GOVERNMENT LAND STANDING ADVISORY COMMITTEE

REGIONAL RAIL –WAURN PONDS TRAIN MAINTENANCE & STABLING FACILITY

GREATER GEELONG & SURF COAST PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT GC104

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE PREPARED BY STUART MCGURN

FEBRUARY 2020

INTRODUCTION 1. My name is Stuart Andrew McGurn and I am a Director of Urbis Pty Ltd (Urbis) which conducts its business at Level 12, 120 Collins Street, Melbourne. My qualifications and experience are described in Appendix A. 2. I have been instructed by Ashurst Lawyers on behalf of Rail Projects Victoria (RPV) to undertake a town planning review of exhibited Amendment GC104 to the Greater Geelong and Surf Coast Planning Schemes. Rail Projects Victoria are responsible for delivering the Regional Rail Revival (RRR) program of works on behalf of the State of Victoria. 3. The amendment affects existing private rural land (and areas of public land and roadways) at, and around 255 Reservoir Road, Waurn Ponds. It proposes to implement new planning scheme controls to facilitate the Waurn Ponds Train Maintenance and Stabling Facility. The site locality relative to Geelong is depicted at Figure 1.

Figure 1: Approximate Locality of Project Land in Relation to Greater Geelong

4. The project is proposed in two stages: • Stage 1 will occupy an area of approximately 11 hectares south of the existing railway line and directly east of the farm laneway at the centre of the site and west of Bogans Lane. The area would accommodate six open stabling tracks to store, refuel and clean and service trains. Operations would occur up to 24 hours a day. • Stage 2 is intended to include additional stabling, a maintenance facility, including a train wash plant and bio wash, expanded staff and driver amenities, and administration and training facilities. Stage 2 is planned to increase stabling capacity up to 26 trains and include large buildings. 5. Each stage would include earthworks and landscaping. Stage 1 of the proposed facility in Waurn Ponds was allocated funding in the 2015-2016 Victorian State Budget. The timing of Stage 2 is subject to further government review.

URBIS 2 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104

6. The Government Land Standing Advisory Committee have been appointed by the Minister for Planning to report on the proposed changes to the planning provisions to the land as described in the Terms of Reference (Version 3: April 2018). 7. The site has been selected on the basis of key locational and design criteria specific to the functional needs of the rail corridor as identified in the ‘Proposed Waurn Ponds Train Maintenance and Stabling Facility Site Investigation Summary’. By way of background I note that I have been provided with material in relation to alternative sites reviewed for their suitability to accommodate the facility. 8. My review of the proposed Amendment has been informed having regard to undertaking the following tasks and reviewing the following documents: • An inspection of the subject site and the surrounding area (including a number of submitter properties). • An inspection of the operational train stabling and maintenance facility at Pakenham East and a stabling facility at Maddingley. • The Greater Geelong and Surf Coast Planning Scheme and reference documents of relevance. • Exhibited Surf Coast and Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment GC104. • Specialist (environmental and technical) Investigation reports exhibited with GC104 • G21 Regional Growth Plan, April 2013 • ‘Connecting Regional Victoria’ – Victoria’s Regional Network Development Plan, 2016. • The State and Commonwealth Regional Rail Revival Program • Greater Geelong Amendment C395 Settlement Strategy • Great Ocean Road Regional Landscape Assessment Study, 2003 • Submissions to Amendment GC104 • Ministerial Direction 11 ‘Strategic Assessment Guidelines for Planning Scheme Amendments’ and other Ministerial Directions relevant to the Amendment. • Amendment GC104 - Part A Submissions of Rail Project Victoria (28.1.2020). 9. A summary of my opinion in relation to proposed Amendment GC104 is: • The project is strategically important to the growth of the Geelong Region envisaged in the G21 Regional Growth Plan and the Melbourne Metropolitan Strategy and other supporting documents. • The proposed Planning Scheme Amendment is an appropriate tool for the implementation of a large scale infrastructure project of this nature and meets the strategic assessment guidelines for Planning Scheme Amendments. • The project will affect the rural outlook for adjacent properties (and from public areas) to greater and lesser degrees. Further, the proposal will result in localised amenity impacts on surrounding public areas and on immediately surrounding properties and their residents with the most significant impacts being on the primary land holder, however such impacts are inevitable for a project of this scale and nature and have been mitigated and reduced where possible. • The proposal will have positive economic and social effects for the Geelong Region and can be accommodated without significant environmental impacts. • On balance, important and wide reaching net community benefit will be derived from the project, weighing in favour of its approval, notwithstanding the localised amenity impacts. 10. I declare that I have made all the enquiries that I believe are desirable and that no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have, to my knowledge, been withheld from the Advisory Committee.

URBIS GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE 3

BACKGROUND 11. The Amendment is proposed to allow construction of railway infrastructure to support improvements to V/Line regional passenger rail services in the Melbourne – Geelong Rail Corridor. 12. The Melbourne – Geelong Corridor is the busiest of the five principle V/Line corridors radiating from the Melbourne CBD. The commuting zone extends 85 kilometres from Southern Cross Station to Waurn Ponds, before continuing on to Warrnambool. Rail Projects Victoria have stated that strong population growth in the Geelong and Wyndham regions, a growing disconnect between employment and residential location and increasing road congestion is driving ongoing patronage growth on the rail corridor. 13. This growth has resulted in the number of rail cars in the fleet more than doubling between 2007 and 2017. This has necessitated an increase in train stabling and maintenance facilities servicing the Geelong Fleet and line. I am instructed that this capacity demand cannot be accommodated in the existing facilities. 14. ‘The Regional Network Development Plan’ (RNDP) 2016 is the long term plan for transport investment in regional Victoria and notes the need to address short, medium and long term stabling and maintenance requirements of the regional rail network. In response, the Waurn Ponds facility has been identified as a key project to address existing capacity and operational issues in the Geelong, Melbourne and Warrnambool rail Corridor. 15. Key reasons for the facility are cited as: • Support continued patronage growth in the Melbourne – Geelong corridor • Provide more efficient and effective maintenance of the Velocity Fleet • Allow for additional services south of Geelong Station • Limit ‘dead running’ trains travelling to and from Waurn Ponds to current stabling and maintenance sites. • Address capacity constraints in the network. 16. Remove/reduce impacts on passenger services between Geelong and Waurn Ponds and have only minor interaction with relatively infrequent services to the Warrnambool line. 17. The material exhibited with the amendment includes a planning report prepared by AECOM, this outlines the key selection criteria for the facility location (p.8 and 9). These are:

Operational requirement criteria Gradient (Preliminary considerations) Timeframe for completion Length Proximity to Waurn Ponds Railway Station

Environmental and development criteria The location of watercourses (Refining considerations) Location of residences Road access Rail access Earthworks or rehabilitation Cultural heritage

18. I am instructed that between 2007 and 2017, twelve sites were investigated by the Department of Transport and Public Transport Victoria in the Waurn Ponds locality as part of the site selection process. The subject land was considered the only site of those considered to meet the criteria. 19. A detailed ‘Project Outline and Rationale’ has been provided with the ‘Part A’ submissions of Rail Projects Victoria outlining these matters.

URBIS 4 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104

SUBJECT LAND AND LOCALITY 20. The proposed project is located approximately 10 - 15 km south west of Geelong and approximately 4 km south west of the Waurn Ponds Railway Station within the existing Geelong to Warrnambool rail corridor. The land falls primarily within Greater Geelong and also within the Surf Coast Shire (west of Pettavel Road). The affected land comprises the primary area of ‘project land’ and the ‘wider project land’, identified at Figure 2 and described in the Planning Scheme Amendment documents.

Figure 2: Project Land and Wider Project Area – Amendment GC104 Surf Coast and Greater Geelong THE PROJECT LAND 21. The ‘Project Land’ is identified as ‘all areas of land required within the Site for the purposes of the Project’ being a portion of the private land at 255 Reservoir Road 350 metres south of the rail corridor between Pettavel Road (to the west) and Bogans Lane (to the east). 22. The land is part of a private agricultural land holding of 480 acres of flat to undulating land which is partly bisected by the existing rail corridor. As described in the Agricultural Impact Assessment (AJ Pitt, June 2019) the land includes a shearing shed, stockyards, fodder stores, a dwelling and shedding on the northern side of the rail corridor and 20 large and 10 small paddocks on the southern side of the corridor. A central north south farm laneway services the land and utilises an existing rail level crossing. A secondary dwelling is located on the eastern boundary of the site accessed from Bogans Lane. Land to the east (220 hectares) is leased from Boral industries. 23. The key agricultural output of the land is 8,000 fine wool Merino Sheep (fleece harvest and breeding).

