Council Minutes - Section B: Reports - 24 September 2019

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.


    Notice of Motion

  1. Youth Council Third Report 2019

  2. Little Malop Central Activation and Improvements Proposal

  3. Amendment C395 – Settlement Strategy and Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan – Consideration of Submissions

  4. Fees and Charges Review

  5. Privacy and Health Records Council Policy - Adoption

  6. Audit and Risk Committee Summary Report (Confidential)


Notice of Motion – Councillor Mansfield

City of Greater Geelong Response to Climate Emergency

Background

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:

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:

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:

  1. Declare that climate change poses a serious and immediate risk to people in Geelong, Australia, and globally, and should be treated as an emergency;

  2. Acknowledge the extensive local community interest and advocacy, including by our region’s young people, in relation to the declaration of a Climate Emergency;

  3. 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;

  4. 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;

  5. 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;

  6. 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;

  7. Note that Council considers Climate Change to be a key strategic risk as part of its assessment of its risk environment;

  8. 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;

  9. 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;

  10. Write to state and federal Environment Ministers to advocate for more substantial and urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and

  11. Join the Climate Councils Cities Power Partnership Program.


Amendment

Councillor Asher moved, Councillor Grzybek seconded -

That Council:

  1. Acknowledge that climate change poses a risk to the people of Geelong and Australia, and requires a genuine and coordinated response.

  2. Acknowledge the extensive local community interest and advocacy, including by our region’s young people, in relation to the issue of climate change.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. Note that Council considers Climate Change to be a key strategic risk as part of its assessment of its risk environment.

  9. 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.

  10. Write to state and federal Environment Ministers to advocate for significant action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

  11. 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


1. Youth Council Third Report 2019

Source:

Community Life – Connected Communities

Director:

Robyn Stevens

Portfolio:

Leadership and Governance


Purpose

  1. To note the third report to Council from the Youth Council Advisory Committee.


Background

  1. 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'.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The Committee will also be responsible for organising an annual youth summit.


Key Matters

  1. 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).

  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.

  3. 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:

  1. note the third report to Council from the Youth Council Advisory Committee.

Carried.


Attachment 1

Financial Implications

  1. Funding for the Youth Council program and activities has been allocated as part of Council’s annual budget process.


Community Engagement

  1. 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.


Social Equity Considerations

  1. The Youth Council provides an opportunity for young people to contribute to and be included in civic life.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

  1. The 2019 Youth Council Advisory Committee term will conclude in October 2019.

  2. Nominations for the 2020 Youth Council Advisory Committee will commence in December 2019, with successfully elected members to begin their role in February 2020.


Alignment to Council Plan

  1. The key priorities outlined in the annual plan align with council plan priorities of:

    1. Improved health and safety of our community – consult with the community on safety issues that are impacting them;

    2. A more inclusive and diverse community – further developing programs that support young people in our community;

    3. Effective environmental management – educating and assisting our community; and

    4. Organisational leadership, strategy and governance – communicating and engaging with the community.


Conflict of Interest

  1. 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.


Risk Assessment

  1. The Committee will provide advice to Council on specific issues relating to young people in our community.


Environmental Implications

  1. There are no environmental implications.


Time Limit

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.


[Back to List]

2. Little Malop Central Activation and Improvements Proposal

Source:

Economy, Investment & Attraction – Central Geelong & Waterfront

Director:

Brett Luxford

Portfolio:

Economic Development


Purpose

  1. 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.


Background

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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).


Key Matters

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  1. 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 -

  1. That Council:

    1. 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;

    2. 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;

    3. 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;

    4. Note that capital and operational expenditure identified for 2020-2021 will be incorporated into the 2020-2021 budget;

    5. Complete a post implementation survey of users in April 2020 to evaluate the impact of this initiative; and

    6. 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.


Attachment 1

Financial Implications

  1. $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.

  2. 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:

  3. Option

    Capital ($)

    Operating ($)

    A

    301,224

    $357,924

    B

    247,600

    $68,000


  4. 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:

  5.  

