Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Financial costs of settlement patterns in rural VictoriaPresentation and training session
Introductions
2
Agenda
3
12.30 Introduction and welcome12.35 Project background and purpose12.40 Project approach1.00 Settlement patterns – definition & infrastructure requirements1.15 The assumptions of the model – approach and evidence1.30 The electronic tool – inputs and outputs - example scenarios2.00 How to vary assumptions in the model2.30 Close
Objectives for today
• How settlement patterns can influence local government finances
• How to use the model to test development scenarios and reflect local characteristics
4
Background
MAV identified a gap between revenues and the costs faced by rural councils in providing and maintaining infrastructure and services, placing significant financial pressure on local governments.
5
BackgroundSGS undertook a study for MAV on the financial and triple bottom line impacts of different settlement patterns to local government. The study’s findings were:• A significant information gap exists around the cost
of different settlement types• Non-contiguous development is more expensive to
service• Ongoing costs were higher than the initial capital
outlay over the life of the asset
6
BackgroundThe study highlighted that closing the ‘information gap’ needed:• Expert input around costs of different settlements• Council input to ensure outputs were relevant and
useful• Involvement from councils which had experienced
growth in recent years, as they were more likely to have access to recent infrastructure provision and cost data
7
Project brief
8
• Based on the findings from the previous project, RCV, together with MAV put together this project’s brief
• Purpose of the project was to provide a tool to help with costing various settlement pattern options from an infrastructure and servicing point of view
• SGS Economics and Planning in association with Aurecon were appointed to the project
Purpose…
9
•To provide a strong evidence base for council via a simple modelling tool which can be used to understand and quantify costs of different settlement types in rural locations•To enable councils to use the tool to inform planning decisions, broader strategic planning initiatives and budgeting over short, medium and long term•To benefit all departments/portfolios within local government in forward planning
Approach
10
• Identify case study councils that we would consult with to obtain cost data
• Establish an Expert Reference Group that can provide feedback along the way and ensure the tool is practical and useful
Approach
11
• Identify settlement patterns• Collect data from councils and
supplement this with cost data from Aurecon
• Connect settlement patterns with standard infrastructure provision ‘baskets’
• Develop a tool that was easy to use but could be tailored in various ways
PAGE 12
Identify case study
councils and introduce project
Expert Reference
Group
Confirm settlement
types
Project plan
Council consultation
Expert review of data
Draft Electronic
Tool
Expert Reference
Group
Pilot of tool and
evaluation period
Expert Reference
Group
Final Electronic
Tool
Wider briefing on
the Tool
Data collection
Database development
and tool framework
September 2012- July 2013
Settlement patterns
13
• Use of settlement patterns to simplify model. Encourages planners to use the model as they often make decisions about settlement policy.
• Settlement patterns are a challenge because there are so many variants
• Best approach –> define three but enable the assumptions to be changed by end-users (thereby allowing countless ‘settlement types’)
Greenfield development
14
• Brand new development in undeveloped locations which requires all infrastructure to be provided
• Typically of a low density, developer driven, single dwellings
• In rural Victoria, often located on the outskirts of a town/city or in high amenity locations (i.e. Coastal locations).
Greenfield development
15
Usually zoned Residential 1 Zone/General Residential; Urban Growth Zone; Low Density Residential Zone; Rural Living Zone. Often has a Precinct Structure Plan (PSP).
Examples in Warragul (see images),
House & land package Drouin
Dispersed development
16
• Ad-hoc development which occurs over time
• Often through subdivision of farms• Undeveloped land, but can hook into
neighbouring infrastructure networks (existing roads, existing water pipes).
Dispersed development
17
Usually zoned Farming Zone
Examples in Ballarat, Torquay, Colac, Bairnsdale, the list goes on!
Source: Domain.com.au - 121 grazing/cropping land for sale Mirboo North, marketed as one with excellent house
sites
Infill development
18
• Development which takes place in established areas
• Usually occurs within towns, but more focused in regional cities
• Least common development type
Infill development
19
Usually zoned Residential 1 Zone/General Residential, Township Zone.
Examples in regional cities and large towns. Leongatha, Wonthaggi, Shepparton, Ballarat, Bendigo, Broadford, Seymour
5 unit development in Leongatha, 2-3 bed each now for sale.