URBIS GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE 5

THE WIDER PROJECT LAND 24. The ‘Wider Project Land’ is identified as ‘all land that the project requires for the delivery of ancillary infrastructure and associated construction activity’. This includes (as set out in GC104 maps): • Land 50 metres north of the rail corridor at 255 Reservoir Road (although only a portion for the purposes of a rail crossing as part of Stage 2 of the project). • Surrounding land including within the Bogans Lane, Pettavel Road and Reservoir Road reservations and existing rail reservations. SURROUNDING AREA 25. The surrounding area is generally an open rural setting with a gentle slope, roadways and intermittent tree cover. Industrial facilities at the Boral Cement Works and quarry are also present. In more detail: • Reservoir Road to the North – a sealed roadway which provides access to dwellings at 250, 255 and 300 Reservoir Road. Land to the north is generally elevated above the subject land. • The Pettavel Basin (Barwon Water service and utility site) is located north of Reservoir Road. • Mt Duneed Estate Winery (including restaurant/café and venue for concerts is located further north beyond the Pettavel Basin and over a ridge toward the Geelong Ring Road/ Princes Highway. • Existing and expanding residential growth areas are located to the north of Princes Highway. • To the east is Bogans Lane – an unsealed road lined with native vegation and a dwelling to the south east on the west side of Bogans Lane. Further to the east is the Anglesea Road – a major road connecting Geelong with Torquay. • The Boral Quarry and Cement Works are located to the north east over Bogans Lane – this includes a large quarry, embankments and cement works industrial structures. • To the south is agricultural land and dwellings, sheds and outbuildings of Bogans Lane properties. Further south is Mount Duneed Road, beyond which there is a concentration of dwellings to the south east. • West of the site is Pettavel Road – an unsealed road with native vegetation along its edges. Dwellings are located along Reservoir Road to the west of Pettavel Road PROPOSED PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT 26. Amendment GC104 to the Greater Geelong and Surf Coast Planning Schemes proposes to facilitate the development of the Waurn Ponds Train Maintenance and Stabling Facility and associated signalling and track works. The Amendment proposes: • The approval and planning framework for the use and development of the Project. • The mechanism to acquire additional land and compensate affected parties in accordance with the ‘Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986’. 27. Specifically it proposes to implement the following changes to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: • Applies the Public Acquisition Overlay PAO15 (Clause 45.01) to part of the land at 255 Reservoir Road, Waurn Ponds to facilitate acquisition of land for the ‘Waurn Ponds Train Maintenance and Stabling Facility’. The PAO applies to privately owned agricultural land, as well as land owned by Barwon Water. The acquiring authority will be the ‘Secretary to the Department of Transport’. • Introduces the ‘Waurn Ponds Train Maintenance and Stabling Facility Incorporated Document June 2019’ through: o Application of the Specific Controls Overlay (SCO) to broader areas of land and introduction of Clause 45.12 -Schedule 1 ‘Waurn Ponds Train Maintenance and Stabling Facility Project Incorporated Document, June 2019’. o Identification of the land and document in the Schedule to Clause 51.01 ‘Specific Sites and Exclusions.

URBIS 6 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104

o Identification of the document in the Schedule to Clause 72.04 ‘Documents Incorporated in this Planning Scheme’. • Amends Schedule to Clause 72.01 ‘Responsible Authority for this Planning Scheme’ to make the Minister for Planning the Responsible Authority for the purpose for the Project. • Associated technical revisions to the Scheme (eg list of amendments and maps). INCORPORATED DOCUMENT – PROPOSED FACILITY 28. The Incorporated Document essentially provides approval for the proposed facility and associated works in the rail corridor. A concept design has been prepared to inform the Incorporated Document which sets out the proposed stages of development and anticipated works. 29. These are summarised in the planning report prepared by AECOM (p.iv) as: ‘The Project is proposed to be constructed in Stages. In Stage 1 the project is proposed to have capacity for 6 trains, and in Stage 2 the Project is proposed to increase capacity to up to 26 trains with the capacity to provide train maintenance. Stage 2 may be delivered in further stages. Both Stage 1 and Stage 2 would be able to operate 24 hours a day. The Project includes (but is not limited to) the following key components: • Initial site development including (but not limited to): stabling roads, fuelling facilities, bio wash facilities, train wash facilities, a maintenance facility, a substation and entry (rail) roads from the eastern and western ends of the site to the existing railway corridor. • Ancillary facilities including (but not limited to): road access into the Project Land and internal road access, upgrades to roads and rail signalling infrastructure, car parking and driver and cleaner amenities.’ 30. The main train maintenance building, bio wash and train wash would form part of Stage 2. Works will also include the removal of two areas of linear shelterbelt vegetation from the farm. Operations are anticipated to be 24 hours and in full operation may accommodate up to 4 staff per shift in Stage 1 and 16 staff per shift for Stage 2. 31. Construction operation is expected to be approximately 12-18 months for each stage of the project with site access via Bogans Lane for Stage 1 and 2 and emergency access from Pettavel Road for Stage 2. Preferred site access during construction is via the Geelong Ring Road, with alternative access provided via Princes Highway. Intensive construction activity is anticipated to involve up to 100 persons on site at any one time. 32. Stage 1 is funded and is proposed to be complete by 2022. Stage 2 is subject further investigation and funding to expand the capacity of services and stabling and maintenance in this location. The timing for delivery of Stage 2 is presently unknown and subject to government decision making. 33. Further details of proposed site development works and construction phase for Stages 1 and 2 are included in the ‘Part A submissions’ of Rail Project Victoria. GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST PLANNING SCHEMES 34. The Majority of the land is located within Greater Geelong, with the areas west of Pettavel Road in the wider project land falling within the Surf Coast Shire. ZONE 35. The Project Land (and surroundings) is located within the Farming Zone and Public Use Zone 4 as depicted in Figure 3. The purposes of the zone are:

• To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework. • To provide for the use of land for agriculture. • To encourage the retention of productive agricultural land.

URBIS GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE 7

• To ensure that non-agricultural uses, including dwellings, do not adversely affect the use of land for agriculture. • To encourage the retention of employment and population to support rural communities. • To encourage use and development of land based on comprehensive and sustainable land management practices and infrastructure provision. • To provide for the use and development of land for the specific purposes identified in a schedule to this zone. 36. The Schedule to the Farming Zone notes that land in the ‘south west rural area’ is subject to a minimum subdivision area of 40 hectares and the ‘minimum area for which no permit is required to use land for a dwelling’ as 40 hectares.

37. The Public Use Zone 4 (Clause 36.01) applies along the rail corridor and identifies the land for use for railway purposes.

38. Land in the Wider Project area is included in:

• The Farming Zone (FZ) (Clause 35.07) • The Public Use Zone Schedule 1 (PUZ1) (Clause 36.01) • The Public Use Zone Schedule 4 (PUZ4) (Clause 36.01) • The General Residential Zone Schedule 1 (GRZ1) (Clause 32.08) • The Road Zone Category 1 (RDZ1) (Clause 36.04) • The Special Use Zone Schedule 7 (SUZ7) (Clause 37.01) • The Urban Growth Zone Schedule 3 (UGZ3) (Clause 37.07)

Source: www.VicPlan (2019) Figure 3: Zoning of Subject Site and surrounds (‘Project land’ shown red dashed)

URBIS 8 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104

OVERLAYS 39. At the time of exhibition the majority of the land was not subject to any overlays.

40. The Vegetation Protection Overlay 1 (Clause 42.02) applies to limited areas of the wider project land in Greater Geelong along the road reserve of Bogans Lane and Pettavel Road.

41. Limited areas of the wider project land are affected by the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (Clause 44.04). The overlay requires a permit for removal of vegetation, subject to some exemptions.

42. On 24 December 2019, Amendment GC121 to the Greater Geelong and Surf Coast Planning Schemes applied the Special Controls Overlay along the rail corridor (Public Use Zone 4 land). The amendment facilitates the Warrnambool Line Upgrade project in accordance with the ‘Warrnambool Line Upgrade Incorporated Document, December 2019’. The Amendment was undertaken by the Minister for Planning on behalf of Rail Projects Victoria. The purpose of the amendment was to allow expansion of the network in response to regional population growth to improve passenger and freight movements.

43. Relevant works of the Warrnambool line project within the vicinity of Waurn Ponds include (described in explanatory report of GC121):

• ‘Signalling upgrade at Mount Duneed and Waurn Ponds. • Combined service route relocation at Waurn Ponds. • Additional platform on the south side of the existing track (inclusive of canopies and platform furniture) at Waurn Ponds station. • Pedestrian overpass at Waurn Ponds station. • Track duplication within the immediate works of the platform at Waurn Ponds station.’ OTHER KEY DESIGNATIONS 44. The land is identified as part of a broader ‘Bushfire Prone Area’, but is not affected by the Bushfire Management Overlay.

