Council Minutes - Section B: Reports - 8 December 2016

Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Assembly of Councillors

Reports tabled at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Tuesday date held at the Council Conference and Reception Centre in City Hall, 57 Little Malop Street, Geelong.


  1. Election of Deputy Mayor

  2. Adoption of Amendment C280 - Ash Road (West), Leopold

  3. Ocean BGrove Structure Plan Review 2015

  4. Managing Development in Rural Areas - Planning Policy Review

  5. Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amenedment C301 - Rezoning of 892-958 and 960-990 Barwon Heads Road, Armstrong Creek

  6. Managing Future Growth - Further Investigation Areas

  7. Adoption of Amendment C324-357 and 359 Pakington Street, Newtown-Chilwell Village Shopping Centre

  8. Leopold Land Capability and Bay Access Report

  9. Potato Shed Annual Report 2014-2015

  10. Propsect Road Laneways, Newtown - Proposed Construction SRC334 - Finalisation of Scheme

  11. Contractual Matter (Confidential)

  12. Contractual Matter (Confidential)

  13. Audit Advisory Committee Summary Report


1. Election of Deputy Mayor

In accordance with 11C(2) of the City of Greater Geelong Act 1993, Council must elect a Deputy Mayor upon the office becoming vacant.

Accordingly, nominations are called for the position of Deputy Mayor until 21 October 2016.


Cr Irvine moved, Cr Heagney seconded –

That Council elect a Deputy Mayor until 21 October 2016.


Carried.

Cr Murrihy moved, Cr Ellis seconded -

That Cr Harwood be nominated as Deputy Mayor until 21 October 2016.


Carried unanimously.

As there were no further nominations Cr Harwood was duly elected.


[Back to List]

2. Adoption of Amendment C280 - Ash Road (West), Leopold

Portfolio:

Planning - Cr Heagney

Source:

Planning and Tourism - City Development

General Manager:

Peter Bettess

Index Reference:

Council Reports 2015
Application: Amendment C280


Purpose

This report considers the Independent Panel Report and Recommendations on Amendment C280 and recommends adoption of the Amendment with changes.


Summary

Cr Macdonald moved, Cr Heagney seconded -

That Council:

  1. adopt Amendment C280 on the form outlined in Appendix 4 of this report with the addition to clause 2.0 of DPO Schedule 33 of a requirement that any permit for sub-division of the land at 160-172 Ash Road contain a condition requiring the installation of a 1.8 metre high, solid timber paling fence along its southern boundary;

  2. submit the adopted Amendment with the prescribed information to the Minister for Planning requesting approval;

  3. signs and seals the section 173 agreements with the 8 Individual landowners affected by this amendment to formalize development contribution arrangements (Appendix 5 is a model template of these Agreements);

  4. explores options for providing a pedestrian connection between Hazelwood Crescent and the Ash Road (West) rezoning area, Leopold.

Cr Nelson left the meeting room at 8:12pm

Cr Nelson re-entered the meeting room at 8:14pm


Carried.


Background

Amendment C280 resulted from an application made by St Quentin Consulting on behalf of Paisley Manor Pty Ltd, owner of 80-108 Ash Road Leopold to rezone 10 properties totalling 25 hectares from Farming Zone to General Residential Zone Schedule 1 together with an accompanying development Plan Overlay. The subject land is west of Ash Road, east of the Estuary Estate on the southern edge of Leopold.

Appendix 1 shows the subject land and existing zones. The land is used for residential, rural living and agricultural purposes ad has been substantially cleared of vegetation. Appendix 2 is an aerial photo of the subject land and surrounding area.

As part of the processing of this application there were discussions and negotiations with the applicant and landowners about the outline development plan and delivery by the developer(s) of the necessary community infrastructure in a timely manner. In this area these arrangements have been complicated by the 10 individual property owners and the need to fairly and equitably apportion developer contributions costs among the individual landowners.

Identified shared infrastructure requirements include:

A Draft Shared Infrastructure Funding Plan (SIFP), which was prepared by the applicant in consultation with Council, sets out the shared developer contribution arrangements in an equitable manner. The SIFP, along with an accompanying model template Section 173 Agreement to formalise these arrangements, were exhibited as part of the amendment documentation.

Amendment C280 was exhibited between 9 October and 10 November 2014. Council received 22 submissions in response of which 6 were from public authorities offering no objection, 6 from residents of the adjoining residential and rural living areas raising amenity and health issues, and 9 from landowners in the rezoning area supporting the rezoning of the land but raising concerns about the form of the DPO, SIFP and outline development plan. One nearby landowner objected to the rezoning of all but the applicant’s land

The issues raised in the submissions were considered by Council at its meeting on 10 February 2015. Council resolved to make changes to the Amendment to address some of the submissions including changing the size and location of open space; reconfiguring the northern drainage basin and adding extra land to allow Walkers Road to become the main connector road.

Council resolved to refer all submissions to an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning.

A Directions Hearing was conducted in Geelong on 25 February 2015 followed by the Panel Hearing on 17 and 18 March 2015.


Discussion

A two person Panel, chaired by Lester Townsend, conducted the hearing. The Panel submitted its report to Council on 1 June 2015.

The Panel has observed the following about Amendment C280:

Appendix 3 is the Executive Summary of the Panel’s report.

The key issues raised during the Panel Hearing, the Panel’s recommendations and Council officers’ response are outlined below using the headings from the Panel Report.


Chapter 2 Strategic Justification and interface issues


2.1 Strategic Justification

The Panel considered the policy context for the Amendment including the nomination of the area for future residential growth in the Leopold Structure Plan for the nine years. The Panel has concluded that the Amendment is supported by, and implements, the relevant sections of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework.

Council Officer Response

The findings of the Panel on the strategic merits of the Amendment are consistent with the policy position of Council and supported.


2.2 Pedestrian Connections

The issue of pedestrian connection to the surrounding area was raised in the Hearing. The Panel noted that the existing subdivisions to the north of the subject land made no provision for the extension of the urban area of Leopold southward. There is a line of back fences from Ash Road to Melaluka Road, 1.2 kilometres long, creating poor pedestrian connectivity between the subject land, Estuary Estate and existing areas of Leopold.

Providing a connection to the north would assist future residents by providing a more direct walking and cycling route to shops, schools and community facilities, and benefit existing residents by providing better access to the open space areas proposed on the subject land and that already provided in the Estuary Estate. Overall is would remove a significant barrier to community integration in Leopold.

At the Hearing Officers supported the proposition that the opportunity for improved pedestrian links should be part of the ODP and that Council should be striving for better connections and integration of existing and newly establishing areas.

On this conclusion the Panel has recommended that Council act to make provision for a pedestrian connection to the north of the site and act to acquire a property on Hazelwood Crescent to facilitate this.

Council Officer Response

The findings of the Panel are supported. While acknowledging the challenges in securing a public pedestrian link, it is important that every effort is made to avoid many of the previous poor subdivision connection outcomes across the municipality.

To demonstrate a clear intent of Council to pursue acquisition of a private property on Hazelwood Crescent in order to provide a link, it is proposed that Council resolve to explore available options.

The recommendation of the Panel is also supported with the proposed changes to the Amendment included in the DPO33 for adoption in Appendix 4.


2.3 External Roads

The right turn land on the west approach of the highway intersection with Ash Road has insufficient storage capacity to cater for the increased traffic volumes arising from this development. The full costs for the upgrade are to be funded by this development and have been included in the SIFP.

The Panel’s observation from one evening peak hour highlighted an existing problem at the intersection and comment was that a critical issue is the amount of money the developer of this proposal should be required to pay for the upgrade, given that it serves the existing residents and will be also required to serve the growth area to the east of Ash Road.

Council Officer Response

Officers explored the issue of the funding of the intersection upgrade with VicRoads. The very clear advice from VicRoads was that the current right turn queues at present do not regularly extend beyond the right turn lane and that given there is no queuing issue road improvements are not required to be undertaken.

SIDRA analysis (Signalised & un-signalised Intersection Design and Research Aid) undertaken for the application shows the post development operation will result in the traffic queuing beyond the existing right turn lane.

In order to maintain the road efficiency the existing right turn lane must be lengthened to store the proposed development traffic. As this is a result of the proposed development, it will be at the cost of the developers to upgrade the existing right turn lane into Ash Road.


2.4 Fencing along the Southern Boundary

Submitters requested the installation of solid timber paling fences along the southern boundary of the shared pathway/buffer reserve to increase security and privacy and manage dust and rubbish during construction of the subdivision.

The Panel concluded that there is no need for a high, solid paling fence along the southern boundary between the open space reserve on the subject land and the adjoining properties. The Panel observed that in effect the development will introduce a second road frontage to the adjoining land (though the lots would not have access rights across the open space). Fencing typical of rural residential road frontages is appropriate.

Council Officer Response

The finding of the Panel is supported.


2.5 Construction Management

The Panel noted that construction management is an important issue for the surrounding landowners but concurred with Council that it is most appropriately addressed as part of permit conditions rather than in the DPO.

The Panel considered the submission from the former Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) about the need for contingencies during the construction of drainage infrastructure for floodwater treatment where flooding occurs prior to all infrastructure being connected. This being of particular concern as the overflow water will discharge to Reedy Lake/Lake Connewarre which is a RAMSAR site. The Panel agreed with Council to change the DPO to address flooding contingencies during construction of the drainage infrastructure.

Council Officer Response

The findings of the Panel are supported.


2.6 Mosquito Breeding

The Panel considered the concerns of 2 submitters on the need to control mosquito breeding potential in the drainage basins and the risk this may pose to public health. Changes to the DPO to include a requirement for the design and construction of drainage basins to include measures to discourage mosquito breeding proposed by Council were endorsed by the Panel.

Council Officer Response

The findings of the Panel are supported.


Chapter 3 Internal Layout


3.2 Coordinated development

The issue of coordinated development was the most significant issue identified by the Panel and this warrants additional coverage in this Report.

The Panel observed that the most significant submissions were from the land owners whose land will be rezoned and that as a group they “display internal divisions and mistrust” that this disagreement between landowners about how the land is to be developed is an obstacle to a high quality living environment for future residents. A key concern for the Panel was that the development will require coordination and cooperation between the land owners and that unless they reach agreement this area of Leopold will not be developed for the foreseeable future. The Panel went further to observe that Council has been trying to resolve the different opinions between landowners and that it would be unwise for Council to become the meat in the sandwich in drawn out disputes between different land owners. In this context, the Panel recommends that before adopting the Amendment, Council enter into a S173 Agreement with landowners on shared infrastructure funding based on an agreement between the landowners on the Outline Development Plan and cooperation on development. If agreement is not reached in a timely fashion, the Panel recommends Council should abandon the Amendment. The Panel also recommended that Council could consider adopting the Amendment in parts if all owners north or south of Walkers Road reach agreement.

Council Officer Response

The Panel has teased out a disagreement and dysfunction between the landowners and their inability to cooperate on this development. For development to work in the area the Panel has identified that the landowners need to work together and reach agreement as necessary infrastructure is split across several land ownerships. The Panel has noted that Council has no obligation to be a mediator or broker in this process, something which Council has tried to do on this project.

Whilst there are other areas with significant land available for growth (referred to by the Panel), this location is the next large growth area in Leopold. This is the strategic direction of growth in Leopold, which is a growth suburb, and Council should continue to progress this Amendment to see this land come to the market as soon as possible. Officers have continued to progress the Amendment forward by meeting with landowners, completing the final Draft SIFP, preparing the S173 Agreements and sending to the landowners for signing. This progression has been based on the post-exhibition changes to the Outline Development Plan that Council put to the Panel, and which were endorsed.


3.3 Drainage and open space

The Panel heard a submission about the siting and size of the southern drainage basin and whether it was unnecessarily oversized. The Panel concluded that the precise size of the retarding basin should be determined as part of the detailed design process and that there is sufficient land to contain a basin.

The Panel heard submissions about the amount, size and location of open space proposed in the subject area, including disagreement about the location of the northern open space area and concerns that this space disproportionately affects smaller landholders, favouring the proponent with the largest land parcel.

The Panel concluded that the land north of Walkers Road should be developed in a coordinated manner and not as isolated projects. The landowners need to agree to a mutually accepted position on the layout of the development. While the Panel considers there are benefits in co-locating the open space with the northern drainage basin the more northern location proposed by Council (post exhibition) will result in a slightly better overall distribution of open space.

The Panel agreed with Council to reduce the width of the southern pathway/buffer reserve to 10 metres; to delete the pocket park for a River Red Gum that has been removed; to reduce the size of the southern co-located open space and retention basin to 1.085 ha.

Council Officer Response

The findings of the Panel are supported.


3.4 The Subdivision Collector Road (extended Walkers Road)

The Panel also considered the issue of whether the connector road (an upgraded and extended Walkers Road) should be included in the SIFP as a shared infrastructure item. The Panel concluded that this is an issue of equity between the parties, and one that needs to be resolved between the landowners, with them reaching an agreement between themselves on the development and the apportionment of the costs of the development.

To achieve the space required to the extend and upgrade Walkers Road from a 15 metre wide reservation to a collector road and to establish an efficient intersection with Ash Road, the Panel has recommended the inclusion of the full cost of acquisition of 132 Ash Road in the SIFP. The Panel has also recommended that the DPO include a strategy for the upgrade and extension of Walkers Road (supporting Council’s post-exhibition change) and to show the properties at 130 and 132 Ash Road as being excluded from the developable area.

Council Officer Response

Officers concur with the Panel conclusion that the collector road should be funded by the developer and not a shared cost across the whole rezoning area. It is the responsibility of developers to ‘develop’ their estates and these sorts of local roads are part of that development.

Officers support the Panel’s recommendations to include the full cost of the acquisition of 132 Ash Road in the SIFP, and for the accompanying changes to the DPO.


3.5 Changes to the Detailed Design

In considering detailed design issues for roads adjacent to public open space, the Panel supports the reduction in the width of roads adjoining the southern public open space and the landscape buffer and both of the drainage reserves to 13 metres. Further, the Panel supports Council’s post-exhibition change to clarify the number of street frontages for public open space, recommending a slight revision to the the language expressing this in the DPO.

Council Officer Response

Officers support these recommendations.


Chapter 4 Contributions, offsets and clarifications


4.1 Flora assessment

Council and the applicant endorsed DEPI’s submission that the Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Gain Analysis Ash Road, Leopold needs to be revised to conform to current standards, and the Panel recommended this be undertaken before finalising the amendment documents and agreements for shared infrastructure funding.

Council Officer Response

The need to update the Report is endorsed, however it has not been necessary to complete this work prior to the finalisation of the SIFP as the shared infrastructure items do not include any protection reserves etc for native vegetation. Updating of this work can be completed prior to the amendment being approved.


4.2 Shared Infrastructure Funding

The Panel also considered the submissions that sought changes to the items that have been included and excluded from the SIFP including road construction costs, planning costs and the land valuations. The Panel has concluded that it is not appropriate to include local roads in the SIFP, that it is appropriate to include planning costs in the SIFP and that the proposed approach to valuations and indexation is appropriate. The Panel has recommended that the DPO schedule reflects the executed S173 and SIFP.

Council Officer Response

Officers concur with these Panel conclusions and recommendations.


4.3 Timing of payment of the Community Infrastructure Levy

The Panel considered submissions that argued for the $900 per lot community infrastructure contribution in the SIFP to be paid at the building permit stage consistent with other urban growth areas. In contrast, Council argued for the contribution to the paid at the time of subdivision in lump sum amounts as it provides for certainty of funding and avoids the drip-feed of hundreds of $900 amounts over several years.

The Panel concluded that the timing of the collection of the levy should be consistent across growth areas and in Geelong, they understand this to be at the time of certification of the subdivision.

Council Officer Response

The Panel findings are supported.

Appendix 4 is Amendment C280 recommended for adoption (including the changes to the DPO Schedule referred to in the Panel’s recommendations and Council’s post-exhibition changes). A change has also been made to delete the requirement for a permit to include a condition requiring a CHMP for 21-29 Walkers Road as this is required under separate legislation and must be submitted as part of a subdivision permit application.

Individual Section 173 Agreements with 8 affected property owners to formalise developer contribution arrangements have been prepared. The 8 owners have signed the Agreement; and 2 owners have advised they will not sign the Agreement at this time. Appendix 5 is a model template of these Agreements with the individual owners.

It is envisaged that developer contributions will be able to be collected from owners/developers who have not yet signed the agreement through planning permit conditions at the subdivision stage.


Environmental Implications

The proposed rezoning and subsequent residential development is not expected to result in any adverse environmental impacts.

The Development Plan Overlay schedule includes requirements relating to protection of remnant vegetation and management of stormwater to prevent downstream pollution.

Developers will need to seek the required approvals from the Commonwealth Government under the provisions of the EPBC Act as Reedy Lake and Lake Connewarre (RAMSAR sites) are the receiving waters for this development.


Financial Implications

The draft Shared Infrastructure Funding Plan (SIFP) identifies all the capital financial requirements for the provision of infrastructure across the Ash Road west growth area. The draft SIFP details the specifics of the development contributions to relevant infrastructure and spread across all properties affected by the amendment. In exceptional circumstance if developers are unable to deliver the works in-kind, development contributions will be collected by Council and works delivered by Council.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The Amendment is consistent with the State Planning Policy implementing the objectives and strategies of Clause 11 Settlement, (in particular Urban Growth Clause 11.02, Open Space Clause 11.03 and Regional Development Clause 11.05), Clause 12.01 Biodiversity, Clause 15 Built Environment & Heritage, Clause 16 Housing and Clause 19 Infrastructure.

The Amendment also is consistent with the Local Planning Policy Framework; in particular Clause 21.06 Settlement & Housing identifies Leopold as one of the City’s designated primary urban growth areas. Clause 21.14 The Bellarine Peninsula sets out objectives and strategies for development of the Peninsula and each of the towns as contained in the adopted Structure Plans. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted 2013 Leopold Structure Plan and as such is consistent with Clause 21.14 of the LPPF, both advocating that the area be rezoned for conventional residential development.

The Amendment is also consistent with a range of other environmental, infrastructure, developer contributions and open space policies contained in the MSS.


Alignment to City Plan

The Amendment supports the Growing our Economy and Sustainable Built and Natural Environment strategic directions of City Plan, particularly as it is facilitating sustainable development in accordance with an adopted township Structure Plan.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council officers have any direct or indirect interest, in accordance with Section 80(c) of the Local Government Act to which this Amendment relates.


