growth area. Although the catchment areas for individual infrastructure items may overlap or cross Precinct boundaries, the overall infrastructure provision for the ACUGA is appropriate for the total projected development, population and employment levels. Therefore, each Precinct is required to contribute via development contributions towards local infrastructure items located within the Precinct. 20. Infrastructure items required to support the development of the ACTC were identified based on the Armstrong Creek Integrated Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IIDP) and refined by Council officers in conjunction with landowners. 21. In DCPs, the level of demand that a particular land parcel will generate for each infrastructure item is expressed in terms of demand units. The demand unit used for this DCP is net developable hectares of land. That is, one net developable hectare of land is equal to one demand unit. CITY OF GREATER G E E L O N G A M E N D M E N T C267 O CTOBER

9 22. The DCP was prepared to identify the infrastructure required to service the development of the entire precinct, and to fairly apportion the costs of this infrastructure across all land owners within the precinct. 23. This DCP is not the sole source of funding for infrastructure items in the ACTC. I am instructed that Council will provide funding for a range of infrastructure items within the precinct, including: Contribution towards the construction of the Regional Library ($10m); Construction of an Aquatic facility ($25.3m); Contribution towards the construction of a multi-purpose stadium ($12.5m); Construction of an integrated civic and cultural centre ($15m); Construction of a community complex ($8m including land); and Land acquisition for the civic precinct ($2m). Council s contribution as outlined above equates to a funding contribution of $72.8m. 24. The DCP has a life of 20 years, beginning from the date it is incorporated into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. DCP INFORMATION 25. The ACTC precinct has a total area of hectares. Of this, a total of hectares is defined as Net Developable Area (NDA), which is the total area excluding existing and future arterial road and transit reservations, easements, drainage reserves, unencumbered open space and land designated for community facilities and emergency services. 26. A summary of the land budget is shown in Table 1 below. TABLE 1 LAND BUDGET DESCRIPTION HECTARES Total Precinct Area Transport 7.59 Proposed Community Facilities 3.44 Proposed Emergency Services Facility 1.5 Land Required For Stormwater Management 3.79 Land Required For Open Space 6.63 NET DEVELOPABLE AREA Source: ACTC DCP, Urban Enterprise, development infrastructure items were identified to support the development of the precinct, in addition to works that are typically provided by developers. These items are classified as land, roads, intersections, trails, drainage and planning. 28. One community infrastructure item was identified to support the development, being a contribution towards the construction of a library within the Precinct (CI_CF_1). 5 A R M S T R O N G CREEK TO W N C E N TR E D CP E X P E R T E VI D E N C E ST AT E M E NT

10 29. Land for passive and active open space in the Precinct is to be provided by the land owner under clause of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, which stipulates that 10% of net developable area is to be vested in Council for open space. CALCULATION OF LEVIES 30. Cost estimates for each infrastructure item were provided by engineering consultants and verified by Council officers and relevant agencies. Cost estimating sources include: Armstrong Creek Town Centre Precinct Structure Plan Development Contributions Plan Costings, Prowse Quantity Surveyors (21 May 2013); Armstrong Creek Town Centre DCP Valuations, Westlink Consulting (May 2013); and Armstrong Creek West Precinct DCP, Urban Enterprise (February 2013). 31. All costs are in July 2012 dollars. 32. The DCP includes five (5) intersections which are apportioned to both the ACTC and other precincts in the ACUGA. The cost and apportionment of those items specified in the approved Armstrong Creek West Precinct DCP were used in this DCP to ensure consistency, allowing for indexation. Table 2 shows the infrastructure items in question and the apportionment of costs. TABLE 2 ROAD ITEMS APPORTIONED TO MULTIPLE PRECINCTS DCP Item Code Item Summary Cost Apportionment ACTC Horseshoe Bend West Precinct External (CoGG) DI_RO_1 Intersection Surf Coast Hwy and Boundary Rd 30% 30% 40% - DI_RO_2 Intersection Surf Coast Hwy and Connector Rd B 65% - 35% - DI_RO_3 Intersection Surf Coast Hwy and ACTC Main St 60% - 40% - DI_RO_4 Intersection Surf Coast Hwy and new Burvilles Rd 35% - 30% 35% DI_RO_5 Intersection Boundary Rd and Connector A 50% 50% - - Source: Urban Enterprise, The total cost of each infrastructure item was apportioned to the ACTC Precinct, other precincts within the ACUGA and Council based on the projected share of usage for that item. 34. To reflect the two main land use types in the ACTC, two charge areas were established. Mixed Use Commercial and Residential. This charge area includes land within Precincts 1 4 inclusive, and is expected to be developed primarily for commercial uses, with some residential development in a mixed use environment; and Mixed Use Residential. This charge area includes land in Precinct 5, which is expected to be developed primarily for residential purposes at the periphery of the commercial core, with some commercial uses in a mixed use environment. 35. The cost of each development infrastructure item apportioned to the ACTC was converted into a Development Infrastructure Levy (DIL DIL) per demand unit (net developable hectare). 36. The ACTC component of the cost of constructing intersection of Surf Coast Hwy and Main Street (DI_RO_3) was apportioned to Precincts 1-4 (Mixed Use Commercial and Residential Charge Area) only. This is the only item that is not apportioned across all development within the ACTC. CITY OF GREATER G E E L O N G A M E N D M E N T C267 O CTOBER

