Maitland has not changed its heavy haulage levy since 2016. It just raised it, and widened who pays.

The power comes from section 7.11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which the report notes was previously section 94, and which lets a council levy development that will or is likely to increase demand for local infrastructure. Maitland has used it since 2016 to charge a levy on extractive industries towards road maintenance along select local roads used for heavy haulage.

Nine years without a change

That is the part worth pausing on. Road construction costs did not stand still between 2016 and 2026, and the levy did. Staff reviewed it, concluded it did not cover the real cost, and went looking for a better method. The report says they reviewed alternative methodologies, including a model recently endorsed by the Independent Planning Commission (IPC), and the new plan was prepared incorporating revised methodology and up-to-date road maintenance and repair costs.

Council’s own statement of the problem is blunt: The current heavy haulage levy does not enable the collection of contributions at a level that reflects the impact of heavy haulage development. The gap between what the levy raised and what the roads cost has been carried by Maitland ratepayers.

The quieter change: who pays

The rate is the headline, but the reach may matter more. The plan, acknowledging that development outside of extractive industries affect the road network, also expands the range of development types the levy will apply to. A levy written for quarries now reaches other development that puts heavy vehicles on the same roads.

It is not retrospective. The revised levy provisions will apply to new development applications lodged after the Plan comes into effect, and the plan takes effect when council publishes its notice, which it must do within 28 days under section 214 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2021.

The one objection, and what it argued

Council received exactly one submission during exhibition, dated 25 June 2026, and it related to the proposed heavy haulage levy only. The report lists its five concerns: that The levy is unreasonable as it fails to adequately display nexus and apportionment, that Council fails to consider the existing state of the road network, thereby inflating the levy, that The Plan does not adequately show how the levy is calculated, that Council has not adequately consulted on the Plan, and that Council fails to consider feasibility.

Nexus and apportionment are the technical heart of contributions law: a levy has to be connected to the demand the development creates, and has to charge a fair share of it. The submission’s argument is that Maitland’s new rate covers works that heavy vehicles do not cause. It puts the point directly, saying the plan provides that contributions will be used for all necessary works of carriageway construction and maintenance, including culverts, bridges, drainage and landscaping, and that it does not establish that the need for such works is created by heavy vehicle usage.

Staff did not accept it. Despite the concerns raised in the submission, staff consider the levy reflects the actual costs incurred by Council in maintaining roads affected by heavy haulage, the report says, and that the plan is consistent with the legislation and the NSW Practice Notes on Local Infrastructure Contributions.

Then the line that settles what exhibition achieved: As a result of the public exhibition, no material changes have been made to the Plan.

Council adopted the officers’ recommendation without amendment. The motion was moved by Cr R Barstow and seconded by Cr S Halliday, and carried on a recorded division of 12 for and none against.

What we could not get

The rate itself. The plan is an attachment under separate cover and we have not read it, so we cannot give you council’s own statement of the new figure or compare it with the 2016 one. The submission states the rate, saying the plan concludes that the contribution rate will be $0.115/t/km (Heavy Haulage Contribution Rate). That is the objector’s account of the plan, not council’s, and we are reporting it as such rather than as a figure we have confirmed.

We also cannot tell you what the old rate was, which is the comparison a reader most wants. The agenda does not state it, and it is the obvious thing to ask council for.

Spotted an error? Request a correction and we will check it against the papers and log the outcome here.