45. The ‘project land’ is not identified as an area of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sensitivity, however land in the ‘wider project land’ west of Petavel Road crosses areas of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sensitivity. RELEVANT PARTICULAR AND GENERAL PROVISIONS 46. Clause 52.06 ‘Car Parking’ does not include relevant rates for the proposed land use and provision of an ‘appropriate’ number would be the subject of consideration under the Incorporated Document. 47. Clause 52.17 ‘Native Vegetation’ requires a planning permit for the removal of native vegetation (with some exemptions). The clause identifies ‘pathways’ for the consideration of vegetation removal. Preliminary ecological assessments have not identified any native (ie ‘remnant’ indigenous) vegetation on the subject land. Vegetation removal would be a matter considered under the Incorporated Document. 48. Clause 53.18 ‘Stormwater Management in Urban Development’ seeks to ensure that stormwater in urban development is retained and reused to manage and minimise impacts on the environment and property. The clause does not apply to works in the Farming Zone (amongst others). 49. Clause 72.08 ‘Background documents’ lists the ‘G21 Regional Growth Plan (Geelong Regional Alliance, 2013)’ as a background document to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.

URBIS GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE 9

PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK 50. Key themes of relevance to the proposed Amendment within the Planning Policy Framework of the Grater Geelong and Surf Coast Planning Schemes include:

• Anticipating and responding to the needs of communities through the provision of land zoned for commercial facilities, and employment. In doing so planning needs to contribute towards economic viability, health, better diversity of choice, and accessibility (Clause 11 ‘Settlement’). • Clause 11.01R ‘Settlement – Geelong G21’ includes strategies of key relevance (selected): - ‘Support the role of Central Geelong as a major regional city and revitalise and strengthen its role as Victoria’s second city. - Support the growth of Bannockburn, Colac, Drysdale/Clifton Springs, Lara, Leopold, Ocean Grove and Torquay/JanJuc as district towns by building on existing and planned infrastructure and focussing growth along key road and rail networks. - Provide for long term growth options that build on existing infrastructure, including two further investigation areas north and west of Geelong. - Maintain a significant settlement break between the region and Melbourne. - Provide for settlement breaks between towns to maintain their unique identities. - Protect critical agricultural land by directing growth to towns.’ • Clause 11.03-2S indicates in relation to ‘Growth Areas’ ‘implement the strategic directions of the Growth Area Framework Plan’. Growth area framework plans are to (amongst other things) ‘identify transport networks and options for investigation, such as future railway lines and stations, freight activity centres, freeways and arterial roads’. • Clause 11.03-5S ‘Distinctive areas and landscapes’ has the objective ‘to protect and enhance the valued attributes of identified distinctive areas and landscapes’. Strategies include to ‘protect the identified key values and activities of these areas’. The site sits just outside the Surf Coast area (declared 19.9.2019) and is not yet identified in this clause (further details below). • Considering the distinctive characteristics and needs of regional and local places in planning for future land use and development (Clause 11.03-6S ‘Regional and local places’). • Clause 12.01-1S ‘Protection of Biodiversity’ seeks to identify and protect areas of important biodiversity including key habitat for rare or threatened species. • The policy approach in relation to ‘Native Vegetation Management’ (Clause 12.01-2) which seeks to ‘avoid’, ‘minimise’ and ‘offset’ vegetation removal and the consideration of biodiversity. • Clause 13 ‘Environmental Risks and Amenity’ notes that planning: - ‘Should identify and manage the potential for the environment and environmental changes to impact on the economic, environmental or social wellbeing of society’. - ‘Aim to avoid or minimise natural and human – made environmental hazards, environmental degradation and amenity conflicts’. • Claus 13.02-1S ‘Bushfire Planning’ notes polies applying Planning should support the maintenance of communities by delivering functional, accessible, safe and diverse physical and social environments, through the appropriate location of use and development and through high quality buildings and urban design (Clause 15 ‘Built Environment and Heritage). • Clause 13.04-2S ‘Erosion and landslip’ seeks to protect areas from erosion and instability through drainage and vegetation management. • Clause 13.05-1S ‘Noise Abatement’ has the strategy to ‘ensure that development is not prejudiced and community amenity is not reduced by noise emissions, using a range of building design, urban design and land use separation techniques as appropriate to the land use functions and character of the area.’ Relevant policy includes the ‘Interim Guidelines for Control of Noise from Industry in Country Victoria’ (Environment ProtectionAuthority,1989)

URBIS 10 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104

• Clause 13.06-1S ‘Air Quality Management’ seeks to ensure that land use planning to improve transport accessibility and connections. It is also sought to ‘ensure wherever possible, that there is suitable separation between land uses that reduced air amenity and sensitive land uses’. • Clause 14.01-1S ‘Protection of agricultural land’ seeks to ‘protect productive agricultural land from unplanned loss due to permanent changes in land use.’ In considering a proposal to use, subdivide or develop agricultural land, consider the: - ‘Desirability and impacts of removing the land from primary production, given its agricultural productivity. - Impacts on the continuation of primary production on adjacent land, with particular regard to land values and the viability of infrastructure for such production. - Compatibility between the proposed or likely development and the existing use of the surrounding land. - The potential impacts of land use and development on the spread of plant and animal pests from areas of known infestation into agricultural areas. - Land capability’. • Clause 14.01-2S ‘Sustainable agricultural land use’ looks to support agricultural investment through protection and enhancement of appropriate infrastructure in innovative and sustainable approaches to rural land use practices. • Clause 14.02-2S ‘Water quality’ seeks to protect reservoirs and water storage and to ensure that land use activities that potentially discharge contaminated runoff are appropriately managed to 1Sprotect the quality of waterways and ground water. • Achieving urban environments that contribute to a sense of place and cultural identity and provide landscaping that supports the amenity and attractiveness of the environment (Clause 15.01-1S ‘Urban Design’). • Clause 15.02-1S ‘Energy and resource efficiency’ has the objective to ‘encourage land use and development that is energy and resource efficient…’,. • Clause 15.03-2S ‘Aboriginal cultural heritage’ seeks to ‘ensure the protection and conservation of places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance.’ • Clause 15.01-6S ‘Design for rural areas’ has the objective of developing and designing outcomes that respect valued areas of rural character. • Clause 17 ‘Economic development’ notes that ‘planning is to contribute to the economic wellbeing of the state and foster economic growth by providing land, facilitating decisions and resolving land use conflicts, so that each region may building on tis strengths and achieve its economic potential’. • Clause 18.01-1S ‘Land use and transport planning’ seeks to ‘develop integrated and accessible transport networks to connect people to jobs and services and goods to market’. Of relevance it is sought to: - ‘ focus[ingl] major government and private sector investments in regional cities and centres on major transport corridors, particularly railway lines, in order to maximise the access and mobility of communities’ - ‘Integrate transport links that strengthen the connections to Melbourne and adjoining regions. • Clause 18.01-1S ‘Land use and transport planning’ includes strategies to: Plan urban development to make jobs and services more accessible by: - ‘Locate and design new transport routes and adjoining land uses to minimise disruption of residential communities and their amenity’; - ‘Facilitate infrastructure that connects and improves train services between key regional cities and townships and Melbourne. - ‘Ensure the design, construction and management of all transport modes reduces environmental impacts’.

URBIS GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE 11

• The policy for ‘Transport System – G21’ at Clause 18.01-2R includes strategies to ‘support improved transit and access within Geelong and the wider region’ and ‘support a greater connection to the Werribee growth corridor and Melbourne’. • Clause 18.02-2S ‘Public Transport’ has the objective to ‘facilitate greater use of public transport and promote increased development close to high quality public transport routes’. LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

51. Key themes of the Greater Geelong Local Policy Framework of relevance to the Amendment include:

• Clause 21.02 ‘City of Greater Geelong Sustainable Growth Framework’ has four key elements; ‘manage urban growth‘; ‘building sustainable infrastructure’; encouraging diversity in industry’; ‘reducing greenhouse gas emissions’. • The Municipal Framework Plan’ Clause 21.04 locates the subject land outside of the existing urban area, at the edge of an area of ‘major resources’ (cement works).. • Key polices in relation The Natural Environment (Clause 21.05) support diversity of flora and fauna and acknowledge the impacts of urban development on waterways (Clause 21.05-2), biodiversity (Clause 21.05-3), climate change (Clause 21.05-5), natural resource management (Clause 21.05-6), flooding (Clause 21.05-7) and wildfire (Clause 21.05-8). • Clause 21.06 ‘Settlement and Housing’ recognises that ‘there is an environmental, economic and social imperative to reduce urban sprawl and improve accessibility to urban services, principally by consolidating urban development around places of activity and public transport infrastructure’. • Clause 21.06-2 ‘Urban Growth’ seeks to direct urban growth to designated areas such as Armstrong Creek, while Clause 21.06-3 encourages ‘urban consolidation’ of existing urban areas and through the improvement of accessibility to urban services. • Clause 21.-07 ‘Economic Development and Employment’ identifies the economic role and function of Geelong as ‘the largest regional city in Victoria and the primary service and employment hub for the G21 Geelong Region Alliance’. The infrastructure base includes ‘Avalon Airport, the Geelong Port and major road and rail connections to Metropolitan Melbourne and Victoria’s western regions’. • Clause 21.07 notes in relation to ‘Rural’ land that ‘agricultural production is modest, but locally important and economically significant to land owners’ and also that ‘farming and rural landscapes form non urban breaks and are a critical element to the settlement strategy, tourism function and lifestyle of the region’. • The strategies at Clause 21.07-5 in relation to ‘Rural Areas’ include ‘maintain rural land in large productive parcels, in accordance with the schedules to the farming zones’ and ‘Ensure that any non agricultural land uses will not compromise farming activity in the area’. • Clause 21.08 ‘Development and Community Infrastructure’ notes that the municipality is located on the state and interstate road and rail network, providing direct links to South Australia, south western Victoria and Melbourne. It also notes that the road and rail linkages between Geelong and Melbourne accommodate significant freight, commuter and tourism traffic. • The strategies in relation to ‘Transport’ (Clause 21.08-2) include to ‘facilitate the development of Geelong Railway Station as Geelong’s principal public transport hub’ and ‘create and protect reservations for future transport corridors, planned arterial roads and arterial road widening’. • Clause 22.05 ‘Agriculture, Rural Dwellings and Subdivision’ and Clause 22.64 ‘Discretionary uses in Rural Areas’ apply to land use and development in the Farming and Rural Conservation Zone. The polices seek manage non agricultural uses to ensure ongoing use of the land for agricultural is supported and the rural landscape character of areas is preserved. 52. The local policy framework of the Surf Coast Planning Scheme echoes similar themes relative to:

• The proximity to Geelong growth areas and surrounding peri urban areas;

URBIS 12 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104

• The importance of agricultural land for its economic contribution and the value of visual breaks (rural landscape) between Geelong and urban areas of the Surf Coast; • The demand for roads and public transport accessibility within the Surf Coast Shire and connectivity to Geelong and Melbourne. • Threats to biodiversity, vegetation and landscapes. 53. For brevity I have not recited the relevant clauses, but have included a list at Appendix B. PLAN MELBOURNE 2017 - 2050 54. The focus of Plan Melbourne is the sustainable growth of the Metropolitan area and surrounding regional areas until 2050. Key directions include: • Direction 7.1: ‘Invest in regional Victoria to support housing and economic growth’. The Victorian Government will ‘ensure the right infrastructure and services are available to support the growth and competitiveness of regional and rural industries and their access to global markets. • Direction 7.2 ‘Improve connections between cities and regions’, through connection by efficient and safe road and rail transport corridors’. 55. Direction 7.2 of Plan Melbourne recognises the Regional Network Development Plan, 2016 (RNDP) as the long term plan for transport in regional Victoria. The RNDP identifies the importance of planning for short, medium and long term stabling and maintenance requirements of the regional rail network and identifies key regional public transport priorities. G21 REGIONAL GROWTH PLAN, APRIL 2013 56. The G21 Regional Growth Plan 2013 is a reference document at Clause 11.01-1S of the Planning Scheme. The Growth Plan builds on population projections in ‘Victoria in Future 2012’ that the three largest regional centre municipalities (Greater Geelong, Ballarat and Greater Bendigo) are expected to account for almost 40% of all population increases outside Metropolitan Melbourne to 2031 (p.7). 57. The G21 Plan seeks to manage growth and land use pressure in the Geelong Region and establishes infrastructure required to support the anticipated population of 500,000. The Growth Plan nominates areas at the fringe of the Waurn Ponds area as long term further investigation areas for expansion of the urban area and as a potential employment node. 58. My assessment includes a summary of relevant aspects of the G21 Regional Growth Plan. ‘CONNECTING REGIONAL VICTORIA’ – VICTORIA’S REGIONAL NETWORK DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 2016 59. The RNDP guides short, medium and long term priorities for the regional train network to provide more trains, better facilities and more services. The aim is to deliver a modern commuter style service for growth areas of Geelong (and other regional cities). 60. Geelong forms the primary urban area in the ‘Barwon South West’ region. The Plan includes funded initiatives to increase train frequency from Geelong to Waurn Ponds (including review of track duplication), provision of additional off peak return services between Melbourne and Geelong daily as well as increased frequency of train services between Warrnambool, Geelong and Melbourne. It is also identified that new train and maintenance and cleaning facilities will be needed across Victoria. THE STATE AND COMMONWEALTH REGIONAL RAIL REVIVAL PROGRAM. 61. The Regional Rail Revival project is a joint initiative of the Australian and Victorian Governments with an investment of $1.75 billion in upgrading regional passenger train line in Victoria. Rail Projects Victoria are responsible for delivery of projects in Victoria. The program includes funding for Stage 1 of the proposed facility.

URBIS GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE 13

SURF COAST - DISTINCTIVE AREAS AND LANDSCAPES 62. In 2018 the Planning and Environment Act 1987 was amended to introduce Part 3AAB ‘Distinctive Areas and Landscapes’ which enables management of peri urban areas identified as having distinctive natural and cultural landscapes. The Surf Coast is one of four regions identified under the Legislation and was declared on 19 September 2019. 63. The project land is located adjoining to the north west of the Surf Coast Declared Areas Map as depicted at Figure 6. A Statement of Planning Policy is required to be prepared for the area within one year of designation.

Source: planning.vic.gov.au Figure 6: Distinctive Areas and Landscapes - Surf Coast Declared Area (project land red dashed)

URBIS 14 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104

AMENDMENT C395 TO THE GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME 64. Amendment C395 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme comprises the Geelong Settlement Strategy. The Strategy reviewed the available areas for urban growth within Greater Geelong, identifying two new growth areas to the north and west of Geelong. Waurn Ponds is not identified as an area of current need for settlement expansion and ‘non urban’ breaks are noted between the Geelong urban area and surrounding coastal and rural settlements. 65. Submissions by the Victorian Planning Authority to the Amendment indicated that the Boral extractive industry land should be noted as ‘future investigation areas’ for expansion of the urban area. Planning Panels Victoria are presently hearing submissions to the Amendment in a hearing that will continue into February 2020. OTHER REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 66. The following reference documents are relevant: • Managing Development in Rural Areas, City of Greater Geelong, 2015. • Victorian Coastal Strategy, Victorian Coastal Council 2014. • City of Greater Geelong Rural Land Use Strategy, City of Greater Geelong, 2007. • Rural Strategy, Surf Coast Shire Council, 2007. • The Greater Ocean Road Region Landscape Assessment Study, 2003.

URBIS GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE 15

ASSESSMENT WHAT IS THE STRATEGIC BASIS FOR THE PROJECT? 67. Plan Melbourne 2017 recognises the need to plan for regional growth in order to accommodate a proportion of Victoria’s increasing population (p. 128). Geelong along with other major regional areas of Ballarat and Bendigo are increasingly the focus of alternatives to living and working in Melbourne and will accommodate 50% of population growth outside Melbourne (p.128). In response Key Direction 7.1 strives for investment that supports housing and economic growth in regional areas by ensuring appropriate infrastructure and services are available, while Key Direction 7.2 seeks to improve connections between the cities and regions. 68. The platform for sustainable growth in the Geelong Region is the G21 Regional Growth Strategy (2013). The Plan identifies major growth strategies for the Geelong region as Melbourne’s second city with a regional population target of 500,000(+). The Strategy notes at page III that the target was initially identified in the G21 Geelong Regional Plan – A sustainable Growth strategy (2007). The strategy aspires to growth in residential populations in the Geelong CBD, key growth areas and corridors and identified regional towns, simultaneously supported by employment growth. 69. Key elements of the Growth Plan (selected), include: • Building on strategic assets and competitive advantages to manage growth across the region. • Reducing pressure on agricultural areas and natural assets. • Reinforcing the importance of Central Geelong as an active regional city and Victoria’s second largest city. • Targeting infill and higher density within existing urban areas. • Planning for employment growth along with population growth, including strengthening existing employment nodes and identifying two new areas for employment in the south west. • Supporting planned growth and identified district towns across the region. • Ensuring boundaries of towns are clear and breaks between settlements are managed carefully. 70. In an expanding region there is a clear need for infrastructure that keeps pace with the demands of the population and supports sustainable, healthy and well serviced environments. A suite of major infrastructure investments are required to support the G21 region to grow to 500,000 (+) residents. These are aimed at addressing (G21, p. 32): • Constraints to the Geelong Port operations, limited by channel depth and gaps in rail and arterial road connections. • The under provision of aviation facilities in the region. • Road infrastructure limitations such as peak constraints on the M1 corridor between Melbourne and Geelong, rural road networks, pressure from growth between Geelong and the Bellarine Peninsula, management of pedestrian and traffic conflict to support revitalisation of the CBD. • Upgrades to recreation and sporting infrastructure (particularly gaps in boating and non traditional sports). • The need for upgraded tourism infrastructure facilities such as convention centres and major accommodation facilities. • Gaps in key servicing such as reticulated natural gas and fibre optic connection. 71. Specifically with reference to the rail network, Section 4.12 ‘Major Infrastructure Requirements’ notes: ‘There are gaps in the broad and standard gauge freight network, limited peak passenger rail services to Melbourne, capacity issues within the Geelong - Armstrong Creek corridor (with a single line tunnel and stabling yard location) and issues with the extent of bus network coverage and its frequency. The current Regional Rail Link project, along with the investigation of a rail connection to Avalon Airport, will enable significant network improvements, support growth and drive economic activity. The Rail Revival Review (passenger services to Ballarat) and stabling yard relocation would further support growth’.

