“
What the Fishermans Bend DCP Means for Developers Right Now
nn
The Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area Development Contributions Plan (DCP) is a proposed funding mechanism that would consolidate infrastructure levies for developers building within the precinct into a single, capped charge per dwelling and per square metre of non-residential floor area. As of mid-2026, the DCP has not been finalised — it remains subject to review following the Precincts Standing Advisory Committee (PSAC) report reported to have been released in April 2025, and interim development contribution arrangements dating back to 2015 continue to apply in the meantime. For developers with sites in Fishermans Bend or considering acquisitions there, this creates a live planning and feasibility question: what will you actually be charged, and when. This kind of transitional uncertainty is similar to what developers are tracking with the forthcoming fast-track planning permit pathways, where announced reform has not yet translated into operative law.
nn
This matters because Fishermans Bend is one of the largest urban renewal projects in Australia, spanning roughly 480 hectares across the City of Melbourne (Lorimer precinct) and the City of Port Phillip (Sandridge, Wirraway and Montague precincts). The proposed DCP is intended to fund a substantial pipeline of essential infrastructure to 2055 — open space, local roads, drainage and community hubs — through contributions from the developments that will use it. Developers should confirm current funding totals directly with the Department of Transport and Planning, as figures reported publicly may change as the plan is refined. Getting your feasibility numbers wrong on this could turn a viable site into a marginal one, or worse.
nn
This guide sets out what’s currently confirmed, what’s still in draft, how the proposed charges compare with older interim arrangements, and how developers can build appropriate contingency into project costings while the DCP moves through its final approval stages. SQM Architects has guided developer clients through planning permit pathways in urban renewal and activity centre precincts across Melbourne, and this article draws on that experience to translate a complex funding framework into practical next steps. For a broader view of how contribution and levy frameworks fit into overall project viability, see our guide to property development feasibility considerations.
nn
Background: How We Got Here
nn
The Fishermans Bend Framework was endorsed by the Victorian Government in 2018, with a public commitment to prepare a comprehensive infrastructure funding strategy for the area. Since 2015, developers in the precinct have been contributing to infrastructure through an interim system — effectively a stopgap while a more permanent mechanism was designed and tested.
nn
That permanent mechanism is the draft DCP, progressed through a planning scheme amendment. The draft was released for public consultation and attracted submissions from stakeholders and the community, before being referred to the PSAC for independent review. Public hearings were reported to have run from late 2024 into early 2025. The PSAC report, reported to have been publicly released in April 2025, broadly found the proposed DCP and its accompanying Open Space Uplift mechanism to be strategically justified — subject to refinements the Department of Transport and Planning is still working through with the City of Melbourne, the City of Port Phillip and Melbourne Water. Developers should confirm the current status of this amendment directly with the Department of Transport and Planning, as timelines for planning scheme amendments can shift.
nn
In practical terms, this means the DCP is progressing toward finalisation but is not yet in force. Developers currently lodging planning permit applications in Fishermans Bend are still working under the interim contribution arrangements, but should factor the proposed DCP rates into feasibility modelling as a contingency, because a transition could occur once the amendment is approved.
nn
What the Draft DCP Actually Proposes
nn
The version of the DCP considered by PSAC proposed to consolidate multiple existing charges — including open space contributions that were previously collected separately — into one combined levy. Under publicly reported drafts, the proposed rates have included a capped per-dwelling charge (reported in the order of the mid-$30,000s) for residential development, and a capped rate per square metre (reported in the order of a few hundred dollars per square metre) of gross floor area for non-residential development.
nn
These figures should not be relied on for feasibility modelling without direct confirmation from the Department of Transport and Planning or the relevant Responsible Authority, as the rates remain in draft and subject to change before the amendment is finalised.
nn
These figures represent capped rates designed to give developers cost certainty across the life of the DCP, rather than charges that escalate project-by-project based on infrastructure need. The draft identified a substantial value of infrastructure to be funded this way, with an expected funding gap to be met through other government sources. This gap matters for developers mainly as a signal: it indicates the state government has sought to cap developer contributions at a level it considers commercially sustainable, rather than trying to fully cost-recover through the levy alone.
nn
The Minister for Precincts is proposed as the collecting agency under the draft DCP, with the department’s secretary as the development agency — a structure that removes financial and delivery risk from the local councils. This is a meaningful distinction for developers: contributions are proposed to be paid to and administered by the state, not by the City of Melbourne or the City of Port Phillip directly, even though those councils will benefit from the infrastructure delivered.
nn
It’s worth noting that “catalytic” infrastructure — the kind of city-shaping projects such as a potential Fishermans Bend tram extension or Melbourne Metro 2 — sits outside the DCP and would be funded separately by the state government. The DCP is scoped to essential local and precinct-level infrastructure: open space, local roads, drainage, and community facilities.
nn
What’s Excluded from the DCP
nn
Not everything in Fishermans Bend sits inside the DCP boundary. The Fishermans Bend National Employment and Innovation Cluster is explicitly excluded from the development contributions plan. Developers with sites in or near this cluster should confirm with the Responsible Authority whether their site falls inside or outside the DCP area, as this affects which contribution regime applies.
nn
Get the 7-point site check to run before committing to a permit application — zoning, overlays, setbacks and council red flags, in plain English. Free PDF, instant download.
