Council Minutes - Section B: Reports - 24 September 2019
Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Assembly of Councillors
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.
Audit and Risk Committee Summary Report (Confidential)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensus is that human induced climate change is occurring. Globally, based on current efforts to reduce carbon emissions, it is highly unlikely that targets set in the Paris Agreement will be met. Without greater scope and urgency of action at all levels of society, we will be unable to limit global temperature rises to a safe level for our children and future generations. Impacts associated with climate change on our region include:
a higher risk of bushfires during summer, particularly for those in rural and periurban areas of Geelong;
more hot days and heat waves, with the greatest impacts felt by residents with poorly insulated housing, chronic illnesses, low incomes, and by the very young and elderly;
lower average rainfall, which is already impacting on wildlife such as the eucalypts and koala populations in the You Yangs, affecting the Barwon river system, damaging parks and sporting grounds, and making local agriculture more challenging;
increased storm intensity, causing damage to infrastructure and increased insurance costs;
and increased costs of living, including food, water, energy and insurance for residents, and worsening inequality.
The City of Greater Geelong has shown leadership by reducing carbon emissions as an organisation, and supported the community to do the same. Our Council Plan, Environment Management Strategy, Zero Carbon Emissions Strategy, Climate Change Adaptation Strategy and Risk Register highlight the importance of combating climate change. They include a broad range of actions which will enable the City to reach its emissions reduction target of 50% by 2020. Actions completed to-date include:
the installation of 21 rooftop solar systems;
assessing our coastline for sea level rise impacts;
development of an Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) Policy;
all new large Council buildings meeting a minimum 5 star standard; and
implementation of our Urban Forest Strategy.
Council has worked in partnership with the community to develop a Community Zero Carbon Action Plan. This partnership approach will result in a reduction in community greenhouse gas emissions.
Local communities, including our own, are asking their governments to declare a ‘Climate Emergency’ and to join the Climate Councils ‘Cities Power Partnership Program’ in response to the threats posed by climate change. The term emergency refers to the fact that current actions, while important, are inadequate, and more needs to be done at a much faster pace. The declaration is a way that governments can highlight that if we act urgently, it is still possible to restore a safe climate for future generations by acting collectively and accelerating actions to reduce its impacts.
In order to address the climate emergency, a range of short, medium and long-term strategies are required, and cooperation between the public, private sector, community, and all three tiers of government is essential.
As of 4 September 2019, climate emergency declarations were made by 990 jurisdictions covering 212 million people. This includes 45 local governments in Australia covering 5 million people, or 20% of the population. While individual jurisdictions alone have a limited impact on global climate carbon emissions, as a combined movement, the potential impact is significant.
This motion aligns with our Council Plan, and our Environment Strategy, and One Planet Living Principles.
Councillor Mansfield moved, Councillor Mason seconded -
That Council:
Declare that climate change poses a serious and immediate risk to people in Geelong, Australia, and globally, and should be treated as an emergency;
Acknowledge the extensive local community interest and advocacy, including by our region’s young people, in relation to the declaration of a Climate Emergency;
Note and supports the successful motion to the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) May 2017 to recognise that we are in a state of ‘climate emergency’ that requires urgent action by all levels of government, including local Councils;
Note that the City of Greater Geelong, has had a strong record of reducing emissions, restoring and conserving biodiversity, and preparing our community for the impacts of climate change;
Note the City of Greater Geelong endorsement of, and continued commitment to the Our Coast Program and the following strategies Environment Management Strategy, Zero Carbon Emissions Strategy, Community Zero Carbon Action Plan, Climate Change Adaptation Strategy and Urban Forest Strategy;
Note the extensive range of local emission reduction actions being undertaken by Council, residents, schools, businesses and other organisations within the City of Greater Geelong;
Note that Council considers Climate Change to be a key strategic risk as part of its assessment of its risk environment;
Request management to seek to incorporate actions addressing the climate emergency within the next Environment Management Strategy, Biodiversity Strategy and Zero Carbon Emissions Strategy which will all be reviewed over the next 12 months. These actions should include: a review of COGG’s carbon emissions targets; measure to prepare for the impacts of climate change; collaboration with other Councils who are addressing the climate emergency to learn from their approaches to the issue; and strategies to engage, educate, and empower the local community regarding action to address the climate emergency;
Request the Chief Executive Officer to report to Council by the end of March 2020 outlining potential measures to incorporate consideration of the climate emergency into COGG’s strategy and operations across the organisation, and any resource implications. These measures must reflect the gravity and urgency of the climate emergency;
Write to state and federal Environment Ministers to advocate for more substantial and urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and
Join the Climate Councils Cities Power Partnership Program.
Councillor Asher moved, Councillor Grzybek seconded -
That Council:
Acknowledge that climate change poses a risk to the people of Geelong and Australia, and requires a genuine and coordinated response.
Acknowledge the extensive local community interest and advocacy, including by our region’s young people, in relation to the issue of climate change.
Request management make it an immediate priority to develop a Sustainability Framework, with implementation plans and a performance measurement program that seeks to address climate change impacts on the City and its stakeholders. Development of this Framework will include the review of the existing Environment Management Strategy, Biodiversity Strategy and Zero Carbon Emissions Strategy, which are all scheduled for review during the next 12 months.
Request the Chief Executive Officer report to Council by February 2020 with a draft Sustainability Framework, a timeline for implementation and a proposed performance measurement program. The Framework and implementation plan will include potential additional measures to incorporate climate change impact mitigation actions into the City’s strategy and operations across the organisation.
Note that the City of Greater Geelong has had a strong record of reducing emissions, restoring and conserving biodiversity, and preparing our community for the impacts of climate change.
Note the City of Greater Geelong endorsement of, and continued commitment to, the Our Coast Program and strategies including the Environment Management Strategy, Zero Carbon Emissions Strategy, Community Zero Carbon Action Plan, Climate Change Adaptation Strategy and Urban Forest Strategy.
Note the extensive range of local emission reduction actions being undertaken by Council, residents, schools, businesses and other organisations within the City of Greater Geelong.
Note that Council considers Climate Change to be a key strategic risk as part of its assessment of its risk environment.
Note the successful motion to the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) May 2017 to recognise that we are in a state of ‘climate emergency’ that requires urgent action by all levels of government, including local Councils.
Write to state and federal Environment Ministers to advocate for significant action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Join the Climate Councils Cities Power Partnership Program.
Carried.
Division Requested:
For: Councillors Aitken, Grzybek, Kontelj, Asher, Sullivan, Nelson
Against: Councillors Murrihy, Harwood, Mason, Murnane, Mansfield
Source: |
Community Life – Connected Communities |
Director: |
Robyn Stevens |
Portfolio: |
Leadership and Governance |
To note the third report to Council from the Youth Council Advisory Committee.
Twelve local young people have been elected to the new City of Greater Geelong Youth Council Advisory Committee (Committee), and during their 12-month term will serve as the region's official 'youth voice'.
Aged between 12 and 16 years, the Youth Councillors represent a wide spread of local towns and suburbs, with three representatives from each of the four Council wards – Bellarine, Brownbill, Kardinia and Windermere.
The Committee meets once a month at City Hall. The Junior Mayor presents the group's findings and recommendations to Council on a quarterly basis.
The Committee will also be responsible for organising an annual youth summit.
Junior Mayor, Josie Horne, will present the third of her four Youth Council presentations during 2019 about the Committee's findings and recommendations as set out in the annual plan. Refer presentation (Attachment 2).
The focus of the Junior Mayor’s third presentation is to highlight Youth Council achievements since 30 July 2019, to provide further information about the Youth Councillors and their portfolio directions, and outline specific goals for the next two months.
The Councillor Connect Mentoring Program has recently commenced. The mentoring program provides a unique opportunity for Youth Council members to connect with their respective ward Councillors and to also develop their communication and leadership skills, learn about local government and the community, and participate in decision making processes. An evaluation of this program is planned, with participant feedback to be sought in December 2019.
Councillor Grzybek moved, Councillor Murrihy seconded -
That Council:
note the third report to Council from the Youth Council Advisory Committee.
Carried.
Funding for the Youth Council program and activities has been allocated as part of Council’s annual budget process.
The Youth Council members attended and presented at the 2019 Youth Awards, which was a highly successful event. The Youth Councillors will be attending a number of Youth Drop In groups around Geelong to gain essential feedback from young people. The key engagement will be the Youth Summit in October 2019.
The Youth Council provides an opportunity for young people to contribute to and be included in civic life.
The 2019 Youth Council Advisory Committee term will conclude in October 2019.
Nominations for the 2020 Youth Council Advisory Committee will commence in December 2019, with successfully elected members to begin their role in February 2020.
The key priorities outlined in the annual plan align with council plan priorities of:
Improved health and safety of our community – consult with the community on safety issues that are impacting them;
A more inclusive and diverse community – further developing programs that support young people in our community;
Effective environmental management – educating and assisting our community; and
Organisational leadership, strategy and governance – communicating and engaging with the community.
No City officers or contractors who have provided advice in relation to this report have declared a conflict of interest regarding the matter under consideration.
The Committee will provide advice to Council on specific issues relating to young people in our community.
There are no environmental implications.
As per Council Meeting Procedures Local Law 2017 (3.31.2), a meeting may not continue after 10pm unless a majority of members present vote in favour of its continuance.
Councillor Sullivan moved, Councillor Kontelj seconded -
That the meeting continue to proceed as per Council Meeting Procedures Local law 2017 (3.31.2).
Councillor Murnane declared a Direct Interest in Agenda Item 2 – Little Malop Central Activation and Improvements Proposal in that he is the Executive Board Support of Active Geelong who will be making a submission to Council on this matter, and left the meeting room prior to discussion at 9:57pm.
Source: |
Economy, Investment & Attraction – Central Geelong & Waterfront |
Director: |
Brett Luxford |
Portfolio: |
Economic Development |
To seek Council’s advice on whether to proceed with a proposed program of works and activation in Little Malop Central (commonly referred to as “the Mall”) to encourage greater community use and access in line with the Council ‘Notice of Motion’ and resolution on 25 June 2019.
At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 25 June 2019 Council resolved to work with key stakeholders including the Victoria Police, traders, property owners and other agencies to identify short and medium term initiatives to activate Little Malop Central (LMC). This included actions that could be delivered by 15 December 2019.
There has been ongoing concern that LMC is not delivering a safe and inclusive public space for the community despite significant forums, workshops, interventions and activations, low levels of reported crime and an actual reduction in reported crime since 2017.
A series of optional activations and works responding to the identified strengths and liveability improvement priorities for LMC has been developed (Proposed Activation Zones Attachments 4 and Little Malop Sketch Plan Attachment 5 and Proposed Schedule of Works and Activations for works and activations Attachment 6).
LMC is a high profile area of Central Geelong that attracts significant negative media and political interest. It is one of the few public spaces available for activation within Central Geelong and currently has a variety of programmed events and activations within the space.
Council adopted a capital allocation of $250,000 in the 2019-2020 budget for the development of a masterplan for the Mall including a thorough engagement process to identify works to potentially fully refurbish LMC and adjoining side streets. This report proposes works and activation programming that may provide valuable input through trialling and testing ideas that can be used as ‘learnings’ into the masterplan engagement process.
There is a current program of activation already undertaken by both Council and the Central Geelong Marketing Committee in the LMC. There are approximately 350 activities across the Central Geelong area per year (most delivered in LMC), delivering 900 on-street hours of activation, reaching approx. 250,000 people.
In addition, there is also more than 140 fund raising activities that are run across the central Geelong precinct.
Three options have been identified (Attachment 6) to address the intent of the Council resolution with Option B put forward as the recommended option as it balances amenity improvements, activation and financial considerations.
Councillor Kontelj moved, Councillor Murrihy seconded -
That Council:
Note the options for a program of works and activation in Little Malop Central prepared in response to the Notice of Motion and resolution on 25 June 2019, to encourage greater community use and access as contained in the “Proposed Schedule of Works and Activations” Attachment 6;
Adopt Option B, as identified in Attachment 6, in order to address the intent of the Notice of Motion and subsequent resolution at an operating and capital cost of $315,600, split across the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 financial years;
Note capital expenditure of $170,600 identified in 2019-2020 will be funded through favourable variances in the capital program. Operational expenditure of $33,000 identified in 2019-2020 will be funded from the budgeted surplus;
Note that capital and operational expenditure identified for 2020-2021 will be incorporated into the 2020-2021 budget;
Complete a post implementation survey of users in April 2020 to evaluate the impact of this initiative; and
Maintain on-going dialogue with key stakeholders and users of Little Malop Central to constantly review the activation of the public realm in Little Malop Central.
Carried.
$250,000 (C20807) has been approved in the 2019-2020 capital budget for a masterplan for the LMC site – the subject site. It is proposed that the commencement of the masterplan process starts this financial year.
The cost for a works and activation program (above business as usual) is estimated to be between $315,600 to $659,148 as detailed in Attachment 6 and below.
The breakdown of costs for options A and B are:
Option |
Capital ($) |
Operating ($) |
A |
301,224 |
$357,924 |
B |
247,600 |
$68,000 |
It should also be noted that there is the opportunity to split the cost across two financial years.This would mean the following allocation of funding:
|
|
2019-2020 ($) |
|
202019-2021 ($) |
||
|
|
Option A |
Option B |
|
Option A |
Option B |
Capex |
|
270,924 |
170,600 |
|
88,000 |
65,000 |
Opex |
|
213,224 |
33,000 |
|
87,000 |
47,000 |
TOTAL |
|
484,148 |
203,600 |
|
175,000 |
112,000 |
Option C would result in no change to spending in LMC. It would maintain the current program of activations but seek to ensure that space is safe and maintained to a high standard by refocussing services into the area.
Council could seek to reduce the scope of works and reduce the cost of this initiative however this would need to be further scoped to identify the elements of the program that would have the most impact.
There is no current allocation of budget for this program of activations and work. Should Council seek to implement this program it will need to be funded through either the identified budget surplus or through savings identified throughout the year.
Council could choose to undertake option A, option B or Option C.
For the majority of programs delivered in Central Geelong over many years, surveys have shown that around 60% of visitors come in especially for the activity, with 60% going on to spend in Central Geelong on shopping, eating and professional services. This also applies to activations run in LMC.
Community engagement commenced through the Placescore survey tool deployed earlier this year in numerous areas of Central Geelong, including LMC (Town Centre Community Insights Report – Attachment 3).
Discussions have been held with Market Square management, property owners and some of the business operators in this section of Little Malop Street. There has been strong support for action to be undertaken in the space.
Victoria Police have been involved in previous forums and formal groups to provide advice and support in some aspects of public management in the LMC. Creative Geelong, Active Geelong, Back to Bikes, GenU and Batforce have also been consulted on the possible involvement by their respective organisations. Further engagement has occurred and will continue throughout the scoping and planning for the short to medium term solutions in this area.
Geelong’s Youth Council will be discussing homelessness in their forum to be held in October this year. There may be outcomes of that forum that can be incorporated into the solutions and improvements of the LMC.
By trialling changes to the physical elements of LMC and broadening the range of activations in LMC it is anticipated to bring a broader cross section of the community back to the area.
Opportunities to involve agencies such as Batforce, GenU and others will be further explored to gain their support and possible involvement in aspects of the intervention.
Planning will be informed by effective, focused partnerships and engagement to better understand the particular needs of the community including an enhanced outreach for disadvantaged members of the community that frequent the LMC.
This program of works and activation will increase the opportunity for a greater diversity of use of the public realm and, a post occupancy survey (using Placescore) will inform the scope for a more permanent urban design solution in the future.
Council is the landowner responsible for the LMC.
The bus infrastructure, location planning and scheduling are the responsibility of the Department of Transport. Council can advocate for any changes but does not have the responsibility.
Criminal or civil disorder that is seen to occur from time to time has been managed by Victoria Police.
The proposal to undertake works and activations for the short and medium term in the LMC is anticipated to increase patronage of the public realm which is in the best interests of the community and will inform future planning for an improved public spaces and infrastructure and meets the requirements of Council’s functions under the Local Government Act 1989.
This proposal links to the Council Plan 2018-22 strategic priority of “Improved health and safety of our community”. It helps meet the community’s aspirations through the vision where “People feel safe wherever they are”.
By cultivating an active street culture through urban design outcomes that encourages activity and comfortable open public areas in all seasons; and, through well maintained, clean streets and public open spaces the program of works helps achieve the strategic priority to “Improve public safety on the Geelong Waterfront and in Central Geelong”.
No City officers involved in the development of this report have a direct or indirect interest.
Non-action in this area exposes Council to further reputational risk as the owners of the public space. A demonstration of activation in the LMC through an agile “pop up” approach will demonstrate Council’s responsiveness to a perceived issue through a combination of programming activations and construction works.
The evidence based decision making and implementation of (short to medium term) works and activations will enable a trialling of interventions that can inform the design brief for a masterplan. The trialling of the design through a “build, measure, learn” approach may reduce the risk of a major capital investment in the public realm in the future that does not improve the perception (and use) of the space.
Procurement procedures and availability of contractors may impact on the timing for completion of some of the works items in the proposal. This may be mitigated by early market engagement and/or a design and construct methodology.
The longer term success for activation of the public realm will need interest and commitment from a range of agencies, community groups and volunteers to enliven the space. This may be managed through commitment of a dedicated City officer.
All operational works and activations to be implemented will be subject to the City’s risk management processes.
A lighting audit has been proposed and will include review of current lighting levels and energy efficient lighting will be used to replace for new lighting features any existing upgrades.
The reinstatement of the Water Feature within part of the precinct has been proposed. This feature will contribute to the cooling of the local environment in summer.
Additional plantings (garden planters) are proposed for the precinct.
At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 25 June 2019, following a ‘Notice of Motion’, Council resolved:
Work with key stakeholders including the Victoria Police, traders, property owners and other agencies to identify short and medium term initiatives to activate the Mall;
Request the Chief Executive Officer provide a report to Council by the end of August 2019 outlining the above and:
2.1 include an outline of the costs and timelines for implementation; and
2.2 identify specifically which initiatives can be implemented by no later than 15 December 2019.
A series of workshops have been conducted with City officers who have direct experience in the management, activation and maintenance of LMC and a separate facilitated workshop was held with Councillors and Executive Team to define the issues and investigate potential solutions to increase use and improve perceptions of the place.
The Placescore tool enabled Councillors, Executive Team members and officers to explore clever design methods that can be used to generate solutions for implementation.
Placescore is a tool that that has been used by the City for capturing data on the perceptions of various public areas including LMC. Placescore captures what our communities care about and how they rate the shared spaces of their cities; their neighbourhoods, town centres and workplaces. The resulting data can help to better plan for, and measure, change.
The Placescore tool is widely used throughout Australia and New Zealand and provides consistent and statistically sound data reflecting demographic groupings and identifies strengths and improvement priorities for public space reflective of the entire community.
The Placescore tool identifies what attributes of the public place the community ‘values’ (the Care Factor) and how the community considers each of the attributes are performing (Place Experience).
The evidence provided through the Placescore community insight survey report identified the strengths for LMC. These are attributes the community care most about and rate them as performing well. These attributes are listed below and any activities undertaken should maintain or strengthen these attributes:
Ease of walking around (including crossing the street, moving between destinations);
General condition of vegetation, street trees and other plantings; and
Evidence of public events happening here (markets, street entertainment).
Liveability Improvement priorities for LMC were also identified through the Placescore assessment. These are the qualities the community care about most but are considered as not performing well. These are listed below and any activities undertaken should seek to improve these attributes:
Sense of safety (for all ages, genders, day/night etc.);
Welcoming to all people;
Cleanliness of public space;
Overall look and visual character of the area;
Vegetation and natural elements (street trees, planting, water, etc);
Elements of the natural environment (views, vegetation, topography, water, etc);
Public art, community art, water or light features; and
Local history, heritage buildings or features.
Engagement has commenced with key businesses in the area including Market Square management, adjacent businesses and property owners including the sharing of the Place Score findings. Victoria Police have provided some early advice on the initial proposed works in the area and will continue to be involved in finding solutions to make LMC a more attractive public space.
A follow up place score place experience assessment is recommended to be undertaken in April 2020 to review the implementation of short-term intervention activations.
The short to medium term, that is, up to 15 December and, a further six months activation initiatives and ‘trial of temporary and ‘pop up’ style infrastructure will help inform the longer term design and future use of the space.
The framework used to build the proposed program of works and activations uses a design thinking approach to define the ‘problem’ and then, come up with proposed solution that address environmental, economic, social and cultural dimensions of the ’problem’.
The Mall is not a public realm improvement project listed on the 2016 Revitalising Central Geelong Action Plan. In a media release on 28 February, Council in collaboration with the Geelong Authority and the Revitalising Central Geelong Partnership stated that they are all committed to improving the mall area and all consider it a high priority.
Council acknowledges that the works required to implement a finalised masterplan will take considerable resources and time, as well as the support of key stakeholders in the central business district and the community. In the meantime, there is an opportunity to activate LMC through modest physical changes to the area and an enhanced program of activations (events) to encourage greater community use, measure the change across the criteria using the Placescore data gathering tool – both pre and post intervention, however, additional resourcing for the short to medium term will be required to deliver the desired outcomes.
Council’s activation in LMC should be seen as the catalyst for the broader community to add to with their own activations/contributions. For a sustainable outcome to be achieved it will take more than just Council to be providing activation; more than outreach services supporting vulnerable people; or Victoria Police maintaining a community policing presence – it will need to be a shared outcome that is embraced by the local businesses and the broader community through institutional, community organisations, sporting associations and community clubs. There are a number of groups that are willing to collaborate with Council to make a genuine contribution and achieve the Clever and Creative outcomes for the future of Greater Geelong.
Evaluation of the program’s effectiveness will be undertaken through a range of measures including increase in pedestrian movements, survey with local businesses and Placescore.
Councillor Murnane re-entered the meeting room at 10:14pm
Councillor Kontelj declared an indirect financial interest in Agenda Item 4 – Amendment C395 – Settlement Strategy and Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan – Consideration of Submissions, in that one of the submitters is a customer of his employer, and left the meeting room prior to discussion at 10:14pm
Source: |
City Development – Strategic Implementation |
Director: |
Gareth Smith |
Portfolio: |
Sustainable Development |
To consider submissions on Amendment C395 and refer them to an independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning.
Council adopted the Greater Geelong Settlement Strategy on 9 October 2018 and the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan on 26 March 2019.
Amendment C395 implements the Settlement Strategy and Framework Plan into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.
The amendment was exhibited from 21 June 2019 to 29 July 2019. A total of 102 submissions were received. 61 relate to the Framework Plan, 27 to the Settlement Strategy and 14 to both. Seven submissions support the amendment without change; the remaining submissions make detailed comment, request changes or object to the amendment.
Key matters raised in submissions regarding the Settlement Strategy are: population growth rates; requests to rezone or consider over 1870 ha of land for residential outside the settlement boundary; proposed logical inclusions process; support for protecting the Bellarine Peninsula; and the relationship of the Strategy and amendment to the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes (DAL) program for the Bellarine.
Key matters raised in submissions regarding the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan are: various requested changes to precinct boundaries, activity centres, road networks and drainage; development levies and shared funding; the Clever and Creative Corridor; biodiversity issues; specific land use or rezoning requests within or between the growth areas; and land use compatibility with surrounding areas.
Key themes and responses are outlined in Attachment 2.
Officer responses to each of the 102 submissions are outlined in Attachment 5. The responses will form the basis of the City’s position to the independent Panel, scheduled to be held from 11 November 2019, subject to Council support.
Councillor Mason moved, Councillor Aitken seconded -
That Council having considered all submissions on Amendment C395 resolves to:
Request the Minister for Planning to appoint an independent Panel under Part 5 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to consider submissions relating to the amendment;
Refer all submissions to the Panel;
Submit to the Panel its response to the submissions generally as outlined in this report; and
Authorise the Director Planning, Design & Development to agree minor modifications to Amendment C395 to resolve submissions prior to the Panel hearing, provided those changes are consistent with the intent of the amendment and the responses in this report.
Carried.
Budget has been set aside to cover the costs associated with the planning scheme amendment process for C395. The main cost will be a Panel Hearing where Council will be required to pay the fees for the State Government appointed panel. The panel hearing could run for 3-4 weeks and the fees are likely to be in the order of $100,000. Further costs will be incurred in the engaging of lawyers and expert witnesses to assist the Panel and support Council’s position at the Panel hearing.
Planning for the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas (NWGGA), including the preparation of two Precinct Structure Plans (PSPs), is provided for in Council’s 2019-2020 budget.
Individual third party funding agreements will be executed with land owners/developers that seek to progress the preparation of each PSP recommended for commencement. Agreements will fund the background and technical reports required to inform the preparation of PSPs. Development contribution plans (DCPs) or infrastructure contribution plans (ICPs) will generate most of the funding for subsequent development of transport and drainage infrastructure and community facilities.
In order to minimise costs to Council and the community, community facilities will be delivered in a staged manner and as shared facilities where practicable.
The further work identified within the Settlement Strategy will be subject to future budget bids.
Both the Settlement Strategy and the Framework Plan were developed and finalised on the basis of extensive community engagement.
Two rounds of community engagement occurred on the Settlement Strategy, in July 2017 and May – June 2018. Council considered 73 submissions on the draft Strategy when adopting the Strategy in October 2018.
Community engagement on the NWGGA project between 2016 and 2018 included project bulletins to landowners, several Open House community information sessions, a series of ‘Visions and Principles’ workshops, ‘Enquiry by Design’ workshops and consultation on the draft Future Urban Structure Plan. In addition, a wide range of industry and government stakeholders participated in technical reference groups. Council considered 81 submissions on the draft Future Urban Structure Plan when adopting the Framework Plan in March 2019.
The amendment was exhibited from 21 June to 29 July 2019. Notices were placed in five separate newspapers. Around 1450 affected or nearby landowners and residents were notified by mail, while around 500 email notifications were sent to stakeholders and interested parties. Open House information sessions on the NWGGA Framework Plan component of the Amendment were held at the Batesford Hall on 17 July and the Corio Library on 18 July.
This report recommends submissions on the amendment be referred to an independent planning panel. Submitters will have the opportunity to appear at the panel.
Community engagement will also occur during the subsequent PSP process for each individual precinct within the NWGGA.
A component of the Settlement Strategy considers the need to increase the level of affordable and social housing within the municipality. This is reflected in the policy changes proposed by the amendment.
The NWGGA project contains significant social equity considerations, responding to Greater Geelong’s significant growth rate by planning for the future provision of affordable housing and employment opportunities to meet the needs of the community. The Framework Plan will guide development of the growth areas in a manner that addresses the City’s responsibility to deliver vibrant, walkable neighbourhoods with great amenity, environmental sustainability, abundant open space, community facilities and activity centres that provide the daily needs and jobs for local residents.
The City is a GROW (G21 Region Opportunities for Work) compact signatory and is committed to its role as a community leader in demonstrating and encouraging local investments and the use of social procurement. The City will engage with development proponents throughout the preparation of each precinct structure plan to encourage the use of social procurement and local investment in the subsequent urban development of the growth areas as part of a GROW compact.
The NWGGA are identified in state policy as potential growth areas as outlined in the G21 Regional Growth Plan.
The Settlement Strategy and Framework Plan have considered relevant state and local planning policy. The Strategy highlights the importance of the NWGGA in supporting Geelong’s long term land supply.
The Framework Plan and the amendment recognise the ongoing extractive operations of Batesford Quarry, maintaining the quarry within a Special Use Zone. PSPs in the Western Geelong Growth Area (WGGA) are proposed in a manner that will allow urban development in locations with an adequate separation distance from ongoing operations in the quarry pit.
Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 4, relating to grasslands within the Werribee Plains hinterland, applies to parts of the Northern Geelong Growth Area (NGGA). The City will work with the State and Federal Governments to undertake a Biodiversity Conservation Strategy to guide the management of nationally and state significant biodiversity values.
Concurrently with this amendment, the State Government is operating a DAL program for the Bellarine Peninsula. The relationship between this program and the amendment is discussed in Attachment 2 below.
The Settlement Strategy aligns with the Planned Sustainable Development strategic priority of the Council Plan. Completion of the Settlement Strategy was an identified aim for 2018-2019.
The Settlement Strategy will deliver the following key priorities identified in the Council Plan: ensuring housing supply, diversity and affordability can meet the needs of our growing community; facilitating opportunities for infill residential development; continuing to develop urban growth areas across the region; and managing the impact of development on the unique character of our townships.
The Framework Plan aligns with the Planned Sustainable Development strategic priority of the Council Plan. It will assist in delivering the following key priorities under that strategic priority: ensuring housing supply, diversity and affordability can meet the needs of our growing community; continuing to develop urban growth areas across the region; improving the environmental performance of new developments; managing the impact of development on the unique character of our townships; and delivering biodiversity conservation programs.
The Framework Plan also aligns with several other strategic priorities of the Council Plan: improved health and safety of our community; informed social infrastructure and planning; effective environmental management; integrated transport connections and a thriving and sustainable economy.
No Council officers involved in the development of the framework plan and preparation of the report have a direct or indirect interest in the issue to which this report relates.
The Settlement Strategy provides a clear framework to deliver housing in Greater Geelong into the future. Having this robust housing strategy avoids the risk of ad-hoc, reactionary planning and missing opportunities to deliver the Clever and Creative vision.
The Framework Plan is a high-level land use plan to guide future PSPs within the NWGGA. PSPs will be informed by detailed technical studies for each precinct and these may include recommendations that differ from directions in the Framework Plan. Changes might include land uses on the Framework Plan, potential biodiversity conservation areas, and sizing of drainage and transport infrastructure.
The process for preparing technical studies for the Framework Plan included several reports funded by the landowner consortiums and managed in collaboration with the City. This approach will not be continued for future planning including the PSPs.
The vision for the reuse of the Batesford Quarry is a recreational lake. Due to the long term timeframe and complex transition of the quarry to a lake this use cannot be resolved in the Framework Plan. PSPs in the WGGA do not rely on the transition of the quarry and surrounding land to an urban environment. While not intended, a scenario where the quarry is never rehabilitated to an urban standard would still result in the remaining four precincts in the WGGA delivering high amenity neighbourhoods that are well connected to urban Geelong. A PSP in proximity to the quarry pit will not commence until detailed investigation of the decommission, rehabilitation and impacts of the proposed transition to a lake is undertaken and further considered.
The size and scale of development in the NWGGA will have an impact on adjoining development, particularly with respect to potential traffic movements. This issue is discussed in Attachment 2 below.
The Settlement Strategy has a number of environmental implications including the need to take into account environmental risks and values when considering the spatial distribution of housing, looking at how development can be more sustainable into the future, increasing the share of housing provided by urban consolidation and thus reducing pressure for outward expansion, increasing housing diversity and implementing the One Planet Living principles.
Environmental implications were considered in the preparation of the Framework Plan. Technical studies relating to land capability including assessments of native flora and fauna, geotechnical, hydrogeological and environmental constraints, stormwater drainage and land use buffers were undertaken.
The Framework Plan identifies actions to prepare an environmentally sustainable design (ESD) action plan for each PSP demonstrating the actions that urban development will take to contribute net zero carbon to the City.
An overarching Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (BCS) will be prepared prior to the finalisation of any PSPs. The City is actively engaging with the Department of Environment Land Water and Planning (DELWP), the Victorian Planning Authority (VPA), the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Energy and landowners to ensure work on the BCS commences in 2019 and informs the short term PSPs. The Framework Plan also identifies various other actions to protect biodiversity and achieve environmental outcomes, including provision of biodiversity linkages, identified and potential conservation areas, tree canopy coverage and tree planting.
The primary purpose of Amendment C395 is to introduce new local policy into the Municipal Strategic Statement section of the Planning Scheme to implement the Settlement Strategy and the NWGGA Framework Plan. Along with new policy statements the key plans being included in the scheme are the Settlement Strategy’s Housing and Settlement Framework Plan and the NWGGA Framework Plan map. The versions of these plans exhibited in Amendment C395 are included in Attachment 3.
Amendment C395 was exhibited from 21 June to 29 July 2019. A total of 102 submissions were received. 61 relate to the Framework Plan, 27 to the Settlement Strategy and 14 to both. Seven submissions support the amendment without change; the remaining submissions make detailed comment, request changes or object to the amendment.
Maps showing the location and distribution of submitters are provided in Attachment 4.
The remainder of this report provides a theme based summary of the submissions and an officer response. This discussion is broken down into submissions on the Settlement Strategy and submissions on the NWGGA Framework Plan.
A more detailed summary and response to individual submissions is in Attachment 5. Council officers will endeavour to resolve submissions where possible in the lead up to the Panel hearing. Submissions will be resolved in line with the overall intent of the amendment and the response to submission themes in this report.
Summary
41 of the 101 submissions received on the amendment relate, wholly or partially, to the Settlement Strategy. Of these, 14 express general support for the Settlement Strategy; most of these also request changes or make detailed comment. 14 submissions request or support including specific further land within the settlement boundary or that the amendment not preclude its possible future inclusion. 25 submissions request other changes to, or make other comments on, the Settlement Strategy.
Issues raised regarding the Settlement Strategy and related policy changes have been grouped into themes and these are outlined and discussed below. The discussion below is not comprehensive; it does not cover all points raised in all submissions. It is recommended that all submissions be referred to an independent Planning Panel.
Themes, key issues
Projected population growth rates
Two submissions indicate that the Settlement Strategy should adopt a higher growth rate projection. The Committee for Geelong submits that the Strategy lacks an ambitious vision for Geelong’s future growth and contends planning should be for a growth rate above 3% per annum (pa). The submission also indicates the most recent (2019) Victoria in Future population projections should be used.
Two submissions indicate that the Settlement Strategy should adopt a higher growth rate projection. The Committee for Geelong submits that the Strategy lacks an ambitious vision for Geelong’s future growth and contends planning should be for a growth rate above 3% per annum (pa). The submission also indicates the most recent (2019) Victoria in Future population projections should be used.