Risk Assessment

The Amendment is accompanied by a Shared Infrastructure Funding Plan that will either have developers build and provide the infrastructure as the area develops or if all endeavours to achieve this are exhausted, provide the equivalent funds to Council to provide and construct at a later time. There is a risk that developers may not deliver the infrastructure and that Council will need to undertake this.


Social Considerations

The Leopold Structure Plan, which supports this Amendment, has addressed the social implications of identifying areas for future growth.

Development of the subject land will add to the Leopold Strategic Footpath Network, provide local open space and is proximate to the sub-regional sporting facilities developed in the Estuary Estate.

A community infrastructure contribution of $900 per residential lot will also be gained with allocation to infrastructure in the Leopold area.


Human Rights Charter

Amendment C280 does not impact on any basic rights, freedoms and responsibilities set out in the Charter. Planning legislation ensures an open community consultation process enabling people to freely express their views and if necessary obtain a fair hearing before an Independent Panel.


Consultation and Communication

The Amendment has been exhibited in accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. All submitters were provided with an opportunity to be heard by the Independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning.


Appendix 1 – Subject land

C280 subject land
Ash Road (West) Leopold Amendment C280 - Rezoning area

Appendix 2 – Aerial image

Aerial image

Appendix 3 – Executive summary from Panel Report

Executive summary from Panel Report - Page 1 of 2
Executive summary from Panel Report - Page 2 of 2

Appendix 4 – Amendment for adoption

Planning and Environment Act 1987
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME
AMENDMENT C280
INSTRUCTION SHEET

The planning authority for this amendment is Greater Geelong Planning Scheme

The Greater Geelong Planning Scheme is amended as follows:

Planning Scheme Maps

The Planning Scheme Maps are amended by a total of 2 attached maps.

Zoning Maps

  1. Planning Scheme Map No.69 is amended in the manner shown on the attached map marked “Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, Amendment C280”.

Overlay Maps

  1. Planning Scheme Map No. 69DPO is amended in the manner shown on the attached map marked “Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, Amendment C280”.

Planning Scheme Ordinance

The Planning Scheme Ordinance is amended as follows:

  1. In Overlays – following Clause 43.04, insert a new Schedule 33 in the form of the attached document.

End of document

Amendment C280 - General Residentail Zone - Schedule 1
Amendment C280 - Cevelopment Plan Overlay - Schedule 33
Amendment C280 - Cevelopment Plan Overlay - Schedule 33: Page 1 of 7
Amendment C280 - Cevelopment Plan Overlay - Schedule 33: Page 2 of 7
Amendment C280 - Cevelopment Plan Overlay - Schedule 33: Page 3 of 7
Amendment C280 - Cevelopment Plan Overlay - Schedule 33: Page 4 of 7
Amendment C280 - Cevelopment Plan Overlay - Schedule 33: Page 5 of 7
Amendment C280 - Cevelopment Plan Overlay - Schedule 33: Page 6 of 7
Amendment C280 - Cevelopment Plan Overlay - Schedule 33: Page 7 of 7

Appendix 5 – Section 173 Agreement Template

Section 173 Agreement Template - Front page
Section 173 Agreement Template - Contents
Section 173 Agreement Template - Page 2
Section 173 Agreement Template - Page 3
Section 173 Agreement Template - Page 4
Section 173 Agreement Template - Page 5
Section 173 Agreement Template - Page 6
Section 173 Agreement Template - Page 7
Section 173 Agreement Template - Page 8
Section 173 Agreement Template - Page 9
Section 173 Agreement Template - Page 10
Section 173 Agreement Template - Page 11
Section 173 Agreement Template - Page 12
Section 173 Agreement Template - Page 13


[Back to List]

3. Ocean Grove Structure Plan Review 2015

Portfolio:

Planning - Cr Heagney

Source:

Planning Strategy and Urban Growth

General Manager:

Peter Bettess

Index Reference:

Project: Ocean Grove Structure Plan Review 2015


Purpose

The purpose of the report is to detail the findings of the review of the Ocean Grove Structure Plan 2007 (Amended 2008) and to request that Council adopt the draft Structure Plan 2015.


Summary

Cr Farrell moved, Cr Heagney seconded -

That Council:

  1. adopt the draft Ocean Grove Structure Plan 2015; and

  2. resolves to prepare and exhibit a planning scheme amendment to include the necessary elements of the Structure Plan within the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, subject to authorisation.

Carried.


Background

The current Ocean Grove Structure Plan was adopted by Council in 2007 and subsequently amended in 2008.

The adopted Structure Plan required that the take-up of land and redevelopment within the town be monitored regularly and that a basic review of development and lot supply should be undertaken every 5 years. It also stated that should a basic review reveal that lot supply has fallen to a rate of less than 10 years for the town, a full review of the Structure Plan should be undertaken including an investigation of additional growth areas. The G21 Residential Land Supply Monitoring Project for Geelong (June 2015) prepared by Spatial Economics confirms that for the municipality, region and town there is adequate land supply in excess of 10 years.

The review has built upon the adopted Plan and updated relevant sections as a consequence of changes since 2007. This includes updated State and Local Planning policies including the new regional plan, the G21 Regional Growth Plan 2013, population growth, lot supply and dwelling/lot construction rates, the location of the settlement boundary and indicative long-term settlement boundary, environmental and social considerations and the need for future infrastructure and service provision within the town.

The draft Structure Plan has been prepared in consultation with internal and external stakeholders with some additional specialist input including the preparation of an activity centre framework plan for the future Grubb Road activity centre and restricted retail precinct in the north-east growth area.

The draft Structure Plan has been largely modelled on the City of Greater Geelong’s Structure Plan framework to ensure consistency with other Council produced structure plans. The plan includes discussion on policy context, urban growth (demographics and lot supply), settlement and housing (urban environment) infrastructure (services, access and movement and community infrastructure), natural environment (flooding, climate change and key environmental features), economic development and employment (retail analysis, industrial analysis and tourism), and rural areas.

Since the adoption of the current Structure Plan, the town has seen significant changes including investment in community infrastructure; rezoning of land in the north-east growth area and subsequent subdivision and development; preparation of Council strategies and polices including the Ocean Grove Town Centre Urban Design Framework 2014; and implementation of Increased Housing Diversity Areas around the Town Centre and Marketplace neighbourhood activity centre.

One of the key issues considered in the draft Structure Plan relates to the relevance of the long-term growth direction of the town, principally relating to land west of Grubb Road between the existing settlement boundary and the indicative long-term settlement boundary shown on the Structure Plan map. Land in this area was kept outside the existing settlement boundary and included in the Structure Plan for consideration as a ‘very long term potential future growth’ option requiring a major investigation into its suitability for urban development. Consideration of this area for urban development is not required as part of the 2015 Structure Plan review process for reasons that will be outlined in the discussion section below.

A copy of the adopted Structure Plan map is included at Appendix 1.


Discussion

Structure Plan review

The Structure Plan review process commenced in late 2014. An important step in the process was engagement with key stakeholders. Initial engagement commenced in December 2014 with internal Council departments and key external stakeholders such as Barwon Water, VicRoads, Department of Education and Training et al. This provided a high level background to key infrastructure and land use/development issues in the town.

By reviewing the adopted Structure Plan, the following key matters were identified:


Land Supply

The State Planning Policy Framework requires municipalities to ensure a sufficient supply of land is available to accommodate a projected population growth over at least a 15 year period and, provide clear direction on locations where growth should occur. Structure planning for towns must consider residential land supply on a municipal basis, rather than a town-by-town basis. This is a key difference between the drafting exercise of the adopted Structure Plan and the draft Structure Plan 2015.

To assist Council in its assessment of land supply matters, the G21 Residential Land Supply Monitoring Project for Geelong (June 2015) provides a municipal wide analysis, including a township perspective.

From a land supply and demand basis, there is no requirement for additional broadhectare (greenfield land) residential stocks across the municipality. There is approximately 24 to 25 years of zoned broadhectare land supply. In terms of future broadhectare land supply stocks (unzoned or precinct structure plan required), there is an additional 13 years of supply to cater for projected demand across the municipality.

On a more localised scale, the Bellarine Peninsula requires no further broadhectare residential land stocks. There is 14 years of zoned broadhectare land supply. In terms of future broadhectare land supply stocks (unzoned), there is an additional 10 years of supply to cater for projected demand across the Bellarine.

Broadhectare residential land stocks within Ocean Grove are approximately 3,193 lots. In addition to existing broadhectare land, there are approximately 423 minor infill lots across the town and 436 future residential lots at the recently rezoned land at Trethowan Avenue/Ocean Grand Drive. The north-east growth area, east of Grubb Road, comprises significant broadhectare land supply in the town.

Notwithstanding Ocean Grove being the principal town on the Bellarine and its status as an urban growth location, the adequacy of land stocks are sufficient for the foreseeable future and importantly, will accommodate the projected population growth over the lifetime of the Structure Plan.

Existing and Long-term Settlement Boundaries

The adopted Structure Plan planned for significant population growth up to the year 2020 and beyond. The Structure Plan planned for a 4% population growth over the lifetime of the Structure Plan up to 2020.

The adopted Structure Plan identified two settlement boundaries - an existing settlement boundary and an indicative long-term settlement boundary (See Appendix 1). The role of each boundary is explained below:

The role of the existing settlement boundary is to accommodate the majority of population growth within the north-east growth area. The role of the indicative long-term settlement boundary is to plan for the very long term potential growth of the town. However, the adopted Structure Plan was explicit in so far as stating that this area of land (west of Grubb Road) within the long term settlement boundary would require major consideration and examination of transport, infrastructure, social and community impacts to determine whether or not it is appropriate for urban development.

The draft Structure Plan 2015 does not consider that land west of Grubb Road, within the indicative long-term settlement boundary, is required for urban development over the lifetime of the plan nor is a major investigation required into its land capability. The inclusion of an indicative long-term settlement boundary on the Structure Plan map provides uncertainty and is not a practice that is supported by Council officers, Independent Panels appointed by the Minister for Planning to consider other structure plans on the Peninsula and also, State Government policy and guidance.

State Government policy and guidance, including Planning Practice Note 36 (PPN36) Implementing Coastal Settlement Boundaries provides a useful strategic planning framework for structure planning on the peninsula. A key parameter of PPN36 is to “identify areas suitable for future urban development inside the settlement boundary.” PPN36 considers a coastal settlement boundary as a single settlement boundary, with a fixed outer boundary of urban development, and representing the future growth expectations for a settlement over a minimum 10 year planning horizon.

Forecast population growth over the lifetime of the draft Structure Plan will result in a township population of approximately 16,105 by 2030 (.id population forecast). Whilst focusing on a township basis to provide context to the adopted Structure Plan’s high growth rate aspirations by 2020, the forecast population by 2020 according to .id will be less than the projected 21,000 population by 2020, which was expected to be largely accommodated in the north-east growth area.

The ultimate growth of the town is not a question that requires final resolution by the draft Structure Plan. However, given the extent of land supply within the nominated settlement boundary, the need to consolidate development within settlement boundaries, the need to protect rural land and the need to protect the rural landscape and town identities on the Bellarine Peninsula, and also landscape and environmental features, land outside the nominated settlement boundary is not supported for urban growth as part of this Structure Plan. Consistency with Council’s approach to the preparation of other Structure Plan’s on the Bellarine Peninsula is also an important factor.

Consequently, the draft Structure Plan proposes to remove the long-term settlement boundary from the Structure Plan map including the wording “protect long term growth option”. (See Appendix 1 for reference to existing Structure Plan directions. See Appendix 2 for draft Structure map directions.)


Settlement boundary at Banks Road

The adopted Structure Plan identified land at the north-east corner of Banks Road and Shell Road as a possible location for an environmentally sensitive, master planned eco-tourist facility given its unique views of the coast, significant wetlands and proximity to the urban edge. The Structure Plan referred to this land as a “special investigation area”. A portion of the total site was included within the settlement boundary with the indication that the boundaries may require further refinement. It was acknowledged that a land use rezoning would be required to support such a facility. The current zoning is Farming (See Appendix 2).

No rezoning or development proposals for an eco-tourist facility have been put before Council since inclusion of the land in the settlement boundary.

The Farming Zone provisions have recently changed and provide for a more liberal approach to uses in rural areas. It is considered that the Farming Zone and other provisions in the Planning Scheme, including the proposed policy review for managing development in rural areas, provide a suitable basis to assess a future eco-tourist use on this site without the need for the land to be included in the settlement boundary.

Banks Road is considered a logical and robust eastern settlement boundary for the town. The draft Structure Plan proposes that the settlement boundary be realigned with the Banks Road reservation, retaining land east of Banks Road in the Farming Zone.


Future Grubb Road Activity Centre and Restricted Retail Precinct

The north-east growth area contains both Commercial 1 and Commercial 2 Zone land. This land was rezoned as part of the broader residential growth area to facilitate the needs of the future population and broader town. The land in question is significant in size and will accommodate extensive commercial development over a long term period. Whilst Council requires a development plan to be prepared for the Commercial 1 Zone, Commercial 2 Zone (and Industrial 3 Zone) land in this area, further guidance in terms of urban design is required to ensure a quality design outcome is achieved.

As part of the Structure Plan review process, an urban design exercise was undertaken for the Commercial 1 Zone (activity centre) and the Commercial 2 Zone (restricted retail precinct). This resulted in the preparation of an activity centre framework plan to guide the future design and development of the two precincts. The process included design workshops with key stakeholders including the landowner. A number of key directions have been included in the draft Structure Plan to provide a strategic basis to support the urban design principles outlined the framework plan.

The draft Structure Plan recommends that the guidance provided in the activity centre framework plan should be included within a schedule to the Design and Development Overlay to enable Council to maintain a consistent approach to the assessment of future development applications for both precincts. The inclusion of a new schedule to the Design and Development Overlay in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme will also ensure that key issues such as sensitive interfaces, creation of an attractive main street feel, and provision of appropriate pedestrian and cyclist connections with the broader growth area addressed.


Ocean Grove Town Centre Urban Design Framework (UDF)

The UDF was adopted by Council in 2014 and stemmed from key directions included in the adopted Structure Plan. The UDF is a key framework tool used to guide the revitalisation of the Town Centre. The draft Structure Plan supports the key implementation projects identified in the UDF including a number of land use rezonings required to achieve the objectives of improving the commercial viability and attractiveness of the Town centre and facilitate the upgrading of key intersections.


Vegetation and Landscape Character

Ocean Grove is renowned for its coastal character which is largely contributed to by existing vegetation cover, topography and views. Significant landscapes permeate the town and its surroundings. Through redevelopment, the character of the town, particularly in the older parts south of Thacker Street, is being affected. Loss of vegetation through redevelopment is a significant factor. There are also provisions within the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme that allow for the removal of vegetation where they are deemed to be of a bushfire hazard nature.

The draft Structure Plan recommends that further work be undertaken to assess the quality of vegetation in the older parts of the town to determine whether there is justification to apply planning controls for their protection and/or their contribution to the landscape character (See Appendix 2). This can be achieved using a number of planning overlays, including the Significant Landscape Overlay or the Vegetation Protection Overlay. Subject to the findings of the further work, a separate planning scheme amendment process would be required to implement any new planning controls. This would be subject to further consultation with the broader community.

A review of existing controls is also supported by the draft Structure Plan. This includes a review of Schedule 7 to the Significant Landscape Overlay to determine the effectiveness of permit triggers for removal of vegetation, the effectiveness of site coverage ratios to support greater vegetation coverage through new development, and the use of building materials that impact on the removal of vegetation.


Education

The identification of a primary school site in the north-east growth area has been a long-standing principle in the Ocean Grove Structure Plan. However, since the preparation of the adopted Structure Plan, the Department of Education and Training (DET) advised that there was no requirement for a new primary school in Ocean Grove and consequently, landowners in the north-east growth area prepared development plans which did not set aside land for a school.

As part of the Structure Plan review, DET provided an updated position in relation to education service infrastructure in the town. DET advised that generally the need to provide an entire new school is triggered by a plan to develop 3000 new dwellings.  Provisional demands under this can generally be accommodated by upgrades to existing schools.

DET advised that the current analysis for the town is showing the respective networks are expected to approach current capacity due to population growth. Despite any previous advice from the DET, it advised that any planning of significant additional housing development should include the identification of potential site(s) for future additional government primary schools, to ensure that future demand for local government school provision can be met.

The draft Structure Plan will continue to acknowledge the need for a new primary school in the town based on the advice of DET. Council will continue to work with the State Government to review and assess provision of education service infrastructure in line with population requirements and the ability of existing infrastructure to accommodate future demand. The draft Structure Plan will contain annotation of highlighting the need for a future investigation of a school site within the north-east growth area.


Public Consultation

An informal public consultation event was held in May 2015 at the Boorai Children’s Integrated Centre, Ocean Grove. Notices were placed in multiple newspapers in the weeks preceding the event. The notices informed the community about the upcoming informal consultation event and that there would be an opportunity to make submissions to the review process. Council’s Facebook page and The Ocean Grove Voice’ Facebook page were additional mediums used to inform the public. A consultation brochure, feedback form and consultation posters were prepared to inform the community. The event was well attended with over 50 people reviewing the consultation information. Council officers were available to answer questions and discuss any concerns.

The engagement process with the community largely focused on what has happened since 2007, what are the current known issues and what are the community’s view for the future of the town. It should be noted that community feedback was not sought on the draft Structure Plan. This will be undertaken as part of the future planning scheme amendment process.

The review process received a high level of interest from the local media, which included numerous articles about key issues facing the town. Council officers also presented to a large audience at the Ocean Grove Community Association AGM in June 2015.

A total of 34 submissions were received through the informal consultation process. Submissions were received from residents of Ocean Grove and also, key landowners within and outside the existing settlement boundary. A number of submitters provided addendums to their original submissions. These primarily stemmed from key landowners in the town.

Numerous meetings were held with key landowners about future growth options for the town. These will be discussed in this section.

All submissions received have informed the preparation of the draft Structure Plan. While recurring key themes/key submissions are discussed below, reference to the draft Structure Plan should be made for consideration of more detailed matters.

Approximately 50% of the submissions (16) used the feedback survey forms. The summary below highlights the recurring matters contained in feedback surveys and individual submissions.


Key attributes- natural coastal environment, beaches, native vegetation, views, neighbourhood character, village atmosphere and lifestyle.