     

    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


  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. Council could choose to undertake option A, option B or Option C.

  10. 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

  1. 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).

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.


Social Equity Considerations

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

  1. Council is the landowner responsible for the LMC.

  2. 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.

  3. Criminal or civil disorder that is seen to occur from time to time has been managed by Victoria Police.

  4. 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.


Alignment to Council Plan

  1. 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”.

  2. 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”.


Conflict of Interest

  1. No City officers involved in the development of this report have a direct or indirect interest.


Risk Assessment

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. All operational works and activations to be implemented will be subject to the City’s risk management processes.


Environmental Implications

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Additional plantings (garden planters) are proposed for the precinct.


Attachment 2

Discussion

  1. At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 25 June 2019, following a ‘Notice of Motion’, Council resolved:

    1. 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;

    2. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. The Placescore tool enabled Councillors, Executive Team members and officers to explore clever design methods that can be used to generate solutions for implementation.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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).

  7. 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:

  8. 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:

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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’.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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


[Back to List]

3. Amendment C395 – Settlement Strategy and Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan – Consideration of Submissions

Source:

City Development – Strategic Implementation

Director:

Gareth Smith

Portfolio:

Sustainable Development


Purpose

  1. To consider submissions on Amendment C395 and refer them to an independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning.


Background

  1. 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.

  2. Amendment C395 implements the Settlement Strategy and Framework Plan into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.

  3. 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Key themes and responses are outlined in Attachment 2.

  4. 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 -

  1. That Council having considered all submissions on Amendment C395 resolves to:

    1. 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;

    2. Refer all submissions to the Panel;

    3. Submit to the Panel its response to the submissions generally as outlined in this report; and

    4. 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.


Attachment 1

Financial Implications

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. The further work identified within the Settlement Strategy will be subject to future budget bids.


Community Engagement

  1. Both the Settlement Strategy and the Framework Plan were developed and finalised on the basis of extensive community engagement.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. This report recommends submissions on the amendment be referred to an independent planning panel. Submitters will have the opportunity to appear at the panel.

  6. Community engagement will also occur during the subsequent PSP process for each individual precinct within the NWGGA.


Social Equity Considerations

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

  1. The NWGGA are identified in state policy as potential growth areas as outlined in the G21 Regional Growth Plan.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.


Alignment to Council Plan

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.


Conflict of Interest

  1. 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.


Risk Assessment

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.


Environmental Implications

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.


Attachment 2

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Maps showing the location and distribution of submitters are provided in Attachment 4.

  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.

  5. 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.


Submissions on Settlement Strategy

Summary

  1. 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.

  2. 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  1. 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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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:

    1. In excess of 20 years (2039) supply under the highest growth scenario of 3% pa;

    2. A greenfield housing supply until 2046 under a 2.5% pa growth scenario; and

    3. A possible extension of 15 years (2061) supply if urban consolidation and greater housing densities and diversity are achieved in the growth areas.

  3. 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

  1. 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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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

  1. 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:

  1. 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

  1. 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:

    1. rezoning land (to Urban Growth Zone, General Residential Zone or Mixed Use Zone);

    2. inclusion within the settlement boundary as part of this amendment;

    3. inclusion within the settlement boundary in a logical inclusions process; or

    4. that the amendment not preclude future inclusion within the settlement boundary.

  2. 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:

  3. 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

  4. Some of the submissions provide detailed land capability reports and development plans in support of their requests.

  5. 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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  1. 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.

  2. Other submissions relating to the logical inclusions process:

    1. request changes or additions to local planning policy provisions;

    2. argue that the process should precede finalisation of this amendment and/or the DAL program;

    3. argue that a permanent settlement boundary is contrary to logical inclusions; and

    4. request the process be established quickly if changes to the settlement boundary are not supported in this amendment.

Response:

  1. 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).

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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’.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. 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.