URBIS 16 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104

72. An extract of the G21 Regional Growth Plan is included at Figure 5.

Source: G21 Growth Plan, 2013

Figure 5 – Extract from ‘Geelong Context’ Map, G21 Regional Growth Plan (p.11)

73. The Geelong rail line has the highest demand and frequency of regional train lines in Victoria. The trains servicing the Melbourne and Geelong corridor are currently held and serviced overnight at the Geelong Passenger Yard (immediately west of Geelong Station and including a train wash plant), and the Geelong Locomotive Depot area in Pakington Street, Geelong West. Other trains (including the V/Line VLocity fleet) are unable to be washed at the Geelong Passenger yard and washing and maintenance of such vehicles is shared between depots in Ballarat East, West Melbourne and Bendigo (Aecom Planning Report p.6 - 7). 74. The G21 Regional Growth Strategy identifies key infrastructure projects for the growth and servicing of rail in the region. The proposed increase in passenger rail services between Melbourne and Geelong, and frequency of commuter services contributes to the need to relocate and expand the existing rail stabling yards and improve maintenance facilities (and their capacity) for the corridor. 75. I am instructed that the scale of the proposed train stabling and maintenance facility is based on passenger demand forecasts for future train operations and the anticipated train fleet to be stationed in this locality. The benefits derived from the facility will include allowing for an increased fleet size, provision of additional services south of Geelong Station, improved service levels and minimised disruption to the existing services through shunting of trains beyond the commuter zone. 76. Improvements to the capacity and servicing of the Geelong to Melbourne Rail Corridor is expected to result in employment and productivity benefits at a State and Regional Level. This will be enabled by providing better access and reliability to regional employment opportunities, the easing of travel times from Melbourne’s west and through support for increased public transport usage within the G21 region.

URBIS GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE 17

77. The policy and funding support for public transport priorities for Victoria is envisaged within: • Plan Melbourne 2017-2050, Victoria’s 30 year strategy (2016) (Direction 7.2); • The Regional Network Development Plan, 2016 (RNDP) as Victoria’s long term plan for transport investment in Regional Victoria; • The State and Commonwealth Regional Rail Revival Program; 78. To this end, the proposed facility is one significant part of a larger rail network serving a strategically designated growth outcome for the Geelong Region. Given the purpose of the facility and its wide reaching benefits for the Geelong Region, the project is to be considered one of State and Regional significance. 79. Waurn Ponds is at the edge of the existing urban growth boundary to the south west of Central Geelong. It adjoins the major urban growth corridor of Armstrong Creek and is currently the outer limit of commuter train services. 80. Within the Geelong region Waurn Ponds was identified by Rail Projects Victoria (and previously Public Transport Victoria) as the most appropriate location for the stabling and maintenance facilities. The reasons for this are further elaborated in the Part A submissions of the proponent dated January 2020, however in summary Waurn Ponds locality was selected: • To meet demand of the existing services operating on the Geelong Line and enhance services the urban growth corridors south and west of Geelong as well as connectivity to Warrnambool. • To provide stabling facilities in proximity to increased service demand, minimising the need to run empty trains to North Geelong and the Geelong Yard. • To minimise disruption from train stabling movements on peak direction services by providing stabling and maintenance beyond the outer reach of regular commuter services. Currently this places a limit on more frequent services between Geelong and Waurn Ponds Stations. • To allow for Waurn Ponds to become a terminus for the commuter rail network, including commitment by the Federal Government to the duplication of the existing single track. • For the presence of ‘greenfield’ land of sufficient size to accommodate best practice working and logistic arrangements for stabling and maintenance, and allow sufficient capacity for expansion (for a period of 50 years). 81. In addition to addressing the existing service and maintenance capacity issue, expansion of the facilities under Stage 2 would support relocation of existing rail stabling and maintenance functions provided in Central Geelong. To this end the site will accommodate all of V/Line’s stabling and maintenance requirements on the Geelong Corridor for the foreseeable future (p.22 Annexure A ‘Project Outline and Rationale’). The existing facilities are not well located given proximity to urban and residential areas as well as the need to run empty trains to and from Waurn Ponds against peak flows, affecting service, cost and time. This will provide a future opportunity to release existing centrally located land in Geelong for urban renewal. 82. Site investigation for the facility commenced in 2007 with 12 options in the Waurn Ponds locality considered. Site investigation commenced with those sites closest to the Waurn Ponds Station, progressing further west as sites were deemed unsuitable. 83. Detailed design and operational requirements were considered in site selection taking into account: • ‘Preliminary considerations’ – being the ‘operational requirement criteria’ (key design and engineering requirements for a train maintenance and stabling facility); then subject to • ‘Refining considerations’ -being the ‘environmental and development criteria’. 84. I have reviewed the site selections and criteria and conclusions drawn by RPV in relation to the alternative sites identified sites in the Waurn Ponds locality. These are largely technically based and outside my area of expertise – however I observe that many of the sites were eliminated for technical and operational reasons. 85. The project land is identified as Site G in the ‘Site Options Review’ Plan at Figure 6, while Site F is the balance of land at 255 Reservoir Road located north of the railway line.

URBIS 18 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104

86. A reason for ‘discarding’ the viability of some sites reviewed was the distance to existing concentrations of ‘sensitive receptors’, in zoned residential land and urban areas. This can be seen in Figure 6 where the edge of the residential zone and growth zones has been marked. 87. Other sites reviewed included those set aside for mining extraction (Special Use Zone 7) which were also considered less suitable for functional and feasibility reasons. Sites marked as H1 and H2 were discarded on account of the topography and presence of a creek (also being subject to potential flood inundation (Land Subject to Inundation Overlay - LSIO).

Approximate edge of Residential Zone and Urban Growth Zones

Project Land

Figure 6: Site Options Review – Surrounding Zoning Source : Ashurst

88. While I have not undertaken a detailed assessments of the individual sites, it would appear that development of the alternative sites for the facility (beyond their technical suitability) would still impact on surrounding largely rural areas as well as potentially urban areas. 89. Key elements identifying the subject land (Site G) as suitable for the proposed facility (drawn from the ‘Project Outline and Rationale’ Statement and site selection summary) include: • Under the site selection process it is the closest suitable site to Waurn Ponds station. • The need to locate a train maintenance and stabling facility beyond the outer reach of regular commuter services. This is to enable efficient fleeting of trains in the morning start and evening end without disrupting commuter services. • The ‘fit’ of the site with the functional and efficient needs of the existing and future rail network – simple shunting moves, direct access from the existing mainline and service by roads. • Large site proportions and relatively flat even grade to allow implementation of best practice working and logistics arrangements (size, dimension, gradient, drainage and road access).. • A site with sufficient capacity to accommodate Stage 1 of the project (fully funded), with the opportunity for Stage 2 (including full or part line duplication between Geelong and the Facility and relocation of existing train maintenance and stabling facilities from Central Geelong). • Distance from high concentrations of sensitive receptors such as existing residential areas and zoned urban growth land in Waurn Ponds, Grovedale and Mount Duneed to minimise noise, light and visual impacts. • Relative absence of sensitive environmental factors such as significant flora and fauna, watercourses and cultural heritage. • The absence of historical structures, or significant landscape designations.

