152. Boral Recycling Pty

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds

Submission: Brian Haratsis Executive Chairman of Macroplan on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Surf Coast Distinctive Areas & Landscapes Draft Statement of Planning Policy

March 2021

Important Notice © MacroPlan Holdings Pty Ltd All Rights Reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, transmitted, stored in a retrieval system, or translated into any language in any form by any means without the written permission of MacroPlan Holdings Pty Ltd. All Rights Reserved. All methods, processes, commercial proposals and other contents described in this document are the confidential intellectual property of MacroPlan Holdings Pty Ltd and may not be used or disclosed to any party without the written permission of MacroPlan Holdings Pty Ltd.

MacroPlan staff responsible for this report: Brian Haratsis, Executive Chairman

Contact Level 16 300 Collins Street Melbourne VIC 3000 (03) 9600 0500 [email protected]

Table of contents

Executive Summary ...... 1

Section 1: Site and Context ...... 7

Section 2: A Permanent Settlement Boundary ...... 13

Section 3: Geelong Settlement Strategy ...... 17

Section 4: Public Transport ...... 27

Section 5: Surf Coast Distinctive Areas & Landscapes Draft Statement of Planning Policy ...... 30

Section 6: Distinctive Areas and Landscapes ...... 43

Section 7: Declaration of the Surf Coast as a Distinctive Area and Landscape ...... 48

Section 8: Statement of Planning Policy...... 50

Section 9: Criteria for a Distinctive Area and Landscape ...... 51

Section 10: The Shifting Urban Break ...... 59

Section 11: Surf Coast Statutory Information Package / Volumes 1 & 2 DAL’s Surf Coast Landscape Assessment Review Report 2020 ...... 63

Appendix 1: Curriculum Vitae ...... 66

Appendix 2: Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds ...... 68

Appendix 3: Statement of James Peter Young ...... 70

Appendix 4: ...... 72

1. Ordinary Meeting of Council Tuesday, 25 August 2020 (see page 38, 46, 47)...... 72

2. Panel Report – Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395 Settlement Strategy and Northern & Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan, 14 May 2020 (see page iii, 34, 41) 72

3. VPA Doc NO: COR/19/6026, 29 July 2019 ...... 72

Sources

Draft Coast Distinctive Area & Landscape Study Draft Statement of Planning Policy November 2020

Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee Settlement Strategy and Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan May 2020

C395 Adoption – Council Minutes 25 August 2020 Adoption

Minutes for the Meeting of Council on 2 February 2021

Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas & Landscape Process – Alan Wyatt Report 2019

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy 2020

Statement of James Peter Young

Volume1 DALs SurfCoast_Landscape_Assessment_Review_Report 2020

Volume 2 DALs_SurfCoast_Statutory_Implementation_Package 2020

Surf Coast Cultural Heritage Report

Boral Waurn Ponds Expert Witness Statement Brian Haratsis 2019

Settlement Strategy, City of Greater Geelong, 2018

Residential Land Supply and Demand Assessment, Macroplan 2019

Minutes City of Greater Geelong 26 March 2019

G21 Regional Growth Plan Background Report, 2012

G21 Regional Growth Plan, 2013

G21 Regional Growth Plan Implementation Plan, 2013

Submission to the Geelong Settlement Strategy, Macroplan, 2017

Transfer of Demand Study, Wyndham / Macroplan, 2018

Geelong Settlement Strategy Residential Dwelling Stock Discussion Paper No 4, City of Greater Geelong (Spatial Economics), 2017

Geelong Settlement Strategy Residential Land Supply and Development Discussion Paper No 5, City of Greater Geelong (Spatial Economics), 2017

Geelong Settlement Strategy Land Supply and Housing Affordability Discussion Paper 6, City of Greater Geelong (Spatial Economics), 2017

Geelong Settlement Strategy Growth Scenarios Discussion Paper No 1, City of Greater Geelong (Spatial Economics), 2017

Geelong Settlement Strategy Background to Population Projections Discussion Paper No 2, City of Greater Geelong (Spatial Economics), 2017

RP Data

Victoria in Future, 2019

Plan Melbourne 2017-2025, DWELP, 2017

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds i Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Sources

Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C138 Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan, Report of Panel (2008)

State of Discovery Mineral Resources Strategy 2018-2023, Victorian State Government (2018)

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds ii Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd

Executive Summary

1. Macroplan has been engaged by Boral Recycling Pty Ltd to prepare a submission regarding the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas & Landscapes Draft Statement of Planning Policy for the Boral Land as indicated in the red cross hatching on (Map E1 below).

Map E1: Surf Coast DAL Area Subject Site

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 1 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Executive Summary

2. The Boral Land is suitable for urban development according to the Greater City of Geelong, the Victorian Planning Authority and DELWP once the Planning Scheme Amendment C395 has been adopted. (Refer to Appendix 4).

3. The land has been subject to discussion and planning since 2012 when the G21 Background report was produced, and it was nominated as an employment precinct in the G21 Growth Plan as a long-term future Investigation Area.