Gersh Investment Partners Ltd contends that a whole of municipality plan should plan for a Greater Geelong population of 1 million. The submission refers to a separate document envisaging a population of 1 million by 2060, which equates to a growth rate of 3.3% pa sustained over four decades.
Austin Land states that it is essential that the adopted growth rate is able to be adjusted. Lovely Banks Development Group seeks recognition in the proposed Local Planning Policy provisions that growth may exceed 2.5% pa.
Response:
The Settlement Strategy considers five scenarios for population growth until 2036, selecting an aspirational growth scenario of 2.5% pa as the primary basis for calculating housing demand, greenfield land adequacy and the timing of future land releases. The Strategy provides for this to be adjusted should growth rates surge to 3.0% pa. The Strategy notes that 3.0% pa is at the upper end of what might realistically be achieved.
The City stands by its scenario based approach to growth rates. The monitoring and review built into this method allows planning to respond to higher or lower growth rates. The Strategy considers 2.5% pa as a realistic growth rate at this point in time. The State Government’s Victoria in Future 2019 projections for Greater Geelong indicate an average growth rate of 2.0% pa for 2018-2036. That lower projection reinforces that the City is taking an aspirational yet realistic approach to planning for growth.
The City stands by its scenario based approach to growth rates. The monitoring and review built into this method allows planning to respond to higher or lower growth rates. The Strategy considers 2.5% pa as a realistic growth rate at this point in time. The State Government’s Victoria in Future 2019 projections for Greater Geelong indicate an average growth rate of 2.0% pa for 2018-2036. That lower projection reinforces that the City is taking an aspirational yet realistic approach to planning for growth.
Land supply and demand
Three submissions raise concern with calculations of land supply and demand in the Settlement Strategy. Both Algo Properties and the Committee for Geelong argue that the Strategy uses outdated figures which can be misleading as they do not reflect a recent surge in demand. Similarly, Gersh Investment Partners Ltd contends that the Strategy has systematic flaws in its land supply assumptions, noting that the Strategy uses data as at 1 January 2017 that excludes more recent substantial land sales.
Response:
The housing and lot supply figures in the Strategy represent a particular point in time. These figures then informed the development of the Strategy. Housing and lot supply figures will necessarily change over time. The Strategy addresses this by taking a scenarios based approach which can factor in accelerating or slowing levels of development. This approach includes regular review and monitoring to track progress to allow for responsive decision making.
The City maintains that adequate residential land has been identified to meet Greater Geelong’s housing needs over the life of the Strategy. The extent of land identified provides:
In excess of 20 years (2039) supply under the highest growth scenario of 3% pa;
A greenfield housing supply until 2046 under a 2.5% pa growth scenario; and
A possible extension of 15 years (2061) supply if urban consolidation and greater housing densities and diversity are achieved in the growth areas.
The City’s routine update of housing and land supply data is currently being undertaken and these results will be available before the Panel Hearing on the amendment.
Housing markets
The Committee for Geelong suggests that the Greater Geelong housing market be broken down into five regions/sub-markets for monitoring and review, to ensure 15 years of supply in each of these sectors. Morgan and Griffin and Barwon Water stress the difference between the housing market for the Bellarine Peninsula/Ocean Grove and the City as a whole, with Ocean Grove growth significantly higher than that of Greater Geelong as a whole. The ongoing demand for new housing in Ocean Grove is also referred to in a submission by Wallington landowners.
Response:
The State requires that local governments plan to accommodate projected population growth over at least a 15 year period, with residential land supply to be considered on a municipal, rather than town-by-town basis. It is up to the City to determine how this minimum 15 year supply is met. This is a task to be completed having regard to matters including environmental characteristics, the availability of infrastructure and the proper and orderly provision of services.
The Settlement Strategy meets the City’s requirements under Clause 11.02-1S of the Planning Scheme. The Strategy provides for a mix of greenfield and infill development opportunities, with the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas and Armstrong Creek identified as three major growth areas. Maintaining residential land supply in every conceivable element of the housing market across the municipality is neither a sound basis to deliver growth nor realistic.
Long term comprehensive planning
The Committee for Geelong argues that a Settlement Strategy for the region should be prepared in conjunction with the State Government; population growth strategy should be integrated with larger long-term planning for Geelong. Gersh Investment Partners Ltd argues that the Settlement Strategy is flawed because it deals only with residential land use. The submission requests a whole of city plan that addresses employment, infrastructure and a longer term urban footprint to reflect growth over a 30 to 40 year timeframe.
Response:
The Settlement Strategy was only ever envisaged as a settlement and housing strategy. The G21 Regional Growth Plan considers the broader issues of employment, infrastructure and protection of natural assets to 2050, catering for a regional population of 500,000. The Regional Growth Plan was developed with the State Government and is included in the State Planning Policy Framework.
Settlement boundary – interest in further residential development
14 submissions express interest in further residential development outside the settlement boundary proposed in the Settlement Strategy, nominating specific parcels of land. These submissions variously request:
rezoning land (to Urban Growth Zone, General Residential Zone or Mixed Use Zone);
inclusion within the settlement boundary as part of this amendment;
inclusion within the settlement boundary in a logical inclusions process; or
that the amendment not preclude future inclusion within the settlement boundary.
These land parcels have a total area of approximately 1873 ectares; by comparison this is around 90% of the size of the Northern Geelong Growth Area:
Land |
Locality |
Area (hectares) |
|---|---|---|
372 – 450 Charlemont Road |
Armstrong Creek |
97 |
1900 Barwon Heads Road |
Barwon Heads |
50 |
70 Baenschs Lane |
Connewarre |
43 |
540 Flinders Avenue |
Lara |
86 |
980-1000 Portarlington Rd, 40-90 Bawtree Rd |
Leopold |
37 |
Various lots, W of Melaluka Rd, S of Bellarine Hwy |
Leopold |
132 |
55 & 75 Williams Road |
Mount Duneed |
16 |
195 Whites Road |
Mount Duneed |
26 |
201-209 and 231-299 Grubb Road |
Wallington |
104 |
Various lots owned by Goandra Estate Pty Ltd |
Wallington |
66 |
Various lots, Rhinds and Sproules Roads |
Wallington |
196 |
Various lots, owned by Boral |
Waurn Ponds, Mount Duneed |
1020 |
Map showing location of land subject of settlement boundary submissions
Some of the submissions provide detailed land capability reports and development plans in support of their requests.
Three further submissions regarding the settlement boundary do not relate to specific parcels of land. The Committee for Geelong argues against a permanent settlement boundary and suggests potential land for growth be assessed within a 20-30 km radius of Geelong. Lascorp Development Group stresses the potential need for a review of a permanent settlement boundary. Shell Road Development Pty Ltd objects to the Strategy and amendment curtailing the growth of Ocean Grove and other district towns.
Response:
Given current supply levels, there is no requirement to nominate new growth areas or future investigation areas beyond what is already identified in the Settlement Strategy at this time. This would be premature given no strategic work has been undertaken to support such designations. The proposed strategy responds to and exceeds the requirement for delivery of capacity for residential growth.
These requests are beyond the planned growth identified in the G21 Regional Growth Plan and the Settlement Strategy. This is significant given the ‘G21 Regional Growth Plan – Implementation Plan’ also considers infrastructure, utilities, transport, employment and other requirements needed to support and service residential growth. No such planning has occurred for the ‘next phase’ of Geelong’s growth. Council has not carried out the strategic assessments necessary to identify future residential development opportunities or to rule areas in or out for further investigation or future development.
The next phase of Geelong’s growth can be strategically considered as part of a G21 Regional Growth Plan and/or Settlement Strategy review. Considerations will include land supply, planning scheme requirements, infrastructure, servicing and an understanding of growth at the municipal, regional and state levels. The views of servicing authorities and other state government agencies will be critical to this process. Any new growth fronts need to be considered as part of a broader approach to settlement planning rather than short term piecemeal extensions across various locations without consideration of long term sustainable settlement planning.
In relation to strategic planning considerations, ‘unlocking’ urban development potential for private investment interests is not a key consideration. Caution should be given against making assumptions about future land use potential or opportunities that have not been strategically identified or investigated. The City is committed to delivering the current identified growth areas with efficient delivery of infrastructure and services to create functional new communities in a timely manner. The addition of new active growth fronts across the municipality beyond what is already planned could have detrimental impact on this. The experience in metropolitan growth area planning confirms the benefit of delivering planned communities and infrastructure to ensure new housing is serviced appropriately.
For the above reasons, officers have not carried out a detailed assessment or considered the merits or otherwise of the individual site-specific development requests in these submissions.
The City has identified a ‘logical inclusions’ process to deal with anomalies or enhancements to existing residential areas, however, this is not a process for identifying future growth fronts or investigation areas. The Bellarine Peninsula is subject to the State Government’s DAL program. Long term protected boundaries for townships will be identified as part of this project (see below).
Logical inclusions process
Some of the submissions supporting or proposing residential development outside the settlement boundary proposed by the Settlement Strategy and this amendment specifically request particular land be considered in the logical inclusions process.
Other submissions relating to the logical inclusions process:
request changes or additions to local planning policy provisions;
argue that the process should precede finalisation of this amendment and/or the DAL program;
argue that a permanent settlement boundary is contrary to logical inclusions; and
request the process be established quickly if changes to the settlement boundary are not supported in this amendment.
Response:
The logical inclusions process is not looking at identifying new residential growth fronts or future investigation areas given the adequacy of current and proposed residential land supply (see response to settlement boundary submissions, above).
The process will focus on infrastructure delivery to land already identified for residential development, creating enduring boundaries and creating sustainable communities in the context of formalising permanent boundaries.
The Settlement Strategy identifies the need to work with the State government, neighbouring councils and other stakeholders, carry out a consultative process and use the Melbourne logical inclusions process as a guide to introduce a permanent settlement boundary and protect non-urban breaks.
The City will seek to commence the logical inclusions process upon completion of this amendment, with consideration of any Panel and/or Ministerial recommendations. This logical inclusions process will only apply outside of the Bellarine Peninsula (see below).
Bellarine Peninsula Distinctive Areas and Landscapes program
Eight submissions specifically reference the State Government’s DAL program for the Bellarine Peninsula. Two argue that the DAL program should be concluded before this amendment; another argues that the DAL process and amendment should not precede the logical inclusions process. Two submitters indicate they separately submitted to the Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning (DELWP) on the DAL program with respect to their land; two others indicate or request that the DAL program does not affect their land which is outside the settlement boundary, but which they request be included within the boundary. With respect to the timing of the DAL program, another submission asks what protection is afforded the Bellarine Peninsula before it is finalised in mid-2020.
Separately, four submissions refer to settlement boundaries in reviews of township structure plans – three regarding Ocean Grove and one regarding Leopold. Two submissions stress the need for a review of the Ocean Grove Structure Plan with respect to the settlement boundary; another that the Ocean Grove Structure Plan be revised insofar as it indicates the town’s settlement boundary will be reviewed again.
Response:
After adoption of the Settlement Strategy in October 2018, the State Government announced its intention to declare the Bellarine Peninsula a DAL under legislation if re-elected. Upon re-election the project commenced and is being delivered by the Places and Precincts unit within the Planning Implementation team of DELWP.
The project website states a Statement of Planning Policy will be prepared for the Bellarine which will include a ‘50-year vision and strategies, including long-term settlement boundaries’.
This Bellarine Peninsula DAL program is consistent with the strategic directions set out in the Settlement Strategy. The Strategy identifies that the share of housing growth on the Bellarine will decline overtime, that landscape values should inform settlement breaks and that the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Bill 2017 is one option for delivering protected boundaries.
The DAL process will now deliver settlement boundaries on the Bellarine with consideration given to provisions in the local planning policy framework and the usual technical considerations. Any future changes to boundaries will be considered under the DAL legislation. The current framework plan uses the term ‘indicative permanent settlement boundaries’ which indicates there is a process required to make them permanent.
Given that the DAL will establish protected settlement boundaries on the Bellarine, a logical inclusions process will no longer be required for the Bellarine Peninsula. Likewise, township settlement boundaries will not be reviewed in the future review of structure plans for the various Bellarine Peninsula towns
Council officers are working with DELWP on the project. The DAL process has completed phase one of three community engagement phases. Declaration of the Bellarine Peninsula as a DAL is expected in late 2019.
The City will now await the outcomes of the DAL process which will culminate in a final Statement of Planning Policy for the Bellarine in mid 2020; this will then be introduced into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. The City will not commence any structure plan reviews on the Bellarine until the DAL process is finalised.
Supporting submissions
Five submissions support the strategic directions set out in the Strategy and amendment for the Bellarine Peninsula. Submissions support preserving the unique character of the Bellarine, directing most future greenfield development to urban Geelong, and implementing permanent settlement boundaries based on existing boundaries.
Other specific matters addressed in other supporting submissions include support for increasing levels of urban consolidation, infrastructure provision, shared funding arrangements for growth areas, sequencing growth and promoting housing diversity.
Response:
The supporting submissions are noted. With respect to the Bellarine Peninsula, see the section on the Bellarine Peninsula DAL program above.
Other township issues
Nine submissions raise a wide range of issues specific to land within the existing settlement boundary in various towns. Four submissions relate to land in Drysdale/Clifton Springs (including Curlewis), two to Portarlington and one each to Batesford, Lara and the Armstrong Creek Growth Area.
Issues raised include:
seeking rezoning, or policy support for rezoning, of land within settlement boundaries;
protecting certain land within settlement boundaries from rezoning;
specific land uses, development and community facilities within towns;
changing land within the Armstrong Creek Growth Area from employment to residential; and
building heights, bulk and design.
Response:
The issues raised in these submissions regarding land within existing township settlement boundaries are outside the scope of the Settlement Strategy and this amendment.
The appropriate processes for addressing these matters include structure plan reviews, PSP preparation and planning scheme amendment applications.
Government agency submissions
Submissions relating wholly or in part to the Settlement Strategy were received from six government agencies: Barwon Water, Department of Environment, Land Water and Planning (DELWP), Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions, Department of Transport, Environment Protection Authority Victoria, Victorian Planning Authority and Victorian Regional Channels Authority.
These submissions are generally supportive of the Settlement Strategy and amendment. Comments and suggested changes include:
a statement in Clause 21.06-1 that anticipated dwelling demand can be met under the City’s identified planned growth may not be achievable given potential implications of biodiversity protection in NWGGA (DELWP);
Clause 21.06-8 should refer to environmental values of state and national significance as well as of local significance (DELWP);
consideration needs to be given to encroachment and buffers for sensitive land uses when investigating boundaries (EPA);
support for Boral’s settlement boundary request (VPA);
changes to ensure that encroachment of urban development around the rail corridor and rail stations does not compromise current and future operations of the Port of Geelong (VRCA);
given the strategic location of train stations, Clause 21.06-8 should refer to opportunities for commercial and mixed use around train stations as well as increased housing densities (Barwon Water).
Department of Transport provides a range of comments and suggestions including:
growth should initially be directed to areas with established transport infrastructure and committed upgrades;
identification of short term precinct plans should be based on ability of transport system to cater for additional trips generated by these precincts;
timing and sequencing should ensure that redirection of settlement from already established areas such as Armstrong Creek Growth Area is minimised;
future growth should be prioritised in areas where new transport infrastructure is being provided, including Armstrong Creek Growth Area and the Geelong rail corridor;
would like to understand how a more ambitious infill development target timing would affect the timing of development in NWGGA;
social housing should be located in areas well serviced by existing public transport;
exclude existing transport corridors in the Bellarine Peninsula and You Yangs precinct from areas protected under the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Bill;
extend rail corridor precinct approach to Marshall and Waurn Ponds stations;
unlikely a Breakwater station will be re-activated;
implications of increased freight transport on Fyans Street need to be considered in planning for West Fyans Key Development Area.
Response:
With respect to the set of dot points above relating to DELWP, EPA, VPA, VRCA and Barwon Water:
DELWP comments on biodiversity implications are noted; a review and monitoring process in the Settlement Strategy allows figures to be revised as required;
Environmental values of state and federal significance are generally already protected. They will be addressed further in the Bellarine Peninsula DAL project and in a biodiversity conservation strategy (or strategies) for NWGGA;
Minor changes should be made to the Managing Future Growth (p70) and Urban Consolidation (p78) sections of the Strategy to reflect EPA Victoria’s comments;
Officers have not carried out a detailed assessment or considered the merits or otherwise of Boral’s request, for the reasons set out in the above section on interest in further residential development outside the settlement boundary;
Support VRCA’s recommended changes to the Strategy and policy provisions; and
Support including reference to mixed use but not to commercial uses as this goes beyond the scope of Clause 21.06-8 and the Settlement Strategy.
In response to matters raised by Department of Transport:
Regional transport implications of NWGGA are being addressed by the Geelong Growth Areas Transport Infrastructure Study;
Do not support the active prioritisation of Armstrong Creek Growth Area ahead of NWGGA. NWGGA has strong strategic support and a substantial overlap of development in NWGGA and Armstrong Creek is needed to maintain supply;
DAL program being undertaken by DELWP but unlikely to impact existing transport corridors;
Settlement Strategy highlights opportunities for increased housing densities around rail stations;
Change rail corridor reference to “through to Waurn Ponds” rather than to Breakwater;
Planning for West Fyans Key Development Area will consider freight transport implications.
Other issues
A number of submissions suggest minor changes to wording or the addition of extra detail to assist with clarity or to correct inconsistencies.
Response:
Where these suggested changes are consistent with the strategic intent of the policy, correct an error or provide greater clarity, these changes are supported.
Where suggested changes conflict with or depart from the strategic intent of the Strategy, are beyond the scope of the Strategy or seek outcomes that can already be delivered under existing policy, the changes are not supported.
Recommended changes to the Strategy and/or proposed policy provisions in response to submissions include:
direction on infrastructure funding for shared infrastructure across or benefiting multiple PSPs;
changing the Barwon Heads settlement boundary on the Housing Framework Plan in the Settlement Strategy to match that in Clause 21.14 and that proposed in Clause 21.06;
referring to mixed use as well as increased housing densities around rail stations in both the Settlement Strategy and Clause 21.06-8;
updating Clause 21.11 to use same anticipated population figures for Armstrong Creek as Settlement Strategy;
changing location of non-urban breaks on Settlement Strategy Housing Framework Plan map to match those on the Housing and Settlement Framework Plan proposed in Clause 21.06 – though the opposite of the change requested in the submission, this more appropriately reflects non-urban breaks as they relate to the City of Greater Geelong;
changing drawing key on Housing and Settlement Framework Plan proposed in Clause 21.06 to refer to municipal boundary;
adding “to consider minor changes” to Clause 21.06-2 reference to logical inclusions process;
changing Settlement Strategy and Clause 21.06 as requested by VRCA to ensure that encroachment of urban development around the rail corridor and rail stations does not compromise current and future operations of the Port of Geelong;
changing Settlement Strategy to reflect EPA Victoria comments; and
including reference to value capture opportunities in the Settlement Strategy.
The comments and requested changes in submissions on the Settlement Strategy that are not supported include:
reducing the list of matters to be addressed before commencing a PSP on p70 of the Settlement Strategy;
investigating Rural Living opportunities as per Planning Practice Note 37;
changing the term “major resources” to “remaining reserves” on the Municipal Framework Plan Map at Clause 21.04 – the requested change to the extent can be investigated;
deleting reference to a shopping centre in Drysdale from Clause 21.14 – as this should be addressed and updated as appropriate by way of relevant policy review;
comment that Strategy lacks commitment to affordable and social housing provision;
comment that a settlement boundary will delay land development and likely significantly increase land prices; and
submission querying how transport issues associated with anticipated population growth will be managed – transport planning is a major component of growth area planning; regional transport implications of NWGGA are being addressed by the Geelong Growth Areas Transport Infrastructure Study.
Summary
75 of the 101 submissions received on the amendment relate, wholly or partially, to the Framework Plan. Of these, 11 express outright support for the amendment and/or Framework Plan, without requesting changes or raising concerns, while three submissions express outright objection. The remaining 61 submissions request changes, raise concerns or provide detailed comment regarding the Framework Plan and related policy and zone changes. Many of these submissions express general support for the Framework Plan.
Issues raised regarding the Framework Plan and related policy and zone changes have been grouped into themes and these are outlined and discussed below. The discussion below is not comprehensive; it does not cover all points raised in all submissions. It is recommended that all submissions be referred to an independent Planning Panel.
Themes, key issues
Planning process
13 submissions raise issues regarding both the planning process to date for NWGGA as well as future planning processes throughout the development of the growth areas.
Regarding the process to date submitters argue:
insufficient consultation with landowners and insufficient notification of amendment;
concerns previously raised have not been addressed;
perceived bias towards a NGGA landowner consortium; and
amendment pre-empts a VCAT hearing on a planning permit application in the WGGA.
Regarding future planning process for NWGGA (PSPs and planning scheme amendments), several submissions express the need for flexibility in interpreting and implementing the Framework Plan and proposed policy provisions. Submissions also express the desire for further consultation with landowners in subsequent planning.
Response:
Extensive community engagement has been carried out throughout the NWGGA project. This has included project bulletins to landowners, several Open House community information sessions, a series of ‘Visions and Principles’ workshops, ‘Enquiry by Design’ workshops and a 45-day consultation on the draft Future Urban Structure Plan. All submissions on that draft Plan were considered by Council.
Around 1450 affected or nearby landowners and residents were notified of this amendment by mail. Email notifications were also sent to stakeholders and others who have previously expressed interest in the project.
Issues raised by the submitter regarding the NGGA landowner consortium are addressed under the heading Surrounding Land Uses below. Those issues have been dealt with by the City impartially and without bias.
The VCAT hearing referred to regards a proposed function centre in the WGGA. The permit application was refused by Council; the applicant’s application for review will be considered by VCAT in September 2019. The amendment and Framework Plan relate to the development of two major urban growth areas over a period of several decades. The amendment and Framework Plan are separate from, and do not pre-empt, the outcome of an individual planning permit on one property within a growth area.
The Framework Plan provides high level guidance to the subsequent PSP process. It is acknowledged that detailed investigation and refinement of elements of the Framework Plan will occur as part of preparation of each PSP. The PSP process is well established in Victoria and clearly understood by the City. The City will work closely with stakeholders in the preparation of PSPs.
Precinct boundaries
12 submissions from landowners/developers request changes to individual precinct boundaries and timing within either growth area. In each case, the changes would facilitate a shorter development timeframe for each parcel or area of land.
Changes requested in the NGGA:
allow Heales Road East precinct to be delivered in two stages, with some land identified as potential medium term rather than long term;
include 450 Elcho Road and land to the south in the Elcho Road East precinct (short term) rather than the Elcho Road West precinct (medium term);
two submissions request the GREP buffer within the Heales Road East precinct (long term) be identified in a short term precinct.
Changes requested in the WGGA:
six submissions seek to include various land between the Moorabool River and Midland Highway in the Creamery Road precinct (short term) rather than the Batesford South precinct (long term);
include land between the Moorabool River and Midland Highway in the Batesford North precinct (medium term) rather than the Batesford South precinct (long term);
include land south of Church Street and east of Moorabool River in short term (Creamery Road) precinct or a new precinct rather than the Batesford South precinct (long term);
include land south of Church Street in a medium rather than long term precinct;
create a new precinct for the Moorabool River corridor;
create an additional Western precinct for land west of the Batesford Quarry; and
shift the eastern boundary of the McCanns Lane precinct eastward.
Response:
The City’s role is to provide a logical staging of development through precincts. Most requests for precinct boundary changes provide no additional strategic benefit beyond hastening the planning and development timeframe for the subject properties. However, two potential changes warrant added consideration.
In the NGGA, allowing some land in the Heales Road East precinct to develop in the medium term may create benefits by facilitating earlier delivery of the NGGA’s sub-regional activity centre.
The strategic intent of retaining the subject land in the precinct for long term development has multiple benefits: it retains the ‘neighbourhood-size’ scale of each precinct; ensures that broadhectare land is contained within the largely fragmented Heales Road East precinct to incentivise the proper planning of the wider precinct and Employment area; and ensures that development of the precinct – the most visible land in the NGGA to the wider Geelong community – occurs at a time when the growth area is mature and will deliver high quality aesthetic development outcomes.
These benefits outweigh the early delivery of a sub-regional centre as the early development of the growth area will be supported by multiple neighbourhood activity centres.
In the WGGA, the request to move the eastern boundary of the McCanns Lane precinct eastward warrants further investigation. Realigning the boundary will allow strategic drainage outfall directly north of Hamilton Highway and east of McCanns Lane, within the expanded precinct. However, the northern portion of land proposed for inclusion in the McCanns Lane precinct may generate stormwater drainage flows through neighbouring land within the longer term Batesford South precinct. Given the requested change may lead to some strategic benefits and drawbacks, the City will undertake further investigation, with a recommendation reached before the Panel hearing.
The other requested changes lack strategic justification and are not supported.
Precinct boundaries in the WGGA are based on several factors, consistent with the metropolitan greenfield context, predominantly the existing arterial road network. Arterial roads provide a strong basis for defining PSP boundaries, given that their upgrade as part of future development creates a substantial barrier between neighbourhoods.
Including land south of Midland Highway in the Creamery Road precinct (located north of the Highway in the Framework Plan) may result in an isolated community physically remote from the majority of the precinct. It would also trigger the requirement for the complex Moorabool River master planning process that is currently envisaged as a comprehensive and holistic component of the Batesford South PSP. Inclusion of this process could significantly delay the Creamery Road PSP.
The size of the Batesford South precinct is comparable with several metropolitan PSP areas. It is comparatively larger than the other WGGA precincts on the basis that it should provide for comprehensive rehabilitation and master planning of the Moorabool River corridor and Batesford Quarry and address the interface with the Dog Rocks Flora and Fauna Sanctuary.
Development sequencing
Seven submissions include reference to various development sequencing issues. Issues raised include:
general support for proposed development sequencing,
in the Clause 21.06-3 strategy to limit the number of PSPs that can be prepared simultaneously, change “limit” to “manage”;
dependence on Lara West Growth Area for drainage and infrastructure connectivity;
Department of Transport advice to consider development sequencing in light of transport network capacity; and
request for landscape buffer to existing rural living lots ahead of development.
Response:
The requested change to Clause 21.06-3 is not supported. The City will manage the preparation of PSPs by deliberately limiting their concurrent preparation. The factors on which commencement of any PSP will be based on are set out in the Framework Plan.
The City acknowledges the need for infrastructure connectivity between the NGGA and the Lara West Growth Area.
The strategic sequencing and careful consideration of the release of land for development is supported in the Department of Transport submission, noting the scale of anticipated growth and infrastructure upgrades required to cater for additional movements throughout the Geelong network.
The Framework Plan outlines the need for interface management between new neighbourhoods and adjoining rural living properties, which may include landscape buffers. This will be considered at PSP stage.
Development levies
Eight submissions raise issues of shared funding and development levies. Most of these submissions express the importance of shared funding – by way of Development Contribution Plans (DCPs) or Infrastructure Contribution Plans (ICPs). Several seek clarity on the mechanism. Arguments raised include:
the Framework Plan must outline the essential principles for shared funding;
a precinct-by-precinct approach must be taken;
a standardised regional ICP should be applied;
ICP infrastructure items must be priced and apportioned before resolving first PSPs;
include development levies, or a mechanism for this, in this amendment;
include drainage in shared funding; and
third-party funding of technical studies to inform PSP preparation should recoup costs from non-participating owners.
Response:
The Framework Plan does not consider the mechanism for the collection of the development levies in the growth areas. The subsequent PSP process will establish detailed mechanisms for the funding of essential infrastructure to support new communities.
DELWP and the VPA have advised the City that policy is currently being prepared to apply the Infrastructure Contributions Plan (ICP) to greenfield developments in regional Victoria, including Greater Geelong. The City generally supports the introduction of the ICP to support the funding of infrastructure in the growth areas. The City will continue to work with DELWP and the VPA to establish the appropriate mechanism for funding state and local infrastructure in the growth areas throughout 2020.
Several large transport infrastructure projects will be required within individual precincts that provide a wider benefit to the entire growth area. As such, the City generally supports the strategic potential of the universal application of development levies throughout each growth area, where each PSP is included within an overarching ICP. However, this proposal has a number of complexities. Most specifically, many large transport infrastructure items in the WGGA will be required in the long term and their technical design will be subject to investigations that will not occur prior to the short term PSPs being planned and developed. Furthermore, short-term precincts in the growth areas do not rely on the delivery of all infrastructure items within the growth area.
Drainage infrastructure to support development in the growth areas will be included within the relevant DCP/ICP.
Third party funding is a standard mechanism to progress a PSP and does not form part of this Amendment.
Land acquisition
Three submissions express concerns regarding potential compulsory acquisition of land.
Two submissions regarding a property on the corner of Heales and Bacchus Marsh Roads indicate opposition to any compulsory acquisition for road upgrading. The submissions also indicate that the property should be rezoned prior to any compulsory acquisition.
Another submission regarding a property on the corner of Anakie and Evans Roads seeks written assurance there will be no compulsory acquisition of the submitter’s land.
Response:
The framework plan does not specify compulsory acquisition of land. Any land required for public infrastructure will be identified as part of detailed design in future processes (for example: PSPs or declared road upgrades), with compensation derived from the relevant DCP/ICP. This mechanism applies equally to the submissions relating to Heales and Evans Roads.
Lot yield
Two submissions point out that the total lot yield for the WGGA in the Framework Plan differs from that assumed in Table 1 of the Settlement Strategy.
Response:
The March 2019 Framework Plan estimate of dwelling yield exceeds the Settlement Strategy’s 1 January 2017 estimate of land supply for the WGGA by almost 5,000 additional dwellings. However, this high level estimate will only be verified by ongoing technical studies undertaken during each PSP process which may have a significant impact on the net developable area due to identification of additional constraints (for example: biodiversity values, river corridor setbacks, land capability of quarry and overburden stockpiles).
Clever and Creative Corridor
Eleven submissions raise various issues with the proposed Clever and Creative Corridor. Issues raised include:
general support;
concern with the Corridor alignment in each growth area and suggestions for realignment;
concern that the Corridor conflicts with landform and Moorabool River corridor;
concern at potential substantial land requirements for the Corridor along Evans Road between growth areas;
remove Corridor components and dimensions from Framework Plan;
detailed design suggestions for the Corridor;
impact of the Corridor on existing business operations; and
concern at insufficient market demand for higher density housing along the Corridor.
Response:
The precise alignment of the Clever and Creative Corridor will be resolved at PSP stage. Potential topographic constraints to the delivery of the Corridor in the vicinity of the Moorabool River will be investigated in the preparation of the Batesford South PSP. The alignment of the Corridor to the east of the quarry, instead of the arterial road, was an established outcome of the Enquiry by Design workshops in November 2017.
Evans Road is the logical existing road alignment to facilitate transport movements between the two growth areas. Plan 5 in the Framework Plan shows the Corridor and also the 400 metre walkable catchment each side of the Corridor that will be implemented within the growth areas. The walkable catchment will be removed from the plan on land between the two growth areas to avoid any suggestion of land requirement beyond any that might be required for road widening.
The Framework Plan outlines a 14 metre land allocation to create a dedicated, separated median reserve for active and public transport movements. The 14 metre reserve allocation is based on technical investigations that have researched a variety of public transport modes and the land they require for implementation, including landscaping. While the City acknowledges that flexibility is required in the implementation of the Corridor throughout the development of NWGGA, the identification and safeguarding of the median reserve must not be diluted. The Corridor is the key urban design concept of the growth areas and must be strictly adhered to in each precinct to ensure that future public transport provision remains viable.
Delivering the Corridor will be fundamental to several measures of success in the community-led vision and removal of its specifications from the Framework Plan is not supported.
Detailed design of the Corridor and the extent and scale of housing diversity will be resolved through PSP processes.
The Clever and Creative Corridor is a multifaceted urban design concept that is readily compatible with commercial land uses.
Activity centres
Five submissions raise issues related to activity centres within the growth areas. Changes requested include:
Relocate the NGGA sub-regional centre to the northeast;
Replace the north-eastern NGGA neighbourhood activity centre with two centres;
Change NGGA neighbourhood activity centre retail floor space range in Framework Plan;
Relocate the WGGA sub-regional centre north to abut Midland Highway;
Include one or both activity centres shown on the boundary of the Creamery Road and Batesford North precincts in the Creamery Road PSP; and
Shift focus of WGGA neighbourhood activity centre to the north-west, adjacent to future rail station.
Response
The location and scale of activity centres nominated in the Framework Plan result from technical reports. These will be subject to further investigation and refinement through relevant PSPs.
The significant relocation of the WGGA sub-regional activity centre requested in submissions is not supported. The option to locate the sub-regional activity centre on the Midland Highway was assessed as part of activity centre planning for the growth areas. The assessment concluded that detrimental impacts would be experienced by the Corio sub-regional activity centre, with a potential loss of 40-50% of existing market share.
Early development in the Creamery Road and Batesford North precincts without access to a sub-regional activity centre within the WGGA is supported on the basis that it will support the delivery of the neighbourhood activity centres and may have external benefits to the Corio sub-regional activity centre.
Integrated transport network
19 submissions raise issues regarding the integrated transport network within and beyond NWGGA.
Issues raised include:
NGGA:
Realignment of Elcho Road, other arterial roads and the Clever and Creative Corridor; and
Four submissions object to upgrading of Heales Road.
WGGA:
Realignments of western north-south arterial road and associated Moorabool River crossing, Evans Road and Church Street extension;
Advocate early construction of Church Street extension and the north-south arterial road corridor;
Concern at depiction of Creamery Road flyover; and
Support for a Batesford community bypass option for Midland Highway upgrading.