  7. 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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:

  1. The supporting submissions are noted. With respect to the Bellarine Peninsula, see the section on the Bellarine Peninsula DAL program above.

Other township issues

  1. 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.

  2. Issues raised include:

    1. seeking rezoning, or policy support for rezoning, of land within settlement boundaries;

    2. protecting certain land within settlement boundaries from rezoning;

    3. specific land uses, development and community facilities within towns;

    4. changing land within the Armstrong Creek Growth Area from employment to residential; and

    5. building heights, bulk and design.

Response:

  1. The issues raised in these submissions regarding land within existing township settlement boundaries are outside the scope of the Settlement Strategy and this amendment.

  2. The appropriate processes for addressing these matters include structure plan reviews, PSP preparation and planning scheme amendment applications.

Government agency submissions

  1. 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.

  2. These submissions are generally supportive of the Settlement Strategy and amendment. Comments and suggested changes include:

    1. 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);

    2. Clause 21.06-8 should refer to environmental values of state and national significance as well as of local significance (DELWP);

    3. consideration needs to be given to encroachment and buffers for sensitive land uses when investigating boundaries (EPA);

    4. support for Boral’s settlement boundary request (VPA);

    5. 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);

    6. 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).

  3. Department of Transport provides a range of comments and suggestions including:

    1. growth should initially be directed to areas with established transport infrastructure and committed upgrades;

    2. identification of short term precinct plans should be based on ability of transport system to cater for additional trips generated by these precincts;

    3. timing and sequencing should ensure that redirection of settlement from already established areas such as Armstrong Creek Growth Area is minimised;

    4. future growth should be prioritised in areas where new transport infrastructure is being provided, including Armstrong Creek Growth Area and the Geelong rail corridor;

    5. would like to understand how a more ambitious infill development target timing would affect the timing of development in NWGGA;

    6. social housing should be located in areas well serviced by existing public transport;

    7. exclude existing transport corridors in the Bellarine Peninsula and You Yangs precinct from areas protected under the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Bill;

    8. extend rail corridor precinct approach to Marshall and Waurn Ponds stations;

    9. unlikely a Breakwater station will be re-activated;

    10. implications of increased freight transport on Fyans Street need to be considered in planning for West Fyans Key Development Area.

Response:

  1. With respect to the set of dot points above relating to DELWP, EPA, VPA, VRCA and Barwon Water:

    1. DELWP comments on biodiversity implications are noted; a review and monitoring process in the Settlement Strategy allows figures to be revised as required;

    2. 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;

    3. 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;

    4. 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;

    5. Support VRCA’s recommended changes to the Strategy and policy provisions; and

    6. 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.

  2. In response to matters raised by Department of Transport:

    1. Regional transport implications of NWGGA are being addressed by the Geelong Growth Areas Transport Infrastructure Study;

    2. 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;

    3. DAL program being undertaken by DELWP but unlikely to impact existing transport corridors;

    4. Settlement Strategy highlights opportunities for increased housing densities around rail stations;

    5. Change rail corridor reference to “through to Waurn Ponds” rather than to Breakwater;

    6. Planning for West Fyans Key Development Area will consider freight transport implications.

Other issues

  1. A number of submissions suggest minor changes to wording or the addition of extra detail to assist with clarity or to correct inconsistencies.

Response:

  1. Where these suggested changes are consistent with the strategic intent of the policy, correct an error or provide greater clarity, these changes are supported.

  2. 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.

  3. Recommended changes to the Strategy and/or proposed policy provisions in response to submissions include:

    1. direction on infrastructure funding for shared infrastructure across or benefiting multiple PSPs;

    2. 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;

    3. referring to mixed use as well as increased housing densities around rail stations in both the Settlement Strategy and Clause 21.06-8;

    4. updating Clause 21.11 to use same anticipated population figures for Armstrong Creek as Settlement Strategy;

    5. 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;

    6. changing drawing key on Housing and Settlement Framework Plan proposed in Clause 21.06 to refer to municipal boundary;

    7. adding “to consider minor changes” to Clause 21.06-2 reference to logical inclusions process;

    8. 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;

    9. changing Settlement Strategy to reflect EPA Victoria comments; and

    10. including reference to value capture opportunities in the Settlement Strategy.