URBIS GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE 19

90. Simultaneous (but separate from) the proposed facility and Amendment GC104, Amendment C395 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme comprises the Geelong Settlement Strategy. The Strategy reviewed the available areas for urban growth within Greater Geelong, identifying two new growth areas to the north and west of Geelong. 91. Armstrong Creek remains the most significant growth corridor in the proposed Housing and Settlement Framework Plan (Clause 21.06). Waurn Ponds was not identified as an area of current need for settlement expansion. A non urban break is noted between the Geelong urban area and surrounding coastal and rural settlements. 92. Submissions to Amendment C395 are being heard by Planning Panels Victoria in a hearing that will continue into February 2020. 93. Evidence from Mr David Barnes of Hansen Partnership (November 2019) on behalf of Boral Industries observed that the existing rail corridor and proposed rail stabling facilities would have an important role for future growth in the locality and warranted identification as a future investigation area. The Victorian Planning Authority (in their submission of 29 July 2019) also identified the Boral extractive industry land as a ‘future investigation area’ given proximity to the existing growth areas, arterial roads and the rail corridor. 94. If the Boral land was to be identified for future urban land, then commercial development could provide separation between the rail facility and more residential sensitive uses. To this end, the potential for this surrounding land to form part of the urban area in the future does not necessarily create a conflict with the proposed project and indeed would be of benefit to future growth. 95. I acknowledge that the effect of the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment is to convert currently productive rural land (with a train corridor through it) to a large scale transport depot with an essentially ‘urban’ and ‘industrial’ character. This will initially result in potentially significant impacts on the current land use and its appearance, along with the loss (partial or otherwise) of agricultural land and the potential for other offsite amenity impacts on surrounding land. 96. To this extent, there will be an apparent misalignment with more localised polices such as those at Clause 14.01-1S ‘Protection of agricultural land’, Clause 15.01-6S ‘Design for rural areas’ and Clause 21.07-5 ‘Rural areas’ relating to preservation of agricultural land, maintaining breaks between urban land and the importance of rural character. This is in contrast with supporting designated regional growth policies and providing public infrastructure that keeps pace with anticipated demand (Clause 11.01R ‘Settlement – Geelong G21’ and Clause 18.01-1S ‘Land use and transport planning’). 97. In balancing these competing policy objectives, my conclusion is that meeting the infrastructure needs of a designated growth region outweigh the more localised impacts on the agricultural area and the change in character of this locality. 98. In the 2003 Great Ocean Road Regional Landscape Assessment Study (2003) the site is located within Precinct 1.2 ‘Undulating mixed farming’. Importantly the site is located outside of (but at the fringe) of an existing urban area, along an established rail corridor and in an area identified by the VPA for potential further strategic review as part of the urban area. 99. Further, it is not within an area declared as a ‘Distinctive Landscape Area’ or otherwise recognised in the Planning Scheme as being a landscape of significance. While it adjoins the recently declared Surf Coast Distinctive Landscape Area, the focus of this declaration is currently undefined. In proximity to the project land, the declared area already meets existing (or designated) urban fringe areas and the highly disturbed quarry extraction land. Further, the project land is already largely cleared of vegetation on account of its current agricultural use. 100. In the absence of setting land aside for the stabling and maintenance facility some time ago, it is inevitable that policy conflict and amenity impact will result regardless of the location of the new facility. Further, given its scale and nature, it is unlikely that any site would be able to ‘tick all boxes’ for a project of this significance. 101. In summary, I consider from a policy perspective: • There is a strategic imperative to support the growth envisaged by the G21 Growth Plan; • Major infrastructure projects are necessary to deliver macro strategies for regional growth and the Regional Rail Network Development Plan, 2016 (RRNDP); • Rail stabling and maintenance facilities of this type and scale are required to support the growth of Geelong and surrounding regions;

URBIS 20 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104

• The project is one of State and Regional Significance on account of its wide reaching benefits and scale; • It is important to provide for a facility which delivers immediate network support and has sufficient capacity for expansion to address long term needs; • There is a benefit to releasing centrally located railway land for more appropriate development given the growth trajectory of Geelong; • There is logic in an overarching sense to the location of the facility in Waurn Ponds; • An investigation of the suitability of at least 12 alternative sites has been undertaken utilising consistent principles and resulting in the identification of the project land; • The potential for surrounding land to be ‘future investigation areas’ for expansion of the urban area does not necessarily conflict with the development of the land for the proposed facility; • There will be off site amenity impacts associated with a proposal of this nature on surrounding residential and rural uses, but I find in this instance it is necessary to balance competing policy objectives in favour of regional infrastructure facilities with a wide reaching benefit. • Potential amenity impacts will be localised, and need to be mitigated to the extent possible (or the subject of compensation) in order to deliver a broader Net Community Benefit for the region. ARE THE PROPOSED CONTROLS AND AMENDMENTS TO THE GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST PLANNING SCHEMES APPROPRIATE TO IMPLEMENT THE PROJECT? Overview of Specific Control Overlay 102. Given the role of the Geelong Region in Victoria I consider that the proposal is of State Significance and warrants application of the Specific Controls Overlay (and associated clauses) in order to facilitate a project that is ‘out of the ordinary’ and will deliver a specific outcome. 103. A similar approach has been used in relation to major infrastructure projects in Metropolitan Melbourne or other regional areas (eg Level Crossing Removal and Station redevelopments and the West Gate Tunnel Project) . This enables an Incorporated Document, to deliver a particular project for which the end outcome is reasonably known but which requires further detail to be resolved for final approval. 104. This approach also allows the existing zone or other controls to remain in place, such that they are consistent with surrounding land zoning. This is relevant given the land is largely within the Farming Zone and partly affected by the Public Use Zone 4 ‘Transport’. 105. In time when the project is delivered and the land is acquired for public ownership it would be appropriate for the railway land to be rezoned to the Public Use Zone 4 consistent with land in the rail corridor generally. 106. The use of this mechanism is strategically justified for this project and makes proper use of the Victorian Planning Provisions. Content of the Overlay and Incorporated Document 107. The content of the proposed Specific Controls Overlay – Schedule 1 proceeds in a regular manner, setting out how the overlay applies, its purpose and referencing relevant documents – specifically the proposed ‘Waurn Ponds Train Maintenance and Stabling Facility Incorporated Document June 2019’ (or subsequent document). 108. The Specific Controls Overlay Schedule and Incorporated Document are proposed to apply to all of the land comprising Stages 1 and 2 and land along the railway corridor in the ‘wider project area’. An amended draft version of the Incorporated Document has been provided in the Part A Submissions of Rail Project Victoria (28.1.2020). 109. It is appropriate that the overlay be applied to all of the land, not withstanding Stage 2 of the works is not yet committed to funding. I say this on the basis that the significance of the infrastructure demands a strategic approach to ensure that all necessary land is available to deliver the project.

URBIS GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE 21

110. The proposed Specific Controls Overlay and Incorporated Document includes requirements for additional information to be submitted in relation to Stages 1 and 2 prior to approval of the specific project works. I accept in principle this approach and note that modifications to the Incorporated Document (appended to the Part A submissions of RPV) include refinements to the content and preparation of the Environmental Management Framework for the construction and operation phases of the project. 111. This includes specific reference to approval of specialist reports by the Minister for Planning in consultation with Surf Coast Shire and Greater Geelong Council once detailed design of the facility is resolved. I support the revisions put forward in the amended draft version of the Incorporated Document. 112. Other conditions of the Incorporated Document are set out in a regular manner such as; • The definition of the land (except as noted above); • The project; • Consultation with the Surf Coast Shire, Greater Geelong and other relevant agencies in relation to detailed documentation; • Provision for works to proceed in stages; • Provision for limited preparatory works as exemptions; and • Document expiry. • Conditions requiring further detailed submissions for matters such as ‘Environmental Management Framework’ (Condition 5.1), A ‘Development Plan’ condition 5.2 (including Architectural plans, landscape plans mitigation measures) and ‘Native Vegetation removal (Condition 5.3). Public Acquisition Overlay 113. The Public Acquisition Overlay is proposed to be applied to all of the land in Stages 1 and 2 to be used for a public purpose (including land for drainage and other services) as well as land to replace existing function of the rural land holding. This is primarily the project land south of the existing railway corridor, but also includes a narrow strip of land north of the rail corridor to allow for the relocated rail crossing associated with Stage 2 of the project. The land will be acquired by the ‘Secretary to the Department of Transport’. 114. Land which is otherwise ‘affected’ by the proposal would be the subject of compensations claims or sometimes ‘voluntary acquisition’, – matters which are outside the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment. Other Provisions 115. With respect to the other relevant provisions of the Amendment I note: • There are no other zones or overlays which I consider warrant application to the land (with the exception of the future application of the Public Use Zone 4 as noted above). • The Specific Controls Overlay Schedule will need to be updated to Schedule 2 since the use of the control for the Warrnambool line upgrade (Amendment GC121). • The mechanisms to introduce the ‘Waurn Ponds Train Maintenance and Stabling Facility Incorporated Document June 2019’ (or subsequent document) through Clause 51.01 ‘Specific Sites and Exclusions and in the Schedule to Clause 72.04 ‘Documents Incorporated in this Planning Scheme’ is appropriate. • The appointment of the Minister for Planning as the Responsible Authority for the purpose for the project (through the Schedule to Clause 72.01) is appropriate for a project of this nature. • The associated technical revisions to the scheme (eg list of amendments and maps) are acceptable. Any other relevant Matters 116. Other observations with respect to the proposed amendment include: • The project warrants consequential revision to local policy to identify the location, purpose and strategic significance of the facility when contemplating surrounding land use and development.

