0110382 Where and How Should We Grow? / Short and Long Term Impacts of Settlement Patterns FINAL REPORT PROJECT BRIEF Rationale Based on the findings of the study and the research gaps identified, this section provides a project brief for further study. The project clearly highlighted a lack of data collection on upfront and ongoing costs faced by councils, which hampered the ability of the project to make meaningful, quantitative conclusions on the cost of different settlement patterns. The use of settlement patterns also complicated the collection of data and information. A localised study including a few rural councils could be undertaken which looks at the upfront and ongoing cost of infrastructure and service provision on a hierarchical basis. Councils which would stand to gain immediate benefit from the study could be selected, for example, councils considering substantial rezoning of a rural location. These councils would gain understanding in the tradeoffs between facilitating development in: Infill, contiguous fringe and non-contiguous fringe locales; and Regional centre, town, village or hamlet locals. These definitions vary from the settlement patterns defined in this report. However, council infrastructure/ service expectations vary between rural towns depending on their place within the settlement hierarchy (e.g. a town, village, hamlet). Also, different items of council infrastructure and service serve differing geographic catchments meaning that their physical location might be dispersed (e.g. maternal health and child care centres) or centralised (e.g. libraries). Both of these considerations are likely to affect the per dwelling delivery costs of council infrastructure and services. Finally, the existing location of more ‘centralised’ infrastructure may or may not have some ‘excess’ servicing capacity or may be able to be augmented more efficiently than building an additional facility elsewhere. Overall Approach Councils could be selected via an expression of interest process, with an emphasis on councils anticipated to experience residential growth. Funding would need to be provided to these councils to allow sufficient resourcing over a 12 month period. The study would focus on a comparison of settlement in different locations in the municipality, with a emphasis on: The different infrastructure and service requirements in these locations The potential cost of providing infrastructure and service requirements in line with anticipated housing growth Rolling this study out over several councils will enable a detailed data source to emerge. 20110382
Where and How Should We Grow? / Short and Long Term Impacts of Settlement Patterns FINAL REPORT 2.2.2 Ongoing Maintenance and Operation State policy highlights the need to reduce capital outlays through settlement planning. However, there is less emphasis on the maintenance and operational costs local government face in the medium and longer term as a result of residential development. In their report National Financial Sustainability Study of Local Government, PWC (2006) identified that councils may give priority to investment in new infrastructure without considering the level of funding required to sufficiently renew infrastructure as it ages. The Local Government National Report 2007-8, produced by the Productivity Commission, highlighted that the initial construction cost of infrastructure accounts for approximately 20% of an asset’s lifetime costs, with operating and renewal expenses comprising the bulk. PWC (2006) also identified that 87% of rural councils rely on some level of grants to meet current expenditure levels. 2.3 Settlement Patterns As identified in the project brief, settlement patterns can typically take one of four forms: 1. Consolidated - where infill opportunities are recognised and maximised; 2. Dispersed – where development is vaguely centralised, but significant development in non- serviced areas exists; 3. Ribbon development - where development extends along coastal frontages or transport links; 4. Greenfield – new development in areas with little existing infrastructure. Development tends to be predominantly suburban and reliant on existing town centres and/or activity centres for jobs and services Source: Project Brief, p.2 The research attempts to tie the findings to the settlement patterns, and also examine whether ‘market-led’ or ‘policy-led’ development has different fiscal impacts for local government. 20110382
Where and How Should We Grow? / Short and Long Term Impacts of Settlement Patterns FINAL REPORT 4.2.3 Ross Creek The development context of Ross Creek Ross Creek is located in the north-west of Golden Plains Shire. It is covered by the Rural Living Zone to the north of Lacys Road and the Farming Zone to the south. Due to its close proximity to Ballarat, Ross Creek has become a highly desired location for rural lifestyle living. Ross Creek was selected as an example of dispersed development, which is predominantly market- led. Consultation with Council identified that the precedent in ad hoc development approvals throughout Ross Creek had already been set and was therefore likely to continue. However, it is worth noting that as the Crown land allotments that comprise the area cannot be subdivided, there is not likely to be a significant increase in capacity in Ross Creek. Ross Creek is unsewered and there is therefore a requirement for all lots to treat wastewater. Up-front fiscal costs of development in Ross Creek There is limited infrastructure in Ross Creek. Typically, new development will rely on septic tanks and open-cut drains which are at the cost to the resident or developer. More development in Ross Creek may however require gravel roads to be sealed, should traffic counts exceed 75 vehicles per day. Further to this, community facilities may need to be provided nearby to cater for a growing population. Ongoing costs Increased development in Ross Creek may require more regular maintenance of roads. This includes grading of gravel roads, maintaining sealed roads and additional roadside slashing. There is a possibility that road upgrades in Ross Creek will be needed to cater for an increased population, which will also increase ongoing costs. In terms of social infrastructure, ongoing costs include aged care services such as community transportation and meals on wheels services. Garbage collection is also a service provided by Council and is funded by a rate of $187 per year per dwelling, however this is a flat rate charge regardless of location. Council identified that services such as health services, community services and education facilities required by residents of Ross Creek are provided by the nearby City of Ballarat. This reduces the need for new, large-scale community facilities in the immediate area. Triple-bottom line costs Social isolation is a risk for dispersed, ad-hoc development, leading to pressures for community service provision. Environmental costs include tree clearing for development purposes and the potential for development to impact biodiversity and natural features around Ross Creek. 20110382