11 37. Table 3 shows the calculations undertaken to arrive at a DIL. TABLE 3 DEVELOPMENT INFRASTRUCTURE ITEMS, COSTS AND LEVY CALCULATION Cost to MCA ($) Precincts Mixed Use Commercial/Residential levy ($/ha) Precinct 5 - Mixed Use Residential levy ($/ha) Land $5,574,004 $79,900 $79,900 Roads $8,539,386 $148,765 $95,690 Drainage $4,074,054 $58,399 $58,399 Planning $600,000 $8,601 $8,601 Total $18,787,443 $295,665 $242,589 Source: Urban Enterprise The Development Infrastructure Levies for this DCP are: $295,665 per net developable hectare for Precincts 1-4; and $242,589 per net developable hectare for Precinct I note that Table 10 of the exhibited DCP shows levies for the two charge areas that were transposed in error. The correct levies are shown in Table 5 of the exhibited DCP, Clause 4.0 of the exhibited Schedule to the DCPO and Table 3 of this statement. 40. The cost of the Community Infrastructure item is then converted into a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL CIL) per dwelling. Table 4 shows the calculations undertaken to arrive at a CIL. 41. The CIL is currently capped at $900 per dwelling under the Planning and Environment Act The cap will come into effect at such time that the indexed CIL is greater than $900 per dwelling. TABLE 4 COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE COST AND LEVY CALCULATION Cost to MCA Dwellings Levy per dwelling Community Infrastructure $1,250, $ Source: Urban Enterprise LEVY COMPARISON 42. In order to understand whether the amount of the DIL under the DCP is in line with other comparable DCPs, I have prepared three tables which compare the overall levies with approved and exhibited DCPs and voluntary agreements with similar characteristics. The comparisons include: Other residential and commercial levies in the ACUGA per hectare (Table 5); Other residential levies in the ACUGA per dwelling (Table 6); Other commercial levies across Victoria per m 2 of floorspace (Table 7). 43. For the purpose of these comparisons, I have used the levy for Precincts 1 4 as the commercial levy, and the levy for Precinct 5 as the residential levy. Although each precinct is planned to contain a mix of land uses, these classifications reflect the expected predominant land use for the purposes of comparison. 7 A R M S T R O N G CREEK TO W N C E N TR E D CP E X P E R T E VI D E N C E ST AT E M E NT

