Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal
Local Infrastructure Benchmark
Costs
Costing infrastructure in Local Infrastructure Plans
Final Report
April 2014
Local Infrastructure Benchmark
Costs
Costing infrastructure in Local Infrastructure
Plans
Final Report
April 2014
© Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales 2014
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 978-1-925032-74-1
S9-96
The Tribunal members for this review are:
Dr Peter J. Boxall AO, Chairman
Dr Paul Paterson, Part Time Member
Ms Catherine Jones, Part Time Member
Inquiries regarding this document should be directed to a staff member:
Alison Milne
(02) 9113 7710
Nicole Haddock
(02) 9290 8426
Narelle Berry
(02) 9113 7722
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
ii
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
Contents
Contents
iii
1
Executive Summary
1.1 IPART’s task
1.2 Our approach to this task
1.3 Recommendations about benchmark items and benchmark costs
1.4 Other recommendations
1.5 List of final recommendations
1
1
2
3
5
7
2
Context for the review
2.1 Local infrastructure contributions under the new planning system
2.2 Terms of reference and scope for this review
2.3 Process for conducting our review
2.4 Changes since the Draft Report
10
10
12
13
14
3
Local infrastructure items
3.1 Approach used to identify the benchmark items
3.2 Classifying infrastructure items
3.3 Changes since the Draft Report
16
16
19
21
4
Benchmark items of infrastructure
4.1 Benchmark costs
4.2 Councils to use the benchmark costs as a guide
4.3 Overview of the components of the benchmark costs
4.4 How we developed the base cost component for each item
4.5 Adjustment factors
23
23
24
24
26
36
5
Reference items
5.1 Reference item costs
5.2 How we developed the reference costs
42
42
43
6
Recommended costing approach
6.1 Cost estimation approach
6.2 Suitable cost methodologies
6.3 Sources of information to inform cost methodologies
45
45
46
47
7
Recommended contingency allowances
7.1 Recommended contingency allowances for benchmark items
7.2 Calculating contingency allowance rates for benchmark items
7.3 Contingency allowances for reference items
50
50
52
58
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
Contents
7.4
iv
Calculating contingency allowances for non-benchmark items or where
councils deviate from the benchmark costs
58
8
Plan preparation, management and administration costs
8.1 Definition of plan administration costs
8.2 Approach to determining a benchmark
8.3 Options considered
8.4 A benchmark of up to 1.5% of the total works value
60
61
61
62
62
9
Updating the benchmark costs
9.1 Overview of the recommended methodologies
9.2 Escalating base costs
9.3 Application of the indices to base costs
9.4 Reviewing the base costs
9.5 Indexing contributions rates in future years
9.6 Importance of cash flow management
65
65
68
70
71
72
73
10 Valuing land in local infrastructure plans
10.1 Overview of recommended methodologies
10.2 Valuing land to be acquired by the council
10.3 Valuing land owned by the council
10.4 Escalating land costs in local infrastructure plans
75
75
78
82
84
11 Recommended dispute resolution mechanisms
11.1 Encouraging good practices to minimise disputes
11.2 Council-based formal review
11.3 Referral to IPART
11.4 Disputes arising from conditions of consent
90
92
93
95
97
12 Standards affecting the provision of local infrastructure
12.1 How do we define standards
12.2 Standards councils are required to meet
12.3 Discretionary standards
98
99
99
102
13 Guide to estimating the cost of items on the essential infrastructure list
13.1 Estimating the cost of items on the essential infrastructure list
13.2 How to cost an item using a benchmark cost
13.3 How to estimate plan administration costs
13.4 How to cost an item using a reference cost
13.5 How to cost an item using the cost estimation approach
13.6 Worked examples of applying the benchmark costs
110
111
112
116
118
118
122
14 Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
126
15 Local Infrastructure Reference Datasheets
203
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
Contents
v
Appendices
A
Terms of Reference
B
Essential Infrastructure List and how we categorised the items
C
Stakeholder List
D
Changes to our benchmark items since the Draft Report
E
Indicative list of benchmark items to be review each year
F
Example of first principles and reference pricing cost methodologies
221
223
226
234
237
244
245
Glossary
247
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
1 Executive Summary
1 Executive Summary
In September 2013, the Government asked IPART to advise about benchmark
costs for infrastructure and how councils can establish the efficient costs of local
infrastructure as part of proposed reform of the planning system. This report
sets out our final advice and recommendations, and explains how these differ
from those in our Draft Report.
Currently councils identify the local infrastructure works and land necessary to
meet the demand created by new development and estimate the cost. Then
councils collect development contributions from developers. These contributions
are capped at $20,000 per lot or dwelling generally, or $30,000 in greenfield areas.
The Government proposed changes to contributions intended to make them
more transparent, simple, fair and affordable. The caps would be removed and
local infrastructure contributions would vary across councils and be based on
benchmark costs. Councils would levy contributions towards the efficient cost of
an approved list of infrastructure – local roads and transport facilities, local open
space, community facilities and stormwater management works, as well as the
cost of land for roads, local open space, and community facilities.
1.1
IPART’s task
The terms of reference for this review were issued to IPART on 5 September 2013
under Section 9 of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal Act 1992 (NSW).
They ask us to:


identify the infrastructure items 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 cost estimates

identify how different regions or development settings may affect costs

recommend relevant adjustments, such as contingency and other allowances

recommend a method for updating the benchmark costs

recommend appropriate land valuation methodologies

recommend effective mechanisms for resolving disputes about the application
of the benchmark costs or cost methodologies
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
1
1 Executive Summary

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.
The original Terms of Reference requested IPART to report within 6 months. In
December 2013, the Premier extended the delivery date for the final report until
the end of April 2014 to accommodate requests from councils for an extension of
the deadline for submissions to the Draft Report.
A copy of our terms of reference is at Appendix A.
1.2
Our approach to this task
We were given a list of 88 infrastructure items by Planning and Infrastructure
(P&I)1 to assess and to estimate benchmark costs. We were able to establish
benchmark costs for almost all of the items. For some others (which we refer to as
reference items) we provide 2 reference costs. We also propose methodologies
for councils to use to estimate the costs of non-benchmark items, or where they
wish to deviate from the benchmark or reference costs.
We also recommend approaches for adjusting the costs for different location and
congestion settings, how to determine a reasonable allowance for contingencies
for all infrastructure items, and how to keep the benchmark costs up-to-date.
In undertaking this task, we engaged global engineering firm, Evans & Peck, to
advise us. Both IPART and Evans & Peck were assisted by input and feedback
from the property industry, professional bodies and councils across the State.
We issued an information paper in October 2013 and a Draft Report in November
2013. Input and feedback from stakeholders has been invaluable in helping us
refine benchmark costs and the recommendations for the Final Report.
The report also includes recommendations on:



1
2
methodologies for determining the value of land in local infrastructure plans,
and how councils can escalate the value of land in plans
mechanisms for minimising and resolving disputes about applying
benchmark costs and recommended costing options
planning and environmental standards that may have an impact on the cost of
local infrastructure.
On 23 April 2014, Planning and Infrastructure became the Department of Planning and
Environment. We refer to it as Planning and Infrastructure or P&I in this report.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
1 Executive Summary
1.3
Recommendations about benchmark items and benchmark
costs
Classifying infrastructure items
We classified the infrastructure items on P&I’s list into 3 groups:



Benchmark items - items for which a benchmark cost could be reasonably
established (in many cases the item was broken down into a number of subitems)
Reference items - items for which a single benchmark cost could not be
established, but 2 reference cost examples could eg, a simple and complex
example of the infrastructure; a small and large example, or 2 examples in
locations with different rainfall
Non-benchmark items - items for which a benchmark cost could not be
specified and reference cost examples could not be reasonably established.
Using the benchmark costs or reference costs
Of the 88 items on the essential infrastructure list there are only 3 non-benchmark
items. We have created 169 items and sub-items, 7 reference items and set a
benchmark for plan administration costs.2 Datasheets in Chapters 14 and 15
respectively set out the benchmark costs and reference costs and how we
calculated them. On the basis of feedback on the Draft Report, we created
14 new items or sub-items, and revised the estimated cost of 31 items or subitems, eg, reduced the estimated cost for sub-regional roads and increased it for
roundabouts and floodlighting.
In preparing plans and determining contributions, councils would use the
benchmark costs or reference costs to estimate the costs of infrastructure items,
and the onus would be on councils to justify any deviations from them.
Components of benchmark costs
The benchmark cost of an infrastructure item is made up of 3 components:
Benchmark
cost
=
Base cost
x
Adjustment
factors
x
Contingency
allowance
Note: This calculation assumes that the Adjustment factor and Contingency allowance are indices, not
percentages. If the adjustments are expressed as a percentage, add 1 before multiplying (eg, for contingency
allowance of 20% add 1 and use 1.2).
2
The original list contained some duplicate items. In addition, over the period of the review:
additional items were added to the list, some items were combined and some were divided into
sub-items eg, bio-retention basins/bio-filtration/wetlands used for treatment have each been
divided into 2 benchmark items and a reference item. Therefore the numbers of items do not
add up. See Appendix B for changes to items on the list.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
3
1 Executive Summary



The Base cost reflects the typical efficient cost of providing the item with a
defined scope. This cost covers the direct costs, contractor indirect costs and
margin, and council on-costs. It is expressed as $ per relevant unit (eg, metre,
m2 or item) in June 2013 dollars.
Adjustment factors reflect variations in the cost of infrastructure depending
on factors such as different geographical settings, regional prices, access to
materials and congestion settings.
A contingency allowance accounts for the uncertainty involved in the
planning, design and delivery of infrastructure projects.
Reference costs
Where a single benchmark cost could not be established, we established
2 reference costs using 2 different examples of the infrastructure item eg, either a
simple and complex example, a small and large example, or for delivery in
2 different locations. The council is to select one of the reference costs, or to
justify how and why its estimated cost deviates from the reference costs. As the
reference cost is the total project delivery cost, it is not appropriate to add
adjustment factors or a contingency allowance.
Keeping the benchmark costs up-to-date
We have recommended how to escalate the costs. We propose that IPART
escalate the costs and publish updated benchmark costs each year for use by
councils. The benchmark costs are estimated in June 2013 dollars. We are
recommending that they be indexed using Producer Price Indices published by
the ABS, as nominated for each infrastructure category.
To ensure that the scope of the benchmark items remains relevant and
appropriate, we also recommend that IPART regularly reviews the benchmark
items and their costs in light of structural shifts in the economy or the
construction industry. We plan to do this on a rolling basis within 3 years, and
have prepared an indicative list of items to be reviewed each year.
Methodologies for estimating the efficient costs of non-benchmark items
For estimating the cost of non-benchmark items, or where councils want to
deviate from our benchmark costs or reference costs, we recommend that
councils use an approach that is consistent with our approach to establishing the
benchmark costs. Councils would determine the efficient cost for the item using
a suitable costing methodology and the most accurate available information.
Councils would establish the base cost and add an appropriate contingency
allowance. Unlike with benchmark items, there is no need to apply a location or
congestion factor as they would already be built into the base cost.
4
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
1 Executive Summary
Guidance for councils
To help stakeholders better understand our recommendations, we have prepared
a short guide for councils (included as Chapter 13).
1.4
Other recommendations
Value of land in local infrastructure plans and escalation of land value
The value of land that may be required for infrastructure to support new
development can constitute a significant part of the total cost in a plan eg, if
councils need to acquire a lot of land or in regions with high land values. Where
a council has determined that land may be included in a plan, we recommend
land valuation methodologies and how to escalate land costs in a plan. Our
recommended approaches depend on whether the council has to acquire the
land, or already owns it.
When councils have to acquire the land for local infrastructure purposes, we
recommend they value the land in line with the current market value and any
compensation payable consistent with ‘just terms’ legislation.3
When the council owns the land and it has established that it can levy
contributions for this land in the plan, in most cases, it should value that land at
the historical purchase price, indexed by the CPI (All Groups, Sydney). This
approach largely reflects the recoupment of actual costs consistent with current
practice. However, we recommend one exception. This applies when the council
had not intended the land to be used for public purposes before it is rezoned for
a public purpose in the precinct planning process. In this case councils can use
the current market value. We consider that this would occur only rarely.
We also recommend that in future years councils escalate the land costs in their
infrastructure plans by the CPI (All Groups, Sydney). Where the land is yet to be
acquired, we recommend councils have an alternative option of using a relevant
regional land value index. We propose the Valuer General construct and publish
land indices on a regional basis for this purpose.
Dispute resolution
We recommend councils establish a formal council-based review mechanism for
addressing disputes about applying benchmark costs and cost methodologies in
local infrastructure plans.
3
Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Just Terms Act). Compensation is paid for a
range of factors related to the inconvenience of being forced to sell the land.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
5
1 Executive Summary
The Minister could also refer matters concerning the application of benchmark
costs and cost methodologies in local infrastructure plans to IPART for advice
and recommendation.
In response to stakeholder feedback, we have not retained a recommendation in
our Draft Report requiring the use independent expert panels such as
Independent Hearing and Assessment Panels (IHAPs) or Joint Regional Planning
Panels (JRPPs) to resolve disputes.
Standards
We were also asked to identify and describe the main planning and
environmental standards that councils apply in the provision of local
infrastructure. We were also asked to consider the cost impacts on the standards
council set at their own discretion.
There are many avenues by which infrastructure standards can be set –
legislation and regulations imposed by Federal and State Governments, accepted
industry standards and practice, the Growth Centres Code and individual
council development control plans. Councils also may impose infrastructure
specifications on developments through conditions of consent.
We identified the legislative sources that contain the main planning and
environmental standards that councils are required to meet.
Based on
stakeholder feedback, we identified some agency requirements that may have an
impact on the cost of local infrastructure. We recommend that the NSW
Government review a selection of standards for infrastructure (listed in Table
12.1) and determine whether there is scope for councils to vary the standards
through negotiation.
We also identified the main discretionary standards councils can choose to use,
including accepted industry practice (eg, Austroads guide for new roads and
road widening) and the Growth Centres Development Code for councils in the
North West and South West Growth Centres. We identified that councils use
development control plans (DCPs) as the main mechanism for setting their own
standards.
Legislative requirements allow councils flexibility about the standards adopted
in DCPs, but we found limited evidence in our consultation to suggest that the
standards contained in DCPs are unreasonable. However, we did find variations
between DCPs and accepted industry practice. To ensure that costs associated
with standards are reasonable, we recommend that the onus is on councils
seeking to impose standards above accepted industry practice to justify the
benefits of the requirements.
6
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
1 Executive Summary
1.5
List of final recommendations
Recommendations
1
Councils use the benchmark costs as a guide in developing cost estimates for
the purposes of levying infrastructure contributions. The onus is on councils
to justify any deviation from the benchmark costs.
24
2
Benchmark base costs can be adjusted by a location adjustment factor using: 36
– for open space embellishment and community facilities, the index for the
closest regional centre taken from the Regional Building Indices section of
the latest Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook
36
3
– for roads and stormwater infrastructure, a percentage adjustment based
on distance thresholds from the source of raw materials, as set out in
Table 4.3.
36
If there is significant congestion at the infrastructure site, benchmark base
costs for roads and stormwater infrastructure can be adjusted by a
percentage adjustment factor based on different levels of congestion, as set
out in Table 4.4.
36
4
Councils select one reference cost to use as a guide in developing a cost
estimate for the purposes of levying infrastructure contributions. The onus is
on councils to justify deviation from using the reference costs.
42
5
Councils to use the cost estimation approach outlined in Box 6.1 to estimate
base costs, and include a reasonable allowance for contingency, for
estimating the cost of non-benchmark items, or where councils want to
deviate from the reference costs or benchmark costs.
45
6
For benchmark items, councils to determine the appropriate contingency
allowance by applying the relevant recommended rate (shown in Table 7.1) to
the total adjusted base cost of the item.
50
7
When estimating the cost of non-benchmark items, or where councils want to
deviate from the reference costs or benchmark costs, councils determine the
appropriate contingency allowance by applying the approach described in
Box 7.1.
58
8
In a local infrastructure plan, councils could include up to 1.5% of the total
value of works to be funded by local infrastructure contributions to cover the
cost of plan preparation, management and administration. Councils wishing to
adopt a percentage greater than 1.5% are to justify it by providing a detailed
breakdown of anticipated costs in the local infrastructure plan.
60
9
IPART to escalate the base costs for the benchmark items (currently in June
2013 dollars) annually to the end June quarter using the Producer Price
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
7
1 Executive Summary
Indices (PPIs) published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as shown in
Table 9.1.
68
10 IPART to publish updated base costs for benchmark items on its website in
the month after the publication of the June quarter PPIs.
68
11 IPART to review the base costs for infrastructure benchmark items using a
staggered approach. Each year, IPART would review a group of base costs
so as to ensure that all items of infrastructure are reviewed within 3 years.
71
12 For the purpose of estimating development contributions in a local
infrastructure plan, councils should value land to be acquired at the current
market value plus an estimate of any ‘just terms’ compensation payable. The
estimates should be based on a valuation by a registered valuer. The same
approach should be used for valuing land to be dedicated to councils by
developers.
78
13 For the purpose of estimating development contributions in a local
infrastructure plan, councils should value land already acquired at historical
purchase price indexed by CPI (All Groups, Sydney) except:
82
– if the land was classified as operational before it is released for
development in the precinct planning process, the council should value the
land at current market value.
82
14 The Valuer General construct and publish annual land value indices based on
regional groupings (ie, Sydney metropolitan area, Central Coast, Newcastle,
Wollongong and Other Regional NSW) for use by councils when escalating
land acquisitions costs in their local infrastructure plan in future years.
85
15 To escalate the costs of land in a local infrastructure plan in future years,
councils use:
85
– for land to be acquired, either the relevant land value index published by
the Valuer-General (Recommendation 14), or the CPI (All Groups,
Sydney)
85
– for council-owned land, the CPI (All Groups, Sydney).
85
16 Councils put in place a formal council-based review mechanism to consider
objections and address issues in dispute about the application of benchmark
costs and cost methodologies that arise when infrastructure plans are being
prepared and finalised.
93
17 The Minister can refer disputes about the application of benchmarks and cost
methodologies in local infrastructure plans to IPART for advice and
recommendations.
95
8
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
1 Executive Summary
18 The NSW Government review each of the standards listed in Table 12.1 and
determine whether there is scope for councils to vary the standards through
negotiation.
99
19 The onus is on councils seeking to impose standards above accepted
industry practice to justify the benefits of the requirements.
102
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
9
2 Context for the review
2 Context for the review
IPART has been asked to assist Planning and Infrastructure (P&I) in developing
proposed arrangements for local infrastructure contributions.
To provide the context for this review, the following sections:

outline the proposed changes to infrastructure contributions arrangements

discuss the terms of reference and scope for our review

outline the process we followed in conducting the review

indicate major changes since the Draft Report.
2.1
Local infrastructure contributions under the new planning
system
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 In October, it introduced the Planning Bill 2013 (the Bill) to the
The reforms included proposals intended to make
NSW Parliament.5
development contributions more transparent, simple, fair and affordable.
Although only local infrastructure contributions are within the scope of IPART’s
review, the Bill and White Paper set out 3 forms of infrastructure contributions:

contributions
(currently

regional infrastructure contributions

contributions to the Planning Growth Fund.6
4
5
6
10
local infrastructure
contributions)
known
as
Section
94
NSW Government, A New Planning System for NSW - White Paper, April 2013 (White Paper).
The Bill was deferred by the Legislative Assembly in November 2013.
Note that mechanisms outside this system such as Planning Agreements would remain, but
would not be a 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, would also still be
available.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
2 Context for the review
Currently councils prepare contributions plans that identify the works and land
needed to meet demand created by new development. They estimate the costs of
the land and works and calculate development contributions that will be levied
in developers.7 These contributions are currently capped at $30,000 per lot or
dwelling in greenfield areas, or $20,000 elsewhere.8
It is proposed that councils continue to levy a local infrastructure contribution on
development to fund the provision of local infrastructure. Councils must be
satisfied that the development creates a need for (or will benefit from) new local
infrastructure, or increases the demand on existing infrastructure. There are
4 categories of infrastructure:

local roads and traffic management

capital costs of drainage

local open space and embellishment

basic community facilities.9,10
Local infrastructure contributions must be imposed in accordance with local
infrastructure plans.
Councils would be required first to prepare local
infrastructure plans that set out the infrastructure required in the whole council
area, and then identify which infrastructure can be funded by local infrastructure
contributions (and also by regional infrastructure contributions). These plans
would also include transparent cost estimates of the infrastructure that can be
funded by the contributions, and explain the council’s policy for the assessment,
collection, expenditure and administration of these contributions.11
Councils would only be able to levy developers for the cost of local infrastructure
on the essential infrastructure list. These contributions would be uncapped and
be imposed as a condition of development consent. Local infrastructure would
be based on standardised, benchmark costs for types of infrastructure. The
benchmark costs included in this report have been prepared for this purpose.
P&I was made responsible for developing the proposed new arrangements for
local infrastructure contributions, including a framework to guide councils in
developing cost estimates for local infrastructure plans. An Infrastructure
Contributions Taskforce (the Taskforce), comprising representatives from
councils, industry and state agencies (including IPART) was established to assist
P&I.
7
Currently known as section 94 contributions, local infrastructure contributions in the new
framework would apply to development (infill and greenfield) that creates a need for new local
infrastructure or increases the demand on existing infrastructure.
8 P&I, Revised Local Development Contributions Practice Note – For the assessment of Local
Contributions Plans by IPART, February 2014, p 1.
9 White Paper, p 165.
10 The categories of local infrastructure in the White Paper differ slightly from the categories of
infrastructure in the list given to us by P&I to use in compiling benchmark costs.
11 White Paper, p 100.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
11
2 Context for the review
P&I provided IPART with a list of essential infrastructure in October 2013, and
made minor amendments to it in January 2014. The list is included in
Appendix B (Table B.1 to B.5, column ‘Essential infrastructure list item’). At the
time of publishing this report, the list has not been finalised.12 We have used this
preliminary list, although in this report we refer to it as the essential
infrastructure list.
2.2
Terms of reference and scope for this review
The terms of reference for this review were issued to IPART on 5 September 2013
under Section 9 of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal Act 1992 (NSW)
(IPART Act). They ask us to:


identify the local infrastructure items 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 cost estimates

identify how different regions or development settings may affect costs

recommend relevant adjustments, such as contingency and other allowances

recommend a method for updating the benchmark costs

recommend appropriate land valuation methodologies

recommend effective mechanisms for resolving disputes about the application
of the benchmark costs or cost methodologies.
We were also asked investigate the main planning and environmental standards
required by outside agencies, in the provision of local infrastructure, and identify
and describe the extent to which councils exercise discretion in setting standards
and whether councils’ standards are reasonable.
We were not asked to investigate or benchmark the ‘rates of provision’ of local
infrastructure – that is, the number and type of facilities, or amount of open space
that councils provide for their communities. The rates of provision are a key
driver of councils’ overall infrastructure costs. P&I intends to consider these
rates separately.
The original Terms of Reference requested IPART to report within 6 months. In
December 2013, the Premier extended the delivery date for the final report until
the end of April 2014 to accommodate requests from councils for an extension of
the deadline for submissions on the Draft Report.
12
12
Although not finalised, the preliminary list is referred to as the ‘essential infrastructure list’ in
this report. In some cases we decided to use a different item name from that on P&I’s list to
better reflect the actual item. Appendix B also maps the items on P&I’s list against the item
names and numbers we have used.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
2 Context for the review
A copy of our terms of reference is at Appendix A.
2.3
Process for conducting our review
Our process for conducting this review included extensive public consultation
and detailed analysis of the cost of infrastructure items and costing
methodologies.
Input and feedback from stakeholders has been invaluable, particularly in
helping us refine benchmark costs and the recommendations in the Final Report.
Appendix C lists all stakeholders that assisted us with the review and made
submissions to our information papers and Draft Report.
Our main activities included:





13
Undertaking preliminary consultation with relevant stakeholders, including
members of the Taskforce, to identify the key considerations for this review, in
particular the local and regional cost variations for specific infrastructure
items.
Releasing an information paper on 11 October 201313 seeking comments on a
range of issues relating to our review. We received responses from 23 councils
and 1 industry group.
Engaging consultants (Evans & Peck) to provide expert advice on various
aspects of our terms of reference. We asked Evans & Peck to examine the
essential infrastructure list provided by P&I, and provide advice on the items
of infrastructure for which benchmark cost estimates could reasonably be
established. We also asked for advice about methodologies for estimating the
efficient costs of the non-benchmark items.
Releasing a Draft Report in November 2013 that proposed recommendations
and invited stakeholders to make submissions. We received 33 submissions
from councils, as well as 11 from other stakeholders, including developers,
planners and government agencies.
Consulting with NSW Government agencies and regulators in other
jurisdictions.
See IPART’s website www.ipart.nsw.gov.au for a copy of the information paper.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
13
2 Context for the review
Since releasing the Draft Report, we have undertaken further consultation,
research and analysis of feedback on the Draft Report to refine our advice and
recommendations. Our activities have included:







holding a public roundtable meeting on 3 December 2013
reviewing and considering all stakeholder submissions and comments on the
Draft Report
requesting Evans & Peck to review the benchmark costs, contingency
allowances, adjustment factors and escalation factors in the Draft Report in
light of feedback from stakeholders
instructing Evans & Peck to provide cost estimates for additional
infrastructure items, and new reference items
consulting with relevant stakeholders on the appropriateness of the revised
benchmark costs before finalising our advice and recommendations
undertaking targeted consultation with councils and industry about the
benchmark cost for plan preparation and administration
Consulting with the Valuer General about our proposal to publish land
indices.
In finalising our recommendations we have taken into consideration Evans &
Peck’s advice and stakeholder feedback.
2.4
Changes since the Draft Report
In response to feedback on the benchmark costs set out in the Draft Report, we
reviewed the categories of infrastructure items and the benchmark costs and:

14
provided cost estimates for 7 items that were previously classified as nonbenchmark items, by creating the new category of reference items

provided benchmark costs for 14 new benchmark items and sub-items

revised the costs of 31 items and sub-items

established a benchmark for plan administration costs.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
2 Context for the review
Based on feedback on the Draft Report and further analysis we made the
following changes to the recommendations:












emphasising that the benchmark costs are a guide in developing cost estimates
and that the onus is on councils to justify any deviation from them
for the new category of reference items, councils can select one of the reference
costs to use as a guide in developing cost estimates, with the onus on councils
to justify deviation from the reference costs
explaining how to estimate the costs of non-benchmark items, or where
councils want to deviate from the reference costs or benchmark costs, using a
cost estimation approach that is consistent with our approach for establishing
the base cost component of the recommended benchmark costs
establishing a benchmark for plan administration costs
changing the index for escalating the base costs of stormwater infrastructure
to the ABS PPI Road and Bridge Construction Index for NSW (rather than the
Non-Residential Building Construction Index)
proposing that IPART update and publish the benchmark base costs each
year, rather than councils doing this, to make it simpler and more consistent
reducing the period over which all local infrastructure benchmark costs could
be reviewed by IPART to 3 years (rather than within 4 years) using a
staggered approach of rolling annual reviews to keep them relevant and upto-date
proposing that the Valuer General construct and publish regional land value
indices each year that councils can use to escalate the estimated costs of land
in their plans that is yet to be acquired
removing the recommendation that councils should refer disputes to an
independent expert panel, such as an existing Independent Hearing and
Assessment Panel, or the Joint Regional Planning Panel for the region
clarifying that the Minister could refer disputes about the application of
benchmarks and cost methodologies to IPART for advice and
recommendation, rather than to resolve them
proposing that the NSW Government review some of the standards set by its
agencies to determine whether there is scope for councils to vary the
standards through negotiation
proposing that the onus is on councils seeking to impose standards above
accepted industry practice to justify the benefits of the requirements.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
15
3 Local infrastructure items
3 Local infrastructure items
Under the proposed new arrangements for funding local infrastructure, councils
would be able to levy uncapped contributions towards the efficient cost of an
approved list of essential local infrastructure items, across 4 different categories.
The terms of reference ask IPART to identify the infrastructure items for which a
benchmark cost could reasonably be established.
We investigated all items on the essential infrastructure list and identified:



Benchmark items: those items for which a single benchmark cost could
reasonably be established.
Reference items: those items for which a single benchmark cost could not
reasonably be established, but 2 reference costs could.
Non-benchmark items: those items for which neither a benchmark cost nor
reference costs could reasonably be established.
The sections below explain the approach we used to identify benchmark items,
reference items, and non-benchmark items, and set out the categories to which
we assigned each infrastructure item.
3.1
Approach used to identify the benchmark items
We used a consistent approach to identify benchmark items, reference items and
non-benchmark items from the essential infrastructure list provided by P&I. The
list includes 88 items. There are 4 broad infrastructure categories: local roads and
traffic management (roads); stormwater management (stormwater); local and
district open space embellishment; local and district community facilities. In
addition, there are works that apply to all categories (relating to existing site
works), and plan administration costs. The items are listed in Tables B.1 to B.5, in
the column ‘Essential infrastructure list item’ in Appendix B).14
For each infrastructure item, we examined the extent to which the performance
outcome and the scope (defined in terms of its size or quantity, the materials it is
constructed from and the arrangement of its components) varies across councils
and infrastructure projects in NSW. Figure 3.1 summarises how we identified
whether we could reasonably establish a benchmark cost for the item.
14
16
See section 2.2.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
3 Local infrastructure items
We allocated the items of infrastructure into one of 3 broad categories:

Benchmark items: Where we found there was no significant variation in the
scope, we decided a single benchmark cost could reasonably be established.
– Sub-items: Where there was significant variation in the benchmark item’s
scope, we investigated whether this variation could be accounted for by
creating sub-items. We specified a separate benchmark cost for sub-items.
– In effect, where we were able to identify a scope for each item generally
applicable across NSW, we decided it was reasonable to develop a
benchmark cost for the item/sub-item.


Reference items: Where there was significant variation in the scope that
could not be accounted for by creating sub-items, we investigated whether we
could identify 2 reference costs that provide an indicative range of costs,
above and below the median cost typically expected for the infrastructure item
(for example, a simple and a complex project). If we could, we established
2 reference costs for the item.
Non-benchmark items: Where the variation in the scope could not be
accounted for through different benchmark items/sub-items or reference
items, we decided a benchmark cost for the item could not be reasonably
established.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
17
3 Local infrastructure items
Figure 3.1
3.1.1
IPART’s method of determining whether it is reasonable to
establish a benchmark cost for an item
Plan administration costs
For plan administration costs we similarly considered whether the tasks involved
in preparing and managing local infrastructure plans vary across councils in
NSW. We concluded that while the sophistication of plans varies, the tasks were
such that a benchmark cost could reasonably be established. An explanation of
how we developed a benchmark cost for plan administration, and the benchmark
we recommend are set out in Chapter 8.
18
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
3 Local infrastructure items
3.2
Classifying infrastructure items
We found that benchmark costs can reasonably be established for the vast
majority of the items on the essential infrastructure list. These benchmark items,
as well as the reference items, and non-benchmark items are set out in Table 3.1,
Table 3.2 and Table 3.3 respectively.
The items in these tables do not correspond strictly with the items on the
essential infrastructure list for the following reasons:



In some cases we have provided more than 1 item or sub-item for an item on
the essential infrastructure list eg, ‘roads’ have been broken into ‘new subarterial road’, ‘new industrial road’, ‘new subdivision road’ etc.
In other cases, we have bundled a number of items from the essential
infrastructure list under one benchmark item eg, ‘hard surfaces’ includes
asphalt, paving and polished concrete.
We have also renamed items.
Table 3.1 includes every benchmark item for which there is a datasheet.
Appendix B sets out the name of the item from the essential infrastructure list
against the name we have used for the item or sub items. For benchmark items
and reference items we have listed the datasheet number.
Tables B.1 to B.5 show each item on the essential infrastructure list and whether
we classified it as a benchmark, reference or non-benchmark item. For
benchmark items and reference items we have listed the datasheet number. This
includes cases where it is included as a sub-item or as part of the scope of a
number of items.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
19
3 Local infrastructure items
Table 3.1
List of benchmark items
Infrastructure category
Transport
Stormwater
Open space
embellishment
Community facilities
New sub-arterial road
Sub-arterial road
widening
New industrial road
New subdivision road
New local access
road
New rural road
Rural road widening
Guide posts / safety
barriers / pedestrian
fencing
Traffic calming
New footpath adjacent
to traffic lane
Demolition and
upgrade of footpath
Unsignalised
intersection
Signalised
intersection
Roundabout
Intersection
Pedestrian crossing
Bus stop
Street lighting
On road cycleway
Pedestrian overpassb
Pedestrian
underpassb
Road pavement
resurfacingb
Cycleway facilities bicycle racksa
Primary pollution
treatment
Secondary/ tertiary
pollution treatment
Precast concrete box
culverts
Concrete channels
Stormwater drain/ pits
Stormwater drainage
pipework
Stormwater headwalls
Soft surfaces (3
items)
Hard surfaces
Concrete pathways
Steps/ ramping
Play equipment
installation
Park furniture (6
items)
Fencing - playground
Perimeter fencing
Shade structures
Basic landscaping
Planter boxes
Amenity block
Security lighting
Waterproofing to
concrete deckb
Sports fields and
irrigation
Sports field
floodlighting
Tennis court (outdoor)
Netball court (outdoor
Basketball court
(outdoor)
Carparking
Multipurpose
community facility
Library
Preschool/childcare
facility/OSHC
Aquatic centre
(indoor)
Car park
Swimming pool
(outdoor)
Indoor aquatic facility
with gym
Applicable to all infrastructure categories
Demolitionb
Site clearanceb
Non-infrastructure item
Plan administration costsa
a New item.
b Item was a non-benchmark item in the Draft Report. A benchmark cost has since been established.
20
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
3 Local infrastructure items
Table 3.2
List of reference items
Infrastructure category
Transport
Stormwater
Open space
embellishment
Skateboard park
Road bridges
Detention basin
Intersection state/local Constructed wetlands
road
Revetment
Road maintenance in
mining areas
Table 3.3
Community facilities
None
List of non-benchmark items
Infrastructure category
Transport
Stormwater
Open space
embellishment
Community facilities
None
Ancillary
(maintenance and
access)
None
None
Applicable to all infrastructure categories
Decontamination and asbestos removal
Relocation of utilities
3.3
Changes since the Draft Report
In general, stakeholders agreed with our approach to determining which items
for which a benchmark cost could reasonably be established.15 However,
feedback indicated that we should:


establish benchmark costs for some items for which we did not establish
benchmark costs in the Draft Report (ie, skate parks, detention basins, road
bridges, constructed wetlands, pedestrian bridges and sports field irrigation)16
create a database of costs for non-benchmark items that councils could refer to
when costing these items.17
15
See for example, UrbanGrowth NSW and 5 council submissions, January – March 2014.
See for example Maitland City Council submission February 2014 and Australian Institute of
Quantity Surveyors (AIQS) submission, February 2014..
17 Penrith City Council submission, January 2014.
16
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
21
3 Local infrastructure items
Accordingly, we reviewed our assessment of each non-benchmark item, and
decided that:


Benchmark costs should be provided for a further 3 items (pedestrian bridges,
underpasses and waterproofing) and irrigation should be included within the
sports field item.
We should create an additional category called reference items, for which we
provide 2 reference costs above and below the median cost typically expected
for an infrastructure item (for example, a simple and a complex project). We
have clearly outlined the 2 different scopes of the infrastructure item that the
reference costs are based upon (Chapter 5).
At this stage we have not made a recommendation about a database. Currently
there is no requirement for councils to report actual project costs to IPART or
P&I, or to publish these. This could be considered as part of the compliance
requirements in the broader infrastructure contributions framework.
We also added new items as benchmark items for bike racks and plan
administration costs. These were on the original P&I list but were not estimated
in the Draft Report.
22
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
4 Benchmark items of infrastructure
4 Benchmark items of infrastructure
Benchmark costs are intended to provide a common reference for councils to help
standardise the cost of the items for which infrastructure contributions may be
levied in local infrastructure plans.
We have determined a benchmark cost for the majority of items on the essential
infrastructure list. These are the benchmark items set out in Table 3.1 in
Chapter 3. A benchmark cost has 3 components: a base cost, location and/or
congestion adjustment factors (if appropriate), and a contingency allowance.
We recommend that the benchmark costs are applied as a guide with the
intention that councils have the flexibility to deviate from the benchmark costs,
when this can be appropriately justified. We recommend that councils ‘build up’
the benchmark cost by selecting the benchmark item, using the recommended
base cost, and applying any relevant adjustment factors and the appropriate
contingency allowance.
This chapter gives an overview of how the benchmark costs were calculated, and
explains what is included in the base cost and what adjustment factors can be
applied to the base cost. The third component of an allowance for contingency is
discussed in Chapter 7.
4.1
Benchmark costs
A benchmark cost has 3 components: a base cost, location and/or congestion
adjustment factors (if appropriate), and a contingency allowance. We adopted
the base costs recommended by Evans & Peck for 65 separate benchmark items,
38 of which have sub-items. These are listed in datasheets in Chapter 14.
Both IPART and Evans & Peck carefully considered feedback from stakeholders
in relation to the benchmark costs in the Draft Report. We have revised the scope
of some benchmark items and the values of some cost components. The most
significant feedback we received about base costs and adjustment factors are
discussed in the sections below. Feedback we received on contingency
allowances is discussed in Chapter 7.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
23
4 Benchmark items of infrastructure
Some stakeholders considered whether the benchmark costs in the Draft Report
should be independently reviewed, for example, by another quantity surveyor.18
We agree that it is important to have robust benchmark costs. We have tested
our benchmark costs through a public submission process, during which
stakeholders provided useful feedback on all 3 components of the benchmark
costs.19
In response to this feedback, we made changes to the scope and/or base costs of
31 benchmark items (see Appendix D). In addition, we recommend that IPART
review the benchmark costs on a 3-year rolling basis (Recommendation 11 and
Appendix E) which would subject them to regular review.
4.2
Councils to use the benchmark costs as a guide
Recommendation
1
Councils use the benchmark costs as a guide in developing cost estimates for
the purposes of levying infrastructure contributions. The onus is on councils to
justify any deviation from the benchmark costs.
We recommend that the benchmark costs be applied as a guide with the
intention that councils have the flexibility to deviate from the benchmark costs,
when this can be appropriately justified. The onus is on councils to justify any
deviation from the benchmark costs, when preparing their local infrastructure
plans. There is clear support from council stakeholders that the benchmark costs
be used as a guide, rather than mandating their use.
Councils should use the most accurate information available in developing cost
estimates for the purposes of levying infrastructure contributions. If a council
has received tenders for the actual work to be completed when preparing a local
infrastructure plan, it is recommended that they use this tender price, not the
benchmark cost.
Further guidance on how to apply the benchmark costs is in Chapter 13.
4.3
Overview of the components of the benchmark costs
The benchmark costs that we have recommended have 3 components as set out
in Figure 4.1.
18
19
24
For example, AIQS submission, February 2014.
We received 44 submissions from a range of stakeholders including councils and developers.
This included a submission from AIQS. The majority of submissions contained at least 1
comment on the scope and/or base cost of 1 or more benchmark items.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
4 Benchmark items of infrastructure
Figure 4.1
Components of recommended benchmark costs
The components of a benchmark cost are:



A ‘base cost’ for each item, sub-item and quantity band that reflects the
efficient cost of providing the item. This component includes direct costs,
contractor indirect costs and margin, and council on-costs. It is expressed as
$ per relevant unit (eg, metre, m2 or item) in June 2013 dollars. Each
benchmark item has a datasheet that documents the base cost (and other
relevant information including the scope of the item). The datasheets for the
benchmark items are in Chapter 14. An example datasheet is in Box 4.2 and
the components of the datasheets are explained in Box 4.3.
Adjustment factors that can be applied, if relevant, to the base cost to account
for certain typical variations in the cost of providing the item in different
locations, and in congestion-affected settings. These factors are expressed
either as an index or a percentage of the base cost.
A contingency allowance that is applied to the adjusted base cost to cover
unforeseen events such as encountering site contamination or unexpected
underground utility infrastructure. This allowance is expressed as percentage
of the adjusted base cost, and varies by project development phase and
infrastructure category. (Contingency is discussed in Chapter 7.)
These 3 components only relate to benchmark costs, not the reference items
which are outlined in Chapter 5.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
25
4 Benchmark items of infrastructure
4.4
How we developed the base cost component for each item
The recommended base cost for each benchmark item is made up of
3 components:

direct cost

contractor indirect costs and margin

council on-costs.
4.4.1
The direct cost component
The direct costs are the costs incurred to supply and construct the item. These
can be expressed as a specific metric, such as $/m2 or $/m or $ each. The main
drivers of these costs are the performance outcome and scope of the item, and the
market conditions for supplies and labour (usually by subcontractors).
The direct costs have been developed to specify a performance outcome and
scope for each of the infrastructure items that is appropriate for the purpose of
collecting infrastructure contributions. Our objective is to ensure that the costs
for developing local infrastructure are fairly and equitably calculated to prevent
under-funding for councils or over charging of developers. It is essential that this
aim is maintained in the process for calculating the local infrastructure costs.
In developing the direct costs for each of the infrastructure items we answered
the following 4 questions:
1.
What performance outcome is appropriate for the infrastructure item, for
which we can reasonably expect developers to pay contributions?
The performance outcome of an infrastructure item is defined by the objectives
the item is meant to meet. A performance objective for a road, for example, may
account for the speed and volume of cars; wider lanes and shoulders are usually
used for roads with higher speeds and higher traffic volumes. The appropriate
performance outcomes were derived from industry standards, stakeholder
consultation and advice from Evans & Peck.
2.
What is the minimum scope of the infrastructure item to meet the
appropriate performance outcome?
The scope of an item describes the final delivered asset. It captures the size
and/or quantity, the materials it is constructed from, and the arrangement of its
components. In general, we considered that the scope of a benchmark item
should be the minimum scope that meets the desired performance outcome, ie,
we avoided assuming a scope that may be considered ‘over engineered’.
26
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
4 Benchmark items of infrastructure
The minimum scope of each infrastructure item was selected based on technical
standards, development codes, advice from Evans & Peck and feedback from
stakeholders. The scope of each benchmark item is outlined under “scope of
infrastructure item” on each datasheet.
In response to the benchmark items in the Draft Report, a number of councils and
industry groups recommended that we should modify the scope of some of the
items.20 We used the process shown in Figure D.1 in Appendix D to identify
which comments on scope warranted further action, ie, to determine for which
items the scope should be reviewed and potentially changed. This approach
allowed us to manage the number of individual comments and the diversity of
the views to respond to material issues only. This resulted in an updated scope
(and corresponding base cost) for 31 benchmark items. We have highlighted the
changes we made to the benchmark items in the final column of tables D.1 to D.4
in Appendix D.
3.
What is a typical scope of work to deliver the infrastructure item?
The scope of the works describes all the activities required to construct or install
the infrastructure item. It may include activities such as site preparations,
levelling, drainage, surveying and traffic management. We defined the scope of
work as the typical activities that would be undertaken to deliver an item in an
efficient manner.
This was based on expert advice from Evans & Peck. The key scope of work for
each benchmark item is outlined under the heading “key scope of work
inclusions” on each datasheet.
4.
What is an efficient cost for that item?
A range of possible actual costs can be reasonably expected for each
infrastructure item, once the appropriate performance outcome, scope of the item
and typical scope of work has been established. We adopted the direct costs
estimated by Evans & Peck that reflect an efficient cost to a council of providing
each item or sub-item (excluding risk). Evans & Peck used recognised costing
methodologies to establish the direct costs, as explained in Box 4.1. For each
item, the methodology used to calculate the base cost is outlined on the relevant
datasheet under the heading “costing methodology”.
A number of different information sources were used to determine the direct
costs including:

Evans & Peck’s cost database

supplier/subcontractor quotes
20
See for example, submissions from 27 councils, Mid North Coast Regional Organisation of
Councils (MIDROC), AIQS, NSW Local Government Landscape Design Forum & Australian
Institute of Landscape Architects, State Library, Sydney Water and UrbanGrowth NSW,
January-March 2014.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
27
4 Benchmark items of infrastructure

published costing guides.21
Box 4.1
Cost methodologies used to calculate direct costs
Evans & Peck used 2 methodologies to calculate the direct cost component of the base
cost, depending on the infrastructure item/sub-item:

for roads, stormwater and some open space embellishment items, it used a first
principles or ‘bottom up’ method

for community facilities and the remaining open space embellishment items, it used a
reference pricing or ‘top down’ method.
For some items, Evans & Peck used a ‘hybrid’ of these 2 methodologies.
First principles
The first principles method involves building up an estimate for an item using its most
basic resources - the costs of plant, labour and materials. It is a highly detailed approach
to estimating. Productivity assumptions are applied to labour and plant costs. Estimates
may be supported by quotations from suppliers/contractors for all or part of an activity
(but it remains a first principles approach).
A first principles approach was applied to the majority of infrastructure items/sub-items.
Appendix F provides a worked example of how Evans & Peck used the first principles
approach to estimate a benchmark base cost.
Reference pricing
The reference pricing method involves taking the known total cost of a similar item
delivered at a specific place and time (a ‘project’), and making relevant adjustments to
take account of the different circumstances in which it is to be delivered. This is a less
detailed approach to estimating. As an example, to estimate the cost of a library by
reference pricing, 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.
Reference pricing is less time intensive that first principles, but requires reliable source
data (which is not always available). Reference pricing can be used where only a
functional description of an item is available, with little or no design information.
Reference pricing can be done at the project level as described above, or at a component
level (eg, substructure, building envelope, internal fit-out). In determining base costs for
benchmark items, Evans & Peck estimated some benchmark base costs using a
reference pricing approach at the component level, such as for the multi-purpose
community facility. Appendix F provides a worked example of how Evans & Peck used
the reference pricing approach to estimate a benchmark base cost.
21
28
For example, Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
4 Benchmark items of infrastructure
Reviewing the values of the base costs in the Draft Report datasheets
In feedback on the base costs in the Draft Report, councils generally identified
items for which they considered the base cost to be too low.22 Conversely, the
development industry identified items for which they considered the base cost to
be too high or about right.23 We used the approach outlined in Appendix D to
determine when to review the direct cost of an infrastructure item. This resulted
in an updated base cost for 31 benchmark items, and the changes made are
highlighted in Tables D.1 to D.4 in Appendix D.
4.4.2
The contractor’s indirect costs and margin component
Indirect costs are the costs incurred by the contractor to deliver an infrastructure
project, such as site office accommodation, management personnel and project
insurances. Margin is the contractor’s overheads (non-project specific costs) and
profit. These costs are usually proportional to the size of the project, so are
estimated as a percentage of the total direct costs.
We assume that the item would be delivered through the most commercially
efficient delivery process (eg, competitive tender, public/private partnership,
etc). There is no allowance for additional costs associated with inefficient
processes.
We adopted the contractor’s indirect costs recommended by Evans & Peck.
These were calculated by preparing an indirect cost estimate for 1 benchmark
item from each category (being an item that best represents the proportion of
indirect costs against direct costs generally across the relevant category). This
contractor’s indirect cost estimate included time-based resources, required over a
number of weeks (eg, project management personnel or site facilities) and nontime-based resources, such as one-off costs (eg, transport of plant to and from
site). The indirect cost estimate was then divided by the direct cost for the
relevant benchmark item and expressed as a percentage. This percentage value
was then selected as the appropriate contractor’s indirect percentage for the
particular infrastructure category, as shown in Table 4.1.
We adopted the contractor’s margins recommended by Evans & Peck. These
margins were selected from Evans & Peck’s understanding of contractors’ cost
structures, including the level of corporate overheads and the long run market
conditions for pricing of infrastructure project competitive tenders. The
percentage selected varies across the 4 infrastructure types, from the building
sectors to the more heavily civil engineering works. Roads and stormwater
works typically incur a higher percentage of corporate overheads than building
22
Submissions from 16 councils (Goulburn, Penrith, Ryde, Shoalhaven, Blacktown, Liverpool,
Camden, Port Macquarie Hastings, Tamworth, Bankstown, Newcastle, Gosford, Muswellbrook,
Fairfield, Maitland and North Sydney), January/February 2014.
23 UrbanGrowth NSW submission, March 2014 and the Urban Development Institute of Australia
(UDIA) submission, March 2014.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
29
4 Benchmark items of infrastructure
and building related disciplines, and are undertaken by contractors with a lower
total value of work under construction, due to the higher labour and plant
proportions.
The recommended contractor indirect costs and margins as a percentage of the
benchmark direct costs are set out in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1
Recommended contractor’s indirect costs and margin for
benchmark items
Infrastructure category
Contractor’s indirect costs
(% of direct costs)
Margin (% of direct costs
plus contractor’s indirect
costs)
Roads
20%
10%
Stormwater
20%
10%
Community facilities
17%
5%
Open space embellishment
12%
8%
One submission noted that our recommended contractor’s indirect costs and
margins reflect those usually adopted by Tier 1 contractors, but argued that as
local infrastructure projects will often be undertaken by Tier 2 and 3 contractors,
the adjustment factors should be different to reflect this situation.24 We
considered this comment in consultation with Evans & Peck, and concluded that
the recommended contractor’s indirect costs and margins give an average for the
tiers of contractor that typically undertake each category, acknowledging that it
is not always possible in advance to predict what level of contractor will
undertake a particular package of work. Further, it is not appropriate to simply
assume lower tiers of contractor equate to lower indirect and margin values in all
cases. While Tier 1 contractors typically have higher indirect costs than Tier 2
and 3 contractors, they generally compete for work on the basis of lower profit
margins (due to high work volumes and turnover), so using the average is
considered reasonable for the purpose of establishing a benchmark cost.
4.4.3
Council on-costs component
By ‘council on-costs’ we mean costs incurred by the council to deliver the
benchmark item, which may include:


30
internal staff costs (for project oversight, project planning and definition,
contract preparation, tendering and contract administration)
professional fees (such as legal advice, specialist investigations and any
outsourced project management)

regulatory compliance costs (such as gaining environmental approval)

levies and other government charges
24
AIQS submission, February 2014, pp 9-10.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
4 Benchmark items of infrastructure

insurance costs taken out on behalf of the project owner

design costs.
On-costs are usually proportional to the size of the project, and so are estimated
as a percentage of the total cost to the contractor (ie, direct costs + indirect costs
and margin).
In calculating the on-costs percentages (see Table 4.2) we have distinguished
design costs from the other delivery agency costs.
We adopted the ‘delivery agency’ cost percentages recommended by Evans &
Peck. These percentages include costs from both the planning and delivery
phases. Evans & Peck used its long-term tracking of client costs (forecast
estimates and actual) for each of these 2 phases to determine what would be
reasonable council on-costs for benchmark items. The data showed that
clients/councils incur a cost of around 5% to 6% of the total contractor costs at
both the planning and delivery phases. We have therefore selected 5% for each
phase, with a total of 10%, to represent an efficient council on-cost component.
We adopted the ‘design cost’ percentages recommended by Evans & Peck. The
design costs were calculated based on Evans & Peck’s experience and relate to
the complexity of design required for the items of each infrastructure type. The
percentage selected varies across the 4 infrastructure types, from the heavily civil
engineering works, where design is typically lower, to the building works where
design of services typically requires a higher proportion of design effort.
The recommended council on-costs as a percentage of the total cost to the
contractor are set out in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2
Recommended percentages for council on-costs
Infrastructure category
Delivery agency
Design
Roads
10%
5%
Stormwater
10%
5%
Community facilities
10%
10%
Open space embellishment
10%
5%
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
31
4 Benchmark items of infrastructure
The Property Council of Australia was concerned that including council on-costs
in the base cost would allow double cost recovery by councils (ie, from both their
rate base and developers).25 In our view, the benchmark council on-costs are
intended to reflect the additional costs councils incur in relation to delivering the
benchmark items. If the development were not to go ahead, the councils would
have no requirement to incur these costs. Therefore, we have maintained the
inclusion of council on-costs in the base costs.
4.4.4
Creating sub-items to reflect variations in the scope of an item
In some cases, we broke the infrastructure item into discrete sub-items to reflect
different performance outcomes or common variants of the scope of the item. A
total of 38 items contain sub-items.
An example is in Box 4.2 for item 1.1, new sub-arterial road. We identified that a
proposed development may require either a 3-lane or a 4-lane sub-arterial road,
depending on the predicted vehicle numbers (ie, the performance outcome). We
provided a scope and estimated a base cost for each of these sub-items. Councils
can reasonably select either sub-item, depending on the particular performance
outcome required.
Stakeholders responding to the Draft Report proposed some extra sub-items. We
used the approach outlined in Appendix D and Figure D.1 to determine whether
any new items or sub-items were warranted. As a result, we included 14
additional benchmark items and sub-items and calculated a benchmark cost for
each. The new items and sub-items include:

pavement reconstruction/resurfacing

roundabout only in brownfield site with live traffic

roundabout only in greenfield site with no traffic (ie, before development)

roundabout and pavement in greenfield site with no traffic

creek outlet.
4.4.5
Quantity bands to reflect variations in cost due to quantity provided
For some items and sub-items, we found that the unit rate cost is particularly
sensitive to the quantity of work performed (ie, where there are clear economies
of scale). To illustrate, for guard rail safety barriers (sub-item 1.8.2)26, we
identified that the cost per metre typically decreases when more than 24 m is
provided. Therefore, we created 2 quantity bands – less than 24 m and greater
than 24 m – and recommended a benchmark cost per metre for each.
25
26
32
Property Council of Australia (PCA) submission, March 2014, p 5.
See benchmark item datasheet 1.8 in Chapter 14.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
4 Benchmark items of infrastructure
As a general rule, we created a maximum of 2 quantity bands for any item or
sub-item. In addition, we did not create a quantity band for very low quantities
that would be deemed highly inefficient in terms of the unit cost rate.
The factors we took into account in estimating the efficient cost of the quantity
bands included:



Amortisation of site establishment costs. These costs include those associated
with the physical activities required before construction works begin and
usually relate to site equipment mobilisation costs. Site establishment is a oneoff 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 typically gives the buyer greater leverage to negotiate price
discounts.
4.4.6
Datasheets for benchmark items
Chapter 14 sets out all of the recommended benchmark items (including any subitems and quantity bands) and their recommended base costs. Box 4.2 provides
an example of a datasheet. We explain what the datasheet contains, including
the assumptions behind the calculations in Box 4.3.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
33
4 Benchmark items of infrastructure
Box 4.2
34
Example datasheet
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
4 Benchmark items of infrastructure
Box 4.3
The datasheet explained
Item name
Name of the benchmark item included under one of the 4
categories on the essential infrastructure list
Item number
The unique number assigned to each benchmark item
Functional description
Description of the most fundamental requirements for the
benchmark item
Basis of cost
The basis of the estimated cost for the benchmark item,
separated into the following headings

Scope of infrastructure item
Inclusions
Describes the significant components of the final delivered asset,
included in the base cost
Exclusions
Describes the significant components excluded from of the final
delivered asset, not included in the base cost on grounds they a)
exceed the minimum requirements, or b) are covered by a
separate infrastructure item
The key activities assumed to be undertaken to construct or
install the infrastructure item

Key scope of works
inclusions
Key identified risks
(excluded from base
cost, but allowed for
in contingency)
Minimum quantity

Banding
Quantity bands that have been defined to recognise instances
where the unit rate cost is particularly sensitive to the quantity of
work performed

Specific sub-item
information
Sub-item
The key scope assumptions and infrastructure item
specifications specific to a particular sub-item



Examples of the most significant risks contemplated in delivering
the specific Infrastructure Item. Allowance for all risks is
contained in the contingency allowance ie, no risk allowance is
included in the benchmark base cost
The minimum quantity that has been assumed for the purpose of
determining the benchmark base cost
A variant of a benchmark item with differing configuration,
arrangement, size, material or performance
Costing methodology
The general approach used in estimating the benchmark base
cost (ie, first principles or reference pricing)
Standards
Refers to industry-accepted design standards or guidance
relevant to a benchmark item or sub-item
Benchmark base cost(s)
Estimate of the direct cost of the benchmark item or sub-item,
with a fixed percentage mark-up applied for contractor's indirect
costs, margin and council on-costs. Fixed percentages are
detailed in Assumptions Table in Chapter 14
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
35
4 Benchmark items of infrastructure
4.5
Adjustment factors
Recommendations
2
Benchmark base costs can be adjusted by a location adjustment factor using:
– for open space embellishment and community facilities, the index for the
closest regional centre taken from the Regional Building Indices section of the
latest Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook
– for roads and stormwater infrastructure, a percentage adjustment based on
distance thresholds from the source of raw materials, as set out in Table 4.3.
3
If there is significant congestion at the infrastructure site, benchmark base costs
for roads and stormwater infrastructure can be adjusted by a percentage
adjustment factor based on different levels of congestion, as set out in Table 4.4.
The cost of infrastructure will vary depending on factors such as different
geographical settings, regional prices, access to materials and congestion settings.
To account for these types of variations, we recommend adjustment factors
which can be applied to the base cost if councils consider the adjustments are
warranted. They are expressed as an index or percentage of the base cost.

Location adjustment factors
– for open space embellishment and community facilities, we recommend a
factor to account for materials and labour costs typically being higher for
councils located outside the Sydney metropolitan region
– for roads and stormwater, we recommend a distance-based factor to
account for the typically higher transportation and logistical costs where
the infrastructure site is located more than 25km from the raw material
supply source

Congestion adjustment factors for roads and stormwater infrastructure, to
account for the typically higher costs associated with providing this
infrastructure in high-density, congested settings.
The recommendations concerning adjustment factors are consistent with those in
the Draft Report.
Some councils considered that the recommended adjustment factors may not
always be appropriate because of unique location constraints such as central
business districts and extremely remote areas.27 In response, we examined our
adjustment factors and consider that these adjustment factors account for a
significant proportion of variation in the cost of providing local infrastructure
across the state.
27
36
North Sydney Council submission, February 2014 and Broken Hill City Council, consultation
with IPART, 10 February 2014.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
4 Benchmark items of infrastructure
A council may consider that the adjustment factor/s are insufficient to capture
the extent of local variation, or that there are other specific causes – such as
geotechnical conditions, contamination or salinity issues which will increase
costs.28 In these cases, it can deviate from them either by using the contingency
allowance where appropriate (discussed in Chapter 7), or by estimating the
forecast divergence from the relevant base cost using one of the costing
methodologies recommended in Chapter 6.
4.5.1
Rationale for adjustment factors
The way in which the infrastructure items, sub-items and quantity bands are
defined takes account of some common variations in the typical scope of
infrastructure provided by councils. However, there are many other potential
causes of variation in the cost of this infrastructure. A selection of such factors is
listed in Box 4.4.
Box 4.4
Potential causes of variation in local infrastructure cost
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.
Source: Roads and Traffic Authority, Project Estimating Guidelines, 31 March 2008, pp 44-45; IPART
correspondence and consultation with stakeholders.
28
We recognise that the indices in Rawlinsons provide a broad indication of cost variation within
NSW. The choice of material, degree of fabrication and general workload will have a
considerable bearing on cost differentials.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
37
4 Benchmark items of infrastructure
We examined how these factors could cause variations in the cost of
infrastructure and whether there was a means by which the benchmark costs
could reasonably reflect them. We found it is not feasible to develop robust,
standardised adjustment factors that will account for all the potential causes of
variations in infrastructure costs. This would lead to an overly complex
methodology that is administratively difficult to apply and inconsistent with the
general intent of providing benchmark costs. We decided that there was a
sufficient basis for recommending standardised adjustment factors for certain
categories of infrastructure to account for some typical variations.
4.5.2
Location adjustment factors for open space embellishment and
community facilities
The recommended base costs for items in the categories of open space
embellishment and community facilities reflect the costs to councils located in the
Sydney metropolitan area. However, because the main suppliers of materials are
typically located in major centres there can be significant transportation,
logistical, and storage costs for infrastructure delivery projects in regional areas.
In addition, access to skilled labour tends to be limited in regional NSW
compared with major centres, which can result in higher labour costs.
To account for the additional costs in regional areas, councils in regional NSW
can adjust the base prices for the open space embellishment and community
facilities items by an appropriate location adjustment factor. We consider this
factor be equal to the index value for the closest regional centre in the regional
building cost indices in Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook (Rawlinsons).
We consider these indices are the most appropriate published data based on
advice that Rawlinsons is widely used and accepted in the construction industry,
and its indices are not significantly different to other published cost indices.
The regional cost indices in Rawlinsons are relative to costs in Sydney (ie, Sydney
= 1), and are updated annually. In the 2013 edition of this handbook, these
indices range from 1.01 (for Newcastle and Wollongong) to 1.35 (for Cobar).29
This indicates that costs in Newcastle and Wollongong are typically 1% higher
than those in Sydney, while those in Cobar are typically 35% higher.
29
38
Rawlinsons Publishing, Rawlinsons – Australian Construction Handbook 2013, Edition 31, 2013,
pp 22- 23.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
4 Benchmark items of infrastructure
4.5.3
Location adjustment factors for roads and stormwater for distance from
raw material sources
Haulage costs of raw materials affect the cost of providing roads and stormwater
infrastructure across regions more than materials and labour costs. These costs
vary according to the infrastructure’s distance from the raw material supply
sources. Those located further away from these sources typically face higher
transportation and logistics costs.
The recommended base costs for roads and stormwater items reflect the costs for
councils located less than 25km from the raw material supply sources. To
account for this, we recommend that the relevant base price be adjusted by the
distance adjustment factors set out in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3
Recommended distance adjustment factors for roads and
stormwater infrastructure
<25 km from raw
material source
25-75km from raw
material source
>75km from raw
material source
Roads
0%
5%
10%
Stormwater
0%
2%
4%
These factors indicate (for example) that the base cost of providing roads
typically increases by 5% if the council is between 25km and 75km from the raw
material source, and by 10% if it is more than 75km from the raw material source.
4.5.4
Congestion adjustment factor for roads and stormwater
Infrastructure projects in suburban business districts and heavily built up areas
typically involve additional congestion-related costs due to:

difficulties in accessing the site and other site constraints

the need to work around existing utilities and infrastructure

increased night works

greater double-handling and spoilage of materials

the need for additional safety barriers and temporary works, and

increased traffic management.
To account for this, we recommend congestion factors for 3 defined scenarios, ie,
light, moderate and heavy congestion, as set out in Table 4.4.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
39
4 Benchmark items of infrastructure
Table 4.4
Recommended maximum congestion factor for roads and
stormwater infrastructure
Local infrastructure
category
Roads and stormwater
Lightly Moderately congested
congested
15%
25%
Heavily
congested
40%
The 3 congestion scenarios are defined as:


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.
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.

Heavily congested: Local infrastructure work on or adjacent to a street within
a suburban business district, requiring substantial and continuous traffic
control and with significant pedestrian movement.
The congestion factor values in Table 4.4 above can be used as a guide for
estimating the upper limit values (except for the Sydney CBD). The additional
costs associated with providing local infrastructure in medium and heavily
congested areas are often time-dependent 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 the values in Table 4.4.
In defining these scenarios, we have excluded the Sydney CBD as we considered
it more appropriate to treat this area as a special case. To adjust the base costs of
roads and stormwater items within this area, the council would need to estimate
the additional congestion-related costs using the methodologies recommended in
Chapter 6. This example has also been used to illustrate the approach for adding
additional works to a benchmark cost in Chapter 13.
Submissions also drew attention to the risk of double counting the costs in
calculating the congestion factor, for example:
Lightly congested should be the norm and no factor applied. All construction work
involves a degree of traffic management and WHS management even on closed sites.
These costs are generally factored in to standard pricing rates and don't become
visible until a moderate to high level of congestion is experienced as defined in bands
2 and 3.30
30
40
UrbanGrowth NSW submission, March 2014, p 3.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
4 Benchmark items of infrastructure
Correctly applied, the method for calculating congestion adjustment factors does
not involve any double counting. The congestion factors were calculated by
comparing cost differences between infrastructure delivered in an uncongested
location, and in lightly, moderately and heavily congested locations. Further,
whilst noting that the congestion experienced in a lightly congested location
represents only a minor additional effect, we believe the application of the lightly
congested adjustment factor is appropriate, where the council can demonstrate
that the defined level of light congestion is certain to occur.
Some councils commented that parks and community facilities are sometimes
located around busy areas and, as such, will incur additional traffic and site
management costs.31 We considered this issue and decided to accept Evans &
Peck’s advice. We do not consider that the congestion factors apply to open
space and embellishments and community facilities. Open space embellishments
and community sites are often ‘point’ sites where traffic management
requirements are limited to the site perimeter. Costs in these situations are
generally minimal and predictable and have been accounted for in the base cost
of the relevant infrastructure items. In contrast, congestion costs for standard
roads and stormwater infrastructure are likely to be higher because traffic
management will occur along the length of the worksite, and are therefore more
substantial and generally proportional to the quantum of work involved.
31
Hornsby Shire Council submission, February 2014 and Penrith City Council submission,
January 2014.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
41
5 Reference items
5 Reference items
When determining the items of infrastructure on the essential infrastructure list
for which we could establish a benchmark cost, we identified 7 items for which
we can establish reference costs. These reference items were developed in
response to stakeholder feedback which suggested it would be useful if we
developed a schedule of example projects, to refer to when costing infrastructure
items.32
The reference items are generally items that are ‘engineered’ to meet specific site
parameters. While there is significant variation in the scope of these items, we
instructed Evans & Peck to develop 2 costs that provide an indicative range of
the potential costs, above and below the median cost typically expected for that
infrastructure item (for example, a complex and a simple solution).
The sections below summarise how we developed costs for the reference items.
Guidance on how a council would use the reference items to estimate the cost of
an infrastructure item is provided in Chapter 13.
5.1
Reference item costs
Recommendation
4
Councils select one reference cost to use as a guide in developing a cost
estimate for the purposes of levying infrastructure contributions. The onus is on
councils to justify deviation from using the reference costs.
We recommend that the reference costs be applied as a guide, where councils
pick either the low or the high cost, with the intention that councils may have the
flexibility to deviate from the reference costs, when this can be appropriately
justified. When preparing their local infrastructure plans, the onus is on councils
to justify any deviation from the reference costs.
To illustrate the potential range of costs for an infrastructure item, for each of the
identified reference items we instructed Evans & Peck to develop 2 reference cost
estimates. The 2 reference costs are intended to provide an indicative range of
costs, above and below the median of the possible distribution of cost outcomes
for the infrastructure item being considered (for example, a complex and a
32
42
Penrith City Council submission, January 2014, p 4 and AIQS submission, February 2014, p 5.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
5 Reference items
simple solution). It is possible that over time a more complete cost schedule
could be developed for the reference items, using the reference costs in this
report as initial data points.
5.2
How we developed the reference costs
Similar to the approach taken with costs for benchmark items, in developing the
reference costs we have considered:
1. a performance outcome, for which developers may reasonably be expected to
pay an infrastructure contribution
2. the minimum scope of the infrastructure item to meet the performance
outcome
3. the typical scope of work to deliver each of the infrastructure items
4. the efficient cost for that item using the most accurate available information
and a suitable costing method.
Two different approaches have been taken to define the scope for the purposes of
developing the reference costs.
Where a location-specific assessment is commonly undertaken using an industry
accepted tool or approach, we have used that approach (eg the MUSIC model for
preliminary sizing of constructed wetlands) varying only a single variable (eg,
daily rainfall depth relevant to a particular location) and holding constant all
other potential variables at assumed NSW general indicative values. Box 5.1
below provides a more detailed example of a location-specific assessment for one
of the reference items, constructed wetlands.
For the remaining reference items, there are many different potential design
solutions. For these items we have identified 2 different location and service
need contexts. The first context is one where a simple design solution can be
applied, and the other is where a more complex solution is required. Both of
these design solutions have been used to identify a scope of work and to develop
2 reference costs.
With the exception of the maintenance of roads for mining impacts, the cost for
the reference items is presented as a total cost rather than a unit rate. Further, the
total project delivery cost is provided, which includes the base cost (which
includes the direct, indirect, margin, and council on-costs) and appropriate
contingency allowance.
Accordingly the costs would be applied differently from the benchmark costs,
since contingency and adjustment factors do not need to be added. This is
explained in Chapter 13.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
43
5 Reference items
Box 5.1
Approach to developing reference costs for a constructed wetland
In developing 2 reference costs for a constructed wetland we first developed one possible
standardised set of parameters to define an appropriate performance outcome. The
parameters were used to develop a simple and a complex project solution.
We assumed:

a standard set of water quality objectives (percentage annual reductions of total
suspended solids, total phosphorous and total nitrogen)

one set of catchment
imperviousness).
characteristics
(urban
area,
soil
type,
percentage
Two climate scenarios (coastal and inland) were modelled using MUSICa to determine
the basin configuration required to achieve the nominated water quality objectives, in
terms of annual reduction in pollutant load.
An efficient cost estimate for each of these model configurations was then developed
based on first principles.
a
MUSIC is not a detailed design tool and does not contain the algorithms necessary for detailed sizing of
structural stormwater quantity and/or quality facilities. MUSIC is a conceptual design tool only.
44
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
6 Recommended costing approach
6 Recommended costing approach
For non-benchmark items, or where councils want to deviate from our reference
costs or benchmark costs, we recommend councils use a cost estimation approach
that is consistent with our approach for establishing the recommended
benchmark costs. This approach includes suitable costing methodologies that
will lead to the estimation of efficient costs, for the purpose of calculating
infrastructure contributions.
The sections below summarise the cost estimation approach, including the
suitable costing methodologies, and provide guidance on the possible sources of
information. Guidance for councils to use when using the cost methodologies to
estimate the cost of an infrastructure item is provided in Chapter 13.
6.1
Cost estimation approach
Recommendation
5
Councils to use the cost estimation approach outlined in Box 6.1 to estimate
base costs, and include a reasonable allowance for contingency, for estimating
the cost of non-benchmark items, or where councils want to deviate from the
reference costs or benchmark costs.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
45
6 Recommended costing approach
Box 6.1
Cost estimation approach
Councils can follow 4 key steps to establish the base costs of an infrastructure item:
1. Identify an appropriate performance outcome for the infrastructure item, for which
developers can reasonably be expected to pay infrastructure contributions.
2. Identify the minimum scope of the infrastructure item to meet the appropriate
performance outcome.
3. Identify a typical scope of work to deliver the infrastructure item, to the extent possible
considering the stage of the project. (Projects in the planning stages may have limited
available design information to inform the scope of works).
4. Determine an efficient cost for that item using a suitable costing methodology and the
most accurate available information.
After estimating the base cost of an infrastructure item, councils should then include a
reasonable allowance for contingency (this is described in Chapter 7).
There is no need to apply adjustment factors to base costs estimated using this costing
approach. When a council estimates a base cost using the recommended costing
methodologies, the base cost would already include an allowance for location and
congestion factors.
Note: This is the same approach as that outlined for benchmark items in Chapter 4.4.1, except there is no need
to add adjustment factors.
Guidance for councils on how to carry out the recommended costing approach is
provided in Chapter 13.
The sections below describe the key parts of step 4:

suitable costing methodologies, and

information sources.
6.2
Suitable cost methodologies
There are 2 suitable cost methodologies for estimating the base cost of an
infrastructure item:
1. first principles (or bottom up), and
2. reference pricing (or top down).
We consider councils can use these methods (or a hybrid of these methods) to
estimate the efficient costs of non-benchmark items or where councils want to
deviate from our reference costs or benchmark costs. Each method is described
in detail in Box 4.1 in Chapter 4.
46
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
6 Recommended costing approach
In practice, councils may use a combination of first principles and reference
pricing methods to estimate the cost of infrastructure items, 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. Using a hybrid
approach, which includes some unit cost rates, other first principle elements, and
some reference price elements, can improve the accuracy of cost estimates for less
cost than using a first principles method only.33
The recommended cost estimation approach is largely the same as proposed in
the Draft Report, although we have included more guidance on how councils can
define the infrastructure item.
In general, stakeholders supported this
However, they sought clarification on the use of tender
approach.34
information35 and schedule of rates,36 so we have included more information on
these in the sections below.
Some stakeholders also recommended that quantity surveyors should be used by
councils to prepare the cost estimates.37 While we do not consider this be
compulsory, there is benefit in councils using quantity surveyors (from internal
or external resources) to get more accurate cost estimates, as quantity surveyors
have specific expertise in using the recommended costing methodologies.
6.3
Sources of information to inform cost methodologies
Councils will need to access information on the elements and/or total costs of
infrastructure items, using the most accurate source of information available.
In general, market information, such as schedules of rates or tender prices, is the
most accurate source of information, and it to be used if available. Other ‘next
best’ information sources include cost estimating software and publications
(particularly if using the bottom up costing method) and historical cost data.
These information sources are discussed in more detail below. This list of
information sources is not exhaustive and councils may use other sources where
they consider them more accurate.
33
Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), Project Estimating, Version 2.0, March 2008, p 21.
For example, submissions from AIQS, UrbanGrowth NSW, MIDROC, and Blacktown,
Eurobodalla, Fairfield, Hurstville, Lake Macquarie, Newcastle, Penrith, Shoalhaven and Wagga
Wagga councils, January-March 2014.
35 Submissions from AIQS, MIDROC, and Hornsby, Singleton, The Hills Shire and Wagga Wagga
councils, February/March 2014.
36 MIDROC submission, February 2014 and Singleton Council submission, February 2014.
37 Submissions from AIQS and Maitland, Eurobodalla and Wingecarribee councils, February 2014.
34
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
47
6 Recommended costing approach
6.3.1
Market information
Project tender prices (for the item to be delivered) are an accurate source of cost
information, and as the tender process ‘tests’ the market, the prices will generally
reflect efficient costs.
However, to seek tenders for an infrastructure project, councils need to have
specified the detailed design of the project and all the infrastructure items that
will make up the project, and be able to immediately start the works. In most
cases, councils would not be at this stage when developing their local
infrastructure plans. It may also be impractical to use a tender process for every
infrastructure item in a local infrastructure plan.
A number of submissions to the Draft Report confirmed that councils will rarely
This
have tender results when preparing a local infrastructure plan.38
methodology is not intended to encourage councils to call tenders for the
purpose of preparing costs for infrastructure items in a local infrastructure plan.
However, if councils are at the appropriate stage to tender the works, or have
already tendered the work, it is best to use this market information.
An alternative way to obtain market information is to develop a schedule of rates
for nominated materials, plant and labour or completed components through an
open tender process.39 Councils should estimate costs based on the most efficient
contractor (ie, the one that has submitted the lowest price) when using the
schedule of rates to cost items in a local infrastructure plan. It is important that
the schedule of rates is regularly maintained and updated to ensure the accuracy
of the costs to the current market.
Smaller councils may not generate the volume of construction work to justify a
schedule of rates or project tender process and so may not have this type of
market information. However, in some instances, Regional Organisations of
Councils (ROCs) such as the Western Sydney ROC compile the rates on behalf of
member councils, and the councils can access the information and suppliers.40
38
Submissions from AIQS, MIDROC and Hornsby, Singleton, The Hills Shire and Wagga Wagga
councils, February/March 2014.
39 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.
40 Western Sydney Regional Organization of Councils Ltd (WSROC) website, Regional
Procurement information, www.wsroc.com.au/index.php/regional-procurement.
48
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
6 Recommended costing approach
6.3.2
Historical costs
Councils may use actual cost data from previous infrastructure projects they
have delivered or from similar infrastructure projects delivered in other Local
Government Areas, or an infrastructure cost publication (such as Cordell’s cost
guide). Consultants can be engaged to assist with estimating and they could
draw upon their contract experience in estimating costs.
6.3.3
Cost estimating publication or software
Cost estimating publications set out unit costs at varying levels of detail.
Common publications used in Australia include Rawlinsons’ and Cordell’s cost
guides.
Councils can 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.41
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 (Wintendor).42
41
Department of Planning and Infrastructure, Sydney’s
www.growthcentres.nsw.gov.au/precinctplanning-60.html.
42 RTA, Project Estimating, Version 2.0, March 2008, pp 169-173.
Growth
Centres
website,
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
49
7 Recommended contingency allowances
7 Recommended contingency allowances
All infrastructure projects involve uncertainty in their planning, design and
delivery. This uncertainty is accounted for in cost estimates by the inclusion of a
contingency allowance, which is typically expressed as a percentage of the base
cost for each infrastructure item in the project.
These allowances represent a provision for costs associated with unforeseen
events, such as site contamination, unexpected underground utility
infrastructure, spikes in demand for labour, and interruptions to supply. We
have not included an allowance for these events in the recommended base cost
for benchmark items because there is no certainty of them occurring.
Contingency allowances can be a significant element in costing infrastructure
delivery, and a diverse range of practices exists in councils across NSW. We have
adopted and recommended the contingency allowance rates for benchmark
items, recommended to us by Evans & Peck, of between 10% and 30% in 2 early
planning and design stages, the Strategic Review stage and the Business Case
stage. For reference items, the contingency allowance has already been included
in the reference costs. For items calculated using other cost estimation
approaches, we provide guidance about how councils can calculate the
appropriate contingency.
This chapter sets out our approach to determining contingency allowances for
each category of infrastructure item.
7.1
Recommended contingency allowances for benchmark items
Recommendation
6
50
For benchmark items, councils to determine the appropriate contingency
allowance by applying the relevant recommended rate (shown in Table 7.1) to
the total adjusted base cost of the item.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
7 Recommended contingency allowances
Table 7.1
Recommended contingency allowances for benchmark items
Project stage
Open space
embellishment
Community
facilities
Roads
Stormwater
Strategic Review
20%
15%
30%
30%
Business Case
15%
10%
20%
20%
The appropriate contingency allowance for local infrastructure projects depends
on how advanced the project planning is, and the particular infrastructure
category. There may be many different infrastructure items in a given project.
We have selected contingency allowances for each infrastructure type
corresponding to the Strategic Review (planning) and Business Case (design)
gateways of a project.
For benchmark items, we have adopted the contingency allowances of between
10% and 30% of the total adjusted base costs of each item, as recommended by
Evans & Peck and set out in Table 7.1. These are the same as the Draft Report
recommendations.
We do not recommend rates for projects that have advanced beyond the Business
Case stage. Beyond this stage of infrastructure planning and design, councils
should have access to accurate cost information, and more certainty about the
chances of risk events occurring, and so are unlikely to be using benchmark costs.
Most stakeholders responding to the Draft Report recommendations stated that
our rates were reasonable or lower than the rates used by the council.43 Some
councils suggested that the contingency allowance for open space
embellishments and community facilities should be increased to the percentage
set for roads and stormwater infrastructure.44 By contrast, some respondents
representing developer industry groups considered our rates to be high and
suggested they should be capped at a lower rate.45
We consulted with Evans & Peck about the feedback, and in particular, whether
the rates for open space/community facilities should be higher. The response
reaffirmed the lower risks associated with open space embellishments and
community facilities, compared with roads and stormwater infrastructure.
Accordingly, we consider no change in the recommended rates for the
contingency allowance was necessary, because of the different risks involved.
43
For example Randwick City Council submission, February 2014 and Blacktown City Council
submission, February 2014.
44 Submissions from Hornsby, Newcastle, Penrith, Ryde and Shoalhaven councils,
January/February 2014.
45 PCA submission, March 2014 and UDIA submission, March 2014.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
51
7 Recommended contingency allowances
7.2
Calculating contingency allowance rates for benchmark items
For benchmark items, Evans & Peck calculated the recommended contingency
allowances to reflect the appropriate level of contingency for a ‘typical’
infrastructure project for councils in NSW. This level:

varies for the gateway of the project at the time of the cost estimation

varies by infrastructure category

reflects the ‘most likely’ cost outcome.
Evans & Peck examined contingencies for a range of actual projects, for the
Strategic Review and Business Case gateways, and found significant variations in
contingency allowances for these infrastructure categories. The recommended
contingency allowances reflect the midpoint of a range for the project phase and
infrastructure category.
7.2.1
Variation by project stage
The contingency allowances are higher for earlier stages of planning because less
information is available at that time to assess potential risk events and the
likelihood of them occurring.
We have used the NSW Treasury’s Gateway Review Toolkit to describe the
different stages of a project from planning to delivery.46 The Toolkit has
6 gateways, as shown in Figure 7.1. They range from the Strategic Review stage
at the start of a project, through to the Post Implementation stage.47 We note that
some councils are familiar with this toolkit, or use a similar approach in
determining the appropriate contingency allowance for infrastructure delivery.48
Evans & Peck established contingency allowance rates for the first 2 gateways
only – Strategic Review and Business Case. These gateways are broadly
consistent with the councils’ planning and design stages for local infrastructure.
At the first Strategic Review gateway the council assesses whether the planned
infrastructure aligns with the strategic plans and demonstrates best value to
service the community needs. At the Business Case review gateway council
assesses whether the options have been fully explored as well as the costs
quantified.49
46
Procurepoint NSW, Gateway Review Toolkit, 2006 (Gateway Review Toolkit).
Gateway Review Toolkit.
48 Maitland City Council submission, February 2014 and The Hills Shire Council submission,
March 2014.
49 Gateway Review Toolkit, p 18.
47
52
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
7 Recommended contingency allowances
Figure 7.1
Procurement cycle and review gateways
Source: Gateway Review Toolkit, p 3.
7.2.2
Planning and investigations at the Strategic Review and Business Case
gateways
Some submissions on the Draft Report, requested that IPART provide guidance
about the extent to which investigations have been undertaken at the 2 gateways,
for example, the types of technical studies that should be undertaken at the
Business Case gateway to justify the use of the recommended contingency
allowance.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
53
7 Recommended contingency allowances
We consider that councils should have, at the minimum, undertaken the
following:


Strategic Review stage: Specified the general requirements for infrastructure
and investigated options to achieve the desired outcome, for example, the size
of a park and the associated embellishments to be provided to meet the needs
of the development.50
Business Case stage: Undertaken detailed planning and design of a preferred
option to the point where tenders could be called for its delivery. This
includes:
– detailed planning documents such as environmental approvals, land
acquisition schedules and community consultation outcomes, for example,
studies showing the exact land to be acquired and whether there are any
site constraints in delivering the infrastructure
– preliminary designs and quantity estimates for the infrastructure for
example, engineering drawings as well as a bill of quantities based on
adjusted historical costs.51
As the council progresses from Strategic Review to the Business Case gateway, it
will be able to transfer some of the risk provisions from the contingency
allowance to the base cost estimate as those risks materialise (see Figure 7.2).52
This ensures that the base costs do not ‘double count’ provisions for risk events
that have been previously included in the contingency allowance for the
infrastructure delivery.
After these 2 gateways, councils will have more accurate information to estimate
infrastructure costs, and would be unlikely to use the benchmark costs. For this
reason, we have not identified contingency allowances after the first 2 gateways.
We have only included the Delivery stage in Figure 7.2 for completeness.
50
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
(DoIT Best Practice Cost Estimation), p 17 and Gateway Review Toolkit, p 18.
51 DoIT Best Practice Cost Estimation, p 17 and Gateway Review Toolkit, p 18.
52 DoIT Best Practice Cost Estimation, p 42.
54
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
7 Recommended contingency allowances
Figure 7.2
Risk modelling and project gateways
Source: IPART.
We note that some developer stakeholders considered that contingency
allowances should be fixed at a lower rate.53 UrbanGrowth NSW in particular,
stated that:
High contingency leads to poor management and decision making and creates a bias
towards using the contingency rather than value engineering to manage cost over
runs.54
We do not consider that our recommended contingency allowances would lead
to poor management given that councils would reduce the contingency
allowance as they advance from one gateway stage to the next because some
events will then be:


very likely to occur (so the estimated costs can be added to the adjusted base
costs), or
very unlikely to occur (so presenting a lower risk than previously).
53
UrbanGrowth NSW submission, March 2014 and the Economic Planning Advocacy submission,
January 2014.
54 UrbanGrowth NSW submission, March 2014.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
55
7 Recommended contingency allowances
We considered proposals for fixed or lower contingency allowances and
concluded that a fixed and lower contingency allowance would lead to an
inequitable sharing of risk by councils. There is significant cost uncertainty when
preparing the local infrastructure plan at the Strategic Review and Business Case
gateway, and we consider that a fixed lower rate than we have recommended
would not adequately capture risk events borne by councils.
7.2.3
Variation by infrastructure category
The contingency allowance varies according to the type of infrastructure being
provided, for several reasons.
The risks involved in providing some types of local infrastructure are generally
higher than others. There are more risks in building roads and stormwater
facilities because they typically require more excavation. This presents risks such
as contaminated soil, hard sedimentary surfaces, and underground utility
services.55 By contrast, open space embellishment and community facilities
generally require less excavation, and therefore there are fewer inherent risks of
this type.
7.2.4
To reflect most likely cost outcome
Our objective in selecting an appropriate ‘level’ of contingency allowance has
been to target the median expected cost outcome. This means that the
probability of actual delivery costs exceeding the benchmark are equal to the
probability of actual delivery costs being below the benchmark for an
infrastructure item with a given scope, once the contingency has been applied
(see Figure 7.3).
Typically, the level of contingency allowance an organisation applies to a project
depends on the organisation’s individual appetite for risk.56 If an organisation
has a low risk appetite it will choose a contingency allowance that represents a
low chance of the estimated costs being exceeded. However, an organisation
with a higher risk appetite may choose an allowance that represents a higher
chance of the costs being exceeded.
55
56
56
For example, Leichhardt Municipal Council, consultation with IPART, 11 October 2013.
DoIT Best Practice Cost Estimation, p 43.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
7 Recommended contingency allowances
Figure 7.3
Project cost distribution
Source: IPART.
UrbanGrowth NSW suggests that councils could bear more risk as an incentive to
manage costs, rather than consume the contingency allowance.57 However, in
the context of costing infrastructure items for the purpose of setting
infrastructure contributions from developers, we consider that in many cases, it
is appropriate to apply a contingency allowance that represents the most likely
cost outcome. This is because this outcome represents a reasonable sharing of
risk between councils and developers, such that councils should not face a
windfall or shortfall as a result of applying the recommended contingency
allowance.
We recognise there may be circumstances where it is appropriate for a council to
apply a contingency allowance that is different from those we have
recommended for the benchmark items. In these circumstances the onus is on
the council to justify and substantiate any deviation from the recommended
contingency allowances to be applied to the benchmark costs.
57
UrbanGrowth NSW submission, p 4.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
57
7 Recommended contingency allowances
7.3
Contingency allowances for reference items
For reference items, a contingency allowance does not apply to the reference cost,
so as to avoid double counting. This is because we have published the total
project delivery cost as the reference cost, rather than a base cost allowing for the
addition of an appropriate contingency allowance. A further contingency
allowance is inappropriate as it would ‘double count’ provisions for risk.
7.4
Calculating contingency allowances for non-benchmark items
or where councils deviate from the benchmark costs
For non-benchmark items, or where councils want to deviate from our reference
costs or benchmark costs, we recommend councils use the approach described in
Box 7.1. In essence this approach requries councils to:

take account of the development phase and particular risks of the project

target the most likely cost outcome

avoid double counting the cost of risk events.
Recommendation
7
When estimating the cost of non-benchmark items, or where councils want to
deviate from the reference costs or benchmark costs, councils determine the
appropriate contingency allowance by applying the approach described in Box
7.1.
A contingency allowance is the measure of the residual risk of a project and is
expressed as a level of uncertainty or confidence. The contingency should cover
the costs of risk events, which have not been included in the base cost because it
is not certain whether they will happen. For this reason, councils should use the
same principles that we have used in determining the appropriate contingency
allowance in section 7.1.
Contingency allowances are not be used for other purposes where councils are
virtually certain of the costs. One example is where councils are not using the
benchmark costs because of additional costs arising from the proposed 5-year
holding limit to collected contributions.58 Some councils suggested that, in such
cases, the contingency allowances should be used for:

58
58
additional overhead costs because a council may have to break down the
delivery of a park into different stages over a period of years because it cannot
accumulate sufficient funds to fund its full delivery (for example, planning
and design followed by acquisition and earthworks and finally,
embellishments)
Submissions from MIDROC and Hurstville and Singleton councils, February 2014. The
Planning Bill (s.7.8(5)) includes a proposal that contributions must be spent within 5 years.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
7 Recommended contingency allowances

financing costs because the council may have to rely on external debt to fully
fund the infrastructure rather, than staging construction over a longer period
of time.
These costs are to be calculated in the base costs using other cost estimation
methods in Chapter 6 rather than included in the contingency allowance. Once
calculated, we consider that councils use the approach described in Box 7.1 to
calculate the appropriate contingency allowance.
Box 7.1
Calculating the contingency allowance for non-benchmark items,
or where councils want to deviate from our reference costs or
benchmark costs
Take account of the development phase and particular risks of the project
In general, the appropriate contingency allowance should decrease when the project
moves from the Strategic Review to the Business Case stage. The appropriate
contingency allowance would be higher for roads and infrastructure than for open space
embellishment and community services because of the higher degree of risks and
uncertainty generally involved.
Target the most likely cost outcome
The contingency allowance is dependent on how much risk is ‘insured for’ in the estimate.
As noted in section 7.2.4, it is appropriate to apply a contingency allowance that
represents the most likely cost outcome. The contingency allowance should not be
‘loaded up’ to compensate for poor project planning and management or cost creep
(unless it has resulted from the occurrence of a risk).
Avoid double counting cost of risk events
To avoid double counting, councils should not include the risk event in the contingency
allowance when it has already been included in the base cost. As an example, if a
council is aware of contamination issues because of the residual effect of previous heavy
industry and the extensive water environment, provisions for contaminated soils are to be
included in its base costs, rather than in the contingency allowance.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
59
8 Plan preparation, management and administration
costs
8 Plan preparation, management and
administration costs
Plan preparation, management and administration’ is the only non-infrastructure
item on the essential infrastructure list provided to IPART by P&I.
We considered whether the tasks involved in preparing, managing and
administering local infrastructure plans vary across councils in NSW. We
concluded that there is no significant variation in tasks and that a benchmark cost
can reasonably be established.
The recommended benchmark is based on an analysis of the costs of plan
preparation, management and administration costs (plan administration costs) in
existing plans and consideration of the main cost drivers. We also consulted
selected stakeholders and members of the Infrastructure Contributions Taskforce.
We recommend a benchmark of 1.5% of the total value of works to be funded by
infrastructure contributions.
We suggest that this benchmark, like the
recommended benchmark costs for infrastructure items, be used as a guide.
Where councils have higher costs, councils can justify the higher costs by using a
bottom up approach and include the cost breakdown information in their local
infrastructure plan.
Where a council anticipates lower administration costs, the lower amount is to be
included in their plan.
Recommendation
8
60
In a local infrastructure plan, councils could include up to 1.5% of the total value
of works to be funded by local infrastructure contributions to cover the cost of
plan preparation, management and administration. Councils wishing to adopt a
percentage greater than 1.5% are to justify it by providing a detailed breakdown
of anticipated costs in the local infrastructure plan.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
8 Plan preparation, management and administration
costs
8.1
Definition of plan administration costs
The essential infrastructure list includes as an item ‘plan preparation,
management and administration’.
We have referred to these as plan
administration costs and have adopted a definition of plan administration costs
used in the Practice Note for the assessment of Local Contributions Plans by
IPART.59
The Practice Note specifies that plan administration costs only include those
directly and solely associated with the preparation and administration of the
contributions plan, namely:


background studies, concept plans, cost estimation and other project
management costs required to prepare the plan, and/or
project management costs for preparing and implementing the plan, including
for reviewing the plan, accounting for receipts and expenditures, and
coordinating works-in-kind (WIK) and material public benefit agreements.
Costs may include the cost of consultant studies and contractors as well as
council staff costs.
Plan administration costs are distinct from council on-costs already included in
the benchmarks, which relate specifically to delivery of the infrastructure
projects, rather than the general administration of the plan.60 Costs that would
otherwise be considered part of a council’s core responsibilities, such as strategic
planning responsibilities, are also excluded. Community consultation costs for
exhibition of the draft plan may be included.
8.2
Approach to determining a benchmark
We analysed plan administration costs in existing plans, based on a combination
of council audit information61 and information from our past reviews of
contributions plans. We also examined relationships between the administration
costs and other aspects of the plans such as:

period of the plan

values of land and works

nature and size of development.
This informed our assessment of the main cost drivers of a council’s preparatory
work and other administration responsibilities.
59
P&I, Revised Local Development Contributions Practice Note - for the assessment of Local Contributions
Plans by IPART, February 2014, pp 9-10.
60 See section 4.4.3.
61 We examined plan administration costs in a number of plans reported in an unpublished audit
of council contributions plans across NSW. The audit findings were reported to P&I in
December 2013 and February 2014 for metropolitan and regional councils respectively.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
61
8 Plan preparation, management and administration
costs
We examined how councils currently approach their costing and different
approaches available. In addition, we considered the best estimation approach,
with reference to a need for simplicity, consistency, efficiency and cost
reflectiveness.
We also consulted with selected stakeholders and members of the Infrastructure
Contributions Taskforce.62
8.3
Options considered
We considered the following options for a benchmark:
1. a fixed percentage of the:
a) value of works and land to be funded by infrastructure contributions
b) works value (ie, excluding land value) to be funded by infrastructure
contributions
2. a fixed dollar allocation per development unit based on dwelling numbers or
net developable area (/hectare)
3. a fixed dollar allocation per annum (with benchmark costs tied to the lifespan
of the plan).
We also considered an alternative approach of recommending a methodology for
councils to allocate administrative costs, rather than determining a particular
benchmark. This approach would be the most cost reflective and transparent of
all the approaches considered. However, it is more complex, and difficult to
ensure consistency across councils, or create incentives for efficiency.
Additionally when asked whether we should provide separate benchmarks for
infill and greenfield plans, most stakeholders that responded indicated that there
is no need for separate benchmarks for infill and greenfield plans.
8.4
A benchmark of up to 1.5% of the total works value
We consider that:


The fixed percentage methods (option 1) can be relatively cost reflective,
simple to administer and encourage efficiencies. Of the 2 alternatives, the
percentage of works value method is more suitable because land costs can
vary significantly across the state, and higher valued land should not cost
materially more to administer.
Based on the audit data, we found that there were not enough data, and too
much variation in the unit rates to develop a benchmark based on option 2.
62 We circulated an Information Paper to stakeholders that made submissions on the Draft Report
and members of the Infrastructure Contributions Taskforce (IPART, Information Paper on a
Benchmark for Local Infrastructure Plan Preparation, Management and Administration Costs, April
2014). We received responses from 18 stakeholders (14 responses from councils).
62
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
8 Plan preparation, management and administration
costs

Option 3 would allow councils to budget for their needs based on a specific
‘allowance’, but it would ignore the variation among plans in terms of the size
and scope of the infrastructure. This method would also require a portion of
preparatory and establishment costs to be spread over the life of the plan.
In summary, we recommend the fixed percentage of works value approach
because:

it is simple for councils to apply

it may help to encourage efficiencies (by setting a ‘soft’ limit on-costs)

the amount of works (capital) is likely to be a strong cost driver of the amount
of preparation, management and administration of the plan, and it should
therefore be relatively cost reflective.
We consider that up to 1.5% of the value of works to be funded by infrastructure
contributions is a reasonable benchmark.
Our analysis of data from existing contributions plans in which administration
costs were reported separately showed that administration costs were in most
cases at or below 2% of the value of works. We therefore consulted on a
benchmark of up to 2% of the value of works.
Responses from some stakeholders indicated that a benchmark of 2% of the value
of works is too high. A number of examples of existing plans were provided that
include an allowance for administration costs below 2% of the value of works. In
response to this feedback and our assessment of the plans, we recommend a
lower benchmark.63
During consultation, several councils said that a benchmark value of up to 2% of
the works value would be insufficient to fund their plan administration costs.
However, these councils supported the option of including higher costs if
justified in the relevant local infrastructure plan.64
We consider that 1.5% is more in line with our approach to the benchmark costs
for infrastructure items where we used ‘the most likely’ outcome to specify
benchmarks. We consider 1.5% the more appropriate benchmark for plan
administration costs.
63
64
UDIA and Economic Planning Advocacy responses to Information Paper, April 2014.
Bankstown City Council, Camden Council, Fairfield City Council, Maitland City Council and
Shoalhaven Council responses to Information Paper, April 2014.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
63
8 Plan preparation, management and administration
costs
Two industry groups contended that plan administration costs should not be
funded by infrastructure contributions.65 We have included these costs in our
review because they are on the essential infrastructure list provided to us to
benchmark. These costs are incurred because the land and infrastructure is
needed for development. Ultimately, it is a matter for the Government to decide
whether infrastructure contributions can be levied towards these costs.
8.4.1
Using the benchmark for plan administration costs
We suggest that this benchmark, like our other recommended local infrastructure
benchmarks, be used as a guide.
Where a council has higher administration costs, we recommend that the council
justifies the higher costs by using a bottom-up approach and include a cost
breakdown in the local infrastructure plan.
Further guidance on applying the benchmark is provided in Chapter 13.
65
64
UDIA and Urban Taskforce responses to Information Paper, April 2014.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
9 Updating the benchmark costs
9 Updating the benchmark costs
The recommended base costs for benchmark items (discussed in Chapter 4) are in
June 2013 dollars. The base costs would need to be regularly escalated to current
dollars to reflect changes in costs since 1 July 2013 so that they are current when
used by councils to estimate the cost of infrastructure items to include in local
infrastructure plans.
Over time, it would also be necessary to review the benchmark items and their
costs and to revise them to reflect structural shifts in the economy or the
construction industry. It would also be necessary to ensure that the scope of the
benchmark items remain relevant and appropriate.
This chapter sets out our recommendations for:

escalating the base costs of benchmark items

reviewing the base costs of benchmark items.
Once a council has established the cost of infrastructure items using benchmark
costs and other costing methodologies, it may also index its contributions rates in
forward years. This chapter clarifies how the indexation of contributions rates in
a plan in the years after it is made is separate from the escalation and update of
the benchmark costs.
The methodology for indexing the costs of land underlying councils’
contributions rates in forward years is discussed in Chapter 10.
9.1
Overview of the recommended methodologies
We determined that the base costs for benchmark infrastructure items would be
updated in the following way:

The base cost component of the benchmark cost is escalated by the relevant
recommended Producer Price Index (PPI) for the latest June quarter published
by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). These are shown in Table 9.1
(Recommendation 9).
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
65
9 Updating the benchmark costs



IPART escalates the base costs by the nominated indices, and publishes
revised base costs (Recommendation 10). This should help to improve
consistency of escalation and make it easier for councils to use the benchmark
costs.
IPART reviews the full set of infrastructure item base costs over a 3-year
period using a staggered approach (Recommendation 11), and publishes the
base costs each year, incorporating any revisions.
Councils use IPART’s latest published base costs to estimate the costs of
infrastructure when preparing their local infrastructure plans (Appendix E
sets out an indicative list of benchmark items that are to be reviewed each
year).
This approach is summarised in Figure 9.1.
In response to feedback from stakeholders, we have made 2 key changes from the
approach in the Draft Report.66


To update base costs of stormwater infrastructure, we now recommend using
the ABS Road and Bridge Construction Index, rather than the ABS NonResidential Building Construction Index.
We recommend that IPART update the benchmark base costs annually and
publish them for councils to use, rather than requiring each council to escalate
infrastructure costs using our recommended PPIs.
We have also clarified how councils can update contributions rates in future
years. It is important to distinguish between councils using the benchmark items
for the purposes of preparing a new plan or reviewing an existing plan, and
councils indexing contributions rates in local infrastructure plans.67
66
67
66
Draft Report, Recommendations 6 and 7.
Updating the value of land in a local infrastructure plan is considered in Chapter 10.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
Figure 9.1
Updating and reviewing the base costs
9 Updating the benchmark costs
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
a Appendix E sets out an indicative list of benchmark items that are to be reviewed each year.
Note: The actual timing for implementation of the new contributions framework and benchmark costs will be determined by Planning and Infrastructure.
67
9 Updating the benchmark costs
9.2
Escalating base costs
Recommendations
9
IPART to escalate the base costs for the benchmark items (currently in June
2013 dollars) annually to the end June quarter using the Producer Price Indices
(PPIs) published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as shown in Table 9.1.
10 IPART to publish updated base costs for benchmark items on its website in the
month after the publication of the June quarter PPIs.
Table 9.1
Recommended Producer Price Indices for escalating base costs
Infrastructure category
Recommended cost index
Roads
ABS PPI Road and Bridge Construction
Index for NSW (no. 3101)
Stormwater
ABS PPI Road and Bridge Construction
Index for NSW (no. 3101)
Open space
ABS PPI Non-Residential Building
Construction Index for NSW (no. 3020)
Community facilities
ABS PPI Building Construction Index for
NSW (no. 30)
9.2.1
Why PPIs are the appropriate indices for escalating base costs
We considered a range of indices and compared the advantages and
disadvantages of using them to escalate the benchmark base costs. The indices
included the economy-wide Consumer Price Index (CPI), as well as the narrower,
industry-specific indices that are produced both by the ABS, and by construction
cost specialists such as Rawlinsons, Davis Langdon, Turner & Townsend, Rider
Levett Bucknall (RLB), E C Harris and Gardiner & Theobald.68
While the CPI has the advantage of being transparent, readily available and easy
to use, it measures changes in consumer prices, rather than changes in the costs
of inputs to infrastructure construction. An industry-specific index that captures
cost movements for the relevant infrastructure category is likely to better reflect
changes in councils’ costs of delivering infrastructure.
68
68
These privately produced indices are listed in Best. R., “International Comparisons of Cost and
Productivity in Construction: A Bad Example”, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and
Building, 12 (3), p 85.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
9 Updating the benchmark costs
We recommend the use of ABS PPIs over the privately produced indices because
they are:

specific to the building or road construction industry in NSW (constructed for
each state or territory)

publicly available and transparent

published quarterly

not too costly or complex to obtain and administer.69
In response to the Draft Report, most stakeholders generally supported the use of
ABS PPIs.70 One argued that privately produced industry-specific indices can be
more reflective of some specific infrastructure costs than the ABS PPI. An
example given was the index published by RLB for the costs of multi-sport
playing fields, which was seen as being more relevant than the ABS NonResidential Construction index.71
We have further considered this issue in response to submissions and concluded
that indices such as this are not publicly produced and are therefore less
transparent than the ABS PPIs. In addition, the option to use privately produced
indices may involve a large number of different indices from different providers
due to the specific nature of many of the indices, and be more complex to
administer. Due to the disadvantages associated with using privately produced
indices, we remain of the view that the ABS PPIs are the most appropriate option.
9.2.2
The recommended PPIs
The PPIs nominated in Table 9.1 reflect our consideration of the most appropriate
index to apply to each category of infrastructure on the essential infrastructure
list. Since the Draft Report, we have changed our recommended index for the
category of stormwater infrastructure. We are now recommending that the ABS
Roads and Bridge Construction Index be used, rather than the ABS NonResidential Building Index.
This change follows feedback from a council in response to the Draft Report and
subsequent discussions with the ABS. The council indicated that stormwater
works are often undertaken in association with road projects, and that on this
basis, the most appropriate index would be the ABS PPI Road and Bridge
Construction Index.72 The ABS indicated that neither the Road and Bridge
Construction Index nor the Non-Residential Building Index is intended to be
used for stormwater civil works, however the ABS does not publish an index
which specifically includes works of this type. We agree that the ABS Roads and
69
Draft Report, p 45.
For example, submissions from MIDROC and Maitland and Ryde councils, January/February
2014.
71 AIQS submission, pp 8-9.
72 Hornsby Shire Council submission, pp 3-4.
70
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
69
9 Updating the benchmark costs
Bridge Construction Index is the more suitable choice because the price of certain
labour and materials will be similar if roads and stormwater works are
undertaken at the same time.
Another council suggested that for open space amenities, buildings and storage
facilities the PPI Building Construction Index should be used rather than the
Non-Residential Building Construction Index proposed in the Draft Report.73
We have further considered this issue but have maintained our original
recommendation because the PPI Building Construction Index incorporates
prices from other building types (such as residential buildings) which are not
related to open space buildings.74
9.3
Application of the indices to base costs
To assist councils with using the base costs, we now recommend that IPART
publish updated base costs for infrastructure items each year. Councils can then
use the published, updated base costs when they are preparing local
infrastructure plans or reviewing existing plans.75
The Draft Report recommended that councils use the latest available quarterly
PPIs published by the ABS to escalate the base costs for benchmark items when
preparing their local infrastructure plans in future years.76 We received some
stakeholder feedback that IPART should be responsible for escalating the base
costs and publishing them to reduce the potential for errors and confusion.77 We
agree with this suggestion because it will make it easier for councils to use the
benchmark costs and reduce the risk of calculation errors.
The process by which IPART would update and review the base costs is shown
in Figure 9.1. We expect to publish the updated base costs around a month after
the publication of the June quarter PPIs for each year.
As explained in the next section, we would review around a third of the base
costs each year and update the base costs annually as suggested in the Draft
Report.
73
Maitland Council submission, February 2014, p 8.
We have recommended the PPI Building Construction Index for community facilities because
these facilities include home care and child care facilities which have similar inputs to
residential buildings.
75 Councils are to review their local infrastructure plans every 4 years under the proposed new
arrangements.
76 Draft Report, p 46.
77 Submissions from Wingecarribee, Ryde and Eurobodalla councils, January/February 2014.
74
70
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
9 Updating the benchmark costs
9.4
Reviewing the base costs
Recommendation
11 IPART to review the base costs for infrastructure benchmark items using a
staggered approach. Each year, IPART would review a group of base costs so
as to ensure that all items of infrastructure are reviewed within 3 years.
The base costs would need to be reviewed periodically to reflect changes in
infrastructure costs due to structural shifts in the economy or construction
industry. It would also be necessary to ensure that the scope of the benchmark
items remain relevant and appropriate. The Draft Report recommended that
IPART should review the base costs within 4 years.78
In responses to the Draft Report, some submissions favored annual/biennial
reviews and/or an initial review within the first year.79 Given that the base costs
are newly established and important for the working of the new infrastructure
contributions framework, we agree with stakeholders that there is a need to
commence reviewing the costs sooner than after 4 years.
We recommend a staggered approach in which we review around a third of the
base costs every year. Under this approach, each infrastructure item would be
reviewed every 3 years. Table E.1 in Appendix E sets out an indicative list of the
benchmark items to be reviewed each year. We would retain sufficient flexibility
so that infrastructure items can be reviewed as necessary.
During the process of consultation on draft estimates of the base costs, most of
the submissions we received recommended changes to either the scope and/or
base cost of at least 1 item. In response to these submissions, we updated the
scope (including adding sub-items) and cost of a number of items using the
approach outlined in Appendix D. We consider that these updated items should
be subject to the review in the first year. The benchmark for plan administration
costs would also be reviewed in the first year. An indicative list of items that we
would review for each year is set out in Appendix E.
AIQS suggested that, as an independent professional organization of quantity
surveyors, it could maintain and update the base costs.80 Our view is that since
IPART has set the base costs and the framework in which they are to be used, we
are in a better position to maintain the base costs, however we are not precluded
from seeking advice as required. We consider that we would review and update
the benchmarks each year under section 9 of the IPART Act.
78
Draft Report, Recommendation 7.
Submissions from AIQS, UDIA, and Hornsby, Bankstown, Penrith and Gosford councils,
January-March 2014.
80 AIQS submission, February 2014.
79
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
71
9 Updating the benchmark costs
9.4.1
A database of infrastructure costs
Some stakeholders suggested that IPART should maintain a database of the
actual costs of infrastructure projects.81 At present, there is no requirement for
councils to report on the actual costs of infrastructure projects and this
information is not compiled across councils.
The Government is seeking to improve the transparency of development
contributions plans, including the revenue received and use of funds. In addition
to the flow of funds, which is currently reported in council annual reports, we
suggest that councils could also report on the expenditure on projects funded in
the plans. This information could assist IPART in developing a database of
historical costs.
9.5
Indexing contributions rates in future years
Although not required by the terms of reference, this section aims to clarify the
difference between the use of the recommended PPIs to update the base costs for
benchmark infrastructure items and a council indexing the contributions rates in
a plan in future years.82 Some stakeholder submissions appeared to interpret
that our recommended PPIs were to be used by councils to index the
contributions rates in forward years. This is not the case.
There are 2 separate processes:
1. In preparing a new local infrastructure plan or when reviewing an existing
plan, councils would use the base costs updated and published by IPART to
calculate the initial or cost estimates of infrastructure in their plans. These and
other cost estimates would be used by the council to calculate the
contributions rates for capital works.
2. Once the contributions rates are established in a plan, the council would be
able to index them without reviewing and readopting the plan.83 Currently,
the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation allows contributions
rates to be varied quarterly or annually in accordance with changes in a
readily available index such as the CPI or any other index adopted by the plan
for example a land value index.84
81 See for example, Penrith City Council submission, January 2014, p 14.
82 Shoalhaven City Council submission, February 2014, p 3 and Lake Macquarie City Council
submission, February 2014, p 4.
83 As discussed in Chapter 10, the cost of land to be acquired by a council in a local infrastructure
plan may be escalated using the relevant, annual land value index once a plan is established.
Therefore, the council would need to separate these costs from other costs in the plan, which we
consider, should be escalated by the CPI.
84 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation), clause 32(3).
72
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
9 Updating the benchmark costs
Under the proposed new arrangements we expect that councils would be
required to review the local infrastructure plans and the contributions rates every
4 years. In the intervening period, the contributions rates could be indexed.
Councils could also choose to review the schedule of works in an existing plan to
reflect periodic revisions in the benchmark costs (section 9.4), but under current
legislation, this would require the plan to be subject to consultation.85 We
suggest that P&I considers this matter in more detail, in particular whether
councils could be allowed to update the contributions rates in their plans with
the revised benchmark costs without the need to re-exhibit the plans.
If a council update the costs underlying its contributions rate it would not need
to index the contributions rate in that year (as this would be double counting
price changes).
9.6
Importance of cash flow management
This chapter has examined how our infrastructure cost benchmarks need to be
escalated to account for price changes in the economy. This is primarily to
ensure that councils have sufficient development contributions to fund the actual
infrastructure costs that they incur.
However, the cash flow within a local infrastructure plan over its life can be
substantial, and planning and management of this cash flow is equally as
important to ensure that a council has sufficient contributions funds available
and can deliver the facilities in a timely and efficient manner.
Sound cash flow management minimises the risks to the council associated with
the timing of revenue receipts and expenditure outlays, as well as the risks
associated with the escalation of costs of land and works (and not being
adequately compensated for the real costs).
The Development Contributions Practice Notes 2005 provide guidance on cash flow
management.86 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.
85
EP&A Regulation clause 32(3) only allows changes to contributions rates without consultation
when they reflect variations to readily accessible index figures, minor typographical corrections,
and the removal of completed works details.
86 Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, Development Contributions
Practice Notes, July 2005, pp 3-4.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
73
9 Updating the benchmark costs
Councils may use 1 of 2 basic techniques to include future costs of facilities
within a works program:
1. 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)
2. 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.87
At present, very few councils use the NPV methodology to calculate
development contributions. Instead, most councils estimate the total cost of land
acquisition and construction, apportion an amount to the development area and
divide this amount by the relevant demand units (eg, net developable area
(hectares), or estimated residential population).88
How a council should manage its cash flow is not within the scope of our review,
but previously we published a recommended approach for councils to select a
discount rate when using the NPV model to calculate development
contributions.89 We suggest that councils follow this approach if they implement
the NPV model.
87 IPART, Modelling Local Development Contributions, Selection of a Discount Rate for Councils that use
an NPV Methodology – Final Technical Paper, (NPV Paper) September 2012, pp 9-10.
88 NPV Paper, p 1.
89 NPV Paper, pp 9-12.
74
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
10 Valuing land in local infrastructure plans
10 Valuing land in local infrastructure plans
The value of the land associated with local roads, open space and community
facilities is included in the costs estimates of councils’ infrastructure in plans.90
The value of such land can constitute a significant part of the total estimated cost
in a local infrastructure plan, especially in plans where councils need to acquire a
lot of land and in regions with generally high land values.91
The terms of reference ask us to consider methodologies for determining the
value of land to be purchased by, or provided by councils, for inclusion as costs
in a local infrastructure plan.
This chapter outlines our recommended approaches for valuing land to be
included in a local infrastructure plan, and escalating this value in future years.
10.1
Overview of recommended methodologies
The recommended approaches for valuing land included in a local infrastructure
plan, and for escalating this value in future years vary, depending on whether
the council has to acquire the land, or already owns it. For council-owned land,
the council should first establish that it can levy contributions for the land in the
plan.
The recommended approaches to valuing land in year 0 (ie, when the council is
drawing up the plan) are:

For land that will have to be acquired, the value of the land is to be the current
market value and any compensation payable consistent with ‘just terms’
based
on
a
valuation
by
a
registered
valuer
legislation,92
(Recommendation 12).
90
There must be demand from new development for the relevant infrastructure item and
associated land in order for their costs to be included in the plan.
91 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.
92 Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Just Terms Act).
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
75
10 Valuing land in local infrastructure plans


In addition, when the value of land to be dedicated by a developer to a council
needs to be determined to calculate the offset contributions otherwise payable,
we recommend that councils use the same approach as recommended for
estimating other land acquisition costs, ie, that the estimate is based on the
current market valuation by a registered valuer (Recommendation 12).
Where the council owns the land, in most cases land is to be valued at the
historical purchase price, indexed by CPI (All Groups, Sydney). The exception
is when the land is released for development through the precinct planning
process but was previously held by the council for investment purposes (ie,
operational land), where the value of the land is to be its current market value
(Recommendation 13).
To escalate the costs of land included in a plan in future years we recommend
that:



the Valuer General construct and publish annual land value indices based on
5 regional groupings for use by councils (Recommendation 14)
for land that will have to be acquired, councils use either the relevant regional
index published by the Valuer General or the CPI (All Groups, Sydney)
(Recommendation 15)
for the costs of land they already own, councils use the CPI (All Groups,
Sydney) (Recommendation 15).
The recommended approaches to valuing land in the Final Report differ from
those in the Draft Report in the following ways:


we have clarified how to determine market value for land to be acquired in a
plan
instead of recommending that councils could choose between the CPI (All
Groups, Sydney) or a ‘suitable’ land value index to escalate land acquisition
costs, we now recommend that the Valuer General publish annual land value
indices on a regional basis that could be used for this purpose.
The recommended approaches are summarised in Figure 10.1.
76
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
Figure 10.1
IPART’s recommendations on land valuation methodologies
Land Management, http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/PracticeNotes/pnote1.pdf.
10 Valuing land in local infrastructure plans
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
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.
b Operational land has no special management restrictions other than those that may apply to any piece of land. Source: Division of Local Government, Practice Note No.1 – Public
77
10 Valuing land in local infrastructure plans
10.2
Valuing land to be acquired by the council
Councils will usually acquire the land needed for local roads, open space and
community facilities either by a private agreement for sale, or through a process
of compulsory acquisition.93 Alternatively, where the developer of the land is
also the owner, the developer may agree with the council that the land be
dedicated to the council.94
Recommendation
12 For the purpose of estimating development contributions in a local infrastructure
plan, councils should value land to be acquired at the current market value plus
an estimate of any ‘just terms’ compensation payable. The estimates should be
based on a valuation by a registered valuer. The same approach should be
used for valuing land to be dedicated to councils by developers.
10.2.1 Land to be acquired by private agreement for sale or compulsory
acquisition
In a local infrastructure plan, the value of land to be acquired (by private
agreement or compulsory acquisition) is to reflect the estimated acquisition costs.
The actual acquisition cost will only be known at the time of acquisition, but
councils will need to estimate the cost when preparing their plans. When land is
compulsorily acquired, the actual cost will be determined in accordance with the
Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (the Just Terms Act.)95 The
Just Terms Act requires that the owner be paid the market value of the land,96
plus compensation for a range of factors related to the inconvenience of being
forced to sell the land.97 In practice, prices reached by private agreement
between owners and councils are usually influenced by the just terms provisions.
We consider that councils should use either an independent registered valuer or
an in-house registered valuer to estimate the market value and any ‘just terms’
compensation payable for land parcels it needs to acquire.
93
94
95
96
97
78
Local Government Act 1993, s 187. The compulsory acquisition process can be instigated when an
acquiring authority and landowner fail to reach agreement concerning the acquisition. This
process is regulated by the Just Terms Act.
EP&A Act s94(5).
Just Terms Act, ss 37, 38 and 55.
The market value of the land is the amount that would have been paid for the land if it had
been sold at that time by a willing but not anxious seller to a willing but not anxious buyer, but
disregarding any change in the value associated with the public purpose for which the land was
acquired (Just Terms Act s 56).
Just Terms Act, s 55.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
10 Valuing land in local infrastructure plans
Ideally, estimates of the cost of land to be acquired in the future would be based
on individual valuations of the parcels or individual allotments specifically
designated for infrastructure purposes. However, when a local infrastructure
plan is prepared councils often do not have sufficient information or resources to
use this approach, particularly for plans that apply to greenfield areas. For this
reason, we consider an ‘averaging’ technique98 is reasonable. Further, values are
to be discounted where the land is subject to constraints such as potential
flooding or existing encumbrances such as easements or ecological constraints.99
Issues with estimating the cost of land to be acquired
Submissions generally agreed that councils should value land that they need to
acquire for infrastructure in a plan based on market value and an estimate of ‘just
terms’ compensation, and that this reflects current practice. However, feedback
indicates that councils have concerns about the process, including how market
value is to be estimated. We have considered this feedback, in particular,
concerns about:



the potential shortfall in funds when current market value is used, because
land values can increase between when the plan is prepared and when it is
acquired as a result of intensification of use in the development area100
the difficulty for councils associated with the timing of owner-initiated land
acquisitions because they are outside the council’s control101
the need for market value to be determined by an independent, registered
valuer to introduce greater objectivity into the process.102
In this context, we acknowledge that 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 the state, including
compulsory acquisition valuations. It recommended that these guidelines clearly
state the methodologies for valuing land and the circumstances in which those
methodologies are to be applied.103 We support the publication of valuation
guidelines.
98
This technique involves a valuer calculating a per m2 dollar value for particular land use types
and applying this to the area required of each land use type.
99 Submission from UrbanGrowth NSW.
100 Ryde City Council submission, February 2014; Wyong Shire Council, Response to IPART’s
Information Paper – Benchmark costs for local infrastructure contributions, November 2013 (Response
to Information Paper); Shoalhaven City Council, Response to Information Paper and Hornsby
Shire Council, Response to Information Paper.
101 Maitland City Council submission, February 2014 and The Hills Shire Council submission,
March 2014.
102 See for example, submissions from PCA, UDIA and Hornsby, Penrith, Ryde and Wagga Wagga
councils, January-March 2014.
103 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.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
79
10 Valuing land in local infrastructure plans
The impact on land values from the intensification of use in a development area
Estimating what the market value of the land will be at the time of acquisition is
difficult because land values can increase between when a plan is being prepared
and the date of acquisition. The intensification of use in a development area will
usually increase land values in both infill and greenfield development areas, but
feedback has suggested that this is a more significant issue for greenfield plans.
In response to the Draft Report, some stakeholders advised that the estimation of
land acquisition costs in greenfield areas is usually based on the englobo rate,104
which recognises the underlying zoning.105
In general, we consider that the council cost land to be acquired on the basis of its
current market value, meaning the market value at the time the plan is made or
reviewed, rather than on a forecast value for various reasons:



The value of land is difficult to forecast, especially since the development and
timing of infrastructure delivery can be unpredictable and the timing of
owner-initiated acquisitions is not within the council’s control.
The current market valuation of undeveloped land should already have
regard to the land’s capability of being developed for the purpose of the
underlying zoning as opposed to being fully developed or serviced.106
Valuers also use a ‘hypothetical development’ method which involves
determining the best or highest use of land.107
Councils would be required to review the plan within 4 years, and at this time
they can revalue land not yet acquired to reflect any increase in value with the
progression of development in the area.
To some degree, councils can plan their land acquisitions and acquire land more
quickly if they consider that there is a risk that the future acquisition costs will
increase. This could encourage more rapid development in the area. Developers
who pursue initial development in an area tend to bear more risk than later
developers, and so all else being equal, contributions rates which reflect lower
land acquisition costs earlier in the plan reasonably reflect that higher risk.
104
‘Englobo’ land is undeveloped land which is capable of significant subdivision into smaller
parcels under existing land use provisions.
105 Submissions from UrbanGrowth NSW, and Wyong and Penrith councils, January-March 2014.
106 Penrith City Council submission, January 2014.
107 Hyam, A., The Law affecting Valuation of Land in Australia (4th ed), 2009, p 188.
80
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
10 Valuing land in local infrastructure plans
Difficulties associated with timing of owner-initiated acquisitions
We acknowledge that it can be difficult for councils where owners use the
hardship provisions of the Just Terms Act to force compulsory acquisition of land
early in the life of a plan, when few contributions have been collected.108 This
can create a cash flow problem for councils.
One objective of the new system is to encourage councils to deliver infrastructure
in plans more quickly than currently occurs.109 As noted in Chapter 9, councils
can mitigate some of cash flow risks by using an NPV model, where the discount
rate accounts for the time value of money.
Use of independent valuers
Some stakeholders proposed that an independent, registered valuer should
estimate land values.110 While many councils currently choose to engage an
independent valuer for this purpose, others use in-house registered valuers. We
consider that either would be appropriately qualified to provide the valuation
advice.
If, when preparing plans, council’s valuation of land is disputed, an option is to
engage a mutually acceptable independent valuer. Or the council could seek 2
independent valuations and agree to accept for example, a midpoint, if the
valuations differ by a small margin.
10.2.2 Valuing land to be dedicated by developers
Another option for councils to acquire land needed for infrastructure purposes is
for developers to dedicate land free of cost, which is offset against their
contributions to the cost of local infrastructure, in place of or in addition to a
monetary contribution.111 Land dedication can be one way of reducing the
likelihood of councils experiencing shortfalls in funding for land acquisition
costs.
108
See for example, Maitland City Council submission, February 2014 and the Hills Shire Council
submission, March 2014. Under s23 of the Just Terms Act, land owners whose land is zoned for
public purposes in the plan can initiate the compulsory acquisition process on the grounds of
hardship.
109 The 5-year holding rule included in the Planning Bill 2013 is intended to encourage councils to
spend contributions on infrastructure within the medium term.
110 See for example, submissions from PCA, UDIA and Hornsby, Penrith, Ryde and Wagga Wagga
councils, January-March 2014.
111 EP&A Act s 94(1).
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
81
10 Valuing land in local infrastructure plans
Some stakeholders have raised issues about a lack of transparency and fairness in
the system for land dedication. We also reviewed a number of contributions
plans and found that councils have varied approaches to land dedication. Some
plans are quite prescriptive about how land will be valued and specify the offset
rates for all land, while others contain no information except that negotiations for
land dedication will be on a case by case basis.112
When preparing an infrastructure plan, if the council can identify land that will
be dedicated by a developer, we consider that the land be valued in accordance
with the same approach we recommend for land to be acquired, ie, at market
value. However, in these circumstances, there would be little regard for any just
terms compensation.
We consider that, when land is to be dedicated in accordance with consent to a
development application, the value of the land be estimated by the same
approach as for other land to be acquired, ie at the current market valuation by a
registered valuer.
In this context we note that P&I is currently reviewing the processes for all
Works-in-Kind (WIK) agreements, including land, and that they are seeking to
develop a comprehensive approach to apply to WIK.
10.3
Valuing land owned by the council
Where the council already owns the land, in most cases, the appropriate
valuation is the historical purchase price, indexed by CPI (All Groups, Sydney).
An exception is when the land is released for development through the precinct
planning process, but was previously held on behalf of ratepayers for investment
purposes (‘operational land113). In this case, the land current market value is
appropriate. We consider that this would occur only rarely.
Recommendation
13 For the purpose of estimating development contributions in a local infrastructure
plan, councils should value land already acquired at historical purchase price
indexed by CPI (All Groups, Sydney) except:
– if the land was classified as operational before it is released for development
in the precinct planning process, the council should value the land at current
market value.
112
We reviewed 10 councils’ plans (primarily open space contributions plans) to identify how
councils are approaching land dedication, including the information they are making available
and the rules they have established in the process.
113 The Local Government Act s26 specifies 2 classifications for land: operational or community.
Section 45 restricts the dealings council can have on community land (such as selling the land),
which implies that the land is reserved for public purposes.
82
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
10 Valuing land in local infrastructure plans
10.3.1 For council-owned land generally
Councils may include the value of land they already own in the cost of land in a
local infrastructure plan, if there is nexus between the demand created by new
development and the council’s acquisition of the land. Currently, where councilowned land needed for local infrastructure is included in a local infrastructure
plan, the council typically values it using the historical purchase price indexed by
the CPI. We recommend that this approach continue.
The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) allows councils
to require payment of a reasonable monetary compensation for the cost of
providing public amenities and services to prepare for or facilitate the carrying
out of development in the area, including those which have already been
provided.114 A council may also index these costs in accordance with the EP&A
Regulation, which stipulates that the cost of amenities already provided by
councils should be indexed quarterly or annually by CPI (All Groups, Sydney).115
Few responses to the Draft Report commented on this recommendation. Some
councils opposed it on the basis that this land should be costed at market value
so that the council is compensated the opportunity cost of the land. One
suggested that to ensure equity, and that the same rationale regarding
compensation to developers for holding and opportunity costs should be applied
to councils. Another argued the case to charge market value for the land to
increase revenue and support financial sustainability.116
On the other hand, others supported our recommended approach.117 As PCA
noted, that where land is yet to be rezoned or is zoned for a special use, historical
purchase price indexed at CPI is appropriate, because:
…it provides market certainty and encourages the development of difficult sites, as it
removes penalisation incurred from uplift in land value.118
We have reconsidered the issues related to how a council could be compensated
for the costs of acquiring the land it already owns which is included in a local
infrastructure plan. We maintain our recommendation to value such land based
on an indexed historical purchase price because:

it is consistent with current law and practice

it compensates councils for the actual costs incurred in acquiring the land

once land is included in a plan, there is no change in the land costs in the plan
apart from indexation for inflation (whereas market value may change)
114
EP&A Act, s 94.
EP&A Regulation cl 25I.
116 Gosford City Council, Roundtable, December 2013.
117 See for example, submissions from Wingecarribee Shire Council, PCA, UrbanGrowth NSW,
February/March 2014.
118 PCA submission, March 2014, p 3.
115
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
83
10 Valuing land in local infrastructure plans

in many cases, it will help to ensure that the rates of development
contributions are not excessive when developers are already bearing risk in
undertaking the development.
Our recommendation to use the indexed purchase price means a council cannot
collect contributions for any land which was originally gifted to the council. If
the council purchased the land fairly recently, then its recoupment costs (ie, the
indexed purchase price) could be very close to market value.
We understand that in some circumstances it may be difficult to establish the
historical purchase price eg, when land was acquired by the council many years
ago.119 However, in these cases, the council can make a reasonable estimate of
the price when it was acquired.
10.3.2 Land held on behalf of ratepayers for investment purposes
The exception to the general rule is where the council-owned land has been
released for development through the precinct planning process, but was
previously held on behalf of ratepayers for investment purposes (and classified
as operational land). In this case, we consider that the land be valued at its
current market value.
There are arguments for and against this approach. On balance, we consider that
the land could previously have been sold and the return on the council’s original
investment in the land could have been used for the benefit of all ratepayers.
Therefore, it is reasonable for the council to receive the market value of the land
through contributions.
This applies where P&I rather than the council
determines that the parcel of land is to be included in the plan for public
purposes.
As for land to be acquired by private agreement or compulsory acquisition, we
consider that councils should use registered valuers to determine the market
value of land previously held on behalf of ratepayers before it is rezoned in the
precinct planning process.
10.4
Escalating land costs in local infrastructure plans
During the period between when a local infrastructure plan is made and when it
is reviewed and re-made, councils may want to escalate the estimated land costs
within a plan to reflect any increases in the likely costs of acquiring land.120
119
120
84
PCA submission, March 2014.
The White Paper recommends that this period should be a maximum of 4 years: pp 92 and 167.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
10 Valuing land in local infrastructure plans
Recommendations
14 The Valuer General construct and publish annual land value indices based on
regional groupings (ie, Sydney metropolitan area, Central Coast, Newcastle,
Wollongong and Other Regional NSW) for use by councils when escalating land
acquisitions costs in their local infrastructure plan in future years.
15 To escalate the costs of land in a local infrastructure plan in future years,
councils use:
– for land to be acquired, either the relevant land value index published by the
Valuer-General (Recommendation 14), or the CPI (All Groups, Sydney)
– for council-owned land, the CPI (All Groups, Sydney).
We consider that the most appropriate options for escalation of land costs are
either the CPI or a land value index. The CPI has the advantage of simplicity,
and being applicable to all costs underlying a contributions rate. It is the most
reasonable option to escalate those costs in a plan which represent past costs that
a council can recoup, including the cost of land it has already acquired. On the
other hand, an appropriate land value index will more accurately reflect changes
in property values which will determine a council’s actual acquisition costs.
After considering a number of options for land value indices, we recommend
that the Valuer General’s unimproved property valuation data be used to
establish, on a regional basis, new, readily-available indices that councils could
choose to use to escalate their estimated land acquisition costs.
We note that councils also have the option to update their land valuation
estimates with new valuations in any year, which would entail remaking the
plan. Under current arrangements, this requires the plan to be re-exhibited by
the council.
10.4.1 Using the CPI (All Groups, Sydney) to escalate land costs
The CPI (All Groups, Sydney) best represents inflation in the NSW economy and
we consider that it remains the most suitable option for councils to escalate their
recoupment costs in local infrastructure plans (ie, the costs that they have already
incurred, including for the cost of land they have previously acquired).
For council-owned land, we recommended that councils escalate the historical
purchase price by CPI (All Groups, Sydney). Currently, councils should index
the costs of land already owned in accordance with the EP&A Regulation, which
requires that the cost of amenities already provided by councils should be
indexed quarterly or annually by CPI (All Groups, Sydney).121
121
EP&A Regulation clause 25I.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
85
10 Valuing land in local infrastructure plans
However, for land still to be acquired, the actual cost to be incurred by the
council may change, depending on market conditions. The actual costs may
increase as the development in the area progresses (particularly in greenfield
areas), but this is a separate influence from general market conditions.
In 2009, the Department of Planning canvassed an option for a single index, the
CPI (All Groups, Sydney), to apply to all land costs in contributions rates,
including land acquisition costs. 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 standardised way

consistent without sacrificing the changes in price movements.122
These advantages, particularly the ease of application and lower administration
costs in applying a single index to contributions rates, are relevant
considerations. However, many stakeholders have contended that the CPI is
inappropriate to escalate land acquisition costs because it does not match land
value increases and therefore, councils may face a shortfall in contribution funds
over time.
Land values tend to increase more rapidly than the CPI. Figure 10.2 shows that
growth in land values in Sydney has been considerably higher than the CPI (All
Groups, Sydney) over a 16-year period. For the period from 1996 to 2012, the
average annual increase was 7.9%, which is twice the average increase of 2.6% for
the CPI.
122
86
Department of Planning, Draft local development contributions – preparation and administration of
development contributions plans, Consultation draft only – not Government policy, November
2009, p 64.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
10 Valuing land in local infrastructure plans
Figure 10.2
Cumulative growth of Sydney Unimproved Land Values and ABS
CPI (All Groups, Sydney)
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
1996
1998
2000
2002
CPI (All Groups Sydney)
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Sydney Unimproved Land Values
Data source: Valuer General of New South Wales, Historical Land Values, Sydney Metropolitan Area
Representative Land Values, www.valuergeneral.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/179558/Table_1.pdf.
ABS Consumer Price Index, Australia, Dec 2013, Cat No. 6401.
10.4.2 Options for a land value index to escalate land acquisition costs
In the Draft Report we recommended that councils have the option of escalating
land acquisition costs in a plan by a ‘suitable’ land value index which the council
can produce itself or adopt from an existing source. We also recommended the
criteria that such an index would need to meet in order for it to be representative
of the land in the plan and statistically robust.123
Most stakeholders supported the use of a land value index to escalate land
acquisition costs in a plan.124 However, some stakeholders suggested that other
existing land value indices be recommended, or that new, readily available,
indices be developed for councils to use.
123
The criteria included that it be based on direct market valuation data or, if sales data is used,
based on the median of a reasonable sample size: Draft Report p 58.
124 See for example, submissions from MIDROC, and Singleton, Camden and Penrith councils,
January/February 2014.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
87
10 Valuing land in local infrastructure plans
We considered these readily available data sources:

ABS Sydney Established House Price Index

property sales data reported by NSW Housing

privately produced property value indices (eg, Residex).
The Sydney Established House Price Index is desirable for application by
councils in Sydney areas but there is no similar index produced for regional
NSW. The property sales data reported by NSW Housing has the advantage of
being reported across NSW, but for some LGAs there may not be sufficient sales
for the index to be statistically representative of market conditions in the LGA.
Finally, we considered that privately produced property value indices are
unsuitable as they are not transparent and like the median property sales data,
there may be increased volatility with these indices.
On balance, we consider that the valuation data collected by the NSW Valuer
General for properties in NSW is the superior option because it is broader and so
would be likely to be less volatile for regionally-based land value indices.
10.4.3 Land value indices to be published by the NSW Valuer General
After considering all the options, and consulting further with the Valuer General,
we have decided that councils should be able to use a land value index based on
Valuer General’s data to index their estimated land acquisition costs.
Some submissions suggested that IPART publish a land value index to be used
by councils.125 However, since the land value index is to be constructed from the
Valuer General’s valuation data, we consider that the Valuer General (and Land
and Property Information) is best placed to publish annual land value indices.
We consider that the costs of constructing and publishing this index be met by
the Government because it would be an important part of the new contributions
framework.
We also consider that a single land value index for all NSW would not be
sufficiently reflective of property markets. In our analysis of land valuation data,
we found significant differences in land value movements within NSW across
metropolitan and regional areas. To broadly account for these differences, we
propose that a land value index be produced for each of the following regions:
88

Sydney metropolitan area

Newcastle

Wollongong

Central Coast

Regional Index for the remainder of NSW.
125
MIDROC submission, February 2014 and Blacktown City Council submission, February 2014.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
10 Valuing land in local infrastructure plans
More detailed options that capture finer property markets tend to be more
complex and are also likely to be more volatile, which is less desirable for the
purposes of escalating costs. In developing the final indices for publishing, we
understand that Land and Property Information (LPI) will undertake further
analysis and sensitivity testing to determine the most suitable regional
groupings.
10.4.4 Retaining the option of using CPI
In submissions, most stakeholders favored the application of a land value index
to escalate land acquisition cost estimates. Despite this, our review of
contributions plans shows that currently, most councils use the CPI to escalate
land acquisition costs. Further, some councils will not have significant land
acquisition costs, if any, in their plan, and may prefer the simplicity of applying
the CPI to their contributions rates (across the board) until the plan is reviewed.
For these reasons, we have maintained the CPI as an option for councils to
escalate the land acquisition costs, in addition to other costs, to determine
contributions rates in local infrastructure plans.
We also note that some councils may prefer to review their plan and update it
with revised valuations within the 4-year period, instead of relying on changes
represented by a land value index
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
89
11 Recommended dispute resolution mechanisms
11 Recommended dispute resolution mechanisms
The terms of reference ask us to recommend effective mechanisms for resolving
disputes related to the application of the benchmarks and cost methodologies.
We expect that disputes about applying benchmarks and other cost
methodologies would occur when the council is developing the local
infrastructure plan, although issues may also arise when the plan is finalised and
submitted for the Minister’s approval.
We recommend that:


councils establish a formal council-based review mechanism
the Minister could refer issues arising in finalised plans to IPART for advice
and recommendation.
Preferably, disputes should be avoided, so we also discuss good practices that
councils can adopt to minimise the potential for disputes to arise.
Disputes about benchmarks and cost methodologies that may arise in the context
of the conditions of consent to be imposed by a council on development
applications are properly dealt with by mechanisms currently in place, ie, council
review and appeal to the Land and Environment Court. These mechanisms are
therefore not part of our consideration.
Figure 11.1 outlines the stages of the infrastructure planning process, the types of
disputes that may occur and how to minimise them, and our recommended
dispute resolution mechanisms. This chapter discusses our recommended
approach.
90
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
Figure 11.1
Recommended dispute resolution mechanisms
Exhibition and post-exhibition of the plan
What sort of issues can arise?

In addition to disagreements about the application of
benchmarks and cost methodologies going to the
reasonableness of costs, disputes could arise
concerning whether the infrastructure costs should be
included in the local plan, and nexus and
apportionment.

Councils put in place formal council-based review
mechanisms to consider objections and address issues
raised by stakeholders in relation to their draft local
infrastructure plans.
What sort of issues can arise?

Disputes which have not been satisfactorily resolved
after formal review by the council at the exhibition and
post-exhibition stage.

The Minister could also refer matters of a systemic
nature (ie, where the same issue is contentious in
several different council areas), or disputes about the
same issue arising frequently in a single council area.
IPART Recommendation

The Minister could refer disputes about the application
of benchmarks and cost methodologies in local
infrastructure plans to IPART for advice and
recommendations.
11 Recommended dispute resolution mechanisms
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
IPART Recommendation
Final plan to Minister for approval
91
11 Recommended dispute resolution mechanisms
11.1
Encouraging good practices to minimise disputes
The current planning system requires councils to consult with stakeholders in
developing contributions plans under section 94 of EP&A Act. Before approving
the final plan, councils must formally exhibit a draft plan and take into account
submissions.
We expect that using our benchmark costs and other recommended cost
methodologies would help improve the quality of infrastructure plans and
reduce the incidence of disputes. We expect that P&I would prepare guidance
for the proposed new arrangements similar to that currently published.126 They
could require transparency about assumptions and cost estimates, including a
requirement to justify where costs deviate from the benchmark costs that are
recommended.
We also encourage councils to establish good practices that provide greater
transparency about how they estimate local infrastructure costs and determine
contributions rates. Many, particularly those in areas of high growth with much
new development, already demonstrate these good practices. However the
range of practices noted here should reduce the opportunities for disputes to
arise.
We suggest councils prepare detailed and transparent draft plans that clearly:




126
92
identify the local infrastructure to be provided to support new development,
and demonstrate the nexus between this infrastructure and new development
explain how the costs of infrastructure have been apportioned between the
different zoned uses and precincts, and among new and existing demand
explain how the costs have been estimated, and justify the estimates and
where they have deviated from the benchmark or reference costs
explain how the contributions rates are calculated.
Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources, Development Contributions
Practice Notes, July 2005.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
11 Recommended dispute resolution mechanisms
Other strategies when preparing local infrastructure plans can help to minimise
misunderstanding or challenges to the council’s methodology, including:



using independent experts to develop robust, independent demand analysis,
nexus and costings
engaging early and effectively with key stakeholders, especially with
developers, to identify any areas of concern, and ensuring that stakeholders
are aware of the processes for them to be involved
proactively updating and re-exhibiting the plan when significant changes to
components, such as the costs of land acquisition and infrastructure, or to
development potential, arise.
11.2
Council-based formal review
Recommendation
16 Councils put in place a formal council-based review mechanism to consider
objections and address issues in dispute about the application of benchmark
costs and cost methodologies that arise when infrastructure plans are being
prepared and finalised.
We recommend that councils establish an internal 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 addressed in such a forum, as could other matters about
the contents of, and methodologies involved in, preparing a plan.
This approach was supported by the majority of stakeholders who commented
on this issue. UrbanGrowth NSW advised that “experience demonstrates
anomalies and inconsistencies can be quickly resolved at this level”.127 Wagga
Wagga City Council indicated that it is establishing an internal development
contributions review panel, and is considering conferring dispute resolution
functions on this panel.128
On the other hand, some councils suggested that current exhibition requirements
are sufficient to facilitate dispute resolution, or raised concerns that a formal
review process could result in unnecessary delay or costs, or encourage
challenges.129 In light of the feedback, we have provided some general guidance
in Box 11.1 about how councils could set up a formal review process to improve
the resolution of disputes during the exhibition of the plan and before it is
finalised.
127
UrbanGrowth NSW submission, March 2014, p 5.
Wagga Wagga City Council submission, February 2014.
129 Submissions from Camden, Penrith and Eurobodalla councils, January-February 2014.
128
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
93
11 Recommended dispute resolution mechanisms
Ultimately, it is a matter for each council to decide how to establish and operate a
review process that is consistent with administrative law principles.
Box 11.1
Suggested guidelines for council-based formal reviews
What disputes could the council review?
Councils should only refer disputes with developers on specific issues to a formal review
panel rather than general matters of interest to the council. The matters for review can
include specific or material objections about the contents in the proposed plan and not
general and ambiguous objections. The review panel may hear technical issues about
the rate and standard of provision for parks rather than general disagreement with
development occurring in the area.
Who could the council appoint to review disputes?
A council could appoint personnel experts from different service areas within the council.
They should be different from the original decision-maker/s. They could include senior
staff from asset management and design, planning or finance areas so that there is
expertise to consider all aspects about disputes relating to benchmarks and costmethodologies. If appropriate, a council could engage external experts.
When could a council-based review be undertaken?
The council-based review panel could be convened on a short term or needs-basis during
the plan preparation and implementation process. The council can convene the panel to
hear and advise on issues which have not been satisfactorily addressed during the
exhibition and post-exhibition process.
What processes could be followed?
A council-based review panel would have publicly available guidelines about how to deal
with disputes, consistent with general administrative law principles. They should include
appropriate timeframes within which stakeholders may raise issues and how the council
should deal with issues in a transparent manner.
How could the council report the disputes?
When submitting the plan for final approval by the Minister, councils could attach a list of
disputes which occurred after the exhibition process, as well as how the council
responded to these disputes. It would be important for the council to identify any disputes
which have not been satisfactorily resolved after formal review by the council’s panel.
This would assist the Minister in determining if any issues require further review.
94
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
11 Recommended dispute resolution mechanisms
11.2.1 Referral to an independent expert panel not recommended
The Draft Report recommended that councils should refer disputes that cannot
be resolved through internal processes to an independent expert panel, and that
this function could be performed by Independent Hearing and Assessment
Panels (IHAPs) or Joint Regional Planning Panels (JRPPs). This approach was
designed to provide for an external, independent forum with relevant expertise
to review and recommend a resolution of disputes about interpretation of
technical data and methodologies.
Although there was some support for an external forum to review council-based
decisions, most stakeholders commenting on this recommendation indicated
concerns that the panels we suggested did not have the necessary relevant
expertise and/or resources to manage and resolve such disputes.130 There were
also broader concerns about time delays and the need for an efficient dispute
resolution framework.
After considering issues raised by stakeholders, we have decided to remove this
recommendation. Councils’ own formal review mechanisms are likely to have
drawn on relevant expertise in reviewing disputes, reducing the need for a
further step of expert review by an independent panel. If required by the
Minister, IPART could review the dispute to provide recommendations and
advice.
11.3
Referral to IPART
Recommendation
17 The Minister can refer disputes about the application of benchmarks and cost
methodologies in local infrastructure plans to IPART for advice and
recommendations.
The Planning Bill 2013 proposes that councils submit their draft local
infrastructure plans to the Minister for approval.131 When councils submit their
plan to the Minister, they could include a report on contentious issues about
applying benchmarks and cost methodologies and how they have dealt with
them.
130
See for example, submissions from PCA, UrbanGrowth NSW, and The Hills, Hornsby,
Randwick, Fairfield, Newcastle, North Sydney, Liverpool, Tamworth and Penrith councils,
January-March 2014.
131 Planning Bill 2013, s 7.10(1).
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
95
11 Recommended dispute resolution mechanisms
We recommend that IPART have a role in providing advice and
recommendations to the Minister about issues relating to the application of
benchmarks or cost methodologies, as necessary. 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.132
In response to the Draft Report, most stakeholders expressed general support for
this recommendation. Feedback indicates that IPART is broadly recognised by
councils, developers and professional associations as an appropriate independent
organisation to review costs in plans. Others suggested that parties to the
dispute can choose their own forum, or another organisation (eg, NSW Public
Works) could have a role in resolving disputes.133 Some provided qualified
support if proper governance arrangements are implemented to reduce delays.134
We consider that IPART could offer an efficient and timely process to consider
these matters. We can also draw on additional expertise if required, to undertake
this function. In light of the feedback we have, however, provided more detail in
Box 11.2 about how we could review plans referred by the Minister.
Box 11.2
Disputes and matters referred to IPART for review
How could the Minister refer matters to IPART for review?
IPART can review matters under a standing Terms of Reference similar to the current
one used for reviewing section 94 contributions plans. In this instance, Terms of
Reference could set out the types of matters that could be referred to IPART for review,
and appropriate review processes.
What type of matters could be referred to IPART?
The Minister could refer matters about the application of benchmarks and cost
methodologies within a specific local infrastructure plan, or matters of a systemic nature
(ie, where the same issue is contentious in several different council areas), or disputes
about the same issue arising frequently in a single council area.
How could IPART provide advice and recommendation about the dispute?
As we do in other reviews, we could invite relevant parties to make submissions on the
matter before we prepare our advice and recommendations.
Our advice and
recommendations would be non-binding and the Minister would have the final decision on
how to resolve matters in dispute.
132
White Paper, p 163.
City of Ryde Council submission, February 2014.
134 MIDROC submission, February 2014 and Wingecarribee Shire Council submission, February
2014.
133
96
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
11 Recommended dispute resolution mechanisms
11.4
Disputes arising from conditions of consent
Disputes can also arise about contributions rates after a council, as consent
authority, determines a particular development application and imposes a
contributions rate as a condition of consent for 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.
Our preliminary view was that disputes arising from conditions of consent
would be unlikely to relate to applying the benchmarks and cost methodologies.
Feedback from some councils and the developer industry confirmed that, in
practice, disputes at this stage typically relate to broader planning and
development issues.135 The Land and Environment Court advises that there are
few disputes about any aspect of infrastructure contributions imposed as a
condition of consent.
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. We consider that this is the appropriate approach.
135
See for example, submissions from Urban Taskforce, and Great Lakes and Penrith councils,
January-March 2014.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
97
12 Standards affecting the provision of local
infrastructure
12 Standards affecting the provision of local
infrastructure
Local infrastructure provided by councils must comply with standards set by
external agencies, and in many cases, standards set by councils themselves.
These standards can influence the cost of local infrastructure, and therefore the
contributions levied on developers.
The terms of reference require us to:


Identify and describe the main planning and environmental standards that
local councils are required to meet through the provision of local
infrastructure – ie, what are councils required by outside agencies to provide?
Identify and describe the extent to which the standards met by councils are at
the discretion of councils (eg, because they are above the required minimum)
and comment on the rationale for choice of standards – ie, are councils setting
their own standards? If so are those standards reasonable?
There are many avenues by which infrastructure standards can be set –
legislation and regulations imposed by Federal and State Governments, accepted
industry standards and practice, the Growth Centres Code and individual
council development control plans. Councils also may impose infrastructure
specifications on developments through conditions of consent.
Councils are required to comply with legislative and regulatory standards. Other
standards adopted by councils represent the common or best practice for the
industry rather than being mandatory. Local infrastructure contributions are
intended to reflect the efficient cost of providing infrastructure.136 For this
reason, we aimed to identify those standards that might have an unreasonable
impact on the cost of providing local infrastructure.
This chapter identifies the main legislative standards councils must comply with,
and those that councils adopt themselves, and sets out recommendations to
address concerns about the impact of these standards on infrastructure costs.
136
98
White Paper, p 164.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
12 Standards affecting the provision of local
infrastructure
12.1
How do we define standards
For the purpose of our investigation, we defined standards as:
…any guideline, legislative requirement, technical standard or specification that
councils apply when providing local infrastructure that informs performance
outcome, design or scope of an infrastructure item.
The standards we have identified and examined in our review are different from
standard ‘rates of provision’ (amount and type of facilities) which councils must
consider when determining the infrastructure needs in a plan.137
Although these ‘rates of provision’ are important in determining local councils’
infrastructure provision, we have not considered ‘rates of provision’ as part of
our review. ’Rates of provision’ is being examined by P&I separately from our
review.
12.2
Standards councils are required to meet
Recommendation
18 The NSW Government review each of the standards listed in Table 12.1 and
determine whether there is scope for councils to vary the standards through
negotiation.
We were asked to identify and describe the main planning and environmental
standards that local councils are required to meet through the provision of local
infrastructure.
Many of the planning and environmental standards that local councils are
required to meet through the provision of local infrastructure are in legislation.
A broad (though not exhaustive list) of legislative sources is listed in Box 12.1.
For some of the NSW legislative standards that stakeholders indicate some
concerns about, we recommend that the NSW Government review them to
determine whether there is scope to vary the standards through negotiation.
137
Standard ‘rates of provision’ include the amount of open space per resident, the population to
be served by facilities such as a branch library or community centre, the number of local and
district parks, the number and types of sporting fields, or the number and locations of
roundabouts.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
99
12 Standards affecting the provision of local
infrastructure
Box 12.1
Major legislative sources of standards
NSW legislation and regulations

Building Code of Australia

Mining Act 1992

Building Fire and Safety Regulation 1991

National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

Building Regulation 2003

Native Vegetation Act 2003

Child (Protection and Parental
Responsibility) Act 1997

Plant Protection Act 1989

Coastal Protection Act 1979

Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002

Contaminated Land Management Act
1997

Protection of the Environment
Administration Act 1991

Electricity Supply Act 1995

Protection of the Environment Operations
Act 1997

Environmental Planning and Assessment
Act 1979

Public Works Act 2003

Environmental Planning and Assessment
Regulation 2000

Road Transport (General) Act 2005

Environmental Protection Act 1994

Roads Act 1993

Fisheries Management Act 1994

Rural Fires Act 1997

Heritage Act 1977

Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

Home Building Act 1989

Transport Administration Act 1988

Gas Supply Act 1996

Water Management Act 2000

Local Government Act 1993, including
Local Government (General) Amendment
(Stormwater) Regulation 2006

Work Health and Safety Act 2011
Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP)

including SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land
and SEPP (Exempt and Complying
Development Codes) 2008
Commonwealth Legislation

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)

Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth)
Councils are required by the Roads Act 1993(s 138) to have consent from the
appropriate roads authority for any works or activities to take place within a
public reserve or public roadway. For classified roads, the consent is required
from the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS). If the consent to undertake the
works or activity is approved, RMS will determine if a works authorisation deed
is required. The works authorisation deed sets out the requirement to follow
RMS specifications, including road design.
100
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
12 Standards affecting the provision of local
infrastructure
Another source that councils are required to comply with are the accessibility
standards under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). They apply to
various infrastructure items, and feedback noted in particular, pedestrian
pathways, ramps and bus shelters.138
Of the standards listed in Box 12.1. The major standards that stakeholders raised
issues about are presented in Table 12.1.139
Table 12.1
Issues raised about standards imposed by external agencies
Agency
Standards relating to
Issues raised in consultation
Roads and
Maritime Services
(RMS)
Pavement thickness
Local and state road
intersections
More stringent standards imposed for road
design and construction than those used by
councils.
Sydney Water
Replacing pipes
Standards might impose excessive costs by
requiring councils to upgrade Sydney Water
assets if affected by infrastructure works
(eg, replacing cast iron water pipes with
PVC pipes).
Ausgrid
Replacing power poles
The list of permitted power pole types in
Ausgrid’s standards might be unduly
restrictive.
Telstra
Relocation or
modification of
telecommunication pits
Standards might impose excessive costs by
requiring councils to upgrade Telstra assets
if affected by infrastructure works (eg,
removing asbestos from telecommunication
pits).
Transport for NSW Undertaking works on
(TfNSW)
or adjacent to the
railway corridor
Standards are overly stringent (eg, for
railway underpasses). Further, they apply
to relatively minor works adjacent to the
railway corridor, increasing costs.
NSW Office of
Water
The amount of land required to achieve an
acceptable riparian corridor width might be
viewed as excessive.
Riparian corridor widths
In particular, feedback has identified that RMS standards might increase the cost
of local road works where they intersect with state roads. This is due to the
higher standards imposed on the whole road design (ie, both the state road and
local road).
RMS’ rationale for setting these standards is road safety
requirements.
138
City of Ryde Council submission, February 2014; Lake Macquarie City Council submission,
February 2014; and NSW Local Government Landscape Design Forum submission, February
2014.
139 City of Ryde Council submission, February 2014 and UrbanGrowth NSW submission, March
2014.:
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
101
12 Standards affecting the provision of local
infrastructure
Another example of standards that might impact on the cost of local
infrastructure includes the amount of land required to achieve an acceptable
riparian corridor width. These are based on NSW Office of Water Guidelines for
riparian corridors on waterfront land.
Consultation with agencies explained how the standards generally fulfil the
objectives of the relevant regulatory regime. Nonetheless, it is still possible that
there could be unintended consequences of imposing requirements that might:

conflict with the council’s objectives of providing local infrastructure to a
standard that is reasonable for the community, or restrict the options councils
can choose for the infrastructure item

exceed the actual needs of the community that will use the infrastructure

delay the delivery of the infrastructure

impose costs that councils consider excessive.
As the standards listed in Table 12.1 might impact on the cost of local
infrastructure, we recommend that the NSW Government review these standards
to determine whether there is scope to vary the standards through negotiation.
In this review, we have not been asked to assess the reasonableness of the
standards set by external agencies, nor the implications for councils from
adhering to them.
However, if further work is undertaken to assess
reasonableness, the following questions could be considered:



What outcomes is the standard trying to achieve?
What is the standard’s materiality (ie, what are the costs of meeting the
standard or does it impact on a large number of users)?
Are there any inconsistencies between the standard and other standards
(eg, council or national standards)?

How does the community benefit from the standard?

How much flexibility is there to vary the standard on a case-by-case basis?

Are similar standards used in other jurisdictions?
12.3
Discretionary standards
Recommendation
19 The onus is on councils seeking to impose standards above accepted industry
practice to justify the benefits of the requirements.
We were asked to identify and describe the extent to which the standards met by
councils are at their discretion and comment on the reasonableness of these
standards.
102
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
12 Standards affecting the provision of local
infrastructure
Councils can choose to use a combination of discretionary standards including:



accepted industry practice
the Growth Centres Development Code140 (for councils in the North West and
South West Growth Centres)
council policies and guidelines, including development control plans (DCPs).
Councils can also require developers to provide local infrastructure through
conditions of consent. Infrastructure that is required through conditions of
consent cannot be funded through development contributions, but may impact
on the cost of development.
12.3.1 Accepted industry practice
A broad (though not exhaustive) list of accepted industry standards and
guidelines that councils can use is listed in Box 12.2
140
Technical and best practice standards developed by P&I.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
103
12 Standards affecting the provision of local
infrastructure
Box 12.2
Examples of accepted industry standards and guidelines
Austroads (used for new roads and road
widening)

Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice

Pavement Design – Guide to the structure
design of road pavements

Rural Road Design – guide to the
geometric design of rural roads

Guide to Traffic Management
Australian Standards141

AS1158 – Lighting for roads and public
spaces

AS1743 – Road sign specifications

AS2339 – Traffic signal posts and
attachments

AS2890

AS1428 – Design for access and mobility

AS3500 – Stormwater drainage

AS1597 – Precast reinforced concrete box
culvert

AS4058 – Precast reinforce concrete
pipes

AS3725 – Loads on buried concrete pipes

AS4422-1996 – Playground and surfacing

AS4685-2004 – Playground equipment

AS2560 – Sports lighting
Aus-Spec Development Specification Series
– Design, and Development Specification
Series – Construction
AMCORD Part 1: Neighbouring Planning
and Movement Networks ‘Residential
Standards Manual’ 1995 (LGNSW)
Guide to Codes and Practices for Street
Openings
Australian Runoff Quality: A Guide to Runoff
Quality
Urban Stormwater – Best Practice
Environmental Management Guidelines
1999 (prepared for Victorian Stormwater
Committee)
Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)
Technical Guidelines for Western Sydney
NSW Cricket Association – Recommended
approach to management of turf cricket
pitches and outfield
International Federation of Netball
Association Official Rules
ACT Planning and Land Authority Parking
and Vehicular Access General Code
141
104
Structural Stormwater Quality Best
Management Practice Cost/Size Relationship
Information from the Literature
Landcom Water Sensitive Urban Design Book
1
Aus-Spec NSW Development Design
Specification D5 Stormwater Drainage Design
NSW Floodplain Development Manual
Managing Urban Stormwater: Urban Design
(Department of Environment and
Conservation)
Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and
Construction 2004 (Landcom)
Stormwater Treatment Framework and
Stormwater Quality Improvement Device
Guidelines (adopted by Port Macquarie
Council)
Landcom Open Space Design Guidelines
2008
International Tennis Federation Rules of
Tennis
Basketball Australia 2010 memo
Landcom Community Centre Design
Guidelines 2008
Note: Generally, Australian Standards are discretionary standards. However, in some instances
legislation may require that they be met.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
12 Standards affecting the provision of local
infrastructure
12.3.2 Growth Centres Development Code
Councils in the North West and South West Growth Centres are encouraged to
follow the Growth Centres Development Code 2006. The Growth Centres Development
Code 2006 was prepared by the Growth Centres Commission (GCC) in
collaboration with growth centre councils. It provides broad protocols for
councils to follow during the precinct planning process as a guide to best
practice, as well as detailed development controls to guide the character and
urban form of an area. When finalising a DCP for a precinct, councils in the
growth centres must prepare a report justifying any variations from the
Development Code.142 Box 12.3 outlines the standards in the Development Code
for each infrastructure type.
142
Growth Centres Commission, Growth Centres Development Code 2006.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
105
12 Standards affecting the provision of local
infrastructure
Box 12.3
Growth Centres Development Code 2006
Transport

Provides a road hierarchy (sub-arterial, collector, local and minor) and contains
different road cross-sections and characteristics.
– Cross-sections provide indicative traffic load capacities, vehicular speed,
measurements for roadways, median strips, cycleways and footpaths.