- Zone, overlay & setback checks
- What council assesses first
- Permit-readiness red flags
Something went wrong. Please try again.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Check your inbox — your checklist is on its way.
Council-by-Council Variations: Melbourne vs Port Phillip
nn
Fishermans Bend spans two municipalities, and while the DCP is intended to apply a consistent capped rate across the precinct, the practical experience of navigating it differs by council.
nn
City of Melbourne (Lorimer Precinct)
nn
Only the Lorimer precinct falls within the City of Melbourne‘s planning scheme. The council has reportedly made a formal submission on the DCP and associated planning scheme amendment, with recommendations for local projects it wants prioritised for funding — including open space near Hartley Street and Lorimer Street, transport connections to the Sandridge precinct, a sport and recreation hub, and a contribution toward local streetscape works. Developers in Lorimer should treat these named priorities as a general indicator of near-term infrastructure interest in that precinct — for specific project values and timing, confirm directly with the City of Melbourne — which can inform expectations around staging and local amenity improvements near a site.
nn
City of Port Phillip (Sandridge, Wirraway, Montague)
nn
The remaining three precincts — Sandridge, Wirraway and Montague — fall under the City of Port Phillip. Montague is currently reported to be the furthest advanced of the four precincts: a draft Montague Precinct Implementation Plan has been released for public consultation. Developers with sites in Montague may have more visibility into staging, local infrastructure sequencing and design guidance than those in Sandridge or Wirraway, where implementation plans are yet to be drafted or released.
nn
Given that Melbourne Water is also a party to ongoing discussions about the DCP’s refinement — particularly regarding the drainage and flood mitigation component — developers in low-lying parts of Port Phillip’s precincts should pay particular attention to how drainage infrastructure staging affects their site’s development timing.
nn
How This Affects Project Feasibility and Costs
nn
For a typical Fishermans Bend apartment development, contribution costs under the proposed capped DCP rate would generally be calculated as a straightforward multiplication:
nn
| Development Type | Contribution Basis |
|---|---|
| Apartment building (any number of dwellings) | Proposed per-dwelling capped rate × number of dwellings |
| Commercial/office floor area | Proposed per-square-metre capped rate × gross floor area (m²) |
| Mixed-use development | Combined dwelling rate and GFA rate applied to their respective components |
nn
Actual proposed rates should be confirmed directly with the Department of Transport and Planning or the Responsible Authority before use in feasibility modelling. Rates referenced publicly are indicative only, based on the capped structure proposed in the draft DCP as considered by PSAC, and may change before the DCP is finalised. Developers should not treat any currently reported figure as a confirmed charge for feasibility purposes.
nn
The key feasibility risk for developers currently is not the amount of the proposed levy itself — a capped rate is, in principle, easier to model than an open-ended cost-recovery charge — but the uncertainty around when the transition from interim arrangements to the finalised DCP will occur, and whether transitional provisions will apply to permits already in the pipeline. A project that has its feasibility modelled under interim arrangements could see its contribution obligations shift once the DCP commences, depending on the transitional rules ultimately adopted.
nn
SQM Architects has observed that developers who build a contribution contingency line into early feasibility studies — rather than treating the DCP rate as a fixed, locked-in number — may be better placed to manage this uncertainty without it derailing a project’s viability at a later stage. For developers weighing up site strategy more broadly, our guide on knockdown-rebuild, dual occupancy and subdivision options covers related feasibility trade-offs, and our ResCode reference guide outlines the residential development standards that apply alongside contribution requirements.
nn
Practical Steps for Developers with Fishermans Bend Sites
nn
Given the DCP’s current status, there are several practical steps developers could consider when assessing a Fishermans Bend site or progressing an existing project:
nn
- n
- Confirm current contribution status before lodging. Check with the Responsible Authority whether your site is still subject to interim development contribution arrangements or whether the finalised DCP has commenced, as this affects both the rate and the collection mechanism.
- Identify your precinct. Lorimer, Sandridge, Wirraway and Montague may each have different implementation timelines and local infrastructure priorities, even under a single consolidated DCP rate.
- Check whether your site falls within the DCP boundary at all. Sites within the National Employment and Innovation Cluster are treated differently.
- Model contributions as a range, not a fixed figure. Given the DCP remains subject to refinement, feasibility studies could reasonably include a sensitivity range around the proposed capped rates, confirmed with current published sources. See our overview of property development feasibility considerations for a broader framework.