12 44. Table 5 shows that the residential DIL (Precinct 5) in the ACTC DCP of $242,589 per hectare fits within the range of recently approved DCPs in Armstrong Creek (July 2012 dollars). 45. Table 5 also shows that the commercial DIL ($295,665 per ha) is relatively high compared with the approved Armstrong Creek West and East DCPs. However, I note that the ACTC is designated as a Major Activity Centre, which is likely to contain higher value and higher density commercial developments than the East and West Precincts which include Local and Neighbourhood Activity Centres. TABLE 5 LEVY COMPARISON ARMSTRONG CREEK (PER HECTARE) ACTC Armstrong Creek East Armstrong Creek West Status Exhibited Approved Approved NDA Development Infrastructure cost apportioned to MCA Residential Development Infrastructure Levy (July 2012) $18.8m $97.8m $86.3m $242,589 per ha $228,810 per ha $246,225 per ha Commercial Development Infrastructure Levy (July 2012) $295,665 per ha $116,907 per ha $126,238 per ha Source: Compiled by Urban Enterprise. 46. In order to compare the residential levies in Armstrong Creek, it is necessary to derive a per dwelling levy to reflect the higher residential densities likely in the ACTC. 47. I have converted the per hectare residential levies from Table 5 into per dwelling levies, assuming a density of 25 dwellings per hectare in the ACTC, and 15 dwellings per hectare in the East and West Precincts. Table 6 shows that on a per dwelling basis, the proposed residential DIL for ACTC is significantly lower than the approved Armstrong Creek East and West Precincts. TABLE 6 LEVY COMPARISON ARMSTRONG CREEK (PER DWELLING) ACTC (Precinct 5) Armstrong Creek East Armstrong Creek West Residential DIL per ha $242,589 $228,810 $246,225 Average Residential Density (dwellings per ha) Indicative Residential DIL per dwelling $9,704 $15,254 $16,415 Source: Compiled by Urban Enterprise. Average densities are based on the respective Precinct Structure Plans. 48. In order to compare the commercial DIL in ACTC with other levies, I have compiled development contributions which have been levied (or are proposed to be levied) from shopping centre and activity centre development. These are summarised in Table I note that it is inherently difficult to compare development contributions for non-residential development, due to the following factors: Equivalence ratios are used in some but not all DCPs. Where equivalence ratios have been used, the magnitude of levy payments by non-residential development for items such as roads are likely to be much higher since the ratio accounts for extra usage of roads by commercial development compared with residential development; CITY OF GREATER G E E L O N G A M E N D M E N T C267 O CTOBER

13 Non-residential development contributions are typically levied using two types of demand units: an area based demand unit (typically Net Developable Area) and a floorspace demand unit (such as per 100m 2 of gross floorspace); and A variety of infrastructure categories are apportioned to non-residential development. For example, some DCPs apportion the cost of all infrastructure categories to non-residential development, whilst others do not collect contributions from non-residential development for categories such as open space and community facilities. 50. Table 7 shows that past contributions levied in relation to shopping centre expansions and activity centres have varied greatly. Some of these contributions have been levied via a Section 173 Agreement and others via a DCP. 51. The recently exhibited Epping Central DCP (City of Whittlesea, 2013) includes a Development Infrastructure Levy which equates to $93 per m 2 (March 2013 dollars) of commercial floorspace in Charge Area 7, the retail core of the activity centre. 52. Not included in Table 7 is the Chirnside Park Major Activity Centre DCP (Shire of Yarra Ranges, 2012). This DCP was approved in 2013, and included a Development Infrastructure Levy of $150,414 per hectare (plus an additional contribution depending on Maroondah Highway frontage) within Charge Area A2, the retail core. 53. In order to express the ACTC commercial DIL ($295,665 per ha) in terms of square metres of commercial floorspace, I have reviewed the expected retail floorspace as a percentage of Net Developable Area in Precinct 1 as shown in the ACTC Precinct Structure Plan (PSP). 54. It is my understanding that Council has sought to reduce the exhibited shop (retail) floorspace cap of 40,000m 2 to 35,000m 2. This would then align the centre more appropriately with Council s retail strategy for sub-regional centres. For analysis purposes, the revised floorspace amount (35,000m 2 ) has been used to derive comparative development contributions rates per square metre of floorspace as shown in Table The PSP indicates that Precinct 1 has a NDA of 11.85ha and an expected retail floorspace of 35,000m 2. This indicates that approximately 30% of developable area is expected to be converted into retail floorspace in the retail core. That is, for every hectare of NDA, an average of 3,000m 2 of retail floorspace could be expected to be developed. 56. Using this floorspace ratio of 30%, the commercial DIL equates to a contribution of $99 per m 2. I expect that in reality, other uses are likely to be developed within the ACTC in addition to retail floorspace, including dwellings and other commercial floorspace, including at upper levels. As such, I consider a contribution rate of $99 per m 2 to be the maximum commercial contributions likely to be paid in the ACTC. 57. As shown in Table 7, the maximum likely contribution of $99 per m 2 for commercial development is comparable to the recently exhibited Epping Central DCP, and fits within the range of shopping centre and activity centre contributions in recent years. I also point out that the other shopping centres/activity centres listed in Table 7 are in established urban areas with existing infrastructure in place. The ACTC is in a greenfields area with limited existing infrastructure in place. 9 A R M S T R O N G CREEK TO W N C E N TR E D CP E X P E R T E VI D E N C E ST AT E M E NT