Key Issues- traffic congestion/management, protection and provision of vegetation, maintaining coastal feel, investment in footpaths, investment in bike paths, housing mix/affordability, lack of public transport, need for additional education infrastructure, lack of playgrounds, maintaining rural living break, need to plan for tourist influx, lack of development opportunities within the town.


Further growth- further growth was supported by a large number of submissions with a comparative amount of submitters not supporting growth. It should be noted that those submitters who supported growth also sought protection of vegetation, had issues with traffic, lack of footpaths and bicycle paths, wanted to protect coastal feel and retain the rural living break.

A number of individual submitters requested that land west of Grubb Road, west of the Ocean Grove Nature Reserve, land between the Bellarine Highway and the northern settlement boundary and land west of Banks Road be considered for future urban development.


Relevancy of existing Structure Plan Directions- for those that responded, it was generally an even split between those that felt the key directions were still relevant or not relevant. An equal number of submissions felt the directions were still to be delivered. These included such matters as accommodating future growth, tree planting, education service infrastructure, delivery of footpaths and shared paths.


Improvements to the Structure Plan and new Key Directions- a recurring issue related to the provision/upgrading of footpaths and bicycle paths. Other issues were largely individual and covered a broad range of matters such as increasing landscaping/trees, particularly in newer areas, improving playground and park quality, protecting the Ocean Grove Nature Reserve and coastal dune vegetation.


Other- A range of other issues were raised by submitters, including such matters as the need for a cultural centre, the retention of land west of Grubb Road up to Rhinds Road in Wallington as a green corridor, retention of the Oakdene winery as a tourist node and consideration of the impact of growth in Armstrong Creek on the town.

A number of key issues raised in submissions are discussed below. Appendix 3 includes a location map showing the general location of areas proposed for future growth by submitters.

Land west of Grubb Road

A consortium of landowners, including a key landowner in the north-east growth area, made submissions about the future urban development of this area. Submissions focused on the retention of the indicative long-term settlement boundary in either a matching alignment, realignment up to the Rural Living Zone land at Wallington and the deletion of the existing settlement replacing it with the long-term settlement boundary.

Key matters raised in the submissions included the lack of significant development constraints in the general area west of Grubb Road; existing viability of the Farming Zone land; that the area should be seen as an infill opportunity; that Council’s population projections do not reflect what will be seen in the future and won’t meet demand; that development in this area would provide for improved infrastructure building on existing; and housing variety and completion. An addendum submission was also received which focused on the release of the latest municipal lot supply work undertaken by Spatial Economics. The addendum submission sought to challenge the accuracy of this work in terms of its limitations in analysis of demand and supply.

Given the inclusion of the indicative long-term settlement boundary on the existing Structure Plan map, it is understandable that landowners in this area seek to pursue its role as a future urban growth area. However, the 2007 Structure Plan is quite explicit about the need to undertake a major investigation of opportunities and constraints in this area to determine its suitability for urban development and inclusion within the nominated settlement boundary. This matter remains outstanding.


In light of State, Regional and local policy, an important role of the draft Structure Plan has been to consider the merit of retaining an indicative long-term settlement boundary on the Structure Plan map. The consideration focused on the justification for its presence in so far available land supply, known constraints which have not been properly considered to justify including such a settlement boundary, the potential coalescence of settlements through development in this area and the role of the area in terms of providing a rural backdrop for the broader town.

Whilst noting that land in this area will be constrained by landscape and environmental factors, the adopted Structure Plan did not undertake a basic opportunities and constraints analysis of land west of Grubb Road. This lack of detailed analysis into the suitability of the area for future urban development but inclusion of an indicative long-term settlement boundary on the Structure Plan map sends an unclear message about the direction of future growth in the town.

Council has been criticised in the past by Independent Panels appointed by the Minister for Planning about providing unclear direction about future growth. An example being the implementation of the St Leonards Structure Plan 2006, which sought to protect land outside the nominated settlement boundary for future urban growth. The Independent Panel advised that as a matter of principle future growth areas should be included within the settlement boundaries of coastal settlements and that this is particularly so where the land has been identified as suitable for development and there is reasonable prospect of it being developed within the short to medium term. The Panel considered that the land supply in St Leonards would likely to be low at the time of the next review of the Structure Plan and allowing for the time required to go through a rezoning process and subdivision permits would mean that land supply would further decrease, resulting in potential implications for choice, competition and cost to the residential market. The Panel therefore recommended that the inclusion of the land within the settlement boundary would alleviate these concerns.

In contrast to the matters discussed above, Ocean Grove has sufficient land supply for the lifetime of the Structure Plan; land west of Grubb Road has not undergone a major investigation to determine whether it is suitable for future urban development; and that land does not have a reasonable prospect of being developed within the short to medium term.

For the reasons outlined previously in this report, land west of Grubb Road is not required for urban development as part of the draft Structure Plan.


Land between the Bellarine Hwy and the northern settlement boundary

A submission was received from a key landowner in the north-east growth area seeking discussion in the draft Structure Plan about future growth options (medium term option) north of the existing northern settlement boundary up to the Bellarine Highway. The principal justification for the extension of the town up to the highway was to create an ultimate settlement boundary and provide an attractive/desirable ‘finish’ to the northern settlement boundary.

The submission included high level advice from Barwon Water and VicRoads and analysis of lot supply data. The conceptual plans put forward included a dwelling yield of approximately 1100 dwellings on a variety of lot types (standard residential to rural living lots) including public open space, neighbourhood activity centre, possible school site and associated roads/drainage infrastructure. The built form transition from the Bellarine Highway southwards includes rural living, low density and general residential land use.

In essence, the proposed settlement boundary extension would be significant resulting in a potential additional population in excess of 2,500 people.

Council officers note the approved development plans for the north-east growth area and the proposed interface treatment (subdivision to create low density style lots abutting the Farming Zone land) between the future residential development area and the Farming Zone adjoining the northern settlement boundary.

The draft Structure Plan’s approach for this area is to retain it as a non-urban break and to provide a relatively rural edge to the town. More broadly, there is a desire to retain a green corridor adjoining the highway throughout the Bellarine in order to maintain a rural feel.

The draft Structure Plan does not consider it necessary to identify future medium to long term growth options outside of the nominated settlement boundary. Consistent with the above principle for land use adjoining the highway and State Government guidance on implementing a coastal settlement boundary, this land should remain in the Farming Zone. It should also be noted that the adopted Structure Plan did not contemplate this area of land as a future growth option through its opportunities and constraints analysis.


Land west of the Ocean Grove Nature Reserve

A landowner west of the Nature Reserve made a submission requesting that the indicative long term settlement boundary be retained as an example of excellent long-term planning practice, to achieve the directions and infrastructure objectives of the town and to enable a future rezoning request of the land from Farming Zone to a Low Density zoning to cater for market demand.

The extent of the settlement boundary in this area has been historically dictated to by the Nature Reserve. The settlement boundary is generally adjoined by low density residential land within the Belle Vue, Goandra and Woodlands estates. These land uses provide a transition between more urban areas to the south of Thacker Street. The purpose of this boundary is to ensure that urban development does not encroach on the environmental sensitivities of the Nature Reserve and the overall objectives of achieving a sense of containment. Further, the rezoning of land for a low density/rural residential zone is a land use principle generally not supported by Council policy.

Given the known constraints in this area which include landscape, bushfire and environmental factors, in addition to the issue of sufficient available land supply and the proposed removal of the long-tem settlement boundary from the Structure Plan map, there is no requirement to consider the land in question for future residential purposes as part of this Structure Plan. It should be noted that the adopted Structure Plan did not consider this area suitable for future urban development.


Land at the north-east corner of Banks Road and Shell Road

Landowners in this area defined by Creswell Road to the north, Shell Road to the south and the cadastral title line above the escarpment to the east requested that the land be identified for future residential development. The total area of land is some 150 hectares. No reference in the submission was made to the use of the land (part of) for a future eco-tourist facility, as per the discussion in the adopted Structure Plan.

Given the extent of land supply in the town, the current Farming Zone provisions and original identification of the land (part of) as a special investigation area for an eco-tourist facility and also the sensitivities of the land and surrounding area, it is not considered suitable for residential development nor inclusion within the settlement boundary as part of this Structure Plan. As discussed earlier in this report, the draft Structure Plan proposes to establish Banks Road as the eastern settlement boundary in this part of the town.


Lack of footpath/bicycle paths

A considerable number of submissions discussed the lack of footpaths around the town and the broader issues of pedestrian/cyclist safety particularly at key road intersections. These issues were raised during the informal consultation event and at subsequent community meetings.

Given the historical subdivision of the older parts of the town, footpaths are not common place. Council acknowledges the concerns of the community and is currently in the process of engaging with residents about the provision of new footpath infrastructure. A commonly used approach to answering this problem is through a collaborative process where both parties, Council and residents, contribute towards the cost of new footpath infrastructure. This framework is called a Special Rate and Charge Scheme and there are a number of ongoing schemes or schemes being negotiated in such areas as Thacker Street and Baker Street. In addition to the use of Special Rate and Charge Schemes, Council is also preparing a Principal Pedestrian Network (PPN) plan for Ocean Grove.

The PPN will allow residents to access key destinations via a network of connected paths. Through a PPN network residents might not have a footpath in their street but will be able to access a network of footpaths that services a wider area within a very short walk. In addition to a connected network of footpaths, the PPN includes rest points, wayfinding signage and amenity improvements such as trees and lighting. The project will focus on options for how the identified network of paths can be delivered in a timeframe that balances Council and community expectations. It is expected that this piece of work will be open for public comment in the later part of 2015.

In terms of cycling infrastructure, the G21 Principal Bicycle Network identifies a number of priority projects for Ocean Grove. These include both on-road and off road paths that will create new connections around the town and to other townships. Through new development in the north-east growth area and future development of the recently rezoned land at Trethowan Av/Ocean Grand Dr, new cycling infrastructure will be provided ensuring access for all road users in this developing part of the town.

The issue of pedestrian/cyclist safety at key intersections is an ongoing issue and is a matter that needs to be addressed in conjunction with VicRoads. The key junctions around the town include the roundabout intersection at Grubb Rd/Shell Rd which has very poor pedestrian/cyclist amenity.

The draft Structure Plan advocates for improved pedestrian/cyclist network and safety through improvement to the existing network and provision of new infrastructure.


Traffic

Traffic congestion around the town, particularly in the Town Centre is a problem. With the growing population it is likely that without improvements to the road network, traffic related issues will continue to worsen.

The Ocean Grove Town Centre Urban Design Framework undertook a SmartRoads assessment for the Town Centre area. The purpose of this exercise was to consider all road user groups (pedestrian, cyclists, freight and cars) and assign the priority of each to the various routes within the Town Centre. The draft Structure Plan 2015 supports the expansion of this piece of work to cover the broader town. This will establish a clear road network hierarchy for the town providing priority routes for key road users at certain times of the day.


The draft Structure Plan also continues to support the future duplication of Grubb Road. This will be a VicRoads project however no timescales have been provided for its commencement. Land has been reserved along the eastern boundary of Grubb Road to enable future duplication. Development within the north-east growth has been planned to accommodate the future road reserve widening.

Other road infrastructure improvements include the installation of signals at the entrance to the BASC on Shell Road, which is proving to be a very successful outcome for both vehicle and pedestrian users. State Government funding for the upgrade to the Marlin Dr/Tuckfield St intersection has been committed. Ongoing improvements to the local road network by Council are programmed over the coming years.

The Ocean Grove Town Centre Urban Design Framework also supports upgrades to the road network including the re-design of the Hodgson Street intersection, improvements to the Orton St/Presidents Av intersection and the long term diversion of the arterial road through the Town Centre via The Terrace.

The draft Structure Plan supports improvements to the road network to alleviate traffic and safety issues.


Education

Beyond the initial engagement with the Department of Education and Training, a submission was received from another key education service provider in the town.

The submitter advised that it supports a mid-size school model in the range of 350 to 450 students and not a potential large scale/super school model experienced across some areas of metropolitan Melbourne. The submitter notes that it has achieved a good balance between buildings and outdoor play space. Located within a large integrated education and sporting precinct, there are existing traffic related issues that through intensification of land uses would exacerbate issues.

The submitter requested that the Council lobby DET to review the provision of a new primary school to service the key northern growth area community and ensure a balanced approach to education planning across the entire community. The submitter requests that this position be reinforced in the draft Structure Plan.

The submitter sees a future school in the north-east growth area as inevitable. Failure to plan for a new school in the growth area the submitter suggests will have significant impact on existing primary schools, requiring them to absorb significant enrolment numbers to service this growth, with it being the most severely impacted.

The comments received by the submitter are important to note for both Council and the State Government in terms of acknowledging potential service infrastructure issues in the future.


Environmental Implications

Environmental implications have been considered as part of the Structure Plan review. Key environmental features within and around the town have been reviewed and considered in terms of future land use and development and associated impacts. Further investigation work is also supported by the Structure Plan including assessing vegetation in older parts of the town that contribute to the overall landscape and neighbourhood character. The current growth direction for the town focuses on the north-east growth area. The 2007 Structure Plan directed growth away from the environmentally sensitive areas such as the coastline, Barwon Estuary and Lake Victoria environs and also, the Ocean Grove Nature Reserve. The draft Structure Plan continues to support this key land use direction.

The draft Structure Plan also proposes to remove the indicative long-term settlement boundary west of Grubb Road. The draft Structure Plan also proposes to realign the eastern settlement boundary to Banks Road, which removes the potential for encroachment on the Lake Victoria environs.


Financial Implications

There will be no significant financial implications on Council as part of the future planning scheme amendment process. All future statutory processes will be covered by respective departmental budgets.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The Structure Plan review has been undertaken generally in line with Council’s recurring 5 year review cycle of structure plans. The draft Structure Plan has been updated to reflect relevant State, Regional and Local planning policy. To give the draft Structure Plan statutory weight, a planning scheme amendment will be initiated to implement the necessary key elements in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.


Alignment to City Plan

This report aligns with the directions of the Sustainable and Built Environments theme in City Plan.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council officers involved in the development of the draft Structure Plan review and preparation of the report have a direct or indirect interest in the issue, in accordance with Section 80(c) of the Local Government Act, to which this report relates.


Risk Assessment

There is risk in not updating the Structure Plan given there have been several changes to State and Local Policy since 2007. The recommendations will result in changes to Clause 21.14 Bellarine Peninsula where it relates to township.


Social Considerations

The process of implementing the key elements of the draft Structure Plan will be carried out via a planning scheme amendment. This process affords key stakeholders, key landowners and residents a formal opportunity to comment on the proposed changes and potential adverse social impacts on the town.


Human Rights Charter

We have taken into consideration the human rights relative to the subject matter of this report, including rate-payers property rights and the right to a fair hearing.


Consultation and Communication

In addition to the informal community consultation undertaken as part of the drafting of the 2015 Structure Plan, a planning scheme amendment will be required to implement the necessary elements of the Structure Plan into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. As part of the amendment process, a statutory consultation period of a minimum 30 calendar days will be undertaken. This will enable the community and other key stakeholders a further opportunity to comment on the adopted Structure Plan and if necessary, where objections cannot be resolved, be heard before an Independent Panel.


Appendix 1 2007 Ocean Structure Plan map

2007 Ocean Structure Plan map

Appendix 2 2015 draft Structure Plan map

2015 draft Structure Plan map

Appendix 3 Location map showing areas submitted for future growth

Location map showing areas submitted for future growth

[Back to List]

4. Managing Development in Rural Areas - Planning Policy Review

Portfolio:

Planning - Cr Heagney

Source:

Planning and Tourism - Planning Strategy

General Manager:

Peter Bettess

Index Reference:

Project - Non rural uses in rural areas policy review


Purpose

This report seeks approval from Council to adopt the findings and recommendations of the Managing Development in Rural Areas Planning Policy Review and to give them statutory effect by including them in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.


Summary

Cr Heagney moved, Cr Ellis seconded -

That Council:

  1. adopt the recommendations of the Managing Development in Rural Areas Planning Policy Review – Final Report, (Appendix 3) including changes to the Local Planning policy of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme:

    1. amend Clause 22.06: Tourism and Function Centre Development in Rural Areas (Appendix 1); and

    2. prepare a new Clause 22.64: Discretionary Uses in Rural Areas (Appendix 2).

  2. seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare a planning scheme amendment to implement the recommendations of the review into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme; and

  3. write to the Minister of Planning to outline its concerns on the definition of camping and caravan parks in the Victorian Planning Provisions.

Carried.


Background

In 2013 the State Government changed the rules on the types of development that can occur in rural areas through Victoria Planning Provisions and Planning Schemes by Amendment VC103 (5 September 2013).

Principally the reforms sought to provide flexibility for farmers and land owners, support business, encourage tourism and provide greater flexibility of land uses. The reformed rural zones have generally relaxed the number of uses that can be considered in the rural zones and reduced many of the conditions that have previously been required to be met.

Changes relate to some accommodation, retail, industry, schools and community uses. Prior to the zone changes many of these uses were prohibited (see Table 1.). These uses are still not able to occur as of right, but it is now possible to apply to Council for a planning permit to be considered on its merits.

Table 1. Discretionary land uses that are no longer prohibited in the Farming and Rural Conservation zones.

Land Use

FZ

RCZ

Camping & caravan park

Group accommodation

✓1

Residential hotel

✓1

Restaurant

✓1

Landscape gardening supplies

Trade supplies

Market

Industry

Warehouse

✗†

Primary & secondary school

Place of assembly

✓2

1 Was prohibited, but there was the potential to consider if also associated with a rural use on the site.

2 Was prohibited, but there was the potential to consider if the function was used a maximum of 10 days in a year.

Prohibited, other than freezing and cool storage


Council needs to respond to the changes made by the State Government under VC103 because they impact on how the zones are applied and managed through the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. A key challenge is to ensure that discretionary uses can be effectively managed to avoid the proliferation of accommodation buildings and development that could substantially impact on rural landscape character and the productive capacity of the land.

The Planning Scheme currently manages tourism development in rural areas through a Local Planning Policy (LPP) for Tourism Development in Rural Areas (Clause 22.06). Due to changes brought about by Amendment VC103 there is the potential for a number of permit applications to be received for the new discretionary uses. At present there is a gap in the LPP to guide this decision making process.