- Factor in the Open Space Uplift mechanism. The draft DCP is supported by planning controls proposing development incentives tied to open space delivery — this could affect achievable yield or built form outcomes on some sites, separate from the dollar levy itself. Our guide to townhouse development in Victoria covers related built form and yield considerations for multi-dwelling sites.
- Track PSAC-driven refinements. The department is still working through implications of the PSAC report with the City of Melbourne, the City of Port Phillip and Melbourne Water — meaning the rate, boundary or collection mechanism could still be adjusted before final approval.
- Engage early with planning advisors familiar with the precinct. Given the complexity of transitional arrangements, professional guidance early in a site’s due diligence phase could help avoid feasibility surprises later. Understanding likely timelines is also worthwhile — see our planning permit timeline guide by council.
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nn
Beyond Fishermans Bend itself, it’s worth noting that Victoria’s broader infrastructure contribution framework continues to evolve. The Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution (GAIC) is indexed annually and varies by land type — developers should confirm current per-hectare rates, land type classifications and any excluded buildings thresholds with the Department of Transport and Planning or their local council before relying on any figure in feasibility modelling. While Fishermans Bend sits within its own dedicated DCP framework rather than the GAIC system, developers with sites across multiple growth corridors should be aware that indexation adjustments occur annually and can affect multi-site feasibility comparisons. For broader context on the Victorian planning framework, see our overview of Victoria planning regulation.
nn
Frequently Asked Questions
nn
Is the Fishermans Bend DCP finalised as of mid-2026?
n
No. As of the most recent public updates, the DCP remains in draft form following the PSAC report reported to have been released in April 2025. The Department of Transport and Planning is working through recommended refinements with the City of Melbourne, the City of Port Phillip and Melbourne Water before finalisation, and interim development contribution arrangements continue to apply in the meantime.
nn
What happens to my planning permit application if the DCP commences mid-project?
n
This depends on the transitional provisions ultimately adopted as part of the finalised amendment. Developers with permits in progress should confirm directly with the Responsible Authority how a transition from interim arrangements to the finalised DCP may affect contributions already assessed or paid.
nn
Does the DCP replace all other infrastructure charges in Fishermans Bend?
n
The draft DCP is intended to consolidate multiple existing charges — including open space contributions previously collected separately — into a single combined levy. However, drainage-related costs, which have historically involved Melbourne Water, are proposed to be funded through the DCP’s dedicated allocation rather than charged separately, though this remains subject to final agreement between the parties involved.
nn
Are the proposed rates the same across all four precincts?
n
The capped rates proposed in the draft DCP are intended to apply consistently across the DCP area, rather than varying precinct by precinct — developers should confirm the current published figures with the Department of Transport and Planning. However, the infrastructure projects funded and their staging may differ between Lorimer, Sandridge, Wirraway and Montague.
nn
What is the Open Space Uplift mechanism?
n
The Open Space Uplift is a development incentive proposed alongside the DCP to support the delivery of public open space within Fishermans Bend. It may affect achievable built form or yield on eligible sites, in exchange for supporting open space outcomes — developers should discuss specifics for their site with a qualified planning advisor.
nn
Does the Fishermans Bend DCP affect sites in the National Employment and Innovation Cluster?
n
No. The Fishermans Bend National Employment and Innovation Cluster sits outside the development contributions plan. Developers with sites in this area should confirm which planning and contribution framework applies to their specific location.
nn
How can developers get early clarity on likely contribution costs for a Fishermans Bend site?
n
Given the framework remains in transition, early engagement with a planning and architecture advisor experienced in urban renewal precincts can help translate the current draft rates and interim arrangements into a realistic feasibility range for a specific site.
nn
Summary
nn
The Fishermans Bend DCP represents a proposed shift toward a single, capped infrastructure contribution for developers in the precinct — a move away from the fragmented interim arrangements that have applied since 2015. But with the plan still working through final refinements as of mid-2026, developers need to treat the proposed capped per-dwelling and per-square-metre rates as a strong planning indicator rather than a locked-in cost, confirm current figures directly with the Department of Transport and Planning, and build appropriate contingency into feasibility modelling until the amendment is formally approved.
nn
SQM Architects has worked on planning permit pathways across Melbourne’s established and renewal precincts for over 15 years. For developers assessing a Fishermans Bend site, or trying to understand how the proposed DCP interacts with an existing project’s feasibility, an early conversation with an experienced planning and architecture team can help clarify what’s confirmed, what’s still in draft, and what it means for your numbers.
nn
Book a Strategy Call — have a 30-minute conversation with SQM Architects about your development site. Call us on (03) 9005 6588.
nn
Reviewed by Sammi Lian, Principal Architect, SQM Architects. Reviewed July 2026.
nn
nn
This article provides general information only. For project-specific guidance, consult with qualified professionals.
”
Reviewed July 2026 by Sammi Lian, Principal Architect — SQM Architects (ABN 32 600 928 390, ARBV Reg. No. 51498). This article is general information about Victorian planning and development, not personal, legal or financial advice.