Both growth areas:
Support for Framework Plan aims and directions for accessible, integrated transport, public transport and reduced reliance on private vehicles;
Public transport must be part of a well-connected network;
Potential functional design issues with the proposed rail service on the Geelong – Ballarat line;
Support for proposed new rail service and rail station location;
Concern with increased traffic on Evans Road between the growth areas;
How regional transport issues generated by growth areas will be managed;
Without substantial mode shift, NWGGA will generate traffic that will exceed capacity of urban Geelong network;
Support from Department of Transport for several transport components of Framework Plan; and
Detailed comments from Department of Transport on timing, funding decisions and design matters.
Response:
Requested realignments of arterial roads shown on the Framework Plan are not supported. All arterial road alignments on the Framework Plan are indicative and subject to future consideration and detailed design through the relevant PSP processes (which are subject to a test of general accordance with the Framework Plan).
The Enquiry by Design process identified a preference for an arterial road on the western side of the current Batesford Quarry pit to avoid following the Moorabool River corridor and to capture additional traffic movements.
The City acknowledges the complexity of topography in the proximity of Church Street and these factors will be considered as part of detailed investigations as part of the relevant PSP process or Geelong Ring Road upgrades.
Evans Road will require upgrade to allow movements between the growth areas. Evans Road forms part of the Clever and Creative Corridor. Upgrading of Evans Road between the growth areas will be assessed and resolved in relevant PSPs within the growth areas.
The roads advocated for early construction will only be required in the long term as development occurs in the Batesford South precinct.
Heales Road will be upgraded to an urban arterial road standard including controlled intersections with proposed connector streets. Functional design of the road network will be undertaken in PSP preparation.
The Creamery Road flyover upgrade is shown appropriately on the Framework Plan. The upgrade will be determined in the PSP process, but may potentially be limited to upgrade of pedestrian and cycling connections. On- and off-ramps are not intended at this location.
A decision on future Midland Highway upgrade or bypass will be made by the State Government. The Framework Plan can adapt to and accommodate the eventual outcome.
The Framework Plan recognises the need for excellent public transport and mode shift from private vehicles and stipulates a range of actions to achieve these objectives. The City will advocate to and work with the State Government to achieve timely delivery of public transport services and infrastructure.
The proposed new rail station adjacent to the WGGA is identified in State policy (G21 Regional Growth Plan). This rail station and service, along with other regional transport issues arising from the development of NWGGA, will be investigated in the Geelong Growth Areas Transport Infrastructure Study.
The City has commenced, with State Government agency partners, the Geelong Growth Areas Transport Infrastructure Study, that will identify and prioritise transport infrastructure required to support the development of NWGGA. Recommendations of the Strategy will be prepared throughout 2020.
Integrated water management
17 submissions raise issues relating to elements of integrated water management – waterways and/or drainage.
Issues raised include:
Reduce extent of waterways (three submissions);
Allow flexibility for waterway extent and design at PSP stage;
Changes to framework plan wording on waterways and stormwater management;
Changes to plan 7 of the framework plan outlining stormwater land requirements;
Object to a waterway identified along the rear of rural living properties in Heales Road in the NGGA (five submissions);
Remove proposed stormwater detention basin from land in vicinity of heales and bacchus marsh roads;
Provide flexibility for retarding basin location and design on 200 ballan road;
Proposed quarry lake should be independent of moorabool river flows;
Moorabool river bed and banks should be repaired/restored prior to urban land release; and
Drainage from residential development must ensure no impact on Moorabool and Barwon River nutrient loads.
Response:
Waterways shown in the Framework Plan are based on detailed technical studies relating to stormwater management. However, it is recognised and expected that detailed stormwater drainage design at PSP stage will refine and in many cases reduce the extent of waterways shown on the Framework Plan. This is consistent with the metropolitan experience. Changes to the maps and wording in the Framework Plan are not needed to address this issue.
Stormwater management in areas of rural living will be subject to detailed investigation including consideration of alternative solutions as part of the relevant PSP and will seek to minimise impacts on individual properties, where practicable.
Actions in the Framework Plan outline that flooding and stormwater management will maintain and enhance the predevelopment hydrology of the areas and minimise downstream impacts.
Rehabilitation of the Batesford Quarry, potentially to a recreational lake, will be subject to significant environmental consideration prior to the commencement of Batesford South PSP and in master planning as part of the PSP, as well as other processes such as Corangamite CMA management, the Moorabool Living project, and the Barwon River Action Plan (Ministerial Advisory Committee). The relevant PSP will outline master planning of the Moorabool River corridor and it will occur as part of urban development.
Biodiversity
Ten submissions raise issues relating to biodiversity and environmental protection.
The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) submission raised issues including:
Extent and condition of significant environmental values in NWGGA is unknown
Native vegetation and protected species, habitats and communities may have significant impact on NWGGA development
Potential for delivering offsets on and off site is unexplored
Clarification of requirements and scope for biodiversity conservation strategy (BCS)
Undertake BCS prior to PSP preparation as its outcomes may require changes to Framework Plan
Recommended changes to proposed policy provisions
Biodiversity issues raised in other submissions include:
Need for Moorabool River corridor management, vegetation protection and recreation;
Desire for physically connected biolinks through Western Growth Area to minimise habitat fragmentation;
Potential impact of WGGA employment area on biodiversity corridor being planted on private land along Dog Rocks and Friend-in-Hand Roads;
Desire for larger lot sizes and development and land use controls on lots abutting Moorabool River, Dog Rocks Flora and Fauna Sanctuary and other reserves;
Environmental impacts of three new Moorabool River crossings;
Impact of roads on wildlife;
Plan 17 (biodiversity linkage) premature before waterway/open space alignments determined;
Integrate biolink with Clever and Creative Corridor;
Review and determine the location and ecological value of native grasslands before adopting Framework Plan; and
Various requested changes to wording of Framework Plan biodiversity actions.
Response:
With respect to biodiversity issues raised in the DELWP submission:
A BCS is required to inform any future development within NWGGA that results in no net loss of native vegetation. The potential for delivering offsets within and beyond the growth areas will be established as part of the BCS.
The position that the BCS should be undertaken prior to PSP preparation is not supported. The BCS will be undertaken simultaneously with the initial PSPs (Creamery Road and Elcho Road East). The Framework Plan provides high level guidance for the future detailed land use planning to be undertaken in each PSP. Land use changes resulting from the BCS in the preparation of PSPs will not require the Framework Plan to be amended. The City is actively engaging with DELWP, VPA, the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Energy and landowners to ensure the BCS commences in 2019 and informs the short term PSPs.
With respect to biodiversity issues raised in other submissions:
The Batesford South PSP will provide for comprehensive rehabilitation and master planning of the Moorabool River corridor and Batesford Quarry, including existing and potential expansion the Dog Rocks Flora and Fauna Sanctuary. Early commencement of enhancement of the Moorabool River corridor may be possible to the extent that it does not prejudice the master planning of the surrounding area intended as part of the future PSP.
The Moorabool River corridor extends approximately 13 kilometres through the WGGA, which is planned to accommodate an estimated population of around 64,000. The minimisation of river crossings has been factored into the framework planning process to balance the conservation of the river corridor with the need to create connected communities.
The Framework Plan outlines the creation of linear corridors within the WGGA to promote biodiversity linkages. Plan 17 Biodiversity Linkage is an illustrative plan that seeks to identify high-level locations for biodiversity linkages between significant areas of existing open space, which will be refined and implemented through relevant PSPs. Open space links between the Cowies Creek corridor and Moorabool River corridor will be implemented in part through the design of the Clever and Creative Corridor.
The Framework Plan highlights the need for the urban design of the employment area to minimise impacts on the surrounding area, including the integration of scattered trees and native vegetation within the precinct.
Dog Rocks Road is identified as a connector street in the Framework Plan and is not planned to cater for large volumes of traffic. Consideration of adjacent biodiversity values in the detailed design of Dog Rocks Road will occur in the PSP process.
The Framework Plan identifies the importance of appropriate interfaces to the Dog Rocks Flora and Fauna Sanctuary. Detailed planning and development/land use controls for land in proximity to the Sanctuary, the Moorabool River and other reserves will be resolved through the relevant PSP process.
Heritage
Five submissions refer to Aboriginal cultural heritage or post contact heritage.
One submission argues that Plan 18 (Aboriginal Cultural Heritage) of the Framework Plan shows land incorrectly and that the Existing Archaeological Site designation be removed. The subject land is in Bell Post Hill along and adjacent to Cowies Creek. The submission points out that a Cultural Heritage Management Plan has been approved for the land, permitting a nine-lot rural living subdivision.
Two submissions request deletion of Heritage Overlays from the Framework Plan that have been removed from the Planning Scheme. One submission argues that the amendment impacts on “Aboriginal cultural zoning”.
Response:
The margins of Cowies Creek and its tributaries are areas of high archaeological potential in preliminary Aboriginal site sensitivity mapping. The cultural heritage management plan prepared and approved supports creation of rural living lots, while the Framework Plan identifies the underlying future use of the subject land for conventional density residential development. The Existing Archaeological Site designation on Plan 18 will be reviewed.
Amendment C376 (Pt 2) deletes Heritage Overlays 45 and 1740 relating to a steam shovel and elevated conveyor associated with the Batesford Quarry and Geelong Cement Works. The steam shovel and most of the conveyor have been removed from the land. The Amendment was adopted by Council on 14 May 2019 and, at the time of writing, is awaiting Ministerial approval. Plan 19 should be amended accordingly.
Aboriginal cultural heritage has been considered in the development of the Framework Plan. The Framework Plan identifies actions to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage.
Land use and zoning requests – Northern Geelong Growth Area
Eight submissions make particular land use or zoning requests relating to the NGGA. Requests include:
Residential use in mcneill Court and Oswald Avenue;
Residential or low density residential for current Rural Living Zone in south of NGGA;
Particular low density residential subdivision outcomes for current Rural Living Zone land (Elcho Road and mcneill Court);
Retain Rural Living (Baycrest Close, Viewbank Rise); and
Revise western boundary of Employment area.
Response:
The Framework Plan identifies McNeill Court and Oswald Avenue as Rural Living with future investigation of Employment. As this area falls within the 1 kilometre buffer of the Geelong Ring Road Employment Precinct (GREP), residential subdivision will not be possible. A submitter’s lot in Oswald Avenue, at the western end of a cul-de-sac, falls mostly outside the GREP buffer, but a different designation for only one or two lots at the end of a cul-de-sac is not supported.
Land in the Rural Living Zone within the Heales Road East Precinct in the south of the NGGA is not rezoned by this amendment. In the long term it may transition to urban use. It is variously identified in the Framework Plan as a future Employment area, investigation for Residential or investigation for Employment. Detailed investigations will inform a future PSP and landowners in the area will be consulted during that process as part of progressing any future consideration of further subdivision.
Subdivision of land in Elcho Road being rezoned to Urban Growth Zone will be guided by a PSP. Low density residential lot sizes would not be supported on land in McNeill Road being retained in Rural Living Zone with future investigation of Employment.
Potential minor revision of the boundary of the Employment area within the Heales Road East precinct can be investigated in the future preparation of a PSP but is not supported at this stage. The Employment area will be subject to an urban design framework as part of PSP preparation.
Land use and zoning requests – Western Geelong Growth Area
14 submissions make particular land use or zoning requests relating to the WGGA. Requests include:
Rural Living for land west of Ballan Road and near Moorabool River;
Very low density residential with larger buffer zones next to existing Rural Living Zone – focus on Pennsylvania Avenue, Lynnburn and Ross Roads, Batesford;
Framework Plan should provide more direction on future of Batesford Township;
Rezone land east of Palmerston Street, Batesford to Township Zone or residential;
Identify land west of Lynnburn Road as residential;
Rezone land between Moorabool River and Ballarat Road to Urban Growth Zone;
Extend Residential designation on land between Moorabool River and Ballarat Road in Framework Plan;
Light commercial or industrial zoning of 505 Ballarat Road;
Applied zone along Ballarat Road should be Mixed Use;
Allow higher density development and housing diversity in strategically located parts of Creamery Road precinct;
Query extent of high and medium density housing adjacent to Clever and Creative Corridor;
Show Idyll Wines Co on Plan 20 (Built Environment) of Framework Plan;
Delete Clause 21.20 reference to blasting buffer around Batesford Quarry;
Rezone 80 Thoona Lane, Fyansford to Urban Growth Zone;
Relocate Employment area within WGGA or to existing Fyansford industrial; and
Delete 540-600 Hamilton Highway and 245 Fyansford – Gheringhap Road from Employment on Framework Plan.
Response:
Substantial reduction in extent and density of Residential in Framework Plan is not supported. Urban development within WGGA will deliver a minimum average residential density of 15 dwellings per net developable hectare, except where identified for transitioning densities, such as in direct proximity to Batesford township.
The amendment does not rezone the Rural Living zoned land between Palmerston Street and Lynnburn Road. The Framework Plan identifies the western portion of this area as Batesford Township, with the balance as Rural Living with future investigation of Residential. Detailed planning for the Batesford township and surrounding land will be undertaken as part of the Batesford North PSP.
Rezoning land north of the Moorabool River from the Special Use Zone to Urban Growth Zone is not supported while the Batesford Quarry remains in operation. A robust and holistic planning process for transformation of the Batesford Quarry and its surroundings is best catered for in a stand-alone Batesford South PSP. Given the longer term nature of this area, it is not necessary or appropriate to apply an urban zone which can properly occur in the future. Changes to road alignments and the extent of Residential can be investigated in that PSP process.
Detailed consideration of applied zones, specific land uses, housing densities and increased housing diversity will take place in the relevant PSP processes.
Amending Plan 20 (Built Environment) to show a winery (Idyll Wines Co) is supported, given its scale and the reference to it in accompanying text on page 111 of the Framework Plan.
The reference to a blasting buffer in Clause 21.20 will be reviewed prior to the Panel hearing.
The request to rezone 80 Thoona Lane from Special Use Zone (SUZ) to Urban Growth Zone is supported. The SUZ 7 (Earth and Energy Resources Industry) zoning on the land is not related to the existing Batesford Quarry, but to a former basalt quarry. There is no longer a Work Authority for quarrying on the land. Geotechnical advice accompanying the submission indicates the land is expected to be suitable to transition to urban development if the former quarry is filled in line with a geotechnical engineer’s recommendations and testing requirements. This can be investigated in detail in the PSP process.
The WGGA Employment area needs to be within the growth area to meet the demand for jobs and for light industrial and service industry uses generated by the population within the growth area. An Enquiry by Design workshop guided the selection of preferred location for the Employment area. An urban design framework prepared as part of the PSP process will consider vegetation and landscaping and will minimise impacts on surrounding neighbourhood amenity.
Land use and zoning requests – between growth areas
Three submissions request or suggest rezoning of land between the growth areas; two request Low Density Residential zoning.
Response:
There is no strategic support for rezoning land between the two growth areas. The G21 Regional Growth Plan does not identify the area for urban development. Nonetheless, nothing in the Framework Plan and the planned development of the growth areas would preclude investigation and consideration of urban development in the area in the long term.
Surrounding land uses
Eleven submissions raise issues relating to surrounding land and land uses, and the impacts of uses within the growth areas on surrounding land and vice versa. Issues raised include:
The 1000 metre buffer to the Lara Energetic Materials Manufacturing Plant (LEMMP) at 230 Stacey’s Road – submissions from the operator opposing reduction of the buffer and suggesting an Environmental Significance Overlay, and submissions from two landowners affected by the buffer seeking clarification or reduction of its extent;
Impacts of the growth areas on adjacent farming operations – including a request for an area of rural living on the northern and western boundaries of the NGGA and objection to the WGGA Employment area location;
Concerns with noise and amenity impacts of WGGA urban development raised in four submissions from nearby residents;
Comments from Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions on the impacts and encroachment of the growth areas on the Anakie Extractive Industry Interest Area (EIIA); and
Generic comments from EPA Victoria on land use compatibility.
Response:
The Framework Plan identifies the need for adequate protection of LEMMP from encroachment of incompatible land use. The LEMMP has recently been designated as a Major Hazard Facility (MHF), reinforcing the importance of this buffer. Advice has been sought from WorkSafe Victoria and EPA Victoria to confirm the adequacy of a 1000 metre buffer from the site, but has not been received at the time of writing. When advice is received, the buffer and related content of the Framework Plan will be considered further prior to the Panel hearing.
The objecting submitter’s land is within the LEMMP buffer and has been identified as having native vegetation values in biodiversity assessments.
An Environmental Significance Overlay is not supported at this time – statutory planning mechanisms for MHF protection are currently under consideration by the State Government and the relevant PSP will address appropriate interface to surrounding land uses.
State policy (the G21 Regional Growth Plan) has identified NWGGA as suitable locations for accommodating Geelong’s long term population growth. The interface with adjacent land, including farming operations, will be addressed in relevant PSPs. The interface will be managed by decreasing housing densities towards growth area boundaries intended to be permanent rural-urban interfaces, and through an urban design framework for the WGGA Employment area. Rural living within the northern and western perimeter of the NGGA and/or relocation of the WGGA Employment area are not supported.
The four submissions from residents/owners near the WGGA relating to noise concerns refer specifically to noise from a function centre on Evans Road, Bell Post Hill, subject of an upcoming VCAT hearing. The amendment and Framework Plan are separate from the outcome of this individual planning permit on one property within the WGGA. The WGGA is supported in State policy and is a proposed major urban growth area. The noise controls of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2018 apply to the growth areas. Separate guidelines apply to commercial noise. Further noise controls by way of restrictions on title are not supported.
The northern and western edges of NWGGA are intended and will be designed as enduring urban/non-urban interfaces. However, the inclusion of a non-urban break immediately outside the NGGA in the Settlement Strategy or Planning Scheme is not supported as it is not identified in State policy. Any potential further encroachment into the Anakie EIIA would only be considered in the long term and would be subject to investigation of impacts on extractive industry resources.
Issues raised by EPA Victoria have been considered in the development of the Framework Plan and will continue to be considered in subsequent PSPs.
Utilities – gas pipeline
A submission from APA group, licensee for the high pressure gas pipeline traversing the NGGA, raises issues including the location of sensitive uses, avoiding road construction across pipeline easements, requirement for a Safety Management Study (SMS) and revisions to Framework Plan wording. A landowner submission requests reference to land uses within 570 metres of the pipeline in the Framework Plan be changed to land uses within 350 metres.
Response:
Further investigation of issues raised in these submissions and liaison with pipeline licensee is required and will occur before the Panel hearing.
Full compliance with APA Group’s preferred land use planning approach would sterilise a substantial area of urban land and significantly impact on the delivery of walkable communities. It would also be inconsistent with the planning in metropolitan Melbourne and locally. Action N1.6.8 of the Framework Plan utilises recommendations of a preliminary SMS undertaken in 2017 to take a conservative but balanced approach considering both community safety and community connectedness and social equity.
Additional SMS reviews can take place in the relevant PSP process. Action N1.6.8 refers to both the 570 metre measurement length and to the location of certain uses within 350 metres of the pipeline easement. Road network design in the vicinity of gas pipeline easement will be resolved in the relevant PSPs.
Utilities – electricity transmission lines
Two landowner submissions raise issues regarding the high voltage electricity transmission line easement along the north-western boundary of the NGGA. One landowner requests a portion of 980 Anakie Road not affected by the transmission line easement be added to the Urban Growth Zone. Another submission requests that the easement be included in the Urban Growth Zone to allow flexibility and a range of potential future scenarios including recreation uses within a linear park.
Response:
Investigation of these zoning requests and liaison with AusNet Services is required and will occur before the Panel hearing.
The Framework Plan recognises that the transmission line easement should be used as part of the open space network with potential land uses including fire breaks, linear shared paths, local parks, stormwater management and local roads.
Other issues
Various other issues were raised, generally in single submissions. Some suggested minor changes to the Framework Plan are supported, including correcting a reference to the Dog Rocks on Plan 21 and including possible exotic species in tree canopy as well as local and indigenous species. It is recommended that all the various issues be referred to an independent Planning Panel.
No |
Submitter |
FP |
SS |
Theme |
Requests/ key points |
Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
Adelaide Brighton Cement |
|
|
Supporting submissions |
Generally support Settlement Strategy |
Noted. |
Lot yield |
Settlement Strategy Table 1 (page 36) differs from Framework Plan regarding Western Geelong Growth Area lot supply |
The Framework Plan outlines an estimate of dwelling and population yield of almost 5,000 additional dwellings; however, that estimate will only be verified by ongoing technical studies to inform the future development of the growth areas to be undertaken during a precinct structure plan process that may have a significant impact on the net developable area (for example: biodiversity values, river corridor setbacks, land capability of quarry and overburden stockpiles). |
||||
Development levies |
Shared funding (ICPs) critical in Western Geelong Growth Area – comment re page 68, 70 of Settlement Strategy |
Supported in part. The mechanism for the collection of the development levies in the growth areas is not considered by the Framework Plan. The City has been informed by DELWP and the VPA that policy is currently being prepared to apply the Infrastructure Contributions Plan (ICP) to greenfield developments in regional Victoria, including Greater Geelong. The City generally supports the introduction of the ICP to support the funding of infrastructure in the growth areas. The City notionally supports the strategic intent of the universal application of development levies throughout the Western Geelong Growth Area, noting that several large transport infrastructure projects will be required within individual precincts that provide a wider benefit to the entire growth area. The City will continue to work with DELWP and the VPA to establish the appropriate mechanism for funding state and local infrastructure in the growth areas throughout 2020. Amend page 71 of Settlement Strategy by adding a direction: ‘Ensure infrastructure funding strategies recognise items that deliver high level infrastructure that benefit multiple PSP areas will require a contribution’ |
||||
|
|
Other issues |
Change extent of and rename major resources on Clause 21.04 map |
The map, similar to the equivalent map currently existing in Clause 21.04, shows major resources previously identified across the municipality. There is no basis for altering the Drawing Key to refer to “Remaining Reserves” rather than “Major Resources”. The extent of the Major Resources designation on and around the Batesford Quarry will be investigated. |
||
|
|
Integrated transport network |
Change NWGGA Framework Plan map (Clause 21.20) to relocate western arterial road |
Not supported, as per detailed response below. |
||
Precinct boundaries |
Reword 3rd last dot point under Strategies in 21.20 to reflect precinct boundary change |
Not supported, as per detailed response below. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
Delete 2nd last dot point under Strategies in 21.20 as no blasting at Batesford Quarry |
This will be investigated and reviewed prior to the Panel hearing. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
Rezone submitter’s land north of Moorabool River to UGZ |
Not supported. The City supports a robust and holistic planning process for the transformation of the quarry and surroundings via a standalone PSP process that involves all relevant stakeholders when the quarry has ceased operation. Retention of the existing Special Use Zone is appropriate on the basis that the quarry remains operation. Future extraction of resources remains possible anywhere within the extent of the existing Work Authority irrespective of any previous, current or proposed rehabilitation works. |
||||
Integrated transport network Development levies |
Relocate western arterial road and river crossing on Framework Plan |
Not supported. Alignment of new arterial roads in the Framework Plan is illustrative and subject to future detailed design as part of the relevant PSP process. The proposed alternative road differs marginally in alignment, but its northern (Lynnburn Road) and southern ends remain consistent with the Framework Plan. The alignment of the road will have regard to several additional factors including biodiversity and cultural heritage as well as transport considerations (for example: grade, cost and access) and the quarry rehabilitation. The development consortium of the Western Geelong Growth Area supplied the road alignment illustrated in the Framework Plan. |
||||
Precinct boundaries |
Include submitter’s land north of Moorabool River in Creamery Road Precinct |
Not supported. The precinct boundaries in the Western Geelong Growth Area are based on several factors consistent with the metropolitan greenfield context, predominantly the existing arterial road network. The state road and rail network (for example: Geelong Ring Road, Midland Highway, Hamilton Highway, Geelong-Ballan Road, Fyansford-Gheringhap Road and the Geelong-Ballarat rail line) generally defines the Western Geelong Growth Area precincts. Arterial roads provide a strong basis for defining PSP boundaries given their future upgrade creates a substantial barrier between neighbourhoods and that they provide a fixed boundary at the early planning stage. The inclusion of land to the south of the Midland Highway within the Creamery Road precinct may result in an isolated community physically remote from the majority of the proposed Creamery Road precinct. The inclusion of the land would also trigger the requirement for a Moorabool River master planning process, at least in part, that is currently envisaged as a comprehensive and holistic component of the Batesford South PSP; the inclusion of this process within the Creamery Road PSP is likely to significantly delay the planning of the initial precinct. |
||||
Precinct boundaries |
The size of the Batesford South precinct is too large. |
Not supported. The size and anticipated yield of the Batesford South precinct is comparable with a medium-to-large metropolitan PSP. The Batesford South precinct is comparatively larger than all other proposed precincts on the basis that it should provide for the comprehensive rehabilitation and master planning of the Moorabool River corridor and Batesford Quarry, including existing and potential expansion the Dog Rocks Flora and Fauna Sanctuary. The remaining eight precincts are smaller on the basis that they will each provide for the creation of neighbourhood-sized communities that are appropriate for Geelong the context of its growth as a regional city. |
||||
Precinct boundaries |
Create Moorabool River corridor as a separate Precinct |
Not supported. PSP plan boundaries do not solely encompass the supposed extent of a “constraint”, in this case, a river corridor. The holistic and comprehensive master planning of the river corridor and its surrounding urban development should be undertaken as part of a holistic plan, in this case the Batesford South PSP. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Framework Plan does not adequately identify fundamental principles for Moorabool River, including early commencement of enhancement, future ownership and management. |
Not supported. The Framework Plan generally outlines the ‘ultimate’ development outcomes for the growth areas and the actions required as part of each PSP process. Early commencement of enhancement of the Moorabool River corridor may be possible to the extent that it does not prejudice the master planning of the surrounding area intended as part of the PSP process (for example: provision of interim walking trails). Any such interim proposal will need to consider the ongoing operations of the quarry Management and ownership of assets within the precinct will be established in future planning processes. |
||||
Precinct boundaries |
Include land between Moorabool River and Midland Hwy in Batesford North Precinct |
Not supported, as above in relation to extending the boundary of the Creamery Road PSP to the Moorabool River corridor. |
||||
Precinct boundaries |
Include western part of quarry in a new Western Precinct |
Not supported, as above in relation to the size of the Batesford South PSP. The Batesford South precinct should provide for the comprehensive rehabilitation and master planning of the Moorabool River corridor and Batesford Quarry, including existing and potential expansion the Dog Rocks Flora and Fauna Sanctuary. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Give priority to early construction of east-west road link to Church Street to facilitate development and accessibility to the ‘lakeside’ activity centre. |
Not supported. The need for of an east-west road link to Church Street is long to very long term and is directly related to substantial development within the Batesford South precinct. Early new developments outside the extent of the Batesford South precinct will readily utilise the upgraded existing road network (for example: Midland Highway, Hamilton Highway) to connect to existing Geelong. The development of a lakeside activity centre is unlikely to occur prior to the construction of the surrounding road network to support it. |
||||
Activity centres |
Relocate Western Geelong Growth Area sub-regional centre to northern part of Western Geelong Growth Area abutting Midland Hwy |
Not supported. The City’s Retail Strategy plans seeks to ensure that the timing, location and size of activity centres is carefully planned to support local communities whilst managing impacts on the broader network of centres. An assessment of the option to locate the sub-regional activity centre on the Midland Highway concluded that the location would have detrimental impact on Corio sub-regional activity with a potential loss of 40-50% of existing market share. Early development on land north of the Midland Highway will include neighbourhood activity centres and may provide patronage benefits to the Corio sub-regional activity centre prior in the short-medium term. The proposed location has two key benefits: the impact on the Corio sub-regional activity centre is marginal (<10% loss of existing market share), and the proposed location is central to the largest area of residential development in the growth area. The location has good access from the surrounding arterial road and connector street network and potential amenity benefits in its proximity to the constructed waterway network. |
||||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Clever and Creative Corridor conflicts with landform and Moorabool River corridor |
Not supported. The Clever and Creative Corridor is a multifaceted urban design concept. The ‘Clever and Creative’ chapter in the framework outlines a high-level and long-term strategic intent – prioritising active and public transport – and outlines associated benefits to occur within a walkable catchment of the corridor. Several of these benefits – tree canopy coverage, integrated water management, amenity, arts and culture and sustainability – relate to the corridor’s interaction with the Moorabool River. Detailed investigation of potential constraints to the corridor occur in the preparation of the Batesford South PSP. The adopted alignment is an outcome of the Enquiry by Design workshops undertaken in November 2017; the community uses and potential amenity benefits of the corridor are complementary to the Moorabool River corridor and surrounding open space. The development consortium of the Western Geelong Growth Area supplied the road alignment illustrated in the framework plan. |
||||
Development levies |
Framework Plan must outline essential principles for shared funding for Western Geelong Growth Area |
Supported in part. The mechanism for the collection of the development levies in the growth areas is not considered by the framework plan. The City has been informed by DELWP and the VPA that policy is currently being prepared to apply the Infrastructure Contributions Plan (ICP) to greenfield developments in regional Victoria, including Greater Geelong. The City generally supports the introduction of the ICP to support the funding of infrastructure in the growth areas. The City notionally supports the strategic intent of the universal application of development levies throughout the Western Geelong Growth Area, noting that several large transport infrastructure projects will be required within individual precincts that provide a wider benefit to the entire growth area. The City will continue to work with DELWP and the VPA to establish the appropriate mechanism for funding state and local infrastructure in the growth areas throughout 2020. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
Amend Framework Plan to reflect status of quarry rehabilitation already completed |
Not supported. State government approved the ongoing rehabilitation of the quarry in 2009 prior to identifying the growth areas for urban development. As such, the current program of rehabilitation does not provide due consideration of the standard required to provide a safe and functional open space asset within the urbanised context. Further consideration of the rehabilitation and master planning of the quarry environs will be undertaken as part of the Batesford South PSP process to ensure that the ultimate development scenario delivers a value recreational asset to the Geelong community. |
||||
Heritage |
Amend Plan 19 by deleting steam shovel and conveyor, now removed |
Supported. Amend plan. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
Show submitter’s land between river and Midland Hwy as Residential on Framework Plan |
Not supported, as above in relation to the arterial road alignment. Detailed investigation of the road alignment occurs as part of the Batesford South PSP process in a holistic and comprehensive planning approach that may define additional areas suitable for residential development. |
||||
2 |
ADG Caravan Park PL and AVA Land Geelong PL |
|
|
Precinct boundaries |
Include 360 & 370 Ballarat Road Batesford in Creamery Road Precinct |
Not supported. The precinct boundaries in the Western Geelong Growth Area are based on several factors consistent with the metropolitan greenfield context, predominantly the existing arterial road network. The state road and rail network (for example: Geelong Ring Road, Midland Highway, Hamilton Highway, Geelong-Ballan Road, Fyansford-Gheringhap Road and the Geelong-Ballarat rail line) generally defines the Western Geelong Growth Area precincts. Arterial roads provide a strong basis for defining PSP boundaries given their future upgrade creates a substantial barrier between neighbourhoods and that they provide a fixed boundary at the early planning stage. |
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Clever and Creative Corridor unhelpful to submitter’s existing business operations |
Not supported. The Clever and Creative Corridor is a multifaceted urban design concept that is readily compatible with commercial land uses. |
||||
3 |
Algo Properties |
|
|
Other township issues |
Amend 21.14 to include support for Stage 2 rezoning of Jetty Road Urban Growth Area |
No action required. Currently states ‘Support the development of the Jetty Road Urban Growth Area’ It is not required to specify ‘stage 2’ it is implied Stage 2 as this is within the township boundary. |
Other township issues |
Delete 21.14 reference to additional supermarket on south side of Murradoc Road |
No action. References to retail fall outside the scope of the Settlement Strategy and are dealt with under the retail strategy amendment or planning policy framework review. |
||||
Land supply and demand |
Settlement Strategy analysis (for example: Fig 14) uses misleading, outdated figures |
Not supported. The figures are not misleading they accurately reflect dwelling stocks from 2010 to 2015. The figures reflect a period in time. Curlewis is included in the Drysdale Clifton Springs figures. The City will be undertaking a lot supply update shortly. |
||||
4 |
APA Group |
|
|
Utilities (Gas pipeline) |
Prefer (listed) sensitive uses be located outside gas pipeline measurement length |
Supported in part. A preliminary safety management study (SMS) for the Northern Geelong Growth Area was undertaken in 2017 that recommended development outcomes consistent with those outlined in Action N1.6.8 with the potential for activity centres to be located within 350 metres of the gas pipeline easement, and other community uses, such as pavilions associated with sports reserves, located within 65 metres of the easement. The SMS was undertaken in consultation with APA on the basis that residential development was proposed as part of the planning of the growth area. Full compliance with the submitters preferred land use planning approach will cause the sterilisation of a substantial area of urban land and will significantly impact the delivery of walkable communities. The Framework Plan utilises the recommendations of the preliminary SMS to take a conservative but balanced approach that considers community safety as well as community connectedness and social equity. Further investigation of issues and liaison with pipeline licensee is required and will occur before the Panel hearing. |
Utilities (Gas pipeline) |
Require future Safety Management Study (SMS) reviews at key stages of development |
Supported. Additional SMS reviews can be incorporated into the relevant precinct structure plan process; however, the recommendations of the preliminary SMS process and the corresponding actions in the framework plan will be factored into subsequent reviews. |
||||
Utilities (Gas pipeline) |
Will not accept outcomes not enabling easement management requirements |
Supported in part. The framework plan utilises the recommendations of the preliminary SMS to take a conservative but balanced approach that considers community safety as well as community connectedness and social equity. |
||||
Utilities (Gas pipeline) |
Works in easement require APA approval |
Noted. |
||||
Utilities (Gas pipeline) |
Prefer roads constructed over pipeline easements be avoided where possible |
Supported in part. A comprehensive urban road network will be required to provide convenient and safe access throughout neighbourhoods. The alignment and detailed design of the road network occurs as part of the relevant PSP processes and subsequent permit application process. |
||||
Utilities (Gas pipeline) Integrated transport network |
Limited roads across pipeline easements accepted subject to assessment, agreement |
Supported in part. A comprehensive urban road network will be required to provide convenient and safe access throughout neighbourhoods. The alignment and detailed design of the road network occurs as part of the relevant PSP processes and subsequent permit application process. |
||||
Utilities Utilities (Gas pipeline) |
Amend wording of Framework Plan to reflect land use matrix table in preliminary Safety Management Study (SMS) |