  4. The comments and requested changes in submissions on the Settlement Strategy that are not supported include:

    1. reducing the list of matters to be addressed before commencing a PSP on p70 of the Settlement Strategy;

    2. investigating Rural Living opportunities as per Planning Practice Note 37;

    3. 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;

    4. 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;

    5. comment that Strategy lacks commitment to affordable and social housing provision;

    6. comment that a settlement boundary will delay land development and likely significantly increase land prices; and

    7. 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.


Submissions on Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan

Summary

  1. 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.

  2. 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

  1. 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.

  2. Regarding the process to date submitters argue:

    1. insufficient consultation with landowners and insufficient notification of amendment;

    2. concerns previously raised have not been addressed;

    3. perceived bias towards a NGGA landowner consortium; and

    4. amendment pre-empts a VCAT hearing on a planning permit application in the WGGA.

  3. 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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  1. 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.

  2. Changes requested in the NGGA:

    1. allow Heales Road East precinct to be delivered in two stages, with some land identified as potential medium term rather than long term;

    2. 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);

    3. two submissions request the GREP buffer within the Heales Road East precinct (long term) be identified in a short term precinct.

  3. Changes requested in the WGGA:

    1. 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);

    2. include land between the Moorabool River and Midland Highway in the Batesford North precinct (medium term) rather than the Batesford South precinct (long term);

    3. 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);

    4. include land south of Church Street in a medium rather than long term precinct;

    5. create a new precinct for the Moorabool River corridor;

    6. create an additional Western precinct for land west of the Batesford Quarry; and

    7. shift the eastern boundary of the McCanns Lane precinct eastward.

Response:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. The other requested changes lack strategic justification and are not supported.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  1. Seven submissions include reference to various development sequencing issues. Issues raised include:

    1. general support for proposed development sequencing,

    2. in the Clause 21.06-3 strategy to limit the number of PSPs that can be prepared simultaneously, change “limit” to “manage”;

    3. dependence on Lara West Growth Area for drainage and infrastructure connectivity;

    4. Department of Transport advice to consider development sequencing in light of transport network capacity; and

    5. request for landscape buffer to existing rural living lots ahead of development.

Response:

  1. 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.

  2. The City acknowledges the need for infrastructure connectivity between the NGGA and the Lara West Growth Area.

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  1. 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:

    1. the Framework Plan must outline the essential principles for shared funding;

    2. a precinct-by-precinct approach must be taken;

    3. a standardised regional ICP should be applied;

    4. ICP infrastructure items must be priced and apportioned before resolving first PSPs;

    5. include development levies, or a mechanism for this, in this amendment;

    6. include drainage in shared funding; and

    7. third-party funding of technical studies to inform PSP preparation should recoup costs from non-participating owners.

Response:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Drainage infrastructure to support development in the growth areas will be included within the relevant DCP/ICP.

  5. Third party funding is a standard mechanism to progress a PSP and does not form part of this Amendment.

Land acquisition

  1. Three submissions express concerns regarding potential compulsory acquisition of land.

  2. 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.

  3. 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:

  1. 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

  1. 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:

  1. 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

  1. Eleven submissions raise various issues with the proposed Clever and Creative Corridor. Issues raised include:

    1. general support;

    2. concern with the Corridor alignment in each growth area and suggestions for realignment;

    3. concern that the Corridor conflicts with landform and Moorabool River corridor;

    4. concern at potential substantial land requirements for the Corridor along Evans Road between growth areas;

    5. remove Corridor components and dimensions from Framework Plan;

    6. detailed design suggestions for the Corridor;

    7. impact of the Corridor on existing business operations; and

    8. concern at insufficient market demand for higher density housing along the Corridor.