14 TABLE 7 LEVY COMPARISON ACTIVITY CENTRE (PER M2 FLOORSPACE) Location Year Contribution per m 2 (indexed to 2012) Westfield Doncaster 1995 $120 Ringwood District Centre 1997 $115 ACTC (Precinct 1-4) 2013 $99 Epping Central (Charge Area 7) Exhibited 2013 $93* Fountain Gate/Narre Warren 1997 $55 Doncaster Hill 2006 $52 Fountain Gate/Narre Warren 2006 $44 Waurn Ponds 2009 $39 Westfield Southland 1995 $22 Source: Compiled by Urban Enterprise based on the various approved, exhibited DCP documents and agreements with various Councils. * All costs shown indexed to July 2012 dollars except Epping Central (March 2013). CITY OF GREATER G E E L O N G A M E N D M E N T C267 O CTOBER

15 4. ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS 58. A total of 24 submissions were made to Amendment 267. Eight (8) submissions raised issues in respect of the DCP. 59. Submissions relating to the DCP generally propose the removal of certain infrastructure items from the DCP, or argue that certain additional items, or parts thereof, should also be funded by the DCP. 60. I will now provide my view in respect of the substance of those issues. 61. I note that no submission challenges the quantum of the exhibited levies. TRANSIT CORRIDOR 62. Two submissions relate to the inclusion of land for public transport in the DCP (DI_LA_4). One submission argues that the item should be deleted from the DCP on the basis that the item will serve a wide catchment beyond the ACUGA and should be funded by external sources. Another submission argues that it is inequitable for the ACTC to absorb the full cost of land acquisition as the item will benefit the broader Armstrong Creek area. 63. The exhibited DCP proposes to collect $2,102,650 to fund acquisition of 3.82ha of land for a future transit corridor. 64. The approved Armstrong Creek East Precinct DCP includes acquisition of the southern section of the transit corridor reservation (5ha). The acquisition of land within the ACTC allows for the continuation of this reservation. 65. The acquisition of land for public transport corridors is specifically included in the Ministerial Direction on Development Contributions Plan (2003) as an item which may be funded from a development infrastructure levy. 66. The approved Officer DCP and Cardinia Road DCP (both in Cardinia Shire) each include the purchase of land for rail-based public transport. Land is to be acquired to facilitate the future grade separation of rail and Brunt Road (Officer) and the development of a railway station (Cardinia Road). 67. I consider that it is appropriate for the DCP for collect contributions towards this item in line with the Ministerial Direction on Development Contributions. The item is also consistent with land items included in other approved DCPs, including Armstrong Creek East Precinct, Officer and Cardinia Road. 68. I also consider that it is appropriate for the cost of this item to be fully apportioned to the ACTC Precinct to align with the approach approved in the Armstrong Creek East Precinct DCP, and to reflect the significant additional benefits that will be derived by land owners in the ACTC at the time that future public transport facilities are constructed, over and above any secondary benefits to precincts not adjacent to the corridor. CONNECTOR ROADS 69. One submission argues that connector roads should be included in the DCP due to fragmented land ownership in the ACTC. A second submission argues that Main Street should be included in the DCP due to its role in servicing the entire precinct. 70. DCPs do not typically include collector roads on the basis that these provide direct access to properties and can be delivered by the relevant land owner as local subdivision works. 1 1 A R M S T R O N G CREEK TO W N C E N TR E D CP E X P E R T E VI D E N C E ST AT E M E NT