Supported in part. A preliminary safety management study (SMS) for the Northern Geelong Growth Area undertaken in 2017 recommended that activity centres be located within 350 metres of the gas pipeline easement, and other community uses, such as pavilions associated with sports reserves, located within 65 metres of the easement. The Framework Plan utilises the recommendations of the preliminary SMS to take a conservative but balanced approach that considers community safety as well as community connectedness and social equity. Will liaise with APA to clarify whether this submission refers to the location of retail and school sites within 350 metres of the |
||||
Utilities (Gas pipeline) |
SMS review be conducted as part of any future PSP Amendment process |
Supported. Additional SMS reviews can be incorporated into the relevant precinct structure plan process; however, the recommendations of the preliminary SMS process and the corresponding actions in the framework plan will be factored into subsequent reviews. |
||||
Utilities (Gas pipeline) |
Request early consultation in development of any future PSPs in measurement length |
Supported. |
||||
5 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
General objection |
Oppose Amendment and NWGGA Framework Plan |
Noted. |
Planning process |
Insufficient consultation with landowners |
Not supported. The Framework Plan has been developed with significant public consultation throughout 2016-2019 including numerous community information sessions, mail-outs, workshops, a 45-day community engagement process and the public exhibition of the planning scheme amendment. |
||||
Planning process |
Interpreters should have been used in consultation |
Not supported. The City provides for interpreters via the Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS National) upon individual request. |
||||
Land acquisition Integrated transport network |
Oppose any compulsory acquisition for upgrading Heales Road or Bacchus Marsh Rd |
Noted. The Framework Plan does not specify compulsory acquisition of land. Land required for public infrastructure will be identified as part of detailed design in future processes (for example: precinct structure plans or declared road upgrades). |
||||
Land acquisition |
Land should be rezoned before any compulsory acquisition for road widening |
Supported. Land required for road widening will be consider the rezoning or application of applied zones under the schedule to the Urban Growth Zone as part of the relevant precinct structure plan process. |
||||
Other issues |
Have been told cannot obtain a building permit for house in submitter’s RLZ land |
Noted. Discussion with Statutory Planning indicates a planning permit would be required and it may or may not be granted. |
||||
Precinct boundaries |
Only accept Amendment if GREP buffer rezoned and placed in short term precinct |
Not supported. The amendment does not amend the existing GREP buffer and land fragmentation in the Heales Road East precinct is the key consideration in identifying the area as a long term precinct in development sequencing. |
||||
6 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
General objection |
Oppose Amendment and NWGGA Framework Plan |
Noted. |
Planning process |
Insufficient consultation with landowners |
Not supported. The Framework Plan has been developed with significant public consultation throughout 2016-2019 including numerous community information sessions, mail-outs, workshops, a 45-day community engagement process and the public exhibition of the planning scheme amendment. |
||||
Planning process |
Interpreters should have been used in consultation |
Not supported. The City provides for interpreters via the Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS National) upon individual request. |
||||
Land acquisition Integrated transport network |
Oppose any compulsory acquisition for upgrading Heales Road or Bacchus Marsh Rd |
Noted. The Framework Plan does not specify compulsory acquisition of land. Land required for public infrastructure will be identified as part of detailed design in future processes (for example: precinct structure plans or declared road upgrades). |
||||
Land acquisition |
Land should be rezoned before any compulsory acquisition for road widening |
Supported. Land required for road widening will be consider the rezoning or application of applied zones under the schedule to the Urban Growth Zone as part of the relevant precinct structure plan process. |
||||
Development sequencing |
Rural Living Zone inappropriate zoning when Bacchus Marsh and Heales Roads being upgraded |
Not supported. Bacchus Marsh Road and Heales Road will be upgraded and duplicated to allow for safe and orderly transport movements generated by future development in the growth area and will be required whether or not land use changes occur in the existing areas of rural living. |
||||
Other issues |
Have been told cannot obtain a building permit for house in submitter’s Rural Living Zone land |
Noted. Discussion with Statutory Planning indicates a planning permit would be required and it may or may not be granted. |
||||
Precinct boundaries |
Only accept Amendment if GREP buffer rezoned and placed in short term precinct |
Not supported. The amendment does not amend the existing GREP buffer and land fragmentation in the Heales Road East precinct is the key consideration in identifying the area as a long term precinct in development sequencing. |
||||
7 |
Austin Land |
|
|
Supporting submissions |
Support Settlement Strategy |
Noted. |
Other issues |
Opportunity to delivery broad range of lot sizes/housing types should be supported |
Noted. |
||||
Projected population growth rates |
Essential that adopted growth rate provide opportunity for adjustment |
Supported. Monitoring and review provisions allow timely responses to emerging issues including adjusting to changes in demand. |
||||
|
|
Development sequencing |
For infrastructure connectivity to Elcho Rd East precinct, Lara West development should be well advanced and is supported. |
Supported. Elcho Road East precinct is identified as the short term precinct and will the City will commence preparation of the precinct structure plan in 2019. |
||
Development levies |
Support including drainage in DCP/ICPs |
Supported. Drainage infrastructure to support development in the growth areas will be included within the relevant DCP/ICP. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Support collaborative approach to delivery of Integrated Water Management Strategy for the growth areas |
Noted. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Applaud underlying intent of reducing private motor vehicle dependence |
Noted. |
||||
Development sequencing Integrated transport network |
Northern Geelong Growth Area development sequencing will benefit connectivity to Lara town centre and rail |
Supported. Facilitation of public transport connectivity between the Northern Geelong Growth Area and Lara township is a key objective of the framework plan. |
||||
8 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Integrated water management |
Object to Waterway along 350 Heales Road, Lara |
Supported in part. Stormwater management in areas of rural living will be subject to detailed investigation including consideration of alternative solutions as part of the relevant precinct structure plan and will seek to minimise impacts on individual properties, where practicable. |
Integrated transport network |
Object to traffic signals at Heales/Tillys Roads intersection |
Not supported. Heales Road will be upgraded to an urban arterial road standard that will include controlled intersections with proposed connector streets. The functional design of the road network will be undertaken as part of the relevant precinct structure plan. |
||||
9 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Integrated water management |
Object to Waterway along rear of 350 Heales Road, Lara |
Supported in part. Stormwater management in areas of rural living will be subject to detailed investigation including consideration of alternative solutions as part of the relevant precinct structure plan and will seek to minimise impacts on individual properties, where practicable. |
10 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Integrated water management |
Object to Waterway along rear of Heales Road properties |
Supported in part. Stormwater management in areas of rural living will be subject to detailed investigation including consideration of alternative solutions as part of the relevant precinct structure plan and will seek to minimise impacts on individual properties, where practicable. |
Integrated transport network |
Concerned by upgrading of Heales Road to arterial road |
Noted. Heales Road will be upgraded to an urban arterial road standard to allow for the safe and convenient movement of existing and future residents. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Concerned by potential road widening and loss of trees along Heales Road |
Supported in part. Heales Road will be upgraded to an urban arterial road standard to allow for the safe and convenient movement of existing and future residents. Detailed design of the future upgrade of the road network will have regard for the location of existing trees as outlined in Action N1.3.4. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
If Heales Road upgrade absolutely necessary, delay as long as possible |
Supported. Heales Road upgrades will be delivered as a consequence of detailed precinct structure planning of Heales Road East PSP and/or Heales Road West PSP which are medium-long term precincts. |
||||
11 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
|
Support Amendment |
Noted. |
12 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Object to Clever and Creative Corridor along Evans Road |
Supported in part. Evans Road is the logical existing road alignment to facilitate transport movements between the two growth areas. The Clever and Creative Corridor will provide for public transport movements within and between the growth areas along Evans Road, particularly as a means to connect existing and future residents to the Geelong-Ballarat rail line where it is proposed that a new railway station will provide commuter rail services on the Geelong-Ballarat rail line and connect to the broader rail network. Plan 5 Clever and Creative Corridor in the framework plan that illustrates the 400-metre walkable catchment of the Clever and Creative Corridor will be amended to remove the catchment from the land area between the two growth areas on both sides of Evans Road. |
Clever and Creative Corridor |
400 m wide Corridor requires compulsory acquisition of submitter’s entire property |
Not supported. No land acquisition is intended as part of the 400-metre walkable catchment to the Clever and Creative Corridor. |
||||
Planning process |
Other affected landowners may not be aware of Clever and Creative Corridor |
Not supported. All landowners in proximity to Evans Road have been notified in writing of the May 2018 community engagement and the public exhibition of Amendment C395. No land acquisition is intended as part of the 400-metre walkable catchment to the Clever and Creative Corridor. |
||||
13 |
Barwon Heads Lifestyle P/L |
|
|
Settlement boundary |
Include 1900 Barwon Heads Rd in Barwon Heads settlement boundary |
Not supported. As per council position amendment C375 no change to boundary proposed. SS states where adjustments may be considered on the Bellarine it would be limited to District Towns. The DALS project will consider a 50 year vision and ‘protected boundaries’ and will need to be completed prior to any individual township planning. |
Settlement boundary |
Update Barwon Heads Structure Plan Map at 21.14-10 accordingly |
As above. |
||||
Settlement boundary |
C159 and C375 Panel recommendations |
As above. |
||||
Other issues |
Settlement Strategy Barwon Heads settlement boundary differs from that in Clause 21.14 |
Noted. Edit boundaries to ensure they are the same. |
||||
Settlement boundary |
C395 amendment documentation refers to matters supporting submitter’s proposal |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundary |
Inclusion of site in permanent settlement boundary better outcome than Farming Zone allows |
The FZ is an appropriate zone for land outside township boundaries on the Bellarine. |
||||
14 |
Barwon Water |
|
|
Supporting submissions |
Overall supportive of principles and directions of Settlement Strategy |
Noted. |
Government agency submissions (SS) |
Barwon Water South Geelong land a key site for increased housing diversity/density |
Noted. |
||||
Government agency submissions (SS) |
Amend 21.06-8 to refer to diversity of uses (commercial/mixed use) around rail stations |
Supported in part. Edit pages 81 & 84 to include mixed uses in station precincts that support higher residential densities and community life. |
||||
Settlement boundary |
Ocean Grove basin can be developed if included in settlement boundary |
Not supported |
||||
Government agency submissions (SS) |
Copy of Barwon Water’s DAL submission attached for information |
Noted. |
||||
|
|
|
Support principles and directions of Framework Plan |
Noted. |
||
Development sequencing |
Support orderly development sequencing |
Noted. |
||||
15 |
Batesford Fyansford Stonehaven Landcare Inc |
|
|
Biodiversity |
Concerned at impacts of development on environmental assets |
Noted. A biodiversity conservation strategy is required to inform any future development within the Western Geelong Growth Area that results in no net loss of native vegetation. |
Biodiversity |
Seek Moorabool River walk trail and protected riparian zone in and beyond Western Geelong Growth Area |
Supported. The Batesford South precinct will provide for the comprehensive rehabilitation and master planning of the Moorabool River corridor and Batesford Quarry, including existing and potential expansion the Dog Rocks Flora and Fauna Sanctuary and other environmental assets within the precinct. The Geelong Landcare Network should be engaged as a stakeholder in the future preparation of the PSP. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Physically connected biolinks important to minimise habitat fragmentation |
Supported. Action W1.3.3 in the Framework Plan outlines the creation of linear corridors within the Western Geelong Growth Area to promote biodiversity linkages. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Seek biodiversity corridor – Dog Rocks Flora and Fauna Sanctuary to Barwon River, along Dog Rocks, Friend-in-Hand Roads |
Supported. Plan 17 Biodiversity in the framework plan identifies this linear corridor. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Corridors already being planted on private land along Dog Rocks, Friend-in-Hand Roads |
Noted. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Little thought given to impact of Western Geelong Growth Area Employment Area on biolink corridor |
Not supported. Action W3.2.4 highlights the need for the urban design of the employment precinct to minimise impacts to the surrounding area including the integration of scattered trees and native vegetation within the precinct. |
||||
Biodiversity |
No mention in Framework Plan of under/over passes accessible to wildlife |
Not supported. The technical engineering specifications of transport infrastructure is not incorporated within the Framework Plan and will be subject to detailed design as part of the relevant PSP. Notwithstanding, existing biodiversity assessments have not recommended the need for over- or underpasses for the conveyance of native fauna to date. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Implications of Dog Rocks Road link status through environmentally sensitive areas |
Supported in part. Dog Rocks Road is identified as a connector street in the framework plan and is not planned to cater for large volumes of traffic. Detailed design of Dog Rocks Road will occur as part of the Batesford South PSP and consideration of adjacent biodiversity values can be incorporated with stakeholder input as part of the future precinct structure planning process. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Support Batesford Community Bypass Option (Midland Hwy) |
Noted. The Midland Highway is a declared arterial road and any future upgrade or bypass will be delivered to the satisfaction of the coordinating road authority. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Recommendations re buffer zones to river |
Not supported. Buffers to river and creek corridors will be determined by a holistic and comprehensive master planning process to be undertaken as part of the relevant precinct structure plan. Buffers to the river corridor should be applied on a site specific basis and not arbitrarily applied with no regard for the local context. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Denuding the landscape for bushfire management is not acceptable |
Supported in part. Land within the Western Geelong Growth Areas is subject to the Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO) where specific bushfire construction standards apply to designated bushfire prone areas. Development within proximity to these area will require construction requirements aimed at improving bushfire protection for residential buildings. The suitability of land in proximity to these areas for urban development will be assessed with regard to the bushfire management as part of the relevant precinct structure plan. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Larger lots (2 ha or more) abutting Dog Rocks Flora and Fauna Sanctuary, Moorabool River and other reserves |
Supported in part. Action W2.4.5 highlights the importance of appropriate housing interfaces to Dog Rocks Flora and Fauna Sanctuary; however, detailed planning relating to the density of housing in the precinct will be defined as part of the relevant precinct structure plan process. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Apply pet controls, revegetation and building envelopes abutting river and reserves |
Supported in part. Development controls relating to land in proximity to river and creek corridors and the Dog Rocks Flora and Fauna Sanctuary will be applied as part of the relevant precinct structure plan process. The framework plan highlights the importance of preserving the biodiversity values of the river and creek corridors and conservation areas. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Support quarry rehab but concerned on lake impact on lower Moorabool River |
Supported. Rehabilitation of the Batesford Quarry, potentially to a recreational lake, will be subject to significant environmental consideration prior to the commencement of Batesford South PSP (Action W1.1.1, W1.2.10) and in master planning as part of the precinct structure plan (W.1.2.11), as well as other processes such as CCMA management, the Moorabool Living project, and the Barwon River Action Plan (Ministerial Advisory Committee). |
||||
Integrated water management |
Quarry lake should be independent of Moorabool River flows |
Supported in part. Rehabilitation of the Batesford Quarry, potentially to a recreational lake, will be subject to significant environmental consideration prior to the commencement of Batesford South PSP (Action W1.1.1, W1.2.10) and in master planning as part of the precinct structure plan (W.1.2.11), as well as other processes such as CCMA management, the Moorabool Living project, and the Barwon River Action Plan (Ministerial Advisory Committee). |
||||
Biodiversity |
Concerned by environmental impacts of three new Moorabool River bridges |
Not supported. The Western Geelong Growth Area will accommodate an estimated 64,000 resident population. The Moorabool River corridor extends approximately 13 kilometres throughout the growth area, transecting it. The minimisation of river crossings has been factored into the framework planning process to balance the conservation of the river corridor with the need to create connected communities. |
||||
16 |
L. Bisinella Developments P/L |
|
|
|
Generally support Amendment |
Noted. |
Integrated water management |
Concerns with Framework Plan proposals for 30 Avonlea & 165 Bluestone Bridge Roads |
Supported in part. The framework plan does indicate a significant proportion of the subject land as waterway; however, this is largely due to the illustrative style of the waterway networks on the plan set and that the subject land is located at the confluence of the Cowies Creek corridor and a significant constructed waterway. Further work relating to stormwater drainage will be undertaken on the subject land as part of the initial precinct structure plan in the Western Geelong Growth Area, Creamery Road PSP, meaning that property-specific land take for the waterway network will be established within the next two years. No additional stormwater drainage technical studies will take place as part of the framework planning process. The stormwater drainage strategy for the area modelled the subject land as conventional density residential land, as through a PSP process this is the most likely ultimate development scenario for the land irrespective of the existing permit allowing for the development of rural living properties. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Oppose extent of Waterways and public open space on submitter’s land |
Supported in part. Further work relating to stormwater drainage will be undertaken on the subject land as part of the initial precinct structure plan in the Western Geelong Growth Area, Creamery Road PSP, meaning that property-specific land take for the waterway network will be established within the next two years. |
||||
Development levies |
Framework Plan should recognise cost sharing arrangements for drainage |
Supported in part. Drainage infrastructure will be included within the relevant Infrastructure Contributions Plan (ICP) or Development Contributions Plan (DCP) relating to the Creamery Road PSP within the next three years. The Framework Plan does not define the mechanisms for the collection of development levies for public infrastructure. The mechanism for the collection of the development levies in the growth areas is not considered by the framework plan. The City has been informed by DELWP and the VPA that policy is currently being prepared to apply the Infrastructure Contributions Plan (ICP) to greenfield developments in regional Victoria, including Greater Geelong. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Basis for mapping on Plan 16 unclear |
Noted. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Review/determine location/ecological value of native grasslands before Framework Plan adopted |
Not supported. Plan 16 Biodiversity in the framework plan summarises the findings of the biodiversity assessment report undertaken to inform the future development of the growth area. Additionally, a biodiversity conservation strategy will be undertaken to establish the presence of native flora and fauna and determine its retention, offset or removal to inform the Creamery Road PSP process. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Plan 17 premature before waterways/open space alignments determined |
Not supported. Plan 17 Biodiversity Linkage is an illustrative plan that seeks to identify high-level locations for biodiversity linkages between significant areas of existing open space and indicated by large green arrows annotated on the plan. ‘Areas of large tree canopy (existing or proposed)’ on Plan 17 correlate with areas of biodiversity values and/or areas notionally identified as part of the open space network in the framework plan where it is envisaged that tree canopy will be delivered. Further work relating to stormwater drainage will be undertaken on the subject land as part of the initial precinct structure plan in the Western Geelong Growth Area, Creamery Road PSP, meaning that property-specific land take for the waterway network will be established within the next two years. |
||||
Heritage |
Amend Plan 18 – submitter’s land incorrectly shown as Aboriginal cultural heritage site |
The margins of Cowies Creek and its tributaries, adjacent to the subject site, are areas of high archaeological potential in preliminary Aboriginal site sensitivity mapping. The cultural heritage management plan prepared and approved supports the delivery of rural living properties and is not consistent with the Framework Plan that identifies the underlying land use of the subject land for conventional density residential development. Clarification regarding the suitability of the approved cultural heritage management plan forms part of the PSP process. Cowies Creek will be subject to an individual detailed master plan that outlines the protection and enhancement of the creek corridor as part of the Creamery Road PSP. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Northern Geelong Growth Area stormwater strategy overly relies on Lara West Growth Area for drainage |
Not supported. Action N1.2.2 outlines that flooding and stormwater management will maintain and enhance the predevelopment hydrology of the areas and minimise downstream impacts. Further work relating to stormwater drainage will be undertaken on the subject land as part of the initial precinct structure plan in the Northern Geelong Growth Area, Elcho Road East PSP, meaning that property-specific land take for the waterway network will be established within the next two years. |
||||
Development sequencing |
Timing and feasibility of Lara West Growth Area receiving Northern Geelong Growth Area drainage uncertain |
Noted. |
||||
17 | jojo
Boral |
|
|
Settlement boundary |
Boral cement works to be decommissioned, 1020 ha site to be surplus to requirements |
Noted. The SUZ7 is appropriate given active extractive industry land use. |
Settlement boundary |
Unlocking urban development potential was central to justifying Port of Geelong investment |
Noted. The City supports investment in the port however linking urban development of one site with investment in another is not a land use or strategic planning consideration. |
||||
Settlement boundary |
Rezone Boral Waurn Ponds land to Urban Growth Zone |
Not supported. |
||||
Settlement boundary |
Designate Boral Waurn Ponds land in policy as Growth Area and inside Urban Growth boundary |
Not supported. Council has enough residential land supply identified for 15+ years and has not done the strategic work to justify identifying new growth fronts. |
||||
Settlement boundary |
Location, single ownership and serviceability make land suitable for urban growth |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundary |
Land is logical extension of Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundary |
Land will be needed to provide required urban housing prior to 2035 |
Not supported. The City will monitor and review housing requirements in the context of 15 year land supply. |
||||
Settlement boundary |
C395 fails as based on outdated G21 Regional Growth Plan assumption land required for resources |
Not supported. The Settlement Strategy contemplates a range of growth scenarios. |
||||
Settlement boundary |
Current SUZ 7 zoning is an anomaly leaving land in a planning policy vacuum |
Noted. The City has not done the strategic work to justify a zone change at this time. |
||||
|
|
|
Does not oppose rezoning and designation of NWGGA |
Noted. |
||
18 |
Chemring Australia P/L |
|
|
Surrounding land uses |
Chemring site at 230 Staceys Road recently declared a Major Hazard Facility |
Noted. |
Surrounding land uses |
1000 m buffer from Chemring should be assessed from southern boundary of site |
An appropriate buffer would reasonably protect the existing use and consider the neighbouring urbanisation outlined in the Framework Plan. The PSP process engages stakeholders including landowners, EPA Victoria and Worksafe to establish the appropriate buffer and land uses. The submission has been referred to EPA Victoria and Worksafe Victoria for advice. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Include protecting Chemring buffer as Urban Development Objective for Northern Geelong Growth Area |
Not necessary to address in high-level urban development objectives; is addressed through Action N1.7.7. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Amend Action N1.7.7 to comply with WorkSafe requirements |
For further consideration and clarification when advice received from EPA Victoria and Worksafe Victoria. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Suggest Environmental Significance Overlay for land within Chemring buffer to protect from residential encroachment |
Not supported. Detailed land use planning will be undertaken as part of the relevant precinct structure plan to establish the appropriate interface to surrounding land uses. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Oppose any reduction of 1000 m buffer |
Supported, subject to advice from EPA Victoria and Worksafe Victoria on the buffer distance and location. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Amend any plans showing housing encroachment into buffer – for instance, Plan 23 |
Supported in part. Clarification required. The submission has been referred to EPA Victoria and Worksafe Victoria for comment. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Include Chemring buffer protection in Clause 21.20-2 objectives |
For further consideration and clarification when advice received from EPA Victoria and Worksafe Victoria. |
||||
19 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
|
Support the Amendment. |
Noted. |
Land use and zoning requests - NGGA |
Light commercial or industrial zoning better suited for 505 Ballarat Road |
Not supported. The subject land is identified for an underlying residential land use; however, non-residential land uses permitted within residential zones may be appropriate for the subject land given its strategic location on the Midland Highway, subject to planning as part of the Batesford North PSP. |
||||
20 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
|
Support Amendment and Lovely Banks urban development |
Noted. |
21 |
Committee for Geelong |
|
|
Projected population growth rates |
Settlement Strategy lacks ambitious vision for Geelong growth – should plan for growth above 3% pa |
Not supported. There is a 3% growth scenario. |
Projected population growth rates |
Use 2019 Victoria in Future (VIF) population projections; don’t rely on 2017 land supply data |
2019 VIF Estimated Resident Population by Local Government Area, Greater Geelong, 2018 to 2036 average rate is 2.0% |
||||
Settlement boundary |
Oppose introduction of a permanent settlement boundary |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundary |
Settlement boundary will delay land development and likely significantly increase land prices |
Not supported. The boundary provides certainty for all on where development is supported. |
||||
Housing markets |
Consider land supply and ensure 15 years supply in each of five Geelong subregions |
Not supported. Land supply is on a municipal basis as per State Government requirements. |
||||
Other issues |
Need policy/framework support to achieve difficult 50% infill contribution to growth |
Supported. |
||||
Other issues |
Strategy lacks clarification on managing land use conflict, particularly around industrial |
Noted. The need for buffers will be included. |
||||
Other issues |
Strategy lacks commitment to affordable and social housing provision |
Not supported. The strategy provides policy support for this. |
||||
|
Submitter’s Jun 2018 submission on draft Settlement Strategy attached for information |
Noted. |
||||
22 |
Creamery Road precinct landowners |
|
|
Supporting submissions |
Support principles and directions of Settlement Strategy |
Noted. |
Lot yield |
Settlement Strategy Table 1 (p36) differs from Framework Plan regarding Western Geelong Growth Area lot supply |
The Framework Plan outlines an estimate of dwelling and population yield of almost 5,000 additional dwellings; however, that estimate will only be verified by ongoing technical studies to inform the future development of the growth areas to be undertaken during a precinct structure plan process that may have a significant impact on the net developable area (for example: biodiversity values, river corridor setbacks, land capability of quarry and overburden stockpiles). |
||||
Development levies |
Shared funding (ICPs) critical in Western Geelong Growth Area – enunciate as principle in Settlement Strategy |
Supported in part. The mechanism for the collection of the development levies in the growth areas is not considered by the framework plan. The City has been informed by DELWP and the VPA that policy is currently being prepared to apply the Infrastructure Contributions Plan (ICP) to greenfield developments in regional Victoria, including Greater Geelong. The City generally supports the introduction of the ICP to support the funding of infrastructure in the growth areas. The City notionally supports the strategic intent of the universal application of development levies throughout the Western Geelong Growth Area, noting that several large transport infrastructure projects will be required within individual precincts that provide a wider benefit to the entire growth area. The City will continue to work with DELWP and the VPA to establish the appropriate mechanism for funding state and local infrastructure in the growth areas throughout 2020. Amend page 71 of Settlement Strategy by adding a direction: ‘Ensure infrastructure funding strategies recognise items that deliver high level infrastructure that benefit multiple PSP areas will require a contribution’ |
||||
|
|
Activity centres |
Relocate Western Geelong Growth Area sub-regional centre to northern part of Western Geelong Growth Area abutting Midland Hwy |
Not supported. The City’s Retail Strategy plans seeks to ensure that the timing, location and size of activity centres is carefully planned to support local communities whilst managing impacts on the broader network of centres. An assessment of the option to locate the sub-regional activity centre on the Midland Highway concluded that the location would have detrimental impact on Corio sub-regional activity with a potential loss of 40-50% of existing market share. Early development on land north of the Midland Highway will include neighbourhood activity centres and may provide patronage benefits to the Corio sub-regional activity centre prior in the short-medium term. The proposed location has two key benefits: the impact on the Corio sub-regional activity centre is marginal (<10% loss of existing market share), and the proposed location is central to the largest area of residential development in the growth area. The location has good access from the surrounding arterial road and connector street network and potential amenity benefits in its proximity to the constructed waterway network. |
||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Clever and Creative Corridor conflicts with landform and Moorabool River corridor |
Not supported. The Clever and Creative Corridor is a multifaceted urban design concept. The ‘Clever and Creative’ chapter in the Framework Plan outlines a high-level and long-term strategic intent – prioritising active and public transport – and outlines associated benefits to occur within a walkable catchment of the corridor. Several of these benefits – tree canopy coverage, integrated water management, amenity, arts and culture and sustainability – relate to the corridor’s interaction with the Moorabool River. Detailed investigation of potential constraints to the corridor occur in the preparation of the Batesford South PSP. The adopted alignment is an outcome of the Enquiry by Design workshops undertaken in November 2017; the community uses and potential amenity benefits of the corridor are complementary to the Moorabool River corridor and surrounding open space. The development consortium of the Western Geelong Growth Area supplied the road alignment illustrated in the Framework Plan. |
||||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Prefer Clever and Creative Corridor alignment around western side of quarry lake |
Not supported. Detailed investigation of potential constraints to the corridor occur in the preparation of the Batesford South PSP. The adopted alignment is an outcome of the Enquiry by Design workshops undertaken in November 2017; the community uses and potential amenity benefits of the corridor are complementary to the Moorabool River corridor and surrounding open space. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Advocate early completion of a western road corridor through Western Geelong Growth Area |
Not supported. The need for a north-south arterial road linking through the Western Geelong Growth Area is long term and is directly related to substantial development within the Batesford South precinct. Early new developments outside the extent of the Batesford South precinct will readily utilise the upgraded existing road network (for example: Midland Highway, Hamilton Highway) to connect to existing Geelong, and north-south movements can be catered for via the Geelong Ring Road (and, to a much lesser degree, Dog Rocks Road). |
||||
Biodiversity |
Integrate environmental/open space corridor with Clever and Creative Corridor in Creamery Rd precinct |
Supported. Open space links between the Cowies Creek corridor and Moorabool River corridor will be implemented as part of the relevant precinct structure plans, in part through the design of the Clever and Creative corridor, as illustrated on Plan 17 of the framework plan. |
||||
Precinct boundaries |
Efficiencies in land between Midland Hwy and river being in Creamery Rd precinct |
Not supported. The precinct boundaries in the Western Geelong Growth Area are based on several factors consistent with the metropolitan greenfield context, predominately the existing arterial road network. The state road and rail network (for example: Geelong Ring Road, Midland Highway, Hamilton Highway, Geelong-Ballan Road, Fyansford-Gheringhap Road and the Geelong-Ballarat rail line) generally defines the Western Geelong Growth Area precincts. Arterial roads provide a strong basis for defining PSP boundaries given their future upgrade creates a substantial barrier between neighbourhoods and that they provide a fixed boundary at the early planning stage. The inclusion of land to the south of the Midland Highway within the Creamery Road precinct may result in an isolated community physically remote from the majority of the proposed Creamery Road precinct. The inclusion of the land would also trigger the requirement for a Moorabool River master planning process, at least in part, that is currently envisaged as a comprehensive and holistic component of the Batesford South PSP; the inclusion of this process within the Creamery Road PSP is likely to significantly delay the planning of the initial precinct. |
||||
Other issues |
Recognise Creamery Rd precinct availability of educational and recreational facilities |
Supported. The social infrastructure needs assessment undertaken to inform the framework plan acknowledges existing education and social infrastructure within the growth areas, including Covenant College and Myers Reserve. |
||||
Development levies |
Need appropriate shared funding to provide key elements of Framework Plan |
Supported in part. The mechanism for the collection of the development levies in the growth areas is not considered by the framework plan. The City has been informed by DELWP and the VPA that policy is currently being prepared to apply the Infrastructure Contributions Plan (ICP) to greenfield developments in regional Victoria, including Greater Geelong. The City generally supports the introduction of the ICP to support the funding of infrastructure in the growth areas. The City notionally supports the strategic intent of the universal application of development levies throughout the Western Geelong Growth Area, noting that several large transport infrastructure projects will be required within individual precincts that provide a wider benefit to the entire growth area. The City will continue to work with DELWP and the VPA to establish the appropriate mechanism for funding state and local infrastructure in the growth areas throughout 2020. |
||||
Development levies |
Third party PSP funding should recoup share of costs from non-participating owners |
Not supported. Third party funding is a mechanism to progress a precinct structure plan and does not form but of this Amendment. |
||||
23 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
|
Support proposed development |
Noted. |
Land use and zoning requests - NGGA |
Wish to retain 0.8 – 1.0 ha of 255 Elcho Rd for submitters’ home |
Supported in part. The subject land will be rezoned to Urban Growth Zone and is identified for future residential development to a minimum average density of 15 dwellings per net developable hectare. The timing and urban design of subdivision of the subject property will be at the discretion of the landowner. |
||||
24 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Development sequencing |
Consider landscape buffer west of Rural Living Zone lots in Houston Road and McNeill Court – plant soon |
Supported in part. Action N1.6.1 outlines the need to identify and manage potential adverse amenity impacts of new neighbourhoods on rural living properties. This may include landscape buffers and will be considered at PSP stage. |
Land use and zoning requests - NGGA |
Allow subdivision of 50 McNeill Court into two lots around of 1.2 ha and 0.4 ha |
Not supported. Land remaining in the Rural Living Zone will be subject to existing land use restrictions within the zone. |
||||
25 |
Dennis Family Corporation |
|
|
Settlement boundary |
Submitter has development agreement with 372-450 Charlemont Rd Armstrong Creek owners |
Noted. |
Settlement boundary |
Site is adjacent to Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundary |
Site is suitable for urban development and should be logical extension to Warralily |
Noted. |
||||
Projected population growth rates |
Amend 21.06-1 Demographics to require monitoring and review |
Not supported. Strategy currently states ‘Adopt a population scenario approach to plan for future housing needs based on the regular monitoring and review of housing and population data and adjust as required’ |
||||
Logical inclusions process |
Delete 4th and 7th dot points in 21.06-2 Strategies and consolidate in new point |
Not supported. Logical inclusions process not intrinsically linked to non-urban breaks. Non-urban breaks have been and will continue to be a strategic policy. Logical inclusions is a process. |
||||
Logical inclusions process |
Include reference to logical inclusions in new 21.06-2 Strategies dot point |
Not required. |
||||
Other issues |
Update 21.11-1 to maintain consistency with growth figures in Settlement Strategy |
Supported. Local population: change to 55,000-65,000 residents (from 54,000); not necessary to specify number of dwellings as SS does not give precise figure for ACGA. |
||||
Other issues |
Amend 21.11-2 Objectives to reflect importance of residential land supply in Armstrong Creek |
Not supported. |
||||
Logical inclusions process |
Refer to logical inclusions process in 21.11-3 Further Work |
Not supported – covered in municipal wide strategy of 21.06. |
||||
Settlement boundary |
21.04 map and 21.06 inconsistent with Settlement Strategy and G21 Regional Growth Plan |
Settlement Strategy maps will be updated for consistency – change the location of non-urban breaks on the Housing Framework Plan in the Settlement Strategy to match those on the Housing and Settlement Framework Plan proposed in Clause 21.06 and the Municipal Framework Plan proposed in Clause 21.04. |
||||
Settlement boundary |
Land north of Lower Duneed Road should not be included in settlement break |
Noted. Logical inclusions process to consider. |
||||
Settlement boundary |
Revise 21.04 and 21.06 map - indicative non-urban breaks consistent with Settlement Strategy and G21 Regional Growth Plan |
Not supported. Settlement Strategy maps will be updated for consistency – change the location of non-urban breaks on the Housing Framework Plan in the Settlement Strategy to match those on the Housing and Settlement Framework Plan proposed in Clause 21.06 and the Municipal Framework Plan proposed in Clause 21.04. |
