Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs...preparing cost estimates for infrastructure items where there...

Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal

Local Infrastructure Benchmark CostsCosting infrastructure in Local Infrastructure Plans

Other — Draft ReportNovember 2013

Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs Costing infrastructure in Local Infrastructure Plans

Other — Draft Report November 2013

ii IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs

© Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales 2013

This work is copyright. The Copyright Act 1968 permits fair dealing for study, research, news reporting, criticism and review. Selected passages, tables or diagrams may be reproduced for such purposes provided acknowledgement of the source is included.

ISBN 978 1 925032 48 2 S9-91

The Tribunal members for this review are:

Dr Peter J Boxall AO, Chairman

Mr Simon Draper, Part Time Member

Dr Paul Paterson, Part Time Member

Inquiries regarding this document should be directed to a staff member:

Alison Milne (02) 9113 7710

Carly Price (02) 9113 7738

Nicole Haddock (02) 9290 8426

Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales PO Box Q290, QVB Post Office NSW 1230 Level 8, 1 Market Street, Sydney NSW 2000

T (02) 9290 8400 F (02) 9290 2061

www.ipart.nsw.gov.au

Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART iii

Invitation for submissions

IPART invites written comment on this document and encourages all interested parties to provide submissions addressing the matters discussed.

Submissions are due by 17 January 2014.

We would prefer to receive them electronically via our online submission form <www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/Home/Consumer_Information/Lodge_a_submission>.

You can also send comments by mail to:

Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal PO Box Q290 QVB Post Office NSW 1230

Late submissions may not be accepted at the discretion of the Tribunal. Our normal practice is to make submissions publicly available on our website <www.ipart.nsw.gov.au> as soon as possible after the closing date for submissions. If you wish to view copies of submissions but do not have access to the website, you can make alternative arrangements by telephoning one of the staff members listed on the previous page.

We may choose not to publish a submission—for example, if it contains confidential or commercially sensitive information. If your submission contains information that you do not wish to be publicly disclosed, please indicate this clearly at the time of making the submission. IPART will then make every effort to protect that information, but it could be disclosed under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) or the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal Act 1992 (NSW), or where otherwise required by law.

If you would like further information on making a submission, IPART’s submission policy is available on our website.

Contents

v IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs

Contents

Invitation for submissions iii

Part 1: Inquiry into Local Infrastructure Benchmarking 1

1 Executive Summary 3 1.1 About this review 3 1.2 Draft Recommendations 8 1.3 Key Issues for consultation 9 1.4 Structure of the Draft Report 10

2 Context 11 2.1 Current arrangements for local development contributions 11 2.2 Infrastructure contributions under the new planning system in NSW 12 2.3 What was IPART asked to do? 14 2.4 How are we conducting our review? 15

3 Development and application of benchmarks 17 3.1 What infrastructure items have been benchmarked? 17 3.2 What cost estimation approach was used? 20 3.3 How will the benchmarks be used by councils? 22

4 Components of the benchmarks 23 4.1 Base Costs 24 4.2 Adjustment Factors 25 4.3 Contingency allowance 29

5 Estimating efficient costs where there is no benchmark 35 5.1 When should these estimation methods be applied? 35 5.2 Types of estimating methodologies 36 5.3 What method and information sources should be used? 37 5.4 Contingency Allowance 39 5.5 What else can a council do to ensure good estimates where there is no

benchmark? 40 5.6 Cash flow planning and management 41

6 Cost escalation and updating the benchmarks 43 6.1 How should benchmark costs be escalated? 43 6.2 When should the benchmarks be reviewed and updated? 47 6.3 Incorporating updated benchmark costs in local infrastructure plans 47

Contents

vi IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs

7 Valuing land for contributions 49 7.1 Overview of our recommended methods to estimate the cost of land in a

local infrastructure plan 49 7.2 What approach should councils take to costing land it needs to acquire

in a plan? 51 7.3 What approach should councils take to costing council-owned land in a

plan? 53 7.4 Updating land costs in a local infrastructure plan 55

8 Dispute resolution mechanisms 60 8.1 Disputes about costs and costing methodologies in local infrastructure

plans 62 8.2 Minimising disputes about local infrastructure costs 62 8.3 Proposed approaches for dealing with disputes about the application of

benchmarks or cost methodologies in preparing and implementing plans 63 8.4 Disputes about contributions rates and costs arising from conditions of

consent 65

9 Cost drivers for infrastructure delivery 66

Part 2: Developing cost estimate using benchmarks 69

10 Guide for councils 71 10.1 How should councils estimate the cost of local infrastructure items? 71 10.2 Determining the costing method to use 71 10.3 How to estimate costs of benchmark items 73 10.4 How to estimate costs of infrastructure items where there is no

benchmark 76 10.5 Worked examples of applying the benchmarks 77

11 Benchmark tables 80

Appendices 145 A Terms of Reference 147 B Infrastructure list from the Infrastructure Contributions Taskforce 150 C Consultation for the Draft Report 155

Glossary 156

1 Executive Summary

Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART 1

Part 1: Inquiry into Local Infrastructure Benchmarking

1 Executive Summary

2 IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs

1 Executive Summary


1 Executive Summary

1.1 About this review

The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) has been asked to develop benchmark costs that will be used to inform local infrastructure contributions under the new planning system for NSW. This Draft Report sets out our preliminary recommendations, including estimates of benchmark costs for local infrastructure items.

We are seeking feedback on the recommendations and proposals in this draft report. We will also be holding a public roundtable on Tuesday 3 December and will be accepting submissions until 17 January 2014. We will submit our Final Report to the Government in March 2014.

Background

The Government’s planning reforms include a new infrastructure contributions framework allowing councils to levy local infrastructure contributions to fund the essential local infrastructure required to support growth. The costs of local infrastructure in councils’ infrastructure plans will be based on standardised, benchmarked costs for types of infrastructure.

IPART has been asked to provide a set of benchmark costs for items of local infrastructure. We have also been asked, where it is not reasonable to benchmark the cost, to identify methodologies to ensure councils can estimate the efficient cost of that infrastructure. The terms of reference from the Premier also ask us to investigate and make recommendations on a number of associated issues, including updating the benchmarks, valuing land for the purposes of preparing an infrastructure plan, and mechanisms for resolving disputes about applying the benchmarks and cost methodologies.

1 Executive Summary


How are we conducting this review?

We have consulted with stakeholders and engaged consultants, Evans & Peck. The consultants’ advice to us forms the basis of the recommended benchmark components and values included in Chapter 11. The guidance provided in Part 2: Developing cost estimates using benchmarks is also based on Evans & Peck’s advice.

We have worked with the Infrastructure Contributions Taskforce appointed to advise the Government on implementing the new contributions framework. We have had discussions with government and industry stakeholders, and a range of councils from across NSW. Many councils and 1 industry group responded to an Information Paper we released in mid-October asking for stakeholders’ views about the key issues we identified for this review.

What infrastructure have we benchmarked?

The Planning White Paper indicates that local infrastructure includes land and capital works for local roads and traffic management (roads), local open space and embellishment and community facilities, as well as capital works for stormwater drainage. The items of infrastructure essential to support development and for which councils will be able to levy a contribution will be recommended to Government by the Infrastructure Contributions Taskforce. Until the Taskforce finalises the ‘essential infrastructure list’, we have used as a starting point the infrastructure on a ‘benchmark list’ of around 80 items of local infrastructure that the Taskforce provided to us. We provided benchmark costs for ‘standardised’ scopes for the majority of these items, plus a number of sub items.

Our methodology for determining what infrastructure could be benchmarked involved defining the typical configuration(s) of each infrastructure item (in terms of size, material, arrangement and the performance outcome of the item). If a configuration could be defined so it would apply to a reasonable proportion of projects, the cost of the infrastructure item was benchmarked.

The benchmark items are listed at the start of Chapter 11 of this report. The benchmark cost is made up of 3 components, the base cost, adjustment factors, and contingency allowance. Datasheets for each benchmark item are in Chapter 11 and identify the benchmark base costs and the assumptions and scope of works relevant to these. The adjustment factors (for regional variation and congestion) and contingency allowances are outlined in Chapter 10.

We have not, to date, provided benchmark costs for 14 of the infrastructure items. We welcome submissions to the Draft Report on whether it would be useful to develop benchmark costs for these infrastructure items.

1 Executive Summary


How will the benchmarks be used?

The Department of Planning and Infrastructure is currently finalising the contributions framework for the new planning system. We consider that councils should use the benchmark costs and methodologies we recommend as a guide when estimating the costs of infrastructure in their local infrastructure plans. This should provide a higher level of consistency in the cost estimates of infrastructure levied on developers through local infrastructure contributions.

The benchmark costs will also be used by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and IPART to guide reviews of local infrastructure plans prior to the approval of the plans by the Minister. Councils will have to provide justification where they have deviated from the benchmark costs.

It is intended that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure will provide guidelines for the preparation of local infrastructure plans which will include the final benchmarks. The Guidelines will require plans to have transparent assumptions and cost estimates.

A worked example of how to use the benchmarks is in Chapter 10 of this report.

Costs of infrastructure which are not benchmarked

For items of infrastructure which we have not yet benchmarked, we have focused on the methodologies that will lead to the estimation of efficient costs, rather than on the delivery of the infrastructure. The Draft Report identifies how the best estimation method will depend on the nature of the infrastructure, the stage in the project’s planning and the council’s access to recent and reliable information.

We have compared the ‘top down’ and ‘bottom up’ approaches to estimation and rank both approaches in terms of their usefulness or likely accuracy. In preparing cost estimates for infrastructure items where there is no benchmark cost estimate, councils should use the approaches presented in Table 5.1 to estimate base costs, and include a reasonable allowance for contingency.

Councils should use recent and reliable market rate or tender information if it is available. We note that tender information may not often be available when Local Infrastructure Plans are being prepared by councils. Price lists and schedules of rates are useful for certain types of open space facilities and works. A bottom up approach, like the one used by Evans & Peck in estimating the cost of the benchmark items, is generally considered preferable for civil works like stormwater works, but tends to be a more resource intensive costing method. Councils will also need to make a reasonable allowance for contingency, if possible, based on a risk assessment

1 Executive Summary


Cost escalation and updating the benchmarks

The benchmark costs that we have published in Part 2 of the Draft Report are presented in 2012/13 dollars. When a council is using the benchmark costs in future years to calculate the cost of infrastructure to include in a local infrastructure plan, it will need to adjust the benchmark costs to reflect the changes in those costs since 2012/13.

Benchmark costs could be reviewed annually, which is both time consuming and expensive. Alternatively, benchmarked costs could be adjusted by a relevant index and reviewed after a period of years.

We recommend that councils use relevant construction-based Producer Price Indices (PPIs) published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to escalate the benchmark costs in their plans. We also recommend that IPART should review the set of benchmark costs adopted for use in estimating costs in councils’ local infrastructure plans within 4 years.

Valuing land for infrastructure plans

In addition to the capital cost of infrastructure, councils will be able to include the cost of land associated with roads, open space and community facilities in local infrastructure plans. Land costs are a significant part of the total cost in many existing contributions plans, especially in growth areas with high land values.

Our recommended approach depends on whether or not the council needs to buy the land, or already owns it, and whether the land it owns was reserved for public purposes, prior to the land being rezoned for local infrastructure.

To value land to include in a plan, we recommend that council-owned land should be valued at its historic purchase price, indexed by CPI (All Groups) Sydney. On balance, we consider that there should be one exception to this approach, ie, when in the precinct planning process, the land was not previously reserved for a public purpose before it was rezoned for development. In this circumstance, the land could instead be sold by the council for the benefit of all ratepayers, so using current market value is warranted.

To escalate the value of land in the plan in future years, we recommend councils use the CPI (All Groups) Sydney for all the land they already own. To escalate the value of land that still needs to be purchased, we recommend that councils can choose either the CPI (All Groups) Sydney, or a ‘suitable’ land value index. We define the characteristics of a suitable land index as one that is representative and statistically robust.

We are seeking feedback on our suggested approaches to land valuation, to inform our recommendations in the final report.

1 Executive Summary


Resolving disputes about applying benchmarks and cost methodology

The terms of reference ask IPART to recommend effective mechanisms for resolving disputes about the application of benchmarks or cost methodologies in the local infrastructure plan process.

Developers may disagree with how councils interpret the guidelines or practice notes for preparing plans or calculating the costs of facilities and land for which a contribution will be levied.

We have considered how councils can minimise the potential for disputes about infrastructure contributions to arise. We recommend that councils should establish formal processes to address developers’ concerns. Where councils cannot resolve such disputes directly, the council should refer the matter for independent review to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP), or the Joint Regional Planning Panel in its region if the council does not have an IHAP. When submitting their plans to the Minister for approval, councils should be required to report any contentious issues about infrastructure costs, and how they have been dealt with in the draft plan.

We also recommend that the Minister could refer matters concerning the application of benchmarks and costs methodologies in local infrastructure plans to IPART for advice and resolution.

Standards

Our terms of reference ask us to investigate the main planning and environmental standards that councils apply in the provision of local infrastructure. We define standards to be any guideline, legislative requirement, technical standard or specification that councils apply when providing local infrastructure.

The NSW Government intends that local infrastructure contributions reflect the efficient cost of providing infrastructure and be affordable. Therefore, as part of our review we are consulting with stakeholders to identify any standards that could have an unreasonable impact on the cost of local infrastructure (imposed by outside agencies or at the discretion of councils).

We have identified a number of standards councils apply in the provision of local infrastructure, but we have not yet received sufficient stakeholder feedback to confirm which of these standards are considered to have an unreasonable impact on cost.

We welcome submissions on the Draft Report about this issue.

1 Executive Summary


1.2 Draft Recommendations

1 Councils should use the benchmark costs for items of local infrastructure set out in Chapter 11 in Part 2 of this report as a guide in developing cost estimates for the purposes of levying an uncapped contribution for the efficient cost of local infrastructure. 22

2 Benchmark costs should be adjusted, if outside of the Sydney region, by a regional factor to account for variations in transportation costs, area specific prices and market competition for labour and materials, using: 29

– the index for the closest regional centre, in regional building cost indices from the Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook for open space embellishment and community facilities 29

– the distance thresholds from the source of raw materials, for roads and stormwater infrastructure, as reproduced in Table 10.2 in Part 2 of this report. 29

3 Councils can apply an optional adjustment factor for congestion-related costs, if there is significant congestion at the infrastructure site, based on different levels of congestion for roads and stormwater infrastructure (Table 10.3 in of Part 2 of this report). 29

4 Councils should apply relevant final contingency allowance rates to their benchmark costs (adjusted for regional and congestion factors). IPART is consulting on the contingency allowances set out in Table 10.4 in Part 2 of this report and will finalise these for the Final Report. 34

5 In preparing cost estimates for infrastructure items where there is no benchmark cost estimate, councils should use the approaches presented in Table 5.1 to estimate base costs, and include a reasonable allowance for contingency. 40

6 When preparing a local infrastructure plan, councils should escalate the benchmark costs (as listed in Part 2 of this report in 2012/13 dollar terms) using the latest available quarterly Producer Price Indices published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as listed in Table 6.1. 46

7 Local infrastructure benchmarks (as listed in Part 2 of this report) should be reviewed by IPART within 4 years. 47

8 For the purpose of levying direct contributions on developers, councils should value land already acquired at historical purchase price indexed annually by CPI (All Groups) Sydney except: 55

– if the land had not already been reserved for a public purpose before it is released for development in the precinct planning process. In this case, the council should value the land at current market value. 55

1 Executive Summary


9 To escalate the costs of land in a finalised local infrastructure plan from year to year, councils should use: 59

– either a ‘suitable’ land cost index as defined in Box 7.1 or the CPI (All Groups) Sydney for land to be acquired 59

the CPI (All Groups) Sydney for council-owned land. 59

10 Councils should have a formal council-based review mechanism to consider objections and address issues in dispute between councils and developers about benchmark costs and cost methodologies arising when infrastructure plans are being prepared and finalised. 64

11 Councils should refer disputes that cannot be resolved through internal processes to an independent expert panel. This function could be performed by existing Independent Hearing and Assessment Panels, where the council has appointed one, or the Joint Regional Planning Panel for the region. Councils should report to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure about how they have responded to the recommendations from the Panel. 64

12 The Minister can refer disputes about the application of benchmarks and cost methodologies in local infrastructure plans to IPART for a recommended resolution. 65

1.3 Key Issues for consultation

We seek feedback on all the recommendations in the Draft Report. We also welcome submissions on the following issues:

Benchmark cost estimates –the appropriateness of the benchmark values.

Infrastructure items for which there is no benchmark – whether it is useful to develop benchmark costs for the infrastructure items in Box 3.1, or are these items too project-specific? Please include answers to the following questions:

– Could the variation in scope be captured by sub items?

– What would the ‘typical’ configurations be for benchmarking purposes?

– What proportion of the total number of projects within a local government area and/or across the state is the benchmark likely to apply to?

Contingency allowances - the appropriate contingency allowance to be applied when using the benchmarks.

Standards - please consider:

– whether there are any standards imposed on councils by outside agencies that have an unreasonable impact on the cost of local infrastructure

– whether there are any standards councils adopt at their own discretion that have an unreasonable impact on the cost of local infrastructure.

1 Executive Summary


1.4 Structure of the Draft Report

The following chapters explain our review and preliminary recommendations in detail:

Chapter 2 sets out the context and processes for our review.

Chapter 3 explains how the benchmarks were developed.

Chapter 4 outlines the components of the benchmark costs including base costs, adjustment factors and contingency allowances.

Chapter 5 outlines different methodologies councils could use to efficiently cost items of local infrastructure that cannot reasonably be benchmarked.

Chapter 6 recommends a methodology for cost escalation.

Chapter 7 discusses how councils should value land for inclusion in a local infrastructure plan.

Chapter 8 considers options for resolving disputes about benchmark costs and cost methodologies.

Chapter 9 discusses the standards and requirements which may influence the cost of local infrastructure delivery.

Part 2: Developing cost estimates using benchmarks of this Draft Report is a guide for councils.

Chapter 10 provides guidance on in using the benchmarks, estimating the cost of infrastructure items where there is no benchmark, and a template for presenting cost information.

Chapter 11 contains the benchmark values.

2 Context


2 Context

The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) has been asked to develop benchmark costs that will be used to inform local infrastructure contributions under the new planning system for NSW.

This chapter outlines:

the current and proposed regime for infrastructure contributions

what we were asked to do in this review

how we are conducting the review

the next steps.

2.1 Current arrangements for local development contributions

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) sets out a system of development contributions.1 Councils (and other consent authorities) can require a contribution to the cost (land and capital) of providing local infrastructure to support new development by one of the following means:

development contributions in accordance with a plan under section 94

a levy for a fixed percentage of the development cost under section 94A

a planning agreement under section 93F.

Most contributions are levied through a section 94 contributions plan. Councils prepare section 94 contributions plans that set out the expected types of development in an area and the public amenities and services that will be needed to meet demand arising from that development. The facilities and services must be reasonable in that demand for them is created by the new development (nexus) and the cost reflects the demand generated only from the new development (apportionment). Contributions are imposed as a condition of consent to a development application.

1 See generally Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Div 6, Department of

Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, Development Contributions Practice notes – July 2005, and Department of Planning, Local Development Contributions Practice Note for assessment of contributions plans by IPART, November 2010 (2010 Practice Note).

2 Context


Since 2010, the amount of contributions under a section 94 contributions plan has been capped at $20,000 per dwelling or lot for developments in brownfield areas, and $30,000 per dwelling or lot in greenfield areas.2

In addition to contributions for local infrastructure, the NSW Government also levies a Special Infrastructure Contribution (SIC) for developers to contribute to the cost of providing roads, rail, bus, education, health, emergency, and open space and conservation infrastructure, plus the cost of infrastructure planning and delivery. The SIC is levied on a per hectare of ‘net developable area’ basis.3

2.2 Infrastructure contributions under the new planning system in NSW

In April 2013 the NSW Government published A New Planning System for NSW: White Paper (White Paper) proposing comprehensive reforms of the NSW planning system.4 The Planning Bill 2013 (the Bill) was introduced into Parliament on 22 October 2013 and passed the Legislative Assembly on 30 October 2013. The provisions of the Bill are the same as those in the White Paper in all aspects material to our review.

The planning reforms include a new infrastructure contributions framework focused on providing a more transparent, simple, fair and affordable system that links to infrastructure plans at local and regional or subregional levels.5 The new framework provides for infrastructure contributions at for 3 levels:

Local infrastructure contributions for the cost of infrastructure in a local infrastructure plan.

Regional infrastructure contributions for the cost of infrastructure in Growth Infrastructure Plans (eg, regional or State roads, land for drainage, transport infrastructure, regional open space and education establishments).6 The contributions will be imposed on a subregional basis. Contributions will vary by subregion but will be applied across Sydney and in other high growth areas in the state.7

2 Environmental Planning and Assessment (Local Infrastructure Contributions) Direction 2011, 4 March

2011 and 2010 Practice Note. 3 Minister for Planning, Environmental Planning and Assessment (Special Infrastructure Contribution

– Western Sydney Growth Areas) Determination 2011, 14 January 2011, p 8. 4 NSW Government, A New Planning System for NSW – White Paper, April 2013 (White Paper). 5 See generally the White Paper Chapter 7. 6 Planning Bill 2013, Part 7. 7 NSW Government, A New Planning System for NSW – White Paper, April 2013, p 165.

2 Context


Contributions to the Planning Growth Fund for the cost of regional open space and all land for drainage.8 The contributions will be imposed on a regional basis.9

Mechanisms outside this system such as Planning Agreements will remain, but will not be the primary means for developers to contribute to the cost of local or regional infrastructure needed to support growth. Works-in-kind, where a developer provides infrastructure directly rather than making a monetary contribution, will also still be available.

2.2.1 What are local infrastructure contributions?

Councils will be able to levy local infrastructure contributions to fund essential local infrastructure required to support growth.10 Local infrastructure is defined as:

local roads and traffic management (land and capital works)

local open space and embellishment (land and capital works)

community facilities (land and capital works)

stormwater drainage (capital works).

Councils will be required first to prepare local infrastructure plans setting out the infrastructure required in the area, and identify the infrastructure that can be funded by local infrastructure contributions (and also by regional infrastructure contributions). The local infrastructure plans will also explain the council’s policy for the assessment, collection, expenditure and administration of contributions.11

Councils will only be able to levy developers for the cost of local infrastructure on the ‘essential infrastructure list’. These contributions will be uncapped, so councils will be able to fund the essential local infrastructure associated with growth. Local infrastructure contributions will be imposed as a condition of development consent.

The NSW Government intends that local infrastructure contributions could vary across councils, but that they will be based on “standardised, benchmarked costs for types of infrastructure”.