Response:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. Detailed design of the Corridor and the extent and scale of housing diversity will be resolved through PSP processes.

  6. The Clever and Creative Corridor is a multifaceted urban design concept that is readily compatible with commercial land uses.

Activity centres

  1. Five submissions raise issues related to activity centres within the growth areas. Changes requested include:

    1. Relocate the NGGA sub-regional centre to the northeast;

    2. Replace the north-eastern NGGA neighbourhood activity centre with two centres;

    3. Change NGGA neighbourhood activity centre retail floor space range in Framework Plan;

    4. Relocate the WGGA sub-regional centre north to abut Midland Highway;

    5. Include one or both activity centres shown on the boundary of the Creamery Road and Batesford North precincts in the Creamery Road PSP; and

    6. Shift focus of WGGA neighbourhood activity centre to the north-west, adjacent to future rail station.

Response

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  1. 19 submissions raise issues regarding the integrated transport network within and beyond NWGGA.

  2. Issues raised include:

  3. NGGA:

    1. Realignment of Elcho Road, other arterial roads and the Clever and Creative Corridor; and

    1. Four submissions object to upgrading of Heales Road.

    WGGA:

    1. Realignments of western north-south arterial road and associated Moorabool River crossing, Evans Road and Church Street extension;

    2. Advocate early construction of Church Street extension and the north-south arterial road corridor;

    3. Concern at depiction of Creamery Road flyover; and

    4. Support for a Batesford community bypass option for Midland Highway upgrading.

    Both growth areas:

    1. Support for Framework Plan aims and directions for accessible, integrated transport, public transport and reduced reliance on private vehicles;

    2. Public transport must be part of a well-connected network;

    3. Potential functional design issues with the proposed rail service on the Geelong – Ballarat line;

    4. Support for proposed new rail service and rail station location;

    5. Concern with increased traffic on Evans Road between the growth areas;

    6. How regional transport issues generated by growth areas will be managed;

    7. Without substantial mode shift, NWGGA will generate traffic that will exceed capacity of urban Geelong network;

    8. Support from Department of Transport for several transport components of Framework Plan; and

    9. Detailed comments from Department of Transport on timing, funding decisions and design matters.

Response:

  1. 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).

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. The roads advocated for early construction will only be required in the long term as development occurs in the Batesford South precinct.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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

  1. 17 submissions raise issues relating to elements of integrated water management – waterways and/or drainage.

  2. Issues raised include:

    1. Reduce extent of waterways (three submissions);

    2. Allow flexibility for waterway extent and design at PSP stage;

    3. Changes to framework plan wording on waterways and stormwater management;

    4. Changes to plan 7 of the framework plan outlining stormwater land requirements;

    5. Object to a waterway identified along the rear of rural living properties in Heales Road in the NGGA (five submissions);

    6. Remove proposed stormwater detention basin from land in vicinity of heales and bacchus marsh roads;

    7. Provide flexibility for retarding basin location and design on 200 ballan road;

    8. Proposed quarry lake should be independent of moorabool river flows;

    9. Moorabool river bed and banks should be repaired/restored prior to urban land release; and

    10. Drainage from residential development must ensure no impact on Moorabool and Barwon River nutrient loads.

Response:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  1. Ten submissions raise issues relating to biodiversity and environmental protection.

  2. The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) submission raised issues including:

    1. Extent and condition of significant environmental values in NWGGA is unknown

    2. Native vegetation and protected species, habitats and communities may have significant impact on NWGGA development

    3. Potential for delivering offsets on and off site is unexplored

    4. Clarification of requirements and scope for biodiversity conservation strategy (BCS)

    5. Undertake BCS prior to PSP preparation as its outcomes may require changes to Framework Plan

    6. Recommended changes to proposed policy provisions

  3. Biodiversity issues raised in other submissions include:

    1. Need for Moorabool River corridor management, vegetation protection and recreation;

    2. Desire for physically connected biolinks through Western Growth Area to minimise habitat fragmentation;

    3. Potential impact of WGGA employment area on biodiversity corridor being planted on private land along Dog Rocks and Friend-in-Hand Roads;