||||
Settlement boundary |
Revise 21.04 and 21.06 map drawing key – change Settlement Boundary to Municipal Boundary |
Supported in part – change Housing and Settlement Framework Plan map proposed in Clause 21.06 accordingly. Settlement Boundary does not appear on map at Clause 21.04. |
||||
Settlement boundary |
Exclude Thompson Valley settlement break from 21.04 if inappropriate outside CoGG |
Not supported. Settlement Strategy maps will be updated for consistency – change the location of non-urban breaks on the Housing Framework Plan in the Settlement Strategy to match those on the Housing and Settlement Framework Plan proposed in Clause 21.06 and the Municipal Framework Plan proposed in Clause 21.04. |
||||
Logical inclusions process |
Support logical inclusions process similar to State Government 2011 review |
Noted. |
||||
Logical inclusions process |
Adopt key criteria for logical inclusions, guided by 2011 review |
Noted. |
||||
DAL program |
Provided assessment of site against indicative criteria and key service requirements |
Noted. |
||||
DAL program |
In DAL program, Council must regard indicative nature of settlement boundary in Settlement Strategy |
Noted. |
||||
DAL program |
DAL has no bearing on site in logical inclusions or permanent settlement boundary |
Noted. DAL Bellarine and Surfcoast boundaries will be confirmed by DELWP. |
||||
26 |
Department of Environment Land Water & Planning |
|
|
Biodiversity |
Commend vision to implement environmentally sustainable design principles |
Noted. |
Biodiversity |
Native veg and protected species, habitats, communities may have significant impact |
Noted. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Extent and condition of significant environmental values remains unknown |
Noted. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Potential for delivering offsets on and off site is entirely unexplored |
Supported. The potential for delivering offsets within beyond the extent of the growth areas will be established as part of a biodiversity conservation strategy for the growth areas, outlined in Actions N1.3.1 and Action W1.3.1. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Strategic assessment of environmental constraints would have strengthened Framework Plan |
Supported. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Framework Plan may create land use/development expectations that, after Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (BCS), may be undeliverable |
Noted. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Need increased native veg protection in Victorian Volcanic Plains bioregion |
Supported. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Protecting grasslands predicted to be present can be challenging |
Noted. |
||||
Biodiversity |
BCS should also address State and local requirements |
Supported. The biodiversity assessments undertaken as part of the biodiversity conservation strategy will inform the preparation of Native Vegetation Precinct Plans for each precinct. |
||||
Biodiversity |
BCS outcomes may warrant amendment of Framework Plan prior to approval of any PSP |
Not supported. Land use changes required as part of the preparation of precinct structure plans will not require the framework plan to be amended. The Framework Plan outlines high level guidance for the future detailed land use planning to be undertaken as part of each PSP. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Add 21.20-3 Strategy to undertake BCS prior to any PSP preparation |
Not supported. The biodiversity conservation strategy will be undertaken simultaneously to the initial precinct structure plans in Creamery Road PSP and Elcho Road East PSP. |
||||
Biodiversity |
DELWP keen to participate in scoping addressing Commonwealth EPBC requirements |
Supported. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Ensure state considerations integrated in BCS and address necessary arrangements |
Supported. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Expand 21.06-8 Further Work point to also include state and national importance |
Supported. |
||||
Biodiversity |
21.20-2 – add objective indicating valuable biodiversity assets including grasslands will be retained and protected, and how they will be maintained and managed |
Supported in part. Add objective to retain and protect or appropriately offset. Maintenance and management is an ongoing matter beyond the scope of these policy objectives. |
||||
Biodiversity |
21.20-3 – add strategy or strategies consistent with above objective |
Not supported. The Biodiversity Conservation Strategy identified in the Framework Plan will address these matters. A further strategy in this policy is not needed. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Wide application of Urban Growth Zone ahead of BCS misses opportunity for biodiversity clarity |
Not supported. The primary object of the growth areas is to facilitate sustainable urban development for Geelong’s future growth as outlined in state policy (G21 Regional Growth Plan). The ongoing biodiversity conservation strategy and precinct structure planning processes will investigate biodiversity retention within the growth areas as one of several competing objectives. |
||||
|
|
Government agency submissions (SS) |
Comfortable with Amendment’s implementation of Settlement Strategy |
Noted. |
||
Government agency submissions (SS) |
21.06-1 Demographics – phrase on identified planned growth may be unachievable |
Noted. |
||||
27 |
Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions |
|
|
Settlement boundaries |
Generally support Amendment re settlement boundaries and establishing non-urban breaks |
Noted. |
|
|
Integrated water management |
Generally support vision to transform Batesford Quarry to freshwater lake |
Noted. |
||
Surrounding land uses |
Note that Northern Geelong Growth Area encroaches into Anakie Extractive Industry Interest Area (EIIA) |
Noted. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Provide non-urban break immediately outside Northern Geelong Growth Area encroachment into EIIA |
Not supported. Housing densities will decrease toward growth area boundaries intended to be permanent rural-urban interfaces as illustrated on Plan 23 and Plan 26 of the framework plan. However, the inclusion of a non-urban break immediately outside the NGGA in the Settlement Strategy or Planning Scheme is not supported as it is not identified in State policy. Any potential further encroachment into the Anakie EIIA would only be considered in the long term and would be subject to investigation of impacts on extractive industry resources. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Not same concern with Western Geelong Growth Area encumbering majority of Batesford EIIA |
Noted. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Government strategies recognise importance of protecting extractive resources |
Noted. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Greater Geelong identified as critical supply LGA for supporting Victoria’s growth |
Noted. |
||||
28 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Other township issues |
Request rezoning of 78-84 Collins Street Drysdale from Rural Living Zone to Residential |
Noted. DAL process will consider township boundaries. Could be considered as part of future township ‘urban consolidation’ opportunities. |
Other township issues |
Site is within permanent settlement boundary and readily serviced |
Noted. |
||||
29 |
Drysdale Clifton Springs Curlewis Association Inc |
|
|
Other township issues |
Develop one of two Drysdale Council sites as a North Bellarine Art & Culture Hub |
Noted but outside scope of Settlement Strategy. |
Other township issues |
Council depot in Sproat/Collins Streets appropriate location for a new swimming pool |
Noted but outside scope of Settlement Strategy. |
||||
Other township issues |
Protect Drysdale south of the Rail Trail from residential to retain some rural character |
The existing Structure Plan provides direction on this area. Largely ‘retain rural residential character’ with some ‘medium-long term consolidation opportunities’ on the eastern edge. |
||||
30 |
Drysdale landowners |
|
|
Supporting submissions |
Support direction of Amendment |
Noted. |
Other township issues |
Seek support to commence rezoning 7 lots in Princess & Huntingdon Streets to General Residential Zone Schedule 1 |
Noted but outside scope of Settlement Strategy. Already noted for medium – long term consolidation in the Structure Plan. |
||||
Other township issues |
Rural Living Zone and Low Density Residential Zone discouraged in Greater Geelong as size unsustainable and inefficient |
Noted. |
||||
Other township issues |
Conversion of Rural Living Zone to conventional residential intensifies densities and prevents sprawl |
Noted. |
||||
Other township issues |
Rezoning site is consistent with directions of Settlement Strategy |
Noted. |
||||
Other township issues |
Sufficient time has elapsed since Structure Plan to support immediate rezoning of site |
Noted. |
||||
Other township issues |
Rezoning site is consistent with Clause 21.14 |
Agree. |
||||
Other township issues |
Include strategy in Clause 21.06 promoting rezoning available land as in Structure Plan |
Not required. Structure Plan and Clause 21.14 already apply. |
||||
31 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Supporting submissions |
Permanent town boundaries required on Bellarine given unprecedented growth rate |
Noted. |
Supporting submissions |
Present Ocean Grove urban boundaries must become permanent |
Noted. |
||||
Supporting submissions |
Development west of Grubb Road or north of Yellow Gums would have visual, environmental impacts |
Noted. |
||||
32 |
EPA Victoria |
|
|
Surrounding land uses |
Enclosed EPA May 2019 letter provided in accordance with Ministerial Direction 19 |
Noted. |
Surrounding land uses |
Pleased Explanatory Report references EPA MD19 engagement |
Noted. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
EPA interested in land use compatibility between present and future uses |
Noted. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
EPA interested in encroachment risk to industry, farming, rural activities |
Noted. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
EPA interested in assessment, management and clean-up of contaminated land |
Noted. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
EPA interested in potential consequences for air quality, noise, odour and waste |
Noted. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
EPA interested in impact of development on environment, amenity and human health |
Noted. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
EPA interested in proximity and protection of sensitive uses |
Noted. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Consider need to provide land for future industry and critical infrastructure |
Noted. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Minimise health, amenity impacts for residential near commercial, rail stations, industry |
Noted. |
||||
|
|
Government agency submissions (SS) |
In further implementation consider industry buffers in investigating settlement boundary |
Supported. Include reference to considering industry and infrastructure buffers in the Settlement Strategy. Edit to include this as a consideration. |
||
33 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Land use and zoning requests - NGGA |
Object to rezoning of zoned and developed Rural Living Zone land |
Not supported. Majority of rural living properties retained within RLZ. |
Land use and zoning requests - NGGA |
Object to any plan or investigation of rezoning of land on or around Viewbank Rise |
Not supported. Subject land retained within RLZ. Future investigation allows flexibility if landowner attitudes change over time. Engagement with landowners in the future investigation area will occur as part of the PSP process to assess attitudes toward urban development. |
||||
34 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Land use and zoning requests - NGGA |
Object to 165 Staceys Road being categorised as undevelopable |
Noted. Subject land is identified as Agriculture – Future Investigation of Conservation on Plan 03 Future Urban Structure of the Framework Plan. |
Planning process |
Framework Plan is unjust and violates fundamental property rights |
Not supported. |
||||
Planning process |
Framework plan biased towards and shows undue influence of landowner consortium |
Not supported. The City prepared the Framework Plan based on technical studies and stakeholder consultation including the Vision and Principles and Enquiry by Design workshops and community engagement processes. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Unjust that Lara Energetic Material Manufacturing Plant (LEMMP) buffer undevelopable but gas pipeline buffer identified for urban |
Not supported. The LEMMP is a Major Hazard Facility that requires a land use buffer to sensitive uses included residential development. Restrictions to land use in proximity to the gas pipeline will apply although there is no restriction to conventional density residential development. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Framework Plan proposes only one open space area in northwest corner of the Northern Geelong Growth Area |
Not supported. A biodiversity conservation strategy will establish the presence of native flora and fauna and determine its retention, offset or removal in the Northern Geelong Growth Area. The subject land is identified for potential retention as conservation area based on land use restrictions generated by the LEMMP and assessed biodiversity values identified as part of technical studies. |
||||
Planning process |
Expansion of Northern Geelong Growth Area from original FIA shows undue influence of landowner consortium |
Not supported. Changes to the growth area boundary create defendable boundaries based on land use constraints such as roads and easements. The original study area of the Northern Further Investigation Area (FIA) in the G21 Regional Growth Plan provided no specific growth boundary. |
||||
Planning process |
165 Staceys Road is in area identified in state and local plans as developable land |
The subject land is within the Northern Geelong Growth Area and the future development of the land will be subject to the relevant precinct structure planning process and based upon key actions and land use plans outlined in the Framework Plan. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
LEMMP 1 km buffer is based on Clause 53.10-1 – a variable threshold distance |
Advice on the appropriate buffer has been sought from WorkSafe Victoria and EPA Victoria. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
According to an EPA Guideline (on landfill buffers) LEMMP buffer can be reduced |
Not supported. The LEMMP is not a landfill and hence a guideline on landfill buffers is not applicable. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
LEMMP buffer reduction/ land use within buffer justified by LEMMP’s low risk operation |
Advice on the appropriate buffer has been sought from WorkSafe Victoria and EPA Victoria. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
4 existing and one proposed dwellings are located within the 1 km LEMMP buffer |
Advice on the appropriate buffer has been sought from WorkSafe Victoria and EPA Victoria. Existing use rights of dwellings does not dictate the appropriate buffer. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Reduce LEMMP buffer to 500 m, with land beyond to be considered developable |
Advice on the appropriate buffer has been sought from WorkSafe Victoria and EPA Victoria. Consideration of land use within the buffer will occur as part of the relevant PSP process. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - NGGA |
165 Staceys Road is developable because it has no constraints |
Not supported. The LEMMP is a Major Hazard Facility - advice on the appropriate buffer has been sought from WorkSafe Victoria and EPA Victoria. Biodiversity assessments have identified native vegetation values on the subject land. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - NGGA |
165 Staceys Road is of low agricultural significance and value |
The subject land is identified as Agriculture – Future Investigation of Conservation based on land use restrictions generated by the LEMMP and assessed biodiversity values identified as part of technical studies. |
||||
35 |
Geelong Branch Public Transport Users Association |
|
|
Integrated transport network |
Support aim to provide accessible and integrated transport |
Noted. |
Integrated transport network |
Must prioritise sustainable, active transport modes and reduce car use |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Support Framework Plan Movement section commitments |
Noted. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Neighbourhoods must be porous for pedestrians to access public transport |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Support intent to provide day one usable public transport |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Unclear if public transport corridors are separate from rest of road network |
Not supported. The PSP process will establish road cross sections. Bus capable roads – arterial roads and connector streets – do not separate public transport from private vehicles. The Clever and Creative Corridor outlines the reservation of a separated, dedicated active transport (interim) and public transport (ultimate) corridor within the median reserve of the road cross section. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Stated public transport aims for Armstrong Creek not met |
Not supported. Armstrong Creek Growth Area remains in the early stages of development and includes the Geelong-Torquay transit corridor. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Public transport must be part of well-connected network |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
NWGGA public transport reliance on Lovely Banks rail station a weakness |
Not supported. Plan 38 of the Framework Plan outlines several potential connections to the existing rail network, particularly railway stations at Lara, Corio, North Geelong and Geelong. The proposed new station in the Western Geelong Growth Area is identified in state policy (G21 Regional Growth Plan) and will be investigated as part of the Geelong Growth Area Transport Infrastructure Strategy and additional investigations as part of the PSP process and/or in consultation with the City of Ballarat, Golden Plains Shire and Department of Transport. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Rail service not usable if services infrequent and ineffectively connected |
Noted. The potential functionality of the rail corridor will be investigated as part of the Geelong Growth Area Transport Infrastructure Strategy and additional investigations as part of the PSP process and/or in consultation with the City of Ballarat, Golden Plains Shire and Department of Transport. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Rail service problematic due to proposed standard gauge conversion of railway line |
Noted. The potential functionality of the rail corridor will be investigated as part of the Geelong Growth Area Transport Infrastructure Strategy and additional investigations as part of the PSP process and/or in consultation with the City of Ballarat, Golden Plains Shire and Department of Transport. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Rail service problematic due to railway use by freight trains |
Noted. The potential functionality of the rail corridor will be investigated as part of the Geelong Growth Area Transport Infrastructure Strategy and additional investigations as part of the PSP process and/or in consultation with the City of Ballarat, Golden Plains Shire and Department of Transport. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Improving road access to railway stations not useful if car access to them promoted |
Supported in part. The Geelong Growth Area Transport Infrastructure Strategy will prioritise active and public transport movements but will also consider private vehicle access to the rail network. |
||||
36 |
Geelong Gospel Trust |
|
|
|
Support Framework Plan and proposed Urban Growth Zone for 505 Ballarat Road, Batesford |
Noted. |
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Support Clever and Creative Corridor and neighbourhood activity centre location |
Noted. |
||||
|
Support site identification as suitable for community facilities and social infrastructure |
Noted. |
||||
|
Submitter’s proposal for place of worship on site is consistent with Framework Plan |
Noted. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
When applied zones identified, Ballarat Rd properties in Corridor should be Mixed Use |
Not supported. The relevant precinct structure planning process will established detailed land uses and applied zones for the subject land. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
Similar allocation was identified in Armstrong Creek Framework Plan along Surfcoast Highway |
Noted. |
||||
37 |
Geelong Solid Waste Materials Receival & Processing Centre P/L |
|
|
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
Rezone 80 Thoona Lane, Fyansford from Special Use Zone Schedule 7 to Urban Growth Zone |
Supported. |
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
Special Use Zone Schedule 7 retention serves no planning purpose |
Noted. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
No current planning permits or work authority for quarry or extractive industry on site |
Noted. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
DJPR confirms no current work authority or outstanding matters re former quarry |
Noted. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
Geotechnical advice confirms with quarry filling, site expected to be suitable for urban |
Noted. |
||||
Precinct boundaries |
Servicing advice recommends amending development sequencing to avoid servicing difficulties |
Not supported. The subject land is included within the Batesford South PSP in part to undertake the master planning of the Moorabool River corridor in a comprehensive, holistic and singular manner. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
Urban Growth Zone allows PSP process to consider site transition to urban development |
Supported. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
Amend 21.04 map to remove reference to major resource on site |
The extent of the Major Resources designation on and around the Batesford Quarry, including 80 Thoona Lane, will be investigated. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
Amend or delete 21.20-3 Strategies reference to 500 m blasting buffer |
This will be investigated and reviewed prior to the Panel hearing. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
Amend 21.20-4 Implementation |
Not supported. If 80 Thoona Lane is included in the Urban Growth Zone by this amendment, as proposed by this submission, when the amendment is gazetted it will not be an existing Special Use Zone. |
||||
Precinct boundaries |
Amend Plan 46 to identify all land south of Church Street in medium term precinct |
Not supported. The subject land is included within the Batesford South PSP in part to undertake the master planning of the Moorabool River corridor in a comprehensive, holistic and singular manner. Early planning and development of the subject land may affect the future investigation of transport connections to Church Street. |
||||
38 |
Gersh Investment Partners Ltd |
|
|
|
Object to Amendment in its current form |
Noted. |
Projected population growth rates Land supply and demand |
Systematic flaws in Amendment’s base land supply assumptions and preparation |
Not supported. The methodology is provided and reflected land available for housing and identified for future housing. |
||||
Long term comprehensive planning |
Geelong’s growth must be informed by a whole of municipality plan – Plan Geelong |
Not supported. The G21 Regional Growth Plan alongside rural, retail, social infrastructure, transport and other plans inform Geelong’s growth. |
||||
Long term comprehensive planning |
Settlement Strategy flawed as it deals only with residential land use |
Not supported. This was all the Settlement Strategy was intended to deal with. |
||||
Long term comprehensive planning |
Plan Geelong must include employment , infrastructure, long term urban footprint |
Not supported. See above. |
||||
Other issues |
Concerned Amendment makes no provision for any form of value capture tax |
Noted. Include a point on value capture in the Settlement Strategy. |
||||
Long term comprehensive planning |
Defer Amendment until Plan Geelong prepared and adopted |
Not supported. The City needs to plan for the growth it has already identified. |
||||
Long term comprehensive planning |
Defer Amendment until Settlement Strategy and Framework Plan informed by Plan Geelong |
Not supported. The City needs to plan for the growth it has already identified. |
||||
Other issues |
Defer Amendment until it has regard to value capture and details funding for State infrastructure |
Not supported. The City needs to plan for the growth it has already identified. |
||||
|
Copy of submitter’s June 2018 submission on Settlement Strategy attached |
Noted. |
||||
39 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Surrounding land uses |
Consider suitability of new urban development near intensive animal industries |
Not supported. State policy (G21 Regional Growth Plan) has identified the growth areas as suitable locations to accommodate Geelong’s long-term population growth. |
Surrounding land uses |
Urban housing along the boundaries of the Northern Geelong Growth Area would impact the right to farm |
Supported in part. Housing densities will decrease toward growth area boundaries intended to be permanent rural-urban interfaces as illustrated on Plan 23 and Plan 26 of the framework plan. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Protect adjacent agriculture with green wedge between Northern Geelong Growth Area urban and Farming Zone |
Supported in part. Housing densities will decrease toward growth area boundaries intended to be permanent rural-urban interfaces as illustrated on Plan 23 and Plan 26 of the framework plan. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Consider rural living along Northern Geelong Growth Area boundaries |
Not supported. Housing densities will decrease toward growth area boundaries intended to be permanent rural-urban interfaces as illustrated on Plan 23 and Plan 26 of the framework plan. However, Rural Living within the perimeter of the Northern Geelong Growth Area is not supported. |
||||
40 |
Goandra Estate P/L |
|
|
Settlement boundaries |
Bellarine Peninsula DAL designation should occur before implementing Settlement Strategy |
Disagree. The DAL is one method outlined in the strategy to deliver the Bellarine outcomes. |
Settlement boundaries |
Makes no sense to implement Settlement Strategy before Ocean Grove growth options are reviewed |
Disagree. The DAL process will consider. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Detailed assessment required to determine non-urban breaks |
Agree. The DAL process will consider. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Should not prevent Ocean Grove growth, which will not destroy Bellarine towns character |
Noted. The DAL process will consider. |
||||
Other issues |
With respect to rural residential, Settlement Strategy should be guided by Planning Practice Note 37 |
Noted. There is no policy support for this in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. |
||||
41 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
Land west of Ballan Road and near Moorabool River and lake should be rural living |
Not supported. Urban development within the growth area will deliver a minimum average residential density of 15 dwellings per net developable hectare, unless identified for transitioning densities (for example: in direct proximity to Batesford township). |
Biodiversity |
Apply land use restrictions to that area to encourage fauna protection and revegetation |
Supported in part. The Batesford North PSP will include a Moorabool River corridor master plan that will encourage flora and fauna protection and revegetation. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
Land east of Ballan Road could be high density. |
Supported in part. Urban development in the Creamery Road PSP will include a diverse mix of housing including high, medium and conventional density residential development. |
||||
42 |
Golden Plains Shire Council |
|
|
Other issues |
Support Amendment as includes large amount of open space to benefit local/regional residents |
Noted. |
Integrated transport network |
Support Amendment as identifies rail station, likely to justify reopening line to passenger rail |
Noted. |
||||
Other issues |
Support Amendment as additional housing supply and competition likely to improve affordability |
Noted. |
||||
Other issues |
Support Amendment as Western Geelong Growth Area Employment area 6 km from Gheringhap Employment Precinct |
Noted. |
||||
Other issues |
Support Amendment as additional population will support Gheringhap Employment Precinct |
Noted. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Support Amendment as sympathetic to Low Density Residential Zone community of Batesford due to open space buffer |
Noted. |
||||
Other issues |
Support Amendment as Western Geelong Growth Area will bring utilities and services closer to Golden Plains Shire |
Noted. |
||||
Integrated water network |
Waterways designation on 21.20 Framework Plan map may cause confusion |
Noted. ‘Waterways’ is general term intended to indicate the land area required to manage stormwater flows in developed conditions. Detailed planning of the open space network including waterways will occur as part of the relevant precinct structure plan. |
||||
43 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
|
Object to Amendment |
Noted. |
Surrounding land uses |
Noise (existing) key concern with proposed function centre at 20 Evans Road |
Noted. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Concerned by potential residential noise impact on quiet rural living neighbourhood |
Noted. The noise controls of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2018 apply to the growth areas. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Proposed activity centre may cause nuisance to nearby residents |
Not supported. A network of activity centres is required to support the local needs of new communities in the growth areas. The noise controls of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2018 apply to the growth areas. Separate guidelines apply to commercial noise. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Noise restrictions must be implemented as noise carries from the elevated land |
Not supported. The primary object of the growth areas is to facilitate sustainable urban development for Geelong’s future growth as outlined in state policy (G21 Regional Growth Plan). The noise controls of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2018 apply to the growth areas. Separate guidelines apply to commercial noise. Further noise controls by way of restrictions on title are not supported. |
||||
44 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
Proposed to rezone Rural Living Zone land east of Palmerston Street including 35 Old Ballarat Road Township Zone |
Not supported. Detailed planning of the Batesford township will be undertaken and provide further strategic direction for the township as part of the Batesford North PSP. |
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
Framework Plan 04 identifies this land Rural Living – Future Investigation of Residential |
Noted. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
Support Township or residential zoning for Land east of Palmerston Street, Batesford |
Not supported. The Framework Plan identifies the western portion of this area as Batesford Township, with the balance as Rural Living with future investigation of Residential. Detailed planning of the Batesford township will be undertaken and provide further strategic direction for the township as part of the Batesford North PSP. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
Framework Plan and 21.20 should provide more direction on future of Batesford township |
Not supported. Detailed planning of the Batesford township will be undertaken and provide further strategic direction for the township as part of the Batesford North PSP. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
Amend policy to reflect short term direction for limited residential growth to east |
Not supported. Detailed planning of the Batesford township will be undertaken and provide further strategic direction for the township as part of the Batesford North PSP in the medium term. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
Short term limited residential east of Palmerston Street will not compromise Western Geelong Growth Area planning |
Not supported. The subject land is not being rezoned to Urban Growth Zone and permit applications that pre-empt the preparation of the relevant precinct structure plan will be considered on an individual basis. |
||||
|
|
Other township issues |
Identify short term limited residential east of Palmerston Street in Settlement Strategy |
Not supported. Land is within Western Geelong Growth Area. Settlement Strategy does not provide detailed land use direction for individual sites or areas within NWGGA. |
||
45 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
|
Commend officers on preparation of Framework Plan |
Noted. |
Planning process |
Keep submitters informed of progress and timing of Precinct Structure Plans |
Supported. |
||||
46 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
|
Broadly support Amendment and commend Framework Plan and Settlement Strategy |
Noted. |
Utilities (Electricity transmission lines) |
Include portion of 980 Anakie Road outside transmission line easement in Urban Growth Zone |
Seek strategic advice from the service provider and refer to Panel. |
||||
Utilities (Electricity transmission lines) |
No requirement or standard prohibits development beyond transmission line easement |
Seek strategic advice from the service provider and refer to Panel. |
||||
Utilities (Electricity transmission lines) |
Easement incorporates Energy Safe Victoria requirement for 65 m clearance space |
Seek strategic advice from the service provider and refer to Panel. |
||||
Utilities (Electricity transmission lines) |
Powercor has not reserved or notified of intention to acquire land beyond easement |
Seek strategic advice from the service provider and refer to Panel. |
||||
47 |
Idyll Wines Co |
|
|
|
Supportive of Amendment |
Noted. |
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
Show Idyll Wines Co spatially on Plan 20 to supplement text on p111 of Framework Plan |
Supported. Amend Plan 20 to illustrate ‘winery’ as existing built environment. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
Idyll Wines a significant land use that should be recognised and safeguarded |
Noted. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - WGGA |
Show all retained uses along river on Plan 20 due to Aboriginal cultural heritage |
Supported. Amend Plan 20 to illustrate ‘winery’ as existing built environment. |
||||
48 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Integrated water management |
Object to Waterway along rear of Heales Road properties |
Supported in part. Stormwater management in areas of rural living will be subject to detailed investigation including consideration of alternative solutions as part of the relevant precinct structure plan and will seek to minimise impacts on individual properties, where practicable. |
Integrated transport network |
Object to upgrading of Heales Road to arterial road |
Not supported. The upgrade of Heales Road to an urban arterial road standard will allow for the safe and convenient movement of existing and future residents as part of urban development. |
||||
49 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Integrated water management |
Request more info on proposed Northern Geelong Growth Area Waterway – hope will use existing easements |
Supported in part. Stormwater management in areas of rural living will be subject to detailed investigation including consideration of alternative solutions as part of the relevant precinct structure plan and will seek to minimise impacts on individual properties, where practicable. |
50 |
Lara landowners |
|
|
Other township issues |
Include strategy in 21.06 supporting rezoning Rural Living Zone residential in settlement boundaries |
Not supported. Area already considered as part of the Lara Structure Plan. Rezoning will be dependent on local resident capacity to coordinate the development of an ODP and/or DPO and prepare a rezoning proposal. The Settlement Strategy will not rezone land. |
Other township issues |
Six lots in Archimedes Avenue & Watt Street, Lara are suitable for conventional residential |
The area is identified in the Lara Structure Plan as appropriate for Low Density Residential Zone not conventional residential. Any reconsideration of this would occur in a future Lara Structure Plan review. |
||||
Other township issues |
Rural Living Zone and Low Density Residential Zone discouraged in Greater Geelong as size unsustainable and inefficient |
Noted. |
||||
Other township issues |
Conversion of Rural Living Zone to conventional residential intensifies densities and prevents sprawl |
Noted. |
||||
Other township issues |
TGM investigations of flooding and stormwater show land is developable |
Noted. |
||||
Other township issues |
Rezoning site is consistent with directions of Settlement Strategy |
Noted. |
||||
51 |
Lascorp Development Group |
|
|
Settlement boundaries |
Add to Settlement Strategy page 9 Recommendation 5 c): to determine if an amendment to permanent settlement boundary required |
Not supported. The boundary is ‘indicative’; it is implied there is a process to make ‘permanent’. |
Settlement boundaries |
Add to Settlement Strategy page 75: there will be circumstances where review of permanent boundary needed |
Not supported. The DAL process will deal with township settlement boundaries on the Bellarine. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Add to Settlement Strategy page 77 c): to determine if an amendment to permanent settlement boundary required |
Not supported. The boundary is ‘indicative’; it is implied there is a process to make ‘permanent’. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
21.06-2 4th Strategy - add: to determine if an amendment to permanent settlement boundary required |
Not supported. The boundary is ‘indicative’; it is implied there is a process to make ‘permanent’. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
21.06-8 4th Further Work – add: to determine if an amendment to permanent settlement boundary required |
Not supported. The boundary is ‘indicative’; it is implied there is a process to make ‘permanent’. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Note Settlement Strategy housing framework plan map boundary does not include land West of Grubb Road |
Noted. |
||||
|
Support aspects of the Settlement Strategy |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Amendment doesn’t change 21.14-4 Strategy to review long term Ocean Grove growth options |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Ocean Grove permanent settlement boundary review necessary |
Noted. The DAL process will deal with township settlement boundaries on the Bellarine. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Settlement Strategy and Amendment need to make clear potential need to review permanent settlement boundary |
Not supported. The boundary is ‘indicative’; it is implied there is a process to make ‘permanent’. |
||||
52 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
|
Support the Amendment. |
Noted. |
Land use and zoning requests – between growth areas |
Rezone 110 Asher Road Low Density Residential (0.4 ha) |
Not supported. No strategic support for rezoning of land between Northern Geelong Growth Area and Western Geelong Growth Area. |
||||
53 |
Lexnorm Investments |
|
|
Logical inclusions process |
Support Settlement Strategy and logical inclusion process |
Noted. |
Settlement boundaries |
980-1000 Port Road, 40-90 Bawtree Road logical extension to Leopold settlement boundary |
Not supported. This land is not ‘contiguous with an existing urban area’. Currently sits 600 m east of town boundary. All land between current boundary and Bawtree Road would need to be included for this to potentially be considered under logical inclusions process. |
||||
54 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Land use and zoning requests – between growth areas |
Rezone Rural Living Zone land between Growth Areas Low Density Residential (0.4 ha) |
Not supported. No strategic support for rezoning of land between Northern Geelong Growth Area and Western Geelong Growth Area. |
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Increased Evans Road traffic will diminish the rural feel |
Noted. Evans Road is identified as a key transport connection between the growth areas and will require upgrade as part of future urban development. |
||||
55 |
Lovely Banks Development Group |
|
|
|
Support Council in its work on the Settlement Strategy |
Noted. |
Projected population growth rates |
21.06-1 Demographics: add that Geelong growth will be monitored, may exceed 2.5% pa |
Not supported. The scenario approach with monitoring and review already acknowledges this. |
||||
Logical inclusions process |
21.06-2 strategy on logical inclusions – add “to consider minor changes” |
Supported. The addition of these words express the limited nature of this process. |
||||
|
|
|
Support Council in its work on the Framework Plan |
Noted. |
||
Planning process |
Concerned by inflexibility inherent in ordinance and Framework Plan detail |
The Framework Plan is intended to inform detailed planning of PSPs. For clarity, a brief introductory section will be added to the Framework Plan to explain the role of the Framework Plan in providing high level guidance that will be refined by detailed planning at PSP stage. |
||||
Development sequencing |
21.06-3 2nd strategy: change “Limit” to “Manage” |
Not supported. The City will manage the preparation of PSPs by deliberately limiting their concurrent preparation. The framework plan outlines the capacity for initiating a PSP as required for land supply. |
||||
Development levies |
21.08-3 1st strategy: reword ending to “expected dwelling density and population yield” |
Further consideration required. |
||||
Other issues |
21.20-2 change 4th objective: work towards delivering urban development that is carbon neutral |
Not supported. A Clever and Creative Future stipulates as a measure of success Geelong’s carbon neutrality by 2047. This goal applies to new developments in the growth areas. |
||||
Planning process |
21.20-3: replace first two strategies with three new strategies (no “in accordance with”) |
Not supported. For clarity, a brief introductory section will be added to the Framework Plan to explain the role of the Framework Plan in providing high level guidance that will be refined by detailed planning at PSP stage. The summary documents are condensed versions of the framework plan for stakeholder consultation only. |
||||
Planning process |
If above point not supported may propose further detailed changes to Framework Plan |
Noted. |
||||
Other issues |
21.20-3 8th strategy: add mixed use development before “high and medium density housing” |
Further consideration required. |
||||
Planning process |
Include Northern Geelong Growth Area and Western Geelong Growth Area Framework Plan Summaries in Background Documents list |
Not supported. The summary documents are condensed versions of the framework plan for stakeholder consultation only. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Amend 21.20-5 Framework Plan Map: reduce Northern Geelong Growth Area Waterway extents |
Not supported. PSP process will included detailed design of waterways. |
||||
Activity centres |
Amend 21.20-5 Framework Plan Map: shift Northern Geelong Growth Area sub-regional centre to north-east |
Not supported. PSP process will determine activity centre location. |