8 NSW Government, A New Planning System for NSW – White Paper, April 2013, p 163; NSW

Government, Planning Bill 2013, section 7.16. 9 Further clarification is required from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure about how

regional infrastructure contributions and the Planning Growth Fund will operate. 10 The proposed contributions framework is explained in Chapter 7 of NSW Government, A New

Planning System for NSW – White Paper, April 2013 and the Planning Bill 2013 Part 7. 11 NSW Government, A New Planning System for NSW – White Paper, April 2013, p 100.

2 Context


The benchmarks are not intended to limit councils’ choices about the infrastructure that they select to deliver to their community. The benchmarks will be used as a guide to determine the cost of the infrastructure that can be funded from infrastructure contributions. Councils have a range of other funding sources available to them to provide the infrastructure in the local infrastructure plan, should they choose to deliver a higher standard or additional infrastructure types to their community. The benchmarks will ultimately relate only to essential infrastructure that is necessary for growth, not all infrastructure delivered.

2.3 What was IPART asked to do?

The planning reforms propose that IPART will have an expanded role in benchmarking the costs of local infrastructure, setting regional contributions and reviewing contributions plans. Under Section 9 of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal Act 1992 (NSW) the Premier issued terms of reference asking IPART to:

identify items of infrastructure for which benchmark costs can be reasonably established, and estimate benchmark costs for those items

for infrastructure items where benchmark costs cannot be reasonably established, identify methods that are likely to lead to efficient costs

recommend a method for updating cost benchmarks eg, for cost escalation

recommend relevant adjustments eg, contingency and other allowances

identify how different regions or development settings may affect costs

recommend appropriate land valuation methodologies

recommend effective mechanisms for resolving disputes about the application of benchmarks or cost methodologies

investigate the main planning and environmental standards required by outside agencies, in the provision of local infrastructure, and also the extent to which councils exercise discretion in setting standards (eg, above the required minimum) and whether councils’ standards are reasonable.

A copy of our Terms of Reference is provided in Appendix A.

2.3.1 What items of local infrastructure will be benchmarked

The Infrastructure Contributions Taskforce (the Taskforce), comprising councils, state agencies and industry, was reconvened in mid-2013 to provide direction on a range of matters relating to the contributions reforms proposed in the White Paper. The Taskforce is to agree benchmarks for the cost of items in local infrastructure plans. IPART’s role is to assist the Taskforce by estimating benchmark costs for such infrastructure items.

2 Context


The Taskforce is currently finalising the specific list of items (the essential infrastructure list) for which councils will be able to levy local infrastructure contributions.12 In the interim, the Taskforce has provided IPART with a ‘benchmark list’ of local infrastructure to use until the ‘essential infrastructure list’ is finalised.13 The benchmark list is in Appendix B.

2.3.2 What IPART’s review does not cover

An important aspect driving the overall cost to councils of providing infrastructure for their communities is the number and type of facilities, or amount of open space that is considered necessary or essential. These constitute a different form of ‘standards’ of infrastructure provision that councils meet, and are often called ‘rates of provision’.

In preparing the rates of provision necessary to support the existing population and development, a council will use guidance from a range of sources. Councils can use existing guides, or commission studies by experts such as planners and engineers, to determine the amount of land and the type and number of each facility that are needed to service a population of the size expected in the area covered by the infrastructure plan. These ‘standards’ can indicate, for example the amount of open space per resident, the population to be served by facilities such as a branch library or community centre, the type and number of local and district parks, the number and type of sporting fields, or the number and locations of roundabouts. Commonly used benchmarks are 2.83ha of open space per 1,000 people, and a branch library of 2,400m2 for 33,000 people.14

Although these ‘rates of provision’ are important in determining of the local councils’ infrastructure costs, we have not been asked to set benchmarks for these rates of provision as part of this benchmarking project. We are advised that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure will consider these ‘rates of provision’ separately.

2.4 How are we conducting our review?

We received our terms of reference on 5 September 2013 and have 6 months to complete the review.

12 NSW Government, A New Planning System for NSW—White Paper, April 2013, p 165. 13 We expect that the Taskforce will finalise the essential infrastructure list in 2014. 14 Growth Centre Commission, Growth Centre Development Code, Section 2: What Must Precinct

Planning Address?, October 2006, Table A.4, p 13.

2 Context


Before publishing this Draft Report:

We consulted with relevant stakeholders, including members of the Infrastructure Contributions Taskforce, to gain a broad understanding of the key considerations for the benchmarking review, in particular the local and regional cost variations for specific infrastructure items. Appendix C contains a list of stakeholders we have consulted to date.

We engaged consultants (Evans & Peck) to provide advice on various aspects of our terms of reference. Using the ‘benchmark list’ provided by the Taskforce, the consultants were asked to identify the items of infrastructure for which benchmark cost estimates could reasonably be established, and to calculate benchmark costs for them, and also advise on appropriate cost methodologies for the other infrastructure items that have not been benchmarked to date.

We issued an Information Paper on 11 October 2013 seeking comments on a range of issues relating to our review. Many councils have responded and provided useful insight into their practices and how the proposed contributions framework may operate.

2.4.1 Next steps

In the next few months we will:

hold a public roundtable meeting with stakeholders on 3 December 2013 to gather feedback on this Draft Report and other aspects of the terms of reference

take into account submissions to this Draft Report (which are due by 17 January 2014)

consult with relevant stakeholders to check the appropriateness of the benchmark cost estimates.

We intend to provide our Final Report to the Government in March 2014.

3 Development and application of benchmarks



This chapter discusses our approach to developing the benchmark costs for local infrastructure items on the ‘benchmark list’. We engaged Evans & Peck to provide expertise in cost estimation and the development of the benchmarks.

We also explain how Evans & Peck used different cost estimation approaches for different infrastructure types. The benchmarks are intended as a guide only and we suggest councils use the guidance in Part 2 of this report when costing local infrastructure.

3.1 What infrastructure items have been benchmarked?

As previously mentioned, we were given a list of infrastructure items to benchmark by the Infrastructure Contributions Taskforce (Appendix B). It includes 4 infrastructure types:

roads and traffic management (roads)

stormwater management infrastructure

open space embellishment

community facilities.

We have specified benchmark items for most of the infrastructure list provided to us by the Taskforce. We specified a typical configuration for each item, specified a scope and then estimated a cost of the benchmark item. In some instances, we have also created sub-items.

The list of benchmark infrastructure items for which we have estimated benchmark costs is listed at the start of Chapter 11 in Part 2 of this report.

There are some infrastructure items for which we have not developed a benchmark cost to date. These items are listed in Box 3.1. This is because the scope of these items can vary significantly and a ‘standardised’ scope would rarely apply. As previously mentioned, we welcome submissions to the Draft Report on whether it would be useful to develop benchmark costs for these additional infrastructure items.

In approaching this task, both Evans & Peck and IPART have consulted stakeholders including councils, developers, peak bodies and experts for each



infrastructure type. The organisations we have consulted are listed in Appendix C. Our initial consultation with these groups was aimed at seeking views on what infrastructure items could be ‘standardised’ and where benchmarks might be useful. A range of views was expressed. We decided a consistent approach to determining standard items was required, and developed a decision tree outlining this process. The decision tree is shown in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1 What infrastructure items can reasonably be benchmarked?

Source: IPART based on unpublished advice from Evans & Peck.

There are many different ways to scope an infrastructure item, with resulting variations in cost. We examined the variation in the scope of each infrastructure item delivered by councils. If there was no significant variation in scope, we identified a ‘typical’ configuration for the infrastructure item and based the benchmark cost on this.

Where there was significant variation in the item’s scope, we investigated the use of sub items to account for this.

When the variation in the scope of an item was due to differences in size, materials, arrangement of the item, or the performance outcome expected, we tried to account for this through the use of sub items. Each sub item has its own ‘typical’ configuration, for which a benchmark cost was developed.



One example of this is a sub-arterial road (Item 1.1 in Chapter 11), where the number of lanes will often vary. We therefore identified 2 different sub items to account for 3 or 4 lane sub-arterial roads.

When the variation in the scope of an item could not be accounted for through the use of sub items, a benchmark cost has not been developed yet. However, we invite further comment from stakeholders on our approach to these items.

3.1.1 What is the ‘typical’ configuration?

We determined what is considered to be the typical configuration for each infrastructure item. The minimum practically acceptable standard was used, except where we have strong evidence that a higher level is generally acceptable or expected. Turfing of soft surfaces provides an example of where we used a higher level. The most basic quality available may be hydroseeding, but more typically, rolled turf is being used. In this case, rolled turf could not be considered ‘gold-plating’ and so we have benchmarked this quality as well.

This approach means that in general terms the benchmark represents the typical service and quality of the sector, but excludes an infrastructure scope which may constitute ‘gold plating’ by some councils.

Where more than one sub item has been provided for any one infrastructure item, the sub items represent different configurations of the infrastructure item, rather than different services or qualities. The sub items have been developed to enable councils to make a selection of what configuration is reasonable for their particular purpose and location.

3.1.2 What items did we not provide benchmark costs for?

We have not, to date, provided benchmark costs for the items listed in Box 3.1. We considered that the scope of these infrastructure items varies so greatly between projects, that potentially there may be no ‘typical’ configurations. Stormwater detention basins are in this list, and vary significantly in size and shape (due to catchment rainfall), in the cost of excavation (due to geotechnical conditions) and in outlet structures (due to downstream conditions).

We welcome submissions to the Draft Report on whether it would be useful to develop benchmark costs for these infrastructure items. If benchmark costs for any of the items in Box 3.1 would be useful, then please provide feedback on the following questions:

Could the variation in scope be captured by sub items?

What would the ‘typical’ configurations be for benchmarking purposes?

Will the benchmark be able to be applied to many projects of this type within a local government area and/or across the state?



Box 3.1 Infrastructure items that have not been benchmarked to date

Roads and traffic facilities

Demolition associated with road works

Road bridges (including over railways, waterways, grade separation)

Pedestrian bridges/ cycleway bridges/ overpasses/ underpasses

Intersection between state roads and local roads

On-going maintenance for the recurrent impact on mining related road infrastructure

Stormwater management works

Detention basins

Constructed wetlands

Revetment works

Ancillary (maintenance and access)

Open space embellishment

Waterproofing (in case of a park or civic space above a car park or other structure)

Skatepark/ skate bowl

Applies to all categories

Decontamination and asbestos removal

Relocation of utilities

Demolition and site clearance (except for open space or unless specifically included)

3.2 What cost estimation approach was used?

Evans & Peck provided us with the cost estimates for the benchmarks. Due to the different nature of the infrastructure types, Evans & Peck adopted either a ‘bottom up’ or ‘top down’ approach to estimating the costs for each type of infrastructure.

The ‘bottom up’ approach involves building up the estimate from its most basic cost elements. Using this approach, the cost of a road, for example, is built up by adding the costs of plant, labour, materials and allowances related to the infrastructure delivery, such as management and overheads.



The ‘top down’ approach estimates the cost of an item of infrastructure by taking the known total cost of a similar item delivered at a specific place and time, and making relevant adjustments to take account of the different circumstances in which it is to be delivered. To estimate the cost of a library, for example, the cost of a similar library built for a nearby council a year ago would be adjusted to account for the differences in site conditions and cost escalations.

These cost estimation approaches are summarised in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Cost estimation approaches used by Evans & Peck

Method Description Benchmark Area Used

First Principles – Bottom Up

A highly detailed and contextualised approach to estimating. Activities are broken down into the fundamental elements of labour, plant and materials with productivity assumptions applied to labour and plant. Estimates may be supported by quotations from suppliers/contractors for all or part of an activity (but remains a First Principles approach).

Roads Stormwater management Open space embellishment

Reference Pricing – Top Down

A less detailed and more generic approach to estimating. Less time intensive, but requires reliable source data (which is not always available). Approach can be used where only a functional description is available with little or no design information. Reference Pricing may be at project level or at elemental level e.g. substructure, building envelope, internal fit-out. Reference Pricing tends to require some form of adjustment e.g. for time, location or unique factors.

Community facilities Open space embellishment

Source: Unpublished advice to IPART from Evans & Peck.

The benchmark costs for local infrastructure items assume a commercially efficient delivery outcome. This means that benchmark costs reflect a delivery process that represents expected good practice in design, construction procurement and project management. It is intended to reflect a better outcome than what would be considered a reasonable or ‘mid-range’ outcome.

Further detail on how to use these cost estimation approaches for infrastructure which has not been benchmarked is provided in Chapter 5.



3.3 How will the benchmarks be used by councils?

The benchmarks will be used by councils to develop a cost estimate for infrastructure delivery for use in a council’s local infrastructure plan.

Draft instructions on how to adopt the benchmarks for a cost estimate are set out in Part 2 of this report. We suggest the Department of Planning and Infrastructure prepare a guideline with input from IPART to assist councils in estimating efficient costs for local infrastructure when developing their local infrastructure plans.

The benchmark costs are intended for use as a guide only. We recommend the use of the benchmark costs to provide a council with a typical rate by which cost estimates for infrastructure delivery should be developed. This approach should establish greater consistency of cost estimates for infrastructure provision across NSW.

The benchmark costs will also be used by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and IPART to guide reviews of local infrastructure plans prior to the approval of the plans by the Minister. Councils will have to provide justification where they have deviated from the benchmark costs.

There may be infrastructure items which councils consider necessary to deliver which we have been unable to benchmark. There is also likely to be some components of benchmarked infrastructure which are not covered by the benchmark, specifically the site preparation. In both of these cases, councils should develop cost estimates using the methodologies we recommend in Chapter 5.

Draft Recommendation

1 Councils should use the benchmark costs for items of local infrastructure set out in Chapter 11 in Part 2 of this report as a guide in developing cost estimates for the purposes of levying an uncapped contribution for the efficient cost of local infrastructure.

4 Components of the benchmarks



This chapter discusses the components of the benchmark and the assumptions made for the components.

In calculating benchmarks, we broke down the cost of delivering each local infrastructure item into the following components:

base cost, consisting of the direct costs, contractor’s indirect costs, margin and council on-costs

adjustment factors, including a location factor and an optional congestion factor

contingency allowance to account for risk events.

These components and their interaction are illustrated in Figure 4.1. A worked example is included in Part 2 of this Draft Report (section 10.5).

Figure 4.1 Benchmark item cost estimate

Data source: Based on Best Practice Cost Estimation Standard for Publicly Funded Road and Rail Construction, Australian Government Department of Infrastructure and Transport, May 2011.

The instructions on how to adopt the benchmarks for a cost estimate are in Part 2: Estimating costs of local infrastructure delivery.



4.1 Base Costs

The base cost benchmarks are specified in the Benchmark Base Cost table on the datasheet for each infrastructure item. The datasheets are in Chapter 11.

The benchmark base cost for each infrastructure item in Chapter 11 is made up of direct costs, indirect costs, margin and client on-costs. Each of these cost types is explained in the following sections. The banding of the benchmark costs is also discussed.

4.1.1 Direct Costs

Direct costs are the costs of supplying and constructing the infrastructure and can be expressed as a specific metric, for example, $/m2 or $/m or $ each. The main drivers of direct costs are the infrastructure standards and market conditions for supplies and labour (usually by subcontractors).

The assumptions made about the scope of the infrastructure are detailed in the Key Scope Assumptions table on the datasheets. Councils should test that the assumptions are valid for the specific project before applying the benchmark.15

Infrastructure standards or guidelines assumed for scoping purposes are identified in the Standards table on each datasheet.

4.1.2 Contractor’s indirect costs and margin

Indirect costs are the costs incurred by contractors directly related to delivering the project, such as site office accommodation, management personnel and project insurances.

Margin costs include contractor’s overheads (non-project specific costs) and profit.

These costs are usually proportional to the size of the project, hence these costs are expressed as a percentage of the total direct costs.

4.1.3 Council on-costs

Council on-costs have been included in the base costs as a percentage of the direct costs, so councils do not need to add these to the base costs to estimate the cost of the infrastructure. The percentages assumed are specified in the Assumptions page in Chapter 11 for information only.

15 It may be necessary to add items to the benchmark value to account for variation from the

assumptions if the known scope of the project differs significantly from that upon which the benchmark is based.



Council on-costs may include:

internal staff costs

professional fees (such as design and project management)

regulatory compliance costs (such as gaining environmental approval)

levies and other government charges.

As these costs are usually proportional to the size of the project, these costs are expressed as a percentage of the total cost of the contractor, that is the direct, indirect and margin costs.

4.1.4 Benchmark Cost Banding

Quantity bands have been defined for some benchmark items where the unit rate cost is particularly sensitive to the quantity of work performed. This relationship between cost and quantity is commonly referred to as ‘economies of scale’.

The most significant factors influencing the use of quantity bands include:

Amortisation of site establishment costs. Site establishment refers to the physical activities required to be undertaken before construction works begin and usually relate to site equipment mobilisation costs. Site establishment is a one-off cost and may be considered to be disproportionate when undertaking smaller quantities of work.

Minimum hire durations for plant. Plant is typically hired on a minimum hire duration basis eg, 1 day, or 1 week. Therefore, activities that only require the hired plant for a portion of the minimum hire duration will have relatively higher plant costs.

Bargaining power through volume. Procuring materials and/or services in larger quantities gives the buyer greater leverage for negotiating discounts.

As a general rule, a maximum of 2 quantity bands have been identified for any single benchmark item. A quantity band has not been provided for very low quantities of work that would be deemed highly inefficient in terms of the unit cost rate.

4.2 Adjustment Factors

We recommend the use of a regional factor and an optional congestion factor to account for a significant proportion of the variation in cost of infrastructure delivery across the state.

For the regional factor, we recommend using regional indices in the Australian Construction Handbook produced by Rawlinsons for some infrastructure types and specific indices for other infrastructure types to account for different



transportation costs, area specific supply prices and variations in market competition for labour and materials across the state.

For the optional congestion factor, we recommend using indices identified by Evans & Peck to account for costs due to different levels of congestion for roads and stormwater infrastructure.

The sections below explain why we have recommended each of the adjustment factors.

4.2.1 Different ways costs can vary across different regions or development settings

There are numerous issues that cause variation of costs in delivering the same item of infrastructure across different regions or development settings, including:

geotechnical conditions, contamination and salinity issues

environmental sensitivity, especially of receiving waters

topography and terrain factors

traffic and site accessibility constraints

existing utilities and infrastructure

type of zoned development, density and congestion

weather, rainfall and risk of flooding

accessibility to, and market price of labour and materials

transportation and relocation costs.16

Not all geographical variations can be captured by an adjustment factor. We consider that it is not feasible to create a robust adjustment factor which covers all types of regional variation. To do so will lead to an overly complex methodology that would be administratively difficult to apply. It would also be inconsistent with the general nature of benchmark costs to assist councils in the preparation of their local infrastructure plans.

We recommend using the regional factor to account for different transportation costs, area-specific supply prices and variations in market competition for labour and materials where relevant.17 We consider that the other types of variations are either addressed through a contingency allowance18 or, if the variations are known and quantified, councils should use a relevant costing methodology identified in Chapter 5 to account for the variation from the benchmark value.

16 Roads and Traffic Authority, Project Estimating Guidelines, 31 March 2008, pp 44-45; IPART

correspondence and consultation with stakeholders. 17 Unpublished advice from Evans & Peck. 18 See section 4.3.



4.2.2 Regional factor

We recommend applying an adjustment factor to reflect the regional variation across NSW, but one that is different depending on the type of infrastructure:

For open space embellishment and community facilities we recommend using the regional building cost indices from the Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook.

For roads and stormwater infrastructure we recommend using the indices in Table 10.2 in Part 2 of this report. These indices are based on distance to the source of raw material.

For open space and community facilities

We recommend using the regional building cost indices because the main suppliers of materials are typically located in major centres and hence there are significant transportation, logistical, and storage costs for infrastructure delivery projects in regional areas.19 Also, there is likely to be less availability of specialised skills in regional NSW compared with capital cities, which may be expected to result in higher labour costs.

We recommend indices based on Rawlinsons rather than other published data because we are advised that it is widely used and accepted in the construction industry and its indices are not significantly different to those in other published cost indices.20

Rawlinsons describes a significant variation in construction costs across NSW. The costs in Sydney are the basis for factors, and so councils in Sydney do not need to apply an adjustment factor. Construction costs in western NSW, for example, are typically 28% to 35% higher compared with the Sydney region due to their remote locations and small market size. In contrast, the index for Newcastle and Wollongong is 1% higher compared with Sydney due to their close proximity and market size.21

For roads and stormwater management infrastructure

For roads and stormwater management infrastructure, we recommend a different regional adjustment factor because this infrastructure is more affected by haulage costs of raw material from material sources across NSW.22 This is set out in Table 10.2. As such, the variations in transportation and logistical costs in delivering roads infrastructure will be significantly different compared with delivering open space and community facilities. Rather than using specific

19 Unpublished advice from Evans & Peck. 20 Unpublished advice from Evans & Peck. 21 Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook, 2013, pp 22-23. 22 Unpublished advice from Evans & Peck.



locations, we have used distance thresholds from the raw material source to determine the relevant adjustment factor.

The indices range from 1.0 to 1.1 and apply to bands of between 25km and 75km and more than 75km from a material source.

4.2.3 Optional congestion factor

We also recommend an optional adjustment factor to reflect variations in congestion-related costs. This factor reflects that there will be greater costs when infrastructure is delivered in high density, congested areas.23

Works conducted in suburban business districts and heavily built up areas typically incur higher cost due to site difficulty constraints, including:

difficulty of access and site constraints

working around existing utilities and infrastructure

increased night works

double handling of materials and spoil

additional safety barriers and temporary works, and

increased traffic management.

This adjustment factor will only apply to roads and stormwater management facilities and it represents the upper limit of the additional congestion related costs (See Table 10.3).

Rather than provide prescriptive congestion factors to cover a wide variety of possible local infrastructure delivery situations, three bands of congestion level have been nominated, each with an upper percentage limit for additional costs that may arise due to works in a business district or heavily built up environment. In assessing what the appropriate bands and limits should be, situations such as the Sydney CBD have been excluded. It is considered more appropriate to treat Sydney CBD as a special case, and costs should be estimated using the methodologies we recommend in chapter 5.

The 3 proposed bands have been based on the following scenarios.

Band 1 – Lightly congested: Local infrastructure work on or adjacent to a suburban street, requiring minor and/or irregular traffic control and with only minor pedestrian movement.

Band 2 – Moderately congested: Local infrastructure work either:

– on a large contained development site bordered by a major thoroughfare and surrounded by medium and/or high density buildings; or

23 Unpublished advice from Evans & Peck.



– on or adjacent to a main road or narrow suburban street requiring continuous traffic control and with moderate pedestrian movement.

Band 3 – Heavily congested: Local infrastructure work on or adjacent to a street within a suburban business district, with substantial and continuous traffic control and with significant pedestrian movement.

The congestion factor values in Table 10.3 are upper limit guides only. The additional costs incurred during local infrastructure work in congested areas are typically one off or time dependant costs that are not related to the quantity of work to be undertaken. Accordingly, the percentage increase over the benchmark costs is influenced by the number of infrastructure items being undertaken simultaneously in a single location. Where the additional costs are able to be spread over more than one infrastructure item, the increase in percentage terms would be expected to be lower than otherwise.