The scope for the review included:

The following was not included in the review:

The Rural Land Use Strategy

The Rural Land Use Strategy (2007) recognises that rural areas are highly valued by the Geelong community and help with the continued economic prosperity, liveability and amenity of the whole municipality. Geelong’s rural areas cover a range of agricultural practices and production, as well as having a diversity of natural, environmental and scenic assets of significance. Compared to other areas of rural Victoria agriculture is generally smaller scale and on smaller landholdings; particularly on the Bellarine.

Many people wish to live in and visit the rural area where they can appreciate these features. Tourism continues to be an important aspect of the Geelong economy and continues to grow. The right type of accommodation is therefore needed to support the tourism experience. This is important to encourage people to stay for more than just a day trip.

The RLUS sets the vision and directions for rural land use management and are implemented by the Planning Scheme. The strategy recognises the importance of managing development to avoid a proliferation of buildings or overdevelopment. This could lead to the breakup of land and threaten the ability to be able to use it for farming. It could also impact on rural landscape character and the importance of non urban breaks between settlements.

The principles in the RLUs are also recognised in the Bellarine Peninsula Localised Planning Statement (LPS), which was adopted by Council in 2014. This document also outlines the pressure for growth and change that is being experienced by the Bellarine Peninsula and sets strategies to ensure the key attributes of the area are preserved.

The strategy and key directions of the Rural Land Use Strategy are not being reviewed.


Discussion

Consultant advice

To support Council in the analysis of LPP Urban Enterprise (UE) consultants were commissioned to provide expert advice and background research on:

  1. The analysis of existing and future economic conditions for tourism accommodation in Greater Geelong rural areas;

  2. In principle advice on the types of industry uses suitable for rural areas; and

  3. Recommend high level siting and design planning guidance for discretionary uses.

UE delivered a completed report in June 2015 Non Rural Uses in rural Areas Policy Review and is summarised in the Managing Development in Rural Areas Planning Policy Review – Final Report (Appendix 3). Urban Enterprise was also commissioned by Tourism Greater Geelong and the Bellarine to prepare the Tourism Development Strategy for the region.

Overview of changes to the LPP.

It is recommended that the Local Planning Policy be amended as follows, as provided in:

Much of the existing Clause 22.06 policy is to be retained, including the overall objectives to protect productive agricultural land. It is important to continue to recognise that there are opportunities to enhance the tourism industry in rural areas.

Managing demand and growth in Rural Areas.

In 2012 Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission’s enquiry into Victoria’s tourism industry promoted the unlocking of tourism development in Victorian and led to VC103. However, this is considered more appropriate to rural areas that are more isolated and have limited tourism and population growth occurring. This is not the case for Geelong where the tourism sector continues to grow and significant demand is projected to 2030. There is also anecdotal evidence of demand through pre-application enquires through Statutory planning since the 2013 changes.

The Reformed Zones Ministerial Advisory Committee, in their Rural Zones Report for VC103, made recommendations that the ‘associated with’ test should be retained for accommodation uses. This recommendation was not accepted by the previous State Planning Minister. However, the present Planning Minister may have a different opinion on how flexible rural zones should be. This is in the context of the Minister for Planning and Minister for Regional Development setting up an Animal Industry Advisory Committee to examine how the planning system can better support Victorian farmers. This process will focus on the definition of intense animal husbandry. The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning has advised that Council should continue with this local policy review.

A key consideration is how to manage the growth of tourism demand, particularly in response to the changes that were brought about by VC103. Most of this tourism growth is directed to Central Geelong and other townships where there is existing capacity and a settlement strategy that caters for future growth. However, tourism development forecasts from UE show that there is a demand of between 330 to 550 accommodation rooms or caravan sites in rural Geelong to 2030.

For Geelong the existing Clause 22.06 requires that tourism uses “will be ancillary to and associated with an existing farming activity on the property”, for example accommodation at a winery. This is based on the RLUS and community expectations. For Geelong this policy requirement continues to be an important mechanism for managing development in rural areas and should be retained. Removing the requirement would risk allowing uncontrolled and over development, which could lead to the fragmentation of land and the ability to use it for farming. While this does not meet with the expectations of VC103, Geelong is considered to be unique and warrants the continuance of this policy position.

The ‘associated with’ test recognises Council’s existing policy in the RLUS and LPS. Virtually no objections were received from community against this approach. Further, Victoria Farmers Federation has expressed a strong concern for allowing even more flexibility in rural areas. This could lead to loss of agricultural land, fragmentation of existing holdings, threats to the Right to Farm, lack of infrastructure to support tourist development and development in inappropriate areas.

The amended policy position also recognises the advice from UE that highlighted there is currently a limited diversity of accommodation typologies available in rural areas. Currently the focus is on the family market based on camping and caravan parks. There is a need to expand on this market to improve the accommodation offer to increase overnight stays and attract people from further afield.

Some flexibility is recommended for Clause 22.06 to allow a consideration test for when some uses may be considered by Council outside of the ‘associated with’ test. This recognises that there may be some locations that would support additional tourist development, or the impacts on the rural area are diminished. For instance, in strategic tourist sites on identified tourist areas, or where there is already a cluster of some tourist development. It also considers the establishment of one off developments if the circumstances of the use provide justification to support the use in a rural area over an urban location. All other requirements of the policy will still need to be met, such as appropriate siting and design.

During the internal workshops the identification of specific clusters for development was raised. This concentrates development in one area by rezoning land as Rural Activity. It can also take demand away from other areas. This approach has been taken by both the Bass Strait in the Bass Strait Rural Land Use Strategy and Corangamite in Amendment C30.

At Bass Strait and Corangamite the establishment of Rural Activity clusters is seeking to promote economic growth and attract tourism investment. As noted earlier, this is not an issue for Geelong. If Council provided clusters for development it is likely that there would still be demand in other rural areas, which could perpetuate growth pressures on the rural area. Further, to identify sites and recommend clusters would be a significant change of policy for Council. This would also be prescriptive and it is considered appropriate to allow an element of flexibility in the policy approach noted above to allow case by case assessments to be made.

Camping and caravan parks

Clause 22.06 sets out design controls to manage camping and caravan parks to ensure they cater for the tourism market only. Camping and caravan parks that result in long term or permanent housing accommodation risk resulting in quasi urban extension or urban extensions by stealth. Not only does this risk the City’s settlement strategy it can also lead to social problems due to the sites catering for low income and disadvantaged members of the community that are isolated from services.

Restricting the establishment of camping and caravan parks for permanent residency is a complex issue as this is controlled by the legislation set out in the Residential Tenancies Act, 1997. Under S518 of the act it is not possible to limit the duration of residency in a caravan park via a planning scheme or permit. Based on research of Planning Panel and other VCAT decisions, particularly for Mornington Shire, it is possible to control design and how the camping and caravan parks are designed. This is the basis for the policy developed.

It is recommended that Council write to the State Government to outline its concerns with the definition of camping and caravan parks in the Victorian Planning Provisions. As a result of the Residential Tenancies Act councils are unable to differentiate between permanent camping and tourist camping.

Summary of other changes to Clause 22.06:

New Clause for Discretionary Uses in Rural Areas

State and local policy generally does not provide for non-agricultural uses in rural areas. In particular Clause 21.07-5 (Rural Areas) of the LPPF seeks to minimise non agricultural uses in rural areas. These uses should be directed to urban areas where there is an appropriate level of municipal infrastructure services and good transport connectivity. To ensure that development is planned in the right locations an adequate supply of land is zoned for industrial, commercial and community purposes in urban areas. This is part of the Council settlement strategy.

It is considered that the encroachment of non-agricultural uses into rural areas should be discouraged. Further, non-agricultural uses that would attract significant numbers of visitors, accommodate large numbers of people or generate significant volumes of traffic and car parking demand are generally incompatible with farming activities and are not appropriate in the rural area.

It is acknowledged that there may be some circumstances where a use may be more suited to the rural area than an urban location. For example:

To reflect this the policy recognises that there may be unique circumstances when a use may be appropriate in a rural area and supports the local rural population, provided that it can be demonstrated that options to consider the use in an urban location have been exhausted. Similar to Clause 22.06 the use would need to show that it would not impact on the productive capacity of rural land, existing agricultural activity or rural landscape character. The policy does not apply to agricultural, tourism or accommodation land uses.


Environmental Implications

The review retains support for the preservation of the productive capacity of land. It also recognises the need to protect rural landscape character and the diversity of natural, environmental and scenic assets of significance.


Financial Implications

This review recommends that Council prepare a planning scheme amendment to incorporate Local Planning Policy into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. The costs associated with this amendment process will be met by Council through the existing planning scheme amendment budget allocation.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The review and recommended Local Planning Policy is consistent with the Rural Land Use Strategy (2007).

It is also consistent with the State Planning Policy implementing the objectives and strategies of Clause 11 Settlement, 12 Environmental and landscape values, 13 Environmental Risks, 14. Natural Resource Management, 17 Economic Development and 19 Community Infrastructure.

The amendment is also consistent with the Local Planning Policy Framework; in particular Clause 21.05 Natural Environment, which protects coastal development. Clause 21.07 Economic Development and Employment seeks to protect productive agricultural land and minimise non farming land uses. It is acknowledged that some tourism development can be supported where this contributes to the economy and it respects rural landscape character.


Alignment to City Plan

The review supports the Growing our Economy and Sustainable Built and Natural Environment strategic directions of City Plan. The recommendations of the review seek to retain rural productivity and to support and grow the tourism economy provided that the impacts are appropriately managed and rural landscape character can be maintain.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council officers have any direct or indirect interest, in accordance with section 80(c) of the Local Government Act 1989, in the matter to which this report relates.


Risk Assessment

There are minimal risks to Council in adopting the recommendations of this review and implementing them through a planning scheme amendment process. The community and stakeholders will be given an opportunity to comment on the proposed Local Planning Policy changes as part of the planning scheme amendment process.


Social Considerations

Social considerations were considered as part of the Rural Land Use Strategy when this was prepared in 2007. The recommended policy approach seeks to retain farmers ability to use land for productive purposes. It also promotes the security of the local food and produce market.


Human Rights Charter

The proposal does not impact on any human rights and responsibilities set out in the Charter. Planning legislation ensures an open community consultation process occur enabling people to freely express their views on an Amendment and if necessary, obtain a fair hearing before an Independent Panel.


Consultation and Communication

Key stakeholders were engaged throughout the project. This included internal engagement and workshops with other relevant Council Departments, including Statutory Planning, Strategic Implementation, Enterprise Geelong and Tourism Greater Geelong and the Bellarine.

To test the policy positions, consultation on the principles of the policy was held from 10 July until 7 August 2015. The engagement sought input from the community on the issues around managing growth in rural areas that were formulated from the issues identified from council and UE research. Engagement involved:

The response rate was low with only 12 responses received. Website statistics revealed that over 100 people accessed the consultation website.


Appendix 3 the Managing Development in Rural Areas Planning Policy Review – Final Report has included a summary of the responses received.

Further consultation will occur during the Planning Scheme Amendment process.


Appendix 1. Amended Clause 22.06: Tourism and Function Centre Development in Rural Areas.

22.06

TOURISM AND FUNCTION CENTRE DEVELOPMENT IN RURAL AREAS

28/01/2010
C129(Part 1)

This policy applies to all land zoned Farming and Rural Conservation.

 

Policy Basis

The rural areas of Geelong and its many attractions are highly valued for their contribution to the economy, liveability and amenity of the whole municipality. Tourism is a key part of the economy of Greater Geelong, in particular on the Bellarine Peninsula.

Growth of the tourism economy is expected across Geelong to 2030. Most of this tourism growth is directed to Central Geelong and other townships where there is existing capacity and a settlement strategy that caters for future growth.

There are opportunities to enhance the tourism industry in rural areas through well designed developments that are associated with the farming or rural use of the land. Tourism development forecasts show that there is a demand of between 330 to 550 accommodation rooms or caravan sites in rural Geelong to 2030. Camping and caravan parks currently are traditionally the most common form of accommodation in the rural areas of Geelong with a focus on the family market. There is a need to expand the type of accommodation provided in rural areas to improve the market offer and encourage longer stays. This includes farm stays, accommodation associated with wineries and golf courses, nature based accommodation and integrated resort accommodation that is dispersed across the rural area.

Tourism development within the rural areas must be carefully managed and designed so that it does not compromise the rural landscape character or existing agricultural activities that are part of the economy and tourism attraction of the area.

In some circumstances function centres and restaurants may also be considered as tourism ventures, particularly when co-located or associated with other tourism activity. Camping and caravan parks that result in long term or permanent housing accommodation risk resulting ad hoc urban extensions. This undermines the settlement strategy and can also lead to poor social outcomes and community connectivity. Camping and caravan parks should be designed to cater for the tourism market.


Objective

  • To support tourism development in rural areas that contributes to the growth of the tourism market.

  • To expand the diversity of accommodation typologies available across the rural area to address an identified demand and disperse growth.

  • To preserve the productive agricultural capacity of the land and where possible enhance the environmental condition of the land.

  • To ensure the scale of development will complement and respect the rural landscape character of the area;

  • To ensure development will not result in the urbanisation of the area;

  • To ensure a mix of accommodation options are provided in camping and caravan parks.


Policy

It is policy that the responsible authority will support the use and development of rural land for tourism and function centre uses where:


Preferred location

  • The use will be associated with an existing agricultural activity on the property.

  • Uses not associated with agriculture may be supported by the responsible authority where the following are met:

    • It is demonstrated that the circumstances of the use are unique and support site selection in a rural location over an urban location.

    • The site is strategically located with respect to an identified tourist route, such as the tourist route identified in the Bellarine Peninsula Localised Planning Statement or along the Bellarine Highway. Preference will be given to areas where there is already a cluster of non-rural activities and additional development will not result in urbanisation.

    • The use and its associated development would not unreasonably visually compromise a non-urban break between settlements, a significant view or area identified for landscape significance or environmental significance.

    • Where appropriate, the use will address a regionally recognised demand identified in a tourism development strategy.

  • Tourist accommodation provides a connection or access to a tourist facility, tourist attraction or outdoor recreation.


Impacts on agricultural productivity

  • The use and development will not be out of balance with, nor change the character and nature of the primary rural land use, or result in an unreasonable loss of productive agricultural land.

  • The proportion of the property used for tourism and ancillary infrastructure is minimised, and is directed to the area of lowest agricultural quality or where the natural landscape has been modified.

  • Existing agricultural activity on adjoining land will not be compromised.


Design and siting

  • Buildings and structures are designed and sited to not be visually dominant and can blend into the surrounding landscape and natural environment. Visual impacts should be mitigated or minimised through appropriate design, landscaping, materials and colours.

  • Buildings incorporate a high design standard with environmentally sustainable design features.

  • The design of a residential hotel and group accommodation avoids large, single footprint buildings and is distinguishable from a typical residential building.


Amenity

  • Neighbouring properties are protected from unacceptable disturbance associated with the hours of operation, number of patrons, or vehicular movements resulting from the use.


Traffic and Services

  • Adequate area is set aside for on site car parking and landscaping.

  • The site has access to an appropriately constructed or sealed road that is capable of accommodating anticipated traffic levels or has convenient access to a major road.

  • The site has access to all necessary servicing infrastructure. Where infrastructure is required or needs upgrading the applicant will meet all costs.


Camping and caravan park design

In addition to the above policy, a camping and caravan park must also meet the following:

  • A camping and caravan park will include a mix of tourist accommodation site types and visitor facilities including:

    • Sites for caravans, motor homes or tents;

    • Sites with unregisterable movable dwellings;

    • Sites for caravans with rigid annexes;

    • Sites with cabins;

    • Lodge accommodation;

    • Ablution blocks;

    • Communal and recreation facilities; or

    • Facilities that allow for public pre-booked or walk up bookings.

  • The layout and design of the camping and caravan park will have the appearance of a camping and caravan park rather than a residential village or subdivision (restricted access, permanent constructed roads, larger building footprints, higher building densities, the provision of individual carports/ garages, building design that resembles a holiday cabin rather than a permanent residence).


Application Requirements

An application should be accompanied by the following information to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, as appropriate:

  • A description of the proposal, including a site context report; hours and days of operation; number of staff and visitors or patrons; type and number of accommodation buildings, units or camping sites; or a description of how a camping and caravan park is to be established and operate as a tourist park,

  • A land management plan outlining measures to address agricultural production and environmental protection, including pest plants and animals and erosion of the land; as well as fencing off remnant vegetation, revegetating strategic areas to develop wildlife corridors and along waterways.

  • A management plan outlining, the following as appropriate:

    • The mechanisms to be put in place to ensure onsite and offsite amenity is maintained on an ongoing basis, including onsite caretaker arrangements;

    • Onsite and offsite traffic management

    • Litter and waste effluent management;

    • Staffing and staff training procedures;

    • Requirement and procedure to inform adjoining residents of when a function or event is to be held; or

    • The requirement for the provision of an onsite manager for the duration of a function or event and the complaints procedure;

  • A landscape plan, including a landscape character assessment for site and building design with an outline of the impact on the rural landscape.

  • An acoustic report outlining noise impacts and noise mitigation measures, including set up and set down for functions and events.

  • A traffic report.


Decision guidelines

Before deciding an application the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

  • If the use is ancillary to or associated with an existing farming activity on the site

  • If a rural location is required in favour of an urban location

  • The proximity and access to tourism features and infrastructure.

  • Potential impacts on the rural landscape character of the area.

  • How the land use is consistent with tourism strategies for the area and promotes the regional tourism economy and expands accommodation typologies.

  • The mix and type of accommodation provided.

  • The potential impact the use will have on neighbouring properties, including agricultural operations.

  • If the proposal will maintain and/or improve the productive capacity or environmental condition of the site.


References

City of Greater Geelong Rural Land Use Strategy, City of Greater Geelong, 2007.

Managing Development in Rural Area, Planning Policy Review, City of Greater Geelong, 2015.



Appendix 2. New Section 22.64. Discretionary uses in Rural Areas.

22.64

DISCRETIONARY USES IN RURAL AREAS

 

This policy applies to the consideration of use and development applications within the Farming and Rural Conservation Zones. This policy does not apply to agricultural, tourism, function centre or accommodation land uses.


Policy Basis

The rural areas of Geelong and its many attractions are highly valued for their contribution to the economy, liveability and amenity of the whole municipality.

Non agricultural uses in rural areas must be carefully managed to ensure that the ongoing use of land for agriculture is supported and the rural landscape character of the rural area is preserved.