    4. 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;

    5. Environmental impacts of three new Moorabool River crossings;

    6. Impact of roads on wildlife;

    7. Plan 17 (biodiversity linkage) premature before waterway/open space alignments determined;

    8. Integrate biolink with Clever and Creative Corridor;

    9. Review and determine the location and ecological value of native grasslands before adopting Framework Plan; and

    10. Various requested changes to wording of Framework Plan biodiversity actions.

Response:

  1. With respect to biodiversity issues raised in the DELWP submission:

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. With respect to biodiversity issues raised in other submissions:

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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

  1. Five submissions refer to Aboriginal cultural heritage or post contact heritage.

  2. 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.

  3. 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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  1. Eight submissions make particular land use or zoning requests relating to the NGGA. Requests include:

    1. Residential use in mcneill Court and Oswald Avenue;

    2. Residential or low density residential for current Rural Living Zone in south of NGGA;

    3. Particular low density residential subdivision outcomes for current Rural Living Zone land (Elcho Road and mcneill Court);

    4. Retain Rural Living (Baycrest Close, Viewbank Rise); and

    5. Revise western boundary of Employment area.

Response:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  1. 14 submissions make particular land use or zoning requests relating to the WGGA. Requests include:

    1. Rural Living for land west of Ballan Road and near Moorabool River;

    2. Very low density residential with larger buffer zones next to existing Rural Living Zone – focus on Pennsylvania Avenue, Lynnburn and Ross Roads, Batesford;

    3. Framework Plan should provide more direction on future of Batesford Township;

    4. Rezone land east of Palmerston Street, Batesford to Township Zone or residential;

    5. Identify land west of Lynnburn Road as residential;

    6. Rezone land between Moorabool River and Ballarat Road to Urban Growth Zone;

    7. Extend Residential designation on land between Moorabool River and Ballarat Road in Framework Plan;

    8. Light commercial or industrial zoning of 505 Ballarat Road;

    9. Applied zone along Ballarat Road should be Mixed Use;

    10. Allow higher density development and housing diversity in strategically located parts of Creamery Road precinct;

    11. Query extent of high and medium density housing adjacent to Clever and Creative Corridor;

    12. Show Idyll Wines Co on Plan 20 (Built Environment) of Framework Plan;

    13. Delete Clause 21.20 reference to blasting buffer around Batesford Quarry;

    14. Rezone 80 Thoona Lane, Fyansford to Urban Growth Zone;

    15. Relocate Employment area within WGGA or to existing Fyansford industrial; and

    16. Delete 540-600 Hamilton Highway and 245 Fyansford – Gheringhap Road from Employment on Framework Plan.

Response:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Detailed consideration of applied zones, specific land uses, housing densities and increased housing diversity will take place in the relevant PSP processes.

  5. 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.

  6. The reference to a blasting buffer in Clause 21.20 will be reviewed prior to the Panel hearing.

  7. 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.

  8. 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

  1. Three submissions request or suggest rezoning of land between the growth areas; two request Low Density Residential zoning.

Response:

  1. 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

  1. 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:

    1. 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;

    2. 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;

    3. Concerns with noise and amenity impacts of WGGA urban development raised in four submissions from nearby residents;

    4. 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

    5. Generic comments from EPA Victoria on land use compatibility.

Response:

  1. 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.

  2. The objecting submitter’s land is within the LEMMP buffer and has been identified as having native vegetation values in biodiversity assessments.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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

  1. 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:

  1. Further investigation of issues raised in these submissions and liaison with pipeline licensee is required and will occur before the Panel hearing.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  1. 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:

  1. Investigation of these zoning requests and liaison with AusNet Services is required and will occur before the Panel hearing.

  2. 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

  1. 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.