Draft Recommendations

2 Benchmark costs should be adjusted, if outside of the Sydney region, by a regional factor to account for variations in transportation costs, area specific prices and market competition for labour and materials, using:

– the index for the closest regional centre, in regional building cost indices from the Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook for open space embellishment and community facilities

– the distance thresholds from the source of raw materials, for roads and stormwater infrastructure, as reproduced in Table 10.2 in Part 2 of this report.

3 Councils can apply an optional adjustment factor for congestion-related costs, if there is significant congestion at the infrastructure site, based on different levels of congestion for roads and stormwater infrastructure (Table 10.3 in of Part 2 of this report).

4.3 Contingency allowance

Contingency allowances can be a significant element in costing infrastructure delivery and there is a diverse range of practices across NSW.24

Contingency allowances are to cover costs of risk events which have not been included in the base cost, because they have a less than 100% chance of occurring.25 The types of costs covered by contingency allowances can include site contamination, encountering unexpected underground utility infrastructure, spikes in demand for labour or interruptions to supplies. Contingency allowances are not to cover a lack of planning or for an expansion of project scope.

24 IPART correspondence with Infrastructure New South Wales, 27 August 2013. 25 Unpublished advice from Evans & Peck.



The level of contingency applied to a project will depend on project phase, infrastructure type and the risk appetite of the organisation. Evans & Peck have recommended the contingency values in Table 10.4 and we are seeking feedback on these contingency values. We consider that these mid-point contingency allowances provided by Evans & Peck may over-estimate the impact of uncertainty when using the benchmark items.

We welcome submissions to the Draft Report on what is an appropriate level of contingency allowance to be applied when using the benchmark items.

4.3.1 Variation due to project phase

The appropriate contingency allowance will depend on the phase of the project delivery.

We have used NSW Treasury’s Gateway Review Toolkit to describe the different phases of project delivery. There are 6 gateways: from the strategic assessment at the start of a project, through tender evaluation to post implementation, as shown in Figure 4.2.



Figure 4.2 Procurement cycle and review gateways

Source: Procurepoint NSW, Gateway Review Toolkit 2006, p 3.

We are recommending appropriate contingency allowances for the first 2 gateways – strategic review and business case review. These planning phases are broadly consistent with the planning and preparation process for councils’ local infrastructure.26 The strategic review stage assesses whether the proposal aligns with the council’s strategic plans and demonstrates best value to service the community needs. The business case review stage assesses whether options have been fully explored as well as the costs quantified.




As the council progresses from strategic planning to the business case stage in preparing local infrastructure plans, the contingency allowance should be reduced. This is because councils attain more understanding and information of the various risks, and there will be more certainty about the likelihood of the risk events.27 Councils are likely to be able to reduce the contingency allowance because some events will now be:

very likely to occur (so the costs can be included in the base cost)

very unlikely to occur (so presents a lower risk than previously).

We have not identified specific benchmarks for the contingency after the first 2 gateways because councils will not be using the benchmark values at this stage and are able to attain appropriate contingency allowances during the tendering and the construction stages of project delivery.28

4.3.2 Variation due to infrastructure type

The contingency allowance should vary according to the type of infrastructure being provided. This is because the general risk profiles of some types of local infrastructure may be lower due to the council’s extensive experience.29 Some councils, for example, will have far more experience in constructing local roads and footpaths than stormwater management facilities, which can vary significantly across different areas.

Also, the number of risk events is more inherent for some infrastructure types which will require a higher contingency allowance. Stormwater management infrastructure and roads, for example, will generally require more excavation works compared with open space embellishment or community facilities, which will increase the number of risks such as encountering contaminated soil, hard sedimentary surfaces, and underground utility services.30 In contrast, facilities such as playgrounds and community facilities generally require less excavation and are less likely to encounter these risks.

27 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Best

Practice Cost Estimation for Publicly Funded Road and Rail Construction, Evans & Peck, 19 June 2008, p 42.

28 Ibid, p 39. 29 See for example: IPART, Assessment of The Hills Shire Council’s Contributions Plan No 12 –

Balmoral Road Release Area, October 2011, p 39. 30 IPART consultation with Leichhardt Municipal Council 11 October 2013.



4.3.3 Variation due to risk appetite

The level of contingency applied to a project at a particular gateway will also depend on the risk appetite of the organisation delivering the project.31 For example, if an organisation has a low risk appetite they will choose a contingency representing a high chance of not being exceeded. If an organisation has a higher risk appetite they will choose a contingency allowance which represents a ‘most likely’ cost outcome, that is, an average chance of the costs being exceeded.

In the context of infrastructure delivery by councils and developers, we consider that it is appropriate in most cases to apply a contingency for the most likely scenario. In cases where councils have a significant number of development projects, they will be able to pool the risks across multiple projects and hence a contingency for the most likely scenario would be appropriate.32 We do acknowledge that councils with few infrastructure delivery projects may need more certainty of covering the costs as they would not be able to pool the risks between projects, and hence may use a more risk-averse contingency allowance than we have recommended.

With some of the larger, more complex projects it may be appropriate to undertake project-specific risk modelling to determine an appropriate level of contingency. This will include detailing the risks which may occur, assessing the probability of occurring and the cumulative financial impact.

4.3.4 Suggested contingency values

Evans & Peck have recommended the contingency values in Table 4.1 and we are seeking feedback on whether they are appropriate.

Evans & Peck used the most likely cost outcome approach to determine contingency allowances. Like us, they found significant variations in contingency allowances for each infrastructure type for the strategic review and business case stages. The following table includes the recommended contingency allowances provided by Evans & Peck. The value in the table is the midpoint of a range for the project stage and infrastructure type.

31 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Best

Practice Cost Estimation for Publicly Funded Road and Rail Construction, Evans & Peck, 19 June 2008, p 43.




Table 4.1 Suggested contingency allowances for planning project phases and infrastructure types (% of base cost plus adjustment factor)

Project Gateway Open space Community Roads Stormwater

Strategic review 20% 15% 30% 30%

Business case 15% 10% 20% 20%

Note: Evans & Peck have not identified contingency allowances for the tender stage or later, as councils would use tender costs rather than the benchmarks for cost estimation at those stages of planning or delivery.

Source: Evans & Peck, unpublished advice to IPART. QA ref Benchmark costs for Local Infrastructure Contributions – IPART Report Guidance Notes and General Advice, p 7.

Evans & Peck have not identified contingency allowances for the tender stage or later, as councils would use tender costs rather than the benchmarks for cost estimation at those stages of planning or delivery.

We consider that these mid-point contingency allowances provided by Evans & Peck may over-estimate the impact of uncertainty when using the benchmark items.

We welcome submissions to the Draft Report on what is an appropriate level of contingency allowance to be applied when using the benchmark items.


4 Councils should apply relevant final contingency allowance rates to their benchmark costs (adjusted for regional and congestion factors). IPART is consulting on the contingency allowances set out in Table 10.4 in Part 2 of this report and will finalise these for the Final Report.

5 Estimating efficient costs where there is no benchmark



Our terms of reference ask us to identify methods that are likely to lead to efficient costs for infrastructure where benchmark costs cannot be reasonably established.

We focus on the methods that will lead to the estimation of efficient costs, rather than on the delivery of the infrastructure. We identify how the estimation method will depend largely on the nature of the infrastructure, the stage in the project process, and the council’s access to information sources.

We discuss the ‘top down’ and ‘bottom up’ approaches to estimation. The infrastructure type and information source will determine which approach is applicable. We discuss different information sources in terms of their usefulness or likely accuracy. These sources include market information and historical costs. We consider market information more useful where it is available. Councils will also need to make a reasonable allowance for contingency, if possible, based on a risk assessment.

In the subsequent sections, we identify some good practices that councils can use to enhance the quality and accuracy of cost estimates. Such practices include determining the strategic scope of the project, ensuring that there is a process in place to review estimates, and planning and managing the project cash flows in the works program.

5.1 When should these estimation methods be applied?

5.1.1 Items where there is no benchmark

As explained in Chapter 3, we have not estimated a benchmark for some infrastructure items. This includes items or components of items that are very site-specific or for which there is no typical configuration. The complete list of items or components of items which have not been benchmarked from the original benchmark list that was provided to IPART by the Infrastructure Contributions Taskforce was presented in Box 3.1. We welcome additional feedback from stakeholders on these items. However, for items which are ultimately not benchmarked, we recommend that councils apply the methods



explained in the following sections when estimating the costs of these infrastructure items.

5.1.2 Where a council considers that the cost of the infrastructure item will exceed the benchmark

In some circumstances, a council may consider that the benchmark would not sufficiently cover the estimated cost of a specific infrastructure project in the local infrastructure plan. The council would then need to clearly justify the additional costs in its local infrastructure plan. In doing so, we consider that councils should endeavour to follow our recommended estimation methods.

5.2 Types of estimating methodologies

A range of possible methods is available to estimate the cost of infrastructure. In Chapter 3 we noted that at one end of the spectrum is ‘bottom up’, ‘first principles’ estimating and at the other, is ‘top down’ estimating or ‘reference pricing’.

5.2.1 First principles or bottom up estimating

The first principles estimating approach relies on a build-up of the finest elements of the project as possible. Concrete in a bridge deck is typically further subdivided into formwork, concrete supply, placement, finishing and curing.33 This type of estimating is particularly important for civil engineering projects with many material and supply components such as roads, stormwater and some aspects of open space embellishment. In projects of these types, first principles estimating can lead to the most certainty of outcome. However, it can also be resource intensive and, if not done carefully, potentially over-estimate the costs.

5.2.2 Top down or reference pricing

A ‘top down’ or ‘reference pricing’ approach may be necessary when a functional description is available with little or no design information. It may also be appropriate when there is a reliable source of data available, such as supply quotes. For community facilities and some open space embellishment items like playground equipment and park furniture, where there are few inputs and supply quotes may be readily available to determine pricing, the ‘top down’ approach is sufficient to lead to efficient cost estimation. When preparing their plans, councils will rarely be at the stage where a tender is available. However if they are, a competitive tender is the most accurate way of estimating the cost of the infrastructure.

33 Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), Project Estimating, Version 2.0, March 2008, p 20.



In practice, councils may use combinations of different estimating methods, depending on the nature and timing of the projects at the time they are developing the local infrastructure plan, and the available resources and information. A hybrid approach which draws on some unit rates and other first principle elements can result in increased estimate accuracy with less cost than a first principles approach.34

5.3 What method and information sources should be used?

Various information sources may be used to develop efficient cost estimates. Broadly the categories are: ‘market information’ - which includes tenders or schedules of rates ‘other estimation sources’ - which include historical costs or cost estimating

software or publications.

We consider market information generally provides more accurate cost estimates for efficient delivery of infrastructure because it reflects the current market. Historical costs and publications are based on infrastructure delivery in a different market and often include costs associated with site-specific challenges, which may or may not be relevant.

Table 5.1 provides a hierarchy of methods for estimating costs in our order of preference. We have identified which cost estimation methodology will be most applicable for the different infrastructure types, but councils are not restricted to using these methods for the specified infrastructure types.

Table 5.1 Hierarchy of recommended methods for estimating costs of infrastructure where there is no benchmark

Cost methodology

Infrastructure type cost methodology is usually applicable to

Market information Other information sources

Tender Schedule of rates

Historical cost

Cost estimating software or publication

Reference Pricing/ Top Down

Some open spacea Community Facilities

1st 2nd 3rd Not applicable

First principles/ Bottom Up

Some open spaceb Roads Stormwater

Not applicable

2nd 3rd 3rd

a The types of open space embellishment which are better suited to top down cost estimation are items such as playground equipment, which are supplied ‘off the shelf’. b The types of open space embellishment which are better suited to bottom up cost estimation are items such as paving, which is installed by square metre. Source: Evans & Peck and IPART.

34 Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), Project Estimating, Version 2.0, March 2008, p 21.



Councils will only be able to use tender prices if the project has progressed to this point in the planning and delivery process. For Local Infrastructure Planning, particularly in greenfield areas, this will rarely be the case. If the council cannot request tenders, it should then consider whether it has access to the next best information source for cost estimating.

Some open space embellishment and community facilities lend themselves more to reference pricing because the costs information is more readily available eg, supplier price lists. Roads and stormwater infrastructure (ie, civil engineering-type projects) tend to require a first principles cost estimation approach because overall project costs are not available early in the project. However, the use of schedules of rates for supply elements will aid the build-up of the estimate and help to improve its overall accuracy.

In the sections below, we explain in more detail the different types of information and how councils may use this information.

5.3.1 Using market rates and relevant data

Where possible, councils should use recent market rates for projects or various aspects of supply for infrastructure projects.

Tenders provide a useful means of testing the construction market, but they also require the availability of a detailed design for the specified item of infrastructure and an immediate start for the works. Many councils are unlikely to be at this stage when developing their local infrastructure plans. It may also be impractical to adopt this approach for every infrastructure item in a local infrastructure plan.

An alternative way to obtain market information is to engage a panel of contractors for various materials and supplies. Councils can invite contractors to participate on a panel or rates schedule through an open tender process. Ideally, the contractors would provide data on their current rates for nominated jobs or materials which form part of infrastructure projects, which may be then used by the council when preparing cost estimates for infrastructure in local infrastructure plans.35 Estimates based on a tender process would provide a realistic estimate of what the council would pay in the current market.

35 For example, Blacktown City Council uses a competitive tender process to maintain a database

of unit prices for road and drainage works. The tender is advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald and on the council’s website and it is reviewed and approved by a tender committee. Blacktown City Council advice to IPART, phone meeting, 25 October 2013.



Smaller councils may not generate the volume of construction work to justify a panel of rates or open tender process and so may not have this type of market information. However, in some instances Regional Organisations of Councils (ROCs) like WSROC compile the rates on behalf of member councils, and the councils can access the information and suppliers.36

5.3.2 Using a cost estimating publication or software

There are a number of cost estimating publications that set out unit costs at varying levels of detail. Common publications used in Australia include Rawlinsons’ and Cordell’s cost guides.

Councils apply the published costs to preliminary infrastructure designs. In the North West and South West Growth Centres, preliminary infrastructure designs are routinely prepared through the precinct planning process.37

As with benchmark costs, cost estimating publications necessarily make broad assumptions about technical specifications of the infrastructure. Therefore, they may not provide realistic estimates of an individual council’s costs, particularly where infrastructure requirements vary considerably due to local circumstances.

A broad range of propriety software packages is available to assist councils in developing cost estimates for different types of projects. These include Build Soft, Benchmark, Expert Estimator, CATS and Piece 7.38

5.3.3 Drawing on historical costs

Councils may use actual costs incurred from previous infrastructure projects they have delivered, other infrastructure cost databases (eg, Cordell) or data from similar infrastructure projects occurring in other Local Government Areas. Consultants can be engaged to assist with estimating and they could draw upon their contract experience in formulating cost estimates.

5.4 Contingency Allowance

In estimating the cost for infrastructure where there are no benchmarks, the councils will also have to consider risk and allow an amount for contingencies. The contingency should cover the costs of risk events, which have not been included in the base cost, because they have a less than 100% chance of occurring (see section 4.3).

36 Western Sydney Regional Organization of Councils Ltd (WSROC) website, Regional

Procurement information, www.wsroc.com.au/index.php/regional-procurement. 37 Department of Planning and Infrastructure, Sydney’s Growth Centres website,

www.growthcentres.nsw.gov.au/precinctplanning-60.html. 38 Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), Project Estimating, Version 2.0, March 2008, pp 169-173.



To determine a contingency allowance for items where there is no benchmark, we consider that councils should adopt a similar approach as we have used in developing benchmark costs. In particular, we recommend that the council should consider the nature of the infrastructure and the particular risks involved in the project, and if possible, undertake a quantitative risk assessment.

In the context of infrastructure delivery by councils and developers, we consider that it may be appropriate in most cases to apply a contingency for the most likely scenario and in other cases a more conservative contingency allowance for a more risk-averse scenario. Councils with a significant number of development projects will be able to pool the risks across multiple projects and so a contingency for the most likely scenario would be appropriate. However, smaller councils with few infrastructure projects would need more certainty about covering their costs as they would not be able to pool the risks between projects, and so may use a more risk-averse contingency allowance.

For some of the larger, more complex projects it may be appropriate to undertake project-specific risk modelling to determine what would be an appropriate level of contingency to achieve objectives.


5 In preparing cost estimates for infrastructure items where there is no benchmark cost estimate, councils should use the approaches presented in Table 5.1 to estimate base costs, and include a reasonable allowance for contingency.

5.5 What else can a council do to ensure good estimates where there is no benchmark?

A range of good practices can help ensure that councils arrive at efficient cost estimates of infrastructure where there are no benchmarks. These include determining the strategic scope of the project, ensuring that there is a process in place to review costs in the plan, and planning and managing cash flow.

Determining the strategic scope

Determining the scope of the project is perhaps the most important step in developing a reliable estimate. In practice, this depends on the information available. Information such as the extent of the project and the risks involved are very important to prepare a reasonable strategic estimate. If the relevant information is not available and/or reliable at the strategic stage of the project, the estimator will need to make sensible assumptions about the scope of the project and document these in the plan.39

39 Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), Project Estimating, Version 2.0, March 2008, pp 76-77.



Reviewing the estimates

Estimating infrastructure costs is necessarily an iterative process40 and reviewing the estimates is also good practice. Reviews include:

a review by the estimating staff’s senior officer for content and accuracy

a peer review by others within the estimating or project area

an independent review by a party outside the organisation

a periodic review to keep the estimate ‘up to date’ between phases.41

Gateway Review Processes should also be used by councils to strengthen the oversight and governance of larger projects so that they may deliver the projects in accordance with stated objectives. These reviews may focus on:

assessing the project against specified objectives at a particular stage in the project’s life cycle

providing early identification of areas that may require corrective action, and

providing validation that a project is ready to progress successfully to the next stage.42

Even after the tender stage, there remains a need to review costs because there could be changes to infrastructure design or quantities. A council might adopt a dollar per cubic metre rate for the disposal of excavated material based on a competitive tendering process. However, the total cost of disposing excavated material included a local infrastructure plan will depend on the council’s assumptions about how much excavated material can be reused (as fill) within the precinct. Therefore, a review process will examine actual costs and make adjustments to remaining costs as necessary.

5.6 Cash flow planning and management

The cash flow within a local infrastructure plan over its life can be substantial and planning and management of this cash flow is important so that the council can deliver the facilities in a timely and efficient manner. This also minimises the risks to the council from escalation of costs of infrastructure, land and facilities.

40 Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), Project Estimating, Version 2.0, March 2008, p 15. 41 Evans & Peck for the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional

Development and Local Government, Best Practice Cost Estimation for Publicly Funded Road and Rail Construction, June 2008, pp 44-45.

42 Procurepoint NSW, Gateway Review Toolkit, p 3.



The former Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources provided guidance on cash flow management in its Development Contributions Practice Notes 2005. The notes explain how the development of cash flows within a plan is considered good practice as it assists in project planning and signals the assumptions a council has made in the timing of delivery of facilities.43

Councils may use 1 of 2 basic techniques to include future costs of facilities within a works program:

the nominal cost approach where the value of the facility is included in current dollars even though it may be constructed in the future (and the costs can be escalated from year to year)

the Net Present Value (NPV) approach which discounts future cash flows to account for the fact that funds received or expended today are worth more than future funds.44

IPART has published a recommended approach for councils to select a discount rate when using an NPV model to calculate development contributions.45

43 Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, Development Contributions

Practice Notes – July 2005, p 3. 44 Ibid. 45 IPART, Modelling local development contributions - Selection of a discount rate for councils that use an

NPV methodology, Local Government – Final Technical Paper, September 2012.

6 Cost escalation and updating the benchmarks



The terms of reference ask IPART to recommend a method for updating benchmark costs, eg, for cost escalation.

The benchmark costs that we have published in Part 2 of this Draft Report are presented in 2012/13 dollars. Councils using the benchmark costs in future years will need to escalate the benchmark costs to reflect the changes in those costs since 2012/13. Alternatively, benchmark costs could be reviewed annually, but this is both time consuming and expensive. In this chapter, we consider using an index to escalate the benchmark costs in the future year and also how the benchmarks should be reviewed to update the base for escalating them in future years.

We recommend that councils use relevant construction-based Producer Price Indices (PPIs) published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to escalate the benchmark costs.

We also recommend that the set of benchmark costs adopted for use in estimating costs in local infrastructure plans are reviewed by IPART within 4 years.

6.1 How should benchmark costs be escalated?

In developing a cost escalation methodology for updating local infrastructure cost benchmarks, we have considered:

the type of index that is most appropriate for each local infrastructure category, ie, roads, local open space embellishment, community facilities and stormwater infrastructure

how the indices should be applied.

How to update the cost of land is considered separately in Chapter 7.



6.1.1 Choosing the right index

Councils have available a variety of indices to use to escalate estimates of infrastructure costs. These indices include publicly available indices from the ABS or privately produced indices from construction cost specialists (eg, Rawlinsons, Davis Langdon, Turner and Townsend, Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB), EC Harris and Gardiner and Theobald).46

In our view there are 2 broad types of indices to choose from to determine the most reasonable index to escalate benchmark costs:

an economy-wide index such as the ABS Consumer Price Index (CPI)

a narrower, industry-specific index which captures producer price movements, either published by the private sector or by the ABS.

Current practice

We reviewed the current escalation practices in contributions plans of a sample of councils in NSW.47 Most councils we examined use the CPI (Sydney) to escalate the capital component of the contribution rate/s. Others use construction-based PPIs published by the ABS. We identified only 1 council that uses a privately published index (in this case RLB’s Tender Price Index for construction costs).

The current planning legislation allows NSW councils to select the index to use to escalate the contributions rates without the need to make a new plan. Clause 32(3)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation) permits adjustments to contributions rates using readily accessible index figures (eg, CPI) or indices prepared by the councils themselves.

In Victoria, the majority of councils use industry-specific indices, typically either the Building Price Index published by Rawlinsons or the PPI published by the ABS to index the cost of infrastructure items in their development contribution plans.48

46 Best R, “International comparisons of cost and productivity in construction: a bad example”,

Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (3) p 85. 47 We examined existing section 94 contribution plans of 30 (out of a total of 152) NSW Councils

(Sample of 30 contributions plans, October 2013). We note that 25 of the 30 councils use the CPI to index costs in their plans, with 4 of the remainder using ABS PPIs. In addition, we found that 28 of the 30 councils calculate the contributions rates before escalation is applied. The remaining councils escalate the works costs before they are used to calculate the new contributions rate.

48 Property Council of Australia, Development contributions in Melbourne’s Growth Areas, March 2011, p 7.



6.1.2 An economy-wide or an industry-specific index

The advantages of using an economy-wide measure such as the CPI to escalate the cost benchmarks are that it is transparent, readily available, and easy to use. This is why many councils use the CPI to escalate their contributions rates from year to year.