Non-agricultural uses that would attract a significant numbers of visitors, accommodate large numbers of people or generate significant volumes of traffic and car parking demand are generally incompatible with farming activities and are not appropriate in the rural area. These uses should be directed to urban areas where there is an appropriate level of municipal infrastructure services and good transport connectivity. To ensure that development is planned in the right locations an adequate supply of land is zoned for industrial, commercial and community purposes in urban areas. The encroachment of non-agricultural uses into rural areas is discouraged and should only be considered when the use or development cannot be catered for in an urban area and there are unique circumstances to justify a rural location.


Objective

  • To discourage discretionary non-agricultural uses in rural areas that could reasonably be located in an urban zone.

  • To discourage discretionary non-agricultural uses in rural areas that attract a significant number of visitors to a site or are necessary to service the urban community.

  • To preserve the productive agricultural capacity of the land and where possible enhance the environmental condition of the land.

  • To maintain the unique rural landscape character of rural areas.


Policy

It is policy that the responsible authority would only support an application for a discretionary non-agricultural use where the following can be met:

  • The use requires a rural location and it can be demonstrated that all urban location options have been fully exhausted.

  • The use is of an appropriate scale to support the local rural population.

  • The use will not result in an unreasonable loss of productive agricultural land.

  • Existing agricultural activity on adjoining land will not be compromised.

  • The scale of the development will complement and respect the rural landscape character.

  • Buildings and structures are designed and sited to not be visually dominant and can blend into the surrounding landscape and natural environment. Visual impacts should be mitigated or minimised through appropriate design, landscaping, materials and colours.

  • The site has access to an appropriately constructed or sealed road that is capable of accommodating anticipated traffic levels or has convenient access to a major road.

  • The site has access to all necessary servicing infrastructure. Where infrastructure is required or needs upgrading the applicant will meet all costs.

  • The environmental condition of the land could be enhanced by fencing off remnant vegetation and revegetating strategic areas to develop wildlife corridors and along waterways.


References

City of Greater Geelong Rural Land Use Strategy, City of Greater Geelong, 2007.

Managing Development in Rural Area, Planning Policy Review, City of Greater Geelong, 2015.



Appendix 3 –Managing Development in Rural Areas Planning Policy Review – Final Report (2015)


[Back to List]

5. Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amenedment C301 - Rezoning of 892-958 and 960-990 Barwon Heads Road, Armstrong Creek

Portfolio:

Planning – Cr Heagney

Source:

Planning & Tourism - Planning Strategy & Urban Growth

General Manager:

Peter Bettes

Index Reference:

Subject: Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area - Armstrong Creek South Precinct


Purpose

This report presents submissions received in response to the public exhibition of Amendment C301 and seeks a Council resolution to request the Minister for Planning appoint an independent Panel to review submissions and make recommendations.


Summary

Cr Heagney moved, Cr Richards seconded -

That Council, having considered all submissions to Amendment C301, resolves to:

  1. request the Minister for Planning appoint an independent Panel under Part 8 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987 to consider submissions relating to the amendment;

  2. refer all submissions to the Panel; and,

  3. submit to the Panel its response to the submissions as outlined in this report and in Appendix 2 – Summary and Consideration of Submissions.


Carried.


Background

The amendment applies to approximately 52.28 hectares of land located at 892-958 and 960-990 Barwon Heads Road, Armstrong Creek. See Appendix 1.

The land parcels abut the south-east corner of the Armstrong Creek East Precinct Structure Plan area and directly abuts the eastern boundary of the Armstrong Waters Estate.

Council at their meeting of 9th July 2013, resolved to proceed with amendment process for the rezoning of the land from Farming Zone (FZ) to Urban Growth Zone (UGZ), incorporation of a Precinct Structure Plan and associated infrastructure funding plan.

The Armstrong Creek South Precinct Structure Plan (ACSP) was prepared by Armstrong Creek Development Corporation who represent both of the land parcels that make up the ACSP.

The amendment was exhibited between the 27th of August 2015 and the 2nd of October 2015.

The subject land was excluded from the original Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area Boundary which was incorporated into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme in 2010. Subsequent investigation in to the management of storm water have identified the area as developable as a logical inclusion in to the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area.

The amendment was exhibited between August and October 2015 and a total of 12 submissions were received:


Discussion

Amendment C301 proposes to incorporate the Armstrong Creek South Precinct Structure Plan into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.


Key issues raised by submissions

Response to key issues raised in submissions are listed below. A more detailed response to each of the individual issues is attached in Appendix 2.

Storm water management

Application of a Public Acquisition Overlay on land set aside in the Horseshoe Bend Precinct for storm water management

The issues of additional funding for the purchase of Sparrovale Wetlands, and the application of a Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO) over the Sparrovale Wetlands, have been raised in two of the submissions to C301 (the Sparrovale Wetlands being the collective name given to two land parcels at 1-87 Groves Road, Armstrong Creek and 109-215 Sparrovale Road, Charlemont).

Both land parcels are currently in private ownership, however, they are to be purchased and commissioned to receive, store and treat storm water from the Horseshoe Bend precinct.

Submissions to the exhibition of the Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan and Development Contributions Plan (which were exhibited between December 2013 and January 2014) requested the application of a PAO across the two properties to facilitate the timely acquisition of the land. In consideration of the submissions, Council identified that the use of the Horseshoe Bend Development Contributions Plan, and not a PAO, was the most appropriate method of securing land for its role in the management of storm water in the Horseshoe Bend precinct. Council officer opinion on this issue remains unchanged.

As a result of the nexus between the Horseshoe Bend Precinct and the wetlands, the cost of acquisition has been equally apportioned between all the landholders within the Horseshoe Bend Precinct as clearly detailed in both the Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan and the Horseshoe Bend Development Contributions Plan. Both these plans were incorporated into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme on the 27th of November 2014. To date, the City of Greater Geelong has issued Planning Permits for approximately 3,000 housing lots within the Horseshoe Bend Precinct.

Submissions to the current amendment by landholders who are currently developing within the Horseshoe Bend Precinct have resubmitted their original requests to have a PAO applied to the Sparrovale Wetlands. In addition, they suggest that should the Sparrovale Wetlands receive additional water from land outside the Horseshoe Bend Precinct, there should also be a contribution to the purchase costs from the Amendment C301 proponent.

It is important to note that, without the Sparrovale Wetlands, only 25% of the developable area of the Horseshoe Bend Precinct can be constructed. Given the speed at which development is occurring within the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area the timing for acquisition and commissioning of the Sparrovale Wetlands is growing more important.

Council officers continue to recommend that the acquisition of the two properties via private treaty, as funded in the Horseshoe Bend Development Contributions Plan, remains the most appropriate method of securing them for establishment of the Sparrovale Wetlands.

Potential for flooding of surrounding land parcels as a result of development

One submitter raised concerns that their land parcel would be flooded as a result of the proposed development.

The proposed engineering solution for the development includes the provision of several drainage channels that will ensure that water is drained away from both the site and the surrounding land parcels. As a result there will be no adverse impact on the surrounding area.

Objection to the application of a Public Acquisition Overlay on land at 82-88 Groves Road, Armstrong Creek for the purposes of a storm water diversion channel in to the Sparrovale Wetlands.

A component of Amendment C301 is the application of a Public Acquisition Overlay over land approximately 22 metres wide across the property at 82-88 Groves Road, Armstrong Creek to accommodate a drainage channel. The purpose of the channel is to convey summer storm water volume and flows from Armstrong Creek waterway, bypassing Hospital Swamp, directly in to the Sparrovale Wetlands once they are established.

The owner of the Groves Road property, upon which the PAO is being proposed, is concerned at the loss of his land for the financial benefit of others. The submission argues that the ultimate function of the compulsorily acquired land will not be a public purpose (which is the legislative basis for the application of a PAO) as it simply allows the proponents of the Armstrong Creek South Precinct Structure Plan to develop their land, to their benefit.

The proposed diversion channel is part of a broader drainage solution for the growth area and when constructed will direct excess storm water volumes from the RAMSAR listed Connewarre wetland system. This action will allow the historic routine of wetting and drying and saline/fresh water to be maintained in the wetland thereby preserving the established ecological values of the system. The public benefits of the channel are twofold; enabling development of a new community in the Armstrong Creek South Precinct and the provision of potential benefits to the overall management of storm water within the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area and the Connewarre wetlands complex.

Traffic Management

A number of traffic management issues were raised in submissions including the potential negative impact of the additional traffic on the existing rural road system, a request for a roundabout on Barwon Heads Road rather than the nominated traffic signals, shared path requirements and a preferred widening of the east – west local road through the PSP area.

One submitter is concerned that southbound traffic from the PSP area will use Lake Road to join Barwon Heads Road at the Barwon Heads Airport rather than head south to the Lower Duneed roundabout and then east towards Barwon Heads. Council officers recommend that there is a low likelihood of drivers choosing a longer route on a rural road rather than the Barwon Heads/Lower Duneed Road.

Vicroads submitted that a roundabout at the intersection of Barwon Heads Road and the east-west road through the PSP area is their preferred option. Council officers agree that a roundabout can be constructed, in place of the nominated traffic signals, on the understanding that a high quality pedestrian crossing is provided across Barwon Heads Road to enable safe access to the nominated Bus Stops. Council officers will continue to work with Public Transport Victoria, Vicroads and the proponent to progress detailed designs for the intersection.

The Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (DEDJTR) submitted that a three (3) metre wide shared path is required along Barwon Heads Road and the east-west local road. The current standard of shared path within the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area is 2.5 metres wide with existing path connections to the north and west of the PSP area. Council officers submit that the 2.5 metre wide shared path can be continued from the north as far as the east-west road and then west through to the Armstrong Waters development to connect to the open space network in both the east and west of the PSP area.

Both Vicroads and DEDJTR nominated that the east-west road through the PSP be a connector road standard rather than the mix of both connector and local road as shown in the exhibited PSP. The local street cross section has been nominated in the PSP as it feeds in to the approved local street network to the west. Should the road be increased in width to a connector road standard the existing road hierarchy in the Armstrong Creek East Precinct may be compromised by encouraging more than local traffic through the Armstrong Creek South Precinct and on to Barwon Heads Road.

The connector road cross section has been used in the Armstrong Creek South Precinct between Barwon Heads Road and the eastern boundary of the passive open space to assist with traffic distribution through the new subdivision area.

Changes to exhibited documents

Modification to the exhibited documents will be required where Council officers have agreed with submitter issues. These modifications include:


Environmental Implications

This amendment has addressed potential environmental implications of the development through the protection of remnant native vegetation and the nomination of a large, central area of passive open space for the benefit of the Armstrong Creek community.

The diversion channel link in to the Sparrovale Wetlands will provide significant positive environmental outcomes including a reduction storm water volumes into Hospital Swamps and the protection of several habitat zones which were nominated in the Armstrong Creek East Precinct Structure Plan.


Financial Implications

The amendment will potentially require the engagement of legal counsel and expert witnesses to represent Council’s interests during the Panel Hearing.

Funds have been allocated in the 2015-2016 budget to fund these costs during the Panel Hearing phase.

The Section 173 Agreement, between the land holders and Council, identifies and nominates funding of all the capital financial requirements for development of the Armstrong Creek South Precinct.

No impact to budget.

With Council responsibility for the management of the S173 Agreement there will be decisions required across the Armstrong Creek South Precinct and other precincts within the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area. These will be matters which will be assessed via the Development Contributions Steering Committee with recommendations coming to Council as part of the annual consideration of the budget.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The planning scheme amendment to incorporate the Precinct Structure Plan for the Armstrong Creek South Precinct is in accord with the broader structure for the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth area as established in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.

The Armstrong Creek South Precinct Structure Plan and associated S173 Agreement and in line with Council’s adopted position on the provision of infrastructure within the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area.

The amendment is also considered to meet the relevant requirements of both State Government and Council.


Alignment to City Plan

The Armstrong Creek Urban Growth area is one of Council’s priority projects.

The Armstrong Creek South Precinct Structure Plan will ensure that the continuing needs of the growing community will be met.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

In accordance with Section 80C of the Local Government Act no Council officers involved in this report have a direct or indirect interest.


Risk Assessment

Issues raised in submissions are not considered to represent a major risk to the progress of the planning scheme amendment. It is considered that there are no major risks to Council in referring this planning scheme amendment to an Independent Panel for review.


Social Considerations

The Armstrong Creek South Precinct Structure Plan represents a considered and well planned approach to the development of an additional residential community within the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area.


Human Rights Charter

Council officers have taken into consideration the Human Rights Charter relative to the Armstrong Creek South Precinct Structure Plan. This includes ‘ratepayers property rights’ and a ‘right to a fair hearing’.


Consultation and Communication

Formal exhibition of Amendment C301 occurred between 27th August 2015 and 2nd October 2015 via the following means:

[Back to List]

Cr Heagney declared an Indirect Interest by Close Association in Agenda Item 6 – Managing Future Growth – Further Investigation Areas, in that her husband is considering a business with one of the property owners and left the meeting room prior to discussion at 8.32pm.


6. Managing Future Growth - Further Investigation Areas

Portfolio:

Planning - Cr Heagney

Source:

Planning and Tourism

General Manager:

Peter Bettess

Index Reference:

Council Reports 2015


Purpose

The purpose of this report is to provide an update to the Managing Future Growth project in the context of a range of planning requests and proposals for the Further Investigation Areas identified in the G21 Regional Growth Plan.


Summary

Cr E Kontelj moved, Cr Richards seconded -

That Council:

  1. continues the Managing Future Growth project by commencing preparation of an Integrated Infrastructure Delivery Plan for the Northern and Western Further Investigation Area’s and a Framework Plan for each Further Investigation Area;

  2. upon completion and adoption of the Integrated Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the Framework Plans, consider the development of a Precinct Structure Plan for Lovely Banks and a rezoning request for the Western FIA;

  3. writes to the proponents in the Western and Northern FIA’s inviting them to work collaboratively with Council to deliver an Integrated Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Framework Plan and seek their support for a process which would require them to prepare detailed background and land capability work to the satisfaction of Council;

  4. does not support the Northern FIA expansion north of Staceys Road, referred to as the ‘Lara West Logical Growth Area’ as proposed by Adept Developments; and

  5. continues to engage with the State Government to explore opportunities to secure funds to deliver State Government infrastructure in the FIA’s and to secure greater investment in the local economy to ensure job creation in Geelong keeps pace with population growth given Geelong’s role to accommodate redirected growth from Melbourne.

Carried.


Background

The G21 Regional Growth Plan and associated Implementation Plan identified two Further Investigation Areas (FIA) to accommodate the medium to longer term growth of Geelong based on existing zoned land supply and potential supply in areas designated for growth in Structure Plans. These areas (refer Appendix 1) are located:

In September 2014 Council commenced a strategic planning process (refer 23 September 2014 Council report ‘Managing Future Growth – Further Investigation Areas’) to identify the best methodology to deliver the FIA’s. This process involved defining the boundaries of the future growth areas and to analyse Council’s capacity to develop and/or fund community infrastructure in the context of existing growth area DCP and non-DCP infrastructure funding commitments.

In October 2014 the then Minister for Planning rezoned the Northern FIA (Lovely Banks) to the Urban Growth Zone (UGZ). As a consequence Council re-scoped the Managing Future Growth project (refer 10 February 2015 Council report ‘Managing Future Growth Progress Report’) and committed funding in 2015-16 to undertaking the necessary strategic work for these areas to define their extent, undertake strategic gap analysis work, and prepare framework plans to inform planning policy and the future development of Integrated Infrastructure Delivery Plans, Precinct Structure Plans and Development Contribution Plans at the appropriate time. The financial analysis of impacts of future infrastructure commitments is still a component of this project.

Council has engaged Charter Keck Cramer to prepare a Supply, Demand and Market Assessment of the City’s urban growth areas. The purpose of this report is to inform Councils policy position on the FIA’s by assessing existing levels of supply and demand having regard for housing market forces and broader strategic considerations. This report is currently in draft form.

The current Minister for Planning wrote to landowners in the Northern FIA in June 2015 advising that as a precursor to any Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) being developed that it is anticipated that Council will lead the preparation of a framework plan to set the scope for the future PSP, infrastructure requirements ‘and the preferred timing of land release.‘


Discussion

There are a range of matters that Council needs to consider in planning for future growth fronts. Further to the background discussion above which outlines the process and decisions to date and inform the options for moving forward, a brief overview of the various positions (some of which are in the form of written proposals to Council) is provided below.

Northern FIA - Lovely Banks Consortium

The Lovely Banks Land Owners Consortium through Tract consultants have requested a planning scheme amendment to introduce a local planning policy supporting the future development of Lovely Banks and subsequently initiate a Precinct Structure Plan.

To support this position the proponent has provided a strategic review of the Geelong residential market, prepared by Essential Economics. The report recommends earlier release of land than envisioned in the Regional Growth Plan and advocates for a stronger balance between land supply at the northern (currently 11%) and southern (49%) ends of urban Geelong by bringing on Lovely Banks in an attempt to induce activity away from Melton and Wyndham.

The report indicates that by attracting 10% of Wyndham and Melton’s growth to Geelong by 2031 an additional demand for 11,300 dwellings would be created and that inclusion of the Lovely Banks precinct would increase northern supply to 27%.

The proponent has also proposed a ‘bring forward funding model’ which would pay for development contributions upfront instead of at the end of the project.

The consortium has sought Council’s support for the cost of undertaking planning work by their consultants to be covered by a future DCP to be applied the Northern FIA.

Comment:

Prior to considering any Precinct Structure Plan or details around a future Development Contributions Plan, Council needs to undertake detailed infrastructure planning and framework planning to ensure that future growth areas are planned properly to create the best possible outcomes for the new community. This work will investigate land capability, identify key planning objectives in relation to environmental, social and economic outcomes, detail infrastructure needs and set out a process for orderly and coordinated development in response to the proposed and surrounding land uses.

There is no evidence in the Essential Economics report to support the notion that 10% of demand for housing could be drawn away from Melton or Wyndham. There is no evidence to suggest why additional demand would be created in Geelong. Proximity to employment is a key factor when people decide where to live and there is no evidence to suggest that significant additional employment will become available in Geelong (beyond current growth projections) to draw people away from Melbourne. The rationale in the Essential Economics Report behind having an equal amount of residential land supply in the north and south of Geelong is questioned, particularly as many of the land sales in Armstrong Creek are to second home buyers already located in the 3216 postcode. Furthermore, evidence from Charter Keck Cramer shows that the percentage (6%) of land sales to Wyndham residents in Armstrong Creek is already the same as in Northern Geelong, which suggests the distance between Northern Geelong and Armstrong Creek plays only a small role in influencing people’s locational choices when making a decision to move from Melbourne.