Provides information on intersections, on-street parking and road functionality.
Stormwater

Provides information on riparian corridors, stormwater management, flood-prone land.
– Includes a cross-section of a best practice features for a riparian corridor.
– Refers to the Managing Urban Stormwater documents (DEC) for guidance on
stormwater systems.
– Refers councils to the NSW Floodplain Development Manual (DPNIR 2005) for use
during precinct planning.
Open space embellishment

Sets out a hierarchy for open space (local, district and regional) and requirements.
– Local or neighbourhood parks should be within 400m walking distance of most
dwellings; pocket parks should be within ‘suitable’ walking distance of high density
residential areas.
– District parks should be within a 2 kilometre walking distance of most dwellings and
be directly accessible via a collector or arterial road.
Community facilities

Discusses the need for community facilities to be flexible and adaptable to changing
community requirements, and to be co-located with public open space.
12.3.3 Council policies and guidelines, including development control plans
What are the policies and guidelines set by councils?
Councils generally have a range of policies and guidelines that include standards
that can impact the design of and therefore the cost of local infrastructure. These
include what can be considered ‘technical’ standards such as engineering codes
or design specification manuals. Such standards are usually in separate policies
adopted by the council to apply to their operations overall.
Alternatively, discretionary standards may be incorporated into policies
specifically related to planning and development. The main sources for these
standards are councils’ DCPs. A council may prepare a development control
plan. The provisions of a DCP are intended only as a guide for development and
are not statutory requirements.143
143
106
EP&A Act, s74BA(1).
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
12 Standards affecting the provision of local
infrastructure
Consistent with legislation,144 councils have the discretion to adopt standards in
their DCPs. Councils can make DCPs for:

a whole local government area (LGA)

specific areas (ie, different precincts)

development types or land uses (ie, residential or commercial uses)

specific infrastructure types (ie, transport or stormwater).
Are the standards set by councils reasonable?
We did not receive feedback on the Draft Report that indicated standards set by
councils are unreasonable. To investigate this issue further, for our Final Report
we analysed a sample of DCPs and some of the standards they adopted.145 In
doing so we:



examined 10 DCPs from a mix of councils across metropolitan, growth centre,
regional and coastal council areas in NSW
selected 3 typical local infrastructure items - a local road, a carparking space
and public domain works - because they have benchmark costs and we could
compare the standards with those assumed for the benchmarks
where possible, compared the standards in the DCPs for each of these items
against standards in the Austroads Guidelines, the Growth Centres Development
Code 2006, and Australian Standards, in order to provide baseline
comparisons.
Our main aim in this analysis was to determine the variation of standards across
the council DCPs, and how they compared with the accepted industry practice.
The results of our analysis for a local road and a carparking space are discussed
in Table 12.2.
We found that there were differences between DCPs and accepted industry
practice. For a local road and a carparking space, we found it difficult to
determine whether the differences were material. However, there was limited
reasoning or justification provided for the differences.
144
145
EP&A Act, s74C.
Auburn Council, Development Control Plan 2000; Bankstown Council, Development Control Plan
2005; Blacktown City Council, Development Control Plan 2006; Camden Council, Development
Control Plan 2011; City of Sydney, Development Control Plan 2012; Dubbo City Council,
Development Control Plan 2013; Fairfield City Wide, Development Control Plan 2013; Lake
Macquarie Council, Development Control Plan 2014; Leichhardt Council, Development Control Plan
2013; Northern Rivers Design Manual 2013 (AUS-SPEC New South Wales Development Design
Specification); Penrith Council, Development Control Plan 2010; Tweed Shire Council,
Development Control Plan 2008.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
107
12 Standards affecting the provision of local
infrastructure
For public domain works or landscaping treatment, there were no readily
available external baseline standards (such as Australian Standards). It is
therefore difficult to define the specifications for public domain works or
landscaping treatments. DCPs that include public domain works usually set
objectives which outline principles for the function and aesthetics of an area,
rather than technical requirements.
Table 12.2
Analysis of the variation between standards for sample
infrastructure items
Local road
Carparking space
Variation
Variations exist between
council DCP standards and
the Growth Centres
Development Code, including
different dimensions for the
widths of street reserves,
carriageways, parking lanes
and footpaths. There is no
consistency in the variations.
There are variations between council
DCPs and best practice standards in the
length and width of a carparking space.
Example of
variation
Variation in the width of street
reserves.

Austroad standard sets a
street reserve width of 9m,
the lowest standard.

Blacktown’s DCP and the
Development Code each
set a street width of 16m.

Penrith’s DCP sets a
minimum local street
reserve of 15.6m.

Northern Rivers Design
Manual sets minimum local
street reserve of 15-17m.
The Austroad standard and AS 2890
(parking facilities) have the same
dimensions.
The DCP dimensions vary by 0.1 metre
in width and 0.2 metres in length from
the Austroad standard.
Justification for
variation
It is difficult to determine if
variations in the street reserve
widths are material.
The DCPs provide limited
information about why the
variations occur, and some
DCPs do not contain any
standards for local roads.
In addition:

each council may define a
‘local road’ differently,
depending on its use and
hierarchy in the LGA’s road
system

slight differences in
inclusions and exclusions
can alter the dimensions of
the road.
The DCPs contain limited justification for
the variations. The variations in width
and length will impact on the amount of
land required for carparking spaces in
some LGAs.
Source: IPART.
108
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
12 Standards affecting the provision of local
infrastructure
In summary, councils are required to prepare DCPs under the current legislative
requirements. However, these legislative requirements allow councils flexibility
in the standards DCPs contain. To ensure that costs associated with standards
are reasonable, we recommend that where a council chooses to impose standards
above accepted industry practice the onus is on them to justify the benefits of the
requirements.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
109
13 Guide to estimating the cost of items on the essential
infrastructure list
13 Guide to estimating the cost of items on the
essential infrastructure list
To help stakeholders better understand our recommendations, we have prepared
a guide for councils to use to estimate the costs of infrastructure items for which
infrastructure contributions may be levied. There are 3 ways councils can
estimate the cost an infrastructure item:

using a benchmark cost: for ‘benchmark items’

using a reference cost: for ‘reference items’

using the cost estimation approach: for ‘non-benchmark items’ or where
councils want to deviate from the benchmark cost or reference cost.
We consider that councils should use the most accurate information available to
estimate the cost of infrastructure items. If a council has received a tender price
for an item to be delivered, then it should use this price, and justify deviation
from the benchmark cost (or reference cost) to do so. Also, in the instance that
costs have already been incurred, councils should recoup the actual cost of
providing the infrastructure item and/or works consistent with the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.146
Councils can estimate the cost of plan administration using the benchmark (up to
1.5% of the total value of works to be funded by infrastructure contributions) as a
guide, and justify the higher costs in their plans.
This guide is illustrative only. It reflects IPART’s view of how the benchmark
costs, reference costs and cost estimation approaches should be applied. P&I is
responsible for making final decisions on the arrangements for local
infrastructure contributions, including the framework for costing infrastructure
in local infrastructure plans.
146
110
EP&A Act s94(3).
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
13 Guide to estimating the cost of items on the essential
infrastructure list
13.1
Estimating the cost of items on the essential infrastructure list
This guide is to assist councils to estimate the cost of items on the essential
infrastructure list, for which infrastructure contributions may be levied.
Appendix B documents the items on the essential infrastructure list in the first
column. We have classified the items on the list into the following groups:



Benchmark items: with a single benchmark cost: for each benchmark item,
there is a corresponding datasheet in Chapter 14 (for plan administration see
section 13.3).
Reference items: with 2 reference costs: for each reference item, there is a
corresponding reference sheet in Chapter 15.
Non-benchmark items: have neither a benchmark cost nor a reference cost.
Table 13.1 outlines how councils should cost each type of infrastructure item.
Plan administration should be costed using the approach outlined in section 13.3.
Table 13.1
How councils should cost each type of infrastructure item
Item type
Ways to cost the item
Benchmark item
Use the benchmark cost (section 13.2) if:

the item is reasonably consistent with the ‘scope of the
infrastructure item – inclusions’ listed on the relevant datasheet,
and

the works required are reasonably consistent with the ‘key scope
of work inclusions’ listed on the datasheet, or

variations from the scope of the infrastructure item can be
accounted for by costing additional items considered necessary
for the project. These are listed under ‘scope of the infrastructure
item – exclusions (may be reasonably required’)’ on the
datasheets, or can include site preparation activities such as
demolition and site clearance.
Use the cost estimation approach (section 13.5) if:

there is sufficient evidence to justify deviation from the
benchmark cost.
Reference item
Use a reference cost (section 13.4) if:

the scope of the item is reasonably consistent with 1 of the 2
reference cost items, or

there is not sufficient design information available to use the cost
estimation approach.
Use the cost estimation approach (section 13.5) if:

there is sufficient evidence to justify deviation from either of the
reference costs.
Non-benchmark item
Use the cost estimation approach (section 13.5)
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
111
13 Guide to estimating the cost of items on the essential
infrastructure list
13.2
How to cost an item using a benchmark cost
Councils will need to build up the benchmark cost from its 3 components:

a base cost

adjustment factors

an appropriate contingency allowance.
13.2.1 How to calculate a base cost
The base cost for each benchmark item is on the relevant datasheet in Chapter 14
of this report (expressed in June 13 dollars per relevant unit). The datasheets will
be updated by IPART annually, so councils should use the most current
datasheets available.
To calculate the base cost:



identify the relevant item, sub-item and/or quantity band (if applicable)
identify the quantity of units required (eg, how many metres of road, or
square metres of library space, or number of roundabouts)
calculate the base cost by applying the relevant $/unit to the quantity
required.
The base costs include direct costs, contractor indirect costs and margin, and
council on-costs, so councils do not need to account for these costs separately.
Box 13.1 contains 2 examples of how to calculate a base cost.
Box 13.1
Examples of how to calculate a base cost
New local access road
Length of road: 1,500 metres
Base cost unit rate: $2,231 per metre
Base cost: 1,500 metres x $2,231 per metre = $3,346,500.
600mm Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) stormwater drainage pipe
Length of pipe: 110 metres
Base cost unit rate: $486 per metre
Base cost: 110 metres x $486 per metre = $53,460.
112
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
13 Guide to estimating the cost of items on the essential
infrastructure list
13.2.2 Adjustment factors
Councils can apply a location and/or congestion adjustment factor to the base
cost, to account for typical variations in the cost of delivering the item. The
relevant adjustment factors depend on the category of infrastructure being
delivered (eg, open space embellishment, community facilities, roads and
stormwater). Adjustment factors should be applied only if necessary.
The location and congestion adjustment factors are additive (refer to worked
examples in section 13.6).
Location adjustment factors
Open space embellishment and community facility items
For open space embellishment and community facility items, councils located
outside the Sydney metropolitan region can apply a location adjustment factor to
account for typically higher costs of materials and labour.
If necessary, apply the index value for the closest regional centre in the regional
building cost indices from the latest available data from Rawlinsons Australian
Construction Handbook to the item’s base cost. The regional cost indices in
Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook are relative to costs in Sydney.
Roads and stormwater items
For roads and stormwater items, councils located more than 25km from the raw
material supply source can apply a distance adjustment factor to account for the
typically higher transportation and logistical costs.
If necessary, apply the relevant distance adjustment factor, in Table 13.2 to the
item’s base cost. These factors are listed as percentages, so will need to be
converted into a multiplier before being applied to the base cost (eg, for 20% you
would multiply by 1.2).
Table 13.2
Distance adjustment factors for roads and stormwater items
<25 km from raw
material source
25-75km from raw
material source
>75km from raw
material source
Roads
0%
5%
10%
Stormwater
0%
2%
4%
Congestion adjustment factors
For roads and stormwater items, councils can apply a congestion adjustment
factor to account for typically higher costs associated with providing these items
in high-density, congested settings. A congestion factor is not applicable to open
space embellishment or community facilities.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
113
13 Guide to estimating the cost of items on the essential
infrastructure list
There are 3 congestion scenarios:147


Lightly congested: Local infrastructure work on/adjacent to a suburban
street, requiring minor and/or irregular traffic control and with only minor
pedestrian movement.
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/adjacent to a main road or narrow suburban street requiring
continuous traffic control and with moderate pedestrian movement.

Heavily congested: Local infrastructure work on/adjacent to a street within a
suburban business district, requiring substantial and continuous traffic control
and with significant pedestrian movement.
If necessary, councils can apply the relevant congestion factor, in Table 13.3, to
the item’s base cost. The congestion factors are intended to be used as an upper
limit, and councils can apply a lower factor where needed.148 These factors are
listed as percentages, so will need to be converted into a multiplier before being
applied to the base cost (eg, for 15% you would multiply by 1.15).
Table 13.3
Recommended maximum congestion factors for roads and
stormwater items
Category of infrastructure
Lightly
congested
Moderately
congested
Heavily
congested
15%
25%
40%
Roads and stormwater
13.2.3 Contingency allowance
A contingency allowance is added to the adjusted base cost to cover unforeseen
events such as encountering site contamination or unexpected underground
utility infrastructure. This allowance is expressed as a percentage of the adjusted
base cost, and varies by project delivery stage and category of infrastructure.
The 2 project delivery stages are:

147
148
114
Strategic Review stage: where the council has specified the general
requirements for infrastructure and investigated options to achieve the
desired outcome (eg, the size of a park and the associated embellishments to
be provided to meet the needs of the development).
Sydney CBD has been excluded from these scenarios, and should be treated as a special case.
The percentage over the base cost 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.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
13 Guide to estimating the cost of items on the essential
infrastructure list

Business Case stage: where the council has undertaken detailed planning
and design of its preferred option to the point where tenders can be called for
its delivery. This includes:
– detailed planning documents such as environmental approvals, land
acquisition schedules and community consultation outcomes (eg, studies
showing the exact land to be acquired and whether there are any site
constraints in delivering the infrastructure)
– preliminary designs and quantity estimates for the infrastructure (eg,
engineering drawings as well as bill of quantities based on adjusted
historical costs).
Once a project has advanced beyond the Business Case stage, it is unlikely a
council will use the benchmark cost, as it could have access to more accurate cost
information, such as a tender. We have therefore not provided contingency
allowances beyond the Business Case stage.
Strategic Review Stage
If the infrastructure item is at the Strategic Review stage, a council will need to
apply the relevant contingency allowance in Table 13.4 to the item’s total
adjusted base cost.
The contingency allowance is applied separately to each infrastructure item. For
example, different contingency allowances may need to be applied to different
items (of the same project).
Table 13.4
Contingency allowances at Strategic Review stage
Project delivery
stage
Strategic review
Open space
embellishment
Community
facilities
Roads
Stormwater
20%
15%
30%
30%
Business Case Stage
If the infrastructure item is at the Business Case stage, a council will need to
apply the relevant contingency allowance in Table 13.5 to the item’s total
adjusted base cost.
Table 13.5
Contingency allowances at Business Case stage
Project delivery
stage
Business case
Open space
embellishment
Community
facilities
Roads
Stormwater
15%
10%
20%
20%
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
115
13 Guide to estimating the cost of items on the essential
infrastructure list
If risks have been realised (found to be almost certain to occur) in the Business
Case stage,149 councils can transfer some of the risk provisions from the
contingency allowance to the base cost estimate. To do this, councils should cost
this risk event separately and add it to the adjusted base cost and then apply the
contingency allowances in Table 13.4. This is shown in the ‘Business Case’ bar of
Figure 13.1.
Figure 13.1
13.3
Additional base costs to account for realised risk
How to estimate plan administration costs
We recommend a benchmark cost of up to 1.5% of the value of works for which
infrastructure contributions can be levied. We suggest that this benchmark cost,
like the recommended benchmark costs for infrastructure items, be used as a
guide. Where councils have higher costs, councils should justify the higher costs
by using a bottom up approach and include the cost breakdown information in
their local infrastructure plan.
149
116
Risks can be realised as a result of additional studies. The datasheets contain ‘key identified
risks’ for each benchmark item, which were excluded from the base cost. It may be these risk,
or others, that materialise in the Business Case stage.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
13 Guide to estimating the cost of items on the essential
infrastructure list
13.3.1 Plan administration costs up to 1.5% of works value
Councils using the benchmark cost could include up to 1.5% of the total works
for which infrastructure contributions can be levied, to cover plan administration
costs. As for other costs in a local infrastructure plan, the total value of plan
administration should be calculated and then apportioned amongst demand
units (eg, persons, net developable area).
The total works value should include the cost of works already incurred (ie,
recoupment of costs). This ensures that developers share the cost of plan
administration fairly over the life of the plan.
Minor changes in the administration component of contributions rates will occur
in line with any indexation of the works costs.
Although the 1.5% benchmark is not calculated on the value of land, councils
should be able to use the funds collected for administering the land component
of a local infrastructure plan. This would, for example, include legal costs
incurred by councils when acquiring or transferring the title of land required for
new infrastructure.
Councils that anticipate administration costs will be lower than the benchmark of
1.5% should include the lower value in their plans.
13.3.2 Plan administration costs above 1.5% of works value
Where councils have plan administration costs higher than the benchmark of
1.5%, we recommend that they justify the higher costs by using a bottom up
approach and include a cost breakdown in their local infrastructure plan.
To assist councils pursuing this option, we suggest that the cost breakdown
should include:





descriptions of any external preparatory studies and the estimated (or actual if
complete) cost of the studies
details of council staff resources for preparation of the plan including job
titles, tasks performed, hours worked and hourly rates
details of council staff resources for ongoing management of the plan,
including job titles, tasks performed, estimated hours/days required and
hourly/daily rates
details of any external resources for ongoing management of the plan and the
estimated cost of the resources
estimated duration of the plan if cost estimates for ongoing management are
made on a per year basis.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
117
13 Guide to estimating the cost of items on the essential
infrastructure list
13.4
How to cost an item using a reference cost
Each reference item datasheet (Chapter 15) contains 2 reference costs, and
outlines the scope of the infrastructure item that each reference cost is based
upon. With the exception of the maintenance of roads for mining impacts, the
reference costs are a total project cost rather than a unit rate. The datasheets will
be updated by IPART annually; so councils should use the most current
datasheets available.
Councils should select the reference cost that best reflects the scope of the item to
be delivered. Councils should not add a contingency allowance, as this is already
incorporated into the reference cost.
13.5
How to cost an item using the cost estimation approach
For non-benchmark items, or where councils want to deviate from our reference
costs or benchmark costs, the onus is on councils to justify this deviation. We
recommend councils use a cost estimation approach that is consistent with our
approach for establishing the recommended benchmark costs.
Councils should follow these 4 key steps to establish the base costs of an
infrastructure item:
1. Identify appropriate performance outcome(s) for the infrastructure item, for
which developers can reasonably be expected to pay an infrastructure
contribution.
2. Identify the minimum scope of the infrastructure item to meet the appropriate
performance outcome.
3. Identify a typical scope of work to deliver the infrastructure item, to the extent
possible considering the stage of the project150.
4. Determine an efficient base cost for that item using a suitable costing
methodology and the most accurate available information.
After estimating the base cost of an infrastructure item, councils should then
include a reasonable allowance for contingency. Unlike the benchmark item base
costs, there is no need to apply adjustment factors to base costs estimated using
this costing approach.151
Each of these steps is outlined in more detail below.
150 Projects in the planning stages may have limited design information available to inform the
scope of works.
151 When councils estimate a base cost using the recommended costing methodologies, it would
already include an allowance for location and congestion factors.
118
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
13 Guide to estimating the cost of items on the essential
infrastructure list
13.5.1 Identify the appropriate performance outcome(s) for the infrastructure
item
The performance outcome of an infrastructure item is defined by the objectives
the item is meant to meet. For example, a performance objective for a road may
account for the speed and volume of cars; wider lanes and shoulders are usually
used for roads with higher speeds and higher traffic volumes.
Councils will need to identify the appropriate performance outcome(s) of each
infrastructure item for which developers can reasonably be expected to pay an
infrastructure contribution. The performance outcome should result in a fair and
equitable cost estimate for the item. This will prevent underfunding for councils
or overcharging of developers.
Councils should consider, for example:

the industry standards that relate to the item

the lifespan of the item

safety considerations for the item

the impact the item may have on surrounding development

the efficiency of the materials used to construct the item.
13.5.2 Identify the minimum scope of the infrastructure item to meet the
appropriate performance outcome
The scope of an item describes the final delivered asset. It captures the size
and/or quantity, the materials it is constructed from, and the arrangement of its
components.
Councils will need to identify the minimum scope of the infrastructure item that
meets the desired performance outcome. This should avoid using a scope that
might be considered ‘over-engineered’.
13.5.3 Identify the typical scope of work to deliver the infrastructure item
The scope of the works describes all the activities required to construct or install
the infrastructure item. The typical activities that may be undertaken to deliver
an item in an efficient manner, include:

site preparations

levelling

drainage

surveying

traffic management.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
119
13 Guide to estimating the cost of items on the essential
infrastructure list
Projects in the planning stages may have limited available design information to
inform the scope of works. In these instances, councils should forecast the
activities that may be required based on the best information available.
13.5.4 Determine the efficient base cost for an item using a suitable costing
methodology and accurate available information
Councils will need to determine the efficient cost of an item (or sub-item) using a
suitable cost methodology and the most accurate information available.
There are 2 suitable cost methodologies for estimating the base cost of an
infrastructure item:

first principles (or bottom up), and

reference pricing (or top down).152
There is also a range of cost information that may be available. Each cost
methodology and the potential information sources are described below.
First principles (bottom up) methodology
The first principle method involves building up the estimate from its most basic
cost resources - the costs of plant, labour and materials. It is a highly detailed
approach to estimating. Productivity assumptions are applied to labour and
plant costs.
Estimates may be supported by quotations from
suppliers/contractors for all or part of an activity (but it remains a first principles
approach).
Appendix F provides a worked example of how Evans & Peck used the first
principles approach to estimate a benchmark base cost.
Referencing pricing (top down) method
The reference pricing method involves taking the known total cost of a similar
item delivered at a specific place and time (a ‘project’), and making relevant
adjustments to take account of the different circumstances in which it is to be
delivered. This is a less detailed approach to estimating. As an example, to
estimate the cost of a library by reference pricing, 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. Reference pricing is less time
intensive that first principles, but requires reliable source data (which is not
always available). Reference pricing can be used where only a functional
description of an item is available, with little or no design information.
152
120
In practice, councils may need to use a hybrid of the 2 methods, depending on the information
available.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
13 Guide to estimating the cost of items on the essential
infrastructure list
Reference pricing can be done at the project level as described above, or at a
component level (eg, substructure, building envelope, internal fit-out).
Appendix F provides a worked example of how Evans & Peck used the reference
pricing approach to estimate a benchmark base cost.
Information sources
Councils should use the most accurate information source available. In general,
of the potential information sources:



market information (such as schedules of rates or tender prices) is the most
accurate, and should be used if available
cost estimating publications or software (such as Rawlinsons and Cordell’s
cost guides) provide the ‘next best’ information, particular with a first
principles (bottom up) costing method
historical cost data from your previous infrastructure projects, similar
infrastructure projects in other Local Government Areas, or an infrastructure
cost database (such as Cordell’s) can also be used.
In practice, councils may need to use information from a variety of sources to
estimate the base cost of an infrastructure item.
13.5.5 Appropriate contingency allowance
After estimating the base cost of an item using a suitable cost methodology,
councils should then estimate the appropriate contingency allowance. Note, that
in some instances, depending on the information source used to estimate the base
cost, a contingency allowance may not be needed (eg, tender prices will often
already include a contingency allowance for contractors to cover risk events).
Councils should consider the following points when estimating the appropriate
contingency allowance:



Take into account the delivery stage and particular risk to the project, typically
the contingency allowance will decrease when moving from the Strategic
Review to Business Case stage.
Target the most likely cost outcome (ie, how much risk is ‘insured for’ in the
cost estimate).
Avoid double counting the cost of risk events (ie, in both the base cost and
contingency allowance). For example, if contamination issues are known to
occur this cost will be built into the base cost and will not be included in the
contingency allowance.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
121
13 Guide to estimating the cost of items on the essential
infrastructure list
13.6
Worked examples of applying the benchmark costs
To assist councils in using the benchmarks we have prepared 3 worked
examples, including:

a benchmark item cost

a benchmark item cost with an exclusion

122
a benchmark item cost with an identified risk activity/event costed that was
costed using a cost estimation approach.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
Worked example to estimate the cost of a 4 lane sub-arterial road using the benchmark item cost
Figure 13.2
13 Guide to estimating the cost of items on the essential
infrastructure list
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
123
124
13 Guide to estimating the cost of items on the essential
infrastructure list
Worked example to estimate the cost of a new local access road with street lighting exclusion
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
Figure 13.3
Worked example to estimate the cost of a stormwater drain/pit with rock excavation as an identified risk
Figure 13.4
13 Guide to estimating the cost of items on the essential
infrastructure list
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
125
14 Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
14 Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
126
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
14 Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
127
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
Contents
0 Overview
Benchmark Datasheets
1 Transport
1.1 New sub-arterial road
1.2 Sub-arterial road widening
1.3 New industrial road
1.4 New subdivision road
1.5 New local access road
1.6 New rural road
1.7 Rural road widening
1.8 Guide posts / safety barriers / pedestrian fencing
1.9 Traffic calming
1.10 New footpath adjacent to traffic lane
1.11 Demolition and upgrade of footpath
1.12 Unsignalised intersection
1.13 Signalised intersection
1.14 Roundabout intersection
1.15 Pedestrian crossing
1.16 Bus stop
1.17 Street lighting
1.18 On road cycleway
1.19 Pedestrian overpass
1.20 Pedestrian underpass
1.21 Road pavement resurfacing
1.22 Cycleway facilities - bicycle racks
2 Stormwater
2.1 Primary pollution treatment
2.2 Secondary/ tertiary pollution treatment
2.3 Precast concrete box culverts
2.4 Concrete channels
2.5 Stormwater drain/ pits
2.6 Stormwater drainage pipework
2.7 Stormwater headwalls
3(L) Local Open Space Embellishment
3.1 (L) Demolition
3.2 (L) Site clearance
3.3 (L) Soft surfaces - turfing
3.4 (L) Soft surfaces - synthetic playing surfaces / artificial grass
3.5 (L) Soft surfaces - softfall under play equipment
3.6 (L) Hard surfaces
3.7 (L) Concrete pathways
3.8 (L) Steps/ ramping
3.9 (L) Play equipment installation
3.10 (L) Park furniture - seating
3.11 (L) Park furniture - picnic sets
3.12 (L) Park furniture - bins
3.13 (L) Park furniture - BBQs
3.14 (L) Park furniture - drinking fountains
3.15 (L) Park furniture - taps
3.16 (L) Fencing - playground
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
Contents
3.17 (L) Perimeter fencing
3.18 (L) Shade structures
3.19 (L) Basic landscaping
3.20 (L) Planter boxes
3.21 (L) Amenity block
3.22 (L) Security lighting
3.23 (L) Waterproofing to concrete deck
3(D) District Open Space Embellishment
3.1 (D) Sportsfields and irrigation
3.2 (D) Sportsfield floodlighting
3.3 (D) Tennis court (outdoor)
3.4 (D) Netball court (outdoor
3.5 (D) Basketball court (outdoor)
3.6 (D) Carpark
4 Community Facilities
4.1 Multi purpose community facility
4.2 Library
4.3 Preschools/ childcare facilities/ OSHC
4.4 Aquatic centre (indoor)
4.5 Carpark
4.6 Swimming pool (outdoor)
4.7 Indoor aquatic facility with gym
5 Assumptions
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
0. Overview
Benchmark Datasheets
There are 65 benchmark datasheets - one for each of the infrastructure items on the Essential Infrastructure List.
Each Summary Table contains the following fields:
Item Name:
Name of the infrastructure item included under one of the four categories on the Essential
Infrastructure List.
Item Number:
The unique number assigned to each infrastructure item.
Functional Description:
A description of the most fundamental requirements for the infrastructure item.
Basis of Cost:
The basis of the estimated cost for the infrastructure item, separated into the following
headings:
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions: Describes the significant components of the final delivered asset, included in the
base cost.
Exclusions: Describes the significant components excluded from the final delivered asset, not
included in the base cost on grounds they a) exceed the minimum requirements, or b) are
covered by a separate infrastructure item.
Key scope of work inclusions:
The key activities assumed to be undertaken to construct or install the infrastructure item.
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
Examples of the most significant risks contemplated in delivering the infrastructure item.
Allowance for all risks is contained in the contingency ie, no allowance for risks is included in
the base cost.
Minimum quantity:
The minimum quantity that has been assumed for the purpose of estimating the base cost.
Banding:
Quantity bands that reflect unit rate cost sensitivity to the quantity of work performed.
Specific sub item information:
The scope of the infrastructure item specific to a particular sub item.
Sub Item:
A variant of an infrastructure item with differing configuration, arrangement, size, material or
performance.
Costing Methodology:
Refers to the general approach used in estimating the base cost.
Standards:
Refers to industry accepted design standards or guidance relevant to an infrastructure item /
sub item.
The Benchmark Base
Cost(s) (Included in
Value Table)
Estimate of the direct cost of the infrastructure item / sub item, 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.
Assumptions
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 Essential Infrastructure
List infrastructure category type (transport, stormwater, open space embellishment and community facilities).
Contractor's Indirect
Costs:
Consists of the contractor's preliminaries, management and supervision and design (if
applicable).
Margin:
Consists of the contractor's overheads and profit.
Council On-Costs:
Consists of council's internal staff costs, project management and design fees, levies and other
charges.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
New sub-arterial road
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 1.1
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] New, flexible pavement sub-arterial road, covering a range of pavement structures
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Pavement structure: 200mm - 300mm SMZ, 200mm to 250mm DGS20, 150mm to
200mm DGB20, two coat bitumen seal (10mm and 14mm), 40mm to 50mm AC wearing
course
- Kerb and gutter
- 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
- Line-marking
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Guardrails and guide post (separate item - 1.8)
- Street lighting (separate item - 1.17)
Key scope of work inclusions:
- 1200mm of VENM excavation with 50% requiring disposal offsite, including haulage of up
to 45km and $20/Tn tipping fees
- Clearing and grubbing of light to medium vegetation
- Minor traffic control allowance for construction vehicles/pedestrian and around tie-in point
with trafficked road (includes installation and removal of signage and barriers)
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities
- Payment of waste levy for general solid waste or restricted special waste
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
- Refer to specific sub item information
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
Sub item 1.1.1 - 4 lane sub-arterial road
- Road corridor: 4 lanes x 3.2m wide carriageway, road reserve 20m and carriageway width
12.8m
- Minimum Quantity: 1500m2 (100m length)
Sub item 1.1.2 - 3 lane sub-arterial road
- Road corridor: 3 lanes x 3.2m wide carriageway, road reserve 17m and carrigeway width
9.6m
- Minimum Quantity: 1200m2 (100m length)
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
1.1.1
1.1.2
4 lane sub-arterial road
3 lane sub-arterial road
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Austroads
- Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice
- Guide to Asset Management Part 5: Pavement Performance
- Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design
- Guide to Road Design Part 3: Geometric Design
- Roads and Maritime Services - Road Design Guide
- Council's relevant work specification - Civil
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
1.1.1
4 lane sub-arterial road
m
$
10,235
1.1.2
3 lane sub-arterial road
m
$
8,814
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Sub-arterial road widening
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 1.2
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Widening of a sub-arterial road adjacent to traffic by 1 lane, covering a range of pavement
structures
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Road corridor: 1 x 3.2m wide carriageway, road reserve 7m and carriageway width 3.2m
- Kerb and gutter
- 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
- Tie-in works to existing lane
- Line-marking
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Guardrails and guide post (separate item - 1.8)
- Street lighting (separate item - 1.17)
Key scope of works inclusions:
- Nominal 500mm of excavation including haulage of up to 45km and tipping fees for
general solid waste of $60/Tn, inclusive of partial waste levy
- Clearing and grubbing of light to medium vegetation
- Traffic control allowance based on works performed adjacent to moving traffic (includes
installation, modifications and removal of signage and barriers as well as attendance by
traffic controllers)
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities
- Payment of full waste levy for general solid waste or restricted special waste
- Additional excavated material (over and above that stated in the basis of cost) requiring
disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
- 300m2 (70m length)
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
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 and 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]
1.2.1
1.2.2
Flexible pavement
Rigid pavement
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Austroads
- Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice
- Guide to Asset Management Part 5: Pavement Performance
- Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design
- Guide to road Design Part 3: Geometric Design
- Roads and Maritime Services - Road Design Guide
- Council's relevant work specification - Civil
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
1.2.1
Flexible pavement
m
$
6,245
1.2.2
Rigid pavement
m
$
6,422
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
New industrial road
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 1.3
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] New, 2 lane, flexible pavement Industrial road, covering a range of pavement structures
(iv) [BASIS OF COST]
Scope of infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Pavement structure: 200mm - 300mm SMZ, 200mm to 250mm DGS20, 150mm to 200mm
DGB20, two coat bitumen seal (10mm and 14mm), 50mm to 60mm AC wearing course
- Road corridor: 2 lanes x 6.75m wide carriageway, road reserve 21m and carriageway
width 13.5m
- Roll-top gutter
- Stormwater drainage
- 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
- Line-marking
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Guardrails and guide post (separate item - 1.8)
- Street lighting (separate item - 1.17)
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal 500mm cut/fill balance
- Clearing and grubbing of light to medium vegetation
- Minor traffic control allowance for construction vehicles/pedestrian and around tie-in point
with trafficked road (includes installation and removal of signage and barriers)
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities
- Contaminated materials
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
- 1500m2 (100m length)
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Austroads
- Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice
- Guide to Asset Management Part 5: Pavement Performance
- Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design
- Guide to Road Design Part 3: Geometric Design
- Roads and Maritime Services - Road Design Guide
- Council's relevant work specification - Civil
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Item
Unit
$/unit
1.3
New industrial road
m
$
5,543
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
New subdivision road
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 1.4
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] New, 2 lane, flexible pavement subdivision road, covering a range of pavement structures
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Pavement structure: 150mm - 200mm SMZ, 150mm to 200mm DGS20, 150mm to 200mm
DGB20, two coat bitumen seal (10mm and 14mm), 25mm to 30mm AC wearing course
- Road corridor: 2 lanes x 4.5m wide carriageway, road reserve 16m and carriageway width
9m
- Roll- top gutter
- Stormwater drainage
- 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
- Line-marking
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Guardrails and guide post (separate item - 1.8)
- Street lighting (separate item - 1.17)
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal 500mm cut/fill balance
- Clearing and grubbing of light to medium vegetation
- Minor traffic control allowance for construction vehicles/pedestrian and around tie-in point
with trafficked road (includes installation and removal of signage and barriers)
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities
- Contaminated materials
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
- 1000m2 (120m length)
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Austroads
- Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice
- Guide to Asset Management Part 5: Pavement Performance
- Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design
- Guide to Road Design Part 3: Geometric Design
- Roads and Maritime Services - Road Design Guide
- Council's relevant work specification - Civil
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Item
Unit
$/unit
1.4
New subdivision road
m
$
3,631
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
New local access road
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 1.5
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] New, 1 lane, flexible pavement local access road
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Pavement structure: 150mm SMZ, 150mm DGS20, 25mm of AC
- Road corridor: 1 lane x 5m wide carriageway, road reserve 9m and carriageway width 5m
- Roll-top gutter
- 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
- Tie-in works to existing lane
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Guardrails and guide post (separate item - 1.8)
- Street lighting (separate item - 1.17)
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Signage
- Line-marking
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal 500mm cut/fill balance
- Clearing and grubbing of light to medium vegetation
- Minor traffic control allowance for construction vehicles/pedestrian and around tie-in point
with trafficked road (includes installation and removal of signage and barriers)
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities
- Contaminated materials
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
- 400m2 (80m length)
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Austroads
- Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice
- Guide to Asset Management Part 5: Pavement Performance
- Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design
- Guide to Road Design Part 3: Geometric Design
- Roads and Maritime Services - Road Design Guide
- Council's relevant work specification - Civil
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Item
Unit
$/unit
1.5
New local access road
m
$
2,231
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
New rural road
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 1.6
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
New, 2 lane, flexible pavement rural road
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Pavement structure: 150mm SMZ, 150mm DGS20, 150mm DGB20, 14/7 spray seal
- Road corridor: 2 lanes x 3m wide carriageway, road reserve 8m and carriageway width 6m
- 2 x 500mm wide turfed grass nature strip
- 1.8m wide swale drain with hydro mulching
- Typical signage - 1 small to medium sized sign (eg, speed limit sign) every 50 - 60m
- Line-marking
- Tie-in works to existing lane
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Guardrails and guide post (separate item - 1.8)
- Street lighting (separate item - 1.17)
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Kerb & gutter
- Footpath
- Stormwater drainage
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal 500mm cut/fill balance
- Clearing and grubbing of light to medium vegetation
- Minor traffic control allowance for construction vehicles/pedestrian and around tie-in point
with trafficked road (includes installation and removal of signage and barriers)
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities
- Contaminated materials
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
2
- 1000m (120m length)
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Austroads
- Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice
- Guide to Asset Management Part 5: Pavement Performance
- Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design
- Guide to Road Design Part 3: Geometric Design
- Roads and Maritime Services - Road Design Guide
- Council's relevant work specification - Civil
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Item
Unit
$/unit
1.6
New rural road
m
$
2,322
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Rural road widening
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 1.7
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Widening of a flexible pavement rural road adjacent to moving traffic by 1 lane
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Pavement structure: 150mm of SMZ, 150mm DGS20, 150mm DGB20 and 14/7 spray seal
- Road corridor: 1 lane x 3m wide carriageway, road reserve 5m and carriageway width 3m
- 1 x 500mm wide turfed grass nature strip
- 1.8m wide swale drain with hydro mulching
- Typical signage - 1 small to medium sized sign (eg, speed limit sign) every 50 - 60m
- Line-marking
- Tie-in works to existing lane
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Guardrails and guide post (separate item - 1.8)
- Street lighting (separate item - 1.17)
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the draft essential infrastructure list):
- Stormwater drainage
- Kerb & gutter
- Footpath
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal 500mm of excavation including haulage of up to 45km and tipping fees for
general solid waste of $60/Tn, inclusive of partial waste levy
- Clearing and grubbing of light to medium vegetation
- Traffic control allowance based on works performed adjacent to moving traffic in rural
environment (includes installation, modifications and removal of signage and barriers as
well as attendance by traffic controllers)
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities
- Payment of full waste levy for general solid waste or restricted special waste
-Additional excavated material (over and above that stated in the basis of cost) requiring
disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
2
- 300m (120m length)
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Austroads
- Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice
- Guide to Asset Management Part 5: Pavement Performance
- Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design
- Guide to road Design Part 3: Geometric Design
- Roads and Maritime Services - Road Design Guide
- Council's relevant work specification - Civil
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Item
Unit
$/unit
1.7
Rural road widening
m
$
3,533
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Guide posts / safety barriers / pedestrian fencing
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 1.8
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Metal guide posts, guardrail safety barriers, steel pedestrian fencing
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Refer to specific sub item information
Exclusions:
- Not applicable to this infrastructure item
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal excavation with material retained on-site
- Traffic control allowance based on works performed adjacent to moving traffic (includes
installation, modifications and removal of signage and barriers as well as attendance by
traffic controllers)
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Contaminated materials
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Refer to sub item specific information
Specific sub item information:
Sub item 1.8.1 - Guide posts
- Standard plastic posts with reflector plates
- Quantity Bands:
- Band 1: less than 10 guide posts
- Band 2: greater than 10 guide posts
Sub item 1.8.2 - Guardrail safety barriers
- Standard "W" beam safety barrier with reflector plates, 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]
1.8.1
1.8.2
1.8.3
Guide posts
Guardrail safety barriers
Pedestrian fencing
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(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
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Applicable Band 1
Unit
$/unit
1.8.1
1.8.2
1.8.3
Guide posts
each
Guardrail safety barriers m
Pedestrian fencing
m
$
$
$
Applicable Band 2
Unit
$/unit
102 each
337 m
1,277 m
$
$
$
55
205
730
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Traffic calming
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 1.9
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Speed controlling devices across 2 lanes
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Refer to specific sub item information
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Pedestrian crossing installations (separate item - 1.15)
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal excavation with material retained on-site
- Making good to road surfacing around device perimeter
- Minor traffic control allowance for construction vehicles/pedestrian and around tie-in point
with trafficked road (includes installation and removal of signage and barriers)
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Not applicable for this item
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
Sub item 1.9.1 - Flat top road hump
- Concrete speed bump
- 11m wide x 6.5m long (across 2 lanes)
- 200mm thick reinforced concrete
- Adjustments to kerb and gutter
- Raised median
- Pavement marking including chevron
- Typical signage
Sub item 1.9.2 - Concrete road hump
- Concrete "Watts profile" road hump
- Ramp dimensions: 3.7m wide x 6.5m carriageway width
- Adjustments to kerb and gutter
- Pavement marking including chevron
- Typical signage
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
1.9.1
1.9.2
Flat top road hump
Concrete road hump
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Flat top road hump
- Hills Shire Council drawings
Concrete road hump
- Watts profile road hump: Roads and Maritime Services model drawings
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
1.9.1
Flat top road hump
each
$
30,885
1.9.2
Concrete road hump
each
$
8,244
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
New footpath adjacent to traffic lane
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 1.10
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] New concrete footpath adjacent to an existing traffic lane
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Refer to specific sub item information
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Nature strips
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal 500mm cut/fill balance
- Traffic control allowance based on works performed adjacent to moving traffic (includes
installation, modifications and removal of signage and barriers as well as attendance by
traffic controllers)
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities
- Contaminated materials
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
- 100m
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
Sub item 1.10.1 - 1.2m wide footpath
- Standard concrete footpath for residential footways
- 80mm thick unreinforced concrete
- Pram ramps at cross streets 125m apart on average
- 1200mm wide x 80mm thick, on 70mm thick DGS20
Sub item 1.10.2 - 2.2m wide footpath
- Standard concrete path for residential footways
- Pram ramps at cross streets 125m apart on average
- 2200mm wide x 100mm thick, SL82, on 75mm thick DGS20
Sub item 1.10.3 - 2.5m wide shared cycleway/pedestrian footpath
- Standard concrete bicycle / shared path
- Directional line-marking
- 125mm thick reinforced
- Pram ramps at cross streets 125m apart on average
- 2500mm wide x 125mm thick concrete, on 125mm thick DGS20
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
1.10.1
1.10.2
1.10.3
1.2m wide footpath
2.2m wide footpath
2.5m wide shared cycleway/pedestrian footpath
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Bankstown City Council (BCC) footpath drawings
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
1.10.1
1.10.2
1.10.3
1.2m wide footpath
2.2m wide footpath
2.5m wide shared cycleway/pedestrian footpath
m
m
m
$
$
$
226
545
669
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Demolition and upgrade of footpath
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 1.11
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Demolition and removal of old footpath, replaced with new
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Demolish existing 1.2m wide standard concrete residential footpath 80mm thick
unreinforced (1200mm wide x 80mm thick, on 70mm DGS20)
Exclusions:
- Not applicable to this item
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Disposal of up to 500mm of demolished material including haulage of up to 45km and
tipping fees for general solid waste of $60/Tn, inclusive of partial waste levy
- Traffic control allowance based on works performed adjacent to moving traffic (includes
installation, modifications and removal of signage and barriers as well as attendance by
traffic controllers)
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities
- Contaminated materials
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
Minimum quantity:
- 100m
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
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
Sub item 1.11.2 - 2.2m wide footpath
- Replace old footpath with standard concrete path
- Pram ramps at cross streets 125m apart on average
- 2200mm wide x 100mm thick, SL82, on 75mm thick DGS20
Sub item 1.11.3 - 2.5m wide shared cycleway/pedestrian footpath
- Replace old footpath with standard concrete bicycle / shared path
- Directional line-marking
- 125mm thick reinforced
- Pram ramps at cross streets 125m apart on average
- 2500mm wide x 125mm thick concrete, on 125mm thick DGS20
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
1.11.1
1.11.2
1.11.3
1.2m wide footpath
2.2m wide footpath
2.5m wide shared cycleway/pedestrian footpath
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Bankstown City Council (BCC) footpath drawings
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
1.11.1
1.11.2
1.11.3
1.2m wide footpath
2.2m wide footpath
2.5m wide shared cycleway/pedestrian footpath
m
m
m
$
$
$
255
569
690
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Unsignalised intersection
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 1.12
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Unsignalised intersection installations
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Splays
- Kerb returns
- Pram ramp crossings
- Median pedestrian refuges - 1 per each "T" intersection, 4 per each 4 way intersection
- Typical signage
- Tie-in works
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Road construction (separate items - 1.1 - 1.7)
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Traffic control allowance based on works performed adjacent to moving traffic (includes
installation, modifications and removal of signage and barriers as well as attendance by
traffic controllers)
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
1.12.1
1.12.2
"T" intersection
4 way intersection
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Austroads: Guide to Traffic Management, Part 4, 6, 9 & 10
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
1.12.1
1.12.2
"T" intersection
4 way intersection
each
each
$
$
17,708
29,716
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Signalised intersection
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 1.13
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Signalised intersection installations
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Standard traffic signals with standard out reach sufficient to service 2 lanes
- Splays
- Kerb returns
- Pram ramp crossings
- Median pedestrian refuge
- Typical traffic signal configuration including pedestrian crossing to all legs and EZY loops
and typical signage
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Road construction (separate items - 1.1 - 1.7)
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Traffic control allowance based on works performed adjacent to moving traffic (includes
installation, modifications and removal of signage and barriers as well as attendance by
traffic controllers)
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
1.13.1
1.13.2
"T" intersection
4 way intersection
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Austroads: Guide to Traffic management ; Part 4, 6, 9 & 10
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
1.13.1
1.13.2
"T" intersection
4 way intersection
each
each
$ 218,880
$ 260,680
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Roundabout intersection
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 1.14
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Trafficable, 4 leg roundabout with 2 approaching lanes
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- 6m diameter trafficable concrete roundabout
- 3m wide trafficable annulus
- 3m radius centre section with stencil finish
- 4 leg roundabout with 2 approaching lanes
- Splays
- Kerb returns
- Typical signage
- Raised triangular medians
- Also refer to sub item specific information
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Pedestrian refuges
- Also refer to specific sub item information
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
Sub item 1.14.1 - Roundabout only in brownfield with live traffic conditions
- Traffic control allowance based on works performed adjacent to moving traffic (includes
installation, modifications and removal of signage and barriers as well as attendance by
traffic controllers)
- Excluded: Road construction excluded (separate items - 1.1 - 1.7)
Sub item 1.14.2 - Roundabout only in greenfield with no traffic
- Excluded: Road construction excluded (separate items - 1.1 - 1.7)
Sub item 1.14.3 - Roundabout intersection and pavement in greenfield with no traffic
- Pavement construction for two lanes surrounding roundabout
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Austroads: Guide to Traffic Management, Part 4, 6, 9 & 10
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
1.14.1
Roundabout only in brownfield with live traffic
conditions
each
$ 100,069
1.14.2
Roundabout only in greenfield with no traffic
each
$
1.14.3
Roundabout intersection and pavement in greenfield each
with no traffic
34,316
$ 330,412
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Pedestrian crossing
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 1.15
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Pedestrian crossing spanning 2 lanes (6.5m) including pedestrian refuge
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Pedestrian laybacks
- Surface markings applied at grade
- Signage
- Pedestrian refuge
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Flat top road hump (separate item - 1.9.1)
Note: used in conjunction for elevated crossings
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Preparations to existing road surface to receive markings
- Traffic control allowance based on works performed adjacent to moving traffic (includes
installation, modifications and removal of signage and barriers as well as attendance by
traffic controllers)
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Not applicable for this item
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
N/A
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Item
Unit
$/unit
1.15
Pedestrian crossing
each
$
5,490
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Bus stop
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 1.16
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Bus stop including enclosure, seating and signage
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- 4.5m x 1.8m covered shed (includes disabled passenger space allocation), open side
access and concrete slab / foundations
- 2 aluminium seats with seat height of 500mm (approximately)
- Short (<3m) connection to exiting footpath
- Non slip surface at boarding point (textured concrete)
- Tactile ground surface indicators (TGSIs)
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Lighting (separate item 1.17)
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Bus lane / bus bay construction
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal excavation with material retained on-site
- Minor traffic control allowance within immediate proximity of work area (includes
installation and removal of signage and barriers)
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
- Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 (Amended 2010)
- Australian Human Rights Commission Accessible Bus Stops Guidelines 2010
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Item
Unit
$/unit
1.16
Bus stop shelter
each
$
17,515
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Street lighting
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 1.17
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Street light including post with impact base and 4.5m outreach
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- 42W compact fluorescent luminaires
- Cable pits
- Concrete plinth
- Control cabinet
- Cabling for connection to underground power supply (<5m)
- Conduits, 4 x 80mm diameter and cabling for 50m
Exclusions:
- Not applicable for this item
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal excavation with material retained on-site
- Minor traffic control allowance within immediate proximity of work area (includes
installation and removal of signage and barriers)
- Installation works (coordinated with new footpath/road construction ie, no allowance for
retrospective installations)
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
1.17.1
1.17.2
10.5m high, 42W CFL luminaire
12m high, 42W CFL luminaire
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
AS 1158 - Lighting for roads and public spaces
Austroads Guides
Road and Maritime Services - design guides
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
1.17.1
10.5m high, 42W CFL luminaire
each
$
10,062
1.17.2
12m high 42W CFL luminaire
each
$
15,367
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
On road cycleway
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 1.18
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Single lane, on road cycleway, including surface treatment and signage
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Surface markings spanning 2.2m width applied at grade
- Basic signage
- Concrete kerb, 300mm (sub item 1.18.2 only)
Exclusions:
- Not applicable for this item
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Preparations to existing road surface to receive markings/kerbing
- Traffic control allowance based on works performed adjacent to moving traffic (includes
installation, modifications and removal of signage and barriers as well as attendance by
traffic controllers)
- Installation works (accommodated by existing road/footpaths width)
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Not applicable for this item
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
1.18.1
1.18.2
Without kerb separation
With kerb separation
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
N/A
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
1.18.1
Without kerb separation
m
$
234
1.18.2
With kerb separation
m
$
450
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Pedestrian overpass
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 1.19
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Pedestrian/cycle overpass with anti-throw screens and covered walkway
(iv) [BASIS OF COST]
Scope of infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Reinforced concrete works to bridge substructure
- Non-slip surface on staircase
- Balustrades to stairs and bridge
- Anti-throw screens
- Anti graffiti paint protection
- Lighting
- Basic steel framed roof structure including metal roof covering
- Roof drainage
- Configuration based on a pedestrian/ cycleway overpass 28m long
- Also refer to specific sub item information
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Architectural embellishment
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on site
- Off-site fabrication of the bridge element
- Constructed over an operating road
- Minor traffic control allowance within immediate proximity of work area (includes
installation and removal of signage and barriers)
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities
- Inefficient ramp configuration due to insufficient space
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
Sub item 1.19.1 - Pedestrian bridge
- 3m wide steel girder pedestrian overpass with covered roofing to bridge section
- Stair access
Sub item 1.19.1 - Cycle overbridge
- 3m wide concrete girder cycleway overpass without covered roofing
- Ramp access
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
1.19.1
1.19.2
Pedestrian bridge
Cycle overbridge
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
N/A
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
1.19.1
1.19.2
Pedestrian bridge
Cycle overbridge
m
m
$
$
30,318
31,973
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Pedestrian underpass
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 1.20
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Pedestrian underpass under rail line
(iv) [BASIS OF COST]
Scope of infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Pedestrian tunnel under rail line
- 3.5m x 2.5m high jacked box culvert unit construction with 4500mm diameter steel canopy
tube tunnelling method including fibre glass dowel stabilisation
- Tunnel wing walls and apron slab at the portal
- Concrete retaining walls to portals entry
- 160mm thick reinforced concrete base slab for tunnel walkway
- Conduits for services
- Anti-graffiti paint protection
- Spoon drain to one side of the walkway
- 300mm diameter jacked stormwater drain including pits
- Kerbs and gutters to entry/exit
- Ramp access (approximately 10m)
- Vandal-proof lighting
Exclusions:
- Not applicable for this item
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Excavation and tunnelling, including haulage of upto 45km and tipping fees for general
solid waste of $60/Tn, inclusive of partial waste levy
- Survey including monitoring of the rail tracks during construction
- Workload site protection (rail corridor)
- Investigation of existing services including site preparation
- Geotechnical investigation
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities
- Payment of full waste levy for general solid waste or restricted special waste
- Diversion of combined services route within rail corridor
- Encountering rock
Minimum quantity:
- 35m
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
N/A
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Item
Unit
$/unit
1.20
Pedestrian underpass
m
$ 152,880
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Road pavement resurfacing
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 1.21
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Milling and filling of road pavement
(iv) [BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Mill and dispose of 50mm of asphalt surface including haulage (45km), tipping fees and
EPA levy
- Fill 50mm of dense grade asphaltic concrete
- Reinstatement of line-marking
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Structural repairs/patching to pavement
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Milling of asphalt
- Placement of asphaltic concrete
- Minor traffic control allowance for construction vehicles/pedestrian and around tie-in point
with trafficked road (includes installation and removal of signage and barriers)
- Daytime works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities
- All or part of works to be completed at night
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Roads and Maritime Services - QA Specification R116
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Item
Unit
$/unit
1.21
Road pavement resurfacing
m2
$
97
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Cycleway facilities - bicycle racks
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 1.22
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Bicycle racks consisting of stainless steel bicycle rails fitting 1-2 bicycles per rail
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Stainless steel rails (1 or 2 bicycles secured per rail)
- Concrete base including steel base plate
Exclusions:
- Not applicable for this item
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on-site
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Not applicable for this item
Minimum quantity:
- 5 rails
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate (supplemented with market quotation)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Complies with AS2890.3 Guidelines
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Item
1.22 Cycleway facilities - bicycle racks
Unit
$/unit
each
$
1,121
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Primary pollution treatment
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 2.1
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Primary pollution devices including proprietary devices
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Refer to specific sub item information
Exclusions:
- Not applicable for this item
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Excavation and backfilling but excluding reinstatement of any hard surfacing
- Imported stabilised fill material
- Installation works
- Connection into network
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Removal of excess spoil
- Waste levy allowances
- Excavated material other than VENM
- Encountering rock
- Dewatering
- Stockpile location located further than 500m from site
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
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 on 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
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.6
2.1.7
2.1.8
2.1.9
Proprietary GPT system - design flow 20l/s
Proprietary GPT system - design flow 85l/s
Proprietary GPT system - design flow 200l/s
Proprietary GPT system - design flow 370l/s
Prefabricated pit including internal trash rack
Trash rack/ trap (Pre-fabricated steel)
Trash net to suit 375mm pipe
Trash net to suit 750mm pipe
Trash net to suit 1500mm pipe
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate (supplemented with market quotation)
(vii)
[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)
- WSUD Technical Guidelines for Western Sydney (URS, 2004)
- 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)
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.6
2.1.7
2.1.8
2.1.9
Proprietary GPT system - design flow 20l/s
Proprietary GPT system - design flow 85l/s
Proprietary GPT system - design flow 200l/s
Proprietary GPT system - design flow 370l/s
Prefabricated pit including internal trash rack
Trash rack/ trap (Pre-fabricated steel)
Trash net to suit 375mm pipe
Trash net to suit 750mm pipe
Trash net to suit 1500mm pipe
Unit
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
$/unit
$ 47,120
$ 66,880
$ 97,280
$ 118,560
$ 47,120
$ 10,184
$ 10,640
$ 12,160
$ 19,760
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Secondary/tertiary pollution treatment
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 2.2
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Secondary and tertiary pollution devices
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Refer to specific sub item information
Exclusions:
- Refer to specific sub item information
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Excavation and backfilling but excluding reinstatement of any hard surfacing
- Imported stabilised fill material
- Installation works
- Connection into network
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Removal of excess spoil
- Waste levy allowances
- Excavated material other than VENM
- Encountering rock
- Dewatering
- Stockpile location located further than 500m from site
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
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)
- Planting (of grass and/or small native plants)
- Transition filter (100mm to 200m depending on size), gravel, geo-fabric liner in central
channel
- Overall depth of excavation: 1.5m swale = 0.5m deep, 3.0m swale = 1.2m deep and 5.0m
swale = 2.0m deep
- Excluded: subsoil drain
Sub item 2.2.4 - Bio retention trench
- Bio retention trench 3 m wide (W) by 1 m nominal depth (H)
- Geo-fabric liner
- Underdrainage pipe (100 mm diameter)
- Gravel drainage layer
- Filter media
- Sand
- Topsoil and vegetation cover
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate (supplemented with market quotation)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
- Australian Runoff Quality: A Guide to Runoff Quality (Engineers Australia, 2007)
Grassed swale 1.5m total width
Grassed swale 3.0m total width
Grassed swale 5.0m total width
Bio retention trench
- Urban Stormwater - Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines. Prepared for
the Victorian Stormwater Committee (CSIRO, 1999)
- Stormwater Treatment Framework and Stormwater Quality Improvement Device
Guidelines, Adopted by Port Macquarie Council on 1 September 2003 (WBM, 2003)
- WSUD Technical Guidelines for Western Sydney (URS, 2004)
- 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)
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
2.2.1
Grassed swale 1.5m total width
m
$
274
2.2.2
Grassed swale 3.0m total width
m
$
684
2.2.3
Grassed swale 5.0m total width
m
$
988
2.2.4
Bio retention trench
m
$
821
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Precast concrete box culverts
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 2.3
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Precast concrete box culverts, single and twin cell
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Precast concrete box culverts for road crossings and detention/retention basin outlet
structures
- Refer to specific sub item information
Exclusions:
- Not applicable for this item
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Excavation and backfilling but excluding reinstatement of any hard surfacing
- Excavation to total depth of culvert plus additional 100mm for bedding material
- Imported stabilised fill material
- Installation works
- Bedding, laying and jointing
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Removal of excess spoil
- Waste levy allowances
- Excavated material other than VENM
- Encountering rock
- Dewatering
- Stockpile location located further than 500m from site
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
2.3.6
2.3.7
2.3.8
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate (supplemented with market quotation)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
- AUS-SPEC NSW Development Design Specification D5 Stormwater Drainage Design
- AS1597 ‘Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Culverts’
- Camden Council Engineering Design Specification (adopted 10 February 2009)
(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST]
Single Cell; size 300 x 225mm
Single Cell; size 600 x 450 mm
Single Cell; size 1500 x 600 mm
Single Cell; size 2100 x 2100 mm
Twin Cell; size 300 x 225mm
Twin Cell; size 600 x 450 mm
Twin Cell; size 1500 x 600 mm
Twin Cell; size 2100 x 2100 mm
#
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
2.3.6
2.3.7
2.3.8
Single Cell; size 300 x 225mm
Single Cell; size 600 x 450 mm
Single Cell; size 1500 x 600 mm
Single Cell; size 2100 x 2100 mm
Twin Cell; size 300 x 225mm
Twin Cell; size 600 x 450 mm
Twin Cell; size 1500 x 600 mm
Twin Cell; size 2100 x 2100 mm
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
395
745
1,778
3,314
638
1,158
2,766
5,259
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Concrete channels
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 2.4
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Concrete lined open channels
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Cast in-situ base slab
- 1.1m wide x 200mm thick x 300mm deep reinforced concrete channel including subgrade
preparation
Exclusions:
- Not applicable for this item
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Excavation and backfilling but excluding reinstatement of any hard surfacing
- Imported stabilised fill material
- Installation works
- Bedding, laying and jointing
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Removal of excess spoil
- Waste levy allowances
- Excavated material other than VENM
- Encountering rock
- Dewatering
- Stockpile location located further than 500m from site
Minimum quantity:
- 15m
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate (supplemented with market quotation)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
- AUS-SPEC NSW Development Design Specification D5 Stormwater Drainage Design
- Camden Council Engineering Construction Specification (Feb 2009)
- Camden Council Engineering Design Specification (Feb 2009)
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Item
2.4 Concrete channel
Unit
$/unit
m
$
289
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Stormwater drain/pits
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 2.5
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Precast reinforced concrete gully pit including heavy duty grates
(iv) [BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Precast gully pits type SA1 (trafficable)
- 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
- Bedding materials
- Type 1 backfill material
- Galvanised frame
- Heavy duty grates
Exclusions:
- Not applicable for this item
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Excavation (minimal) and backfilling (minimal) but excluding reinstatement of any hard
surfacing
- Imported stabilised fill material
- Installation works
- Connection into network
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Removal of excess spoil
- Waste levy allowances
- Excavated material other than VENM
- Encountering rock
- Dewatering
- Stockpile location located further than 500m from site
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
2.5.1
2.5.2
2.5.3
2.5.4
2.5.5
2.5.6
Precast pit to suit 375mm pipe
Precast pit to suit 450mm pipe
Precast pit to suit 600mm pipe
Precast pit to suit 900mm pipe
Precast pit to suit 1050mm pipe
Precast pit to suit 1200mm pipe
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate (supplemented with market quotation)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
- AUS-SPEC NSW Development Design Specification D5 Stormwater Drainage Design
- Camden Council Engineering Construction Specification (Feb 2009)
- Camden Council Engineering Design Specification (Feb 2009)
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Unit
2.5.1
Precast pit to suit 375mm pipe
each
$/unit
$
3,846
2.5.2
Precast pit to suit 450mm pipe
each
$
4,134
2.5.3
Precast pit to suit 600mm pipe
each
$
4,712
2.5.4
Precast pit to suit 900mm pipe
each
$
6,080
2.5.5
Precast pit to suit 1050mm pipe
each
$
6,232
2.5.6
Precast pit to suit 1200mm pipe
each
$
6,992
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Stormwater drainage pipework
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 2.6
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Reinforced concrete pipes
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) Class 2
- Bedding materials
- Type 1 backfill material
- 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
Exclusions:
- Not applicable for this item
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Excavation and backfilling but excluding reinstatement of any hard surfacing
- Imported stabilised fill material
- Installation works
- Connection to pits
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Removal of excess spoil
- Waste levy allowances
- Excavated material other than VENM
- Encountering rock
- Dewatering
- Stockpile location located further than 500m from site
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUBITEMS]
2.6.1
2.6.2
2.6.3
2.6.4
2.6.5
2.6.6
2.6.7
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate (supplemented with market quotation)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
- AUS-SPEC NSW Development Design Specification D5 Stormwater Drainage Design
- AS 4058 'Precast Reinforced Concrete Pipes'
- AS 3725 ‘Loads on Buried Concrete Pipes’
- Camden Council Engineering Construction Specification (Feb 2009)
- Camden Council Engineering Design Specification (Feb 2009)
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
375mm RCP
450mm RCP
600mm RCP
750mm RCP
900mm RCP
1350mm RCP
1500mm RCP
#
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
2.6.1
2.6.2
2.6.3
2.6.4
2.6.5
2.6.6
2.6.7
375mm RCP
450mm RCP
600mm RCP
750mm RCP
900mm RCP
1350mm RCP
1500mm RCP
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
296
365
486
745
973
1,414
2,021
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Stormwater headwalls
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 2.7
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Precast concrete headwalls
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Precast stormwater headwalls
- Erosion protection at headwall outlet (extra over - sub item 2.7.7)
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Access ramps (separate item - 3a.8)
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Excavation works (refer to specific sub items)
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Removal of excess spoil
- Waste levy allowances
- Excavated material other than VENM
- Encountering rock
- Dewatering
- Stockpile location located further than 500m from site
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
Sub item 2.7.1 to 2.7.6 - Headwalls
- Excavation (minimal) and backfilling (minimal) but excluding reinstatement of any hard
surfacing
- Imported stabilised fill material
- Connection into network
Sub item 2.7.7 - Erosion control
- Excavation and profiling (area 20m2)
- Geofabric layer
- Stone fill 200mm thick
- Topsoil and grass seeding to sides of area
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
2.7.1
2.7.2
2.7.3
2.7.4
2.7.5
2.7.6
2.7.7
Headwalls to suit 375mm pipe
Headwalls to suit 525mm pipe
Headwalls to suit 750mm pipe
Headwalls to suit 900mm pipe
Headwalls to suit 1200mm pipe
Headwalls to suit 1350mm pipe
Extra over for erosion control
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate (supplemented with market quotation)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
- AUS-SPEC NSW Development Design Specification D5 Stormwater Drainage Design
- Camden Council Engineering Construction Specification (Feb 2009)
- Camden Council Engineering Design Specification (Feb 2009)
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
2.7.1
2.7.2
2.7.3
2.7.4
2.7.5
2.7.6
2.7.7
Headwalls to suit 375mm pipe
Headwalls to suit 525mm pipe
Headwalls to suit 750mm pipe
Headwalls to suit 900mm pipe
Headwalls to suit 1200mm pipe
Headwalls to suit 1350mm pipe
Extra over for erosion control
each
each
each
each
each
each
m2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
4,446
4,476
6,080
6,513
15,200
17,085
223
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Demolition
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.1 (L)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Demolition, removal and disposal of existing structures
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Not applicable for this item
Exclusions:
- Not applicable for this item
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Demolition of up to 200mm thick slabs
- Demolition of concrete/masonry structure including foundations, sealing off services and
removing all debris from site
- Sealing off of existing services
- Clearance works by heavy machinery
- Disposal of all debris including haulage of up to 45km and tipping fees for general solid
waste of $60/Tn, inclusive of partial waste levy.
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Relocation or diversion of existing utilities
- Payment of full waste levy for general solid waste or restricted special waste
- Road/ footpath closures and detours
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
3.1.1 (L)
3.1.2 (L)
3.1.3 (L)
3.1.4 (L)
3.1.5 (L)
3.1.6 (L)
3.1.7 (L)
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate and reference pricing (hybrid approach)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Building Code of Australia
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
Demolition; reinforced concrete slabs
Demolition; unreinforced concrete slabs
Demolition; bitumen paving including base course
Demolition; concrete/masonry structure
Demolition; light structure
Demolition; double storey light structure
Demolition; double storey concrete/masonry structure
#
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
3.1.1 (L)
3.1.2 (L)
3.1.3 (L)
3.1.4 (L)
3.1.5 (L)
3.1.6 (L)
3.1.7 (L)
Demolition; reinforced concrete slabs
Demolition; unreinforced concrete slabs
Demolition; bitumen paving including base course
Demolition; concrete/masonry structure
Demolition; light
Demolition; double storey light structure
Demolition; double storey concrete/masonry structure
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
93
83
83
361
267
361
514
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Site clearance
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.2 (L)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Clearance of vegetation and removal of trees including tree stumps and roots and
stockpiling topsoil
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Not applicable for this item
Exclusions:
- Not applicable for this item
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Top 150mm of vegetation and topsoil stripped back and stockpiled on site
- Removal of trees, maximum girth of 500mm, including mulching of tree stumps and roots
with mulching retained on-site
- Clearance works by heavy machinery
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Relocation or diversion of existing utilities
- Services protection
- Contaminated material
- Road/footpath closures and detours
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
3.2.1 (L)
3.2.2 (L)
Clearance of vegetation
Tree removal
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
N/A
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
3.2.1 (L)
Unit
2
Clearance of vegetation
m
Sub item
Unit
Tree removal
each
#
3.2.2 (L)
<50m2
$/unit
$
1 no
$/unit
$
Unit
5.16 m2
Unit
231 each
>50m2
$/unit
$
3.81
=>10 no
$/unit
$
208
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Soft surfaces - turfing
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.3 (L)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Rolled turf on sand bed with irrigation
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Rolled buffalo turf or hydroseeding on 200mm-400mm sand bed
- Water supply piping and tap connections for irrigation
- Hose and portable sprinkler accessories
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- 6 months maintenance
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal 500mm cut/fill balance
- Re-use of topsoil from local stockpile
- Water supply piping maximum run of 50m
- Initial fertilisation
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Contaminated materials
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
3.3.1 (L)
3.3.2 (L)
Rolled turf; buffalo
Hydro seeding
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate (supplemented with market quotation)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Landcom: Open Space Design Guidelines (2008)
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
3.3.1 (L)
3.3.2 (L)
Rolled turf; buffalo
Hydro seeding
m2
m2
$
$
82
34
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Soft surfaces - synthetic playing surfaces / artificial grass
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.4 (L)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Soft surfacing with foundation layers and drainage
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Plexiflor/plexipave or equivalent / synthetic sports grass/rebound concrete
- Foundation layers (100mm subbase; 200mm sand)
- Precast concrete drainage pit and upvc drainage pipework
- Notional installation area of 400m2
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Fencing (separate items - 3.16 (L) & 3.17 (L))
- Security lighting (separate item - 3.22 (L))
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Line-markings and patterns
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal 500mm cut/fill balance
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Contaminated materials
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
2
- 100m
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
3.4.1 (L)
3.4.2 (L)
3.4.3 (L)
Rubber surface; plexiflor/plexipave equivalent
Synthetic sports grass surface
Rebound concrete surface
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate & reference pricing (hybrid approach)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Sub item 3.4.2 (L) - Synthetic sports grass surface
AFL/Cricket Australia Synthetic Turf program
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
3.4.1 (L)
Rubber surface; plexiflor/plexipave equivalent
m2
$
75
m
2
$
103
m
2
$
249
3.4.2 (L)
Synthetic sports grass surface
3.4.3 (L)
Rebound concrete surface
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Soft surfaces - softfall under play equipment
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.5 (L)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Softfall under play equipment with foundation layers and drainage
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- EPDM softfall, coloured rubber approximately 65mm depth with rubber top coat
- 200mm loose fill material
- Basic drainage
- Timber edge treatment
2
- Notional installation area of 400m
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Fencing (separate item - 3.16 (L))
- Play equipment (separate item - 3.9 (L))
- Security lighting (separate item - 3.22 (L))
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Line-markings
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal 500mm cut/fill balance
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Contaminated materials
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
2
- 100m
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
3.5.1 (L)
3.5.2 (L)
Single colour; no pattern
Multiple colours; patterned
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate (supplemented with market quotation)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Australian Standard AS/NZS4422-1996: Playground Surfacing
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
3.5.1 (L)
Single colour; no pattern
m2
$
246
3.5.2 (L)
Multiple colours; patterned
m2
$
292
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Hard surfaces
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.6 (L)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Hard surfacing with foundation layers and drainage
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Foundation layers
- upvc drainage pipework
- Pavers laid to pattern
- Basic line marking for asphalt surfaces
- Grind and seal finish of concrete surfaces
- Non-slip sealer for external polished concrete surfaces
- Paver sizes:
- Precast concrete paver slabs 450x450x50mm
- Sandstone paver slab 400x400x40mm
- Brick paver 200x150x50mm
- Bitumen asphalt
- Polished finished concrete including surface hardeners and sealing
Exclusions:
- Not applicable for this item
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal 500mm cut/fill balance
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Contaminated materials
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
3.6.1 (L)
3.6.2 (L)
3.6.3 (L)
3.6.4 (L)
3.6.5 (L)
3.6.6 (L)
Asphalt; pedestrian access only
Asphalt; shared pedestrian / vehicular access
Paving; precast concrete
Paving; sandstone
Paving; brick
Polished concrete
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate and reference pricing (hybrid approach)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
N/A
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Unit
3.6.1 (L)
Asphalt; pedestrian access only
m
3.6.2 (L)
Asphalt; shared pedestrian / vehicular access
m
3.6.3 (L)
Paving; precast concrete
m
3.6.4 (L)
Paving; sandstone
3.6.5 (L)
Paving; brick
3.6.6 (L)
Polished concrete
m
m
m
$/unit
2
$
195
2
$
205
2
$
198
2
$
206
2
$
162
2
$
88
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Concrete pathways
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.7 (L)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTIONConcrete pathways
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Refer to Transport section for Concrete Footpaths
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY] First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST] #
N/A
3.7 (L)
Item
Concrete pathways
Unit
$/unit
Refer to item 1.10 New
footpath adjacent to
traffic lane
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Steps/ramping
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.8 (L)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Concrete stairs/ramping, 1m wide
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- 1m wide insitu concrete stairs 300mm thick with mesh reinforcement formed to natural
contours of ground
- 150 riser and 300mm tread
- 200mm thick 1m wide concrete ramp on 300mm subbase in ground
- Ramps at 1:14 grade
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Handrail/balustrade (assumed steps/ramp follows natural ground contour)
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal 500mm cut/fill balance
- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on site
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Contaminated materials
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
3.8.1 (L)
3.8.2 (L)
Steps
Ramping
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
N/A
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
3.8.1 (L)
3.8.2 (L)
Steps
Ramping
m rise
m rise
$
$
2,708
313
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Play equipment installation
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.9 (L)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Installation only of play equipment for children of a mixed age
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Concrete foundations
- Supply of plant and labour for equipment install
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Soft surfacing and associated site preparation (separate item - 3.5 (L))
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on-site
- Installation works (for varying Prime Cost (PC) Sums of playground equipment)
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Not applicable for this item
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
3.9.1 (L)
3.9.2 (L)
3.9.3 (L)
Installation of playset equipment with a PC Sum value of up to $10,000
Installation of playset equipment with a PC Sum value of up to $15,000
Installation of playset equipment with a PC Sum value of up to $20,000
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate (supplemented with market quotation)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Australian Standard AS4685-2004: Playground Equipment
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
3.9.1 (L)
Installation of playset equipment with a PC Sum
value of up to $10,000
each
$
4,716
3.9.2 (L)
Installation of playset equipment with a PC Sum
value of up to $15,000
each
$
6,200
3.9.3 (L)
Installation of playset equipment with a PC Sum
value of up to $20,000
each
$
7,729
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Park furniture - seating
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.10 (L)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Aluminium framed park bench
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Aluminium park seating 2000-3000mm wide
- Concrete base
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the draft essential infrastructure list):
- Arm rests
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on-site
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Not applicable for this item
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
3.10.1 (L)
3.10.2 (L)
3.10.3 (L)
3.10.4 (L)
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate (supplemented with market quotation)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Landcom: Open Space Design Guidelines (2008)
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
Aluminium frame; aluminium slats; back support
Aluminium frame; aluminium slats; no back support
Aluminium frame; timber slats; back support
Aluminium frame; timber slats; no back support
#
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
3.10.1 (L)
3.10.2 (L)
3.10.3 (L)
3.10.4 (L)
Aluminium frame; aluminium slats; back support
Aluminium frame; aluminium slats; no back support
Aluminium frame; timber slats; back support
Aluminium frame; timber slats; no back support
each
each
each
each
$
$
$
$
3,844
3,594
3,066
2,866
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Park furniture - picnic sets
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.11 (L)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Fixed picnic set, including one table and two benches
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Steel frame picnic set
- Concrete base
- Extra over provided for shade covering
Exclusions:
- Not applicable for this item
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on site
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Not applicable for this item
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
3.11.1 (L)
3.11.2 (L)
3.11.3 (L)
3.11.4 (L)
3.11.5 (L)
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate (supplemented with market quotation)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
N/A
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
Fixed table; timber slats; back supported seats
Fixed table; timber slats; no back supports
Fixed table; aluminium slats; back supported seats
Fixed table; aluminium slats; no back supports
Extra over for shade covering
#
Sub item
Unit
3.11.1 (L)
3.11.2 (L)
3.11.3 (L)
3.11.4 (L)
3.11.5 (L)
Fixed table; timber slats; back supported seats
Fixed table; timber slats; no back supports
Fixed table; aluminium slats; back supported seats
Fixed table; aluminium slats; no back supports
Extra over for shade covering
each
each
each
each
each
$/unit
$
$
$
$
$
4,691
4,507
5,125
4,969
5,017
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Park furniture - bins
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.12 (L)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Bin enclosure/bin post
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Secure stainless steel bin enclosure (items 3.12.1 (L) and 3.12.2 (L))
- Enclosure suited to 240 litre bin (items 3.12.1 (L) and 3.12.2 (L))
- Galvanised steel bin post (item 3.12.3 (L))
- Concrete base
Exclusions:
- Not applicable for this item
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on-site
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Not applicable for this item
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
3.12.1 (L) Steel bin enclosure; single
3.12.2 (L) Steel bin enclosure; double
3.12.3 (L) Steel bin post
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate (supplemented with market quotation)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
N/A
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
Unit
$/unit
3.12.1 (L) Steel bin enclosure; single
#
Sub item
each
$
3,712
3.12.2 (L) Steel bin enclosure; double
each
$
5,777
3.12.3 (L) Steel bin post
each
$
883
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Park furniture - BBQs
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.13 (L)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTIONElectric cooker BBQ with surrounds/bench top
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Basic electric cooker BBQ
- Stainless steel surrounds/bench top
- Concrete base
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Sink units
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on-site
- Electrical connection (20m run)
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Not applicable for this item
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
3.13.1 (L)
3.13.2 (L)
3.13.3 (L)
3.13.4 (L)
3.13.5 (L)
3.13.6 (L)
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY] First principles estimate (supplemented with market quotation)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST] #
Single plate; covered
Single plate; uncovered
Double plate; covered
Double plate; uncovered
Four plate; covered
Four plate; uncovered
N/A
3.13.1 (L)
3.13.2 (L)
3.13.3 (L)
3.13.4 (L)
3.13.5 (L)
3.13.6 (L)
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
Single plate; covered
Single plate; uncovered
Double plate; covered
Double plate; uncovered
Four plate; covered
Four plate; uncovered
each
each
each
each
each
each
$
$
$
$
$
$
12,781
8,914
15,705
11,658
23,737
17,162
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Park furniture - drinking fountains
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.14 (L)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Stainless steel drinking fountain(s)
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Stainless steel drinking fountain
- Concrete base
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Drainage dish / connections (assumed soak away)
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on-site
- Connections to existing water main (20m run)
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Not applicable for this item
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
3.14.1 (L) Single unit
3.14.2 (L) Double unit
3.14.3 (L) Quad unit
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate (supplemented with market quotation)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
N/A
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
3.14.1 (L) Single unit
3.14.2 (L) Double unit
3.14.3 (L) Quad unit
Unit
$/unit
each
each
each
$
$
$
7,136
8,205
9,960
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Park furniture - taps
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.15 (L)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Water tap unit with removable head
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Water tap with removable head
- Concrete base
Exclusions:
- Not applicable for this item
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on-site
- Connections to existing water main (20m run)