The disadvantage is that it only measures consumer price inflation, rather than increases in the costs of inputs of production or infrastructure construction.

By contrast, an industry-specific index will be more reflective of the cost movements for the relevant infrastructure categories as it will capture changes in councils’ costs of delivering infrastructure.

We consider that it is more important that benchmarks accurately reflect cost movements, where possible. Therefore, we recommend that an industry-specific index should be used for escalating benchmark costs when a council is preparing a local infrastructure plan.

6.1.3 An ABS or privately produced index

Both the private sector and the ABS publish industry-specific indices. Compared with the ABS indices, privately produced indices are not as freely available to the public and are less transparent. In addition, the range of choices among privately produced indices can result in inconsistency between how councils escalate costs. This potentially creates uncertainty for developers.

On the other hand, private indices can be more reflective of specific infrastructure cost shifts when there is no ABS index available. As an example, RLB publishes a specific index for multi-sport playing fields while the ABS index closest to recreational facilities is the ABS non-residential construction index.

Our preferred approach is to use the PPIs from the ABS. The advantages of using the ABS PPIs are that they are:

industry-specific (by state or territory)

publicly available

published quarterly.

6.1.4 Recommended indices to escalate benchmark costs

Table 6.1 lists the ABS PPIs that we consider most appropriate for the 4 infrastructure categories that may be included in local infrastructure plans. Land is excluded from this list, although an appropriate escalation factor may also need to be applied to land for essential infrastructure in local infrastructure plans. This is considered in Chapter 7.



In the interests of consistency, we recommend that councils should use the same PPIs that we recommended in Table 6.1 to escalate the costs of infrastructure where there is no benchmark, if necessary, before finalising their local infrastructure plan.

In some circumstances, councils may have already incurred costs in delivering works for new development prior to the finalisation of a local infrastructure plan. Therefore the council will need to escalate these costs to current dollars using the CPI, consistent with the current planning legislation.

Table 6.1 IPART’s recommended escalation of local infrastructure costs for use before a Local Infrastructure Plan is adopted

Infrastructure status Infrastructure category Recommended cost index

Infrastructure to be provided in the future

Community facilities

ABS PPI Building Construction Index for NSW (no. 30)

Open space

ABS PPI Non-Residential Building Construction Index for NSW (no. 3020)

Stormwater ABS PPI Non-Residential Building Construction Index for NSW (no. 3020)

Roads ABS PPI Road and Bridge Construction Index for NSW (no. 3101)

Note: Excludes the cost of land which is discussed in Chapter 7.


6 When preparing a local infrastructure plan, councils should escalate the benchmark costs (as listed in Part 2 of this report in 2012/13 dollar terms) using the latest available quarterly Producer Price Indices published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as listed in Table 6.1.

6.1.5 How to apply the indices

We recommend that councils use the latest available quarterly PPIs published by the ABS when escalating the benchmark costs. Box 6.1 provides an example of how the benchmark costs should be escalated using the June 2013 quarter as the base (as the benchmark costs are published in 2012/13 dollars). This example shows that the quarter on quarter method should be used to reflect the latest price changes.



Box 6.1 Example calculation for escalating infrastructure costs

This box shows how a council would escalate benchmark costs to the March 2015quarter using the PPI. For simplicity, we assume that the benchmark cost is $1,000, which is in 2012/13 dollars.

The PPI for the June 2013 quarter is 103.1 and for the purposes of this example weassume that the PPI for the March 2015 quarter is 106.5. The escalated benchmark costfor the March 2015 quarter is:

6.2 When should the benchmarks be reviewed and updated?

The benchmark infrastructure costs will need to be reviewed periodically to reflect changes in the costs due to structural shifts in the local economy or construction industry, as well as changes in what are considered to be ‘typical’ infrastructure items. We consider that IPART should review the benchmarks within 4 years.


7 Local infrastructure benchmarks (as listed in Part 2 of this report) should be reviewed by IPART within 4 years.

6.3 Incorporating updated benchmark costs in local infrastructure plans

The review of the benchmark items, as discussed in the section above will likely result in changes to the benchmark costs. It will be necessary to consider the impacts from these changes on a council’s finalised local infrastructure plan, which incorporates the pre-review benchmark costs.

Presently, councils are permitted under the EP&A Regulation clause 32(3) to make changes to the rates of contributions in a finalised contributions plan, without the need for consultation on the plan, to reflect:

variations to readily accessible index figures, such as the CPI, or index figures prepared by or on behalf of the council which have been adopted by the plan

minor typographical corrections, and

the removal of completed works details.

$1,033

(1.033) $1,000

103.1

106.5 $1,000 cost escalated



We consider that councils should be allowed to update the contribution rates in their plans with the revised benchmark costs. This may reduce the potential for disputes about costs, and avoid councils having to re-exhibit their plans only because the benchmarks have been adjusted. In developing the Planning Regulations and guidelines for the contributions framework, we suggest that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure consider this issue in more detail.

7 Valuing land for contributions



A council will be able to include the cost of land associated with local roads, open space embellishment and community facilities in calculating the costs in a local infrastructure plan and the contribution rates for that plan.49 The cost of land constitutes a significant part of the total cost in many contributions plans, especially in areas of high land values.50

Our terms of reference ask us to consider the methodologies for determining the value of land to be purchased by, or provided by councils, when included in a local infrastructure plan.

This chapter outlines methods to value land in plans and how these costs should be adjusted over time. We consider that the appropriate valuation method depends on whether or not a council owns or needs to buy the land, and whether certain council-owned land rezoned for development in the planning process, was previously reserved for public purposes.

The appropriate method to escalate the land costs also depends on whether or not the council owns the land or needs to purchase it.

We are seeking feedback on our recommendations for valuing land and escalating land values.

7.1 Overview of our recommended methods to estimate the cost of land in a local infrastructure plan

Table 7.1 sets out our recommended methods to cost land in a local infrastructure plan.

49 The White Paper, p 165. 50 The cost of land in the contributions plans that IPART has reviewed was, on average, 32% of the

total cost of the plan: IPART, Information Paper – Comparison of costs in contributions plans reviewed by IPART, May 2013 and IPART calculations.



Table 7.1 IPART’s recommended methodologies for costing land in a local infrastructure plan

Land to be acquired by the council

Land already owned by the council

Prior to rezoning, not reserved for public usea

All other council-owned land

Land cost estimate - in Year 0 of the plan

Estimate of market value (taking into consideration just terms)

Estimate of current market value

Historical purchase price adjusted by annual CPI (All Groups) Sydney

Land cost escalation – from Year 1 of the plan until plan review

Choice of a ‘suitable’ land value index (See suitability criteria in Box 7.1) or CPI (All Groups) Sydney.

CPI (All Groups) Sydney.

CPI (All Groups) Sydney.

a This refers to the precinct planning process for growth centres. Source: Department of Planning & Infrastructure, Growth Centres Commission website, Precinct Planning information, http://www.gcc.nsw.gov.au/precinctplanning-60.html.

Note: This table does not deal with land dedicated by developers as a contribution in kind. This option is discussed in section 7.2.2.

When a council has to acquire the land, it requires contributions to fund the future purchase price, unless the land is dedicated by the developer. Therefore, it will need to estimate the acquisition costs of the land, including the market value, and any compensation payable.

If the council already owns the land and had already set aside that land for public purposes, we recommend that it may recover the cost of purchasing the land, indexed to current dollars. This is consistent with current practice.

An alternative option is for councils to recover the current market value for the land it owns. Councils are able to sell their land to the benefit of ratepayers and would receive its market value to fund its activities.

We recommend allowing a council to cost this land at market value in one particular situation. This occurs when land is released for development through the precinct planning process,51 but was previously held by council on behalf of ratepayers for investment purposes (and not reserved for public purposes).

51 Generally, greenfield housing delivery, as a first step, requires land to be rezoned to make

urban development permissible under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). The rezoning, often referred to as precinct planning, starts after an area is released by the Government. In the Sydney Growth Centres this occurs under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. Source: Department of Planning and Infrastructure, Guidelines for Landowner Input into Precinct Planning, November 2011, p 2.



We have also recommended approaches to escalate the land costs in a local infrastructure plan. Where the land is to be acquired, we recommend that councils be given the choice of either using a ‘suitable’ land value index (as defined in section 7.4.1) or the CPI, but for council-owned land, we recommend use of the CPI only. We explain our recommendations in more detail in the following sections.

7.2 What approach should councils take to costing land it needs to acquire in a plan?

Councils must estimate the cost of purchasing the land needed for local infrastructure in the plan.

When preparing a local infrastructure plan, a council will indicate the parcels of land that it will need to acquire in the future, closer to the time it is ready to provide the infrastructure (ie, open space embellishment, community facilities, and local roads).

There are 2 ways that councils may acquire land from the landowners: by a private agreement for sale, or by a process of compulsory acquisition.52 Usually a council will first seek to reach a private agreement with affected landowners about the purchase price. When a private agreement between parties cannot be reached, the council will initiate the compulsory acquisition process. Alternatively, a landowner can initiate compulsory acquisition procedures where delay in the council acquiring the land will cause financial hardship.53

Regardless of whether the land is acquired pursuant to a private agreement or by compulsory acquisition processes, the compensation payable to the owner of the land should be determined having regard to certain matters set out in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991.54 These matters include the market value of the land plus compensation for a range of other factors, related to the inconvenience of being forced to sell.55

Therefore when a council is estimating the value of the land to include as a cost in an infrastructure plan, the council will usually determine the current market value of the land, and include a component that will reflect the other matters required by the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991.

For both private agreements and compulsory acquisitions, the market value of land has to be ascertained. We understand from feedback from a range of councils that they either use independent registered valuers or in-house qualified valuers to estimate these values.

52 Local Government Act 1993, s 187. 53 Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, s 23. 54 Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, ss 37, 38 and 55. 55 Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, s 55.



The market value for land is usually found by observing sales evidence of properties with similar characteristics. Where there is insufficient sales evidence, market value is ascertained by the ‘hypothetical development’ method.56 The hypothetical development method involves ascertaining the highest and best use of the land (rather than its current use) and using this assumption as the basis of valuation. The land value is then evaluated using an averaging technique on a square metre basis, and the value per square metre is extrapolated for each lot.

The methodology appears to be well understood and at this stage, councils have not generally reported issues with applying the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 to valuing the land component for infrastructure planning.

A recent inquiry into the valuation system in NSW recommended that the NSW Government establish a Valuation Commission and issue guidelines for the valuation of land in NSW, including compulsory acquisition valuations. The guidelines are to clearly state the methodologies for valuing land and the circumstances in which those methodologies are to be applied.57

7.2.1 Costing land acquisitions in greenfield developments

So far in our review, a few councils have noted that there are challenges associated with the estimation of acquisition costs of land in greenfield developments, because the value of the land increases with the development.58 This means that if the council costs land at market value (plus compensation) when a local infrastructure plan is being prepared and the land is not acquired until a future date, the price eventually paid for the land is higher than the costs levied for.

One council has proposed that to more accurately reflect future acquisition costs, valuations for ‘en globo’ or undeveloped land in greenfield locations should be based upon the underlying zoning of the land. This would mean that land zoned open space but adjoining medium density land should be valued using the medium density.59 This approach is essentially costing the land in a plan based on its forecast, future value. Estimating future land values based on forecast market trends can be problematic, but the underlying zoning approach may provide a more accurate estimate of acquisition costs in this case.

56 Hyam, A., The Law affecting Valuation of Land in Australia (4th ed), 2009, p 188. 57 NSW Government response, Joint Standing Committee on the Office of the Valuer General Inquiry

into land valuation system – Report on the inquiry into the land valuation system, 4 November 2013, p 1.

58 Wyong Shire Council, Response to IPART’s Information Paper – Benchmark costs for local infrastructure contributions (Response to Information Paper), November 2013, Shoalhaven City Council, Response to Information Paper, November 2013, and Hornsby Shire Council, Response to Information Paper, November 2013.

59 Hornsby Shire Council, Response to Information Paper, November 2013.



We wish to consult more with stakeholders on this issue and suggested approach, and invite further comment.

7.2.2 Land to be acquired by dedication by developers

Another option for acquiring land is for developers to dedicate land free of cost for the purposes of offsetting their contributions to the cost of local infrastructure, in place of or in addition to a monetary contribution.60 Land dedication can be one way of reducing the likelihood of councils experiencing shortfalls in funding for land acquisition costs.61

If councils allow or require land to be dedicated, it is common for the contributions plans to include provisions about how the offset is to be calculated. When preparing an infrastructure plan, if the council can identify land that will be dedicated by the developer, it should value that land in accordance with the provisions in the plan.62 The Infrastructure Contributions Taskforce will consider how land or works will be valued as contributions in kind in the process.

7.3 What approach should councils take to costing council-owned land in a plan?

The 2 main options for valuing land that is already owned by a council are:

historical purchase price indexed by CPI

estimate of current market value.

7.3.1 Historical purchase price indexed by CPI

Where the cost of council-owned land is included in a plan,63 the land is commonly valued at historical purchase price indexed by the CPI.64

60 EP&A ACT s 94(1). 61 See for example, Department of Planning, Draft local development contributions – preparation and

administration of development contributions plans, Consultation draft only – not Government policy, November 2009, p 38.

62 Ibid. 63 Our consultation with councils to date has identified that not all councils will levy development

contributions for the cost of council-owned land. 64 For example, NSW Minerals Council, Pittwater Council and Lake Macquarie City Council

Responses to Information Paper, November 2013.



Recouping land costs in contributions plans based on the indexed purchase price is generally consistent with the current legislation. The EP&A Act allows councils to require payment of a reasonable monetary compensation for the cost of providing public amenities and services, including those which have already been provided.65 For public amenities or services which have already been provided, a council can recoup the cost as indexed in accordance with the regulations. The EP&A Regulation requires that the cost of amenities already provided by councils should be indexed quarterly or annually by CPI (All Groups) for Sydney.66 The Planning Bill 2013 retains the reasonableness test for direct contributions.67

7.3.2 Estimate of current market value

An alternative option to allowing councils to recover the purchase price of the land, adjusted for inflation, is to allow councils to recover the market value for the land. We identified a circumstance where we consider that a costing based on market value is more reasonable in a previous review of a contributions plan.

In our October 2011 report on CP20 for Blacktown Council, we considered that:

if the land was not already reserved for a public purpose68 before it is released for development in the planning process, the land should be valued at current market value69

if the land was already reserved for a public purpose, then there would be no additional loss to the council from including that land for development, and so the land should be valued at historical purchase price and indexed by CPI.70

However, there are also counter arguments to this position. In particular, the use of the purchase price indexed by CPI to all land would be a more consistent approach to costing land in plans. It may also reduce contributions payable in growth areas, thus encouraging more development.

65 The cost relates to public amenities and services provided, or to be provided, by the council to

prepare for or facilitate the carrying out of development in the area, and which the development would benefit from: EP&A Act, s 94.

66 EP&A Regulation cl 25I. 67 A direct contribution is “a contribution requiring the payment of money as a reasonable

contribution towards the provision of local infrastructure”: Planning Bill 2013 s 7.5(1)(a). 68 Land can be reserved for a public purpose by Ministerial Direction 6.2 under Section 117 of the

EP&A Act 1979. Department of Planning and Infrastructure, Section 117 Directions, July 2009. We note that whether land is reserved for a public use purpose is usually determined by the classification of land as either for ‘community’ or ‘operational’ use.

69 Frequently, councils acquire land not classified as ‘community’ land (and thus classified as ‘operational’ land) by taking possession of property from ratepayers who have defaulted on payment of rates.

70 IPART, Assessment of Blacktown City Council’s Contributions Plan No 20 – Riverstone and Alex Avenue Precincts, October 2011, p. 35.



Nevertheless, on balance, we maintain that estimating market value for land that is not reserved for a public purpose is a reasonable approach to costing land in the contributions process.71 Councils should ensure that the valuation is prepared by a completely independent and qualified valuer.

A final consideration regarding this approach is whether it would create an incentive for councils to “bank” operational land. In the view of one council:

There is more value to councils in supporting development and growth, and therefore growing their rate base, than “banking” operational land in the hope that land values will increase.72

The potential for any perverse incentives might be reduced by allowing councils to cost land at market value only when land was classified as ‘operational’ (and so not reserved for public use purposes) from a particular point in time.

We welcome further comment on all of these considerations.


8 For the purpose of levying direct contributions on developers, councils should value land already acquired at historical purchase price indexed annually by CPI (All Groups) Sydney except:

– If the land had not already been reserved for a public purpose before it is released for development in the precinct planning process. In this case, the council should value the land at current market value.

7.4 Updating land costs in a local infrastructure plan

As discussed in Chapter 6, there are 2 options to update cost estimates in a plan – either escalate the costs from year to year based on an index, or remake the plan and re-estimate the base costs. This applies to the land costs in a plan as it does to the capital infrastructure costs. Keeping estimates of acquisition land costs accurate and in line with what it will actually cost to purchase is important for a council, especially one acquiring a significant amount of land as part of its plan. Otherwise, it might find that it has insufficient contributions down the track to fund the acquisition of the land.

71 Eg, Lake Macquarie City Council, Response to Information Paper, November 2013. 72 Tweed Shire Council, Response to Information Paper, November 2013.



Given that the review and repeal of a plan can be a time-consuming and costly process involving re-exhibition of the plan, most councils choose to escalate land costs from year to year, and then review the plan after a number of years. The White Paper recommends that contributions in local infrastructure plans be reviewed at least every 4 years.73

7.4.1 Options for escalating land costs

We have considered two possible approaches to escalate the cost of land in a local infrastructure plan (until a plan is reviewed and remade). These are:

use of the CPI (All Groups) for Sydney, or

use of a ‘suitable’ land value index, which the council can produce itself or adopt from a pre-existing source (our criteria for ’suitable’ are explained below).

Use of the CPI

The current EP&A Regulation allows a council to choose to use the CPI, another readily available index or an index it constructs, so long as the index approach is published by the council in its plan.74 Nonetheless, many councils still choose to apply the CPI as a single escalator to their contributions rate, which incorporates land costs.75 Although market conditions for property are only loosely correlated to the CPI, it is a widely understood and accepted measure for updating costs in contributions plans, and ensures that the purchasing power of the dollar is maintained. For the latter reason, it is an appropriate approach for escalating the value of land that a council already owns.

Use of a land value index

Other councils, however, seek to keep the costs of land acquisitions in local infrastructure plans more aligned with market conditions – based on a land value index.

Using a land value index has the benefit of more closely reflecting actual changes in land values. Therefore, it will help ensure that councils have adequate funding for local infrastructure needs. It will also help to reduce the administrative costs in the system associated with a full review of the plan. One council suggested that we give consideration to development of an annual land

73 Contribution rates are to be reviewed every 4 years, as are councils’ local plans which include

their local infrastructure plans: NSW Government, A New Planning System for NSW -- White Paper, April 2013 pp 92 and 167.

74 EP&A Regulation cl 32(3). 75 IPART analysis based on a sample of 30 contributions plans, October 2013.



value index between valuations, although it is acknowledged that this is difficult due to the variation from one local property market to another.76

A range of information sources are currently used by councils for land value indices:

periodical market valuations for all land

periodical benchmark valuations

property sales data

other published property sales indices.77

Criteria for a ‘suitable’ land index

We consider that if a land value index is used, it needs to meet certain criteria in order for it to be suitable for application in a contributions plan.

First, to properly reflect changes in the relevant land values, the properties captured in sales data or being used for benchmarking purposes, should be representative. Where there are many different groups of properties catering to substantially different markets in a Local Government Area (LGA) (ie, where there is no dominant property type), a single land value index for the LGA will not be representative.

A land value index using sales data should also follow these principles:

The data points of the land value index should be based on a significant sample of sales data (roughly 30 or over).

The index should be robust against outliers. A median statistic should be used where there are few sales, since an arithmetic average could be skewed significantly by inclusion of a very high value property.

Where it is not possible for a council to attain a significant sample of sales data (eg, for undeveloped, ‘en globo’ land), a benchmarking approach may be used to construct a land value index. This method is currently used by the NSW Valuer General to check the integrity of its mass valuations, and also by at least 2 councils in growth areas in Sydney.78 The approach uses the valuation of a ‘benchmark’ property that best represents a group of properties within the council’s jurisdiction. The costs of all parcels of land that belong to a group are then pegged to movements in the value of the benchmark property. The value of the benchmark should be revised every year from a detailed site-based valuation.

76 Upper Hunter Shire Council, Response to Information Paper, November 2013. 77 IPART analysis based on a sample of 30 contributions plans, October 2013. 78 Meeting between Office of the Valuer General and IPART, 16 October 2013, and IPART analysis

based on a sample of 30 contributions plans, October 2013.



Councils also have the option to use existing property price indices prepared by property consultants if they are unable to perform a valuation of all properties in the area. However, if applied, these indices would still need to be consistent with our criteria. For some LGAs, there may not be sufficient sales for the index to be statistically representative of market conditions in the LGA. In the sample of plans that we have surveyed, we found that only one council uses a pre-existing index to value land (the Residex Index).79

We have summarized our recommended criteria for a suitable land value index in Box 7.1.

Box 7.1 IPART recommended criteria for a suitable land value index

A land value index should be:

1. Representative of the land in the local infrastructure plan.

2. Based on either:

periodical market valuations or benchmark valuations, or

a reasonable sample of property sales data (eg, 30 or more) which uses the median,not the mean.

7.4.2 Our recommended approach to cost escalation

In 2009 the Department of Planning canvassed an option for a single index, the Sydney CPI, to apply to all land costs in contributions rates. The Department identified the following advantages of using only the CPI:

simplicity of understanding and application

simplicity of compilation and reporting

transparency – the use of a recognised index

ease of use – reported quarterly in a standardized way

consistent without sacrificing the changes in price movements.80

The ease of application and administration costs in applying an index to contribution rates are relevant considerations.81

79 IPART analysis based on a sample of 30 contributions plans, October 2013. 80 Department of Planning, Draft local development contributions – preparation and administration of

development contributions plans, Consultation draft only – not Government policy, November 2009, p 64.

81 Wollongong City Council, Response to Information Paper, November 2013.



However, some councils argue that the use of the CPI will result in substantial shortfalls in funding for land acquisition costs, compared to an index which reflects land value changes.82

On balance, we consider that councils should be permitted to apply a land value index for acquisition costs only, so long as the method in updating the index is published in the plan and meets our criteria for suitability. Because many councils may prefer a simpler approach, we suggest that councils should have the flexibility to apply the CPI to all land costs if they wish. Councils should only use the CPI to index land that they already own, as this will allow them to retain the purchasing power of the dollar to recoup land costs, but not gain or lose further amounts due to land value changes.

We welcome feedback on this recommended approach.


9 To escalate the costs of land in a finalised local infrastructure plan from year to year, councils should use:

– either a ‘suitable’ land cost index as defined in Box 7.1 or the CPI (All Groups) Sydney for land to be acquired

– the CPI (All Groups) Sydney for council-owned land.