16 71. I note that the approved DCPs for the Armstrong Creek East Precinct and West Precinct do not include connector roads. 72. Land within the ACTC is comprised of 8 properties, five of which exceed 14ha in area. The average property size is 11.5ha. In my opinion, this constitutes a consolidated land ownership pattern which will appropriately facilitate co-ordinated delivery of infrastructure within the precinct. 73. As such, I consider that the land ownership pattern within the ACTC will not unreasonably constrain the timely delivery of connector roads, and that it is appropriate for these roads, including Main Street, to be delivered as part of typical subdivision works as per the approved Armstrong Creek DCPs. LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION 74. One submission contends that the property subject to land acquisition to facilitate the construction of a library (DI_LA_ 1) should be exempt from contributions to the construction of that library to compensate for the loss of developable area due to the acquisition. 75. I note that construction of the library is to be funded under the CIL, which is payable at the Building Permit stage relating to the construction of each dwelling, as opposed to the DIL, which is payable by developers prior to Statement of Compliance can be issued for each subdivision. 76. As noted in the relevant submission, all land subject to acquisition under the DCP will be acquired at market value to ensure that the affected owner is appropriately compensated. It is not common practice and nor would I consider it appropriate - for land owners to be further compensated in any way. BUS INTERCHANGE 77. One submission requests that costs associated with the bus interchange within the precinct should be included in the DCP, on the basis that all development in the precinct will benefit from the item. 78. I consider that the bus interchange will provide direct benefit to the land on which it is to be situated, and should be provided as part of subdivision works by the relevant owner. I consider that the benefit that is likely to be derived by the relevant property will be significantly greater than any secondary benefits derived by other properties in the precinct. 79. On this basis, I do not consider that this item meets the requirements for inclusion in the DCP. TOWN CENTRE SQUARE 80. One submission contends that the Town Centre Square land and works should be included as a DCP item, on the basis that benefit will be derived by the entire precinct. 81. I understand that the reason for not including the town square in the Armstrong Creek Town Centre DCP is the land has been allocated as part of the 10% open space contribution and has a direct link with the major retail developers in Precinct 1. Council believes it would be inappropriate to spread these costs across the entire Precinct or even Precincts 1, 2, 3 and 4. Council also believes that this facility would be better delivered as part of an integrated Main Street and High Street development which is the responsibility of the major retail developers. 82. Further, I understand that Council is unsure regarding the exact specification for the town square and what facilities or site-based requirements would be required within it. This allows greater detail to be determined during the development process and negotiations between both major retail developers regarding the overall design features and materials of Main Street, High Street and the town square. 83. I consider that it would be inappropriate to go to this level of detail at this early stage of the Precinct s development. CITY OF GREATER G E E L O N G A M E N D M E N T C267 O CTOBER

17 CONSISTENCY WITH APPROVED DCPS 84. One submission contends that land for greenway widening and intersection flaring should be excluded from the DCP to ensure consistency with the Armstrong Creek West Precinct DCP. 85. The DCP includes land acquisition for Burvilles Road (DI_LA_2) and Boundary Road (DI_LA_3) alongside the existing road reserves. This is consistent with the approach used in the approved Armstrong Creek East Precinct DCP, which collects contributions towards the acquisition of the new Burvilles Road reservation. This reservation is to be completed by the acquisition of land under the ACTC DCP. 86. The funding of new road reserves outside of greenways is consistent across all ACUGA precincts including the East Precinct, ACTC and Horseshoe Bend Precinct (draft). In relation to the West Precinct, I understand that it was Council's vision for Boundary Road to be a greenway for its entire length, however discussions with the major developer in that Precinct resulted in a different approach to green way development in that Precinct. In addition, the West Precinct s other greenway (Airport Road) did not accompany a significant north-south road connection, and as such new local roads are be developed either side of that greenway as part of normal subdivision development. INTERSECTION WORKS ADDED 87. One submission made specific reference to the scope of works included in the DCP for the construction of the intersection of Boundary Road and Connector Road A (DI_RO_5). 88. The scope of this item to be funded by the DCP includes signalisation only no pavement or other works are included. The submitter argues that the absence of intersection works (in addition to signalisation) is inequitable and may detract from development viability and traffic movement in the vicinity. 89. During preparation of the DCP, Urban Enterprise was instructed to revise the scope of works to include signalisation only. 90. This was based on Council's requirement for the DCP to align with their adopted position relating to 4 signalised intersections within the Town Centre, these being the four signalised intersections along the length of collector road A at the intersections of Boundary Road Connect B Main Street and Burvilles Road. This position is consistent across the ACUGA and other growth areas across the municipality. 91. I note that Council s position is that developers are responsible for the funding of collector roads as part of subdivision development and as such intersections of two collector roads should only include the signalisation improvements and not pavements works. This approach is consistent in the Jetty Road Growth Area, the Lara West DCP, and the ACUGA. For intersections with arterial roads, the full cost of these works are included in the DCP due to the significant scope required when delivering projects on VicRoads arterial roads. This includes pavement design requirements, bus facilities, slip lanes and traffic island works. 1 3 A R M S T R O N G CREEK TO W N C E N TR E D CP E X P E R T E VI D E N C E ST AT E M E NT