Linking infrastructure requirements to settlement types
20
• Difficult because there is no standard – can vary between local governments
• Also influenced by local conditions – terrain, soil, proximity to facilities
• Most strongly influenced by availability and capacity of existing infrastructure
• But this information is typically only known at a local level
Default assumptions Council –provided infrastructure
21
New/Upgraded Infrastructure
Greenfield Dispersed Infill
Local Roads
Drainage
Paths
Street signage, furniture, lighting
Open space, recreation facilities, playgrounds
Community facilities
Landfill and recycling
Council Provided Can be developer-provided.
Default assumptionsmaintenance and renewal
22
New/Upgraded Infrastructure
Greenfield Dispersed Infill
Local Roads
Drainage
Paths
Street signage, furniture, lighting
Open space, recreation facilities, playgrounds
Community facilities & services
Landfill and recycling
Council Provided Can be developer-provided
Determining infrastructure needs by settlement type
23
• Can be highly variable – need to create a ‘basket’ of standard infrastructure
• SGS developed evidence to shape – infrastructure design manual & GIS analysis
• Important that users can alter this information in the model to suit local scenarios.
Standard basket of infrastructure - roads
24
Road Type Maximum traffic volume (vehicles per day)
Dimensions
Rural living access road 1000 Reserve of 20m, 6.2m width, 1.5m shoulder
Rural living collector road 6000 Reserve of 25m, 6.6m width, 1.5m shoulder
Rural living/low density residential court bowls
n.a Reserve of 32m, 10m width, 1.5m shoulder
Low density residential access road
1000 Reserve of ~17m, 6.0m width, 1.5m shoulder
Low density residential collector road
6000 Reserve of ~18m, 6.0m width, 1.5m shoulder
Rural access – gravel 0-50 Reserve of 20m, 4.0m width, 1.5m shoulder
Rural access – asphalt 51-150 Reserve of 20m, 4.0m width, 1.5m shoulder
Rural access - asphalt 150+ Reserve of 20m, 6.2width, 1.5m shoulder
Standard basket of infrastructure - paths
25
Path Type WidthsAsphalt path, one or both sides of road 1.25m, 1.5m
Asphalt path, one or both sides of road (shared use)
2.5m
Gravel path, one or both sides of road 1.25m, 1.5m
Gravel path, one or both sides of road (shared)
2.5m
Standard basket of infrastructure - drains
26
Street based •Brick Drain 300-600mm wide•Barrier Kerb - concrete•Concrete open drain 300, 400 and 1200mm•Concrete kerb and channel 450-600mm•Kerb of timber construction•Laid back kerb 900mm•Open drain (earthen)•Plinth kerb concrete 15mm•Semi-mountable kerb and channel 300-600mm•Semi-mountable kerb and channel 600mm, and•Semi mountable kerb, no channel.
Underground•Semi mountable kerb (300mm), no channel, + underground drainage, Inspection opening to house and standard house drain.
Standard basket of infrastructure – open space
27
• Landscaped parks/gardens (including clearing of site and planting)
• Retention of a natural reserve
Standard basket of infrastructure – community infrastructure
28
• Childcare Centre• Youth Centre• Senior Citizen Centre• Civic Centre• Multipurpose Centre• Community and Neighbourhood
Centre
• Performing Arts/Exhibition/Convention Centre
• Main Library• Branch Library• Sport field (local active open space)• District Parks and Facilities• Aquatic Centre• Playground
Default settlement type assumptions - Dispersed
29
Infrastructure Type
New infrastructure provision Ongoing maintenance requirements
Roads No new roads provided Assume additional maintenance equivalent to the length of road typically associated with each hectare of development. Assume the existing road is a Rural Living Access Road (Asphalt)
Paths No path provided Not applicable.
Drainage Council does not provide drainage infrastructure. Council may incur additional maintenance costs associated with increased infrastructure utilisation.
Open Space Assume no new open space provision. Assume no open space provision.Environmental Management
No infrastructure required. Assume recycling and rubbish collection for each new dwelling.
Default settlement type assumptions - Greenfield
30
Infrastructure Type
New infrastructure provision Ongoing maintenance requirements
Roads Assume this is provided for by the developer.Assume council responsible for renewal.
Assume additional maintenance equivalent to the length of roadAssume the existing road asphalt
Paths Assume provided by the developer.Assume council responsible for renewal.
Council face costs of repairs, ongoing maintenance and replacement.
Drainage Assume provided by the developer.Assume council responsible for renewal.
Councils responsible for maintenance and repair of drainage infrastructure
Open Space Assume open space to be provided by the developer
Council faces ongoing maintenance requirements for open space.