82 Eg, Lake Macquarie City Council and Penrith City Council, Responses to Information Paper,

November 2013.

8 Dispute resolution mechanisms



The terms of reference ask IPART to recommend effective mechanisms for resolving disputes about the application of benchmarks or cost methodologies in the local infrastructure plan process.

In this chapter, we initially considered how councils can minimise the potential for disputes about infrastructure contributions to arise. We recommend mechanisms for resolving disputes about the application of cost benchmarks or cost methodologies that are accessible and low cost.

We recommend that councils responsible for preparing local infrastructure plans should establish processes for developers to formally submit any concerns about the way the council is estimating infrastructure costs in the local infrastructure plan, including the use of benchmarks or other costing methodologies. When the council cannot resolve developers’ concerns directly with them, the council should refer the matter for independent review to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP), or the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) in its region if the council does not have an IHAP.

When councils submit their draft local infrastructure plan to the Minister for approval the council should be required to report on any contentious issues about infrastructure costs, and how they have been dealt with in the draft plan.

We recommend that the Minister could refer matters concerning the application of benchmarks and costs methodologies in local infrastructure plans to IPART for advice and resolution.

Figure 8.1 outlines the stages of the infrastructure planning process, the types of disputes that could occur and how to minimise them, and our proposed dispute resolution mechanisms.

61

Local Infrastructure B

enchma

rk Costs IP

AR

T

8 D

ispute resolution mechanism

s

Figure 8.1 Dispute resolution framework for application of benchmarks and cost methodologies

Draft Plan - prepared by council with public exhibition period

Development conditions of consent assessed by council

Final Plan - submitted to Minister for approval

What sort of disputes can arise?

Disagreement about application of benchmarks and cost methodologies:

– whether costs should be in the draft plan eg, whether it is essential, or it should be in a regional plan

– whether there is nexus for infrastructure costs eg, the number and types of parks and sports fields, and standards of provision, ie over-catering for demand

– how costs are to be apportioned eg, whether costs should be shared more broadly with other development sites or the current population

Ways to minimise disputes:

transparent and well-drafted plans

pro-active engagement with developers and stakeholders before and during exhibition process

informal review of issues arising from the exhibition period

IPART recommendations:

Councils should have formal council-based review mechanisms in place to consider objections and address issues raised by stakeholders in relation to their draft local infrastructure plans.

An independent expert panel should be used by councils to make recommendations about unresolved disputes. This role could be undertaken by the council's IHAP or the JRPP if the council does not have an IHAP. Councils should report to the Minister about contentious issues and how they have been dealt with in the plan.

What sort of issues can arise?

disputes which have not been satisfactorily resolved during the exhibition and finalisation of the plan

IPART recommendation

The Minister could refer to IPART for resolution matters concerning the application of benchmarks and cost methodologies in local infrastructure plans

What sort of disputes can arise?

rarely cost methodologies and contributions conditions alone

most disputes relate to requirement to provide specific standards of infrastructure as well as conditions regarding height, sunlight, setbacks, parking, curfews, construction hours, materials of construction etc.

Planning Bill - dispute resolution mechanisms:

application to the Council for a formal internal review (Planning Bill 2013)

application to the Land and Environment Court for merits review under the Planning Bill 2013 and Land and Environment Court Act 1979



8.1 Disputes about costs and costing methodologies in local infrastructure plans

The provisions in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) require councils to consult with stakeholders. They must formally exhibit a draft plan and take into account submissions, before approving it. A similar process is proposed in the Planning Bill 2013.

As a plan is being prepared, developers may question or dispute the council’s approaches to applying benchmarks and other cost methodologies in estimating the costs of land and infrastructure in the plan. Stakeholders, including developers, may also take issue with the council on a number of other aspects of the draft plan, such as whether the facilities included are essential works that a developer must pay for, the rates of provision (amount and type of facilities specified), the design and other standards of the facilities, nexus between the facilities and the new development, and how the extra demand is apportioned between new and existing development.

8.2 Minimising disputes about local infrastructure costs

It is important that processes are in place to minimise the opportunity for disputes about the costs in local infrastructure plans to arise. Providing councils with IPART’s benchmarked costs and guidance for applying them, and suggested methodologies for estimating the costs of infrastructure where there are no benchmarks should improve the quality of the estimated costs in councils’ local infrastructure plans.

The Department of Planning and Infrastructure is expected to provide guidelines for the preparation of local infrastructure plans and applying the final benchmarks. They will also require greater transparency from councils about assumptions and cost estimates. Councils will be required to justify where they have deviated from the benchmark costs.

Councils should have good practices in place as well. Greater transparency about the way they calculate infrastructure costs and contribution rates should assist in reducing the potential for objections by developers. Councils should prepare draft plans that clearly identify the infrastructure to be provided, how they have determined nexus and apportionment, how they have applied the benchmark costs, how they have estimated other costs (especially where costs exceed the benchmarks) and how they have calculated the contributions rate.



Engagement by councils with key stakeholders, especially with developers, when they are preparing local infrastructure plans is likely to reduce disputes further along in the process. Councils can be proactive by meeting with prospective developers to identify any areas of concern which may lead to conflict if not taken into consideration.

Councils should also have in place processes through which developers and other stakeholders can raise issues of concern with the council, and make those processes well-known.

It is good practice for councils to adopt measures such as these so that the opportunity for disputes to arise is minimised.83

8.3 Proposed approaches for dealing with disputes about the application of benchmarks or cost methodologies in preparing and implementing plans

8.3.1 Council-based formal review

We recommend that councils responsible for preparing local infrastructure plans establish a formal mechanism for considering objections and addressing issues arising when plans are being prepared as drafts for exhibition, and before they are submitted for approval to the Minister. Concerns about the application of benchmark costs and cost methodologies could be discussed in such a forum, as could other matters about the contents of, and methodologies involved in, preparing a plan.

Independent review

Where councils and developers find that they are not able to satisfactorily reach agreement about the application of benchmark costs and cost methodologies, councils should be required to refer the dispute for independent consideration. As the disputes will be about questions of fact or interpretation of technical data and methodologies, it is appropriate that they be considered by a forum where there is relevant expertise. To ensure low cost dispute resolution, we recommend using an existing forum.

Our recommendation is to extend the roles of 2 existing panels and for councils to refer unresolved disputes about benchmarks and cost methodologies to their Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP), if they have appointed one, and if not, to the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) for their region. In either case, the Panel would provide the council with a recommended resolution.

83 The Department provides similar guidance for councils: Department of Infrastructure Planning

and Natural Resources, Development Contributions Practice Notes, July 2005.



Independent Hearing and Assessment Panels (IHAPs)

Many councils currently have an IHAP to consider development-related issues, including contentious development applications.84 We understand that these panels have the support of the community, hearings are relatively informal and accessible, and note that the White Paper has called on all councils to establish and give authority to these panels to determine development applications.85

Joint Regional Planning Panels (JRPPs)

There are 6 JRPPs, responsible for providing an independent assessment of development applications for regionally significant development, and providing advice to the Minister or the Director-General on planning and development matters where requested.

We further recommend that when councils are submitting their draft local infrastructure plans to the Minister for approval, they should report on any contentious issues about applying benchmarks and other methodologies for estimating the costs of infrastructure in the draft plan. The council should also report on how the council has responded to disputes and recommendations from the IHAP or JRPP.


10 Councils should have a formal council-based review mechanism to consider objections and address issues in dispute between councils and developers about benchmark costs and cost methodologies arising when infrastructure plans are being prepared and finalised.

11 Councils should refer disputes that cannot be resolved through internal processes to an independent expert panel. This function could be performed by existing Independent Hearing and Assessment Panels, where the council has appointed one, or the Joint Regional Planning Panel for the region. Councils should report to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure about how they have responded to the recommendations from the Panel.

84 Part 2A, Division 4 of the EP&A Act allows councils to establish independent hearing and

assessment panels to assess development applications. IHAPs consist of independent specialists familiar with planning, environmental, social and urban design issues, who make decisions and recommendations to the council about unresolved objections to development applications.

85 White Paper, p 137.



8.3.2 Referral to IPART

Under the Planning Bill 2013, councils will be required to submit their draft local infrastructure plans to the Minister for approval.86 When councils submit their plan to the Minister, they should include a report on contentious issues about applying benchmarks and cost methodologies and how they have dealt with them.

We recommend that IPART have a role in the resolution of any issues about applying benchmarks or cost methodologies that the Minister considers are suitable for our review. This role is consistent with the White Paper’s intention for IPART to have an expanded role in reviewing councils’ plans for calculating development contributions. Possible issues that might be referred could include matters arising in a specific local infrastructure plan, or issues of a systemic nature, ie the same issue is contentious in several different council areas, or disputes about the same issue arise frequently in a single council area.


12 The Minister can refer disputes about the application of benchmarks and cost methodologies in local infrastructure plans to IPART for a recommended resolution.

8.4 Disputes about contributions rates and costs arising from conditions of consent

Disputes can also arise about contribution rates after a council, as consent authority, determines a particular development application and imposes a contribution rate as a condition of consent for approval of that development. The developer may dispute the amount of the contribution, including the cost methodologies used by the council to determine the amount of the contribution.

A developer disputing any of the conditions of consent imposed by a council, including the amount of the contribution and how it was calculated, has a right to seek a review by the council, and also appeal to the Land and Environment Court.

86 Planning Bill 2013, s 7.10(1).

9 Cost drivers for infrastructure delivery



Our terms of reference ask us to investigate the main planning and environmental standards that councils apply in the provision of local infrastructure. This includes standards set by external agencies, and also where councils exercise discretion to set the standards they will meet. We define standards to be any guideline, legislative requirement, technical standard or specification that councils apply when providing local infrastructure. These standards can influence the cost of local infrastructure and therefore the ultimate contributions levied by councils.

The NSW Government intends that local infrastructure contributions reflect the efficient cost of providing infrastructure and be affordable.87 We are therefore focusing on identifying standards that our stakeholders consider to have an unreasonable impact on the cost of local infrastructure.

Anecdotally, at least, during our consultation with councils and development industry representatives, both groups have referred to examples where regulatory (or other) requirements have added to the cost of infrastructure or land included in contributions plans. These include regulatory requirements imposed by the State and Federal Governments, such as heritage requirements. Other issues raised by stakeholders include the standard of infrastructure required by some State agencies to be funded by local councils through contributions, such as for roads. On this matter, we note that the broader planning reforms should improve the coordination of requirements by different planning authorities at the strategic planning stage.

The requirements or standards we have identified may apply at different stages of infrastructure delivery. The stages include: Definition of performance outcome or objective for infrastructure item, for

example; setting that the stormwater infrastructure has to convey the 1 in 10 year flow and reduce the pollutant load by a particular percentage; or that the road junction needs improved safety with fewer accidents.

Selection of infrastructure item, for example; the choice between a concrete channel and gross pollutant trap or a grass-lined swale; or the selection between a signalised intersection and a roundabout.

87 NSW Government, A New Planning System for NSW – White Paper, April 2013, p 164.



Detailed design of infrastructure item, for example; the size of concrete channel and the design of the inlet/outlet structures for the gross pollutant trap; or the thickness of the asphalt.

Table 9.1 lists some of the requirements on councils or standards we have identified through consultation.

The last item in the table is ‘Rates of Provision’. There are rates of provision that are commonly used as ‘rules of thumb’ to identify a community’s future needs, such as identifying the number of community facilities per 1,000 population, or a specific amount of open space required per 1,000 population. This was an issue that was raised by industry groups and councils. As discussed in section 2.3.2, we are not recommending benchmark ‘rates of provision’ as part of this review. Standard rates of provision are to be examined by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. We will however consider feedback from stakeholders on which, if any, commonly applied standards for rates of provision are unreasonably influencing the cost of local infrastructure delivery.

We would appreciate feedback on:

whether there are any standards imposed on councils by outside agencies that have an unreasonable impact on the cost of local infrastructure

whether there are any standards councils adopt at their own discretion that have an unreasonable impact on the cost of local infrastructure.

9 C

ost drivers for infrastructure delivery

68IP

AR

T Local Infrastructure B

enchmark C

osts

Table 9.1 Requirements and standards which may impact cost of local infrastructure delivery

Requirements/ standards Description Relevant infrastructure types

Examples Early consideration of influence on cost of infrastructure delivery

Legislative requirements These set constraints or objectives that influence the definition of the performance outcome.

All Roads Act 1993 Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and Building Code of Australia Heritage Act 1977

Legislative requirements could influence the council’s selection of the infrastructure item and the construction approach and impact on costs.

Technical standards, specifications or guidelines

These, generally, specify the details for design after the infrastructure item has been selected.

Roads Stormwater Community facilities

Austroads Australian Standards for multitude of items Australian Rainfall & Runoff Australian Water Quality

The standards themselves do not appear to have as significant an impact as the council’s selection of the infrastructure item.

Rates of provision Councils may set the minimum requirements for development (eg, number of infrastructure items or amount of open space provided per 1,000 people). The Growth Centre Development Code standards also adopt rates of provision, for example 1 local library per 33,000 people.a

Open space Community facilities

Growth Centre Development Code for open space and community facilities

May influence costs as they set a minimum size of infrastructure eg, 2.83 hectares of open space per 1,000 people or 1 local community facility for every 6,000 people covering a site area of 2,00 to 2,500m2.

a See Table A.4 Growth Centre Development Code, October 2006.

Note: As discussed in section 2.3.2 the final item -‘rates of provision’ - meaning the number of infrastructure items or amount of land per 1000 population will be examined by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure separately.



Part 2: Developing cost estimate using benchmarks



10 Guide for councils



Part 2 of IPART’s report is a guide for councils for using the benchmarks and estimating the cost of infrastructure items where there is no benchmark. This chapter also includes worked examples of applying the benchmarks to estimate the cost of infrastructure items. We have also included a sample Infrastructure Cost Template that councils can use to present information about how the costs of infrastructure items are derived.

Further information about how the benchmarks were developed and our specific recommendations under our terms of reference are in Part 1 of the Draft Report.

10.1 How should councils estimate the cost of local infrastructure items?

The local infrastructure provided by councils will include:

Benchmark items - infrastructure items/sub items that have a benchmark cost (made up of a base cost, adjustment factors and contingency). These items are listed in Chapter 11. Information on how to apply benchmark costs is in section 10.3.

Infrastructure items that have not been benchmarked - infrastructure items where a benchmark cost was not established. The costs of items where there is no benchmark can be estimated in different ways, as outlined in section 10.4.

10.2 Determining the costing method to use

Figure 10.1 is a flow chart that shows how to determine the approach to use to estimate the cost of an infrastructure item. Each key step in the flow chart is explained below.



Figure 10.1 Flow chart for applying benchmarks



Is the item on the benchmark list?

The benchmark items are listed at the start of Chapter 11. If the item is on this list, then there is a corresponding datasheet that outlines:

the item name and number

a functional description of the item

the key assumptions about the scope used to specify the configuration of this benchmark item

the approach that has been used to estimate the cost

the benchmark base cost.

Are there any significant variations from the Key Scope Assumptions?

The relevant assumptions are listed on the datasheet for each benchmarked infrastructure item. These assumptions cover what is included and excluded from the base cost. In most cases assumptions relate to site conditions, site preparation, infrastructure type, and scope of works.

Councils should review the Key Scope Assumptions, and, if the assumptions are reasonable for the specific project, use the benchmark item costing approach outlined in section 10.3. If there are significant variations, councils should try to account for these by using the benchmark item plus additional items to account for the variation in scope.

If the variation cannot be accounted for using additional items, then the council can use the costing approach for infrastructure items where there is no benchmark, as outlined in section 10.4.

10.3 How to estimate costs of benchmark items

This section describes how to build up a complete cost for the benchmark items listed in Chapter 11.

Councils should follow the following process for benchmark items:

1. Use the ‘benchmark base cost’ from the datasheet (escalated from 2012/13 dollars).

2. Identify and apply the relevant adjustment factors to the base cost.

3. Identify and apply the relevant contingency allowance.

Each of these steps is outlined in more detail below, and a worked example is provided in section 10.5.



10.3.1 To calculate the benchmark base cost

Use the relevant benchmark base cost on the datasheet and multiply by the number of units to calculate the total cost of the infrastructure item. As an example, 100m of Sub-Arterial Road will cost 100 x $10,808 = $108,080.

The benchmark costs are in 2012/13 dollars. A council using the benchmark costs in future years will need to adjust the benchmark costs to reflect the changes in those costs since 2012/13, using the relevant Producer Price Index (PPI) set out in Table 10.1.

Table 10.1 Recommended escalation indices for benchmark costs

Infrastructure Type Recommended Cost Index

Road PPI Road and Bridge Construction Index for NSW (no 3101)

Stormwater PPI Non-Residential Building Construction Index for NSW (no 3020)

Open space embellishment PPI Non-Residential Building Construction Index for NSW (no 3020)

Community facilities PPI Building Construction Index for NSW (no 30)

Source: Table 6.1 in Chapter 6 of the Draft Report.

This value already includes the direct costs, indirect costs/margin and council on-costs, such as project management and design fees. Councils should not add any allowance for any one of these activities as this would double count the cost. For details of the assumptions made about the levels of these costs, refer to the assumptions page in Chapter 11 after the datasheets.

10.3.2 Adjustment factors

In addition to the base cost, councils should consider whether any adjustment factors are relevant to each infrastructure item. There are 2 adjustments to the base costs, a regional factor and a congestion factor.

Regional adjustment factor

The regional adjustment factor captures the cost differences for accessibility and proximity to labour or materials.

For open space embellishment and community facilities, apply the index for the closest regional centre in regional building cost indices from Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook.

For roads and stormwater infrastructure apply the regional adjustment factor based on distance thresholds in Table 10.2.



Table 10.2 Recommended regional factor for roads and stormwater management infrastructure

<25 km from raw material source

25-75km from raw material source

>75km from raw material source

Roads 1.00 1.05 1.10

Stormwater 1.00 1.02 1.04

Source: Unpublished advice from Evans & Peck

Optional congestion adjustment factor

An optional congestion adjustment factor will capture congestion-related costs such as infrastructure delivery in high density areas, traffic management and off-peak work hours. It will only apply to roads and stormwater infrastructure. The percentage value factors set out in Table 10.3 should only be used in the defined circumstances, and are upper limit guides only.

The three proposed bands are based on the following scenarios.

Band 1 – Lightly congested: Local infrastructure work on or adjacent to a suburban street, requiring minor and/or irregular traffic control and with only minor pedestrian movement.

Band 2 – Moderately congested: Local infrastructure work either:

– on a large contained development site bordered by a major thoroughfare and surrounded by medium and/or high density buildings; or

– on or adjacent to a main road or narrow suburban street requiring continuous traffic control and with moderate pedestrian movement.

Band 3 – Heavily congested: Local infrastructure work on or adjacent to a street within a suburban business district, with substantial and continuous traffic control and with significant pedestrian movement.

Table 10.3 Recommended maximum congestion factor for roads and stormwater infrastructure

Local infrastructure category

Lightly congested Moderately congested

Heavily congested

Roads and Stormwater

1.15 1.25 1.4

Source: Unpublished advice from Evans & Peck



10.3.3 Calculation of contingency allowances

Identify and apply the relevant contingency allowance in Table 10.4 to cover the costs of events which have not been included in the base cost (as they have a less than 100% chance of occurring). Examples of events that would be covered by a contingency allowance include unexpected underground utility relocation, spikes in demand for labour or interruptions to material supply. The appropriate allowance will depend on how advanced the project planning is, and which infrastructure type is being delivered.

Table 10.4 Recommended contingency allowances rates for different project phases and infrastructure types (% of base cost plus adjustment factor)

Project Gateway Open space Community Roads Stormwater

Strategic review 20% 15% 30% 30%

Business case 15% 10% 20% 20%

Source: Unpublished advice from Evans & Peck.

These contingency allowances are potentially conservative. After further consultation on the appropriate levels for contingency allowances, we will finalise the contingency allowances. Councils should apply the relevant finalised contingency allowance rates to the benchmark costs (adjusted for regional and congestion factors) by infrastructure type.

10.4 How to estimate costs of infrastructure items where there is no benchmark

For infrastructure items where there is no benchmark councils should endeavour to use the approaches as indicated in Table 10.5 below for the relevant infrastructure types.

Table 10.5 Ranking of different sources of information for different estimation methods

Market information Other estimation sources

Tender Schedule of rates Historical cost

Cost estimating software or publication

Reference pricing / Top down

1st 2nd 3rd Not applicable

First principles / Bottom up

Not applicable 2nd 3rd 3rd

Source: Evans & Peck and IPART.

Where tender costs are available for an item, they should be used.



For community facilities and some open space embellishment items such as playground equipment and park furniture, where there are few inputs and supply quotes are likely to be available to determine pricing, the ‘top down’ approach is sufficient to lead to efficient cost estimation.

Councils may use a combination of different types of cost estimation approaches depending on the nature and timing of infrastructure. The available resources and information that support the cost estimation approach should also be specified in the local infrastructure plan.

Councils should assess the risk of each infrastructure project to determine an appropriate level of contingency.

10.5 Worked examples of applying the benchmarks

To assist councils in using the benchmarks we have prepared 2 worked examples.

Figure 10.2 Worked example to estimate the cost of a 4-lane sub arterial road using the benchmark cost



Figure 10.3 Worked example to estimate the cost of a library using the benchmark cost

10.5.1 Infrastructure Cost Template

Figure 10.3 is a sample Infrastructure Cost Template that councils could use to estimate the cost of infrastructure items. It is not necessary for councils to use this template, however we suggest that councils provide the level of information outlined in the template as a minimum. Adopting a common approach to estimating and provide information in a similar way will encourage consistency and transparency in the preparation of local infrastructure plans by councils across the state.