18 5. CONCLUSION 92. The ACTC DCP was compiled by Urban Enterprise based on information provided by Council and included in technical reports to support the development of the ACUGA and ACTC. 93. The DCP was prepared in accordance with the current Victorian Development Contributions Framework, having regard to the Development Contributions Guidelines and Ministerial Directions as relevant. 94. The residential DIL (Precinct 5) of $242,589 per ha fits within the range of recently approved, DCPs in Armstrong Creek. On a per dwelling basis, this levy is significantly lower than the approved Armstrong Creek East and West Precincts. 95. The DIL for commercial development (Precincts 1-4) of $295,665 per hectare is relatively high compared with the approved Armstrong Creek DCPs, however the levy fits within the range of shopping centre and activity centre contributions in Victoria over the past 15 years on a like-for-like (per m 2 ) basis. 96. I consider the infrastructure to be provided to support development, the apportionment of costs and the resultant levies to be appropriate. DECLARATION I have made all the enquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and that no matters of significance that I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel. Matt J Ainsaar Managing Director, Urban Enterprise Pty Ltd BTRP, Grad Dip Prop, MAPI, AAPI, CDP CITY OF GREATER G E E L O N G A M E N D M E N T C267 O CTOBER

19 APPENDIX A REQUIREMENTS OF PLANNING PANELS VICTORIA EXPERT EVIDENCE N A M E : Matt Jacques Ainsaar, Managing Director, Urban Enterprise A D D R E S S : 389 St Georges Road, North Fitzroy, Vic 3068 Q U A LI FI CATI O N S : Bachelor of Town and Regional Planning, University of Melbourne Graduate Diploma of Property, RMIT University Professional Affiliations: Member, Planning Institute of Australia Member, Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association Associate, Australian Property Institute E XPERI E N CE I have over 30 years experience as a planner and land economist and have extensive expertise in the Development Contributions area. Urban Enterprise has a track record of successfully preparing Development Contributions Plans for Councils as well as negotiating development contribution arrangements with Councils on behalf of developers. I am currently advising developers and Councils in respect of development contributions matters including Stockland, Urban Land Developments, Cardinia Shire, the City of Casey and the City of Greater Geelong. I have appeared as an expert witness in most of the recent growth area panel hearings in respect of development contributions. A R E A S OF EXPERTI S E Areas of expertise include strategic urban planning, Development Contributions planning, land economics, property and tourism planning. E XPERTI S E TO P R E P A R E THIS REPORT My experience in urban planning, land economics and property over the past 30 years provided the tools to develop a specialisation in development contributions. I have undertaken numerous Development Contributions Plans and have given advice to public and private sectors in regards to development contributions. I have appeared as an expert witness in most of the recent growth area panel hearings in respect of development contributions. I am therefore qualified to prepare this report and expert witness statement. I NS T R U CTI O N S My instructions were to outline the method used in preparing the Armstrong Creek Town Centre Development Contributions Plan (DCP), to review and comment on the submissions made to Amendment C267 in respect of the DCP, and to provide a comparison of the proposed levy amounts with those included in recently approved DCPs. 1 5 A R M S T R O N G CREEK TO W N C E N TR E D CP E X P E R T E VI D E N C E ST AT E M E NT

20 F A CTS, MATTERS A N D A S S UMPTIONS RELI E D UPON: I have relied on the following for my assessment: Planning Scheme Amendment documentation; Armstrong Creek Town Centre Development Contributions Plan, Draft Version 4.1 (exhibition version), Urban Enterprise (May 2013); Armstrong Creek Town Centre Precinct Structure Plan Development Contributions Plan Costings, Prowse Quantity Surveyors (21 May 2013); Armstrong Creek Town Centre DCP Valuations, Westlink Consulting (May 2013); Armstrong Creek Town Centre Precinct Structure Plan (exhibition version), Tract Consultants and City of Greater Geelong (March 2013); Armstrong Creek West Precinct DCP, Urban Enterprise (February 2013); My familiarity with the site and the surrounding area; and Relevant experience. D O C U M E N T S TAKEN INTO ACCO U N T : See above. IDENTITY OF PERSONS UNDERTAKING THE W O R K : Matt J Ainsaar, assisted by Paul Shipp, Associate. S UM M A R Y OF OPI NI O N S : Refer to Section 5: Conclusions. CITY OF GREATER G E E L O N G A M E N D M E N T C267 O CTOBER