||||
Activity centres |
Amend 21.20-5 Framework Plan Map: replace Northern Geelong Growth Area northeast neighbourhood activity centre with two |
Not supported. PSP process will determine activity centre location. |
||||
Activity centres |
Amend 21.20-5 Framework Plan Map: add local activity centre in Northern Geelong Growth Area |
Not supported. PSP process will determine activity centre location. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Amend 21.20-5 Framework Plan Map: revise Elcho Road and other Northern Geelong Growth Area arterial road alignments |
Not supported. PSP process will determine detail of road network. |
||||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Amend 21.20-5 Framework Plan Map: realign Clever and Creative Corridor in Northern Geelong Growth Area |
Not supported. PSP process will determine detail of road network. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - NGGA |
Amend 21.20-5 Framework Plan Map: replace monocline escarpment (2 lines) with ridgeway (1 line) |
Not supported. PSP process will determine areas of passive open space. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - NGGA |
Amend 21.20-5 Framework Plan Map: revise western boundary of Rural Living future investigation of Employment area in Northern Geelong Growth Area |
Not supported. PSP process will determine boundary changes to rural living area, where necessary. |
||||
Utilities (Electricity transmission lines) |
Include existing transmission line easement on West boundary of Northern Geelong Growth Area in Urban Growth Zone |
Seek strategic advice from the service provider and refer to Panel. |
||||
Utilities (Electricity transmission lines) |
Urban Growth Zone over transmission easement allows flexibility, possible linear park recreation uses |
Seek strategic advice from the service provider and refer to Panel. |
||||
Planning process |
Include 51.01-s Incorporated Document to adjust sign category for Northern Geelong Growth Area Rural Living Zone from Category 3 to Category 2 |
Further consideration required. |
||||
Utilities (Electricity transmission lines) |
Update Incorporated Documents list in accordance with above point |
Further consideration required. |
||||
Activity centres |
Framework Plan Northern Geelong Growth Area: adjust location of sub-regional town centre to north-east |
Not supported. PSP process will determine activity centre location. |
||||
Activity centres |
Framework Plan Northern Geelong Growth Area: adjust location of northeast activity centre and split into two activity centres |
Not supported. PSP process will determine activity centre location. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Framework Plan Northern Geelong Growth Area: adjust Elcho Road alignment to be more site responsive |
Not supported. PSP process will determine detail of road network. |
||||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Framework Plan Northern Geelong Growth Area: realign Clever and Creative Corridor |
Not supported. PSP process will determine detail of road network. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Framework Plan Northern Geelong Growth Area: adjust drainage proposals to reduce excessive land take |
Not supported. PSP process will included detailed design of waterways. |
||||
Utilities (Electricity transmission lines) |
Framework Plan Northern Geelong Growth Area: show major transmission line easements as linear parkland |
Not supported. PSP process will determine areas of passive open space. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - NGGA |
Framework Plan Northern Geelong Growth Area: shift Employment/Residential boundary from Tower Hill Dr to power easement |
Potential minor revision of the boundary of the Employment area within the Heales Road East precinct can be investigated in the future preparation of a PSP but is not supported at this stage. The Employment area will be subject to an urban design framework as part of PSP preparation. |
||||
Planning process |
Add Framework Plan implementation heading/text including expectations PSPs will evolve detail |
The Framework Plan is intended to inform detailed planning of PSPs. For clarity, a brief introductory section will be added to the Framework Plan to explain the role of the Framework Plan in providing high level guidance that will be refined by detailed planning at PSP stage. |
||||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Amend Framework Plan description of Clever and Creative Corridor – variation at PSP stage likely |
Not supported. The framework plan outlines a 14-metre land allocation to create a dedicated, separated median reserve for active and public transport movements. |
||||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Delete Framework Plan reference to specific measurements for Clever and Creative Corridor |
Not supported. The framework plan outlines a 14-metre land allocation to create a dedicated, separated median reserve for active and public transport movements. |
||||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Simplify Framework Plan description of Clever and Creative Corridor components |
Not supported. The framework plan outlines a 14-metre land allocation to create a dedicated, separated median reserve for active and public transport movements. The remaining content is supported by technical studies (AECOM) and the community-led vision for A Clever and Creative Future. |
||||
Planning process Integrated water management |
Add Framework Plan Integrated Water Management heading/text including expectations PSPs will evolve detail |
The Framework Plan is intended to inform detailed planning of PSPs. For clarity, a brief introductory section will be added to the Framework Plan to explain the role of the Framework Plan in providing high level guidance that will be refined by detailed planning at PSP stage. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Action N1.2.2: change “maintain and enhance the” to “seek to reduce impacts on” |
Not supported. PSP process will included detailed design of waterways. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Action N1.2.8: add “Where possible,” at beginning |
Not supported. PSP process will included detailed design of waterways. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Reword Action N.1.3.1 to include lifting of Environmental Significance Overlay when PSPs incorporated into GGPS |
Not supported. A biodiversity conservation strategy will establish the presence of native flora and fauna and determine its retention, offset or removal in the Northern Geelong Growth Area. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Reword Action N.1.3.2: “Investigate the feasibility of creating ...” |
Not supported. Biodiversity linkages are important for retaining and enhancing biodiversity values in the urban environment. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Action N1.3.4: add “significant” before “vegetation” |
Not supported. A biodiversity conservation strategy will establish the presence of native flora and fauna and determine its retention, offset or removal in the Northern Geelong Growth Area. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Action N1.3.7: delete no net loss of native vegetation, provide flexibility for offsets outside NWGGA |
Deleting no net loss of native vegetation is not supported. A biodiversity conservation strategy will determine the presence and management of significant flora and fauna and ecological communities. Offsets may be able to be sourced outside NWGGA, subject to the outcomes of the biodiversity conservation strategy. Amend wording accordingly. |
||||
Heritage |
Action N1.4.1: add “through approved Cultural Heritage Management Plans” |
Not supported. PSP process will included detailed consideration of heritage. |
||||
Heritage |
Action N1.5.3: add “Significant” at beginning |
Not supported. PSP process will included detailed consideration of heritage. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - NGGA |
Consolidate Actions N1.6.2, N1.6.3 and N1.6.4 into a single action |
Not supported. |
||||
Utilities (Gas pipelines) |
Action N1.6.8: replace 570 m with 350 m, reflecting Safety Management Strategy |
Liaise with APA. Further consideration required. Refer to Panel. |
||||
Utilities (Gas pipelines) |
Deep concerns about potential operation of a 570 m measurement length |
Liaise with APA. Further consideration required. Refer to Panel. |
||||
Supporting land uses |
Delete Action N1.7.4 as it duplicates Action N1.6.1 |
Not supported. These actions relate separately to rural living areas inside and outside the Northern Geelong Growth Area. |
||||
Supporting land uses |
Action N1.7.7: change buffers to “separation”, indicate separation distances may reduce |
The explanatory text after the Action indicates the possibility of future reduction or removal of buffers subject to detailed investigation. Advice on LEMMP buffer has been sought from WorkSafe Victoria and EPA Victoria. |
||||
Supporting land uses |
Wish to discuss and confirm LEMMP buffer given previous agreement with operator |
For consideration. Advice on buffer has been sought from WorkSafe Victoria and EPA Victoria. Refer to Panel. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Actions N2.1.1, N3.1.1 and elsewhere: change 20-minute to 10-minute neighbourhoods |
Not supported. Plan Melbourne refers to 20-minute neighbourhoods and it is an accepted planning standard for mobility. |
||||
Other issues |
Action N2.1.7: change 400 m to 200-400 m and change 800 m to 400-800 m |
Not supported. The action provides for housing diversity within 400 m from the Clever and Creative Corridor and within 800 m from the sub-regional activity centre. This does not imply a uniform housing density within those distances. The action specifies a transition to medium density within 400 – 800 m of the sub-regional activity centre. |
||||
Other issues |
Action N2.2.1 3rd dot point to include exotic species – oppose prohibiting exotic trees |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Action N2.2.6: add sentence on arterial road reserve expectations re lanes, walkability |
Not supported. PSP process will determine detail of road network and road cross sections. |
||||
Activity centres |
Action N3.1.12: change “Three” to “four” to include requested additional activity centre |
Not supported. PSP process will determine activity centre location. |
||||
Activity centres |
Action N3.1.12: change 5000-7000 m2 to 7000-8000 m2 to allow potential tenant diversity |
Not supported. PSP process will determine activity centre location and scale. |
||||
Activity centres |
PSP will determine final form of activity centres; Framework Plan should provide sufficient flexibility |
Noted. |
||||
Other issues |
Action N4.3.4: add sentence on co-locating linear parks and open space with Corridor |
Not supported. PSP process will determine areas of passive open space. |
||||
Development sequencing Precinct boundaries |
Action N5.2.3: add flexibility for Heales Road East precinct to be delivered in two stages |
Not supported. Neighbourhood-sized precincts identified in the growth area. Broad hectare land in the subject area will assist to progress the PSP planning for the surrounding employment precinct and rural living areas. The subject area is highly visible/exposed to the broader Geelong community and delaying its development will allow for the housing market in the growth area to produce more attractive development outcomes. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests - NGGA |
Plan 03: adjust as per above changes to 21.20-5 Framework Plan map |
Not supported. PSP process will determine land use. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Plan 03: remove Major Watercourse from drawing key (none in Northern Geelong Growth Area) |
Not supported. PSP process will included detailed design of waterways. Cowies Creek is visible on the plan set. |
||||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Plan 05: revise Clever and Creative Corridor and arterial road alignments |
Not supported. PSP process will determine detail of road network. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Plan 07: reduce waterways, remove some minor watercourses |
Not supported. PSP process will included detailed design of waterways. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Plan 07: add indicative piped waterway, indicative wetland/retarding basin |
Not supported. PSP process will included detailed design of waterways. |
||||
Activity centres Clever and Creative Corridor Integrated transport network |
Plan 23: revise activity centre locations, arterial roads and Clever and Creative Corridor |
Not supported. PSP process will determine land use. |
||||
Activity centres |
Plan 28: revise as per above changes to 21.20-5 Framework Plan map re activity centres |
Not supported. PSP process will determine activity centre location. |
||||
Utilities (Gas pipeline) |
Plan 28: add APA gas main and indicate 350 m measurement length |
Not supported. The gas pipeline is shown on Plan 12 and does not need to be replicated on Plan 28. APA will be consulted during the PSP process in determining precise activity centre locations. |
||||
Development sequencing Precinct boundaries |
Plan 46: identify land in Heales Rd East precinct as Potential Medium Term Release |
Not supported. Neighbourhood-sized precincts identified in the growth area. Broad hectare land in the subject area will assist to progress the PSP planning for the surrounding employment precinct and rural living areas. The subject area is highly visible/exposed to the broader Geelong community and delaying its development will allow for the housing market in the growth area to produce more attractive development outcomes. |
||||
Development sequencing Precinct boundaries |
Plan 46 change allows delivery of monocline parkland and early social infrastructure |
Not supported. Neighbourhood-sized precincts identified in the growth area. Broad hectare land in the subject area will assist to progress the PSP planning for the surrounding employment precinct and rural living areas. The subject area is highly visible/exposed to the broader Geelong community and delaying its development will allow for the housing market in the growth area to produce more attractive development outcomes. |
||||
56 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
|
Support Amendment |
Noted. |
Precinct boundaries |
Include 370 Ballarat Road, Batesford in Creamery Road precinct not Batesford South |
Not supported. The inclusion of land to the south of the Midland Highway within the Creamery Road precinct may result in an isolated community physically remote from the majority of the proposed Creamery Road precinct. The inclusion of the land would also trigger the requirement for a Moorabool River master planning process, at least in part, that is currently envisaged as a comprehensive and holistic component of the Batesford South PSP; the inclusion of this process within the Creamery Road PSP is likely to significantly delay the planning of the initial precinct. |
||||
57 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
|
Support rezoning land for development in NWGGA |
Noted. |
Precinct boundaries |
Include 280-320 Ballarat Road, Batesford in Creamery Road precinct |
Not supported. The inclusion of land to the south of the Midland Highway within the Creamery Road precinct may result in an isolated community physically remote from the majority of the proposed Creamery Road precinct. The inclusion of the land would also trigger the requirement for a Moorabool River master planning process, at least in part, that is currently envisaged as a comprehensive and holistic component of the Batesford South PSP; the inclusion of this process within the Creamery Road PSP is likely to significantly delay the planning of the initial precinct. |
||||
58 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Planning process |
Resident not notified of changes to Evans Road |
Not supported. All rural living properties received written notification of the draft future urban structure plan as part of the May-June 2018 community engagement process and the June 2019 public exhibition of Amendment C395. |
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Will lose all residential land due to Clever and Creative Corridor |
Not supported. Land acquisition to enable the delivery of the Clever and Creative Corridor is subject to detailed design as part of the future precinct structure planning process and will generally follow the existing alignment of Evans Road. Land uses adjoining the Clever and Creative Corridor only apply to land within the growth area boundaries. Plan 5 Clever and Creative Corridor in the framework plan that illustrates the 400-metre walkable catchment of the Clever and Creative Corridor will be amended to remove the catchment from the land area between the two growth areas on both sides of Evans Road. |
||||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
400 m catchment means 200 m will be acquired from submitter’s property |
Not supported. Land acquisition to enable the delivery of the Clever and Creative Corridor is subject to detailed design as part of the future precinct structure planning process and will generally follow the existing alignment of Evans Road. Land uses adjoining the Clever and Creative Corridor only apply to land within the growth area boundaries. Plan 5 Clever and Creative Corridor in the framework plan that illustrates the 400-metre walkable catchment of the Clever and Creative Corridor will be amended to remove the catchment from the land area between the two growth areas on both sides of Evans Road. |
||||
Planning process |
Proper research is required in designing proposals |
Supported. |
||||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Approximately 30 houses east of Evans Road will be disturbed by Corridor |
Not supported. Land acquisition to enable the delivery of the Clever and Creative Corridor is subject to detailed design as part of the future precinct structure planning process and will generally follow the existing alignment of Evans Road. Land uses adjoining the Clever and Creative Corridor only apply to land within the growth area boundaries. Plan 5 Clever and Creative Corridor in the framework plan that illustrates the 400-metre walkable catchment of the Clever and Creative Corridor will be amended to remove the catchment from the land area between the two growth areas on both sides of Evans Road. |
||||
Land acquisition |
Seek written assurance there will be no acquisition of submitter’s land |
Not supported. Land acquisition to enable the delivery of the Clever and Creative Corridor is subject to detailed design as part of the future precinct structure planning process and will generally follow the existing alignment of Evans Road. |
||||
59 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Surrounding land uses |
Noise (existing) key concern with proposed function centre at 20 Evans Road |
Noted. |
Surrounding land uses |
Concerned by potential residential noise impact on quiet rural living neighbourhood |
Noted. The noise controls of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2018 apply to the growth areas. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Elevated nature of 20 Evans Road means noise will carry and impact residents for miles |
Noted. The noise controls of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2018 apply to the growth areas. Separate guidelines apply to commercial noise. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
All new residential lots (particularly 20 Evans Rd) must have noise restrictions on Titles |
Not supported. The primary object of the growth areas is to facilitate sustainable urban development for Geelong’s future growth as outlined in state policy (G21 Regional Growth Plan). The noise controls of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2018 apply to the growth areas. Separate guidelines apply to commercial noise. Further noise controls by way of restrictions on title are not supported. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Noise restrictions must require music noise be kept within each residential lot boundary |
Not supported. The noise controls of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2018 apply to the growth areas. Further noise controls by way of restrictions on title are not supported. |
||||
Planning process |
Request opportunity to be consulted with before Settlement Strategy and Western Geelong Growth Area decided |
Supported in part. Submission has been referred to Planning Panels Victoria. Submitter will have opportunity to present to Panel. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
List of noise issues to be discussed and agreed upon |
Not supported. The noise controls of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2018 apply to the growth areas. Further noise controls by way of restrictions on title are not supported. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Neighbourhood will lose amenity without appropriate amenity protection measures |
Not supported. Cowies Creek provides a substantial land use buffer to urban development that will occur in the Creamery Road precinct. |
||||
60 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
|
Broadly support Amendment and commend work on Framework Plan |
Noted. |
|
Submitter is a significant landholder in Western Geelong Growth Area |
Noted. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Significant engineering constraints with Church Street extension |
Supported in part. The City will undertake future investigations of a potential connection to Church Street as part of the relevant precinct structure plan and/or as part of future consideration of upgrades to the Geelong Ring Road. The City acknowledges the complexity of the topography in proximity to Church Street. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Show alternative Church Street extension alignment on Framework Plan |
Not supported. The framework plan illustrates a direct connection to Church Street in absence of detailed planning investigations. The future alignment of a connection may deviate from the illustrated connection based on a number of factors, including topography, as part of a future detailed investigation. |
||||
Integrated transport network Development levies |
Resolve ultimate Church St alignment before resolving WGGA developer contributions |
Not supported. Resolution of the alignment of connection to Church Street will be resolved as part of the Batesford South PSP process, if not before as part of future planning for the Geelong Ring Road. Functional design and costing of the road connection will occur in conjunction with master planning of the Moorabool River corridor. The City does not anticipate this work to occur prior to the commencement of development in short term precincts within the Western Geelong Growth Area. |
||||
Development levies |
Support inclusion of a standardised Regional ICP (RICP) for NWGGA |
Supported in part. The mechanism for the collection of the development levies in the growth areas is not considered by the framework plan. The City has been informed by DELWP and the VPA that policy is currently being prepared to apply the Infrastructure Contributions Plan (ICP) to greenfield developments in regional Victoria, including Greater Geelong. The City generally supports the introduction of the ICP to support the funding of infrastructure in the growth areas. The City notionally supports the strategic intent of the universal application of development levies throughout the Western Geelong Growth Area, noting that several large transport infrastructure projects will be required within individual precincts that provide a wider benefit to the entire growth area. The City will continue to work with DELWP and the VPA to establish the appropriate mechanism for funding state and local infrastructure in the growth areas throughout 2020. |
||||
Development levies |
RICP infrastructure items must be priced and apportioned prior to resolving first PSPs |
Not supported. Short-term precincts in the growth area do not rely on the delivery of all infrastructure items within the growth area. |
||||
Development levies |
Establish RICP charge for each Growth Area (or mechanism for this) as part of this Amendment |
Not supported. The framework plan does not outline infrastructure costings. The mechanism for the collection of the development levies in the growth areas is not considered by the framework plan. The City has been informed by DELWP and the VPA that policy is currently being prepared to apply the Infrastructure Contributions Plan (ICP) to greenfield developments in regional Victoria, including Greater Geelong. |
||||
Precinct boundaries |
Shift eastern boundary of McCanns Lane precinct eastward (preferred alignment shown) |
Supported in part. Boundary realignment will allow drainage outfall directly north of the Hamilton Highway and east of at McCanns Lane; however, the northern section of the land proposed for inclusion within McCanns Lane PSP may create stormwater drainage flows through neighbouring land in Batesford South PSP. Further investigation required. |
||||
Precinct boundaries |
McCanns La precinct boundary shift allows more efficient servicing, land unconstrained |
Supported in part. Boundary realignment will allow drainage outfall directly north of the Hamilton Highway and east of at McCanns Lane; however, the northern section of the land proposed for inclusion within McCanns Lane PSP may create stormwater drainage flows through neighbouring land in Batesford South PSP. Further investigation required. |
||||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Delete specific measurements for Clever and Creative Corridor to allow flexibility in PSPs |
Not supported. The framework plan outlines a 14-metre land allocation to create a dedicated, separated median reserve for active and public transport movements. |
||||
Other issues |
Plan 21 shows wrong land as The Dog Rocks – Dog Rocks is to the north |
Supported. Amend plan. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Work with Barwon Water to ensure a Wastewater Treatment Plant in or near the Western Geelong Growth Area won’t prejudice Framework Plan outcomes |
Supported. |
||||
Planning process |
Ensure all relevant documentation allows flexibility for evolving outcomes at PSP stage |
The Framework Plan is intended to inform detailed planning of PSPs. For clarity, a brief introductory section will be added to the Framework Plan to explain the role of the Framework Plan in providing high level guidance that will be refined by detailed planning at PSP stage. |
||||
|
|
|
Commend work on Settlement Strategy |
Noted. |
||
|
Support SS growth rate assumption, directions on greenfield growth, housing diversity |
Noted. |
||||
Planning process |
Settlement Strategy page 70: lessen the issues to be addressed in a report before undertaking PSP to avoid duplication |
Not supported. If matters are duplicated they will not need to be undertaken. For completeness the Strategy should express the full range of considerations. |
||||
61 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
|
Support the Amendment and proposed activity centres |
Supported. |
|
Support investigating and potentially rezoning Tower Hill Drive area for urban subdivision |
Supported. |
||||
62 |
Morgan & Griffin and Barwon Water |
|
|
Housing markets |
21.06-1: Ocean Grove growth rate significantly higher than 2.5% pa – need more land supply |
Not supported. Municipal wide supply considered not town by town or markets. |
Housing markets |
21.06-2: Identified alternatives (to Bellarine) not desirable to all future residents |
Not supported. |
||||
Logical inclusions |
21.06-8: note initiative to establish a process for logical inclusions |
Noted. However DAL process will consider township boundaries on the Bellarine. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
21.14-3: note Ocean Grove identified as District Town rather than Growth Area |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
21.14-4: support retaining Further Work item for review of Ocean Grove Structure Plan by 2021 |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Amend 21.14 to include updated Ocean Grove Structure Plan as per rezoning request in this submission |
Not supported. Premature. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Detailed [over 1200 pages] rezoning request for 201-209 and 231-299 Grubb Road |
Noted. Rezoning cannot be considered prior to settlement boundary being considered. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Detailed updated specialist assessments included with rezoning request |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Rezone site from Farming Zone and Public Use Zone to General Residential Zone and Mixed Use Zone and apply Development Plan Overlay |
Not supported. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Consider rezoning request as part of ultimate review of Clause 21.14 |
Not supported. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Rezoning request provides for a range of housing types and community infrastructure |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Rezoning request includes land previously identified for urban in Ocean Grove Structure Plans |
Noted. However when the land was removed from the recent Ocean Grove Structure Plan it was noted no strategic work had been undertaken when it was included as an ‘option’ in the 2007 version. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Rezoning request consistent with 2007, 2015 Ocean Grove Structure Plans and G21 Region Growth Areas Framework |
Not supported. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Rezoning request avoids any loss of high value agricultural land |
DAL process will determine boundaries. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Rezoning request facilitates enduring long term settlement boundary |
DAL process will determine boundaries. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Site contains no significant flora, fauna, cultural heritage, contamination |
DAL process will determine boundaries. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Site includes surplus Barwon Water land too small to sustain agricultural land uses |
DAL process will determine boundaries. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Site has minimal landscape values, is largely cleared |
DAL process will determine boundaries. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Development on site will not detract from landscape values of land south and west of site |
DAL process will determine boundaries. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Site is readily serviceable |
DAL process will determine boundaries. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Development on site can be designed to significantly reduce bushfire risk |
DAL process will determine boundaries. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Site suitable within enduring settlement boundary given proximity to commercial/services |
DAL process will determine boundaries. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Exhaustive planning process and roadmap for assessment of site already achieved |
DAL process will determine boundaries. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Request no change existing planning strategy context re site pending 2021 Ocean Grove Structure Plan review |
DAL process will determine boundaries. |
||||
63 |
Mount Duneed Developments P/L |
|
|
Other township issues |
Amend Settlement Strategy and GGPS (including 21.11) to identify southwest precinct of Armstrong Creek residential |
Not supported. Outside scope of this amendment. The Armstrong Creek Framework Plan provides the overarching principles for development. The City is committed to delivering employment opportunities close to where people live consistent with state policy. |
Other township issues |
Settlement Strategy presents opportunity to review planning for Armstrong Creek Growth Area (ACGA) |
Not supported. |
||||
Other township issues |
Revisit Employment Precinct in SW of ACGA in context of changing Geelong economy |
Not supported. |
||||
Other township issues |
Southwest of ACGA no longer encumbered for sensitive uses by Boral quarry |
Noted. |
||||
Other township issues |
Unrealistic to create one job per household in ACGA |
Not supported. |
||||
Other township issues |
Southwest of ACGA not suitable location for major businesses and investment |
Not supported. |
||||
Other township issues |
No reasonable prospect southwest of ACGA will develop for employment in medium-long term |
Not supported. |
||||
Other township issues |
Much greater community benefit if southwest of ACGA is residential in short-medium term |
Not supported. Employment precincts always take longer to establish than residential precincts. |
||||
64 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Land use and zoning requests – WGGA Surrounding land uses |
Western Geelong Growth Area Employment area inappropriately located due to impacts on adjacent farms |
Not supported. The Enquiry by Design workshop considered the location of the employment area in the Western Geelong Growth Area. The preferred location avoids river corridors and areas of high amenity or conservation value, and provides convenient access to the Geelong Ring Road, Hamilton Highway and Midland Highway. |
Land use and zoning requests – WGGA Surrounding land uses |
Employment area will have visual, noise, traffic and emissions impacts on farms |
Not supported. The employment area will support light industrial and commercial uses and requires an urban design framework as part of the relevant precinct structure planning process. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Submitter’s vineyard is sensitive to chemical contamination and herbicide spray drift |
Noted. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests – NGGA |
Employment area better located within the development or where it exists in Fyansford |
Not supported. The future population of the growth area generates demand for the employment area. |
||||
Surrounding land uses |
Need gradual transition to rural environment rather than sudden change at interface |
Supported in part. An urban design framework will consider rural interfaces as part of the relevant precinct structure planning process. |
||||
65 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Land use and zoning requests – WGGA |
Oppose identification of 540-600 Hamilton Highway for Employment |
Noted. |
Land use and zoning requests – WGGA |
Uncomfortable with proposal that would clear site – many trees planted and maintained |
An urban design framework will consider site features as part of the relevant precinct structure planning process. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests – WGGA |
At least some of site should be Residential due to exceptional views to nearby hills |
Not supported. The future population of the growth area generates demand for the employment area. |
||||
66 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Land use and zoning requests – WGGA |
Do not identify 245 Fyansford-Gheringhap Road as Employment |
Not supported. The Enquiry by Design workshop considered the location of the employment area in the Western Geelong Growth Area. |
Land use and zoning requests – WGGA |
Property unsuitable for Employment as it is elevated and encased by cypress trees |
Not supported An urban design framework will consider site features as part of the relevant precinct structure planning process. |
||||
67 |
Park Street Group |
|
|
DAL program |
How will Bellarine Peninsula be protected before DAL finalised mid-2020? |
Council is not planning any major strategic work until the DAL work is completed. The DAL will then inform the future direction of the Bellarine. |
DAL program |
DALs feedback shows widespread concern re managing urban growth on the Bellarine |
Noted. |
||||
Other issues |
Planning permit objection and VCAT processes are daunting for residents |
Noted. |
||||
Supporting submissions |
No need to extend Portarlington settlement boundary to support future population growth |
Noted. |
||||
Other township issues |
Support protecting character of Portarlington as small seaside village |
Noted. |
||||
Other township issues |
Amend Portarlington Structure Plan to preserve low scale coastal village characteristics |
Not supported. The DAL process will consider building height. |
||||
Other township issues |
Integrate Portarlington town centre/pier/foreshore with low scale development |
Noted. The DAL process will consider building height. |
||||
Other township issues |
Support providing retail, commercial, community facilities in the town to meet daily needs |
Noted. |
||||
Other township issues |
Support providing variety of housing types/sizes to allow residents to downsize |
Noted. |
||||
Other township issues |
Support promoting low scale housing designs which strengthen coastal village character |
Noted. |
||||
Other township issues |
Support road design and pedestrian access catering for safety of families and elderly |
Noted. |
||||
Other township issues |
Support provision of Neighbourhood House within walking distance of shopping centre |
Noted. |
||||
Other township issues |
Support tourism providing infrastructure, services, accommodation retaining character |
Noted. |
||||
Other township issues |
Support availability of zoned industrial land as an option to service the town |
Noted. |
||||
Other township issues |
Need affordable long term rental accommodation options |
Noted. Out of scope of the Settlement Strategy. |
||||
Other township issues |
Short term accommodation has increased rents and decreased rental availability |
Noted. |
||||
68 |
People For A Living Moorabool |
|
|
Biodiversity |
Moorabool River most flow stressed in Victoria |
Noted. |
Integrated water management |
Recoursing of river for Batesford Quarry has damaged river and affected flows |
Noted. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Any assumption quarry lake once fill will return flow to river is highly suspect |
Noted. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Repair and restore river bed and banks as priority prior to residential land release |
Supported in part. The relevant precinct structure plan will outline master planning of the Moorabool River corridor and it will occur as part of urban development. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Nutrient loads from Western Geelong Growth Area may impact Moorabool and Barwon |
Noted. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Drainage from residential developments should ensure no impact on river nutrient loads |
Supported. The relevant precinct structure plan will outline master planning of the Moorabool River corridor and it will occur as part of urban development. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Biolink through Moorabool River should be planned, adequately funded, protected |
Supported. The relevant precinct structure plan will outline master planning of the Moorabool River corridor and it will occur as part of urban development. |
||||
69 |
Portarlington Community Association Inc |
|
|
Supporting submissions |
21-06: appreciate recognition of impact of growth rate on Bellarine character and values |
Noted. |
Supporting submissions |
Appreciate objectives to minimise development impact on rural areas and maintain unique values |
Noted. |
||||
Other issues |
21-06: not clear in Strategies how these objectives will be achieved |
Objectives will be achieved by introducing permanent boundaries. Existing Structure Plans, G21 Regional Growth Plan and Localised Planning Statement provide guidance. |
||||
Other issues |
21.06: need clear guidance on what makes Bellarine and its towns unique |
DAL process will include a planning policy statement to express this. |
||||
Other township issues |
21.14-1: Portarlington demographics, lifestyle and transport not adequately recognised |
Individual township planning is beyond the scope of the Settlement Strategy. |
||||
Other issues |
21.14-2: carry out natural systems mapping to identify iconic views, ecological values |
The DAL process will look at environmental and landscape features. |
||||
Other issues |
21.14-2: identify different roles/functions of towns in a hierarchy |
This is already expressed in the G21 Regional Growth Plan, Localised Planning Statement and Planning Scheme. |
||||
Other issues |
21.14-3: development should be consistent with identify/preferred character of individual town |
Agreed. Principle included in existing and proposed policy. |
||||
Other issues |
21.14-3: discourage large box type unit development |
In reference to IHDAs this is covered in policy in Clause 22.63 of the GGPS |
||||
Other issues |
21.14-3: require gradation of height and bulk of dwellings particularly above ground floor |
In reference to IHDAs this is covered in policy in Clause 22.63 of the GGPS |
||||
Other issues |
21.14-3: change “generally in accordance” to “in accordance” |
Disagree. Need to leave some opportunity for merit based proposals. |
||||
Other issues |
21.14-3: development outside of settlement boundaries should not include residential, commercial |
Outside scope of Settlement Strategy. Some residential and commercial uses will support farming and should be considered on merit. |
||||
Other township issues |
21.14-3: for northern Bellarine towns, need better design outcomes by reducing bulk |
DAL has flagged will look at heights. The Settlement Strategy also notes a heights review is required as a result of VC110. |
||||
Other issues |
21.14-3: consider encouraging/incentives for incorporating above ground vegetation plantations |
Current policy includes ‘Ensuring that development allows for the protection of significant vegetation and/or planting around buildings’ |
||||
Other township issues |
21.14-3: recognise Portarlington as tourist destination with foreshore camping |
Beyond scope of Settlement Strategy see Structure Plan |
||||
Other township issues |
21.14-3: ensure high urban design standard sympathetic to coastal ambience |
Beyond scope of Settlement Strategy - majority of urban design concerns are covered in existing neighbourhood and township character provisions in scheme. |
||||
Other township issues |
21.14-3: discourage new residential development from dominating landscape |
As above |
||||
Other township issues |
21.14-3: Portarlington, Indented Head, St Leonards foreshore development should be sympathetic to environmental conditions |
As above |
||||
Other township issues |
21.14-3: avoid use of elevated concrete slabs and instead encourage piers |
Beyond scope of Settlement Strategy and amendment |
||||
Other township issues |
21.14-3: reduce development in foreshore areas and address climate change holistically |
DAL & Structure Plan address |
||||
Other township issues |
21.14-3: ensure affordable long term rental accommodation not displaced by short term |
Beyond Settlement Strategy scope |
||||
Other township issues |
21.14-3: delete support redevelopment of CFA station – has been redeveloped |
Beyond scope of Settlement Strategy and amendment - consider at MSS review. |
||||
Other township issues |
21.14-3: add point supporting comprehensive redevelopment of Portarlington Recreation Reserve |
Beyond Settlement Strategy scope |
||||
Other township issues |
21.14-4: given VC110, apply Neighbourhood Residential Zone to Portarlington to protect low scale coastal character |
Noted – review of zone application flagged already |
||||
Other township issues |
21.14-4: assure Portarlington Residential Growth Zone Schedule 3 is functioning as intended with sloping scale |
Noted – review of zone application flagged already |
||||
70 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
|
Generally support Amendment |
Noted. |
Integrated water management |
Remove stormwater detention basin from 330 Heales Road, 415 Bacchus Marsh Road |
Not supported. Future urban structure plan relies on detailed technical studies relating to stormwater management. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Premature to identify significant stormwater basin on investigation only land |
Not supported. Future urban structure plan relies on detailed technical studies relating to stormwater management. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Integrated Water Management Strategy likely to reduce size of required stormwater infrastructure |