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Not applicable for this item
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate and reference pricing (hybrid approach)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
N/A
(viii)
[VALUES TABLE]
#
Item
Unit
$/unit
3.15 (L)
Park furniture - taps
each
$
3,582
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Fencing - playground
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.16 (L)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Playground fencing and access gates including foundations
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Fencing consisting of vertical steel posts, top and bottom rail, mesh and powder-coated,
steel galvanised finish
- Extra over for gate access
- Concrete footings
- Vandal resistant coating
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Motorised/ electrical gate access
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on-site
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Not applicable for this item
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
3.16.1 (L)
3.16.2 (L)
3.16.3 (L)
3.16.4 (L)
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate (supplemented with market quotation)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
N/A
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Steel posts and mesh: height 950mm
Extra over mesh access gate; single
Steel tubular: height 950mm
Extra over steel access gate; single
Unit
$/unit
3.16.1 (L) Steel posts and mesh: height 950mm
Sub item
m
$
294
3.16.2 (L) Extra over mesh access gate; single
each
$
476
3.16.3 (L) Steel tubular: height 950mm
m
$
391
3.16.4 (L) Extra over steel access gate; single
each
$
1,368
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Perimeter fencing
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.17 (L)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Perimeter fencing (fronting a road) and access gates including foundations
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Fencing consisting of vertical steel posts, top and bottom rail, mesh and powder-coated,
steel galvanised finish
- Extra over for gate access
- Concrete footings
- Vandal resistant coating
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Motorised/ electrical gate access
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on-site
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Not applicable for this item
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
3.17.1 (L)
3.17.2 (L)
3.17.3 (L)
3.17.4 (L)
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate (supplemented with market quotation)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
N/A
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
Steel posts and mesh; height 1.2m
Extra over mesh access gate; single
Steel tubular; height 1.2m
Extra over steel access gate; single
#
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
3.17.1 (L)
3.17.2 (L)
3.17.3 (L)
3.17.4 (L)
Steel posts and mesh: height 1.2m
Extra over mesh access gate; single
Steel tubular: height 1.2m
Extra over steel gate; single
m
each
m
each
$
$
$
$
369
860
459
1,635
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Shade structures
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.18 (L)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Free standing shade structure including shade cloth
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Standalone shade structure, galvanised steel, powder-coated posts with stainless steel
fixings
- Concrete foundations
2
- Stitched shade sail with hipped roof based on 100m total cover
Exclusions:
- Not applicable for this item
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on site
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Not applicable for this item
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate (supplemented with market quotation)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
N/A
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Item
Unit
3.18 (L)
Shade Structure
m
2
$/unit
$
224
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Basic landscaping
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.19 (L)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Native trees and shrubs including mulching and edging
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Native sapling plant, semi mature trees, mature trees and shrubs
- Imported topsoil
- Mulching allows to cut and mulch trees (semi mature)
- Insitu concrete edging, 300mm
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Planter box (separate item - 3.20 (L))
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Drainage system
- Tree guard
- Pine bark chips
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal 500mm cut/fill balance
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Contaminated materials
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
3.19.1 (L)
3.19.2 (L)
3.19.3 (L)
3.19.4 (L)
3.19.5 (L)
3.19.6 (L)
Planting; sapling
Planting; semi mature tree (45ltr)
Planting; mature tree (100ltr)
Planting; shrubs
Mulching
Edging
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate & reference pricing (hybrid approach)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
N/A
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Unit
3.19.1 (L)
3.19.2 (L)
3.19.3 (L)
3.19.4 (L)
3.19.5 (L)
3.19.6 (L)
Planting; sapling
Planting; semi mature tree (45ltr)
Planting; mature tree (100ltr)
Planting; shrubs
Mulching
Edging
each
each
each
each
Per tree
m
$/unit
$
$
$
$
$
$
32
180
301
27
452
45
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Planter boxes
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.20 (L)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Planter boxes including waterproof membrane and foundations
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Concrete foundation
- Blockwork construction
- Waterproof membrane
- Concrete drainage channel/ run off only
- Square metre benchmark unit based on wall surface area
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Planting, topsoil (separate item - 3.19 (L))
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Mulch/ pine bark chips
- Rendered/painted finish to masonry
- Drainage works outside of planter box installation to receive run off
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on-site
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Not applicable for this item
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
3.20.1 (L) Masonry construction; less than 500mm high
3.20.2 (L) Masonry construction; exceeding 500mm high
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
N/A
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
3.20.1 (L) Masonry construction; less than 500mm high
Unit
$/unit
m2
$
504
$
391
based on vertical
wall surface area
3.20.2 (L) Masonry construction; exceeding 500mm high
m2
based on vertical
wall surface area
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Amenity block
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.21 (L)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
General amenity block including a combination of toilets, change rooms, canteen and/or
equipment storage
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Single storey structure
- External blockwork walls, minimal internal walls, screens and doors
- Basic floor, wall and ceiling finishes and fitments
- Mechanical, electrical and hydraulic services including typical connections to existing
mains
- Basic external works including paving, site landscaping, fencing and external lighting
2
- Notional facility size 1,000m
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Security/ CCTV installations
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Typical site preparations
- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on-site
- Service connections within 20m of facility
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Contaminated materials
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
- Relocation or diversion of existing utilities
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate and reference pricing (hybrid approach)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
N/A
#
<50m2
Sub item
Unit
Amenity block
m
$/unit
<100m2
Unit
$/unit
(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST]
3.21 (L)
2
$
2,196 m2
$
1,745
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Security lighting
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.22 (L)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Security lighting including light column, luminaire and foundation
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- 5.5m high tapered octagonal hot dipped galvanised steel column
- Column foundations
- Weatherproof lantern
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Feature lighting
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on-site
- Connection into existing power supply within 20m
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Not applicable for this item
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate and reference pricing (hybrid approach)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
N/A
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Item
3.22 (L)
Security lighting
Unit
each
$/unit
$
3,146
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Waterproofing to concrete deck
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.23 (L)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Waterproof membrane and screed to falls including drainage outlets and connection
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Two layers damp proof membrane (bitumous felt)
- Screed to falls (1:50)
2
- Drainage outlets (every 20m )
- PVC drainage pipe
Exclusions:
- Not applicable for this item
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Surface preparation
- Cored slab penetrations for installation of drainage outlets and PVC drainage pipe
- Connection along underside of slab to existing drainage mains (20m run)
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Not applicable for this item
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate and reference pricing (hybrid approach)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
AS/NZS 2904: 1995
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Item
Unit
$/unit
3.23 (L)
Waterproofing
m2
$
153
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Sportsfields and irrigation
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.1 (D)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Sportsfield including turfing, markings and posts as required
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Basic drainage
- Water supply piping and tap connections for irrigation
- Also refer to specific sub item information
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Perimeter fencing (separate item - 3.17 (L))
- Floodlighting (separate item - 3.2 (D))
- Amenity block (separate item - 3.21 (L))
- Car parking (separate item - 4.5)
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Spectator seating
- Sprinklers
- Equipment storage
- Practice nets (cricket)
- Turf maintenance
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Site levelling (cut/fill neutral)
- Stockpiling and spreading of recycled topsoil
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities
- Contaminated materials
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
Sub item 3.1.1 (D) - Soccer field
- Field size of approximately 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
- Soccer posts
Sub item 3.1.2 (D) - Rugby League / Union field
- Field size of approximately 7,000m2 including perimeter circulation (1 no 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 3.1.3 (D) - Cricket pitch and field
- Overall field size (satisfies AFL requirements):
- Diameter (A) = 130m + 20m perimeter circulation
- Diameter (B) = 150m + 20m perimeter circulation
- Area = Pi * A * B
- Area = 20,000m2
- Cricket pitch size:
- 30m x 12m wide
- Pitch surface:
- Synthetic turf laid on concrete base
- Includes permanent line markings
- Outfield consists of seeded grass on sand bed (100mm), on drainage blanket (crushed
aggregate 100mm)
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
3.1.1 (D)
3.1.2 (D)
3.1.3 (D)
Soccer field
Rugby League / Union field
Cricket pitch and field
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate and reference pricing (hybrid approach)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
NSW Cricket Association - Recommended Approach to Management of Turf Cricket
Pitches and Outfield
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Unit
3.1.1 (D)
Soccer field
m
3.1.2 (D)
Rugby League / Union field
m
3.1.3 (D)
Cricket pitch and field
$/unit
2
$
58
2
$
58
2
$
35
m
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Sportsfield floodlighting
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.2 (D)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Sportsfield floodlighting, column mounted
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Columns, luminaries, accessories and wiring from nearby switchboard
- Connection into existing power supply
- Light column foundations
- Poles per court / pitch:
- Medium competition, 4 poles, 16 lights, 115lx
- Tennis: single court, 4 poles, 8 lights, 200lx
- Netball & basketball: 2 poles, 6 lights
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Electrical substation
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Excavation for floodlighting foundations retained on site
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities
- Contaminated materials
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
3.2.1 (D)
3.2.2 (D)
3.2.3 (D)
Floodlighting for football (all codes)
Floodlighting for tennis
Floodlighting for netball and basketball
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate and reference pricing (hybrid approach)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
AS/NZS2560 for sports lighting
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Unit
$/unit
3.2.1 (D)
Floodlighting for football (all codes)
pitch
$ 149,425
3.2.2 (D)
Floodlighting for tennis
court
$
31,275
3.2.3 (D)
Floodlighting for netball and basketball
court
$
62,550
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Tennis court (outdoor)
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.3 (D)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Single court outdoor tennis court, with a rebound concrete surface, including court
markings and net posts
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
2
- Court size of 1,060m , inclusive of 5.48m clearance at back of court, 3.05 clearance at
side of court
- Court markings and removable net posts
- Basic drainage
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Perimeter fencing (separate item - 3.17 (L))
- Floodlighting (separate item - 3.2 (D))
- Amenity block (separate item - 3.21 (L))
- Car parking (separate item - 4.5)
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Spectator seating
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Site levelling (cut/fill neutral)
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base, but allowed for in contingency):
- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities
- Contaminated materials
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate and reference pricing (hybrid approach)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Court size: International Tennis Federation Rules of Tennis, adopted by Tennis Australia
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Item
Unit
$/unit
3.3 (D)
Tennis court (outdoor)
court
$ 112,501
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Netball court (outdoor)
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.4 (D)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Single court outdoor netball court, with concrete surfacing, including court markings and ring
installations
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
2
- Court size of 860m inclusive of 3.65m clearance each side
- Court markings and ring installations
- Basic drainage
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Perimeter fencing (separate item - 3.17 (L))
- Floodlighting (separate item - 3.2 (D))
- Amenity block (separate item - 3.21 (L))
- Car parking (separate item - 4.5)
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Spectator seating
- Equipment storage
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Site levelling (cut/fill neutral)
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities
- Contaminated materials
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate and reference pricing (hybrid approach)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Court size: International Federation of Netball Associations (IFNA) Official Rules, Rules of
Tennis, adopted by Netball Australia
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Item
Unit
$/unit
3b.4
Netball court (outdoor)
court
$
94,270
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Basketball court (outdoor)
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.5 (D)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Single court outdoor basketball court, with concrete surfacing, including court markings and
ring installation
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
2
- Court size of 610m inclusive of 2.00m clearance each side
- Court markings and ring installations
- Basic drainage
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Perimeter fencing (separate item - 3.17 (L))
- Floodlighting (separate item - 3.2 (D))
- Amenity block (separate item - 3.21 (L))
- Car parking (separate item - 4.5)
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Spectator seating
- Equipment storage
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Site levelling (cut/fill neutral)
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities
- Contaminated materials
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate and reference pricing (hybrid approach)
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Basketball Australia 2010 Memo: memo on court markings
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Item
Unit
$/unit
3.5 (D)
Basketball court (outdoor)
court
$
72,163
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Carpark
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 3.6 (D)
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Carpark at grade, open access
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Refer to Item 4.5.1 for carpark at grade
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
-
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Regarding provision of shade: ACT Planning and Land Authority Parking and Vehicular
Access General Code (2013)
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Item
Unit
3.6 (D)
Carpark
Refer to Item 4.5, Car
park
$/unit
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Multi purpose community facility
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 4.1
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Single level multi purpose community facility including services and hard fit out
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Single storey structure
- External envelope, internal walls, screens and doors
- Floor, wall and ceiling finishes and fitments
- Mechanical, electrical and hydraulic services including typical connections to existing
mains
- Basic air conditioning
- Basic security alarm system including CCTV and keyless card access
- Basic external works including paving, site landscaping, fencing and external lighting
- Administration space for facility is incorporated in overall layout
2
- Floor plan arrangement based on a notional facility size 1,000m
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Carpark (separate item - 4.5)
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Loose furniture, fittings and equipment
- Architectural features and enhancements to external envelope
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Typical site preparations
- Excavated material retained on-site
- Utilities connections
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Extensive site works such as piling and retaining walls
- Allowance for rock excavation
- Contaminated materials
- Dewatering
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
2
- 300m facility
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
Reference pricing
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
- Building Code of Australia
- Australian Standards
- Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
4.1
Item
Multi purpose community facility
Unit
m
2
$/unit
$
3,270
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Library
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 4.2
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Single level library including services and hard fit out
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Single storey structure
- External envelope, internal walls, screens and doors
- Floor, wall and ceiling finishes and fitments
- Mechanical, electrical and hydraulic services including typical connections to existing
mains
- Basic air conditioning
- Basic security alarm system including CCTV and keyless card access
- Basic external works including paving, site landscaping, fencing and external lighting
- Administration space for facility is incorporated in overall layout
2
- Floor plan arrangement based on a notional facility size 1,000m
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Carpark (separate item - 4.5)
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Loose furniture, fittings and equipment
- Architectural features and enhancements to external envelope
- Storage, book shelves and book management systems
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Typical site preparations
- Excavated material retained on-site
- Utilities connections
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Extensive site works such as piling and retaining walls
- Allowance for rock excavation
- Contaminated materials
- Dewatering
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
- 300m2 facility
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
Reference pricing
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
- Building Code of Australia
- Australian Standards
- Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)
- NSW Library "People Places"
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
4.2
Item
Library
Unit
m
2
$/unit
$
3,980
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Preschools/ childcare facilities/ OSHC
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 4.3
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Single level preschool / childcare facility / OSHC including services and hard fit out
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Single storey structure
- External envelope, internal walls, screens and doors
- Floor, wall and ceiling finishes and fitments
- Mechanical, electrical and hydraulic services including typical connections to existing
mains
- Basic air conditioning
- Basic security alarm system including CCTV and keyless card access
- Basic external works including paving, site landscaping, fencing and external lighting
- Administration space for facility is incorporated in overall layout
2
- Floor plan arrangement based on a notional facility size 1,000m
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Carpark (separate item - 4.5)
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Loose furniture, fittings and equipment
- Architectural features and enhancements to external envelope
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Typical site preparations
- Excavated material retained on-site
- Utilities connections
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Extensive site works such as piling and retaining walls
- Allowance for rock excavation
- Contaminated materials
- Dewatering
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
2
- 300m facility
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
Reference pricing
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
- Building Code of Australia
- Australian Standards
- Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
4.3
Item
Preschools/ childcare facilities/ OSHC
Unit
m
2
$/unit
$
3,500
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Aquatic centre (indoor)
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 4.4
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Single level aquatic centre including services and hard fit out
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Single storey structure with an indoor 25m long pool and basic paddling pool / wading
pool
- Front reception, basic office, circulation space, kiosk, changing rooms and amenities
- External envelope, internal walls, screens and doors
- Floor, wall and ceiling finishes and fitments including lockers
- Mechanical, electrical and hydraulic services including typical connections to existing
mains
- Specialist pool plant and equipment
- Basic external works including paving, site landscaping, fencing and external lighting
- Basic security alarm system, CCTV and keyless card entry
- Floor plan arrangement based on a notional facility size 3,000m2 (minimum practical
facility size)
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Carpark (separate item - 4.5)
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the draft essential infrastructure
list):
- Loose furniture, fittings and equipment
- Architectural features and enhancements to external envelope
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Typical site preparations
- Excavated material retained on-site
- Utilities connections
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Extensive site works such as piling and retaining walls
- Allowance for rock excavation
- Contaminated materials
- Dewatering
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
- 1,000m2
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
Reference pricing
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
- Building Code of Australia
- Australian Standards
- Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Item
Unit
4.4
Aquatic centre (indoor)
m2
$/unit
$
4,780
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Carpark
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 4.5
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
Carpark, at grade car and multi storey
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Refer to specific sub item
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Roads other than entrance and exit paving
- Mechanical ventilation
- Sprinklers
- Loose equipment including ticket machines
- Architectural features and enhancements to external envelope
- Vertical transportation
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Typical site preparations
- Excavated material retained on-site
- Utilities connections
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Extensive site works such as piling and retaining walls
- Allowance for rock excavation
- Contaminated materials
- Dewatering
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
Sub item 4.5.1 - At grade carpark
- bitumen paving
- stormwater drainage
- security lighting
- kerbing
- minimal landscaping, some planting
- Notional 100 car spaces
Sub item 4.5.2 - Multi storey carpark
- Concrete frame structure
- Precast concrete external envelope,
- Insitu concrete shear walls, minimal internal blockwork walls, polished concrete floors
- Electrical and hydraulic services including typical connections to existing mains
- Basic CCTV and powered access gates
- Basic office / storage space
- Basic external works including paving, site landscaping and external lighting
- Multi storey carpark layout based on ground and two upper decks with approximately 300
car spaces overall (100 per level)
- Assessable parking spaces assumed to be located on the ground floor (therefore vertical
transport not required)
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
4.5.1
4.5.2
At grade carpark
Multi storey carpark
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
Reference pricing
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
- Building Code of Australia
- Australian Standards
- Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Sub item
Unit
4.5.1
At grade carpark
space
$
6,300
4.5.2
Multi storey carpark
space
$
34,040
$/unit
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Swimming pool (outdoor)
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 4.6
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Outdoor swimming pool with paddling/wading pool and amenities block
(iv)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Structure including outdoor 25m pool including basic paddling/wading pool
- External envelope, internal wall, screens and doors
- Floor, wall and ceiling finishes and fitments
- Mechanical, electrical and hydraulic services including typical connections to existing mains
- Specialist pool plant and equipment
- Basic external works including paving, site landscaping, fencing and external lighting
- Basic CCTV system
- Amenity block floor plan based on notional 250m2
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Carpark (separate item - 4.5)
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Loose furniture, fittings and equipment
- Architectural features and enhancements to external envelope
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Typical site preparations
- Excavated material retained on-site
- Utilities connections
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Extensive site works such as piling and retaining walls
- Allowance for rock excavation
- Contaminated materials
- Dewatering
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
- Not applicable for this item
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
Reference pricing
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
- Building Code of Australia
- Australian Standards
- Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Item
Unit
4.6
Swimming pool (outdoor)
facility
$/unit
$
3,770,000
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[ITEM NAME]
Indoor aquatic facility with gym
(ii)
[ITEM NUMBER]
ITEM 4.7
(iii)
[FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION] Single level aquatic centre with gym including services and hard fit out
(iv) [BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Single storey structure with an indoor 25m long pool, basic paddling / wading pool and
2
notional 300m gym
- Typical fit out including front reception, basic office, circulation space, kiosk, changing
rooms, gym and amenities
- External envelope, internal walls, screens and doors
- Floor, wall and ceiling finishes and fitments including built in lockers
- Mechanical, electrical and hydraulic services including typical connections to existing
mains
- Specialist pool plant and equipment
- Glazed partitioning to gym
- Basic air conditioning to gym
- Basic external works including paving, site landscaping, fencing and external lighting
2
- Floor plan arrangement based on a notional 3,300m facility
- Basic security alarm system, CCTV and keyless card entry
Exclusions (may be reasonably required):
- Carpark (separate item - 4.5)
Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):
- Loose furniture, fittings and equipment
- Architectural features and enhancements to external envelope
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Typical site preparations
- Excavated material retained on-site
- Utilities connections
- Installation works
Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):
- Extensive site works such as piling and retaining walls
- Allowance for rock excavation
- Contaminated materials
- Dewatering
- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site
- Imported fill required for site levelling
Minimum quantity:
2
- 1,500m
Banding:
- Not applicable for this item
Specific sub item information:
- Not applicable for this item
(v)
[SUB ITEMS]
N/A
(vi)
[COSTING METHODOLOGY]
Reference pricing
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
- Building Code of Australia
- Australian Standards
- Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)
(viii)
[BENCHMARK BASE COST]
#
Item
Unit
4.7
Indoor aquatic facility with gym
m2
$/unit
$
4,430
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
5. Assumptions
Contractors Costs
Infrastructure
Category
Transport
Stormwater
Community Facilities
Open Space
Embellishment
Direct
Costs
Contractor's
Margin
Indirect Costs (% of A +
B)
(% of A)
Council Costs
Value
Delivery
Agency
Design
A
B
C
D
E
F
Total Markup
on
Construction
Costs (E+F)
G
100%
100%
100%
100%
20%
20%
17%
12%
10%
10%
5%
8%
132%
132%
123%
121%
10%
10%
10%
10%
5%
5%
10%
5%
15%
15%
20%
15%
Total Mark-up
(D *[1+G])
152%
152%
147%
139%
H
15 Local Infrastructure Reference Datasheets
15 Local Infrastructure Reference Datasheets
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
203
15 Local Infrastructure Reference Datasheets
204
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
Local Infrastructure Reference Items
Contents
0 Overview
Reference Items
R Reference Item datasheets
R.1 Road bridges
R.2 Intersection state/ local road
R.3 Detention basins
R.4 Constructed wetlands
R.5 Revetment
R.6 Skateboard park
R.7 Road maintenance in mining areas
SI Supporting Information
SI.3 R.3 Model Data
SI.4 R.4 Model Data
SI.7 R.7 Calculations
A Assumptions
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
Local Infrastructure Reference Items
0. Overview
Reference Item Datasheets
There are 7 Reference Items - one for each of the infrastructure items on the Essential Infrastructure List which could not
be given a benchmark cost.
Each Reference Item contains the following fields:
Reference Item:
Name of the infrastructure item included under one of the four categories on the Essential
Infrastructure List, which could not be given a benchmark cost.
Reference Item Number: The unique number assigned to each Reference Item.
Description:
A description of the most fundamental requirements for the Reference Item.
Bounds:
The lower and upper bounds of the Reference Item, in between which the cost of the
infrastructure item would fall between, in the majority of cases.
Basis of Cost:
The basis of the estimated cost for the lower and upper bounds of the Reference Item,
separated into the following headings:
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions: Describes the significant components of the final delivered asset, included in the
value.
Exclusions: Describes the significant components excluded from the final delivered asset, not
included in the value on grounds they a) exceed the minimum requirements, or b) are covered
by a separate infrastructure item.
Key scope of work inclusions:
The key activities assumed to be undertaken to construct or install the infrastructure item.
Pricing Methodology:
Refers to the general approach used in estimating the value.
Standards:
Refers to industry accepted design standards or guidance relevant to an infrastructure item.
Reference Costs:
Estimate of the direct cost of the infrastructure item / sub item, with a fixed percentage mark-up
applied for Contractor's Indirect Costs, Margin, Council On-Costs and Contingency. The fixed
percentages are detailed in the Assumptions Table.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[REFERENCE ITEM]
(ii)
[REFERENCE ITEM NUMBER]
(iii)
[DESCRIPTION]
(iv)
[BOUNDS]
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Road Bridge 9.4m wide x 19m single span on Road bridge 25m wide x 34m single span with
grade
ramps
(v)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Construction of a road bridge with
pedestrian footway each side
- 9.4m wide x 19m single span equivalent to a
4 x 3.2m carriageway with 2m x 2 breakdown
lane
- Single span between abutments over an
existing railway below with a headroom
clearance of 5.4 metres
- 600x700 PSC voided planks
- Reinforced concrete abutments with steel
encased cast insitu 900 diameter bored piles
- Approach to the bridge is at grade
- Medium performance level parapet
- 190mm concrete with asphalt wearing
course
- Anti-throw screens
- Batter protection
Exclusions:
- Demolition
- Site clearance
- Street lighting
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Construction of a road bridge with pedestrian
footway each side
- 25m wide x 34m single span eqivalent to 4 lane
carriageway with future upgrade to 6 lanes and
with batter slope of 1H:1.5V
- Single span between abutments over an
existing railway below with a headroom
clearance of 5.4 metres
- 1.5m deep super 'T' girders
- Reinforced concrete abutments with steel
encased cast insitu 900 diameter bored piles
- On and off ramps at 6% grade
- Combination of reinforced earth wall and insitu
retaining walls
- Medium performance level parapet
- 260mm concrete with asphalt wearing course
- Anti-throw screens
- Batter protection
Exclusions:
- Demolition
- Site clearance
- Street lighting
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Excavated material retained on-site
- Minor traffic control allowance for
construction vehicles/pedestrian and around
tie-in point with trafficked road (includes
installation and removal of signage and
barriers)
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Excavated material retained on-site
- Minor traffic control allowance for construction
vehicles/pedestrian and around tie-in point with
trafficked road (includes installation and removal
of signage and barriers)
Road bridges
R.1
Construction of a road bridge - such as over railways, waterways, grade separation
(vi)
[PRICING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Road and Maritime Services - QA Specification, B30 to B150
(viii)
[REFERENCE COSTS]
Lower Bound
Road Bridge
$/ Item
$
Upper Bound
964,546 Road bridge
$/ Item
$
6,471,050
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[REFERENCE ITEM]
(ii)
[REFERENCE ITEM NUMBER]
(iii)
[DESCRIPTION]
(iv)
[BOUNDS]
Lower Bound
Intersection of a new local road with
moderately trafficked state road : Day works
Upper Bound
Intersection of a new local road with heavily
trafficked state road : Night works
(v)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Intersection with perpendicular junction
- Widening and splays for turning circle
- Profiling and removal of 1.2m width of
asphalt carrigeway for tie-in with new local
road
- Traffic mitigation measures for safe
movement of vehicular traffic
- Stormwater pipe connection to existing
main
- 100mm asphalt paving for tie-in on state
road
- Rework at pavement interface
- Minor road signage
Exclusions:
- Traffic light
- Pedestrian refuge
- Lane closing permit (TMC permits)
- Road closure permit costs and licences
- Traffic management plan
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Intersection with a de-acceleration and an
acceleration lane off and on to a 70km/h
speed rated state road
- Profiling and removal of 1.2m width of
asphalt for tie-in with new local road
- Traffic mitigation measures for safe
movement of vehicular traffic
- Stormwater pipe connection to existing
main
- 100mm asphalt paving for tie-in on state
road
- Rework at pavement interface
- Minor road signage
Exclusions:
- Traffic light
- Pedestrian refuge
- Lane closing permit (TMC permits)
- Road closure permit costs and licences
- Traffic management plan
Intersection state/ local road
R.2
Construction of a new local road/ state road intersection
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Work to be performed during day time and
within off peak period
- Milling and filling of the existing asphalt
surface for tie-in
- Utility search along state road
- Tipping cost of recyclable asphalt product
(RAP)
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Work to be performed between 10pm and
4am
- Milling and filling of the existing asphalt
surface for tie-in
- Utility search along state road
- Tipping cost of recyclable asphalt product
(RAP)
(vi)
[PRICING METHODOLOGY]
First principles estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Road and Maritime Services - QA Specification, R101 & R116
(viii)
[REFERENCE COSTS]
Lower Bound
Intersection state/ local road
$/ Item
$
Upper Bound
60,015 Intersection state/ local road
$/ Item
$
315,613
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[REFERENCE ITEM]
(ii)
[REFERENCE ITEM NUMBER]
(iii)
[DESCRIPTION]
(iv)
[BOUNDS]
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Detention basin based on a basin surface area Detention basin based on a surface area of
2
2
of 500m
5000m
(v)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- 10ha catchment area
- Dry detention basin
- Topsoil
- Subsoil drainage
- Grass seeding
- High flow overflow weir and downstream
erosion protection
- Inlet pit
- Outlet pipe including pit
Exclusions:
- Rehabilitation of existing wetlands
- Inlet pond
- Pipework to and from basin
- Gross pollutant trap
- Sediment forebay
- Planting
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- 10ha catchment area
- Dry detention basin
- Topsoil
- Subsoil drainage
- Grass seeding
- High flow overflow weir and downstream
erosion protection
- Inlet pit
- Outlet pipe including pit
Exclusions:
- Rehabilitation of existing wetlands
- Inlet pond
- Pipework to and from basin
- Gross pollutant trap
- Sediment forebay
- Planting
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Basin located within a sportsfield (ie, dual
purpose basin)
- Works undertaken in non-preservation areas
- Excavation and profiling of basin
- Spread of excavated material to site
- Site cut / fill neutral
2
- Surface area 500m
2
- Basin area 220m
- Total depth of basin approximately 2.0m
- Geotextile fabric
- Overflow weir
- Seeded grass to excavation
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Basin located within a sportsfield (ie, dual
purpose basin)
- Works undertaken in non-preservation areas
- Excavation and profiling of basin
- Spread of excavated material to site
- Site cut / fill neutral
2
- Surface area 5000m
- Total depth of basin approximately 0.5m
- Geotextile fabric
- Overflow weir
- Seeded grass to excavation
Detention basins
R.3
New detention basin based on a 10ha catchment area in inland regional NSW and basic
construction methodology
(vi)
[PRICING METHODOLOGY]
First Principles Estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Australian Rainfall and Runoff Volumes 1 and 2 (IEAust, 1987)
(viii)
[REFERENCE COSTS]
$/ Item
Lower Bound
Detention basin
$
$/ Item
Upper Bound
68,425 Detention basin
$
247,250
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[REFERENCE ITEM]
(ii)
[REFERENCE ITEM NUMBER]
(iii)
[DESCRIPTION]
New Constructed Wetland based on 10ha catchment area and basic construction methodology
(iv)
[BOUNDS]
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Constructed wetland based on Wagga Wagga Constructed wetland based on Coffs Harbour
historic daily rainfall
historic daily rainfall
(v)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Permanent pool (1m deep)
- Extended detention storage (1m deep)
- High flow overflow weir and downstream
erosion protection
- Inlet and outlet works
3
- High flow bypass channel (5m /s)
- Vegetation (50% cover)
- GPT assumed upstream of wetland (but not
included in estimate)
Exclusions:
- Rehabilitation of existing wetlands
- Inlet pond
- Geotextile fabric
- Pipework to and from basin
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Permanent pool (1m deep)
- Extended detention storage (1m deep)
- High flow overflow weir and downstream
erosion protection
- Inlet and outlet works
3
- High flow bypass channel (5m /s)
- Vegetation (50% cover)
- GPT assumed upstream of wetland (but not
included in estimate)
Exclusions:
- Rehabilitation of existing wetlands
- Inlet pond
- Geotextile fabric
- Pipework to and from basin
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Works undertaken in non-preservation areas
- Excavation and profiling of basin
- Spread of excavated topsoil to basin
- Spread of additional excavated material to
site
- Site cut / fill neutral
2
- Surface area 350m
- Total depth of basin 2.0m
- Overflow weir
- Overflow channel including stone drainage
layer (length 25m)
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Works undertaken in non-preservation areas
- Excavation and profiling of basin
- Spread of excavated topsoil to basin
- Spread of additional excavated material to
site
- Site cut / fill neutral
2
- Surface area 3500m
- Total depth of basin 2.0m
- Overflow weir
- Overflow channel including stone drainage
layer (length 100m)
Constructed wetlands
R.4
(vi)
[PRICING METHODOLOGY]
First Principles Estimate
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
• Using MUSIC in Sydney’s Drinking Water Catchment (Sydney Catchment Authority, 2012)
• MUSIC v4 Users Manual (EWater, 2009)
• The Constructed Wetlands Manual Volumes 1 and 2 (NSW Department of Land and Water
Conservation, 1998)
• Australian Rainfall and Runoff Volumes 1 and 2 (IEAust, 1987)
(viii)
[REFERENCE COSTS]
Lower Bound
Constructed wetland
$/ Item
Upper Bound
$103,443 Constructed wetland
$/ Item
$746,396
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[REFERENCE ITEM]
(ii)
[REFERENCE ITEM NUMBER]
(iii)
[DESCRIPTION]
(iv)
[BOUNDS]
Lower Bound
Revetment 3m wide and 500mm deep
Upper Bound
Revetment 4m wide and 1.5m deep
(v)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Excavation revetment
- Stone fill - tertiary, secondary and primary
- Boulder installation
- Silt fence allowance
Exclusions:
- Specialist equipment or plant
- Long reach excavator
- Sheet piling / coffer dams
- Environmental protection barrier
- Planting
- Turfing / grass Seeding
- Concrete footings or foundations
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Excavation revetment
- Stone fill - tertiary, secondary and primary
- Boulder installation
- Silt fence allowance
Exclusions:
- Specialist equipment or plant
- Long reach excavator
- Sheet piling / coffer dams
- Environmental protection barrier
- Planting
- Turfing / grass Seeding
- Concrete footings or foundations
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Revetment located in lagoon or river with low
tidal flows
- Day shift working at low tide
- Excavation and profiling of bank 250mm thick
- Width of revetment - 3.0m wide
2
- Surface area 150m
- Site cut / fill neutral
- Spread of excavated material to site
- Geotextile layer
- Tiertary layer - 100mm
- Secondary layer - 200mm
- Primary layer - 500mm
- Boulders depth - 500mm
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Revetment located in lagoon or river with low
tidal flows
- Day shift working at low tide
- Excavation and profiling of bank 1.0m thick
- Width of revetment - 4.0m wide
2
- Surface area 200m
- Site cut / fill neutral
- Spread of excavated material to site
- Geotextile layer
- Tiertary layer - 100mm
- Secondary layer - 200mm
- Primary layer - 500mm
- Boulders depth - 1.5m
(vi)
[PRICING METHODOLOGY]
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
(viii)
[REFERENCE COSTS]
Revetment
R.5
Revetment based on 50m in length revetment basin along water bank
First Principles Estimate
n/a
$/ Item
Lower Bound
Revetment
$
$/ Item
Upper Bound
47,458 Revetment
$
105,230
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[REFERENCE ITEM]
(ii)
[REFERENCE ITEM NUMBER]
(iii)
[DESCRIPTION]
(iv)
[BOUNDS]
Lower Bound
2
150m skateboard park construction with
single shallow bowl
Upper Bound
2
300m skateboard park construction with
multiple deep bowls
(v)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Basically designed concrete contoured bowl
(single bowl, max depth 1m)
- Perimeter fencing
Exclusions:
- Demolition
- Soft landscaping
- Lighting
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- 3D modelled concrete contoured bowls
(multiple bowls, max depth 1.5m)
- Steel grind rails, varying length
- Perimeter fencing
Exclusions:
- Demolition
- Soft landscaping
- Lighting
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Site preparations (cut / fill neutral)
- Excavation and profiling of skateboard park
(varying depths)
- Spread of excavated material on site
(profiling)
- Disposal of excavated material (50% of
excavation)
- Installation works
Key scope of work inclusions:
- 3D modelling
- Site preparations (cut / fill neutral)
- Excavation and profiling of skateboard park
(varying depths)
- Spread of excavated material on site
(profiling)
- Disposal of excavated material (50% of
excavation)
- Installation works
Skateboard park
R.6
Construction of municipal skateboard park
(vi)
[PRICING METHODOLOGY]
First Principles Estimate & Market Supplier Information
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
N/A
(viii)
[REFERENCE COSTS]
$/ Item
Lower Bound
Skateboard park
$
$/ Item
Upper Bound
119,605 Skateboard park
$
233,455
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
(i)
[REFERENCE ITEM]
(ii)
[REFERENCE ITEM NUMBER]
(iii)
[DESCRIPTION]
(iv)
[BOUNDS]
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Road maintenance in mining areas based on a Road maintenance in mining areas based on a
10% acceleration in maintenance expenditure 30% acceleration in maintenance expenditure
(v)
[BASIS OF COST]
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Pavement rehabilitation
- Maintenance re-seal
- Routine maintenance
- Patching
Exclusions:
- Not applicable for this example
Scope of the infrastructure item:
Inclusions:
- Pavement rehabilitation
- Maintenance re-seal
- Routine maintenance
- Patching
Exclusions:
- Not applicable for this example
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Calculation based on 1000m length of
haulage road
- Mining activity accelerates the rate of
damage expenditure by 10%, ie, 20 years of
lifetime cost maintenance expenditure spent
over 18 years
Key scope of work inclusions:
- Calculation based on 1000m length of
haulage road
- Mining activity accelerates the rate of
damage expenditure by 30%, ie, 20 years of
lifetime cost maintenance expenditure spent
over 14 years
Road maintenance in mining areas
R.7
Additional cost for road maintenance attributed to mining activity
(vi)
[PRICING METHODOLOGY]
First Principles Estimate & Market Supplier Information
(vii)
[STANDARDS]
Tamworth Regional Council's Section 94 (Direct) Development Contributions Plan 2013
(viii)
[REFERENCE COSTS]
Lower Bound
Road maintenance in mining
areas
$/ km/ year
$
Upper Bound
11,101 Road maintenance in mining
areas
$/ km/ year
$
42,818
REFERENCE ITEM #3 DETENTION BASINS - Model Data
Station name: WAGGA WAGGA AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTE
Bureau of Meteorology station number: 73127
Year site opened: 1898 Year site closed:
Location: 35.05S, 147.35E
Height of station above mean sea level (metres): 219
IFD Table
DURATION
1 Year 2 years
5Mins
6Mins
10Mins
20Mins
30Mins
1Hr
2Hrs
3Hrs
6Hrs
12Hrs
24Hrs
48Hrs
72Hrs
54.7
51.0
41.4
30.1
24.3
16.1
10.3
7.9
4.9
3.0
1.9
1.1
0.8
72.2
67.1
54.5
39.5
31.8
21.1
13.4
10.1
6.3
3.9
2.4
1.4
1.0
5 years
10 years
97.8
90.8
73.3
52.7
42.3
27.7
17.3
13.0
7.9
4.8
2.9
1.7
1.2
20 years 50 years 100 years
114.0
106.0
85.4
61.1
48.9
31.8
19.8
14.8
8.9
5.4
3.3
1.9
1.3
136.0
126.0
101.0
72.2
57.6
37.3
23.0
17.2
10.3
6.2
3.7
2.2
1.5
166.0
154.0
123.0
87.5
69.6
44.9
27.5
20.4
12.1
7.2
4.3
2.5
1.8
190.0
176.0
141.0
99.8
79.2
50.8
31.0
22.9
13.5
8.0
4.8
2.8
2.0
1 h rainfall intensity
12 h rainfall intensity
72 h rainfall intensity
G
F2
F50
Rational Method Calculations - Pre-development Flows
Area
tc
0.1
km2
0.32
hours
19
min
say 20 min
Q = 0.278 CIA
C10
0.2
Zone F
<500 m
I12,50
7.21
I12,2
3.88
10
ha
tc = 0.76A^0.38
ARR Vol 2 Fig 5.1
Elevation = 219 m
Adjusted value =C10*(100/A)^0.15 = 0.6
T5.1 ARR
ARI
Intensity
FFy
Cy
Q
1
2
5
10
20
50
100
30.1
39.5
52.7
61.1
72.2
87.5
99.8
0.66
0.74
0.87
1.00
1.15
1.39
1.60
0.264
0.296
0.348
0.400
0.460
0.556
0.640
0.22
0.33
0.51
0.68
0.92
1.35
1.78
Rational Method Calculations - Post-development Flows
Assume tc
5
min
ARI
Intensity
(mm/h)
Cy
1
2
5
10
20
50
100
54.7
72.2
97.8
114.0
136.0
166.0
190.0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
Basin Configuration
Assume Trapezoidal shape
V = L * h * (b1 + b2) )/2
Volume
735
b1
10
b2
20
h
2.0
L
24
SA
490
Base
245
m3
m
m
m
m
m2
m2
Detention Basin
Q
Storage Vol
(m3/s)
(m3)
1.22
1.61
2.18
2.54
3.02
3.69
4.23
299
384
500
557
630
702
735
>0.4, therefore adopt C= 0.4
2 year
21.1
3.9
1.0
0.19
4.32
15.35
50 year
44.9
7.2
1.8
REFERENCE ITEM # 4 CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS - Model Data
Constructed Wetlands - MUSIC Model Inputs
Parameter Description - General
Catchment Properties
Catchment type (source node)
Total area
Total impervious area
Value adopted
Impervious area rainfall threshold
1.0 mm
Pervious Area Properties
Dominant catchment soil type
Soil storage capacity
Root zone depth = 0.5 m
Initial storage
Field capacity
Root zone depth = 0.5 m
Infiltration capacity coefficient-a
Infiltration capacity exponent-b
Groundwater Properties
Initial depth
Daily recharge rate
Daily baseflow rate
Daily seepage rate
Baseflow stormwater pollutant concentration parameters
TSS – mean
TSS – std dev
TP – mean
TP – std dev
TN – mean
TN – std dev
Storm flow stormwater pollutant concentration parameters
TSS – mean
TSS – std dev
TP – mean
TP – std dev
TN – mean
TN – std dev
GPT
GPT type
Urban
10 ha
60%
sandy clay loam
108 mm
30%
73 mm
180 mm/d
3
10 mm
25%
25%
0%
Assumed
Table 4.4
Using MUSIC in Sydney’s Drinking Water
MUSIC default
Using MUSIC in Sydney’s Drinking Water
Table 4.4
Using MUSIC in Sydney’s Drinking Water
Table 4.5
Using MUSIC in Sydney’s Drinking Water
Music default
Using MUSIC in Sydney’s Drinking Water
Table 4.5
Using MUSIC in Sydney’s Drinking Water
Catchment
1.2
0.17
-0.85
0.19
0.11
0.12
Table 4.6 – Land use zoning = residential
Using MUSIC in Sydney’s Drinking Water
Catchment
Stochastic generation for pollutant generation
2.15
0.32
-0.6
0.25
0.3
0.19
Table 4.7 – Land use zoning = residential
Stochastic generation for pollutant generation
Using MUSIC in Sydney’s Drinking Water
Catchment
CDS
GPT treatment node inputs
High flow bypass
Source
Assumed
Assumed
Assumed
Table 4.3 - all land uses
Using MUSIC in Sydney’s Drinking Water
5 m3/s
Assumed
Table 5.4
Using MUSIC in Sydney’s Drinking Water
Catchment
Constructed Wetlands - MUSIC Model Inputs and Outputs
Parameter Description - Location Specific
Units
Input Parameters
mm/d
Historic Daily Rainfall Depth
Average Areal Potential Evaporation
mm/month
Surface Area
(m2)
(m)
Extended Detention Depth
Permanent pool volume
(m3)
(mm/h)
Seepage Loss
(%)
Evaporative loss
Eqivalent pipe diameter
(mm)
Overflow weir width
(m)
(h)
Notional Detention time
Results
Inflow
(ML/y)
(ML/y)
Outflow
% reduction
(%)
TSS In
(kg/y)
(kg/y)
TSS out
(%)
% reduction [target 80%]
(kg/y)
TP In
TP out
(kg/y)
(%)
% reduction [target 45%]
(kg/y)
TN In
TN out
(kg/y)
(%)
% reduction [target 45%]
Gross pollutants in
(kg/y)
(kg/y)
Gross pollutants out
% reduction
(%)
Life Cycle costing Inputs (MUSIC model defaults)
Life Cycle (yrs)
(y)
Acquisition Cost
($)
Acquisition Cost/m2 of Surface Area
($/m2)
Annual Maintenance Cost
($)
Renewal/Adaptation Cost
($)
Renewal Period (yrs)
(y)
Decommissioning Cost
($)
Real Discount Rate (%)
(%)
Annual Inflation Rate (%)
(%)
Costing Results
Life Cycle Cost of Wetland ($2014)
Equivalent Annual Payment Cost of the Asset ($2014/annum)
Equivalent Annual Payment/kg Total Suspended Solids/annum
Equivalent Annual Payment/kg Total Phosphorus/annum
Equivalent Annual Payment/kg Total Nitrogen/annum
Equivalent Annual Payment/kg Gross Pollutant/annum
WAGGA WAGGA
COFFS HARBOUR
BoM Station 59026 (1916 - 2013)
BoM
350
1
350
0
125%
200
3
1.04
BoM Station (1913- 2013)
BoM
3500
1
3500
0
125%
200
3
10.4
29
28.4
1.8
1830
354
80.7
7.14
2.59
63.7
53.5
40.7
23.9
122
0
100
145
139
4.3
8880
1780
80
35.3
12.4
65
271
191
29.3
292
0
100
50
$100,700
$288
$1,309
$633
1
$52,023
5.5
2
50
$442,619
$126
$9,560
$2,782
1
$228,661
5.5
2
$137,087
$2,742
$2
$602.49
$213.86
$22.53
$666,436
$13,329
$2
$581.35
$168.23
$45.60
REFERENCE ITEM # 7 ROAD MAINTENANCE IN MINING AREAS - Calculations
STEP 1
$CM
Determine the lifetime cost of maintenance for a 'typical' road with an assumed natural life of 20 years. Note: Lifetime cost formula adopted from Tamworth Regional Council's
Section 94 (Direct) Development Contributions Plan 2013
= Lifetime Cost of Maintenance
= L x ($PR + $MRL/SR + $RM) + A x ($S)
Where:
Variable
Definition
Base Assumption
= Length of haulage road in metres
= 1000
= 20 year cost of Pavement Rehabilitation per linear metre
= $375/m2 (using recently tendered rate [$52/m2], assumes rehab once every 20 years average [$52/m2 x 7.2])
= 20 year cost of Maintenance Re‐
seal for either Local or State/Regional road per linear metre
= $508m (using recently tendered rate [$30/m2], assumes 50mm asphalt surface layer, in a metropolitan environment with reseal once every 8.5 years average [$30/m2 x 7.2 x 2.35])
= 20 year cost of Routine Maintenance per linear metre
= $40m (assumed as $2m per m per year)
A
= Area in square metres of heavy patching or cement stabilisation
= 1440m2 (i.e. 20% of total Area [1000lm x 7.2m road width x 20% extent of patching])
$S
= 20 year cost of heavy patching or = $200/m2 (using recently tendered cement stabilisation
rate [$200/m2] for 125mm deep heavy patch and 50mm asphalt surface layer, in a metropolitan environment, assumes patching once every 20 years)
L
$PR
$MRL/SR
$RM
= 1000 x (375 + 508 + 40) + (1440 x 200)
$CM
$
1,211,000 Per km per 20yr Liftime
60,550 Per km per year over 20 years
$
STEP 2
Assume reduced lifespans resulting from mining activity at notional Lower and Upper Bounds and convert this to an additional cost per km, per year
Lower Bound = assume mining activity accelerates = [(1,211,000/20)*(10%x20)]/18 the spend of damage by 10%, i.e. 20 years of lifetime cost maintenance expenditure spent over 18 years
$
6,728 Per km per year (additional cost attributable to mining activity)
Upper Bound = assume mining activity accelerates = [(1,211,000/20)*(30%x20)]/14 the spend of damage by 30%, i.e. 20 years of lifetime cost maintenance expenditure spent over 14 years
$
25,950 Per km per year (additional cost attributable to mining activity)
STEP 3
(by IPART)
Apportion costs derived at Lower and Upper Bounds on a mine by mine basis by:
1. Determining the total kilometres of affected road (shared and non
shared) for the relevant mine
2. Allocating the total cost on a pro rata mine output basis across the
different mines (assuming multiple)
Example Apportionment Using Lower & Upper Bound Values:
Mine Type
Output
Affected Roads
Shared Affected Roads
Non Shared Affected Roads
Copper Mine
5K tonnes per annum
50km
50km (with coal mine)
0km
Coal Mine
1M tonnes per annum
80km
50km (with copper mine)
30km
Per Mine Per Year
(lower bound)
=(50km x (5000/1000000) x $6,728/km
$
Totals
Per tonne, Per km, Per year
Per Mine Per Year
(upper bound)
Per tonne, Per km, Per year
=(50km x (5000/1000000) x $25,950/km
1,682 $ 0.01 $
6,488 $ 0.03 =(50km x (995000/1000000) x $6,728/km) + (30km x $6,728/km)
$
=(50km x (995000/1000000) x $25,950/km) + (30km x $25,950/km)
536,558 $ 0.01 $
2,069,513 $ 0.03 Weakness of basing contribution on TONNAGE OUTPUT is that it doesn't factor in HAULED INPUTS (supplies / deliveries) or VALUE OF THE RESOURCES i.e. precious metal mines will not receive big allocation, but lesser value, high quantity resources such as coal will wear the brunt of the contribution as per above example.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets
Local Infrastructure Reference Items
A. Assumptions
Contractors Costs
Infrastructure
Category
Transport
Stormwater
Community Facilities
Open Space
Embellishment
Direct
Costs
Contractor's
Margin
Indirect Costs (% of A +
(% of A)
B)
Council Costs
Value
Delivery
Agency
Design
Contingency
A
B
C
D
E
F
Total Markup
on
Construction
Costs (E+F)
G
100%
100%
100%
100%
20%
20%
17%
12%
10%
10%
5%
8%
132%
132%
123%
121%
10%
10%
10%
10%
5%
5%
10%
5%
15%
15%
20%
15%
Contingency
(on
construction
cost cost)
H
Total Mark-up
(D *[1+G]*H)
15%
15%
15%
15%
172%
172%
166%
157%
J
15 Local Infrastructure Reference Datasheets
Appendices
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
221
15 Local Infrastructure Reference Datasheets
222
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
A
Terms of Reference
A Terms of Reference
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
223
A
224
Terms of Reference
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
A
Terms of Reference
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
225
B
Essential Infrastructure List and how we
categorised the items
B Essential Infrastructure List and how we
categorised the items
Tables B.1 to B.5 show each item on the essential infrastructure list and whether
we classified it as a benchmark, reference or non-benchmark item. For
benchmark and reference items, we have provided a reference to the datasheet
for the item. This includes cases where it is included as a sub-item (eg, asphalt is
a sub-item of hard surfaces) or as part of the scope of a number of items (eg, hard
fit-outs are included in community facilities).
226
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
Table B.1
Roads and transport facility item definitions and where they are located in our datasheets
Roads – including median strips, signage, guardrails, kerb and
guttering and splays, line-marking, fences,
Benchmark item
1.1
New sub-arterial road
Benchmark item
1.3
New industrial road
Benchmark item
1.4
New subdivision road
Benchmark item
1.5
New local access road
Benchmark item
1.6
New rural road
Benchmark item
1.8
Guide posts/safety
barriers/pedestrian fencing
Benchmark item
1.21
Road pavement resurfacing
Roads – widening
Benchmark item
1.2
Sub-arterial road widening
Benchmark item
1.7
Rural road widening
Roads – traffic calming, local area traffic management
Benchmark item
1.9
Traffic calming
Roads – footpaths (concrete footpath adjoining a new road)
Benchmark item
1.10
New footpath adjacent to traffic
lane
Benchmark item
1.11
Demolition and upgrade of
footpath
Roads – works in the pedestrian environment in the public
domain (townscape)
Benchmark item
Datasheet item containing Item name
the infrastructure item
See relevant items below for local open space
embellishment
Benchmark item
3.10 (L)
Park furniture
Benchmark item
3.12 (L)
Park furniture - bins
Benchmark item
3.14 (L)
Park furniture – drinking
fountains
Benchmark item
3.15 (L)
Park furniture - taps
Benchmark item
3.19 (L)
Basic landscaping
Benchmark item
3.20 (L)
Planter boxes
Benchmark item
3.3 (L)
Soft surfaces - turfing
Essential Infrastructure List and how we categorised
the items
Item type
B
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
Essential infrastructure list item
227
228
Item type
Datasheet item containing Item name
the infrastructure item
Benchmark item
3.6 (L)
Hard surfaces
Intersection – signalised
Benchmark item
1.13
Signalised intersection
Intersection – unsignalised
Benchmark item
1.12
Unsignalised intersection
Intersections – roundabout
Benchmark item
1.14
Roundabout intersection
Intersections between State roads and local roads
Reference item
R.2
Intersection state/local road
Pedestrian crossings
Benchmark item
1.15
Pedestrian crossing
Bus stops
Benchmark item
1.16
Bus stop
Street furniture (seats, bins, planter boxes)
Benchmark item
3.10 (L)
Park furniture
Benchmark item
3.12 (L)
Park furniture - bins
Benchmark item
3.20 (L)
Planter boxes
Street lighting (conventional)
Benchmark item
1.17
Street lighting
Street trees, street guards and grids
Benchmark item
3.19 (L)
Basic landscaping
Cycleways – on-road
Benchmark item
1.18
On road cycleway
Cycleways – footpath/shared zone
Benchmark item
1.10
New footpath adjacent to traffic
lane
Cycleways – off-road
Benchmark item
1.18
On road cycleway
Road bridge – including over railways, waterways, grade
separation
Reference item
R.1
Road bridges
Pedestrian bridges/cycleways bridges/overpasses/
underpasses
Benchmark item
1.19
Pedestrian overpass
Benchmark item
1.20
Pedestrian underpass
Culvert crossing
Benchmark item
2.3
Precast concrete box culverts
Ongoing maintenance – mining related road infrastructure
Reference item
R.7
Road maintenance in mining
areas
B Essential Infrastructure List and how we categorised
the items
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
Essential infrastructure list item
Table B.2
Stormwater management item definitions and where they are located in our datasheets
Essential infrastructure list item
Item type
Datasheet item containing
the infrastructure item
Item name
Stormwater management
2.5
Stormwater drain/pits
Revetment
Reference item
R.5
Revetment
Detention basins
Reference item
R.3
Detention basins
Bio-retention/bio-filtration systems/wetlands used for treatment
Benchmark item
2.1
Primary pollution treatment
Benchmark item
2.2
Secondary/tertiary pollution
treatment
Reference item
R4
Constructed wetlands
Culverts
Benchmark item
2.3
Precast concrete box culverts
Channels
Benchmark item
2.4
Channels
Pipes
Benchmark item
2.6
Stormwater drainage pipework
Headwalls
Benchmark item
2.7
Stormwater headwalls
Ancillary (maintenance and access)
Non-benchmark item
Table B.3
Open space embellishment item definitions and where they are located in our datasheets
Essential infrastructure list item
Item type
Datasheet item containing Item name
the infrastructure item
Local open space embellishment
Initial stages after land acquisition – demolition and site
clearance
Benchmark item
3.1 (L)
Demolition
Initial stages after land acquisition – site preparation
Benchmark item
3.2 (L)
Site clearance
Turfing
Benchmark item
3.3 (L)
Soft surfaces - turfing
Synthetic playing surfaces/artificial grass
Benchmark item
3.4 (L)
Soft surfaces – synthetic playing
surfaces/artificial grass
Softfall under play equipment
Benchmark item
3.5 (L)
Soft surfaces – softfall under
Essential Infrastructure List and how we categorised
the items
Benchmark item
B
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
Pits
229
230
Item type
Datasheet item containing Item name
the infrastructure item
play equipment
Asphalt
Benchmark item
3.6 (L)
Hard surfaces
Paving
Benchmark item
3.6 (L)
Hard surfaces
Polished concrete
Benchmark item
3.6 (L)
Hard surfaces
Paths (concrete)
Benchmark item
3.7 (L)
Concrete pathways
Access
Benchmark item
3.8 (L)
Steps/ramping
Play equipment
Benchmark item
3.9 (L)
Play equipment installation
Park furniture including seating, tables, picnic sets, BBQs,
bins, bubblers, taps
Benchmark item
3.10 (L)
Park furniture – seating
Benchmark item
3.11 (L)
Park furniture – picnic sets
Benchmark item
3.12 (L)
Park furniture - bins
Benchmark item
3.13 (L)
Park furniture - BBQs
Benchmark item
3.14 (L)
Park furniture – drinking
fountains
Benchmark item
3.15 (L)
Park furniture - taps
Amenity block (storage facility, canteen, change rooms,
toilets)
Benchmark item
3.21 (L)
Amenity Block
Fencing (playground)
Benchmark item
3.16 (L)
Fencing - playground
Fencing (perimeter, eg, fronting busy roads)
Benchmark item
3.17 (L)
Perimeter fencing
Shade structures (eg, over playgrounds not larger scale)
Benchmark item
3.18 (L)
Shade structures
Planting
Benchmark item
3.19 (L)
Basic landscaping
Planter boxes
Benchmark item
3.20 (L)
Planter boxes
Toilet facilities and change rooms
Benchmark item
3.21 (L)
Amenity block
Lighting
Benchmark item
3.22 (L)
Security lighting
Cycle-way facilities – bicycle racks
Benchmark item
1.22
Waterproofing (in the case of a park or civic space above a
car park or other structure)
Benchmark item
3.23 (L)
Cycle-way facilities – bicycle
racks
Waterproofing to concrete deck
B Essential Infrastructure List and how we categorised
the items
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
Essential infrastructure list item
Essential infrastructure list item
Item type
Datasheet item containing Item name
the infrastructure item
District open space embellishment
Baseline embellishment (see local open space embellishment) Benchmark item
See above items 3.1 (L) to 3.23 (L)
3.1 (D)
Sportsfields & irrigation a
Sportsfield floodlighting
Benchmark item
3.2 (D)
Sportsfield floodlighting
Sportsfield irrigation and drainage
Benchmark item
3.1 (D)
Sportsfields & irrigation a
Amenity block (storage facility, canteen, change rooms,
toilets)
Benchmark item
3.21 (L)
Amenity block
Tennis courts (outdoor)
Benchmark item
3.3 (D)
Tennis court (outdoor)
Netball courts (outdoor)
Benchmark item
3.4 (D)
Netball court (outdoor)
Basketball courts (outdoor)
Benchmark item
3.5 (D)
Basketball court (outdoor)
Generic multi-purpose courts (outdoor)
Benchmark item
3.1 (D)
Sportsfields & irrigation a
Cricket pitch
Benchmark item
3.1 (D)
Sportsfields & irrigation a
Skatepark/skatebowl
Reference item
R.6
Skateboard Park
Swimming pool (outdoor)
Benchmark item
4.6
Swimming pool (outdoor)
Roads within district open space (see roads)
Benchmark item
Car parking within district open space (see other item – car
parking)
Benchmark item
a Sportsfield and Sportsfield irrigation and drainage have been combined into a single item.
See above items for roads
4.5
Car park
Essential Infrastructure List and how we categorised
the items
Benchmark item
B
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
Sportsfield (football, all codes inclusive of goalposts)
231
232
Community facility item definitions and where they are located in our datasheets
Essential infrastructure list item
Item type
Datasheet item containing
the infrastructure item
Item name
Local community facilities
Community centres/multi-purpose community facilities/halls
(such as neighbourhood centres, youth centres, senior citizen
centres)
Benchmark item
4.1
Multi-purpose community
facility
Preschools/childcare/OSHC
Benchmark item
4.3
Preschools/childcare/OSHC
Libraries
Benchmark item
4.2
Library
Administration space for community services (eg, home and
community care centres)
Benchmark item
4.1
Multi-purpose community
facility
Benchmark item
4.2
Library
Benchmark item
4.3
Preschools/childcare/OSHC
Aquatic centre (indoor)
Benchmark item
4.4
Aquatic centre (indoor)
Hard fit-out (for each of the facilities above)a
Benchmark item
Included in items 4.1 to 4.7 (excl. 4.5)
Allowance for exterior finishes/curtilage (for standalone or colocated facilities)b
Benchmark item
Car parking for community facilities (see other items – car
parking)
Benchmark item
4.5
Car park
Indoor aquatic facility with gymnasium
Benchmark item
4.7
Indoor aquatic facility with gym
Community centres/multi-purpose community facilities/halls
Benchmark item
4.1
Multi-purpose community
facility
Included in items 4.1 to 4.7
District community facilities
Allowance for fit-out of the facilities above (see local community Benchmark item
facilities)
Included in items 4.1 to 4.7 (excl 4.5)
Car parking for community facilities (see other items – car
parking)
4.5
Benchmark item
Car park
a Includes allowance for a single estimate for baseline hard fit-out which means hard fit-out inclusive of: kitchens, bathrooms (toilets, disabled toilets, family toilets, showers and change
rooms if applicable), fixed cabinetry, flooring including carpets, electrical, lighting including exterior lighting, cabling for computers and networks, communication systems, air conditioning
and security alarms.
b Includes landscaping, security lighting, pathways, fencing, external furniture, eg, seating.
B Essential Infrastructure List and how we categorised
the items
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
Table B.4
Table B.5
Other item definitions and inclusions, and where they are located in our datasheets
Essential infrastructure list item
Item type
Datasheet item containing
the infrastructure item
Item name
Other items
Management, administration and plan preparation costs a
Benchmark item
Multi-deck car parks
Benchmark item
4.5
Car park
At-grade car parks
Benchmark item
4.5
Car park
See Chapter 8 of Report
Inclusions relevant to each category
Benchmark item
Provisions for the preparation of construction drawings and
tender documentation
Benchmark item
Project management costs (works)
Benchmark item
Contractor costs (works)
Benchmark item
Demolition and site clearance
Benchmark item
3.1 (L)
Demolition
Benchmark item
3.2 (L)
Site clearance
Non-benchmark item
Relocation or connection of utilities/servicing
Non-benchmark item
a Includes local infrastructure plan preparation and management costs (including allowances for community consultation).
Essential Infrastructure List and how we categorised
the items
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
Allowance for decontamination/asbestos removal
Included in base cost assumptions for benchmark items (as
detailed on Assumptions sheet of datasheets)
B
Detail design costs (including Stage 1 or 2 Environmental
Assessment of land with previous uses)
233
C
Stakeholder List
C Stakeholder List
Table C.1
Councils
Albury City Council
Ballina Shire Council
Bankstown City Council
Blacktown City Council
Blayney Shire Council
Broken Hill Council
Camden Council
Canada Bay City Council
Deniliquin Council
Dubbo City Council
Eurobodalla Shire Council
Fairfield City Council
Gosford City Council
Goulburn Mulwaree Council
Greater Taree City Council
Gundagai Shire Council
Gwydir Shire Council
Holroyd City Council
Hornsby Shire Council
Hurstville City Council
Lake Macquarie City Council
Leichhardt Municipal Council
Liverpool City Council
Maitland City Council
Manly Council
Mid-North Coast Regional Organisation of Councils (MIDROC)
Muswellbrook Shire Council
Newcastle City Council
North Sydney Council
Penrith City Council
Pittwater Council
Port Macquarie-Hastings Council
Port Stephens Council
234
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
C
Stakeholder List
Queanbeyan City Council
Randwick City Council
Rockdale City Council
Ryde City Council
Shellharbour City Council
Shoalhaven City Council
Singleton Council
Sydney City Council
Tamworth Regional Council
The Hills Shire Council
Tweed Shire Council
Upper Hunter Shire Council
Wagga Wagga City Council
Waverley Council
Wingecarribee Shire Council
Wollondilly Shire Council
Wollongong City Council
Wyong Shire Council
Table C.2
Developers and consultants
Economic Planning Advocacy
GLN Planning
Greenfields Development Company
Ian Reynolds and Associates Pty Ltd
SGS Economics and Planning
SJB Planning
UrbanGrowth NSW
Urbis
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
235
C
Stakeholder List
Table C.3
Government agencies
Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC)
Office of Local Government (OLG)
Infrastructure NSW (INSW)
NSW Valuer General
NSW Office of Water
Department of Planning and Environment (Planning & Infrastructure (P&I) until 23 April 2014)
Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)
Queensland Department of State Development Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP)
State Library of NSW
Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority
Transport for NSW (TfNSW)
Table C.4
Industry bodies and utility providers
Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors (AIQS)
Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia (IPWEA)
Local Government Landscape Design Forum and Australian Institute of Landscape
Architects
Local Government NSW
NSW Minerals Council
Planning Institute of Australia
Property Council of Australia (PCA)
Shopping Centre Council of Australia
Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA)
Urban Taskforce
Ausgrid
Sydney Water
Telstra
Hunter Water Corporation
236
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
D
Changes to our benchmark items since the Draft
Report
D Changes to our benchmark items since the Draft
Report
We have used the process shown in Figure D.1 to identify which comments on
additional sub items and scope warranted further action. This approach allowed
us to manage the number of individual comments and the diversity of the views
to respond to material issues only.
We used 2 measures of cost variation to determine whether a stakeholder
comment on a deviation from the benchmark costs warranted further
investigation:


The magnitude of the cost difference: Has a stakeholder identified an
apparent cost difference of a significant magnitude (defined as +30%/-50% of
the benchmark cost)?
The quantity and symmetry in the apparent cost difference: Are a
significant number of comments distributed evenly around the benchmark
value or have we received a clear majority of comments that suggest the
benchmark cost is either too high or too low?
We then directed Evans & Peck to:
1. Filter out comments where scope is not like-for-like.
2. Review the estimate supporting the benchmark base cost, when an apparent
significant cost divergence was identified. If this identified any errors and
inappropriate estimating assumptions used in the items being reviewed,
Evans & Peck revised and corrected the cost estimate.
3. Consider if any of the revised scopes or cost components impact other items
based on similar assumptions, and revise these if necessary.
The following tables identify the changes to our benchmark item base costs since
the Draft Report. The tables outline the reasons that the costs have changed, and
identify whether it is a new item or sub-item.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
237
D Changes to our benchmark items since the Draft
Report
Figure D.1
238
Approach to screening comments on scope
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
Table D.1
Roads and transport facility items
Item
reference
Item name
Sub-item
reference
Sub-item name
Unit
Draft
Report unit
rate ($)
Final
Report unit
rate ($)
Changes
1.1
New Sub-Arterial
Road
1.1.1
4 lane sub-arterial
road
m
11,330
10,235
Disposal costs reduced
8,814
Clearing and grubbing changed to
light to medium vegetation
(previously medium vegetation)
6,245
Disposal costs increased
Clearing and grubbing changed to
light to medium vegetation
(previously light vegetation)
1.2
Sub-Arterial Road
widening
1.1.2
3 lane sub-arterial
road
m
9,748
1.2.1
Flexible pavement
m
5,603
1.2.2
Rigid pavement
m
5,776
6,422
New Rural Road
1.6
New rural road
m
2,630
2,322
Guide posts excluded (previously
included)
1.7
Rural Road
widening
1.7
Rural road widening
m
3,488
3,533
Disposal costs increased
Demolition and
upgrade of footpath
1.11.1
1.2m wide footpath
m
252
255
Environment no longer assumed
as brownfield
1.11.2
2.2m wide footpath
m
566
569
Disposal costs increased
1.11.3
2.5m wide shared
cycleway/pedestrian
footpath
m
686
690
1.14.1
Roundabout
intersection/
Roundabout only in
brownfield with live
traffic conditions
Each
NA
100,069
1.11
1.14
Roundabout
Intersection
Guide posts excluded (previously
included)
Creation of three new sub items
(previously one item).
D Changes to our benchmark items since the Draft
Report
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
1.6
239
240
Item name
Sub-item
reference
Sub-item name
Unit
Draft
Report unit
rate ($)
Final
Report unit
rate ($)
1.14.2
Roundabout only in
greenfield with no
traffic
Each
NA
34,316
1.14.3
Roundabout
intersection and
pavement in
greenfield with no
traffic
Each
NA
330,412
Changes
1.16
Bus stop
1.16
Bus stops
Each
7,144
17,515
Revised scope of the infrastructure
item to incorporate additional DDA
requirements i.e. increased shelter
area, number of seats, non-slip
surfacing and tactile indicators.
1.17
Street lighting
1.17.1
10.5m high, 250 watt
Luminaire
Each
8,846
10,062
Luminaire specification changed to
42W CFL
1.17.2
12m high 400 watt
Luminaire
Each
9,576
15,367
Below ground conduits and cabling
costs added
1.18.1
without kerb
separation
m
78
234
Corrected a calculation error.
1.18.2
with kerb separation
m
137
297
1.19.1
Pedestrian bridge
m
NA
30,318
1.19.2
Cycle overbridge
m
NA
31,973
1.18
1.19
On road cycleway
Pedestrian
overpass
New item requested by IPART
(previously a non-benchmark
item).
1.20
Pedestrian
underpass
1.20
Pedestrian
underpass
m
NA
152,880
New item requested by IPART
(previously a non-benchmark
item).
1.21
Road pavement
1.21
Road pavement
m2
NA
80
New item requested by IPART
D Changes to our benchmark items since the Draft
Report
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
Item
reference
Item
reference
Item name
Sub-item
reference
resurfacing
Sub-item name
Unit
Draft
Report unit
rate ($)
Final
Report unit
rate ($)
resurfacing
Changes
(previously a non-benchmark
item).
Bicycle racks
Each
NA
1,121
New item requested by IPART
(previously a non-benchmark
item).
Item name
Sub-item
reference
Sub-item name
Unit
Draft
Report unit
rate ($)
Final
Report unit
rate ($)
Changes
2.7
Stormwater
headwalls
2.7.7
Extra over for
erosion control
m2
NA
223
New sub item added for erosion
protection for creek channels in
response to stakeholder comment.
Table D.3
Open space embellishment items
Item
reference
Item name
Sub-item
reference
Sub-item name
Unit
Draft
Report unit
rate ($)
Final
Report unit
rate ($)
Changes
3.1 (L)
Demolition
3.1.1 (L)
Reinforced concrete
slabs
m2
73
93
Disposal costs increased
3.1.2 (L)
Unreinforced
concrete slabs
m2
63
83
3.1.3 (L)
Bitumen paving
including base
course
m2
63
83
3.1.4 (L)
Concrete/masonry
structure
m2
266
361
3.1.5 (L)
Light structure
m2
210
514
Cycleway facilities bicycle racks
Table D.2
Stormwater items
Item
reference
D Changes to our benchmark items since the Draft
Report
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
1.22
1.22
241
242
Item name
Sub-item
reference
Sub-item name
Unit
Draft
Report unit
rate ($)
Final
Report unit
rate ($)
Changes
3.1.6 (L)
Double story light
structure
m2
NA
361
New sub-item benchmarked at
IPART’s request.
3.1.7 (L)
Double story
concrete/masonry
structure
m2
NA
514
3.3 (L)
Soft Surfaces Turfing
3.3.2 (L)
Hydroseeding
m2
25
34
Added irrigation costs
3.19 (L)
Basic landscaping
3.19.5 (L)
Mulching
Per tree
NA
325
3.19.6 (L)
Edging
m
NA
45
New sub-item benchmarked in
response to stakeholder
comments.
3.23 (L)
Waterproofing to
concrete deck
3.23 (L)
Waterproofing
m2
NA
153
New item benchmarked at
IPART’s request (previously a nonbenchmark item).
3.2 (D)
Sportsfield
floodlighting
3.2.1 (D)
Football (all codes)
Per
field/pitch
62,500
149,425
3.2.2 (D)
Tennis
Per court
29,250
31,275
Increased lux of lighting generally
Increased extent of lighting for
football pitches
3.2.3 (D)
Netball and
Basketball
Per court
30,000
62,550
Table D.4
Community facilities items
Item
reference
Item name
Sub-item
reference
Sub-item name
Unit
Draft
Report unit
rate ($)
Final
Report unit
rate ($)
Changes
4.1
Multi-Purpose
Community Facility
4.1
Multi-Purpose
Community Facility
m2
3,175
3,270
Added security systems, CCTV and
keyless access, in response to
stakeholder comments.
4.2
Library
4.2
Library
m2
3,860
3,980
Added security systems, CCTV and
keyless access, in response to
stakeholder comments.
D Changes to our benchmark items since the Draft
Report
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
Item
reference
Item
reference
Item name
Sub-item
reference
Sub-item name
Unit
Draft
Report unit
rate ($)
Final
Report unit
rate ($)
Changes
4.3
Preschools/
Childcare facilities/
OSHC
4.3
Preschools/Childcare
facilities/OSHC
m2
3,440
3,500
Added security systems, CCTV and
keyless access, in response to
stakeholder comments.
4.4
Aquatic centre
(indoor)
4.4
Aquatic centre (indoor)
m2
4,730
4,780
Added security systems, CCTV and
keyless access, in response to
stakeholder comments.
4.5
Car Park
4.5.1
On Grade Car Park
Per space
6,135
6,300
CCTV and powered access gates,
in response to stakeholder
comments.
4.5.2
Multi Storey Car Park
Per space
33,635
34,040
CCTV and powered access gates,
in response to stakeholder
comments.
Swimming Pool
(Outdoor)
4.6
Swimming Pool
(Outdoor)
Per facility
3,750,000
3,770,000
CCTV, in response to stakeholder
comments.
4.7
Indoor Aquatic
Facility with Gym
4.7
Indoor aquatic facility
with gym
m2
4,385
4,430
Added security systems, CCTV and
keyless access, in response to
stakeholder comments.
D Changes to our benchmark items since the Draft
Report
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
4.6
243
E Indicative list of benchmark items to be reviewed
each year
E Indicative list of benchmark items to be reviewed
each year
Table E.1
Indicative schedule of benchmark items to be reviewed over 3
years
Year 1
Year 2
Administration costs
New industrial road
Turfing
New sub-arterial road
New subdivision road
Synthetic playing surfaces
Sub-arterial road widening
New local access road
Softfall under play equipment
Rural road widening
New rural road
Hard surfaces
Demolition and upgrade of
footpath
Guide posts / safety barriers,
pedestrian fencing
Concrete pathways
Roundabout Intersection
Traffic calming
Steps/ ramping
Bus stop
Footpaths
Play equipment
Street lighting
Unsignalised intersection
Park furniture – seating
Pedestrian overpass
Signalised intersection
Park furniture – picnic sets
Pedestrian underpass
Pedestrian crossing
Park furniture – bins
Road pavement resurfacing
On road cycleway
Park furniture – BBQs
Stormwater headwalls
Primary pollution treatment
Park furniture –- drinking
fountains
Demolition
Secondary/ tertiary pollution
treatment
Park furniture – taps
Site clearance
Precast concrete box culverts Fencing - playground
Basic landscaping
Stormwater drain / pits
Perimeter fencing
Cycleway facilities / bicycle
racks
Stormwater drainage
pipework
Shade structures
Waterproofing
Planter boxes
Sportsfields and irrigation
Amenity block
Sportsfield floodlighting
Security lighting
Multi-purpose community
facility
Tennis court (outdoor)
Library
Netball court (outdoor
Preschools/ childcare
facilities/ OSHC
Basketball court (outdoor)
Aquatic centre (indoor)
Car park
Swimming pool (outdoor)
Indoor aquatic facility, gym
244
Year 3
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
F
Examples of first principles and reference pricing
cost methodologies
F Examples of first principles and reference pricing
cost methodologies
F.1
Example of an item costed using the first principles
methodology
Example for Illustrative Purposes only First Principles Civil Works Estimating Methodology ‐ Direct Works Only
Item
Description
Unit Qty Number
Rate Total m
m
m
m3
m per shift
shifts
100
1.5
1.5
225
25
4
Labour
Supervisor
Pipelayers
Machine Driver Labourers
shift
shift
shift
shift
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
2
$630
$540
$495
$495
$2,520
$4,320
$5,940
$3,960
Plant Excavator ‐ 20t Excavator ‐ 15t Excavator ‐ 8t Tipper shift
shift
shift
shift
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
$675
$585
$360
$315
$2,700
$2,340
$1,440
$1,260
Materials 600mm pipe including 5% wastage
m
105
$200
$21,000
Subcontract Disposal of Spoil m3
225
Excl
Excl
$455
$45,480
Activity: Installation of 600mm pipe
Estimating Notes
Activity based on 9 hour shift
Excavated material to be used as backfill Key Inputs
Length of Pipe
Trench Depth Trench Width
Total Excavation Volume
Production Rate
Duration Calculations
Total ‐ Rate per m / Total Cost Activity
Note: Notional details, figures and rates have been used in the above table for illustrative purposes
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
245
F Examples of first principles and reference pricing
cost methodologies
F.2
246
Example of an item costed using the reference pricing
methodology
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
Glossary
Glossary
ABS
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Adjustment factor
An index or percentage applied to the base cost of a
benchmark item to adjust for different geographical
settings, regional prices, access to materials and
congestion settings.
Austroads
The association of Australian and New Zealand road
transport and traffic authorities
Base cost
The cost of providing an infrastructure item (before
adjustment or contingency is added) that includes
direct costs, contractor indirect costs and margin, and
council on-costs.
Benchmark item
A local infrastructure item/sub-item for which a
benchmark cost could reasonably be established.
Benchmark cost
The cost of a benchmark item, comprising a base cost,
adjustment factors and a contingency allowance (as
applicable).
The Bill
Planning Bill 2013
Contingency allowance
An allowance applied to the base cost of an item to
account for uncertainty in the planning, design and
delivery of the item.
Contractor indirect costs
and margin
A component of the base cost. Indirect costs are the
costs incurred by the contractor to deliver the project,
such as site office accommodation, management
personnel and project insurances. Margin is the
contractor’s overheads (non-project specific costs)
and profit.
Council on-costs
A component of the base cost incurred by the council
in relation to delivering the benchmark item.
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
247
Glossary
248
CPI
The ABS Consumer Price Index
DCP
Development Control Plan
Direct costs
The component of the base cost that is the cost
incurred to supply and construct the item.
EP&A Act
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
EP&A Regulation
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000
Essential infrastructure
Items of infrastructure that are essential to support
demand arising from development, and for which
councils will be able to levy a contribution. The
Infrastructure Contributions Taskforce is finalising
the ‘essential infrastructure list’.
IPART
The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of
NSW
IPART Act
Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal Act 1992
LGA
Local Government Area
Non-benchmark item
A local infrastructure item for which neither a
benchmark cost nor reference cost examples could
reasonably be established. The scope of these items is
very site-specific.
P&I
NSW Planning and Infrastructure (Department of
Planning and Environment from 23 April 2014)
Performance outcome
A specific objective which defines the requirements
of the infrastructure, including setting the
performance expectations.
PPIs
Producer Price Indices
Reference item
A local infrastructure item for which a single
benchmark cost could not reasonably be established,
but where 2 cost examples have been developed
representing for example a simple and a complex
solution.
Reference costs
An indicative range of costs, above and below the
median of the possible distribution of cost outcomes
for a reference item.
IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs
Glossary
Reference pricing
(top down) cost
methodology
A cost estimating methodology that involves
estimating 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 is to be delivered.
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
Scope of an item
The size and/or quantity of an infrastructure item,
the materials it is constructed from, and the
arrangement of its components.
Scope of work
All the activities required to construct or install an
infrastructure item.
Standards
Any guideline, legislative requirement, technical
standard or specification that councils apply when
local
infrastructure
that
informs
providing
performance outcome, design or scope of an
infrastructure item.
The Taskforce
Infrastructure Contributions Taskforce established to
assist the Government to implement the new
infrastructure contributions framework
White Paper
NSW Government, A New Planning System for NSW,
White Paper, April 2013
Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART
249