79

Local Infrastructure B

enchma

rk Costs IP

AR

T

10 G

uide for councils

Figure 10.4 Infrastructure Cost Template

11 Benchmark tables


11 Benchmark tables

0

11.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.9

1.101.111.121.131.141.151.161.171.18

22.12.22.32.42.52.62.73a

3a.13a.23a.33a.43a.53a.63a.73a.83a.9

3a.103a.113a.123a.133a.143a.153a.163a.173a.183a.193a.203a.213a.22

3b3b.13b.23b.33b.43b.53b.6

44.14.24.34.44.54.64.7

5

Indoor Aquatic Facility with Gym

Perimeter fencing

Soft Surfaces - Softfall under play equipment

Library

Hard Surfaces

Netball court (outdoor

Tennis court (outdoor)

Basketball court (outdoor)

Carparking

Amenity block

Security Lighting

Park furniture - Taps

Fencing - playground

Shade structures

Planting

Planter boxes

Sportsfields

Sportsfield floodlighting

Overview

Benchmark Summary Tables

Sub-Arterial Road widening

New Industrial Road

Park furniture - Drinking Fountains

New Subdivision Road

New Local Access Road

New Rural Road

Rural Road widening

Guide Post / Safety barriers, Pedestrian Fencing

Steps/ ramping

On road cycleway

Secondary/ Tertiary Pollution Treatment

Precast Concrete Box Culverts

Park furniture - Bins

Concrete Channels

Stormwater Drain/ Pits

Stormwater Drainage Pipework

Site clearance

Soft Surfaces - Turfing

Transport

Stormwater

Local Open Space Embellishment

District Open Space Embellishment

Community Facilities

New Sub-Arterial Road

Primary Pollution Treatment

Stormwater Headwalls

Demolition

Concrete pathways

Traffic calming

Soft Surfaces - Synthetic playing surfaces / artificial grass

Demolish and upgrade footpath

Unsignalised intersection

Signalised intersection

Roundabout Intersection

New footpath adjacent to traffic lane

Park furniture - BBQs

Car Park

Multi Purpose Community Facility

Assumptions

Preschools/ Childcare facilities/ OSHC

Aquatic centre (indoor)

Swimming Pool (Outdoor)

Pedestrian crossing

Bus stop

Street lighting

Play Equipment

Park furniture - Seating

Park furniture - Picnic sets

Local Infrastructure Benchmark Summary Tables Contents

Page 81

Item Name:

Item Number:

Functional Description:

Key Scope Assumptions:

Sub Item:

Pricing Methodology:

Standards:

Values Table:

Contractor's Indirect Costs:

Margin:

Council "On-Costs":

Displays the benchmark base cost for each Benchmark Item / Sub Item. The benchmark base cost includes an estimate of Direct Cost, with a fixed percentage mark-up applied for Contractor's Indirect Costs, Margin and Council On-Costs. The fixed percentages are detailed in the Assumptions table.

Benchmark Summary Tables

There are 58 Benchmark Summary Tables - one for each Benchmark Infrastructure Item from the Infrastructure List for Benchmarking (Benchmark List).

Each Summary Table contains the following fields:

Name of the item included under one of the four categories on the Benchmark List.

Number unique to each Benchmark Item.

Detailed description of the Benchmark Item.

Key assumptions made in the estimation of cost for the Benchmark Item.

A variant of a Benchmark Item with differing configuration, arrangement, size, material or performance.

Refers to the approach taken in estimating the cost benchmark for the Benchmark Item / Sub Item.

Refers to industry accepted design standards or guidance relevant to a Benchmark Item / Sub Item.

Assumptions

Consisting of the Contractor's preliminaries, management & supervision and design (if applicable).

Consisting of the Contractor's overheads and profit.

Council On-costs include:- Council's internal staff costs- Project management and design fees- Land costs, levies and other charges

The Assumptions table contains the percentage mark-ups applied to the estimate of Direct Cost costs for Contractor's Indirect Costs, Margin and Council On-Costs. The percentage mark-ups may vary depending on the specific Benchmark List infrastructure type (transport, stormwater, open space embellishment and community facilities).

Local Infrastructure Benchmark Summary Tables 0. Overview

Page 82

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]

(iii) [FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]

1.1.11.1.2

(vi) [PRICING METHODOLOGY]

# Unit $/unit1.1.1 m $ 11,330

1.1.2 m $ 9,748

New Sub-Arterial Road

ITEM 1.1

Construction of new, flexible pavement sub-arterial road, covering a range of pavement structures

First Principles Estimate

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] - Greenfield environment - consists of medium timbered vegetation and excludes undulating topography

Includes:- nominal 1.2 m of excavation with allowance to remove 50% of the spoil to an off-site tip @ $50/T, clearing and grubbing of medium vegetation- K & G- stormwater drainage- subsoil drainage - 100mm diameter corrugated perforated plastic pipe with sock, including drainage filter backfill- 2 x 2.5m reinforced concrete footpath - 2500mm wide x 125mm thick concrete on 125mm thick DGS20- 2 x 500mm wide turfed grass nature strip- typical signage - 1 small to medium sized sign (eg, speed limit sign) every 50 - 60m- tie-in works to existing lane - linemarking

Excludes:- major traffic control- guard rails and guide posts- street lighting and all utility associated work

Pavement structure:- 200mm - 300mm SMZ, 200mm to 250mm DGS20, 150mm to 200mm DGB20, two coat bitumen seal (10mm & 14mm), 40mm to 50mm AC wearing course

Sub item 1.1.1 - 4 lane sub-arterial Road- Road corridor: 4 lane x 3.2m wide carrigeway- Road reserve: 20m - Total carrigeway width: 12.8m- Minimum quantity: >1500m2 (>100m length)

Sub item 1.1.2 - 3 lane sub-arterial Road- Road corridor: 3 lane x 3.2m wide carrigeway- Road reserve: 17m - Carrigeway width: 9.6m- Minimum quantity: >1200m2 (>100m length)

(v) [SUBI TEMS] 4 lane sub-arterial road3 lane sub-arterial road

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST]

(vii) [STANDARDS]Austroads - Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Parts 1 - 15- Pavement Design - Guide to the structural Design of Road pavements- Rural road design - guide to the geometric design of rural roads

- Roads and Maritime Services - Road Design Guide- Council's relevant work specification - Civil

Sub item4 lane sub-arterial road

3 lane sub-arterial road

STANDARD

Page 83

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


1.2.11.2.2


# Unit $/unit1.2.1 m $ 5,603

1.2.2 m $ 5,776

Sub-Arterial Road widening

ITEM 1.2

Widening of a sub-arterial road adjacent to traffic by 1 lane, covering a range of pavement structures


(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] - Work adjacent to moving traffic and behind crash barriers

Includes:- nominal 500mm of excavation and spoil disposal with allowance to remove all spoil to an off-site tip @ $50/T, top soiling with site won material- clearing and grubbing of light vegetation- K & G- stormwater drainage- subsoil drainage - 100mm diameter corrugated perforated plastic pipe with sock, including drainage filter backfill- 1 x 2.5m reinforced concrete footpath - 2500mm wide x 125mm thick concrete on 125mm thick DGS20- 1 x 500mm wide turfed grass nature strip- typical signage - 1 small to medium sized sign (eg, speed limit sign) every 50 - 60m- major traffic control & tie-in works to existing lane - linemarking

- Road corridor: 1 x 3.2m wide carrigeway, road reserve is 7m & carrigeway width is 3.2m

Excludes: - guard rails, guide post, street lighting and all utility associated work including relocation of existing utilities

- Minimum quantity: > 300m2 (>70m length)

Sub item 1.2.1 - Flexible pavement- Pavement structure; 200mm - 300mm SMZ, 200mm to 250mm DGS20, 150mm to 200mm DGB20, two coat bitumen seal (10mm & 14mm), 40mm to 50mm AC wearing course

Sub item 1.2.2 - Rigid Pavement- Pavement structure; 150mm - 200mm SMZ, 200mm of subbase, 190mm of LMC, chip seal and 120mm of asphalt.

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Flexible pavementRigid pavement


(vii) [STANDARDS] STANDARD


Sub itemFlexible pavement

Rigid pavement

Austroads - Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Parts 1 - 15- Pavement Design - Guide to the structural Design of Road pavements- Rural road design - guide to the geometric design of rural roads

Page 84

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


# Unit $/unit1.3 m $ 5,543

New Industrial Road

ITEM 1.3

Construction of a new, 2 lane, flexible pavement Industrial road, covering a range of pavement structures

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] - Greenfield environment - consists of light vegetation and excludes undulating topography

Includes:- nominal 500mm cut/fill balance- stormwater drainage, roll top gutter- subsoil drainage - 100mm diameter corrugated perforated plastic pipe with sock, including drainage filter backfill- parking lane - 2 x 2.5m reinforced concrete footpath - 2500mm wide x 125mm thick concrete on 125mm thick DGS20 - 2 x 500mm wide turfed grass nature strip- typical signage - 1 small to medium sized sign (eg, speed limit sign) every 50 - 60m- tie-in works to existing lane - linemarking

Excludes:- clearing and grubbing- guard rails and guide posts- street lighting and all utility associated work


- Road Corridor: 2 lanes x 6.75m wide carrigeway, road reserve is 21m & carrigeway width is 13.5m

- Minimum quantity: >1500m2 (>100m length)





New industrial road

Item


Page 85

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


# Unit $/unit1.4 m $ 3,631

New Subdivision Road

ITEM 1.4

Construction of new, 2 lane, flexible pavement sub-division road, covering a range of pavement structures

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] - Greenfield environment - consists of light vegetation and excludes undulating topography

Includes:- nominal 500mm cut/fill balance- stormwater drainage, roll - top gutter- subsoil drainage - 100mm diameter corrugated perforated plastic pipe with sock, including drainage filter backfill- parking lane - 2 x 2.5m reinforced concrete footpath - 2500mm wide x 125mm thick concrete on 125mm thick DGS20- 2 x 500mm wide turfed grass nature strip- typical signage - 1 small to medium sized sign (eg, speed limit sign) every 50 - 60m- tie-in works to existing lane - linemarking

Excludes:- clearing and grubbing- guard rails and guide posts- street lighting and all utility associated work.


- Road Corridor: 2 lanes x 4.5m wide carrigeway, road reserve is 16m & carrigeway width is 9m






ItemNew subdivision road

Austroads - Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Parts 1 - 15- Pavement Design - Guide to the structural Design of Road pavements- Rural Road Design - guide to the geometric design of rural roads

Page 86

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


# Unit $/unit1.5 m $ 2,231

New Local Access Road

ITEM 1.5

Construction of a new, 1 lane, flexible pavement local road access

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] -Greenfield environment - consists of light vegetation and excludes undulating topography

Includes: - nominal 500mm cut/fill balance- stormwater drainage, roll top gutter- subsoil drainage - 100mm diameter corrugated perforated plastic pipe with sock, including drainage filter backfill- 1 x 2.5m reinforced concrete footpath - 2500mm wide x 125mm thick concrete on 125mm thick DGS20- 1 x 500mm wide turfed grass nature strip

Excludes: - clearing and grubbing- signage- linemarking- tie-in works to existing lane- guard rails and guide post- street lighting and all utility associated work

Pavement structure:- 150mm SMZ, 150mm DGS20, 25mm of AC

- Road Corridor: 1 lane x 5m wide carrigeway, road reserve is 9m & carrigeway width is 5m - Minimum quantity: >400m2 (>80m length)





New local access road

Item


Page 87

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


# Unit $/unit1.6 m $ 2,630

New Rural Road

ITEM 1.6

Construction of new, 2 lane, flexible pavement Rural road

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] - Greenfield environment - consists of lightly timbered vegetation and excludes undulating topography

Includes: - nominal 500mm cut/fill balance- 2 x 500mm wide turfed grass nature strip- 1.8m wide swale drain with hydromulching - typical signage - 1 small to medium sized sign (eg, speed limit sign) every 50 - 60m- linemarking & guide posts

Excludes: - clearing and grubbing- tie-in works to existing lane- guard rails- street lighting and all utility associated work- stormwater drainage- K & G- footpath

Pavement structure:- 150mm SMZ, 150mm DGS20, 150mm DGB20, 14/7 spray seal

- Road Corridor: 2 lanes x 3m wide carrigeway, road reserve is 8m & carrigeway width is 6m






ItemNew rural road


Page 88

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


# Unit $/unit1.7 m $ 3,488

Rural Road widening

ITEM 1.7

Widening of a flexible pavement rural road adjacent to moving traffic by 1 lane

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] - Work adjacent to moving traffic and behind crash barriers

Includes: - nominal 500mm of excavation and disposal, with allowance to remove all spoil to an off-site tip @ $50/T- 1 x 500mm wide turfed grass nature strip- 1.8m wide swale drain with hydromulching- typical signage - 1 small to medium sized sign (eg, speed limit sign) every 50 - 60m- linemarking and guide posts

Excludes;- clearing and grubbing- tie-in works to existing lane- street lighting and all utility associated work including relocation of existing utilities- stormwater drainage- K & G- footpath

Pavement structure:- 150mm of SMZ, 150mm DGS20, 150mm DGB20 and 14/7 spray seal

- Road Corridor: 1 lane x 3m wide carrigeway, road reserve is 5m & carrigeway width is 3m - Minimum quantity: >300m2 (>120m length)





ItemRural road widening


Page 89

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


1.8.11.8.21.8.3


# Sub itemUnit $/unit Unit $/unit

1.8.1 Guide posts each $ 102 each $ 55 1.8.2 Guard rail safety barriers m $ 337 m $ 205 1.8.3 Pedestrian fencing m $ 1,277 m $ 730

Guide Post / Safety barriers, Pedestrian Fencing

ITEM 1.8

Installation of safety barriers

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Sub item 1.8.1 - Guide posts- standard metal posts

Quantity Bands:- Band 1: less than 10 guide posts- Band 2: greater than 10 guide posts

Sub item 1.8.2 - Guard rail safety barriers- standard "W" beam safety barrier, as per RMS Model drawing MD 132

Quantity Bands:- Band 1: less than 24m- Band 2: greater than 24m

Sub item 1.8.3 -Pedestrian fencing- mild steel fencing, as per RMS Model drawing MD. R70. A21

Quantity Bands:- Band 1: less than 24m- Band 2: greater than 24m

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Guide postsGuard rail safety barriersPedestrian fencing

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Applicable Band 1 Applicable Band 2


(vii) [STANDARDS] Guideposts:- AS 1742.2 - Traffic control devices for general use

Safety barriers:- Roads and Maritime Services - Road Design Guide Section 6- RMS model drawing MD 132- Hills Shire Council Specifications

Pedestrian fencing:- RMS model drawing MD. R70. A21

Page 90

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


1.9.11.9.2


# Unit $/unit1.9.1 each $ 30,885

1.9.2 each $ 8,244

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Flat top road humpConcrete road hump

Traffic calming

ITEM 1.9

Installation of basic speed controlling devices across 2 lanes

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Sub item 1.9.1 - Flat top road hump- Concrete speed bump two lanes wide; 200mm thick reinforced concrete- Includes layback, raised median, pavement marking including chevron- Dimension: 11m wide x 6.5m long (across 2 lanes)

Sub item 1.9.2 - Concrete road hump- Concrete "Watts profile" road hump- Ramp dimensions: 3.7m wide x 6.5m carrigeway width- Excludes traffic control



(vii) [STANDARDS] Flat top road hump- Hills Shire Council drawings

Concrete road hump- Watts profile road hump: Roads and Maritme Services model drawings

Sub itemFlat top road hump

Concrete road hump

Page 91

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


1.10.11.10.21.10.3


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit1.10.1 m $ 226

1.10.2 m $ 545 1.10.3 m $ 669


Bankstown City Council (BCC) footpath drawings

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub item

2.2m wide footpath2.5m wide shared cycleway/pedestrian footpath

1.2m wide footpath

[KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS]

(v) [SUB ITEMS] 1.2m wide footpath

Sub item 1.10.1 - 1.2m wide footpath- standard Concrete footpath for residential footways : 80mm thick unreinforced- pram ramps at cross streets 125m apart on average- 1200mm wide x 80mm thick, on 70mm DGS20- minimum quantity: > 100m

Sub item 1.10.2 - 2.2m wide footpath- standard Concrete path : 2200mm wide x 100mm thick, SL82, on 75mm thick DGS20- pram ramps at cross streets 125m apart on average- minimum quantity: >100m

Sub item 1.10.3 - 2.5m wide shared cycleway/pedestrian footpath- standard Concrete Bicycle / shared path : 125mm thick reinforced- pram ramps at cross streets 125m apart on average- 2500mm wide x 125mm thick concrete on 125mm thick DGS20- minimum quantity: >100m


(iv)

New footpath adjacent to traffic lane

ITEM 1.10

Construction of a new concrete footpath adjacent to an existing traffic lane

Page 92

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


1.11.11.11.21.11.3


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit1.11.1 m $ 252 1.11.2 m $ 566 1.11.3 m $ 686

Sub item 1.11.1 - 1.2m wide footpath- replace old footpath with Standard Concrete footpath for residential footways: 80mm thick unreinforced- pram ramps at cross streets 125m apart on average- 1200mm wide x 80mm thick, 70mm base- minimum quantity: >100m

Sub item 1.11.2 - 2.2m wide footpath- replace old footpath with Standard Concrete path : 2200mm wide x 100mm thick, SL82, on 75mm thick DGS20 - pram ramps at cross streets 125m apart on average- minimum quantity: >100m

Sub item 1.11.3 - 2.5m wide shared cycleway/pedestrian footpath- replace old footpath with Standard Concrete Bicycle / shared path : 125mm thick reinforced - pram ramps at cross streets 125m apart on average- 2500mm wide x 125mm thick concrete on 125mm thick DGS20- minimum quantity: >100m

[SUB ITEMS](v)2.2m wide footpath2.5m wide shared cycleway/pedestrian footpath



(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS]

1.2m wide footpath

- Brownfield environment- Demolish existing 1.2m wide standard concrete residential footpath 80mm thick unreinforced (1200mm wide x 80mm thick, on 70mm DGS20)


Bankstown City Council (BCC) footpath drawings

Sub item1.2m wide footpath

Demolish and upgrade footpath

ITEM 1.11

Demolish and remove old footpath, replace with new

Page 93

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


1.12.11.12.2


# Unit $/unit1.12.1 each $ 17,708 1.12.2 each $ 29,716

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- new intersection on a newly constructed intersection- splays- kerb returns- pram ramp crossing- median pedestrian refuges - 1 per each "T" intersection, 4 per each 4 way intersection- typical signage- traffic control for tie-in works

Excludes: - work adjacent to moving traffic and any adjustment to existing utilities

(v) [SUB ITEMS] "T" intersection4 way intersection

Unsignalised intersection

ITEM 1.12

Construction of an unsignalised intersection



Austroads: Guide to Traffic management ; Part 4, 6, 9 & 10

Sub item"T" intersection4 way intersection


Page 94

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


1.13.11.13.2


# Unit $/unit1.13.1 each $ 218,880 1.13.2 each $ 260,680

Signalised intersection

ITEM 1.13

Construction of a signalised intersection

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes: - signalising a new intersection on a newly constructed intersection- standard traffic signals with standard out reach sufficient to service 2 lanes- splays- kerb returns- pram ramp crossings- median pedestrian refuge with a typical traffic signal configuration including pedestrian crossing to all legs and EZY loops and typical signage

Excludes: - work adjacent to moving traffic and any adjustment to existing utilities

(v) [SUB ITEMS] "T" intersection4 way intersection



PRIMARY STANDARD

Sub item"T" intersection4 way intersection

(vii) [STANDARDS]Austroads: Guide to Traffic management ; Part 4, 6, 9 & 10

Page 95

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


# Unit $/unit1.14 each $ 35,112

Roundabout Intersection

ITEM 1.14

Construction of a trafficable, 4 leg roundabout with 2 approaching lanes

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] - 6m diameter trafficable roundabout- 3m wide apron - 3m radius centre section with stencil finish - 4 leg roundabout with 2 approaching lanes

Includes:- splays- kerb returns- signage- raised triangular medians

Excludes:- pedestrian refuge



PRIMARY STANDARD

ItemRoundabout intersection

(vii) [STANDARDS]Austroads: Guide to Traffic management ; Part 4, 6, 9 & 10

Page 96

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit1.15 each $ 5,490

Pedestrian crossing

ITEM 1.15

Construction of 2 lane pedestrian crossing

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- pedestrian crossing across 2 lane wide carriageway (6.5m)- pedestrian laybacks- crossing at grade

Item may be combined with flat top road hump (Item 1.9.1)



N/A

ItemPedestrian crossing

Page 97

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit1.16 each $ 7,144

Bus stop

ITEM 1.16

Installation of bus stop, including small shelter, seat and sign

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes: - Allowance for a 3m x 1.8m covered shed with open sides on a concrete slab with seating for 3 persons, plus short (<3m) connection to exiting footpath

Excludes: - pram or wheelchair ramps (assumed configuration of bus stop on roadside kerb does not require these)



N/A

ItemBus stops

Page 98

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


1.17.11.17.2


# Unit $/unit1.17.1 each $ 8,846

1.17.2 each $ 9,576

Street lighting

ITEM 1.17

Single pole Street light with impact base and 4.5m outreach

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- cable pits, concrete plinth, control cabinet and cabling sufficient for connection to underground power supply (<5m)

Excludes: - connection to underground power suupply- modifications to existing utilities

(v) [SUB ITEMS] 10.5m high, 250 watt Luminaire12m high 400 watt Luminaire



(vii) [STANDARDS] AS 1158 - Lighting for roads & Public spaces

Road and Maritime Services - design guides

Austroads Guides

Sub item10.5m high, 250 watt Luminaire

12m high 400 watt Luminaire

Page 99

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


1.18.11.18.2


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit1.18.1 m $ 78

1.18.2 m $ 137

On road cycleway

ITEM 1.18

Construction of a single lane, on road cycleway, including surface treatment and signage

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] - 2.2m wide cycle corridor

- Assumes existing road width is sufficient for installation of cycle corridor - no modifications to existing kerb gutter/footpaths

(v) [SUB ITEMS] without kerb separationwith kerb separation



N/A

Sub itemwithout kerb separation

with kerb separation

Page 100

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


2.1.12.1.22.1.3

2.1.4

2.1.5

2.1.6

2.1.7

2.1.8

2.1.9


# Unit $/unit2.1.1 each $ 47,120

2.1.2 each $ 66,880

2.1.3 each $ 97,280

2.1.4 each $ 118,560

2.1.5 each $ 47,120 2.1.6 each $ 10,184 2.1.7 each $ 10,640 2.1.8 each $ 12,160 2.1.9 each $ 19,760

First Principles Estimate & Market Quotation

- WSUD Technical Guidelines for Western Sydney (URS, 2004)

SECONDARY STANDARDS

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemProprietary GPT System - Design Flow 20l/s

Proprietary GPT System - Design Flow 85l/s

Trash Net To suit 1500mm pipe



Prefabricated Pit including internal Trash RackTrash Rack/Trap (Pre Fabricated Steel)Trash Net To suit 375mm pipeTrash Net To suit 750mm pipe

(vii) [STANDARDS] PRIMARY STANDARDS

- Australian Runoff Quality: A Guide to Runoff Quality (Engineers Australia, 2007)

- Urban Stormwater - Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines. Prepared for the Victorian Stormwater Committee (CSIRO, 1999)

- Structural Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice Cost / Size Relationship Information from the Literature (CRC for Catchment Hydrology, 2005)

- Water Sensitive Urban Design Book 1 | Policy (Landcom, 2009)

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Proprietary GPT System - Design Flow 20l/sProprietary GPT System - Design Flow 85l/sProprietary GPT System - Design Flow 200l/s


Prefabricated Pit including internal Trash Rack

Trash Rack/Trap (Pre Fabricated Steel)




(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] - All rates include supply and installation- assumed to be part of a larger scope of works, therefore plant and equipment will not require transportation costs- No allowance for offsite disposal of surplus excluding material- Greenfield environment- Stockpiled material hauled no greater than 500m- No allowance for encountering rock- No allowance for dewatering measures- Excavated material assumed to be VENM- No allowance for surface reinstatement