Attachment 3 – Exhibited version of Housing and Settlement Framework Plan and NWGGA Framework Plan

Map

Northern and Western Growth Areas Framework Plan map

Attachment 4 – Maps showing distribution of submissions

Map 1

Map 2

Map 2

Attachment 5 – Summary of Submissions and Officer Response

jojo

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

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.
Different types of underlying land use.

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.


[Back to List]

4. Fees and Charges Review

Source:

Customer & Corporate Services

Director:

Michael Dugina

Portfolio:

Finance


Purpose

  1. 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.


Background

  1. 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).

  2. 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.

  3. 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.


Key Matters

  1. 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.

  2. Recommendations to address this process error and the lack of transparency and disclosure of all fee changes are addressed below.

  3. 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).

  4. Those services that had significant fee increases, or are new fees, are primarily services that are:

    1. 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

    2. 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.

  5. Management consider the above fee increases to be reasonable and do not recommend any further action to amend fees.

  6. Key improvements identified by management to improve the process for fees and charges and address the transparent disclosure of the City’s fees include:

    1. All fees and charges to be transparently disclosed in budget briefings and Council Budget documentation;

    2. Improve management review and authorisation process for fees and charges;

    3. Amend the budget timetable to ensure adequate time for management review processes;

    4. Develop a single report listing all fees and charges;

    5. Undertaking a review of the Fees and Charges Policy and Framework to ensure awareness and support by staff and Council; and

    6. 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 -

  1. That Council:

    1. 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;

    2. 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;

    3. Recommend that the Chief Executive Officer implement process improvement for setting fees and charges in the budget as identified in this report;

    4. 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

    5. 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.


Attachment 1

Financial Implications

  1. 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

  1. Community engagement was completed under the Local Government Act required to complete the budget.

  2. 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.

  3. All fees and charges are currently published on the City’s website.


Social Equity Considerations

  1. 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.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

  1. Fees are set by the City and are subject to annual adjustment in line with the Council’s Fees and Charges Policy.

  2. Fees and charges are set by the City’s Chief Executive under delegation from Council.


Alignment to Council Plan

  1. 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.


Conflict of Interest

  1. No officer involved in the preparation of this report has any direct or indirect interest in the substance of this report.


Risk Assessment

  1. 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.


Environmental Implications

  1. There are no environmental implications relating to this matter.


Attachment 2

Fees and charges increased 10% or greater not communicated

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


New fees and charges not communicated

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


[Back to List]

5. Privacy and Health Records Council Policy - Adoption

Source:

Governance, Strategy & Performance - Governance

Director:

Rebecca Leonard

Portfolio:

Leadership and Governance


Purpose

  1. To adopt the new Privacy and Health Records Policy.


Background

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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:

    1. 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

    2. Includes information in the policy about the City’s privacy complaints process and any other relevant external complaint agencies and processes.


Key Matters

  1. The City has benchmarked the current policies against legislative obligations and better practice guidance materials as well as applying guidance from OVIC.

  2. 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.

  3. The policy improves openness and transparency by assisting individuals to understand their rights and how the City manages personal and health information.

  4. 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 -

  1. That Council:

    1. Adopt the Privacy and Health Record Council Policy (Attachment 2);

    2. Revoke the Information Privacy Policy adopted on 9 June 2015; and

    3. Revoke the Health Records Policy adopted on 9 June 2015.

Carried.


Attachment 1

Financial Implications

  1. There are no financial implications arising from the subject of this report.


Community Engagement

  1. 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.


Social Equity Considerations

  1. The policy provides for fair and equitable privacy protections for the community.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Privacy rights are an important feature of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 contained in section 13.


Alignment to Council Plan

  1. 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.


Conflict of Interest

  1. 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.


Risk Assessment

  1. 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.


Environmental Implications

  1. There are no environmental implications arising from the subject of this report.


[Back to List]

6. Audit and Risk Committee Summary 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.


[Back to List]


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