URBIS 22 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104

In particular this would be appropriate on the Greater Geelong Municipal Framework Plan at Clause 21.04 and in the strategies at Clause 21.08 – 2 ‘Transport’. • The proposed Amendment is consistent with the directions and complies of Plan Melbourne (DELWP 2017 - 2050) in accordance with Ministerial Direction No. 9 ‘Metropolitan Strategy. • The Amendment has been prepared in accordance with Ministerial Direction No. 11 Strategic Assessment of Amendments. • The Amendment has been conducted under the steps outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 15 ‘The Planning Scheme Amendment Process’ and prepared in accordance with the ‘Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes’ under section 7(5) of the Planning and Environment Act. • The amendment has regard to and will have a positive impact on the Transport System as defined in the Transport Integration Act 2010. • The amendment is consistent (in principle) with the Objectives of Planning in Victoria, enabling the orderly provision of public facilities for the benefit of the community and in the present and future interests of all Victorians. HOW DOES THE AMENDMENT ADDRESS ANY SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC AND AMENITY IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL? 117. The proposal seeks to establish a major regional infrastructure asset supporting the existing and intensified rail corridor. The required site area is large in area (particularly for Stage 2) and its form and appearance will differ from the surrounding locality. It will have obvious impacts on public and private outlook and rural character, as well as other potential off site amenity impacts. 118. Because of the strategic importance of establishing the facility these impacts need to be managed and mitigated to the extent possible. This is in my view distinct from a scenario where it is sought to insert a project into an existing environment by making it ‘meld and fit’ with the context. The nature of such infrastructure projects is that there will be amenity impacts on their surroundings. 119. Beyond the visual impact on the surroundings, these include matters such as drainage, vegetation removal, traffic, noise, odour, bushfire risk, impacts on flora and fauna and light spill. These matters are the subject of detailed reports that reviewed the potential impacts. Given the specific and technical nature of the subject matter I have relied on the technical reports and evidence statements in undertaking my assessment. 120. Many of these reports set out conclusions which demonstrate a high level of comfort or acceptability of the proposal and its potential impacts on the site and surrounds. In particular I note: • There are no historic heritage places within the Project land. • The project land is not within an area of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sensitivity and major effects on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage are considered unlikely. The wider project land crosses areas of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sensitivity west of Pettavel Road and a Cultural Heritage Management Plan is being prepared to manage the impacts of the proposal. • No significant flood risk is present. A Stormwater Management Plan has been prepared in relation to flood levels, water quality and drainage. These would be further addressed through conditions within the Incorporated Document. • The presence of hazardous site materials and fuels will be the subject of an Site Environmental Management Plan. • The site will be secured and the project is not anticipated to have significant impacts on air quality, odour emissions or dust and any such impacts can be successfully mitigated. • The project will not increase bushfire risk and has been reviewed by the CFA who have sought the inclusion of certain design and operational conditions. • Native vegetation to be removed has been identified as ‘low risk’ under the Native Vegetation Protection Framework and can be successfully offset within the surrounding region. • Flora and fauna species listed as ‘protected’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 were not identified in surveys undertaken of the land.

URBIS GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE 23

• The increases in traffic associated with the operation of the facility are not considered to be significant in the context of the surrounding road network and can be managed.. • Measures to manage traffic associated with construction will be implemented as part of environmental management plans and construction management plan. 121. The specialist reports also include recommendations for corresponding approvals under the Incorporated Document. This is an appropriate means of proceeding where a general level of acceptability of the impacts has been demonstrated, or can be appropriately managed. I have discussed this further in relation to the content of the Incorporated Document. 122. Additionally, expert reports have been prepared for the Advisory Committee in relation to the following matters: • Ecology, Christopher White, AECOM • Noise, Sarah Alper, Aurecon & Darren Tardio, Enfield Acoustics • Stormwater, Peter Meyers, AECOM • Traffic, Valentine Gnanakone, Onemilegrid • Lighting, Mark Cook, AECOM • Visual Impact, Craig Czarny, Hansen Partnership • Agricultural impact, Mike Stephens, Meridian • Economic impact, Matt Ainsaar, Urban Enterprise 123. I have addressed by exception the impacts that I consider require further discussion from a planning perspective, namely: • Impact on Agricultural land use; • Impacts of Lighting on Surrounding Environments; • Visual impact on rural living; and • Noise impacts. 124. These are set out in turn below. Impact on Agricultural Land Use 125. The proposed facility, Stage 1 and Stage 2 will bisect diagonally the existing agricultural land holding at No. 255 Reservoir Road. This is an operating merino sheep breeding farm which has been established for many decades in the one family. In a planning policy context I consider the land would fit the description of ‘productive agricultural land’ identified at Clause 14.01-1S ‘Protection of agricultural land’. 126. I note that a review is currently being undertaken by the Department of Environment Land Water and Planning in relation to identification and protection of significant agricultural land outside Melbourne’s Urban Growth boundary and within 100km from Central Melbourne. The strategy has only advanced through early engagement findings (July 2019), however the Amendment land and surrounds have not, at this stage, been identified as significant agricultural land. 127. The impacts of the proposal are described in the Agricultural assessment prepared by AJ Pitt, June 2019 on behalf of RPV and further analysed in the report of Mike Stephens of Meridian Agriculture in relation to operational impacts (acquisition areas, stock crossing relocation and impacts on views and amenity to the homestead). 128. The reports conclude that the project would have an impact on the operations of the farm and farming viability at Stage 1, but minimised by retention of the existing central farm crossing. This is also dependant on the land acquired (but not yet required) for Stage 2 being leased back to the farm owner so that the quantum of ‘lost’ agricultural land is minimised. 129. A more significant impact would be experienced with Stage 2, utilising the full 61 hectares of the project area and requiring the relocation of the central farm laneway crossing of the rail corridor to allow for livestock and light vehicles to cross the rail corridor further west.

URBIS 24 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104

130. The extent of operational impact is a matter to be addressed in the evidence of Mr Mike Stephens of Meridian Agriculture. In planning terms I would describe the impacts of the proposed facility on this particular property and its occupants as significant given a fundamental disruption to the existing agricultural operations (as well as the impact on rural living). 131. This is ultimately a localised impact, affecting one particular land holder while the impact on the agricultural pursuits of the broader region would be limited. 132. I acknowledge this may be unfavourable for the affected land owner. However in balancing the impact of the proposal with respect to the interests of ‘all Victorians’ (Objectives of Planning in Victoria ), I find the localised impact needs to be weighed against the strategic outcomes for the region. I note that the matter of compensation will be addressed outside of the Committee Hearing process. Impacts of Lighting on Surrounding Environments 133. It is proposed that the facility operate 24 hours, 7 days per week in order to enable maintenance to occur on the operating fleet, along with mustering for early morning operation and evening stabling. The operations are intended to allow for rolling stock maintenance – rather than more significant ‘overhauls’. The extensive hours of operation of the facility are a necessary element of its function to ensue that trains are available for the peak hour services. 134. The proposed stabling requirements will be similar to those operational at other facilities, comprising dedicated sidings used for stabling purposes with high site security and high intensity lighting appropriate for access for maintenance. While a concept design has been prepared to inform the assessment of amenity impacts and test the proposed regulatory framework it is not a final design. 135. An initial Lighting Planning and Recommendations Report was prepared by AECOM (June 2019). This recommended lighting design strategies for lighting design to minimise the impacts of intrusive light spill from the facility including; • selection of fittings; • mounting height of light fittings; • the setback of lighting from the boundary, and particularly to more highly illuminated areas; • provision of shields to the luminaries; and • the introduction trees or other objects around the boundary. 136. The revised Incorporated Document requires an Environmental Management Framework (Condition 5.2) to be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning and in consultation with the City of Greater Geelong and Surf Coast Shire Council. This requires a visual amenity report addressing visual amenity and including lighting and landscape details. The Condition operates in tandem with Condition 5.3 which requires details of designs features and mitigation details as well future performance monitoring. 137. The preliminary Lighting Planning and Recommendations report is based on the concept plan, and it is appropriate that the more refined level of detail be submitted and assessed once it is known. I note that Mr Mark Cook of AECOM will address the matter of lighting. Visual and Landscape Impact 138. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment was prepared for Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the project by AECOM and exhibited with the Planning Scheme Amendment. These have been peer reviewed by Mr Craig Czarny of Hansen Partnership (January 2020) and supplemented by additional montages. Mr Czarny – concluded that (notwithstanding the supplementary images required) ‘the exhibited LVIA, within the limits of available concept design information – represents a suitable baseline for valuation of the scenic impacts of the proposed development’. 139. Mr Czarny noted that the preparation of montages from additional public and private view points ‘reinforced the exhibited LVIA findings – that the impacts of the Project are generally modest, but significant impacts will be experienced from 255 Reservoir Road, Waurn Ponds that require mitigation (para 20). Notably at p.15: ‘The most notable visual impacts are show in Photomontages from within 255 Reservoir Road – defined as VP5 and PP6. As distinct from other views, these are located in the private realm and at close proximity to the proposed development. These represent the visual impact appropriately and demonstrate that buildings and works will not intervene into the skyline but be prominent at close