Supported in part. Stormwater management in areas of rural living will be subject to detailed investigation including consideration of alternative solutions as part of the relevant precinct structure plan and will seek to minimise impacts on individual properties, where practicable. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Sequencing conflicts and alternative issues cast doubt on siting of basin on site |
Supported in part. Stormwater management in areas of rural living will be subject to detailed investigation including consideration of alternative solutions as part of the relevant precinct structure plan and will seek to minimise impacts on individual properties, where practicable. |
||||
71 |
Property Corporate Holdings P/L |
|
|
Settlement boundaries |
70 Baenschs Lane, Connewarre is a logical inclusion within ACGA boundary |
Not supported. The logical inclusions process will determine this. |
Settlement boundaries |
Site was designated Residential in Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan Vol 1 (2008, amended 2010) |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
AC Framework Plan excluded land in southeast when Armstrong Creek Growth Area (ACGA) incorporated into GGPS |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Land adjacent to the site was zoned Urban Growth Zone and included in ACGA by C301 in 2017 |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Site similar to land rezoned by C301 |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries Logical inclusions process |
Sites suitable for logical inclusions should be considered prior to approval of C395 |
Not supported. The logical inclusions process will commence upon the finalisation of the amendment. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Resolve settlement boundaries or identify investigation areas before C395 approval |
Not supported. The strategic work has not been done to allow this. The amendment provides policy direction only. |
||||
Logical inclusions process |
Submitter willing to commission technical reports to confirm site’s logical inclusion status |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries Logical inclusions process |
Establishment of permanent settlement boundary and logical inclusions are at odds |
Disagree. Logical inclusions will inform the boundary. |
||||
Logical inclusions process |
Site can address logical inclusions criteria applied for Melbourne Urban Growth boundary 2011/12 |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Barwon Heads Road and C301 approval result in good accessibility to services from site |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Including site in ACGA will improve utilisation of neighbourhood centre and rec facilities |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
ACGA land near Lake Connewarre Wildlife Reserve shows urban development okay near natural landscape settings |
Not supported. This needs to be considered on a case by case basis. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Sketch provided showing potential holistic outcome for site/environs in ACGA context |
Noted. |
||||
72 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Land use and zoning requests – NGGA |
According to Framework Plan area is changed to residential |
Not supported. The subject land is subject to future investigation of residential development. |
Land use and zoning requests – NGGA |
Request property remain rural, not residential |
Not supported. The subject land is subject to future investigation of residential development. The subject land may remain as rural living based on future investigations to inform the relevant precinct structure plan. |
||||
73 |
Purdies Paddock Development P/L |
|
|
Settlement boundaries |
Rezone 55 & 75 Williams Rd Mount Duneed to Urban Growth Zone |
Not supported. A logical inclusions process post the finalisation of the amendment will inform potential rezonings. |
Settlement boundaries |
If rezoning request not supported, quickly establish logical inclusions process |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Subdivisions approved to north and east which can integrate with res development of site |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
C138 Panel did not consider zoning of site as owners did not make a submission |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Approved residential development mitigates against limited significance of Mount Duneed viewshed |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Indicative subdivision layout for site provided |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Net community benefit from subdivision of site (roads, drainage, path, sewer, water) |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
All reticulated urban services can be extended to site |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Mount Duneed Regional Primary School supports and sees benefits in proposal |
Noted. |
||||
Logical inclusions process |
Site meets logical inclusions criteria applied for Melbourne Urban Growth boundary |
Noted. |
||||
74 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Surrounding land uses |
Why is Employment land not kept east of Bacchus Marsh Road? |
Not supported. The future population of the growth area generates demand for the employment area. |
Land use and zoning requests – NGGA |
Can McNeill Court be considered for residential development? |
Not supported. McNeill Court is within the buffer to the GREP. |
||||
75 |
Ramsey Property Group |
|
|
|
Broadly support Amendment and Framework Plan |
Noted. |
|
Represent over half the land ownership of the Creamery Road precinct of WGGA |
Noted. |
||||
Development sequencing |
Support Framework Plan delivery process identifying Creamery Road as first PSP in Western Geelong Growth Area |
Noted. |
||||
Development sequencing |
Amendment documents should specifically commit to Creamery Road as first PSP in Western Geelong Growth Area |
Not supported. Framework Plan outlines short-term precincts. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests – WGGA |
Amendment docs should allow higher density development and housing diversity in parts of precinct |
Not supported. Housing densities outlined as part of PSP process. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Amend Framework Plan to allow for Waterway corridor widths to be designed during PSP process |
Supported in part. The PSP process will determine waterways widths. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Waterway corridor width design to minimise unnecessary land take |
Supported in part. The PSP process will determine waterways widths. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Waterway corridor width design to include review, discuss with relevant water authorities |
Supported in part. The PSP process will determine waterways widths. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Waterway corridor width design to balance environment, heritage, land development needs |
Supported in part. The PSP process will determine waterways widths. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Waterway corridor width design to respond to topography of surrounding land |
Supported in part. The PSP process will determine waterways widths. |
||||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Clever and Creative Corridor width creates psychological urban barrier, not human scale |
Not supported. The framework plan outlines a 14-metre land allocation to create a dedicated, separated median reserve for active and public transport movements. |
||||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Amend Framework Plan to allow alternative Clever and Creative Corridor designs |
Not supported. The framework plan outlines a 14-metre land allocation to create a dedicated, separated median reserve for active and public transport movements. |
||||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Clever and Creative Corridor designs should consider Department of Transport Movement and Place Guidelines (2019) |
Supported in part. Department of Transport will be consulted as a key stakeholder as part of the PSP process. |
||||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Clever and Creative Corridor should represent best practice with greater emphasis on amenity impacts |
Supported in part. Design of the Corridor will occur in detail as part of the PSP process. |
||||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Clever and Creative Corridor designs should reflect likely use, demand and frequency of public transport |
Supported. The framework plan outlines a 14-metre land allocation to create a dedicated, separated median reserve for active and public transport movements. |
||||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Explore ‘grassing” tracks for green relief and reducing need for Clever and Creative Corridor landscape buffer |
Supported in part. Design of the Corridor will occur in detail as part of the PSP process. |
||||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Clever and Creative Corridor designs should provide canopy trees adjacent to footpaths |
Supported in part. Design of the Corridor will occur in detail as part of the PSP process. |
||||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Place Clever and Creative Corridor bike lanes next to kerb or public transport lanes, not between car parks, traffic |
Supported in part. Design of the Corridor will occur in detail as part of the PSP process. |
||||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Ensure direct public transport opportunities between Clever and Creative Corridor and Western Geelong Growth Area Employment |
Supported. |
||||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Consider need for car parking along Clever and Creative Corridor and where appropriate remove spaces |
Supported in part. Design of the Corridor will occur in detail as part of the PSP process. |
||||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Remove Clever and Creative Corridor dimensions from Framework Plan |
Not supported. The framework plan outlines a 14-metre land allocation to create a dedicated, separated median reserve for active and public transport movements. |
||||
Development levies |
Council, Government commit to work with owners to clarify development contribution tool to be adopted |
Supported in part. The mechanism for the collection of the development levies in the growth areas is not considered by the framework plan. The City has been informed by DELWP and the VPA that policy is currently being prepared to apply the Infrastructure Contributions Plan (ICP) to greenfield developments in regional Victoria, including Greater Geelong. |
||||
Development levies |
Confirm precinct by precinct approach to applying DCP/ICP be adopted |
Not supported. The mechanism for the collection of the development levies in the growth areas is not considered by the framework plan. The City is informed by DELWP and the VPA that policy is currently being prepared to apply the Infrastructure Contributions Plan (ICP) to greenfield developments in regional Victoria, including Greater Geelong. |
||||
Development levies |
Commit to 1% allowance for reimbursing PSP costs as per Ministerial Direction |
Not supported. The mechanism for the collection of the development levies in the growth areas is not considered by the framework plan. The City is informed by DELWP and the VPA that policy is currently being prepared to apply the Infrastructure Contributions Plan (ICP) to greenfield developments in regional Victoria, including Greater Geelong. |
||||
Development levies |
State, Federal infrastructure must not be funded through DCP/ICP |
Not supported. The mechanism for the collection of the development levies in the growth areas is not considered by the framework plan. The City is informed by DELWP and the VPA that policy is currently being prepared to apply the Infrastructure Contributions Plan (ICP) to greenfield developments in regional Victoria, including Greater Geelong. |
||||
Development levies |
Undertake preparation of DCP/ICP in conjunction with PSPs |
Supported. |
||||
Planning process |
Identify sites to be acquired for local services in consultation with landowners |
Supported in part. PSP process will address. |
||||
Other issues |
Confirm “double dipping” will not apply in provision of open space |
Not supported. The PSP process will determine the mechanisms for the delivery of open space in the growth areas. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
New Framework Plan action: review Evans Road upgrade on modelling 50% public transport mode shift |
Not supported. Evans Road will require upgrade to allow movements between the growth areas. Evans Road forms part of the Clever and Creative Corridor. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
No justification or recommendation to connect to Ring Road from Creamery Road |
Not supported. Creamery Road flyover is identified for upgrades that will be determined as part of the PSP process. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Amend Plans 02, 04, 37 to Show Creamery Road flyover as an existing condition |
Not supported. Creamery Road flyover is identified for upgrades that will be determined as part of the PSP process. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Amend Framework Plan: direct traffic from Creamery Road precinct to Ring Road via Midland Highway |
Not supported. Creamery Road flyover is identified for upgrades that will be determined as part of the PSP process. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Amend Framework Plan: native vegetation removal per DELWP guidelines, offsets may be outside NWGGA |
Not supported. Undertake the biodiversity conservation strategy to determine retention, offset and removal of native vegetation. |
||||
Activity centres |
Amend Framework Plan: include one/both activity centres within Creamery Road PSP process |
Not supported. Activity centres locations to be determined as part of the PSP process. |
||||
Activity centres |
Amend Framework Plan: Creamery Road PSP activity centres location to respond to studies, final development pattern |
Not supported. Activity centres locations to be determined as part of the PSP process. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Amend Framework Plan: show waterways indicative only, not to scale, subject to detailed assessment |
Not supported. The PSP process will determine waterways widths. |
||||
Integrated water management |
New Framework Plan action: update waterways maps at PSP stage based on technical reports |
Not supported. The PSP process will determine waterways widths. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Final waterway corridors subject to design considering land survey, topography analysis |
Not supported. The PSP process will determine waterways widths. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Plan 17: replace biodiversity link in Creamery Road precinct with link along Clever and Creative Corridor |
Not supported. Biodiversity linkages will link Moorabool River and Cowies Creek corridors. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Explore potential for secondary biodiversity connected at PSP stage |
Supported in part. Design and extent of biodiversity linkages will occur in detail as part of the PSP process. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
21.20 map: arterial roads: add not to scale, subject to further traffic/movement analysis |
Not supported. PSP process will determine detail of road network. |
||||
Activity centres |
21.20 map: activity centres: add not to scale, indicative, subject to further economic/retail analysis |
Not supported. Activity centres locations to be determined as part of the PSP process. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
21.20 map: remove Geelong Ring Road upgrade connections icon at Creamery Road |
Not supported. Creamery Road flyover is identified for upgrades that will be determined as part of the PSP process. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
21.20 map: new icon at Creamery Road: existing condition – Creamery Road overpass |
Not supported. Creamery Road flyover is identified for upgrades that will be determined as part of the PSP process. |
||||
Integrated water management |
21.20 map: waterways: add not to scale, indicative, subject to future drainage/flooding studies |
Not supported. The PSP process will determine waterways widths. |
||||
76 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
|
Generally support Amendment |
Noted. |
Planning process |
Location/extent of proposed land uses better informed by detailed design |
Supported. |
||||
Other issues |
Query extent of Clever and Creative Corridor and high/medium density housing on 100 & 115 Ballan Road |
Noted. |
||||
Other issues |
Greenfield medium/high density development has been largely unsuccessful in Geelong market |
Noted. |
||||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Concerned Clever and Creative Corridor land may be warehoused and undeveloped due to lack of market |
Noted. Design of the corridor and extent of housing diversity will occur in detail as part of the PSP process. |
||||
77 |
Riverlee |
|
|
|
Support Amendment and rezoning of 355 Church Street to Urban Growth Zone |
Noted. |
Development sequencing |
Site can be developed independent of adjacent land |
Not supported. Planning of subject land in conjunction with master planning of Moorabool River and consideration of Church Street connection. |
||||
Precinct boundaries |
Site contains important Moorabool River corridor including movement network |
Supported. Planning of subject land in conjunction with master planning of Moorabool River and consideration of Church Street connection. |
||||
Precinct boundaries |
Site should not be included in a long term precinct |
Not supported. Planning of subject land in conjunction with master planning of Moorabool River and consideration of Church Street connection. |
||||
Precinct boundaries |
Include site and other land east of quarry in Creamery Road precinct or new medium term precinct |
Not supported. Planning of subject land in conjunction with master planning of Moorabool River and consideration of Church Street connection. |
||||
Precinct boundaries |
Site is physically separated from quarry and not impacted by its truck movements |
Not supported. Planning of subject land in conjunction with master planning of Moorabool River and consideration of Church Street connection. |
||||
Development sequencing |
Planning for site is unlikely to be complex compared to other parts of Western Geelong Growth Avenue |
Not supported. Planning of subject land in conjunction with master planning of Moorabool River and consideration of Church Street connection. |
||||
Development sequencing |
Interim access available to site from Beacon Avenue |
Not supported. Access is local and insufficient. |
||||
Other issues |
Plan 14 designation of site inconsistent with Douglas Partners geotechnical study |
Not supported. Framework plan content is illustrative and will be subject to detailed planning in PSP process. |
||||
Heritage |
Plan 19 identifies obsolete Heritage Overlay 1740 for elevated conveyor - deleted by C376 |
Support deleting. Amendment waiting Ministerial decision. |
||||
78 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Integrated transport network |
How will Council manage transport issues created by growth, particularly Northwest to East movements? |
Transport planning is a major part of growth area planning. Matters such as new roads, intersection upgrades and road duplications form part of the planning. The timing of such upgrades often relates to increases in population or traffic movements so may not occur when subdivisions first commence. |
Integrated transport network |
How will population get from proposed NWGGA to Bellarine Peninsula and beyond? |
Road network upgrades are being investigated. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Bellarine Link is in limbo - stops at Surf Coast Highway |
This is a VicRoads project. |
||||
79 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Land use and zoning requests – WGGA |
Zone both sides of Lynnburn Road (north of Midland Highway) Residential |
Not supported. PSP process to determine appropriate residential land uses west of Lynnburn Road. |
Land use and zoning requests – WGGA |
Residential west of Lynnburn Road means development consistent both sides of road |
Supported in part. PSP process to determine appropriate residential land uses west of Lynnburn Road. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests – WGGA |
Residential west of Lynnburn Road benefits current owners, uses services, infrastructure |
Supported in part. PSP process to determine appropriate residential land uses west of Lynnburn Road. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests – WGGA |
Residential west of Lynnburn Road a small change, still allows Batesford township buffer |
Supported in part. PSP process to determine appropriate residential land uses west of Lynnburn Road. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests – WGGA |
Land west of Lynnburn Road can accommodate drainage requirements |
Supported in part. PSP process to determine appropriate residential land uses west of Lynnburn Road. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests – WGGA |
Residential on Lynnburn Road consistent with arterial/connector road status |
Supported in part. PSP process to determine appropriate residential land uses west of Lynnburn Road. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Arterial road upgrade of Lynnburn Road would require acquisition affecting multiple lots |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Realign North-South arterial road to connect to Clever and Creative Corridor at Midland Highway (avoid Lynnburn Road) |
Not supported. Enquiry by Design process identified preference for arterial road on the western side of the quarry pit to avoid following the Moorabool River corridor and capture additional traffic movements. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Lynnburn Road north of Midland Highway should be a two-lane connector road |
Not supported. Strategic transport modelling indicates significant transport volumes for the growth area at full development. |
||||
80 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Land use and zoning requests – NGGA |
Treat 50 Oswald Avenue the same as other land west of GREP buffer |
Not supported. The submitter’s lot in Oswald Avenue, at the western end of a cul-de-sac, falls mostly outside the GREP buffer, but a different designation for only one or two lots at the end of a cul-de-sac is not supported. Oswald Avenue will remain Rural Living. |
81 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
|
Support the Amendment |
Noted. |
82 |
Shell Road Development P/L |
|
|
Settlement boundaries |
Object to designation of Ocean Grove and its future growth potential |
Noted. |
Settlement boundaries |
Amendment and Settlement Strategy fail to acknowledge Ocean Grove’s role as growth area for Bellarine and Greater Geelong broadly |
Noted. The role of the town is District Town. The ‘growth area’ designation applied years ago when new land was identified at a time when Geelong’s residential land supply dropped to a low level. It is not intended to be ‘growth area’ in perpetuity. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Amendment and Settlement Strategy seek to inappropriately curtail the role of Ocean Grove and other district towns |
No supported. They already play this role. |
||||
Settlement boundaries DAL program |
Amendment is premature as it fails to consider outcome of Bellarine DAL and SPP process |
Disagree. The DAL process is identified as an option to implement the policy objectives of the Settlement Strategy. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Preserve current policy for, designation of, Ocean Grove until Ocean Grove Structure Plan settlement boundary review |
The DAL process will look at settlement boundaries. |
||||
83 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Land use and zoning requests – NGGA |
Submitter’s property abuts vacant land being rezoned Residential |
Not supported. The neighbouring land is already zoned Urban Growth Zone. |
Land use and zoning requests – NGGA |
Submitter’s property and others included to change to Residential zoning |
Not supported. The subject land and neighbouring properties are land subject to future investigation of residential. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests – NGGA |
Object to rezoning of zoned and developed Rural Living Zone land |
Not supported. No rezoning is proposed for the subject land. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests – NGGA |
Concerned by rates increases when rezoned – consider leaving rates as is |
Not supported. No rezoning is proposed for the subject land. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests – NGGA |
Ask Council to consider leaving rates as is. |
Not supported. No rezoning is proposed for the subject land. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Framework Plan maps do not show if a road or lots will abut submitters’ property |
Not supported. PSP process to determine appropriate interface between residential land uses and rural living properties. |
||||
84 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Land use and zoning requests – WGGA |
Disregard shown for residents’ amenity – peace, seclusion, landscapes, vegetation |
Not supported. The primary object of the growth areas is to facilitate sustainable urban development for Geelong’s future growth as outlined in state policy (G21 Regional Growth Plan). |
Land use and zoning requests – WGGA |
Chose property for lifestyle and health reasons, away from busy roads, suburbia |
Noted. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests – WGGA |
Proposed development negates lifestyle submitters sought |
Noted. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests – WGGA |
Propose very low density housing with larger buffers – Pennsylvania Avenue, Ross Road, Lynnburn Road |
Not supported. The primary object of the growth areas is to facilitate sustainable urban development for Geelong’s future growth as outlined in state policy (G21 Regional Growth Plan). |
||||
Land use and zoning requests – WGGA |
Concerned by increased rates and risk of inability to service these |
Noted. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests – WGGA |
Previous concerns (future urban structure plan) not addressed, concerns ignored |
Not supported. Planning team has met with the submitter on several occasions to explain the intent of the framework plan and the state policy outlined in the G21 Regional Growth Plan. |
||||
Other issues |
Will building, development be restricted to and compliance enforced with EPA requirements? |
Not supported. Land in the growth areas will be subject to established development regulations. |
||||
Other issues |
Council variations to conduct works outside EPA requirements must be fully justified, short term |
Not supported. Land in the growth areas will be subject to established development regulations. |
||||
Other issues |
Apply rigour in meeting/exceeding EPA noise, dust, pollution, earthwork migration requirements |
Not supported. Land in the growth areas will be subject to established development regulations. |
||||
85 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
|
Concerned regarding Amendment. |
Noted. |
Surrounding land uses |
Noise (existing) key concern with proposed function centre at 20 Evans Road |
Noted. The noise controls of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2018 apply to the growth areas. |
||||
86 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Development sequencing |
Make Heales Road West the next PSP in the Northern Geelong Growth Area |
Not supported Commencement of subsequent PSPs will be a future decision of Council. |
Development sequencing |
Substantial developer interest in Emmersons Road area |
Noted. |
||||
87 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Integrated water management |
Object to Waterway along rear of Heales Road properties |
Supported in part. Stormwater management in areas of rural living will be subject to detailed investigation including consideration of alternative solutions as part of the relevant precinct structure plan and will seek to minimise impacts on individual properties, where practicable. |
Integrated transport network |
Object to upgrading Heales Road as arterial road and with traffic signals |
Not supported. Heales Road will be upgraded to an urban arterial road standard that will include controlled intersections with proposed connector streets. The functional design of the road network will be undertaken as part of the relevant precinct structure plan. |
||||
88 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Land use and zoning requests – NGGA |
Concerned no change proposed to Rural Living Zone in south of Northern Geelong Growth Area |
Noted. Land will be subject to future investigation of residential development. |
Land use and zoning requests – NGGA |
Submitters supported previous proposal to consider Low Density Residential |
Noted. Land will be subject to future investigation of residential development. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests – NGGA |
Retaining Rural Living Zone will create unkempt interface with Northern Geelong Growth Area urban development |
Supported in part. Land will be subject to future investigation of residential development. |
||||
Land use and zoning requests – NGGA |
Review and amend Northern Geelong Growth Area Rural Living Zone in line with original proposal, rezone Residential or Low Density Residential Zone |
Not supported. Land will be subject to future investigation of residential development. |
||||
89 |
Victorian Planning Authority |
|
|
|
Support Framework Plan as regionally and state significant growth opportunity |
Noted. |
|
VPA looks forward to assisting Council with future PSPs |
Noted. |
||||
|
|
Government agency submissions |
Commend Council for work and detail in Settlement Strategy |
Noted. |
||
Government agency submissions |
Generally support Settlement Strategy |
Noted. |
||||
Government agency submissions Settlement boundaries |
Consider identifying Waurn Ponds Boral landholdings future investigation area in Settlement Strategy |
Not supported. Strategic work has not been undertaken to justify this. Given current supply levels, there is no requirement to nominate new growth areas or future investigation areas beyond what is already identified in the Settlement Strategy at this time. |
||||
Government agency submissions Logical inclusions process |
Alternatively, consider Waurn Ponds Boral landholdings through logical inclusions review |
Noted. |
||||
Government agency submissions Settlement boundaries |
Special Use Zone Schedule 7 appears an anomaly as is outside indicative permanent settlement boundary |
Noted. |
||||
Government agency submissions Logical inclusions process |
Boral land could be logical inclusion within settlement boundary |
Noted. |
||||
Government agency submissions Settlement boundaries |
Boral land a substantial long term opportunity as a future Geelong community |
Noted. |
||||
Government agency submissions Settlement boundaries |
Advantage of including Boral land in Settlement Strategy: a large site in single ownership |
Noted. |
||||
Government agency submissions Settlement boundaries |
Advantage of including Boral land in Settlement Strategy: identified in G21 Regional Growth Plan as strategic employment |
Noted. |
||||
Government agency submissions Settlement boundaries |
Advantage of including Boral land in Settlement Strategy: very well located greenfield site |
Noted. |
||||
Government agency submissions Settlement boundaries |
Advantage of including Boral land in Settlement Strategy: substantial embedded infrastructure |
Noted. |
||||
Government agency submissions Settlement boundaries |
Advantage of including Boral land in Settlement Strategy: environmental rehabilitation opportunities |
Noted. |
||||
Government agency submissions Settlement boundaries |
Advantage of including Boral land in Settlement Strategy: competitive advantage to Armstrong Creek Growth Area |
Noted. |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Agree with key policy decision - direct growth to already identified growth areas ahead of new |
Noted. |
||||
90 |
Victorian Regional Channels Authority |
|
|
Government agency submissions |
Modify Settlement Strategy and Amendment: greater emphasis on potential port/residential land use conflicts |
Agree. Edit to address, as set out below. |
Government agency submissions |
2018 Port of Geelong Port Development Strategy (PDS) recognises strategic role of port |
Noted. |
||||
Government agency submissions |
18.03-1S requires planning to consider as relevant the 2013 PDS |
Noted. |
||||
Government agency submissions |
2018 PDS has similar boundaries/objectives to 2013 PDS re residential land near port |
Noted. |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Support infill development in Geelong but only in areas not compromising port operations |
Noted. |
||||
Government agency submissions |
21.06: add objective: avoid residential development within buffers of existing industry, port-related uses |
Disagree. Noted elsewhere in scheme. |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Settlement Strategy Table 12: support avoiding intensification of land in port environs |
Noted. |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Settlement Strategy Table 12: oppose extending Increased Housing Diversity Area towards bay within 800 m of North Geelong Rail Station |
Supported in part. Amend to exclude Port Environs. |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Limit development opportunity near rail stations to land outside Port Environs, currently zoned residential |
Supported in part. Agree to limiting to land outside Port Environs. However, no basis for limiting consideration to land currently zoned residential. There is land in other zones (industrial, commercial) within close proximity of the rail station but outside of the Port Environs. |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Settlement Strategy page 85 map concern: rail corridor high density investigation area includes Port Environs |
Support. Edit to exclude Port Environs. |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Settlement Strategy page 85 map: remove purple area (rail corridor higher density investigation area) “to the west” |
Supported in part. Edit to exclude Port Environs. |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Settlement Strategy page 85 map: more tightly align purple area with the rail corridor |
Supported in part. Edit to exclude Port Environs. |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Settlement Strategy page 85 map: removal purple area directly interfacing Corio Bay north of North Geelong Rail Station |
Supported in part. Edit to exclude Port Environs. |
||||
91 |
Villawood Properties |
|
|
|
Generally support Amendment |
Noted. |
Precinct boundaries |
Object to exclusion of 450 Elcho Road, Lovely Banks from Elcho Road East precinct |
Not supported. Proposed precinct boundary change provides no additional strategic justification. |
||||
Precinct boundaries |
Include 450 Elcho Road and land immediately south in Elcho Road East precinct |
Not supported. Proposed precinct boundary change provides no additional strategic justification. |
||||
Precinct boundaries |
Submitter acquired land with intent to develop land for urban in the short term |
Noted. |
||||
Precinct boundaries |
Land is centrally located adjacent to western boundary of from Elcho Road East precinct |
Not supported. Proposed precinct boundary change provides no additional strategic justification. |
||||
Precinct boundaries |
No constraint to urban development of subject land |
Noted. |
||||
Precinct boundaries |
Land can contribute to up-front infrastructure costs, not add to capacity constraints |
Not supported. Proposed precinct boundary change provides no additional strategic justification. |
||||
Precinct boundaries |
Land has role in offering housing diversity and choice within first PSP |
Not supported. Proposed precinct boundary change provides no additional strategic justification. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Subject and adjoining land affected by potential drainage reserve |
Not supported. Proposed precinct boundary change provides no additional strategic justification. |
||||
92 |
Villawood Properties and Leopold landowners |
|
|
|
Submission on behalf of landowners west of Melaluka Road, Leopold |
Noted. |
Settlement boundaries |
Object to Amendment directing district towns housing within existing boundaries without review |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
2011 Leopold Structure Plan (LSP) overdue for five-yearly review |
Noted. |
||||
Land supply and demand |
LSP based on land supply and growth assumptions now greatly exceeded |
Noted but these figures were updated as part of the Settlement Strategy. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Subject land inappropriately excluded from LSP due to flooding concerns |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Independent drainage investigation confirms land can be developed for urban |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Illustrative master plan shows how land could be developed as integrated precinct |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Amendment and DAL propose Urban Growth boundary before consultation process for logical inclusions |
Noted. DAL process will consider protected boundaries. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Formalising boundary a significant step removing flexibility to amend where justified |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Oppose blanket application of objective to protect Bellarine from additional growth |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
District towns like Leopold have infrastructure, advantages to support growth |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Refer to boundaries as interim until process to define ultimate boundary is conducted |
The boundaries are interim until the DAL process delivers protected boundaries. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Include reference to intention to conduct 5-yearly LSP review as part of boundary review |
Not supported. The Settlement Strategy flags the role of Structure Plan to be reconsidered in the future. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Clearly explain process/timing that will be used to define ultimate settlement boundary |
The DAL will be the process on the Bellarine. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Confirm process used to define ultimate settlement boundary will be a public process |
The DAL will be the process on the Bellarine. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Recognise role of district towns including Leopold - could be subject to further expansion |
The DAL will be the process on the Bellarine. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Confirm location, purpose, extent of non-urban breaks be defined in boundary definition |
The DAL will be the process on the Bellarine. |
||||
93 |
Wallington landowners |
|
|
|
Submission on behalf of landowners in Rhinds and Sproule Roads, Wallington |
Noted. |
Housing markets |
Need to recognise and accept demand for housing on Bellarine will always be strong |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Don’t preclude land between Ocean Grove, Grubb Road, Wallington & Wallington- Ocean Grove Road from future UG |
The DAL will be the process on the Bellarine to determine boundaries. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
2016 Ocean Grove Structure Plan does not support investigating future Urban Growth on subject land; 2007 Ocean Grove Structure Plan did |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
C346 Panel recommending preserving long term Urban Growth potential north, northwest, east of Ocean Grove |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
C346 Panel disagreed with removing long term boundary without further growth analysis |
Noted. The DAL will be the process on the Bellarine to determine boundaries. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Subject land should be reserved and recognised for its potential to support future growth |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Subject land is of now environmental, drainage or aesthetic significance |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Accept significance of Ocean Grove Nature Reserve but this should not preclude subject land Urban Growth |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
2016 Ocean Grove Structure Plan does not accurately reflect growth potential |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
2016 Ocean Grove Structure Plan removes long term settlement boundary, against Panel recommendations |
Noted. The DAL will be the process on the Bellarine to determine boundaries. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
More thorough review of 2016 Ocean Grove Structure Plan is required |
Noted. The DAL will be the process on the Bellarine to determine boundaries. The Settlement Strategy flags the role of SP to be reconsidered in the future. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Ocean Grove Structure Plan review of long term growth options should occur before boundary is implemented |
Noted. The DAL will be the process on the Bellarine to determine boundaries. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
DELWP should review 2016 Ocean Grove Structure Plan including role of Wallington and land north of Ocean Grove |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Determining settlement boundary before Structure Plan reviews contrary to C346 Panel recommendations |
Noted. The DAL will be the process on the Bellarine to determine boundaries. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Don’t consider subject land a rural break because Wallington is not a settlement |
Noted. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Amend Settlement Strategy so references to subject land do not preclude it as future Urban Growth option |
Not supported. The DAL will be the process on the Bellarine to determine boundaries. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Amend, for example, Figure 1 and directions under Section 1 recommendations |
Not supported. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Change LPPF (for example: 21.06, 21.14) to reflect recommended changes to Settlement Strategy |
Not supported. |
||||
94 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Supporting submissions |
Submitter’s property a location for rare/endangered flora and birds |
Noted. |
Supporting submissions |
Permanent town boundaries essential due to unprecedented growth of Bellarine |
Noted. The DAL will be the process on the Bellarine to determine boundaries. |
||||
Supporting submissions |
Failure to establish boundaries will result in loss of environmentally sensitive areas |
Noted. The DAL will be the process on the Bellarine to determine boundaries. |
||||
Supporting submissions |
Failure to establish boundaries will result in loss of scenic rural landscapes |
Noted. The DAL will be the process on the Bellarine to determine boundaries. |
||||
Supporting submissions |
Essential present Ocean Grove urban boundaries become permanent urban growth boundary |
Noted. The DAL will be the process on the Bellarine to determine boundaries. |
||||
Supporting submissions |
Urban or low density development should not be contemplated west of Grubb Road, north of Yellow Gums |
Noted. |
||||
Supporting submissions |
Development of this area would have adverse environmental, visual impacts |
Noted. |
||||
Supporting submissions |
Development of this area would have adverse impacts on Ocean Grove Nature Reserve, Barwon River wetlands |
Noted. |
||||
Supporting submissions |
Inequality as landowners, developers have more resources than residents to fight issue |
Noted. |
||||
Supporting submissions |
Protecting environment, scenic qualities more long term value than further development |
Noted. |
||||
95 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