Sub items 2.1.1 - 2.1.4 - Proprietary GPT System- Gross Pollutant Trap, proprietary system based on Rocla Downstream Defender (vortex system)

Sub item 2.1.5 - Prefabricated Pit including internal Trash Rack - based item provided by Ecosol or similar

Sub item 2.1.6 - Trash Rack - based on steel fabricated trash rack supplied by Ecosol or similar

Sub items 2.1.7 - 2.1.9 - Trash Net - based on trash net supplied by Ecosol

Primary Pollution Treatment

ITEM 2.1

Primary pollution devices including proprietary devices

Page 101

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


2.2.12.2.22.2.32.2.4


# Unit $/unit2.2.1 m $ 274

2.2.2 m $ 684

2.2.3 m $ 988

2.2.4 m $ 821

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemGrassed swale 1.5m total width

Grassed swale 3.0m total width

Grassed swale 5.0m total width

Bio retention Trench


(vii) [STANDARDS] PRIMARY STANDARDS- Australian Runoff Quality: A Guide to Runoff Quality (Engineers Australia, 2007)- Urban Stormwater - Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines. Prepared for the Victorian Stormwater Committee (CSIRO, 1999)- Stormwater Treatment Framework & Stormwater Quality Improvement Device Guidelines, Adopted by Port Macquarie Council on 1 September 2003 (WBM, 2003)- WSUD Technical Guidelines for Western Sydney (URS, 2004)

SECONDARY STANDARDS- Structural Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice Cost / Size Relationship Information from the Literature (CRC for Catchment Hydrology, 2005)

- Water Sensitive Urban Design Book 1 | Policy (Landcom, 2009)

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Grassed swale 1.5m total widthGrassed swale 3.0m total widthGrassed swale 5.0m total widthBio retention Trench

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] - Assumed to be part of a larger scope of works, therefore plant and equipment will not require transportation costs- Greenfield environment- No allowance for offsite disposal of surplus excluding material- Stockpiled material hauled no greater than 500m- No allowance for encountering rock- No allowance for dewatering measures- Excavated material assumed to be VENM- No allowance for surface reinstatement

Sub items 2.2.1 - 2.2.3 - Grassed Swale- Maximum flow velocity adopted for grass swales is 2.0 m/s (1% AEP* flows) (where AEP = Annual Exceedance Probability- Minimum flow velocity adopted for grass swales is 0.6 m/s (100% AEP flows)- Maximum batter slope adopted for grassed swales is 1(V):4(H) - Grassed swale includes earthworks, labour and planting (of grass and/or small native plants)- Grassed swale includes transition filter, gravel, geo-fabric liner in central channel - Grassed swale does not include sub-soil drain

Sub item 2.2.4 - Bio retention Trench- Bio retention trench assumed to be 3 m wide by 1 m nominal depth- Bio retention trench includes geo-fabric liner, underdrainage pipe (100 mm diameter), gravel drainage layer, filter media, sand, topsoil, vegetation cover - Trench - 3.0m (W) x 1.0m (H)

Secondary/ Tertiary Pollution Treatment

ITEM 2.2

Secondary and tertiary pollution devices

Page 102

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]



2.3.12.3.22.3.32.3.42.3.52.3.62.3.72.3.8


# Unit $/unit2.3.1 m $ 395 2.3.2 m $ 745 2.3.3 m $ 1,778 2.3.4 m $ 3,314 2.3.5 m $ 638 2.3.6 m $ 1,158 2.3.7 m $ 2,766 2.3.8 m $ 5,259


(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemSingle Cell; Size 300 x 225mmSingle Cell; Size 600 x 450 mmSingle Cell; Size 1500 x 600 mmSingle Cell; Size 2100 x 2100 mm Twin Cell; Size 300 x 225mmTwin Cell; Size 600 x 450 mmTwin Cell; Size 1500 x 600 mmTwin Cell; Size 2100 x 2100 mm

SECONDARY STANDARDS- Camden Council Engineering Design Specification (adopted 10 February 2009)

(vii) [STANDARDS] PRIMARY STANDARDS- AUS-SPEC NSW Development Design Specification D5 Stormwater Drainage Design

- AS1597 ‘Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Culverts’

- Relevant to Precast Concrete Box Culverts for road crossings and detention/retention basin outlet structures- Assumed to be part of a larger scope of works, therefore plant and equipment will not require transportation costs- Greenfield environment- Culverts excavated to depth of culvert- No allowance for offsite disposal of surplus excluding material- Stockpiled material hauled no greater than 500m- No allowance for encountering rock- No allowance for dewatering measures- Excavated material assumed to be VENM- No allowance for surface reinstatement

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Single Cell; Size 300 x 225mmSingle Cell; Size 600 x 450 mmSingle Cell; Size 1500 x 600 mmSingle Cell; Size 2100 x 2100 mm Twin Cell; Size 300 x 225mmTwin Cell; Size 600 x 450 mmTwin Cell; Size 1500 x 600 mmTwin Cell; Size 2100 x 2100 mm

Precast Concrete Box Culverts

ITEM 2.3

Precast Concrete Box Culverts including supply, bedding, laying and jointing

Page 103

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]



(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


# Unit $/unit2.4 m $ 289

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] ItemConcrete Channel

(vii) [STANDARDS] PRIMARY STANDARD- AUS-SPEC NSW Development Design Specification D5 Stormwater Drainage Design

SECONDARY STANDARDS- Camden Council Engineering Construction Specification (Feb 2009)- Camden Council Engineering Design Specification (Feb 2009)

Concrete Channels

ITEM 2.4

Concrete lined open channels

- Cast in-situ base slab designed by a suitably qualified structural engineer- 1.1m wide x 200mm thick x 300mm deep concrete channel- Assumed to be part of a larger scope of works, therefore plant and equipment will not require transportation costs- Greenfield environment- No allowance for offsite disposal of surplus excluding material- Stockpiled material hauled no greater than 500m- No allowance for encountering rock- No allowance for dewatering measures- Excavated material assumed to be VENM- No allowance for surface reinstatement- Minimum quanitity of 15m


Page 104

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]



2.5.12.5.22.5.32.5.42.5.5

2.5.6


# Unit $/unit2.5.1 each $ 3,846

2.5.2 each $ 4,134

2.5.3 each $ 4,712

2.5.4 each $ 6,080

2.5.5 each $ 6,232

2.5.6 each $ 6,992

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemPrecast pit to suit 375mm pipe

Precast pit to suit 450mm pipe








- Greenfield environment- Assumed to be part of a larger scope of works, therefore plant and equipment will not require transportation costs- Pits to suit pipes up to 600mm in size assumed to be 2.0m in depth - Pits to suit pipes above 600mm in size assumed to be 2.5m in depth - No allowance for offsite disposal of surplus excluding material- Stockpiled material hauled no greater than 500m- Precast gully pits type SA1 (trafficable)- Backfilling of the pits is based on imported Type 1 material- No allowance for encountering rock- No allowance for dewatering measures- Excavated material assumed to be VENM- No allowance for surface reinstatement

(v) [SUB ITEMS] to suit 375mm pipeto suit 450mm pipeto suit 600mm pipeto suit 900mm pipeto suit 1050mm pipe

to suit 1200mm pipe

Stormwater Drain/ Pits

ITEM 2.5

Precast reinforced concrete gully pit, including excavation, bedding materials, backfilling, connection of pipes, galvanised frame and heavy duty grates

Page 105

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]



2.6.12.6.22.6.32.6.42.6.52.6.62.6.7


# Unit $/unit2.6.1 m $ 296 2.6.2 m $ 365 2.6.3 m $ 486 2.6.4 m $ 745 2.6.5 m $ 973 2.6.6 m $ 1,414 2.6.7 m $ 2,021

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub item375mm RCP450mm RCP600mm RCP750mm RCP900mm RCP1350mm RCP1500mm RCP


(vii) [STANDARDS] PRIMARY STANDARDS- AUS-SPEC NSW Development Design Specification D5 Stormwater Drainage Design

- AS 4058 'Precast Reinforced Concrete Pipes'- AS 3725 ‘Loads on Buried Concrete Pipes’SECONDARY STANDARDS- Camden Council Engineering Construction Specification (Feb 2009)- Camden Council Engineering Design Specification (Feb 2009)

- Greenfield environment- Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) Class 2- Assumed to be part of a larger scope of works, therefore plant and equipment will not require transportation costs- No allowance for offsite disposal of surplus excluding material- Stockpiled material hauled no greater than 500m- Backfilling of the pits is based on imported Type 1 material- No allowance for encountering rock- No allowance for dewatering measures- Excavated material assumed to be VENM- Pipe depths are based on - < 1.5m deep for pipes < 600mm, - < 1.9m deep for pipes between 600 & 900mm - < 2.5m deep for pipes between 900mm and 1.5m - No allowance for surface reinstatement

(v) [SUBITEMS] 375mm RCP450mm RCP600mm RCP750mm RCP900mm RCP1350mm RCP1500mm RCP

Stormwater Drainage Pipework

ITEM 2.6

Reinforced concrete pipes, including trench excavation, bedding materials, connection to pits, compacted pipe surround and backfilling

Page 106

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]



2.7.12.7.22.7.32.7.42.7.52.7.6


# Unit $/unit2.7.1 each $ 4,446 2.7.2 each $ 4,476 2.7.3 each $ 6,080 2.7.4 each $ 6,513 2.7.5 each $ 15,200 2.7.6 each $ 17,085

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemTo suit 375mm pipeTo suit 525mm pipeTo suit 750mm pipeTo suit 900mm pipeTo suit 1200mm pipeTo suit 1350mm pipe

First Principles Estimate & Market Quoation



- Greenfield environment- Assumed to be part of a larger scope of works, therefore plant and equipment will not require transportation costs- No allowance for offsite disposal of surplus excluding material- Stockpiled material hauled no greater than 500m- No allowance for encountering rock- No allowance for dewatering measures- Excavated material assumed to be VENM- No allowance for surface reinstatement

(v) [SUB ITEMS] to suit 375mm pipeto suit 525mm pipeto suit 750mm pipeto suit 900mm pipeto suit 1200mm pipeto suit 1350mm pipe

Stormwater Headwalls

ITEM 2.7

Precast headwalls including excavation, backfilling and pipe connection

Page 107

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3a.1.13a.1.23a.1.33a.1.43a.1.5


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3a.1.1 m2 $ 73 3a.1.2 m2 $ 63

3a.1.3 m2 $ 63 3a.1.4 m2 $ 266 3a.1.5 m2 $ 210

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemDemolition; reinforced concrete slabsDemolition; unreinforced concrete slabs

Demolition; bitumen paving including base courseDemolition; concrete/masonry structureDemolition; light structure

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes: - up to 200mm thick slabs- sealing of existing services- disposal of all debris (assumed to a recycled facility @ $30/t)

Excludes: - asbestos contamination - road/footpath closures and detours

Other:- access sufficient for demolition machinery / jackhammers- assumes building structures demolition works are a subcontract specialist item

Demolition; reinforced concrete slabs(v) [SUB ITEMS]Demolition; unreinforced concrete slabsDemolition; bitumen paving including base courseDemolition; concrete/masonry structureDemolition; light structure

Building Code of Australia

Demolition

ITEM 3a.1

Demolition, removal and disposal of existing local open space structures

First Principles Estimate & Reference Pricing

Page 108

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3a.2.13a.2.2


(vii) [STANDARDS]

#Sub item Unit $/unit Unit $/unit

3a.2.1Strip vegetation and topsoil m

2 $ 5.16 m2 $ 3.81


3a.2.2 Tree removal each $ 231 each $ 208

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] <50m2 >50m2

1 no =>10 no

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- top 150mm of vegetation and topsoil stripped back and stockpiled on site- mulching of tree stumps and roots and carting away

Excludes:- offsite disposal of stripped vegetation and topsoil (retained on site for reuse as part of wider scope)- ground contamination

Other:- assumes works are part of a wider scope- maximum tree girth of 500mm

Strip vegetation and topsoil(v) [SUB ITEMS]Tree removal

N/A

Site clearance

ITEM 3a.2

Site clearance of vegetation and topsoil


Page 109

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3a.1.13a.1.2


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3a.1.1 m2 $ 82 3a.1.2 m2 $ 25


Landcom: Open Space Design Guidelines (2008)

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST]Rolled turf; buffaloHydroseeding

Sub item

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- site levelling (cut/fill neutral)- re-use of topsoil from stockpile- two weeks watering maintenance - initial fertilisation

Excludes:- removal of excess spoil or importation of clean fill - adjustments to existing utilities

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Rolled turf; buffaloHydroseeding

Soft Surfaces - Turfing

ITEM 3a.3

Supply and installation of new turf, including sprinkler system

Page 110

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3a.4.13a.4.23a.4.3


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3a.4.1 m2 $ 75

3a.4.2 m2 $ 103

3a.4.3 m2 $ 249


Subitem 3a.4.2 - Synthetic sports grass surfaceAFL/Cricket Australia Synthetic Turf program

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST]Rubber surface; plexiflor/plexipave equivalent

Synthetic sports grass surface

Rebound concrete surface

Sub item

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- rates based on >400m2 of surface- site levelling (cut/fill neutral)- foundation layers (100mm subbase; 200mm sand)- drainage allows for the supply and installation of a precast concrete drainage pit and upvc drainage pipework

Excludes:- removal of excess spoil or importation of clean fill- adjustments to existing utilities- fencing- lighting- line markings

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Rubber surface; plexiflor/plexipave equivalentSynthetic sports grass surfaceRebound concrete surface

Soft Surfaces - Synthetic playing surfaces / artificial grass

ITEM 3a.4

Supply and installation of synthetic surfaces

Page 111

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3a.5.13a.5.2


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3a.5.1 m2 $ 246

3a.5.2 m2 $ 292


Australian Standard AS/NZS4422-1996: Playground Surfacing

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST]Single colour; no pattern

Multiple colours; patterned

Sub item

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- site levelling (cut/fill neutral)- 200mm loose fill material- basic drainage- timber edge treatment- soft surface rubber allows EPDM coloured rubber approx 65mm depth with rubber top coat

Excludes:- removal of excess spoil or importation of clean fill- adjustments to existing utilities- fencing- lighting

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Single colour; no patternMultiple colours; patterned

Soft Surfaces - Softfall under play equipment

ITEM 3a.5

Supply and installation of softfall under play equipment

Page 112

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3a.6.13a.6.23a.6.33a.6.43a.6.53a.6.6


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3a.6.1 m

2 $ 195

3a.6.2 m2 $ 205

3a.6.3 m2 $ 198

3a.6.4 m2 $ 206

3a.6.5 m2 $ 162

3a.6.6 m2 $ 88


(v) [SUB ITEMS]


Asphalt; pedestrian access only

Asphalt; shared pedestrian / vehicular access

Paving; precast concrete

Paving; sandstone

Polished concrete

Asphalt; shared pedestrian / vehicular accessPaving; precast concrete

Paving; brick

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- site levelling (cut/fill neutral)-foundation layers- upvc drainage pipework - paviours laid to pattern- basic line marking for asphalt surfaces- grind & seal finish of concrete surfaces - non slip sealer for external polished concrete surfaces

Excludes:- removal of excess spoil or importation of clean fill- adjustments to existing utilities

Other:- precast concrete paver slabs 450x450x50mm- sandstone paver slab 400x400x40mm- brick paver 200x150x50mm

Asphalt; pedestrian access only

Hard Surfaces

ITEM 3a.6

Supply and installation of hard surfaces

Paving; brickPaving; sandstone

Polished concrete

N/A

Page 113

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]

(iii) [FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION

(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3a.7


N/A

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] ItemConcrete pathways Refer to Roads section

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONSRefer to Transport section for Concrete Footpaths

Concrete pathways

ITEM 3a.7

Construction of concrete pathways

Page 114

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3a.8.13a.8.2


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3a.8.1 m rise $ 2,708 3a.8.2 m rise $ 313


(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemStepsRamping

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- insitu concrete stairs 300mm thick with mesh reinforcement formed to natural contours of ground- assumes 150 riser and 300mm tread- 200mm thick concrete ramp on 300mm subbase in ground- ramps assume a 1:12 grade- excavated material stockpiled on site for reuse as part of wider scope

Excludes:- handrail/balustrade- off-site disposal of spoil/excavated material to tip site

(v) [SUB ITEMS] StepsRamping

Steps/ ramping

ITEM 3a.8

Construction of concrete stairs / ramping, 1m wide

Page 115

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3a.9.13a.9.23a.9.3


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3a.9.1 each $ 4,716

3a.9.2 each $ 6,200

3a.9.3 each $ 7,729

Australian Standard AS4685-2004: Playground Equipment

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemInstallation of Playset Equipment for a PC Sum of up to 10k

Installation of Playset Equipment for a PC Sum of up to 20k

Installation of Playset Equipment for a PC Sum of up to 15k

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- plant and labour required for the installation of varying PC Sums of playground equipment- concrete foundations

Excludes:- soft surfacing (separate item)

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Installation of playset equipment for a PC Sum of up to 10k

Installation of playset equipment for a PC Sum of up to 20k Installation of playset equipment for a PC Sum of up to 15k


Play Equipment

ITEM 3a.9

Installation only of play equipment for children of a mixed age

Page 116

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3a.10.13a.10.23a.10.33a.10.4


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3a.10.1 each $ 3,844 3a.10.2 each $ 3,594 3a.10.3 each $ 3,066 3a.10.4 each $ 2,866

Sub item


Landcom: Open Space Design Guidelines (2008)

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST]Aluminium frame; aluminium slats; back supportAluminium frame; aluminium slats; no back support

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- supply and installation of aluminium park seating 2000-3000mm wide-insitu- concrete base

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Aluminium frame; aluminium slats; back supportAluminium frame; aluminium slats; no back supportAluminium frame; timber slats; back supportAluminium frame; timber slats; no back support

Aluminium frame; timber slats; back supportAluminium frame; timber slats; no back support

Park furniture - Seating

ITEM 3a.10

Supply and installation of aluminium framed park bench

Page 117

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3a.11.13a.11.23a.11.33a.11.43a.11.5


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3a.11.1 each $ 4,691

3a.11.2 each $ 4,507

3a.11.3 each $ 5,125 3a.11.4 each $ 4,969

3a.11.5 each $ 5,017


Extra over for shade covering

Sub item


N/A

Steel frame fixed table; timber slats; back supported tSteel frame fixed table; timber slats; no back

tSteel frame fixed table; aluminium slats; back supportSteel frame fixed table; aluminium slats; no back supports

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- site levelling (cut/fill neutral)- concrete base- extra over provided for shade covering

Excludes:- removal of excess spoil or importation of clean fill

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Steel frame fixed table; timber slats; back supported seatsSteel frame fixed table; timber slats; no back supportsSteel frame fixed table; aluminium slats; back supported seats

Extra over for shade coveringSteel frame fixed table; aluminium slats; no back supports

Park furniture - Picnic sets

ITEM 3a.11

Supply and installation of fixed picnic set, including one table and two benches

Page 118

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3a.12.13a.12.23a.12.3


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3a.12.1 each $ 3,712

3a.12.2 each $ 5,777

3a.12.3 each $ 883


(v) [SUB ITEMS]


N/A

Steel bin enclosure; single

Steel bin enclosure; double

Steel bin enclosure; doubleSteel bin post

Steel bin post

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- secure stainless steel enclosure (items 3a.12.1 & 3a.12.2)- concrete base

Other:- enclosure suited to 240 litre bin

Steel bin enclosure; single

Park furniture - Bins

ITEM 3a.12

Supply and installation of bin enclosure/bin post

Page 119

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3a.13.13a.13.23a.13.33a.13.43a.13.53a.13.6


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3a.13.1 each $ 12,781 3a.13.2 each $ 8,914 3a.13.3 each $ 15,705 3a.13.4 each $ 11,658 3a.13.5 each $ 23,737 3a.13.6 each $ 17,162

N/A

Electric cooker; single plate; uncoveredElectric cooker; double plate; covered

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemElectric cooker; single plate; coveredElectric cooker; single plate; uncoveredElectric cooker; double plate; coveredElectric cooker; double plate; uncoveredElectric cooker; four plate; coveredElectric cooker; four plate; uncovered

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- concrete base- stainless steel surrounds- electrical connection

Excludes:- adjustments to existing utilities- lighting- sink units

Electric cooker; single plate; covered(v) [SUB ITEMS]

Electric cooker; double plate; uncoveredElectric cooker; four plate; coveredElectric cooker; four plate; uncovered


Park furniture - BBQs

ITEM 3a.13

Supply and installation of electric cooker BBQ

Page 120

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3a.14.13a.14.23a.14.3


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3a.14.1 each $ 7,136 3a.14.2 each $ 8,205 3a.14.3 each $ 9,960


N/A

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemSingle unitDouble unitQuad unit

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- concrete base- connections to existing water main (20m run)

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Single unitDouble unitQuad unit

Park furniture - Drinking Fountains

ITEM 3a.14

Supply and installation of drinking fountain(s)

Page 121

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3a.15.1 each $ 3,582

(viii) [VALUES TABLE]

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- concrete base- connections to existing water main (20m run)


N/A

ItemPark furniture - Taps

Park furniture - Taps

ITEM 3a.15

Supply and installation of water tap

Page 122

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3a.16.13a.16.23a.16.33a.16.4


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3a.16.1 m $ 294

3a.16.2 each $ 476

3a.16.3 m $ 391

3a.16.4 each $ 1,368

N/A

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemSteel posts and mesh: height 950m

Extra over mesh access gate; single

Steel tubular: height 950mm

Extra over steel gate; single


(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- concrete footings- vandal resistant coating- powder-coated, steel galvanised finish

Excludes:- motorised/electrical gate access

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Steel posts and mesh: height 950mExtra over mesh access gate; singleSteel tubular: height 950mmExtra over steel gate; single

Fencing - playground

ITEM 3a.16

Supply and installation of playground fencing and gates

Page 123

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3a.17.13a.17.23a.17.33a.17.4


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3a.17.1 m $ 369 3a.17.2 each $ 860 3a.17.3 m $ 459 3a.17.4 each $ 1,635

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemSteel posts and mesh: height 1.2mExtra over mesh access gate; singleSteel tubular: height 1.2mExtra over steel gate; single

N/A

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- concrete footings- vandal resistant coating- powder-coated, steel galvanised finish

Excludes:- motorised/electrical gate access

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Steel posts and mesh; height 1.2mExtra over mesh access gate; singleSteel tubular; height 1.2mExtra over steel gate; single


Perimeter fencing

ITEM 3a.17

Supply and installation of perimeter fencing and gates fronting a road

Page 124

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3a.18 m

2 $ 224

N/A

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] ItemShade Structure

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- concrete foundations- galvanised steel, powder-coated posts with stainless steel fixings- stitched shade sail with hipped roof

Other:- shade sail area based on covering 100m2 - standalone shade structure


Shade structures

ITEM 3a.18

Supply and installation of a stand alone shade structure including shade cloth

Page 125

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3a.19.13a.19.23a.19.33a.19.4