Environmental management
No infrastructure required. Significant population increases may trigger the need for upgrades to landfill and recycling sites and transfer centres.
Assume recycling and rubbish collection for each new dwelling.
Default settlement type assumptions - Infill
31
Infrastructure Type Infrastructure requirements Maintenance requirementsRoads No additional roads required.
Assume council responsible for renewal.No additional maintenance required.
Paths No additional paths required.Assume council responsible for renewal.
Council face costs of repairs, ongoing maintenance and replacement.
Drainage Assume drainage only required from legal point of discharge to property which is paid for by the owner.Assume council responsible for renewal.
Some additional maintenance required.
Open Space No new open space required. Not applicable.Environmental management
No infrastructure required. Significant population increases may trigger the need for upgrades to landfill and recycling sites and transfer centres.
Assume recycling and rubbish collection for each new dwelling.
Determining infrastructure quantities by settlement type
32
GIS analysis of rural dispersed and greenfield settlements was undertaken to understand the typical quantities of infrastructure provided.
Case studies used from case study councils – Baw Baw, Macedon Ranges, and Surf Coast Shires
Mapping lengths of roads and comparing to density
Determining infrastructure quantities by settlement type
33
• Initial approach – make users input number of metres/km/item of each infrastructure item required
• Approach not well received – only useable for engineers who often had processes for estimating costs already in place
• Decided on high level ‘units per hectare’ or ‘units per dwelling’ measures
Determining infrastructure quantities by settlement type
34
Infrastructure ItemProvided by
Council?
Maintained by
Council?
ROADS per hectare per dw elling per hectare per dw elling
Dispersed Rural Living Access Road N 0.006 0 Y 0.006 0Greenfield Low Density Residential Access Road N 0 0.033 Y 0 0.033
Infill Low Density Residential Collector Road N 0 0 Y 0 0.021PATHS
Dispersed Gravel path, one side of road, 1.25m wide N 0.003 0 Y 0.003 0Greenfield Concrete path, both sides of road, 1.5m wide N 0 0.066 Y 0 0.066
Infill Concrete path, one side of road, 1.25m wide N 0 0 Y 0 0.021DRAINAGE
Dispersed Earthen open drain N 0.006 0 Y 0.006 0Greenfield Underground drainage N 0 0.033 Y 0 0.033
Infill Underground drainage N 0 0 Y 0 0.021OPEN SPACE
Dispersed Mix of landscape and natural open space N 0 0 Y 0 0Greenfield Mix of landscape and natural open space N 0 0.005 Y 0 0.005
Infill Mix of landscape and natural open space N 0 0 N 0 0ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT . .
Dispersed Recycling and landfill Y 0 1 Y 0 1Greenfield Recycling and landfill Y 0 1 Y 0 1
Infill Recycling and landfill Y 0 1 Y 0 1
Provision of infrastructure
(per hectare or per dwelling)
Maintenance and operation of
infrastructure (per hectare or per
dwelling)
Determining potential revenues
35
• Average rate revenue from rural councils collected – users can select their LGA’s average and apply it to the new number of households being tested
• Users can also update/change the average provided• Users can also add in other funding streams
• Developers (DCPs, Negotiated funds)• State or Federal funding for facilities• Aggregate rate revenue streams• Revenues from levies and fees, etc.
This allows the tool to compare potential costs to council and rates to measure the gap
What do the results say?
36
Results of analysis using the default assumptions showed that:• If only considering maintenance and renewal costs,
rate revenue often covers these.• Rate revenue is usually insufficient to cover costs
associated with new infrastructure provision• Infill performs best in terms of lowest costs, followed
by dispersed and then greenfield• The model is highly sensitive to changes in
assumptions, highlighting the need to enter your own for reasonable results
Implications?
37
• Not all development costs councils the same• A range of other factors need to be considered:
environmental considerations, biodiversity, traffic, infrastructure plans & capacity
• Also, there are intangible benefits from increased population that may outweigh financial costs, such as renewal of places and increased business activity
The model
38
• How to use the model – Basic Scenario• How to vary assumptions in the model to suit
local conditions.
Conclusions
39
• The default assumptions provide evidence that different settlement types have different financial implications over time.
• The default assumptions and report can help to guide policy settings and encourage discussions about criteria used when deciding settlement patterns
Conclusions
40
• Tailoring the model to suit local conditions can provide useful evidence for decision making.
• However...there other costs and benefits that must be considered. It’s not all about the financial implications.