|
Support the Amendment |
Noted. |
96 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Surrounding land use |
Concerned with effect Amendment will have on Rural Living Zone which will be surrounded by urban development |
Noted. |
Surrounding land use |
Existing zoning (between growth areas) gives no indication of what is currently within that zone |
Not supported. |
||||
Surrounding land use |
Land between Northern Geelong Growth Area & Western Geelong Growth Area is a peri-urban area, defined in 11.03-3S of GGPS |
Noted. |
||||
Planning process |
CoGG has pre-empted result of VCAT hearing re land in Western Geelong Growth Area |
Not supported. The VCAT hearing referred to regards a proposed function centre in the Western Geelong Growth Area. The amendment and Framework Plan relate to the development of two major urban growth areas over a period of several decades. The amendment and Framework Plan are separate from, and do not pre-empt, the outcome of an individual planning permit on one property within a growth area. |
||||
Surrounding land use |
Proposed activity centre is in major conflict with amenity of existing Rural Living Zone homes |
Not supported. The primary object of the growth areas is to facilitate sustainable urban development for Geelong’s future growth as outlined in state policy (G21 Regional Growth Plan). A network of activity centres will support new communities developed in the growth areas. The noise controls of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2018 apply to the growth areas. Separate guidelines apply to commercial noise. |
||||
Surrounding land use |
Why is activity centre being supported by Council when function centre was not |
Not supported. The VCAT hearing referred to regards a proposed function centre in the Western Geelong Growth Area. The amendment and Framework Plan relate to the development of two major urban growth areas over a period of several decades. The amendment and Framework Plan are separate from, and do not pre-empt, the outcome of an individual planning permit on one property within a growth area. |
||||
Surrounding land use |
Why has the effect on the Rural Living Zone (between Growth Areas) not been studied? |
Not supported. The primary object of the growth areas is to facilitate sustainable urban development for Geelong’s future growth as outlined in state policy (G21 Regional Growth Plan). |
||||
Surrounding land use |
Want buffer zone of similar Rural Living Zone around existing one to protect current ambience |
Not supported. The primary object of the growth areas is to facilitate sustainable urban development for Geelong’s future growth as outlined in state policy (G21 Regional Growth Plan). Land use interfaces to existing rural living areas will be considered as part of the relevant PSP. |
||||
Surrounding land use |
Alternatively, why has rezoning land between growth areas not been considered? |
Not supported. The G21 Regional Growth Plan did not identify the area for urban development. |
||||
Surrounding land use |
Proposal does not address 11.03-2S retain characteristics of areas impacted by growth |
Not supported. The primary object of the growth areas is to facilitate sustainable urban development for Geelong’s future growth as outlined in state policy (G21 Regional Growth Plan). Land use interfaces to existing rural living areas will be considered as part of the relevant PSP. |
||||
Heritage |
Proposal does not address 11.03-2S as it impacts Aboriginal cultural zoning |
Not supported. Aboriginal cultural heritage has been considered in the development of the Framework Plan. The Framework Plan identifies actions to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage. |
||||
97 |
Geelong Environment Council |
|
|
Biodiversity |
Appears no parklands of significant size for passive recreation and flora and fauna |
Not supported. The plan identifies Dog Rocks Flora and Fauna Sanctuary and a potential conservation area in each growth area. The relevant PSP will identify passive open space. |
Biodiversity |
Have not received requested information on parkland provision in Northern Geelong Growth Area |
Noted. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Request wide green belts provided “around the street and all areas of open space” |
Not supported. The relevant PSP will identify passive open space. |
||||
Biodiversity |
One tree should be planted on all lots |
Not supported. The relevant PSP will identify tree-planting requirements in public areas. |
||||
Biodiversity |
Submitter wishes to further discuss parks with Council if no parklands in Northern Geelong Growth Area plan |
Noted. |
||||
98 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Supporting submissions |
Support Amendment, particularly Settlement Strategy recommendations on Bellarine permanent boundaries |
Noted. |
Supporting submissions |
Unprecedented Bellarine growth rate urgently necessitates permanent boundaries |
Noted. The DAL will be the process on the Bellarine to determine boundaries. |
||||
Supporting submissions |
Failure to implement boundaries will result in loss of landscapes, environmentally sensitive areas |
Noted. |
||||
Supporting submissions |
Support 21.06, 21.14 policy/plans advocating permanent settlement boundaries |
Noted. |
||||
Supporting submissions |
Essential present Ocean Grove urban boundaries become permanent urban growth boundary |
Noted. The DAL will be the process on the Bellarine to determine boundaries. |
||||
Supporting submissions |
Urban or low density development should not be contemplated west of Grubb Road, north of Yellow Gums |
Noted. |
||||
Supporting submissions |
Development of this area would have adverse environmental, visual impacts |
Noted. |
||||
Supporting submissions |
Development of this area would have adverse impacts on Ocean Grove Nature Reserve, Barwon River wetlands |
Noted. |
||||
Supporting submissions |
Maintain existing rural green break between Ocean Grove and Wallington |
Noted. |
||||
Supporting submissions |
Further northward expansion of Ocean Grove would impact rural landscape from Bellarine Highway |
Noted. |
||||
Supporting submissions |
Banks Road forms most logical permanent eastern town boundary |
Noted. |
||||
Supporting submissions |
Urban development east of Banks Road would weaken scenic, environmentally important non-urban break |
Noted. |
||||
Supporting submissions |
Permanent Ocean Grove boundaries need to be settled once and for all by C395 |
Noted. The DAL will be the process on the Bellarine to determine boundaries. |
||||
Supporting submissions |
Revise 2016 Ocean Grove Structure Plan insofar as it states boundaries will be reviewed again |
Role of Structure Plans going forward to be reviewed in light of the DAL which will determine boundaries. |
||||
99 |
Department of Transport |
|
|
Government agency submissions |
Commend Council for developing Settlement Strategy as it provides clear long term plan for housing |
Noted. |
Government agency submissions |
Support proposed changes to 21.14 aimed at less emphasis on growth on Bellarine |
Noted. |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Page 63 1st principle, direction a: direct growth initially to areas with established transport infrastructure |
Noted. |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Page 67 2nd principle, direction c: locate social housing in areas well served by existing public transport |
Noted. |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Page71 1st principle, direction c: identify short term PSPs based on transport system ability to cater for |
Short term PSPs already identified for the Northern Geelong Growth Area and Western Geelong Growth Area |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Above direction: timing/sequencing should minimise settlement redirection from established areas |
Do not support the active prioritisation of Armstrong Creek Growth Area ahead of NWGGA. NWGGA has strong strategic support and a substantial overlap of development in NWGGA and Armstrong Creek is needed to maintain supply. |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Page 71 2nd principle, direction a: prioritise urban growth in areas where new transport infrastructure being provided |
Noted |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Above direction: areas include Armstrong Creek Growth Area, around Geelong rail corridor |
Settlement Strategy highlights opportunities for increased housing densities around rail stations. However, do not support the active prioritisation of Armstrong Creek Growth Area ahead of NWGGA. NWGGA has strong strategic support and a substantial overlap of development in NWGGA and Armstrong Creek is needed to maintain supply |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Page 71 2nd principle, direction a: consider funding NWGGA external road upgrades as part of ICP |
Noted. Regional transport impacts of NWGGA will be considered in Greater Geelong Growth Area Transport Infrastructure Study. |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Page 71 2nd principle, direction b: infrastructure needs to support sequenced, orderly release of development |
Noted |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Above direction: concentrate growth in areas with established infrastructure to support growth |
Noted. However, do not support the active prioritisation of Armstrong Creek Growth Area ahead of NWGGA. NWGGA has strong strategic support and a substantial overlap of development in NWGGA and Armstrong Creek is needed to maintain supply |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Page 71 2nd principle, direction c: support to extent Growth Area planning/policy supports public transport |
Noted |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Page 71 2nd principle, direction f: consider infill development in concert with greenfield sites such as NWGGA |
Noted. |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Page 71 2nd principle, direction h: guide release/sequencing by ability of transport infrastructure to service Growth Areas |
Supported in part. Access to existing infrastructure will be a consideration of subsequent precinct structure plans commenced in the growth areas. However, do not support the active prioritisation of Armstrong Creek Growth Area ahead of NWGGA. NWGGA has strong strategic support and a substantial overlap of development in NWGGA and Armstrong Creek is needed to maintain supply. |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Page 77 2nd principle, direction c: exclude existing transport corridors from protected areas |
DAL program being undertaken by DELWP but unlikely to impact existing transport corridors |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Page 84, 1st principle, direction a: consolidation around rail stations supported by improved rail services |
Settlement Strategy highlights opportunities for increased housing densities around rail stations. |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Above direction: how does more ambitious infill target effect NWGGA development timing? |
The rate of infill development within urban Geelong may impact on land supply and demand and hence timing of subsequent PSPs in NWGGA |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Page 84, 1st principle, direction c: reword to cover full corridor extent from North Geelong to Waurn Ponds |
Support. Amend accordingly. |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Above direction: infill opportunities also exist around Marshall and Waurn Ponds stations |
Noted |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Above direction: unlikely Breakwater station would be reactivated given current constraints |
Noted |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Page 84, 2nd principle, direction a: Figure 7 does not show Fyans area |
Noted |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Above direction: Council needs to adopt Network Operating Plan as strategic framework |
Noted |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Above direction: Central Geelong Freight Program identifies Fyans and Carr Streets as priority route |
Planning for West Fyans Key Development Area will consider freight transport implications |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Above direction: Route should be reflected in future planning for abutting land use |
Planning for West Fyans Key Development Area will consider freight transport implications |
||||
Government agency submissions |
Other directions of Settlement Strategy specifically supported |
Noted |
||||
|
|
Integrated transport network |
Support 21.08 changes to update strategies on transport and development contributions |
Supported. |
||
Integrated transport network |
Note NWGGA development will exceed transport network capacity within existing urban Geelong |
Noted. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Travel time and reliability will be negatively impacted without substantial mode shift |
Noted. |
||||
Development sequencing |
Sequencing and release of land should be carefully considered in light of above |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Department of Transport is planning a number of significant public transport projects |
Noted. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Within NWGGA, Department of Transport is planning future upgrade of Midland Highway |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Actions N4.1.1 / W4.1.1: support as aligns with Victorian Cycling Strategy aims |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Actions N4.1.2 / W4.1.2: prefer Movement/Place assessment used to prioritise transport network function |
Noted. |
||||
Development levies |
Actions N4.1.3 / W4.1.3: support subject to DCP to fund required infrastructure |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Actions N4.1.3 / W4.1.3: design commuter-based cycling infrastructure to cater for increase in e-bikes |
Supported. Address at PSP stage. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Action N4.1.4: support as working with Council to increase commuter cyclist mode share |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Action W4.1.4: river trails need to be direct as possible to encourage active transport commuting |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Action W4.1.5: support measures to mitigate steep grades to provide lower stress cycling |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Plan 35: extend shared path south along full length of Friend-in-Hand Road to Hamilton Highway |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Action N4.1.6: support measures to mitigate steep grades to provide lower stress cycling |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Actions N4.1.7 / W4.1.6: Work with Department of Transport to develop and integrate all active transport planning |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Above: Ring Road a significant East-West barrier – mitigate through investigating opportunities |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Actions N4.2.1 / W4.2.1: design all infrastructure in accordance with Department of Transport Guidelines |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Actions N4.2.1 / W4.2.1: urban Geelong network unlikely to cater for these without significant public transport use |
Noted. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Actions N4.2.1 / W4.2.1: Greater Geelong Growth Area Transport Infrastructure Study needs to provide strategic direction on above |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Actions N4.2.2 / W4.2.2: prefer Movement/Place assessment used to prioritise transport network function |
Noted. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Actions N4.2.2 / W4.2.2: CoGG needs to work with Department of Transport to develop/integrate public transport planning |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Actions N4.2.4 / W4.2.4: Day one public transport to be provided using developer funded shuttle services |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Actions N4.2.4 / W4.2.4: Day one services should include to train stations and off-peak |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Actions N4.2.4 / W4.2.4: bus network extension likely when patronage numbers warrant |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Above: funding will be considered and prioritised on state-wide basis |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Actions N4.2.6 / W4.2.6: upgrades to be informed by Greater Geelong Growth Area Transport Infrastructure Study, robust infrastructure delivery plan, ICP |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Page 201: reword to align with Action W4.2.7 “retaining the capacity” for future passenger rail |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Actions N4.3.2 / W4.3.2: use Movement/Place assessment to prioritise transport network function |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Actions N4.3.3 / W4.3.3: Department of Transport will need to confirm need/extent for upgrades, informed by Greater Geelong Growth Area Transport Infrastructure Study |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Actions N4.3.3 / W4.3.3: consider accessibility for communities west of Geelong such as Bannockburn |
Supported. |
||||
Development levies |
Actions N4.3.3 / W4.3.3: funding will be considered and prioritised on state-wide basis, consider in ICP |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Actions N4.3.3. / W4.3.3: arterial access management must consider through traffic level of service |
Supported. |
||||
Development levies |
Actions N4.3.3 / W4.3.3: sequencing/release of land critical to orderly implementation of infrastructure delivery |
Supported. |
||||
Development levies |
Actions N4.3.3 / W4.3.3: State/Federal Armstrong Creek Growth Area investment should guide timing of land release in NWGGA |
Supported in part. Access to existing infrastructure will be a consideration of subsequent precinct structure plans commenced in the growth areas. However, do not support the active prioritisation of Armstrong Creek Growth Area ahead of NWGGA. NWGGA has strong strategic support and a substantial overlap of development in NWGGA and Armstrong Creek is needed to maintain supply. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Actions N4.3.3 / W4.3.3: not clear how infill affects NWGGA 2025 timing (Figure 20 of Settlement Strategy) |
The rate of infill development within urban Geelong may impact on land supply and demand and hence timing of subsequent PSPs in NWGGA. |
||||
Development levies |
Actions N4.3.3 / W4.3.3: consult Department of Transport in development of proposed ICP |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Actions N4.3.6 / W4.3.6: Department of Transport will need to confirm need/extent for upgrades, informed by Greater Geelong Growth Area Transport Infrastructure Study |
Supported. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Actions N4.3.6 / W4.3.6: development likely to exceed transport network capacity within existing urban Geelong |
Noted. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Actions N4.3.6 / W4.3.6: public transport will play key role in this action |
Noted. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Actions N4.3.6 / W4.3.6: funding for upgrades will be considered and prioritised on state-wide basis |
Noted. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Other Framework Plan Movement actions specifically supported |
Noted. |
||||
100 |
Yih Sheng Investments P/L |
|
|
|
Strongly support direction and intent of Framework Plan for Western Geelong Growth Area |
Noted. |
|
Support proposed Western Geelong Growth Area land use mix, Clever and Creative Corridor |
Noted. |
||||
Precinct boundaries |
Support 200 Ballan Road identification in Creamery Road precinct |
Noted. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Support proposal/location for rail station and passenger rail services |
Noted. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Support emphasis on public and active transport throughout Western Geelong Growth Area |
Noted. |
||||
Activity centres |
Support location of proposed neighbourhood activity centre (NAC) on subject land |
Noted. |
||||
Activity centres |
Consider shifting focus of NAC to northwest, adjacent to future rail station |
Not supported. PSP process will determine activity centre location. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Consider Evans Road realignment not requiring new Cowies Creek crossing (in PSP) |
Not supported. PSP process will determine detail of road network. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Consider Evans Road realignment that does not unduly compromise developable area |
Not supported. PSP process will determine detail of road network. |
||||
Integrated transport network |
Consider repositioning Ballan Road/Evans Road intersection further south |
Not supported. PSP process will determine detail of road network. |
||||
Clever and Creative Corridor |
Review Clever and Creative Corridor alignment to include rail station and adjoining land |
Not supported. PSP process will determine detail of road network. |
||||
Integrated water management |
Provide flexibility in PSP to ensure retarding basin on site optimises development potential |
Not supported. PSP process will included detailed design of waterways. |
||||
101 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
Settlement boundaries |
540 Flinders Ave, Lara is well located, presents opportunities to be considered in C395 |
Not supported. Given current supply levels, there is no requirement to nominate new growth areas or future investigation areas beyond what is already identified in the Settlement Strategy at this time. This would be premature given no strategic work has been undertaken to support such designations. |
Settlement boundaries |
Close to You Yangs, Avalon, Bay West, Werribee, supported by road/rail infrastructure |
Noted |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Site is 86 ha, generally flat, has no significant environmental features |
No detailed assessment of this site has been conducted by officers |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Submitted on draft Settlement Strategy on land use/development opportunities of site |
Noted |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Council’s response to submission highlighted the opportunities for the site |
Not supported. Given current supply levels, there is no requirement to nominate new growth areas or future investigation areas beyond what is already identified in the Settlement Strategy at this time. This would be premature given no strategic work has been undertaken to support such designations. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Council’s response: forwarded to Avalon Corridor Strategy project manager to consider |
Noted |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Council’s response: non-urban break (between Melbourne, Geelong) indicative |
Noted |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Site an opportunity to complement recent/future residential growth, economic development of area |
Not supported. Given current supply levels, there is no requirement to nominate new growth areas or future investigation areas beyond what is already identified in the Settlement Strategy at this time. This would be premature given no strategic work has been undertaken to support such designations. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
C395 should further consider, highlight required strategic investigations for site and area |
Not supported. Given current supply levels, there is no requirement to nominate new growth areas or future investigation areas beyond what is already identified in the Settlement Strategy at this time. This would be premature given no strategic work has been undertaken to support such designations. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Indicative permanent settlement boundary does not consider Avalon Corridor Strategy guidance |
Not supported |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Non-urban break delineation may restrict future urban development potential |
Not supported. Given current supply levels, there is no requirement to nominate new growth areas or future investigation areas beyond what is already identified in the Settlement Strategy at this time. This would be premature given no strategic work has been undertaken to support such designations. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Non-urban break should be further clarified in Settlement Strategy and Framework Plan by annotation on key mapping |
Not supported |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Settlement Strategy non-urban break may conflict with outcomes of Avalon Corridor Strategy |
Not supported |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Avalon Airport expansion may lead to residential, commercial, industrial precincts |
Work on the Avalon Corridor Strategy to date has not identified commercial, industrial or residential land use for the subject site. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Issues regarding the site should be considered in this amendment or clearly stated as future investigations |
Not supported. Given current supply levels, there is no requirement to nominate new growth areas or future investigation areas beyond what is already identified in the Settlement Strategy at this time. This would be premature given no strategic work has been undertaken to support such designations. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Issue include proximity to You Yangs, growth, Bay West, future rail station, Lara |
Not supported |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Site, surrounds can play part in addressing housing needs until and beyond 2036 |
Not supported. Given current supply levels, there is no requirement to nominate new growth areas or future investigation areas beyond what is already identified in the Settlement Strategy at this time. This would be premature given no strategic work has been undertaken to support such designations. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Site can provide tourist accommodation and unique tourism experience near You Yangs |
Noted |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Mapping must confirm boundary does not consider Avalon Corridor Strategy guidance, is subject to change |
Not supported |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Mapping must confirm non-urban break indicative, can be adjusted/refined |
Not supported |
||||
102 |
Individual submitter |
|
|
|
Support Settlement Strategy and logical inclusions process |
Noted |
Settlement boundaries |
195 Whites Road, Mount Duneed should be included in Armstrong Creek Growth Area |
Noted. Logical inclusions process can consider this request. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Site, area originally excluded from Armstrong Creek Growth Area due to overstated landscape impact concerns |
Noted. Logical inclusions process can consider this request. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Land drains into Armstrong Creek catchment |
Noted. Logical inclusions process can consider this request. |
||||
Settlement boundaries |
Land does not extend south into the escarpment that acts as a visual buffer |
Noted. Logical inclusions process can consider this request. |
Councillor Kontelj re-entered the meeting room at 10:24pm.
Source: |
Customer & Corporate Services |
Director: |
Michael Dugina |
Portfolio: |
Finance |
To report to Council regarding the review completed on fees and charges, including the 2019-2020 process and identification of any significant fees that were not known to the community.
The City’s 2019-2020 budget documentation was to exhibit key changes to fees and charges, however, it was identified that not all key changes to the City’s fees and charges were communicated to the public or included in the budget documentation. This became apparent on 1 July following concerns raised by the community about significant fee increases to some capped on-street all day, 3 hour and 4 hour parking zones in the Geelong CBD (affected parking fee increases).
In response to the community feedback, a Special Council meeting was held on 4 July 2019 to consider the affected parking fee increases. At this meeting, the Council resolved to revert the affected parking fees back to the 2018-2019 rates.
In addition, the Council requested that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) identify any other significant fees and charges that were not included in the budget consultation, investigate the oversight of not disclosing some increases to parking fees, review the process of setting fees and charges and develop an appropriate strategy for setting parking fees in the Geelong CBD.
A review identified that the affected parking fee increases were made based on the application of an incorrect assumption that the proposed increase to off-street all day parking fees from $10.50 to $13 per day could be applied to the capped all day on-street parking fee. Additionally, this fee was then used as the basis to increase 3 hour and 4 hour parking fees. These parking fee changes were not transparently disclosed in budget documentation.
Recommendations to address this process error and the lack of transparency and disclosure of all fee changes are addressed below.
A review has also been completed of all fees and charges (fees) considered during the 2019-2020 budget process. The review identified 1630 fees, of which, 46 had significant increases (10% or greater, including the 4 parking fees considered at 4 July Special meeting) and 33 new fees that were not communicated and transparently disclosed in the budget documentation (refer Attachment 2).
Those services that had significant fee increases, or are new fees, are primarily services that are:
Provided in a competitive market, including building services, parking (all day, 4-hour and 3-hour), leisure centres (new classes, facility hire and personal training), various fees associated with the use of the Arena, construction services and a hall hire; and
and the fees applied were consistent with the objectives of the existing Fees and Charges Policy and Framework, such as ensuring full cost recovery where applicable, reduced subsidisation by rate payers when applied as a fee for service and / or were subject to competitive neutrality requirements.
Management consider the above fee increases to be reasonable and do not recommend any further action to amend fees.
Key improvements identified by management to improve the process for fees and charges and address the transparent disclosure of the City’s fees include:
All fees and charges to be transparently disclosed in budget briefings and Council Budget documentation;
Improve management review and authorisation process for fees and charges;
Amend the budget timetable to ensure adequate time for management review processes;
Develop a single report listing all fees and charges;
Undertaking a review of the Fees and Charges Policy and Framework to ensure awareness and support by staff and Council; and
In the developing the Geelong CBD Parking Strategy, include the strategic direction and/or principles for setting parking fees.
Councillor Murnane moved, Councillor Murrihy seconded -
That Council:
Note the 2019-2020 fees and charges detailed in Attachment 2 that were subject to significant increases, or were new fees, and not communicated and transparently disclosed;
Acknowledge the Chief Executive Officer’s investigation into the setting of fees and charges has identified there has been inadequate processes, oversight and communication of setting fees and charges in the 2019-2020 budget;
Recommend that the Chief Executive Officer implement process improvement for setting fees and charges in the budget as identified in this report;
Note draft fees and charges are set under existing Council delegations and the review of all existing fees and charges will form part of developing the 2020-2021 budget; and
Reiterate that transparency of decision making is a key priority and expectation of Council and the Chief Executive Officer.
Councillor Grzybek left the meeting room at 10:24pm.
Councillor Grzybek re-entered the meeting room at 10:26pm.
Carried.
There are no financial implications as result of this report unless Council seek to make any changes in response to historical approach to not including all fees in the budget process.
Community engagement was completed under the Local Government Act required to complete the budget.
The full fees and charges have not been provided in budget publications or consultations since 2010. This approach is not transparent and is proposed to be corrected for the 2020-2021 process.
All fees and charges are currently published on the City’s website.
It is important that the budget consultation process provided opportunities for all the community to participate and provide comment, including the City’s fees and charges.
Fees are set by the City and are subject to annual adjustment in line with the Council’s Fees and Charges Policy.
Fees and charges are set by the City’s Chief Executive under delegation from Council.
Fees and charges of the City provide revenue to support the delivery of services to the community, linking to the Council Plan initiative: Innovative Finances and Technology.
No officer involved in the preparation of this report has any direct or indirect interest in the substance of this report.
A failure to provide adequate opportunities for public consultation on key budget initiatives may undermine public trust in the Council, the City and its processes.
There are no environmental implications relating to this matter.
Number |
Description |
Next Year Charge (incl GST if applic) |
Movement in price per unit |
Percentage Change in Unit Cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
Build Stat - POPE - 2000 to 3000 people |
1,000.00 |
100.00 |
11.11% |
2 |
Build Stat - POPE - 1000 to 2000 people |
900.00 |
100.00 |
12.50% |
3 |
Build - Building Permits - Extension of Time |
250.00 |
30.00 |
13.64% |
4 |
Build - Stat - Application for council assessment - MBS/ Team Leaders |
240.50 |
28.30 |
13.34% |
5 |
Build - Stat - Application for council assessment - Building surveyor |
165.75 |
15.55 |
10.35% |
6 |
Build - Consultancy services - municipal building surveyor/team leaders (per hr) |
240.50 |
25.50 |
11.86% |
7 |
Build - Additional/Reinspect Council Permits (current permit only/per inspection) |
200.00 |
62.50 |
45.45% |
8 |
Build Permits - Regd Build - Alterations & Additions - $150,001 - $200,000 |
4,200.00 |
2,480.00 |
144.19% |
9 |
Build Permits - Regd Build - Alterations & Additions - $50,001 - $100,000 |
3,600.00 |
2,415.00 |
203.80% |
10 |
All day capped fee (low occ area) |
13.00 |
7.20 |
124.14% |
11 |
3P capped parking fee |
7.00 |
1.20 |
20.69% |
12 |
4P capped parking fee (higher occ area) |
9.00 |
3.20 |
55.17% |
13 |
4P capped parking fee |
8.00 |
4.50 |
128.57% |
14 |
Parks Hall Hourly Rate - Parkview Room |
26.50 |
5.00 |
23.26% |
15 |
Entry Banners |
130.00 |
20.00 |
18.18% |
16 |
Queens Park Pensioner / Concession Green Fee |
20.00 |
2.00 |
11.11% |
17 |
Pool Party - Inflatable per hour |
120.00 |
15.00 |
14.29% |
18 |
Arena - Services - Catering fee per person |
1.00 |
0.30 |
42.86% |
19 |
Arena - Contractors - Road Crew |
66.00 |
16.00 |
32.00% |
20 |
Arena - Fire Isolation (min 4 hrs) - Fire Services After Hours 7pm to 7am |
850.00 |
705.00 |
486.21% |
21 |
Arena - Fire Isolation (min 4 hrs) - Fire Services Daytime 7am to 5pm |
400.00 |
300.00 |
300.00% |
22 |
Arena - Contractors - House Technician |
66.00 |
6.00 |
10.00% |
23 |
Arena - Contractors - First Aid - Community |
45.00 |
5.00 |
12.50% |
24 |
Arena - Contractors - First Aid - Commercial |
55.00 |
5.00 |
10.00% |
25 |
Arena - Contractors - Cleaners |
55.00 |
5.00 |
10.00% |
26 |
Arena - Contractors - Security |
55.00 |
5.00 |
10.00% |
27 |
Arena - Public Holiday Rates - Labour Crew |
105.00 |
12.50 |
13.51% |
28 |
Arena - Public Holiday Rates - Ticket Checker/Usher |
105.00 |
12.50 |
13.51% |
29 |
Arena - Public Holiday Rates - Box Office Attendant |
105.00 |
12.50 |
13.51% |
30 |
Arena - Public Holiday Rates - Event Supervisor |
140.00 |
20.00 |
16.67% |
31 |
Arena - Board Room/Meeting Room - Community Groups per hour |
30.00 |
3.00 |
11.11% |
32 |
Arena - Back Stage - Back Stage break out rooms - all three |
55.00 |
5.00 |
10.00% |
33 |
Up to 50 square metres of Concrete Path - 125 millimetres |
218.70 |
22.20 |
11.30% |
34 |
Up to 50 square metres of Concrete Kerb |
219.70 |
22.30 |
11.30% |
35 |
Up to 10 square metres of Concrete Path - 125 millimetres |
221.70 |
22.50 |
11.30% |
36 |
Less than 50 square metres of Concrete Path - 75 millimetres |
195.10 |
19.80 |
11.29% |
37 |
Less than 50 square metres of Concrete Kerb |
219.80 |
22.30 |
11.29% |
38 |
Less than 50 square metres of Concrete Rd |
242.50 |
24.60 |
11.29% |
39 |
Less than 50 square metres of Concrete Path - 125 millimetres |
210.10 |
21.30 |
11.28% |
40 |
Up to 50 square metres of Concrete Path - 75 millimetres |
200.30 |
20.30 |
11.28% |
41 |
Up to 50 square metres of Concrete Rd |
260.90 |
26.40 |
11.26% |
42 |
Up to 10 square metres of Concrete Rd |
260.90 |
26.40 |
11.26% |
43 |
Less than 50 square metres of Bluestone Pitcher |
591.70 |
410.90 |
227.27% |
44 |
Up to 50 square metres of Bluestone Pitcher |
644.70 |
447.70 |
227.26% |
45 |
Less than 50 square metres of Segmental Block Pavers |
299.80 |
120.60 |
67.30% |
46 |
Up to 50 square metres of Segmental Block Pavers |
309.00 |
124.30 |
67.30% |
Note: Highlighted fees are parking fees addressed at 4 July Special Council meeting
Number |
Description |
Next Year Charge (incl GST if applic)$ |
|---|---|---|
1 |
Armstrong Creek East Casual Hire - Community Rate |
12.50 |
2 |
Armstrong Creek East Casual Hire - Commercial Rate |
30.50 |
3 |
Purnell Road Child & Family Facility Hire |
550.00 |
4 |
Drysdale Child & Family Centre Facility Hire |
550.00 |
5 |
Waterworld Active Adults GOLD 12 months |
810.00 |
6 |
Splashdown Active Adults GOLD - 12 months |
810.00 |
7 |
Leisurelink Active Adults GOLD - 12 months |
810.00 |
8 |
Bellarine 3D Body Composition Testing - Non Member price per scan |
40.00 |
9 |
Bellarine 3D Body Composition Testing - Member price per scan |
20.00 |
10 |
Bellarine Virtual Classes plus Free Swim Concession |
11.70 |
11 |
Bellarine Virtual Classes plus Free Swim |
14.50 |
12 |
Waterworld 3D Body Composition Testing - Non Member price per scan |
40.00 |
13 |
Waterworld 3D Body Composition Testing - Member price per scan |
20.00 |
14 |
Waterworld Virtual Classes plus Free Swim Concession |
11.70 |
15 |
Waterworld Virtual Classes plus Free Swim |
14.50 |
16 |
Splashdown 3D Body Composition Testing - Non Member price per scan |
40.00 |
17 |
Splashdown 3D Body Composition Testing - Member price per scan |
20.00 |
18 |
Splashdown Virtual Classes plus Free Swim Concession |
11.70 |
19 |
Splashdown Virtual Classes plus Free Swim |
14.50 |
20 |
Leisurelink 3D Body Composition Testing - Non Member price per scan |
40.00 |
21 |
Leisurelink 3D Body Composition Testing - Member price per scan |
20.00 |
22 |
Leisurelink Virtual Classes plus Free Swim Concession |
11.70 |
23 |
Leisurelink Virtual Classes plus Free Swim |
14.50 |
24 |
Botanic Gardens venue hire - weekdays - full day |
135.00 |
25 |
Greater than 50 square metres of Concrete Path - 150 millimetres Industrial |
217.10 |
26 |
Greater than 50 square metres of Aggregated Concrete Path - 125 millimetres |
245.40 |
27 |
Greater than 50 square metres of Aggregated Concrete Path - 75 millimetres |
232.40 |
28 |
Up to 50 square metres of Concrete Path - 150 millimetres Industrial |
225.70 |
29 |
Up to 50 square metres of Aggregated Concrete Path - 125 millimetres |
248.40 |
30 |
Up to 50 square metres of Aggregated Concrete Path - 75 millimetres |
235.40 |
31 |
Up to 10 square metres of Concrete Path - 150 millimetres Industrial |
228.70 |
32 |
Up to 10 square metres of Aggregated Concrete Path - 125 millimetres |
251.40 |
33 |
Up to 10 square metres of Aggregated Concrete Path - 75 millimetres |
238.40 |
Source: |
Governance, Strategy & Performance - Governance |
Director: |
Rebecca Leonard |
Portfolio: |
Leadership and Governance |
To adopt the new Privacy and Health Records Policy.
The Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 and the Health Records Act 2001 require that Council has clearly expressed policies on its management of health and personal information.
Council has two existing policies related to privacy and health records. They are the Information Privacy Policy and the Health Records Policy. Both were adopted by Council in June 2015 and are due for review.
The Office of the Victorian Information Commission (OVIC) is the primary regulator for privacy. OVIC have recently reviewed Council’s Information Privacy Policy and have provided recommendations, including that the policy:
Makes reference to all of the Information Privacy Principles (IPPs) contained in the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 and how the City intends to comply with them in practice; and
Includes information in the policy about the City’s privacy complaints process and any other relevant external complaint agencies and processes.
The City has benchmarked the current policies against legislative obligations and better practice guidance materials as well as applying guidance from OVIC.
The new Privacy and Health Records Council Policy (Attachment 2) combines the Information Privacy Policy and the Health Records Policy to simplify the approach to managing personal and health information privacy.
The policy improves openness and transparency by assisting individuals to understand their rights and how the City manages personal and health information.
The policy also provides a clear process for making a privacy complaint and how to enquire about privacy matters or the privacy complaints process.
Councillor Murrihy moved, Councillor Grzybek seconded -
That Council:
Adopt the Privacy and Health Record Council Policy (Attachment 2);
Revoke the Information Privacy Policy adopted on 9 June 2015; and
Revoke the Health Records Policy adopted on 9 June 2015.
Carried.
There are no financial implications arising from the subject of this report.
The policy has been subject to stakeholder review and benchmarking with legislation. It incorporates better practice guidance material provided by OVIC as well as specific recommendations made by OVIC in relation to the Information Privacy Policy.
The policy provides for fair and equitable privacy protections for the community.
The City is required by IPP 5 of the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 and Health Privacy Principle 5 of the Health Records Act 2001 to have clearly expressed policies on its management of health and personal information.
The new Privacy and Health Records Council Policy (Attachment 2) combines the Information Privacy Policy and the Health Records Policy to simplify the approach to managing personal and health information privacy.
Privacy rights are an important feature of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 contained in section 13.
The updated policy aligns to the council plan by delivering organisational leadership, strategy and governance strategic priority. The policy assists the City to become proactive in managing privacy risks and to provide the highest standard of privacy protection to members of the community.
No City Staff or contractors who have provided advice in relation to this report have declared a conflict of interest regarding the matter under consideration.
The policy will assist staff in managing and mitigating privacy risks as the policy sets outs processes and procedures that must be followed by City staff handling personal and health information.
There are no environmental implications arising from the subject of this report.
Source: |
Governance, Strategy & Performance - Governance |
Director: |
Rebecca Leonard |
Portfolio: |
Leadership and Governance |
Councillor Grzybek moved, Councillor Mansfield seconded -
That in accordance with Section 89 (2) (h) of the Local Government Act 1989, this matter which the Council considers would prejudice the Council or any person, be considered at the conclusion of all other business at which time the meeting be closed to members of the public.
Carried.
Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Assembly of Councillors