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3a.19.1 each $ 32 3a.19.2 each $ 180 3a.19.3 each $ 301 3a.19.4 each $ 27


Planting; shrubs


N/A

Sub itemPlanting; saplingPlanting; semi mature tree (45ltr)Planting; mature tree (100ltr)

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- excavation, supply and planting of sapling plant, semi mature trees, mature trees and shrubs- replacement of existing topsoil

Excludes:- landscape mulch- planter box and drainage system- tree guard- mulch/pine bark chips

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Planting; saplingPlanting; semi mature Planting; maturePlanting; shrubs

Planting

ITEM 3a.19

Supply and planting of trees and shrubs

Page 126

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3a.20.13a.20.2


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3a.20.1 m

2 $ 504

3a.20.2 m2 $ 391

N/A

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemMasonry construction; less than 500mm high

Masonry construction; exceeding 500mm high

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- site levelling- concrete foundation- waterproof membrane- concrete drainage channel/run off only

Excludes:- planting, topsoil (separate item)- mulch/pine bark chips- rendered/painted finish to masonry- drainage works outside of planter box installation to receive run off

Other:- square metre benchmark unit based on wall surface area

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Masonry construction; less than 500mm highMasonry construction; exceeding 500mm high


Planter boxes

ITEM 3a.20

Supply and installation of planter boxes

Page 127

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]


3a.21 Amenity block m2 $ 2,196 m

2 $ 1,745

[BENCHMARK BASE COST](viii)

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- site levelling (cut/fill neutral)- concrete foundation- covered masonry structure- waterproofing- sanitary installations- internal fit out- water/waste connections within 20m of facility

Excludes:- removal of excess spoil or importation of clean fill- security/CCTV installations

<50m2 <100m2


N/A

Amenity block

ITEM 3a.21

Construction of general amenity block including a combination of toilets, changerooms, canteen and/or equipment storage

Page 128

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3a.22 each $ 3,146


N/A

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] ItemSecurity Lighting

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- 5.5m high tapered octagonal hot dipped galvanised steel column- column foundations- weatherproof lantern- connection into existing power supply (within 20m)

Excludes:- feature lighting allowance

Security Lighting

ITEM 3a.22

Supply and installation of security lighting

Page 129

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3b.1.13b.1.23b.1.3


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub item

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Soccer FieldRugby League / Union FieldCricket Pitch and Field


NSW Cricket Association - Recommended Approach to Management of Turf Cricket Pitches and Outfield

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- site levelling (assumes cut/fill neutral)- basic drainage- spreading excavated material in site- supply and installation of turf

Excludes:- demolition (seperate item - 3a.1)- site clearance (separate item - 3a.2)- perimeter fencing (separate item - 3a.17)- floodlighting (separate item - 3b.2)- amenity block (separate item - 3a.21)- disposal of spoil (all material will be spread within site) / importation of fill- spectator seating- parking- irrigation system- equipment storage

Sub item 3b.1.1 - Soccer Field

'Includes:- field size of approx 7,000m2 including perimeter circulation (1no playing field)- turf on sand bed (200mm), on drainage blanket (crushed aggregate 100mm)- includes reinstatement of 100mm topsoil from stockpiled material - sockets for soccer posts

Excludes:- portable soccer posts

Sub item 3b.1.2 - Rugby League / Union Field

Includes:- field size of approx 7,000m2 including perimeter circulation (1no playing field)- turf on sand bed (200mm), on drainage blanket (crushed aggregate 100mm)- includes reinstatement of 100mm topsoil from stockpiled material - supply and install of rugby posts

Sub item 3b.1.3 - AFL / Cricket Field

For overall field size (satisfies AFL requirements):- Diameter (A) = 130m + 20m perimeter circulation- Diameter (B) = 150m + 20m perimeter circulation Area = Pi * A * BArea = 20,000m2

For cricket pitch size:- 30m x 12m wideFor pitch surface:-synthetic turf laid on concrete base-includes permanent line markings

Outfield:- seeded grass on sand bed (100mm), on drainage blanket (crushed aggregate 100mm)

Excludes:-practice nets

Sportsfields

ITEM 3b.1

Construction of a sportsfield including turfing, markings and posts as required

Page 130

(i) [ITEM NAME] Sportsfields3b.1.1 m

2 $ 58

3b.1.2 m2 $ 58

3b.1.3 m2 $ 35

Soccer Field

Rugby League / Union Field

Cricket Pitch and Field

Page 131

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3b2.13b2.23b2.3


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3b2.1 pitch $ 62,500

3b2.2 court $ 29,250

3b2.3 court $ 30,000

Reference Pricing

AS/NZS2560 for sports lighting

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemFloodlighting for Football (All Codes)

Floodlighting for Tennis

Floodlighting for Netball and Basketball

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- minimum of 4 floodlights supplied and installed per site- connection into existing power supply- light pole foundations- poles per court / pitch - football (2no poles, 8no lights), tennis (4no poles, 8no lights), netball & basketball (2no poles, 6no lights)

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Floodlighting for Football (All Codes)Floodlighting for TennisFloodlighting for Netball and Basketball

Sportsfield floodlighting

ITEM 3b.2

Supply and installation of sportsfield floodlighting

Page 132

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3b.3 court $ 94,264


Court size: International Tennis Federation Rules of Tennis, adopted by Tennis Australia

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] ItemTennis court (outdoor)

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- site levelling (assumes cut/fill neutral)- court size of 1,060m2 inclusive of 5.48m clearance at back of court, 3.05 clearance at side of court- court markings and net posts- basic drainage

Excludes:- demolition (seperate item - 3a.1)- site clearance (separate item - 3a.2)- perimeter fencing (separate item - 3a.17)- floodlighting (separate item - 3b.2)- amenity block (separate item - 3a.21)- spectator seating- parking

Tennis court (outdoor)

ITEM 3b.3

Construction of a single court outdoor tennis court, with a rebound concrete surface, including court markings and net posts

Page 133

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]



Court size: International Federation of Netball Associations (IFNA) Official Rules, Rules of Tennis, adopted by Netball Australia

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] ItemNetball court (outdoor)

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- site levelling (asssumes cut/fill neutral)- court size of 860m2 inclusive of 3.65m clearance each side- court markings and ring installations- basic drainage

Excludes:- demolition (seperate item - 3a.1)- site clearance (separate item - 3a.2)- perimeter fencing (separate item - 3a.17)- floodlighting (separate item - 3b.2)- amenity block (separate item - 3a.21))- spectator seating- equipment storage- parking

Netball court (outdoor)

ITEM 3b.4

Construction of a single court outdoor netball court, with concrete surfacing, including court markings and ring installations

Page 134

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]



Basketball Australia 2010 Memo: memo on court markings

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] ItemBasketball court (outdoor)

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Includes:- site levelling (assumes cut/fill neutral)

- court size of 610m2 inclusive of 2.00m clearance each side- court markings and ring installations -basic drainage

Excludes:- demolition (seperate item - 3a.1)- site clearance (separate item - 3a.2)- perimeter fencing (separate item - 3a.17)- floodlighting (separate item - 3b.2)- amenity block (separate item - 3a.21)-spectator seating- equipment storage- parking

Basketball court (outdoor)

ITEM 3b.5

Construction of a single court outdoor basketball court, with concrete surfacing, including court markings and ring installation

Page 135

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3b.6

-

Regarding provision of shade: ACT Planning and Land Authority Parking and Vehicular Access General Code (2013)

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] ItemCarparking Refer to Community

Facilities

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Refer to Community Facilities section for Carparking

Carparking

ITEM 3b.6

Construction of an open access, at grade carpark

Page 136

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]



(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

4.1 m2 $ 3,175


ITEM 4.1

Single level multi purpose community facilities including services and hard fitout

- based on a notional 1,000m2 facility to external line of facade- the minimum acceptable standard typical to councils for a single storey building- greenfield standard site with no site restrictions- assumes administration space for facility is incorporated in overall layout

Includes:- basic site preparations- structure- external envelope, internal walls, screens and doors- floor, wall and ceiling finishes and fitments- mechanical, electrical and hydraulic services including minimal connections to existing mains- basic air conditioning- basic external works including paving, site landscaping, fencing and external lighting

Excludes: - extensive site works such as piling and retaining walls- allowance for rock excavation- removal of contaminated materials- demolition- dewatering- head works - specialist installations including CCTV and security alarms- loose furniture, fittings and equipment- feature architectural enhancements to the external envelope- carparking

Reference pricing

N/A

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] # Item Unit $/unit


Page 137

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

4.2 m2 $ 3,860

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] - based on a notional 1,000m2 facility to external line of facade- the minimum acceptable standard typical to councils for a single storey- greenfield standard site with no site restrictions- assumes administration space for facility is incorporated in overall layout

Includes:- basic site preparations- structure- external envelope, internal walls, screens and doors- floor, wall and ceiling finishes and fitments- mechanical, electrical and hydraulic services including minimal connections to existing mains- basic air conditioning- basic external works including paving, site landscaping, fencing and external lighting

Excludes:- extensive site works such as piling and retaining walls- allowance for rock excavation- removal of contaminated materials- demolition- dewatering- head works- specialist installations including CCTV and security alarms- loose furniture, fittings and equipment- storage, book shelves and book management systems- feature architectural enhancements to the external envelope- carparking

Library

ITEM 4.2

Single level library including services and hard fitout

Reference pricing

N/A


Library

Page 138

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

4.3 m2 $ 3,440

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] - based a notional 1,000m2 facility to external line of facade- the minimum acceptable standard typical to councils for a single storey- greenfield standard site with no site restrictions- assumes administration space for facility is incorporated in overall layout

Includes:- basic site preparations- structure- external envelope, internal wall, screens and doors- floor, wall and ceiling finishes and fitments- mechanical, electrical and hydraulic services including minimal connections to existing mains- basic air conditioning- basic external works including paving, site landscaping, fencing and external lighting

Excludes:- extensive site works such as piling and retaining walls- allowance for rock excavation- removal of contaminated materials- demolition- dewatering- head works - specialist installations including CCTV and security alarms- loose furniture, fittings and equipment including external playground equipment- feature architectural enhancements to the external envelope- carparking

Preschools/Childcare facilities/OSHC

ITEM 4.3

Single level preschool / childcare facility / OSHC including services and hard fitout

Reference pricing

N/A


Preschools/Childcare facilities/OSHC

Page 139

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

4.4 m2 $ 4,730


ITEM 4.4

Single level aquatic centre including services and hard fitout

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] - based on a 2,600m2 approx facility to external line of facade (minimum practical facility size)- the minimum acceptable standard typical to councils for a single storey building with an indoor 25m long pool and basic paddling / wading pool- greenfield standard site with no site restrictions

Includes:- basic site preparations- structure- external envelope, internal walls, screens and doors- floor, wall and ceiling finishes and fitments- mechanical, electrical and hydraulic services including minimal connections to existing mains- pool plant and equipment- basic external works including paving, site landscaping, fencing and external lighting

Excludes:- extensive site works such as piling and retaining walls- allowance for rock excavation- removal of contaminated materials- demolition- dewatering- head works - specialist installations including CCTV and security alarms- loose furniture fittings and equipment- feature architectural enhancements to the external envelope- carparking

Reference pricing

N/A

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST]# Item Unit $/unit


Page 140

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


4.5.14.5.2


(vii) [STANDARDS]

4.5.1 Per Space $ 6,135

4.5.2 Per Space $ 33,635


Multi Storey Car Park

Reference pricing

N/A

# Sub item Unit $/unit

On Grade Car Park

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] - on grade carpark with approximately 100 cars- multi-storey carpark based on ground and two upper decks with approximately 300 cars overall (100 per level)- the minimum acceptable standard typical to councils for an on grade and multi storey carpark- greenfield standard site with no site restrictions

Includes:- basic site preparations- structure- external envelope, internal walls, screens and doors- basic wall and floor finishes and fitments- electrical and hydraulic services including minimal connections to existing mains- basic external works including paving, site landscaping and external lighting

Excludes:- extensive site works such as piling and retaining walls- allowance for rock excavation- excludes roads other than entrance and exit paving - removal of contaminated materials- demolition- dewatering- head works - specialist installations including CCTV and security alarms- mechanical ventilation- sprinklers- loose furniture and equipment- feature architectural enhancements to the facade- lift

On Grade Car Park(v) [SUB ITEMS]Multi Storey Car Park

Car Park

ITEM 4.5

Car Park - on grade car and multi storey car park

Page 141

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

4.6 per no facility

$ 3,750,000


ITEM 4.6

Item comprises of the construction of a minimum acceptable standard outdoor pool and amenities block typical to councils

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] Outdoor swimming pool based on:- the minimum acceptable standard outdoor 25m long pool including basic paddling / wading pool

- amenities block based on notional 250m2 size (to external line of facade)- greenfield standard site with no site restrictions

Includes:- basic site preparations- structure- external envelope, internal wall, screens and doors- floor, wall and ceiling finishes and fitments- fitments- mechanical, electrical and hydraulic services including minimal connections to existing mains- basic pool plant and equipment- basic external works including paving, site landscaping, fencing and external lighting

Excludes:- extensive site works such as piling and retaining walls- allowance for rock excavation- removal of contaminated materials- demolition- dewatering- head works - specialist installations including CCTV and security alarms- loose furniture, fittings and equipment- feature architectural enhancements to the external envelope- carparking

Reference pricing

N/A



Page 142

(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

4.7 m2 $ 4,385

Reference pricing

N/A


Indoor aquatic facility with gym

(iv) [KEY SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS] - minimum 3,200m2 aprrox. facility to external line of facade- the minimum acceptable standard typical to councils for a single storey building with an indoor 25m long pool, basic paddling / wading pool and notional 300m2 gym- greenfield standard site with no site restrictions

Includes:- basic site preparations- structure- external envelope, internal walls, screens and doors- floor, wall and ceiling finishes and fitments- mechanical, electrical and hydraulic services including minimal connections to existing mains- pool plant and equipment- glass panels to gym walls - basic air conditioning to gym- basic external works including paving, site landscaping, fencing and external lighting

Excludes:- extensive site works such as piling and retaining walls- allowance for rock excavation- removal of contaminated materials- demolition- dewatering- head works - specialist installations including CCTV and security alarms- loose furniture fittings and equipment- feature architectural enhancements to the external envelope- carparking

Indoor aquatic facility with gym

ITEM 4.7

Single level aquatic centre with gym including services and hard fitout

Page 143

Infrastructure Category

Direct Costs

Contractor's Indirect Costs

(% of A)

Margin (% of A +

B)

Value Delivery Agency

Design Total Markup on

Construction A B C D E F G

Transport 100% 20% 10% 132% 10% 5% 15%Stormwater 100% 20% 10% 132% 10% 5% 15%Community Facilities 100% 17% 5% 123% 10% 10% 15%Open Space Embellishment

100% 12% 8% 121% 10% 5% 15%

152%152%141%139%

Contractors Costs Council Costs

Total Mark-up(D *[1+G])

H

Local Infrastructure Benchmark Summary Tables 5. Assumptions

Page 144

11 Benchmark tables


Appendices

11 Benchmark tables


A Terms of Reference







B Infrastructure list from the Infrastructure Contributions Taskforce



The Infrastructure Contributions taskforce provided IPART with this list of infrastructure items to benchmark.

Local Open Space Embellishment

Initial stages after land acquisition

– Demolition and site clearance

– Site preparation (which may include site regarding/pool in-fill/terracing of sloped sites)

Soft surfaces

– Turfing

– Synthetic playing surfaces/artificial grass

– Softfall under play equipment

Hard surfaces

– Asphalt

– Paving

– Polished concrete surfaces (as an alternative to paving)

– Paths (concrete)

– Access

*Note: the design of hard surface areas must be inclusive of Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) requirements (eg, change in surface texture, handrails).

Facilities in open space

– Play equipment

– Parking furniture which includes seating, tables, picnic sets, BBQs, bins, bubblers, taps

– Amenity block (storage facility, canteen, changerooms, toilets)

– Fencing (playground)

– Fencing (perimeter eg, fronting busy roads)

– Shade structures (eg, over playgrounds not larger scale)

– Planting

– Planter boxes



– Toilet facilities and changerooms

– Lighting

– Water proofing (in the case of a park or civic space above a carpark or other structure)

District Open Space Embellishment

Sporting and recreation facilities in open space

– Baseline embellishment (see Local Open Space Embellishment)

– Sportsfields (football, all codes inclusive of goalposts)

– Sportsfield floodlighting

– Sportsfield irrigation and drainage

– Amenity blocks (storage, canteen, changerooms, toilets)

– Tennis courts (outdoor)

– Netball courts (outdoor)

– Basketball courts (outdoor)

– Generic multi-purpose courts (outdoor)

– Cricket pitch

– Skatepark/skatebowl

– Swimming pool (outdoor)

– Roads within district open space (see roads)

– Carparking within district open space (see Other Items – carparking)

Local Community Facilities

Initial stages after land acquisition

– If demolition, site clearance and site preparation are required, refer to the given cost estimates under Local Open Space

Facilities

– Community centres/multi-purpose community facilities/halls (such as neighbourhood centres, youth centres, senior citizen centres)

– Libraries

– Administration space for community services (eg, home and community care centres)

– Childcare facilities/preschools/out-of-school-hours care (OSHC)

– Aquatic centre (indoor)

– Hard fitout (for each of the facilities above):

– Allowance for a single estimate for baseline hard fitout which means hard fitout inclusive of: kitchens, bathrooms (toilets, disabled toilets, family toilets, showers and changerooms if applicable), fixed cabinetry, flooring including carpets, electrical, lighting including exterior lighting,



cabling for computers and networks, community systems, air-conditioning and security alarms)

– Allowance for exterior finishes/curtilage (for standalone or co-located facilities) which means inclusive of landscaping, security lighting, pathways, fencing, external furniture, eg, seating

– Carparking for community facilities (see Other Items – carparking)

District Community Facilities

Facilities

– Indoor aquatic facility with gymnasium

– Community centres/multi-purpose community facilities/halls

Fitout

– Allowance for fitout for each of the facilities above (see Local Community Facilities)

– Carparking for community facilities (see Other Items – carparking)

Roads and Traffic Management

Roads – including median strips, signage, guardrails, kerb and guttering and splays, line marking, fences

Roads – widening

Roads – traffic calming, Local Area Traffic Management (LATM)

Roads – footpaths (concrete footpath adjoining a new road)

Roads – works in the pedestrian environment for the public domain (townscape)

Intersections – signalised

Intersections – unsignalised

Intersections – roundabouts

Intersections between State Roads and Local Roads

Pedestrian crossings

Bus stops

Street furniture (seats, bins, planter boxes)

Streetlighting

Street trees, tree guards and grids

Cycleways – on-road

Cycleways – footpath/shared zone

Cycleways – off-road



Cycleways – facilities eg, bike racks

Road bridges – including over railways, waterways, grade separation

Pedestrian bridges/cycleways bridges/overpasses/underpasses

Culvert crossings

Roads – recurrent (special case)

Ongoing maintenance for the recurrent impact on mining related road infrastructure (unique existing situation preserved for the present)

Stormwater Management

Pits

Revetment

Detention basins

Bio-retention/bio-filtration systems/wetlands used for treatment

Culverts

Channels

Pipes

Headwalls

Ancillary (maintenance and access)

Other Items

Management, administration, plan preparation costs

– Local Infrastructure Plan preparation and management costs (including allowances for community consultation)

Carparking

– Multi-deck carparks

– At-grade carparks

Inclusions relevant to each category

Detailed design costs (including Stage 1 or 2 Environmental Assessment of land with previous uses)

Provisions for the preparation of construction drawings and tender documentation

Project management costs (works)

Contractors costs (works)

Demolition and site clearance



Allowance for decontamination/asbestos removal

Relocation or connection of utilities/servicing

C Consultation for the Draft Report


C Consultation for the Draft Report

Table C.1 Consultation for Draft Report on Section 9 Benchmarking Review

Organisation

NSW Local Councils

Ballina Shire Council

Blacktown City Council

Camden Council

Dubbo City Council

Lake Macquarie City Council

Leichhardt Municipal Council

Maitland City Council

Rockdale City Council

Tamworth Regional Council

The Hills Shire Council

Government agencies

Division of Local Government (DLG)

Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I)

Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC)

Department of State Development Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP), Queensland

Hunter Water Corporation

Infrastructure NSW (INSW)

NSW Valuer General

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)

Sydney Water

Transport for NSW (TfNSW)

Industry

Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia (IPWEA)

Property Council of Australia (PCA)

Shopping Centre Council of Australia

Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA)

Urban Taskforce

UrbanGrowth NSW

Glossary


Glossary

ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics

Austroads The association of Australian and New Zealandroad transport and traffic authorities

Base cost The cost of providing an infrastructure item (before adjustment or contingency is added) that includesdirect costs, indirect costs, margin and client on-costs

Benchmark item Local infrastructure items/sub items that have a benchmark cost

The Bill Planning Bill 2013

Bottom up cost estimation An approach to cost estimation that involvesbuilding up the estimate using the cost of the basic elements in the work breakdown structure of theinfrastructure delivery. Activities are broken down into the fundamental elements of labour, plant and materials with productivity assumptions applied tolabour and plant.

CPI The ABS Consumer Price Index

EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

EP&A Regulation Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation2000

Essential infrastructure Items of infrastructure that are essential to supportdemand arising from development, and for whichcouncils will be able to levy a contribution. TheInfrastructure Contributions Taskforce is finalising the ‘essential infrastructure list’.

Glossary


First principles An approach to cost estimation that involvesbuilding up the estimate using the cost of the basic elements in the work breakdown structure of theinfrastructure delivery. Activities are broken down into the fundamental elements of labour, plant and materials with productivity assumptions applied tolabour and plant.

K & G Kerb and guttering

Gold plating Incorporating costly or otherwise excessive featuresto an infrastructure item unnecessarily.

IPART The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW

IPART Act Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal Act 1992

LGA Local Government Area

Performance outcome A specific objective which defines the requirementsof the infrastructure, including setting theperformance expectations.

PPIs Producer Price Indices

RLB Rider Levett Bucknall

ROCs Regional Organisations of Councils

RMS Roads and Maritime Services

S 94 contributions plan A contributions plan prepared under Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

SIC State Infrastructure Contribution

The Taskforce Infrastructure Contributions Taskforce established to assist the Government to implement the newinfrastructure contributions framework

Top down cost estimation An approach to cost estimation that involves estimating the cost of an item of infrastructure by taking the known total cost of a similar itemdelivered at a specific place and time, and makingrelevant adjustments to take account of the differentcircumstances in which is to be delivered.

Glossary


Typical The level of infrastructure that is generallyacceptable to communities and which councils areexpected to deliver.

White Paper NSW Government, A New Planning System for NSW, White Paper, April 2013

Work breakdown structure The disaggregation of a project into smaller components.

Date post:	16-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs...preparing cost estimates for infrastructure items where there...

Documents