In relation to the funding of infrastructure in growth areas there are two key components that need to be considered under the current development contributions system;

The proposed “bring forward funding model” is targeting only a small amount of the first local infrastructure component and is effectively just a delayed payment approach for Council. The model is similar to the works-in-kind approach common to growth areas development, with a broadened scope to deliver infrastructure traditionally forward funded by Council (eg: Community Centres). Therefore the only real saving or benefit to the Council is the reduction in a small component of borrowing costs, which overall would constitutes less than 1% of the total DCP cost. Council will still pay for the community infrastructure; it just does so later in the process.

The “bring forward funding model” does not address the larger scale regional infrastructure which Council will have to deliver. The regional infrastructure will still have to be funded by Council.

Crucially the other issue to be borne in mind is that Council is legally bound by existing DCPs in Lara West to deliver local infrastructure but the timeframe during which we recoup that cost through the DCP will be elongated as the demand for land in Lara West will slow down as some people choose to build in Lovely Banks instead. This issue is not addressed through the “bring forward funding model”.

It should also be noted that once a DCP for the area is approved, Council has a delivery obligation for all projects in the area. This means delivering projects outside the developer’s area and liability for land compensation claims for both DCP and open space land projects.

There is a large amount of work that can be undertaken by Lovely Banks Consortium which would ultimately inform the development of the Northern FIA. This can be done through a coordinated approach which would see Council officers working closely with Lovely Banks Consortium to ensure that early planning work informs the infrastructure and framework planning process and subsequently results in the proponent being well placed to then prepare a Precinct Structure Plan at an appropriate point in time.

Defraying planning costs incurred by the Lovely Banks Consortium through a DCP is not supported as this would result in fewer resources for community infrastructure and as a result detrimentally impact on the delivery of infrastructure for this new community. Given this area is not subject to the Growth Area Infrastructure Contribution (as all growth area land in Melbourne is) this approach is considered reasonable.

Northern FIA extension

This area is located to the north of the Northern FIA and adjoins the western edge of the Lara West Growth Area. The proposal would extend the Northern FIA north of Stacey’s Road to Hams Road and is bound by Evans Road to the west.

Adept Developments have prepared a ‘Vision Report’ labelled the ‘Lara West Logical Growth Area’. The proposal identifies an employment node of 200ha (this includes the existing Chemring Australia site and its buffer area) and over 200ha of residential land accommodating up to 3500 dwellings (approx. 10,000 residents).

The concept also identifies the relocation of the proposed neighbourhood activity centre in the adjacent Lara West Growth Area from a central location to Bacchus Marsh Road and increasing it to a sub-regional level size. The materials provided suggest that the project would provide a strategic corridor connecting dispersed growth areas, optimise infrastructure investment and create employment opportunities.

Comment:

Chemring Australia manufactures energetic products for defence and safety markets. They are located at 230 Staceys Road and employ 70 people. Council has received written advice from Chemring Australia indicating that they do not support any expansion of the northern FIA as advocated by Adept Developments. The letter states that:

“The Staceys Road site was selected by Chemring due to its remote location and we are concerned that this proposal would severely jeopardise the future planning and development of our operations. We therefore formally request Council does not provide its support for the Lara West Logical Growth Area put forward by Adept Development.”

The G21 Regional Growth Plan Implementation Plan considered whether the Northern FIA should be expanded north of Stacey’s Road and concluded that Staceys Road should be a hard edge of the Northern FIA. Northern expansion creates significant pressures on the long term future of Chemring and effectively joins a future urban Lovely Banks to Lara, contrary to the objectives of the Lara Structure Plan.

There is no planning justification for the expansion of the Northern FIA further to the north of Stacey’s Road.

The creation of a sub-regional centre on Bacchus Marsh Road is not supported as it is inconsistent with Council’s retail policies and would likely impact on the viability and retail offer in the Lara town centre and Corio Village.

Western FIA

Batesford South (Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd and the McCann Family) have lodged a planning scheme amendment request seeking the application of the Urban Growth Zone to the Western FIA. They have also requested that Council complete the studies outlined in the Regional Growth Plan for the Western FIA to enable it to be given the same status as the Northern FIA, as envisaged by the G21 Regional Growth Plan.

It was also indicated that the quarry rehabilitation plan could be modified to enable public access to occur if the FIA were to be rezoned Urban Growth Zone.

The land owners have offered to cover the cost of undertaking the preliminary work in the form of a bond.

Comment:

The G21 Regional Growth Plan Implementation Plan provided a detailed analysis of the Western FIA’s strengths and opportunities in terms of providing significant open space and habitat enhancement opportunities, access to key transport routes including rail, the site’s challenges including traffic connections to urban Geelong and management of water flows and quarry rehabilitation. A range of detailed reports have been provided by the proponent addressing a number of these issues.

The recommended approach of preparing an Integrated Infrastructure Delivery Plan for both FIA’s would respond to the request of Batesford South by ensuring that the detailed work outlined in the G21 Regional Growth Plan Implementation Plan be undertaken for each FIA.

In terms of the offer to cover the cost of the work in the form of a bond, the best (standard) approach is that Batesford South engage consultants to undertake background work in a form agreed with Council and provide this as an input to the infrastructure and framework planning processes.

Bell Post Hill area

This area is the northern part of the Western FIA and is bound by the Midland Highway to the south, the Geelong-Ballarat rail line to the north, the Geelong Ring Road to the east and Ballan Road to the west.

A formal application has not been submitted to Council as a rezoning request, however preliminary work has been undertaken by the Ramsey Property Group to explore options for development. The position being advocated is that this area be considered independently from the remainder of the Western FIA and be supported as an early infill opportunity.

Comment:

While it is acknowledged that the Bell Post Hill part of the Western FIA is not constrained in the short to medium term like other parts of the FIA, this is not reason to consider this in isolation to the other land in the FIA’s. The early planning work needs to be undertaken and the potential development of this area should be considered in the context of the broader potential growth across the FIA’s.

A framework plan for the entire Western FIA would consider issues in relation to layout and integration with adjoining areas and it is entirely appropriate for this level of planning work to be completed prior to consider any rezoning request for this area. The timing of delivering this land can be considered as part of this process which would allow for relevant opportunities and issues to be considered.

KEY ISSUES

The following key factors are fundamental to making any decisions on the proposals outlined above and as part of planning for Geelong’s next major growth areas.

  1. Financial impact on Council to provide infrastructure for existing and new communities

    Any decision to deliver these growth areas sooner than outlined in the Regional Growth Plan needs to consider the financial impost on Council. Undertaking early planning work in terms of infrastructure planning will enable Council to be well informed as to the cost of delivering infrastructure to these areas. This needs to then be considered in the context of Councils commitments under its existing Development Contribution Plans and Council’s financial capacity to respond to early delivery of the FIA’s.

    On the 18 August 2015 Council considered an Annual Report on the performance of the seven current Development Contribution Plans (DCP’s) that apply across the municipality. The report identified a total funding gap for Council (difference between income and infrastructure expenditure liabilities) across all DCP’s of $22.5M over the next 15 – 20 years. This excludes unfunded projects or likely increases in scope for DCP projects.

    As part of managing Council’s DCP obligations a detailed 10 year cash flow analysis is prepared and reviewed annually (including other open space and unfunded projects within Council’s major growth areas). This cashflow is critical in understanding Council’s future capital expenditure to deliver required DCP projects in advance of future DCP income. The following graph is a summary of current 10 year cash flow analysis.

    Figure 1 – CoGG Growth Areas with DCPs – Net 10 Year Cashflow Position

    (2015 – 2024, including net cumulative cashflow for all DCP, Opens Space and Unfunded Projects)

    Growth Areas with DCPs – Net 10 Year Cashflow Position(2015 – 2024, including net cumulative cashflow for all DCP, Opens Space and Unfunded Projects)

    A significant feature of the existing DCP’s developed by Council has been the relatively high level of contributions towards infrastructure achieved comparable to metropolitan Council’s. Recent changes to legislation however have introduced standardised DCP levies which further limits the contribution levels and standards for infrastructure provision that can be achieved which will most likely result in further funding gaps to be borne by Council. A retrospective assessment of the new Infrastructure Contribution Plan (ICP) system on Council’s current DCPs identified a funding gap of close to $70M (noting Council total DCP liability of approximately $482M).

    Council’s overall contribution to the delivery of growth areas infrastructure is shown on the following pie chart and is made up of:

    A funding challenge within Council’s major growth areas, and certainly the highest risk to Council is the requirement to fund higher order infrastructure that is not supported by any income stream. These projects usually include items such as regional libraries and sports facilities, road upgrades outside the growth area, etc. This challenge is further heightened by Council’s borrowing capacity and future rate capping.

    Figure 2 below provides an overview of the funding distribution for Armstrong Creek as a typical case study.

    Figure 2 Urban Growth Development – Typical Funding Distribution

  2. Urban Growth Development – Typical Funding Distribution
  3. Creating liveable neighbourhoods

    Planning for major growth areas requires a coordinated approach involving contribution from a broad range of stakeholders at both local and state level. This early planning is imperative to ensuring that future communities are provided with basic infrastructure needs from roads to schools, health and recreation facilities.

    A key challenge for all growth areas is the need for State Government infrastructure to keep pace with development and community needs. For Geelong, the absence of the Growth Area Infrastructure Contribution (GAIC), which is applicable to Melbourne growth areas for contributions to state infrastructure, further exacerbates this issue.

    Through the preparation of an Integrated Infrastructure Delivery Plan, service providers will be engaged and early planning can begin to ensure future infrastructure needs are identified and included in funding pipelines. This will enable well planned, liveable communities to be created in the City’s next major growth areas.

    Currently Geelong’s FIAs are not reflected in any of the utility agencies short-medium term funding programs. As an example, Barwon Water has significant resource and capital invested in Geelong’s current growth areas to keep pace with development. Armstrong Creek alone required close to $100M in capital investment in sewerage, potable and recycled water to allow development across multiple fronts and facilitate a completive housing market. Barwon Water are currently undertaking a major review to determine appropriate network requirements to meet the future water and sewerage needs of the FIA’s.

    Utility agencies rely upon an income from future customers (both developers and households) to recover the significant cost of major infrastructure to service these areas. Their preferred model is to deliver infrastructure in limited locations and recover these costs as quickly as possible. However in the public interest of housing diversity, locational settings and affordability they deliver infrastructure across multiple fronts. If this infrastructure is requested to be advanced out of sequence, higher costs apply to developers which are then inevitably passed on to the home owners, therefore increasing the cost of housing.

    Using another example of schools, across Victoria the State government have an obligation to deliver 150 new primary, secondary and special needs schools over the next 20-25 years to service growth. In Armstrong Creek and Lara West alone this includes provision of 7 primary schools (~$150M) and 4 secondary schools (~$180M), in addition to provision of private primary and secondary schools.

    A critical part of any successful business case for State Government funding is the certainty around growth, timing of funding and return on investment. This means that schools should be delivered in locations with significant current and future demand, and not in locations of slow and/or fragmented development. This equally applies to infrastructure such as arterial roads where investment should be made on roads with the greatest local and broader benefit to the community.

    Advancing the FIA growth areas too early would have the potential to compromise the rollout of State infrastructure in other current growth areas, particularly for areas like Lara West that would directly complete with Lovely Banks for school funding (ie split the same concentration of people across two areas).

  4. Planning policy context

    The G21 Regional Growth Plan is recognised at Clause 11.07 of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF). Key strategies include facilitating infill development in major nodes such as Central Geelong and activity centres, supporting and consolidating growth in district towns and urban areas utilising existing infrastructure investment while providing for long term growth options (FIA’s). Other provisions of Clause 11 Settlement include:

    The G21 Regional Growth Plan identified a land development sequence of existing zoned and serviced areas (with a focus on urban Geelong and district towns such as Lara and Ocean Grove), followed by unzoned but identified areas in district town Structure Plans and, in the medium to long term, (as dictated by land supply) the two FIAs.

  5. Land Supply

    The G21 Land Supply Monitoring data indicates that the City of Greater Geelong as at March 2015 has a residential lot supply of 63,261 lots.

    Based on population projections the average annual projected dwelling demand is approximately 2100. This equates to:

    Geelong has a healthy level of land supply and there is no urgency to bring on future supply at this point in time. It is also notable given that this supply excludes supply from unit construction in existing urban areas.

    The G21 Regional Growth Plan and Implementation Plan appropriately reinforces the importance of regular review of land supply to ensure that any significant population increases which may impact upon supply can be met by release (rezoning) of future supply stocks.

    The reliance on or creation of too much broad hectare land supply will continue to diminish the diversity of housing choice and discourage urban consolidation and infill opportunities or investment activity (i.e for Central Geelong).

    The G21 Regional Growth Plan Implementation Plan identified a number of major issues associated with the out of sequence development of the two FIAs (some of which are explored in the next section of this report) including:

RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS

This early planning work for the Further Investigation Areas is critical in setting the future direction of these major growth areas for the municipality and the region. It is imperative that Council take a considered and well planned approach to enable orderly and coordinated planning. The consequences of not undertaking this work are poorly planned communities that suffer from a lack of services and infrastructure.

Prior to considering any rezoning or Precinct Structure Plans, an Integrated Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IIDP) and Framework Plans for each FIA need to be prepared and endorsed by Council and relevant agencies. This work will investigate land capability, identify key planning objectives in relation to environmental, social and economic outcomes, detail infrastructure needs and set out a process for delivery.

Figure 3 below provides a flow chart of the recommended process for planning these growth areas, which would enable developers to work concurrently with Council, consistent with previous models used at Armstrong Creek.

Figure 3 Planning process for Further Investigation Areas

Planning process for Further Investigation Areas

*Developer needs to meet minimum criteria: 70% control, capability and capacity to deliver

The process outlined above would require an investment of resources from proponents in each FIA to undertake detailed background work and land capability analysis as an input into the IIDP. This would require a collaborative approach between Council and the proponents with an agreed process for delivering the required work. Council would need to define the scope of work, deliverables and timelines. It is recommended that Council write to Lovely Banks Consortium, Batesford South and Ramsey Property Group inviting them to work collaboratively with Council as outlined in the flowchart shown at Figure 3 above.

In the absence of this type of arrangement, the infrastructure and framework planning processes would take longer and cost more for Council to deliver.

The IIDP would inform a Framework Plan for each FIA. The Framework Plans would be prepared independently of each other and one would not necessarily rely on the other to be advanced.

Subsequent to completion of these components Council would then be in a position to consider a Precinct Structure Plan request for Lovely Banks and a rezoning request for the Western FIA.


Environmental Implications

Environmental implications will be considered in detail through the land capability analysis which is undertaken as part of the infrastructure and framework planning for each Further Investigation Area. Planning controls to protect the environment will be included in future amendments to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme where required.

The G21 Regional Growth Plan-Implementation Plan recommends that the principles of zero carbon, zero waste, sustainable water and sustainable transport be embedded in planning for the FIA’s.


Financial Implications

Funding for the Managing Future Growth Project was allocated in the 2014/15 budget to determine Council’s future funding obligations in delivering growth in the two FIAs.

The scope of the project has changed considerably as detailed in the body of this report. The current budget allocation enables the work program to be initiated, however further funding will be required in order to complete the infrastructure and framework planning.

The infrastructure planning process will define the future funding obligations which Council will face when the FIAs are developed.

Current approved budget

The current approved budget can be allocated to the scope of work as recommended in this report and as noted above further funding will be required in order to complete the infrastructure and framework planning required for the FIA’s.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

Council’s adopted policy position on the FIAs is that they are the long term options for Geelong’s growth.

Proposals to advance “out of sequence” development in the FIAs would necessitate a change to this policy which would be given statutory effect via an amendment to the planning scheme. This would also necessitate a change to the State section of the VPPs which designate the FIAs as long term growth options.

Undertaking the Managing Future Growth project will inform Council’s position on how and when to proceed with the FIAs. The project will address the legal and statutory requirements including the development contribution scheme, issues around the GAIC and define a roadmap which would deliver development land in a co-ordinated well planned manner.


Alignment to City Plan

The Managing Future Growth project aligns with the directions of the Sustainable and Built Environments themes in City Plan.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council officer involved in the preparation of this report has any direct or indirect interest, in accordance with Section 80(C) of the Local Government Act in the land to which this report relates.


Risk Assessment

The key risks in the Managing Future Growth project are related to the need to responsibly manage Council’s budget and appropriately service growth areas without impacting on the service delivery to existing communities. These are the core elements of the project.

The land capability analysis that will be undertaken as part of the infrastructure and framework planning and will define constraints on development of the area, this will ensure that land use planning risks are managed. This report outlines a process by which the land owners would undertake this work in collaboration with Council. Risks need to be managed under this type of arrangement to ensure that the quality of work undertaken by proponents meets the expectations of Council.


Social Considerations

Social considerations have been considered recognising the need to provide land for housing and employment and Councils duty of care to deliver liveable communities not just subdivisions. Providing appropriate community infrastructure will be a key part of the Managing Future Growth project.

Councils engagement with the State Government to attempt to secure investment in infrastructure and the local economy is also important to provide employment options close to where people live.


Human Rights Charter

Officers have taken into consideration the human rights relative to the subject matter of this report, including rate-payers property rights and the right to a fair hearing.


Consultation and Communication

Council officers have consulted with the developer consortiums and key land owners within both FIA’s, Barwon Water, representatives from DELWP and internal council departments. The rezoning of land at Lovely Banks to Urban Growth Zone by the Minister for Planning was not subject to public consultation.

DELWP have since written to landowners with the Northern FIA to advise them of application of the UGZ and to outline the anticipated stepped planning approach from Council including preparation of a framework plan and identifying infrastructure needs and land release timing prior to the development of a precinct structure plan.

The Managing Future Growth project will involve targeted consultation with key stakeholders where appropriate, this will include service providers, land owners, other growth area councils and the State Government.


Appendix 1

Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Zones

[Back to List]

Cr Heagney re-entered the meeting room at 8:57pm

Cr Macdonald declared an Indirect Financial Interest in Agenda Item 7 – Adoption of Amendment C324 – 357 & 359 Pakington Street, Newtown – Chilwell Village Shopping Centre, in that he has an interest in a property in the immediate area impacted by this Amendment and left the meeting room prior to discussion at 8:57pm

Cr Richards left the meeting room for the evening at 8:57pm


7. Adoption of Amendment C324-357 and 359 Pakington Street, Newtown-Chilwell Village Shopping Centre

Portfolio:

Planning – Cr Heagney

Source:

Planning and Tourism – City Development

General Manager:

Peter Bettess

Index Reference:

Council Reports 2015
Application: Amendment C280


Purpose

This report considers the Independent Panel Report and Recommendations on Amendment C324 and Planning Permit 1503/2014 and recommends adoption of the Amendment.