URBIS GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE 25

range (particularly Stage 2) within the property. I agree that these impacts are ‘Major’ (VP5) and ‘Moderate to Major’ (VP6) and accept that mitigation is necessary. I do not consider the impacts to be so significant that they cannot be mitigated’. 140. Similar findings were made in relation to the montages prepared by Mr Czarny for View 4 and 5 in the January 2020 report. 141. In respect of the experience of a ‘rural setting’ Mr Czarny noted that: ‘the open panorama across the plain to rising land on the south side of Freshwater Creek will in my view be maintained when viewed from main public thoroughfares passing through the area. In this regard I give greater weight to the (generally east west aligned) paved roads of Reservoir and Mount Dunned Roads, as compared to the lower profile unsealed north south aligned corridors of Bogans Lane and Petavell Road. While the proposed development (both stages 1 and 2) will be noticeable from these vantage points, their presence within the panorama – experienced at some speed (when travelling along roadways in either direction) will not in my view substantially compromise an appreciation of the total rural aspect and setting. Like other infrastructure in the rural and agricultural context, the proposal will serve as a series of objects that are not uncommon within the agricultural sector.’ 142. In my view, these are reasonable conclusions – although I accept that there is a level of debate around whether at certain points the views will compromise the immediate rural aspect and setting. 143. I have undertaken an inspection of surrounding residences and public areas in proximity to the proposed facility. If the current experience is no facility then the future experience (particularly Stage 2) must at certain public and private domains (but particularly when in close proximity) be a noticeable change where there are views of large sheds and security fencing, and presumably the presence of trains when stabled in open areas. 144. The visual impact on 255 Reservoir Rd is acknowledged as per the landscape analysis. 145. On properties to the east in Bogans Lane, it appears that there will be some impact, but more limited. 146. On properties further to the west on Reservoir Road, it appears that views toward the site will be largely screened by existing standing vegetation. 147. For the most part it appears that the impacted views can be mitigated with the provision of screening vegetation adjoining the new facility. This is evident from the success with which existing vegetation at certain points eliminates or mitigates views of the facility. As I have noted above, while vegetation will contribute to screening or blending the facility into its surrounds in time, this will also be dependant on its early and successful establishment and should be planned for Stages 1 and Stage 2 at the outset. 148. Ultimately I have concluded that the landscape and visual impacts from most key private and public vantage points can at least be mitigated to some degree. 149. The impacts on the rural area more generally are either relatively localised, or from more significant distances (which are by their nature diminished) both of which are an inevitable consequence of a major infrastructure project (ie similar to viewing a new major roadway). Noise Impacts 150. A Preliminary Noise Assessment has been prepared by Aurecon Jacobs Mott MacDonald JV (21.1.2020) for the Committee Hearing. The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the Victorian Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Guidelines, ‘Noise from Industry in Regional Victoria, EPA publication 1411, October 2011’ and also examines the NSW sleep disturbance criteria as an appropriate measure. 151. Various operational scenarios have been modelled in the 2020 report (appended to RPV’s Part A submissions) which indicates that conservative assumptions have been used (p.34). In general, activity at the facility during the day is predicted to be less than during the night-time period. 152. It was predicted that operations would exceed the recommended maximum noise levels during early morning (prior to 7am). The measurements were based on analysis of existing stabling and sidings in Victoria and predicted exceedance for some of the dwellings for some of the scenarios (with and without Boral operational). The report states that Stage 1 generally has a higher internal noise impact than Stage 2 due to the use of existing N-Class locomotives. The phasing out of these older locomotives and replacing with new rolling stock such as the VLocity trains should reduce these impacts in time.

URBIS 26 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104

153. Architectural mitigation treatments to the dwellings were recommended on the basis that on site screens would not be effective (as many of the dwellings were elevated relative to the facility), and that shedding would be affected by operational functions given the requirement for doors to open and close. The treatments were recommended with reference to the internal dwelling areas as most of the exceedances of the recommended maximum noise levels are predicted to occur during the night period (in the early hours of the morning) when residents are likely to be inside. 154. The matter of noise mitigation is to be further addressed in the evidence statements of Sarah Alper of Aurecon & Darren Tardio, Enfield Acoustics. 155. I do note that the measurements are preliminary until more specific operational detail is resolved. This is accommodated by Conditions 5.2 (EMF) and 5.3 (requirements for reports) of the Incorporated Documents. These are to be reviewed by the Minister for Planning and consultation with Greater Geelong and Surf Coast Shire. The Draft Noise Management Plan (January 2020) includes guidelines requiring assessments of the operational noise impacts of any stage of the facility having regard to the matters such as up to date background noise assessments, details of noise sensitive areas and reporting of consultation with affected landowners. RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS 156. The submissions to the proposed amendment raise a number of key planning issues. These are summarised in the Annexure A to the Part A submissions of Rail Project Victoria. I have addressed these items variously within my statement and note: • The appropriateness of use of the Special Control Overlay is addressed at paragraphs 102 to 106. • The amenity impacts to rural lifestyle are noted in relation to policy outcomes at paragraphs 133 - 155 • Inconsistency with local policies relating to the protection of agricultural land are addressed at 95 - 100 and 125 - 132. • Use of Farming Zone land and acquisition of an operational rural property are matters that are addressed in policy considerations relating to the protection of agricultural land and the use of the Special Controls Overlay to achieve the project outcome. CONCLUSION 157. In conclusion I consider that: • The project is strategically important to the growth of the Geelong Region envisaged in the G21 Regional Growth Plan and the Melbourne Metropolitan Strategy and other supporting documents. • The proposed Planning Scheme Amendment is an appropriate tool for the implementation of a large scale infrastructure project of this nature and meets the strategic assessment guidelines for Planning Scheme Amendments. • The project will affect the rural outlook for adjacent properties (and from public areas) to greater and lesser degrees. Further, the proposal will result in localised amenity impacts on surrounding public areas and on immediately surrounding properties and their residents with the most significant impacts being on the primary land holder, however such impacts are inevitable for a project of this scale and nature and have been mitigated and reduced where possible. • The proposal will have positive economic and social effects for the Geelong Region and can be accommodated without significant environmental impacts. • On balance, important and wide reaching net community benefit will be derived from the project, weighing in favour of its approval, notwithstanding the localised amenity impacts. 158. I declare that I have made all the enquiries that I believe are desirable and that no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have, to my knowledge, been withheld from the Advisory Committee.

URBIS GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE 27

APPENDIX A STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

URBIS APPENDICES GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104

NAME AND ADDRESS Stuart Andrew McGurn Director Urbis Pty Ltd Level 12, 120 Collins Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000

QUALIFICATIONS ▪ Bachelor of Arts 1984 ▪ Graduate Diploma Urban Planning 1986

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ▪ Current Position: Director, Urbis Pty Ltd ▪ 2010-2015: Partner, Environmental Resources Management Australia Pty Ltd ▪ 1998 – 2010: Director, Fulcrum Town Planners Pty Ltd ▪ 1986 – 1998: Town Planner in local government – Cities of Broadmeadows and Melbourne, including role as Principal Planner – City of Melbourne

AREA OF EXPERTISE ▪ Statutory planning for local and state government on a range of residential, commercial and industrial issues. ▪ Consulting advice to a wide range of commercial and local government clients addressing the management of urban development and the statutory planning process. ▪ Extensive planning advice to architects, project managers and other professionals involved in a range of projects and the built form and visual impact issues associated with the development of land.

EXPERTISE TO PREPARE THIS REPORT Professional qualifications and expertise in town planning both in the public and private sectors.

INSTRUCTIONS WHICH DEFINED THE SCOPE OF THE REPORT My instructions required me to undertake a town planning assessment and site review of Amendment GC104 to the Greater Geelong and Surf Coast Planning Scheme. In so doing, I have relied upon those matters set down below.

FACTS, MATTERS AND ASSUMPTIONS RELIED UPON I have relied upon the following in the preparation of this report:

▪ Inspection of the subject site and surrounds. ▪ Review of the Greater Geelong and Surf Coast Planning Schemes, exhibited amendments, and strategic policies. ▪ Documents as described in the Introduction to my Statement.

URBIS GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104 APPENDICES

DOCUMENTS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT Relevant documents are described above.

IDENTITY OF PERSONS UNDERTAKING THE WORK Stuart McGurn assisted by Christina McRae, Director.

SUMMARY OF OPINIONS A summary of my opinions in relation to this matter is included at paragraph No. 158 of my evidence.

I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Advisory Committee.

Stuart McGurn Urbis Pty Ltd

URBIS APPENDICES GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104

APPENDIX B SURF COAST PLANNING SCHEME – LIST OF KEY RELEVANT LOCAL POLICY PROVISIONS

URBIS GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104 APPENDICES

• Clause 21.02 ‘Settlement, Built Environment, Heritage and Housing’

• Clause 21.03 ‘Environmental Management’

• Clause 21.04 ‘Tourism’

• Clause 21.05 ‘Agriculture’

• Clause 21.06 ‘Rural Landscapes’

• Clause 22.04 ‘Scenic Landscapes and Environmental Assets’

URBIS APPENDICES GREATER GEELONG AND SURF COAST AMENDMENT GC104