Summary

Cr Heagney moved, Cr Harwood seconded -

That Council:

  1. adopt Amendment C324 in the form outlined in Appendix 2 of this report;

  2. submit the adopted Amendment with the prescribed information to the Minister for Planning requesting approval; and

  3. recommends to the Minister that a Permit be granted pursuant to Section 96G of the Planning and environment Act 1987 (Planning Permit No, 1503/2013 is contained in Appendix 3).

Carried.


Background

Amendment C324 resulted from an application made by Sincock Planning on behalf of Dale Whitford, owner of 357 Pakington Street Newtown, to rezone that site and the adjoining land to the south at 359 Pakington Street from General Residential Zone Schedule 1 to Commercial 1 Zone. The Amendment request was accompanied by a planning permit application for “buildings and works associated with an office and two (2) dwellings, reduction in car parking requirement and subdivision of the land into three (3) lots generally in accordance with the endorsed plans”.

Appendix 1 shows the subject land and an aerial photo of the surrounding area.

Amendment C324 was exhibited between 18 June and 20 July 2015. Council received 1 submission in response from a local business owner objecting to the proposal on the grounds of insufficient car parking being provided with the development and the need for additional public off-street parking in the area.

As there was only one submission officers and the applicant met with the submitter to discuss the issues raised in the submission, talk through the amendment process and explain the proposal. Whilst all parties clearly understood each others position, the submitter supports his submission being considered and if necessary, by an Independent panel.

Under delegation on 5 August 2015, Council resolved to refer all submissions to an independent Panel appointed by the Minister for planning.

The Panel Hearing was held on 23 September 2015 in Geelong at Council offices.


Discussion

A one person Panel, Mr Trevor McCullough, conducted the Hearing. The Panel submitted its report to Council on 8 October 2015.

The Panel has observed the following about Amendment C324 and draft planning permit 1503/2014:

As noted above, the Panel shares some of the submitters (Mr Kenneth Smith’s) concerns about the cumulative effect of car parking reductions over a number of developments. The Panel believes that Council would benefit from having a parking plan in place for this activity centre. The development of a parking plan could more thoroughly review parking supply and demand, review the appropriateness of applying different rates of parking, and review whether a contributions scheme might be appropriate. A parking plan, and any subsequent parking overlay, would provide greater certainty for prospective developers as well as protect the viability of existing businesses.

Officers have undertaken a review of parking in the Newtown area and have a preliminary parking plan. This assists with short term parking issues and resolution of on ground management of existing spaces. The next stage of allocation of land etc for future parking and contributions has not commenced. This will require resources and there is no timeline yet to undertake the work. A budget and priority for this work will need to be considered in budget planning processes.


Environmental Implications

The subject site is extending the existing neighbourhood shopping centre of Chilwell Village and is conveniently and safely accessible to pedestrians. Located on a major road, the site is also serviced by bus services that operate along Pakington Street.


Financial Implications

There is no impact to the budget from this proposal.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The site has strategic merit for an extension to the Shopping Centre as a minor expansion of the existing neighbourhood activity centre. It is consistent with state and local planning policy to consolidate existing centres where synergies with adjacent uses can be achieved. In this case, the addition of office space to the Centre can be achieved in conjunction with a residential use without the need to convert of redevelop established retail sites.


Alignment to City Plan

The Amendment supports the ‘Growing our Economy’ strategic direction of City Plan.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council Officers have any direct or indirect interest, in accordance with Section 80 (c) of the Local Government Act to which this Amendment relates.


Risk Assessment

There are no notable risks associated with implementing the recommendation contained in this report.


Social Considerations

The proposed amendment will add further services to the Chilwell Village Shopping Centre in the form of office space.


Human Rights Charter

The Amendment will not impact on any basic rights, freedoms and responsibilities as set out in the Charter. Planning legislation ensures an open community consultation process occurs, enabling people to freely express their views and if necessary obtain a fair hearing before an Independent Panel, which has occurred in this case.


Consultation and Communication

The Independent Panel report has been publicly released with a copy provided to the applicant and the submitter.


Appendix 1- SUBJECT LAND

Subject land
Zones on subject land

Appendix 2 – AMENDMENT FOR ADOPTION

Planning and Environment Act 1987 GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME
AMENDMENT C324
INSTRUCTION SHEET

The planning authority for this amendment is Greater Geelong Planning Scheme

The Greater Geelong Planning Scheme is amended as follows:

Planning Scheme Maps

The Planning Scheme Maps are amended by a total of one attached map.

Zoning Maps

  1. Planning Scheme Map No.49 is amended in the manner shown on the attached map marked “Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, Amendment C324”.

End of document

Amendment C324 - Commerical 1 Zone map

Appendix 3 –PLANNING PERMIT TO BE ISSUED

Planning permit 1503/2014 to be issued - Page 1 of 8
Planning permit 1503/2014 to be issued - Page 2 of 8
Planning permit 1503/2014 to be issued - Page 3 of 8
Planning permit 1503/2014 to be issued - Page 4 of 8
Planning permit 1503/2014 to be issued - Page 5 of 8
Planning permit 1503/2014 to be issued - Page 6 of 8
Planning permit 1503/2014 to be issued - Page 7 of 8
Planning permit 1503/2014 to be issued - Page 8 of 8
[Back to List]

Cr Macdonald re-entered the meeting room at 9:00pm.


8. Leopold Land Capability and Bay Access Report

Portfolio:

Planning – Cr Heagney

Source:

Planning Strategy & Urban Growth

General Manager:

Peter Bettess

Index Reference:

Project: North of Portarlington Road, Leopold


Purpose

The purpose of this report is to present the findings of the Leopold Land Capability and Bay Access report, prepared by Spiire consultants, in response to a direction in the Leopold Structure Plan 2013.


Summary

Cr Macdonald moved, Cr Heagney seconded -

That Council:

  1. notes the findings of the Leopold Land Capability and Bay Access report (July 2015) as detailed in Appendix 1 of this report;

  2. directs officers to bring forward the review of the Leopold Structure Plan to the 2016-2017 financial year, subject to approval of funding through the budget process; and

  3. uses the findings of the Leopold Land Capability Access report as a guide in the review of the Leopold Structure Plan.

Carried.


Background

The Leopold Structure Plan includes a direction to investigate public access to the Bay.

Previous Council reports of 29 January 2013, 10 December 2013 and 10 June 2014 considered the key direction of the Leopold Structure Plan in relation to investigating public access to the Bay. This included consideration of project options for realising public access to the Bay.

At its meeting of 10 December 2013, Council opted to pursue the following option: “undertake detailed work to examine the potential for all rural land around Leopold to accommodate urban development with the intention being to negotiate an open space contribution along the foreshore. This would be dependent of two factors; if the land north of Portarlington Road is deemed to be capable of being developed for urban development and if Council was prepared to change its long standing policy of limiting the growth of Leopold to land south of the Portarlington Road.”

Council resolved to proceed with this option over two others, namely the acquisition of privately owned foreshore land to build a walking track and or a boat ramp; and to facilitate a rezoning request (planning scheme amendment) from an interested landowner.

At its meeting of 10 June 2014, Council resolved to revise the scope of works for the above project including the Study Area. The Study Area was revised to focus solely on land north and west of the settlement boundary rather than all rural land around Leopold.

There is no public land in the Study Area with private freehold extending up to the high water mark. Public access cannot be achieved without the purchase of land or alternatively the negotiation of a public open space contribution as part of a development.

A project brief was prepared on the basis of Council’s recommendation and put out for tender in July 2014.

The project brief sought to determine:

  1. The extent of potential development areas in the Study Area;

  2. What sort of development is feasible if Council changed its existing planning policies on tourism in rural areas or its settlement policy for Leopold;

  3. Whether public access to the Bay is achievable;

  4. What form public access would take; and

  5. How public access could be delivered, including funding and maintenance considerations.

Spiire consultants were the successful bidder and subsequently commenced work on the project in November 2014.


Discussion

Spiire provided Council officers with the final report in July 2015. The report focused on two key matters:

  1. Land capability for urban development; and

  2. Bay Access Options

The report also provided a summary of the landowner information event held at the Leopold Sportsmans Club in February 2015. Landowners within the Study Area boundary were invited to attend the event as part of a ground-truthing exercise and for the consultants to present their initial findings. The event had a high level of attendance and input from the landowners.

Since this time, a key landowner in the Study Area has met with Council officers to discuss future development aspirations north of Portarlington Road. This key landowner has also expressed concerns about inaccuracies and omissions contained in the technical report. These include: the lack of broader public consultation; no reference to the landowner technical report relating to addressing known physical and environmental constraints through urban development; no reference to historical consultation with the broader community about the high level of support for bay access including community demand for boating facilities and a land use rezoning to Special Use Zone to support a variety of land uses; and the potential gift of land to Council for public open space. Notwithstanding the aspirations of the key landowner and the associated concerns stated above, the consultant’s report has sought to investigate the key physical and environmental issues facing land within the Study Area from a purely technical perspective i.e. the capability of land to accommodate urban development and deliver Bay access. Broader community perspectives will be considered as part of the future Structure Plan review process, which will be informed by this technical report.

The findings of the report will be discussed below.

Land Capability

The report identifies two ‘potentially developable areas’ (See Appendix 2). They are as follows:

The potentially developable areas have been defined by considering the known physical and environmental constraints affecting the Study Area and how these could be managed to enable urban development. (Urban development being land uses typically found within a settlement boundary such as housing, retail, commercial and community uses.) These include such issues as flora and fauna, seagrass, cultural heritage, soil conditions, sea level rise, flooding and drainage within and external to the Study Area, water quality and retardation, setting the lowest development contour, staging and delivery infrastructure, traffic access and provision of community infrastructure and reticulated services.

A relatively high level assessment has been undertaken to define the potentially developable areas. Consequently, should land within the Study Area be required for urban development through a future review of the Leopold Structure Plan, there will be a requirement for further detailed technical considerations to be undertaken. This would need to define exact development areas and the ability for a holistic development approach to be implemented to address known significant constraints in the Study Area.

It should also be noted that a ‘possible additional developable area’ has been identified on land north of Portarlington Road (See Appendix 2). This area has been considered as an additional area that is subject to significant constraints due to low lying and flat topography. The area has not been considered as a ‘potentially developable area’ due to the expected significant works to achieve a serviceable development. Works to facilitate development in this area will largely relate to serviceable drainage and flooding management measures.

Building on the identification of the potentially developable areas, the report considers overall development scenarios, concluding that a holistic/strategic approach to development of the two areas would deliver the best outcome in terms addressing known technical constraints, provision of infrastructure and passive Bay access. The report concludes that a piecemeal approach to allowing urban development within the Study Area should not be supported.

There is a strong relationship between the two identified potentially developable areas in terms of the key physical considerations, particularly drainage and flooding. Consequently, a strategic approach to dealing with the planning and staging of delivery of key infrastructure will be necessary should urban development be supported in the two potentially developable areas. This will ensure that neither area is impeded should a staged development approach be proposed.

A high level analysis of likely development contributions and costings has been prepared by Spiire. Whilst high level, the benefit of this analysis shows the potential significant cost implications for the delivery of relevant infrastructure items by adopting a holistic approach to the development of the Study Area i.e. the development of the two identified potentially developable areas.

Bay Access

Physical and passive access options to the Bay were investigated as part of the project. It was found that to provide public access to the foreshore would require some form of enabling development.

Physical access to the Bay via a boat ramp is not appropriate due to a number of factors, such as significant environmental constraints, cost, and no identified need for such a facility in this general location. Physical access infrastructure such as boat ramps are expensive to provide and maintain and Council priorities are to improve existing facilities in alternative locations along the northern edge of the Bellarine Peninsula, including the Clifton Springs boat harbour. This is also reinforced by other strategic documents such as the Central Coastal Board Boating Coastal Action Plan.

Access to the foreshore is also not considered appropriate. There is no public access to the foreshore within the Study Area. All land within the Study Area adjoining the foreshore up to the high water mark is under private land ownership. In addition to this constraint, the majority of land along the foreshore within the Study Area is affected by projected sea level rise, which rules out the logic of providing access at the current coastline.

Passive access options taking the form of a linear trail network setback from the foreshore and linking up with the existing Bellarine Rail Trail; linear park along the 2100 coastline; or a large centrally located park area for community use and enjoyment of views of the Bay are considered the most appropriate forms of Bay access.

These options would be best delivered through some form of urban development. Providing passive bay access through development would remove the issue of Council purchasing land from multiple landowners and delivering the public open space, which would be a significant financial outlay. Providing passive open space through some form of urban development would have challenges similar to providing physical access.

As indicated above, provision of passive open space would need to be set back from the future coastal foreshore, which means that there would be a considerable distance (between 250 metres and 1,200 metres) from the current foreshore location should development be supported in the short to medium term.

Future consideration needs to be given to the merits of providing passive open space through some form of urban development in the Study Area over retaining Council’s historical planning policy position about retaining Leopold as an ‘urban island’ using Portarlington Road as a logical northern settlement boundary.

Future strategic planning considerations

The Spiire report is not a means to an end in so far as determining the full extent of land capability in the Study Area. It provides a high level analysis of the key technical constraints in the Study Area that affect development potential and also, provides an informed position about the ability to deliver Bay access.

The technical findings of the Spiire report will be used to inform the future review of the Leopold Structure Plan. This is anticipated to commence in 2017/2018 consistent with the rolling programme of 5 yearly reviews for district towns and adequacy of residential land supply in zoned and identified growth areas for the township. This is the most effective planning framework to formally test the benefits of achieving Bay access through urban development in the Study Area.

For Council to support urban development in the Study Area, which is currently outside the township settlement boundary, a significant shift in planning policy would be required. This means a thorough review of the Leopold Structure Plan and subsequent review of Clause 21.14 The Bellarine Peninsula in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. Also of importance would be the provisions of the State Planning Policy Framework in relation to coastal settlement, climate change and coastal areas, the Victorian Coastal Strategy, Bellarine Localised Planning Statement, and Bellarine Peninsula Strategic Plan, amongst others. There is clear strategic policy to protect non-urban breaks and to plan for climate change events such as sea level rise, particularly in low lying areas. Should a change in local planning policy arise, there is potential for inconsistency between the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework.

Subject to a shift in planning policy to enable the extension of the Leopold settlement boundary, further detailed technical studies would be required to support a future proponent initiated rezoning/development application to demonstrate that a holistic development scenario is achievable in the Study Area.

The Spiire report uses residential development as the most likely land use in the Study Area. Consequently, the importance of Council’s land supply will come into play should a future proposal be based on this land use. Any future urban extension of the township settlement boundary would need to consider the adequacy of land supply for Leopold and more importantly, the broader Municipality’s land supply. Strategic justification would be necessary and would need to demonstrate a need for additional land and through further detailed technical investigations, the land capability. Adequacy of residential land supply in terms of broadhectare and potential residential in the municipality is sufficient for the foreseeable future. There is currently 24 to 25 years of zoned broadhectare land supply in the municipality. In terms of future broadhectare land supply stocks (land still to be rezoned), there is roughly 13 years of supply to cater for demand across the municipality (Source: Geelong Residential Land Supply, Spatial Economics June 2015).

As Appendix 2 shows, there are only two potentially developable areas identified in the Study Area. This project has only considered land within the Study Area and consequently there may be other areas better suited for additional urban development around Leopold, if required in the future. Portarlington Road has historically been considered by Council and Independent Panels to be a logical northern settlement boundary for the township. This was principally on the basis of the rural nature of land north of Portarlington Road and the physical barrier that the road provides. Land west of Melaluka Road has also historically been known for its significant drainage issues. These concerns remain valid and will be relevant to the future Structure Plan review. Council’s adopted policy is for future urban growth to be provided south of the Bellarine Highway between Ash Road and Mollers Lane. Whilst a rezoning application has yet to be prepared for this area, it is considered that upon successful rezoning of the land, it will provide sufficient land supply in the future.


Environmental Implications

Without appropriate mitigation measures in place, there are potential significant environmental implications as a result of development within the Study Area. Flooding and drainage, sea level rise, and native vegetation are some of the key issues that affect this area. Should land within the Study Area be identified for future urban development, prospective developers will need to address known physical and environmental constraints through further technical investigation as part of a rezoning/development application to ensure there are no detrimental environmental impacts.


Financial Implications

Financial implications could arise for Council where future development within the Study Area is not appropriately planned and staged. Given the significant physical constraints in the Study Area, there is potential for financial burden on Council resources as part of future infrastructure delivery and ongoing maintenance programs. Should urban development be supported in this area in the future, there is a need to holistically plan for key infrastructure delivery within the Study Area. It is likely that there will be a need for a Development Contributions Plan (DCP) to be prepared to coordinate the delivery and timing of key infrastructure, including public open space. The preparation and implementation of DCPs has implications on Council finance resources.

The Spiire report has undertaken a high level assessment of likely developer contributions. It estimates a significant contribution per developable hectare based on global assumptions and residential land use.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The findings of the report are policy neutral at this stage. The findings of the report will be used to inform future Council decisions in relation to reviews of the Leopold Structure Plan. The key findings will be used to inform where urban development could be accommodated should Council decide to make a significant shift in planning policy for urban growth in Leopold.


Alignment to City Plan

This report aligns with the directions of the Sustainable and Built Environments theme in City Plan.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council officers have any direct or indirect interest, in accordance with section 80(c) of the Local Government Act 1989, in the matter to which this report relates.


Risk Assessment

The land capability assessment has undertaken a review of the key technical constraints in the Study Area. Consequently, a level of risk assessment has been undertaken to determine which areas of land are potentially developable. Whilst only a high level review, further detailed technical investigations would be required to be undertaken by any development proponent to determine the full extent of developable land in the Study Area and any associated risks.


Social Considerations

Social considerations will be addressed through future reviews of the Leopold Structure Plan.


Human Rights Charter

We have taken into consideration the human rights relative to the subject matter of this report, including rate-payers property rights and the right to a fair hearing.


Consultation and Communication

Consultation was undertaken with landowners in the Study Area in February 2015. An information session was held at the Leopold Sportsman Club, which included presentations from Council officers and Spiire consultants. The event was well attended and valuable feedback was obtained. Statutory consultation will also be undertaken as part of the future review of the Leopold Structure Plan.


[Back to List]

9. Potato Shed Annual Report 2014-2015

Portfolio:

Arts & Culture - Cr Richards

Source:

Arts and Culture / Investment & Attraction Division

Acting General Manager:

Paul Jane

Index Reference:

Subject: Arts and Culture/Bellarine Multi Arts - Potato Shed


Purpose

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with information relating to Potato Shed activities and highlights during the 2014/2015 period.


Summary

Cr Farrell moved, Cr Fisher seconded -

That Council note the report.

Carried.


Background

The Potato Shed was built as a joint venture by the City of Greater Geelong, Bellarine Secondary College and St Ignatius College Geelong (formally Catholic Regional College) with the State Government providing additional funding from the Community Support Fund. Council established a Committee of Management under Section 86 of the Local Government Act, and a Development and Joint Use Agreement was signed. The venue opened March 15th 2001.


Discussion

Throughout 2014/2015 the Potato Shed once again experienced a high level of community demand; a total of 97,315 visits were made. The venue operated at near capacity seven days a week, 14 hours a day, and was not able to accommodate all bookings. The key challenge facing the venue continued to be managing the needs and expectations of schools, hirers and community groups within the existing footprint.

General Public attendance totalled 61,758 while school attendances decreased slightly to 35,557, mainly due to St Ignatius College relocating music classes back within their school. This is a direct result of the lack of space at the Potato Shed with school enrolments growing and an increased demand for rooms which cannot be accommodated within the facility.

Programme highlights over 2014/15 included several sell out performances including Barry Morgan and his World of Organs, Hot Club Swing, Just the Ticket, Pants Down Circus and many more. November saw the return of Indigenous performer Kutcha Edwards who wowed audiences with his wise words and beautiful songs complimenting NT Outback’s “Highway of Lost Hearts”, a gripping story of loves lost, set in outback Australia. Audiences were delighted to experience a number of cabaret style productions along with a host of established actors live on stage locally. The popular Morning Showtime Season sold out yet again and featured regular local performers from Drop of A Hat productions along with Christine Middleton and Soul Sister Swing.

A number of new original works were presented, including a self-devised new work “Red Velvet” by Dance Initiative, the very popular “12x12 Plays” by Theatre 3222inc with twelve new works from local writers, and the Winter Solstice one act play weekend.

Other highlights included all Age Dance Parties “Spud Dance” held during the year. With Bellarine Youth Action Crew, a youth-operated production group which comprises members aged between 14 and 24 years held Film and Trivia Nights, Pyjama Parties and Free Hug Events. These are fully supervised and strictly smoke, drug and alcohol-free events for the youth of Geelong and the Bellarine Peninsula.

A Demand Analysis and Business Plan process was undertaken in 2008 to determine current and future needs of the Potato Shed, and a Masterplan was developed for expansion of the facility, adopted by Council in 25th May 2010. A community campaign for funding the Masterplan implementation was undertaken in October 2014, with over 1800 responses from the community via postcards, online surveys and petitions forwarded to candidates.


Environmental Implications

An accredited Waste Wise process was implemented in 2008 and continues successfully. The Potato Shed continues to encourage all users and hirers to be waste wise and has banned the use of all polystyrene products in the venue. LED lighting has been installed in the foyer, hallways and toilets reducing heat generation and providing a substantial reduction in electricity use.


Financial Implications

The Potato Shed is subject to the terms and conditions of a Joint Use Agreement between the City of Greater Geelong, Bellarine Secondary College School Council and The Roman Catholic Trusts Corporation for the Diocese of Melbourne. Under this agreement a formula dictates all parties’ contribution to the daily operation of the facility.

Council’s contribution to the operation of the Potato Shed in 2014/2015 was $215,118 including Family Fun Day with $22,171.00 allocated to maintenance. In addition to Council’s contribution, Bellarine Secondary College and St Ignatius College Geelong contributed $59,391.00 to the operating costs and an additional $18,645.00 towards capital and building maintenance.

Current approved budget.

Income of $244,855 against expenditure of $441,081.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

Through a series of resolutions dating back to 1997, Council agreed to participate as a joint venture partner with Bellarine Secondary College and the Roman Catholic Trusts Corporation for the Diocese of Melbourne (representing St Ignatius College Geelong) in the development of the multi-arts facility at the Bellarine Sub-Regional Centre, Drysdale, known as the Potato Shed. Cr Farrell (Chair) was the nominated Council representative on the Potato Shed Committee of Management 2014-2015 financial year.


Alignment to City Plan

The Potato Shed aligns to City Plan’s Strategic Directions ‘Community Wellbeing’ (Priority Areas: ‘Connected, creative and strong communities’) and ‘Growing Our Economy’ (Priority Areas: ‘A prosperous and innovative Geelong’, ‘A successful and vibrant city centre’ and ‘Greater Geelong is a leading city for tourism, arts, culture and events’).


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

There is no direct or indirect interest by Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report.


Risk Assessment

The Potato Shed has obligations under OH&S legislation to provide appropriate equipment and training for manual handling and to ensure that work stations meet Worksafe requirements.

The Potato Shed consistently operated close to capacity. This presents challenges in managing the needs and expectations of schools, hirers and community groups.


Social Considerations

In 2014/2015 the Potato Shed again provided a valuable resource for the Bellarine. The multi-purpose nature of the venue means the Potato Shed played a significant role in the cultural, social and educational development of the community. The venue has a reputation as an affordable and accessible community resource.

The Potato Shed embraced diversity and encouraged participation from all sectors of the community and was a vital hub of arts, social and educational activity for people of all ages and abilities on the Bellarine. The venue’s resident groups often collaborated to create positive outcomes within the community.

Dance Initiative, Bellarine Youth Action Crew, Bellarine Jongleurs and Theatre 3triple2 are all excellent examples of how the Potato Shed functioned as a model for social inclusion, providing independent ways for school students (outside of school hours) and other young people to benefit.

The partnership model between Council and two Secondary schools is widely admired, with other local governments and schools periodically visiting to learn from this successful experience.


Human Rights Charter

The Potato Shed promotes cultural diversity and cultural acceptance and is a vital hub of arts, social and educational activity for people of all ages and abilities on the Bellarine.


Consultation and Communication

Many users and participants are involved in planning and development of the venue through meetings and questionnaires. The Venue frequently surveys audiences and the broader community to understand evolving needs. Communication is abundant via CoGG Marketing, Facebook, Web presence and via local media organisations.

The Arts & Culture Department in consultation with the Potato Shed Committee of Management and the City of Greater Geelong Media Unit and Marketing Unit, will be responsible for the communication of this report.


[Back to List]

10. Propsect Road Laneways, Newtown - Proposed Construction SRC334 - Finalisation of Scheme

Portfolio:

Infrastructure - Cr Ellis

Source:

City Services - Engineering Services

General Manager:

William Tieppo

Index Reference:

Special Rates and Charges, Prospect Road, Newtown


Purpose

The purpose of this report is to finalise the Prospect Road, Newtown Special Charge Scheme.


Summary

Cr Ellis moved, Cr Irvine seconded -

That Council having declared a Special Charge on 29 January 2013, for the purpose of defraying the expenses in relation to the construction of the laneways bounded by Mercer Parade, Talbot Street and Prospect Road, Newtown (Appendix 1 – Plan), in accordance with Section 163 of the Local Government Act 1989 (The Act) resolves that:

  1. the Special Charges as declared be increased by 9.95% as shown in Schedule A – Appendix 2;

  2. the remaining cost be funded by Council;

  3. the General Manager of Strategy and Performance be authorised to levy and recover the Special Charges, by sending notices to the persons who are liable to pay, in accordance with Section 167 of the Act and the Regulations; and;

  4. in accordance with Section 172 of the Act, the rate of interest payable on the Special Charges which have not been paid by the specified date, is set at Council’s overdraft rate. This is reviewed every three months (provided that it shall not exceed the rate fixed by the Governor in Council by Order for the purposes of Section 172 2A of the Act, in which case the rate of interest shall be the maximum rate fixed by the Governor in Council by Order, for the purposes of the Section). The interest is to be calculated from the date the Special Charge is due, with a six month interest free period, providing those persons who choose to pay by instalments, adhere to their repayment plan.

Carried.


Background

When the Prospect Road, Newtown laneways Special Charge Scheme was declared by Council on 29 January 2013 and advised to property owners, there was no appeal application made to VCAT.

The project went to tender in late February 2014 and the contract was awarded in March 2014. The scope of work was increased due to poor on site soil types and additional drainage.


Discussion

At the time of the scheme declaration (29 January 2013), the cost estimate for the project was $162,041.50. Prior to tender (Feb 2014), a review of the scheme was carried out and the cost estimate was revised to $189,697. This estimate could not be used within the scheme as the scheme had already been declared. It was found that there were differences between the original estimated cost and quantities of the project, when compared to the tender. The accepted tender was valued at $152,279.05, a decrease of $9,762.45, when compared with the original cost estimate for the project of $162,041.50.

During construction, unsuitable soil material (too soft) was discovered within the lane that required deeper excavation and more crushed rock. Additional drainage to pick up house drains was also included and was a variation from the original scope that provided a better drainage outcome. These variations added a further $54,581 to the project.

In accordance with Section 166 of the Local Government Act 1989 (Variation of a Special Rate or Charge), Council may increase charges to affected property owners by effectively recommencing the scheme declaration and submission process. This process is not required if the increase in charge to property owners is less than 10%.

It is therefore recommended to increase the charge to property owners by 9.95% which equates to an increase between $216.33 and $865.34 per property owner. It is considered that recommencing the declaration process will be an unnecessary burden to property owners and further expense to the project.

Environmental Implications

There are no identified environmental implications in regards to emissions, energy consumption, water use, storm water quality, waste generation or natural habitats in Council’s resolution to finalise the Scheme.


Financial Implications

The financial details of the project are detailed as follows:

 

Estimated Cost

Actual Cost

Charge to Property Owners

$121,757.01

$133,871.65

Cost to Council

$40,284.49

$72,988.40

Total

$162,041.50

$206,860.05


The works were completed and funded from the Special Rates and Charges street construction program of 2014/15.

The net contribution by Council has increased by $32,704.

Property owners will be advised of the final costs, which will be an increase of 9.95% from the ‘as declared’ charges. This represents a net increase of $12,115.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The Special Charge Scheme has been administered in accordance with the Special Charge Scheme provisions of the Local Government Act 1989, as well as Council’s Special Rates and Charges policy.


Alignment to City Plan

This report aligns with the City Plan as follows:

Advocate for and Promote sustainable design and development:


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council Officer involved in this process has any direct or indirect interest in the affected properties.


Risk Assessment

Provision of constructed laneway has improved vehicular access, drainage and general amenity to property owners. There are no identifiable risks to Council in finalising this Scheme.


Social Considerations

The provision of sealed laneways is aligned to Council’s City Plan as described above and provides improvements to access and amenity for abutting residents.


Human Rights Charter

In developing this report to council, the subject matter has been considered to determine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope of any human right, established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, is in any way limited, restricted or interfered with by the recommendations contained within this report. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues.


Consultation and Communication

Extensive communication with property owners has taken place during the course of the project and the Special Charge Scheme process. Council will advise the property owners of the final costs.


Appendix 1 - PLAN

Plan showing properties included in the scheme and laneways constructed

Appendix 2 - SCHEDULE “A”

SPECIAL CHARGE SCHEME FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PROSPECT ROAD LANEWAYS, NEWTOWN

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

AS DECLARED ESTIMATE

ACTUAL COST ($)

PROPERTY REFERENCE

PROPERTY DETAILS

Pt CA 8 Sec 7

$2,174.23

$2,390.56

205297

9 Talbot Street, Newtown VIC 3220

Lot 1 TP 17122

$4,348.46

$4,781.13

205298

11 Talbot Street, Newtown VIC 3220

Lot 1 TP 5284

$4,348.46

$4,781.13

204179

119 Prospect Road, Newtown VIC 3220

Pt CA 8 Sec 7

$4,348.46

$4,781.13

204178

117 Prospect Road, Newtown VIC 3220

Pt CA 8 Sec 7

$4,348.46

$4,781.13

204177

115 Prospect Road, Newtown VIC 3220

Lot 1 TP 21413

$4,348.46

$4,781.13

204176

113 Prospect Road, Newtown VIC 3220

Lot 1 TP 012764

$4,348.46

$4,781.13

204175

111 Prospect Road, Newtown VIC 3220

Pt CA 8 Sec 7

$4,348.46

$4,781.13

204174

109 Prospect Road, Newtown VIC 3220

PC 369889

$8,696.93

$9,562.27

204173

105-107Prospect Road, Newtown VIC 3220

Lot 1 TP 17038

$4,348.46

$4,781.13

204171

103 Prospect Road, Newtown VIC 3220

Pt CA 8 Sec 7

$4,348.46

$4,781.13

204170

101 Prospect Road, Newtown VIC 3220

Lot 1 TP 21832

$4,348.46

$4,781.13

204169

97 Prospect Road, Newtown VIC 3220

Lot 1 TP 122429

$4,348.46

$4,781.13

204168

95 Prospect Road, Newtown VIC 3220

Pt CA 8 Sec 7

$6,522.70

$7,171.70

205299

13-15 Talbot Street, Newtown VIC 3220

Lot 1 LP 9824

$4,348.46

$4,781.13

202886

36 Mercer Parade, Newtown VIC 3220

Lot 2 LP 9824

$4,348.46

$4,781.13

202887

34 Mercer Parade, Newtown VIC 3220

Lot 2 PS 503559

$4,348.46

$4,781.13

315788

1/32 Mercer Parade, Newtown VIC 3220

Lot 1 PS 503559

$4,348.46

$4,781.13

315787

2/32 Mercer Parade, Newtown VIC 3220

Lot 4 LP 9824

$4,348.46

$4,781.13

202889

30 Mercer Parade, Newtown VIC 3220

Lot 2 PS 629492

$4,348.46

$4,781.13

343745

1/28 Mercer Parade, Newtown VIC 3220

Lot 1 PS 629492

$4,348.46

$4,781.13

343746

2/28 Mercer Parade, Newtown VIC 3220

Lot 2 PS 623638

$4,348.46

$4,781.13

340196

1/26 Mercer Parade, Newtown VIC 3220

Lot 1 PS 623638

$4,348.46

$4,781.13

340197

2/26 Mercer Parade, Newtown VIC 3220

Pt CA 8 Sec 7

$4,348.46

$4,781.13

202892

24 Mercer Parade, Newtown VIC 3220

Pt CA 8 Sec 7

$4,348.46

$4,781.13

202893

22 Mercer Parade, Newtown VIC 3220

Pt CA 8 Sec 7

$4,348.46

$4,781.13

202894

20 Mercer Parade, Newtown VIC 3220

Lot 1 TP 2431

$4,348.46

$4,781.13

202895

18 Mercer Parade, Newtown VIC 3220

 

$121,757.01

$133,871.65

 

 



Attachment 1

PROCESS CHART

SPECIAL CHARGE PROJECTS – PROSPECT ROAD LANEWAYS, NEWTOWN

(Section 163 – Local Government Act 1989)

Stage

Status

Description

Approval to prepare scheme

Decision made to prepare scheme following consideration of surveys of property owners and feed back from the community. Council may then place the project in the budget system or proceed immediately to prepare a scheme. Scheme preparation involves survey, design and preparation of an apportionment of costs.

Intention to Declare Scheme

Report to Council providing information on scheme including advice of impending advertising of scheme and declaration of charge. Seeks Council approval by resolution to proceed with process. 24 July 2012

Advertisement

The scheme is advertised in the local newspaper and all allotted property owners are notified by mail. This advertisement indicates Council’s intention and notification to ‘declare’ a scheme in a month’s time. 4 August 2012

Submissions

From the time of advertising property owners have 28 days (as set down by the Local Government Act) to lodge submissions, either in support or opposition to the scheme.

Submissions Review Panel Hearing

A Submissions Review Panel is convened (quorum of three Councillors) and meets to consider submissions. Some submissions are written only, and other submitters may wish to be heard before the Panel. The Panel makes a recommendation to Council regarding the scheme. 9 October 2012

Declaration Report

Any time 28 days after advertising the scheme and after the Submissions Review Panel has met and considered submissions, Council considers a report and may proceed to “declare” the charges in accordance with its advertised intent.

Subsequent to this the Finance Manager issues the levy notices and there is a formal charge placed on the property.

This is the final step in the process for Council to make a decision on the scheme. 29 January 2013

Appeal

Property owners may lodge an application for review with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) within one month of issue of the levy notice. An appeal is listed, heard and determined by the Tribunal and this process generally takes three to four months. Decisions made by VCAT are binding on all parties. No appeal application was made to VCAT.

Construction

Council may then proceed to construct the works. Invoices are issued seeking payment of the estimated cost within one month of commencement. 2014 - 2015

Final Cost Report

At the completion of the works the scheme is “finalised” taking into account actual costs incurred and payments are adjusted accordingly.


[Back to List]

11. Contractual Matter

Portfolio:

Infrastructure - Cr Ellis

Source:

City Services, Engineering Services

General Manager:

William Tieppo


Cr Heagney moved, Cr Macdonald seconded -

That in accordance with Section 89 (2) (d) (e) of the Local Government Act 1989, this contractual matter be considered at the conclusion of all other business at which time the meeting be closed to members of the public.

Carried.


[Back to List]

12. Contractual Matter

Portfolio:

Infrastructure - Cr Ellis

Source:

City Services, Engineering Services

General Manager:

William Tieppo


Cr Heagney moved, Cr Macdonald seconded -

That in accordance with Section 89 (2) (d) (e) of the Local Government Act 1989, this contractual matter be considered at the conclusion of all other business at which time the meeting be closed to members of the public.

Carried.


[Back to List]

13. Audit Advisory Committee Summary Report

Portfolio:

Governance - Cr Lyons (Mayor)

Source:

Corporate Internal Auditor

Chief Executive Officer:

Kelvin Spiller

Index Reference:

Audit CG - Internal


Cr Heagney moved, Cr Macdonald seconded -

That in accordance with Section 89 (2) (h) of the Local Government Act 1989, this matter be considered at the conclusion of all other business at which time the meeting be closed to members of the public.

Carried.


[Back to List]

Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Assembly of Councillors