4. The southern portion of the site is included in the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Draft SPP. This southern section occupies 450 ha of the total 1,035 ha site which has been exhausted of its viable limestone resource.

5. The land is immediately adjacent to the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area – according to the ACUGA planning panel report (2008) the land was apparently only excluded from the original planning from this area because it was used for quarrying at the time – and is ideally located to provide a logical western extension to the growth area.

6. Sine 2012 this land has not been used for or required for quarrying and will soon no longer be required for associated cement manufacturing upon completion of a new processing facility at the Port of Geelong. Quarrying of limestone for cement manufacturing is not viable given the high-cost and energy-intensive processes compared to overseas imports. Compounding this at Waurn Ponds is the size and cost competitiveness of the cement kiln compounded by higher capital and labour costs, access constraints and haulage distances, required extraction methods and the significant quantum of overburden that must be removed before useable limestone can be accessed.

7. Boral is continuing to invest in Geelong with $130m port facility for processing imported clinker under construction and due for completion in 2021.

8. The importance of the capacity of the Boral Land to accommodate a Transport Orientated Development (TOD) cannot be overstated. Increased use of public transport and decreased reliance on private vehicles, is a key driver of planning and transport policy at all levels including the State Planning Policy Framework, local planning policy, and Geelong’s “clever and creative strategy” and Amendment C395.

9. Balancing the objectives of the Draft SPP and the strong sustainability objectives of the Greater City of Geelong is crucially important.

10. The Boral Land is extremely transport rich. An interchange with the Geelong Ring Road already exists with direct connection to the site and capacity. The site is connected internally by underpasses of the Geelong Ring Road and rail line that are capable of accommodating B-double trucks. There is direct connection to the existing regional bicycle network available.

11. The Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Draft SPP sets out criteria and policy domains for the assessment of land that recognise the unique values and distinctive attributes of the declared area and result from the complex interaction of the areas landscape character, biodiversity environment, settlement patterns, infrastructure, natural resources and Aboriginal culture heritage and historic heritage. This has resulted in the proposed Surf Coast Declared Area Framework Plan. I note that the Boral Land is not impacted by the Protected Settlement Boundary but is impacted by the proposed Mt Duneed Road corridor designation relating to views of the rural hinterland. (see Map E2 on the following page).

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 2 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Executive Summary

Map E2: Proposed Surf Coast Declared Area Framework Plan

12. The Mt Duneed area where the land is located has been identified as a landscape area of regional significance. This is considered a relatively low-level of significance compared to areas classified as having National significance and State significance and therefore much greater importance.

13. The area which affects the subject site has been primarily identified as a landscape area of regional significance due to the presence of the remaining limestone resource which as noted previously is no longer economically viable on this site with the Quarry operations ceasing on the northern portion of the site in 2012. Otherwise, the subject site would not be regionally significant because it fails to meet the relevant criteria in that:

- It has no significant biodiversity value.

- It has no significant tourism value.

- It is not designated as an agriculture hotspot.

- It cannot be seen from any point along the Anglesea Rd corridor or the Surf Coast Highway corridor (Ref to Allan Wyatt, XURBAN Appendix 2).

- The western portion cannot be seen from the Mt Duneed Road corridor due the four-metre high densely planted bunds and the eastern site does not impede views of Mt Duneed. (Ref to Alan Wyatt XURBAN Report Appendix).

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 3 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Executive Summary

- It has no historic value and in terms of cultural heritage, I note that about 3.6ha of land (within the Boral land to the north of the DAL area) has been returned by Boral to the Wadawurrung community.

14. The Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Surf Coast Landscape Assessment Review does not relate directly to the Boral Land. On page 29 Volume 2 of the Landscape Assessment report, it states that ‘in relation to that part of the regionally significant landscape within the City of Greater Geelong and located between the Armstrong Creek urban growth area and Mount Duneed Rd (and forming the northernmost part of the Thompson Valley Green Break), the following conclusions were outlined in the landscape assessment review report (p129-130)”. This relates to the expansion of ACUGA in a southerly direction. This area is clearly east of Ghazeepore Road and therefore it does not apply to the Boral Land. This is reflected in (Map E2 Designating the Protected Area Boundary) which does not extend to the Boral Land. The key landscape features outlined on page 33 of Volume 1 of the Landscape Assessment Report do not mention the Boral Land in relation to the Mount Duneed Volcanic Plain. Hence the Boral Land is not significantly affected by the DAL. We request that the land be nominated as an Investigation Area to bring it in line with Amendment C395 and the subsequent amendment delineating the long term growth boundary for Greater Geelong.

Map E3: Waurn Ponds

15. We dispute that the Mt Duneed Volcanic Plain is an integral part of the Thompson Valley green break, but we accept the importance of green breaks per se. We have noted that the inter urban break has been moved three times and now aligns with Mt Duneed Road, presumably because of the sensitivity of Mt Duneed itself and the

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 4 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Executive Summary

view lines along the Surf Coast Highway. We note that Anglesea Road is not a main road corridor from which significant view sheds occur, thus only localised view sheds are apparent from Mt Duneed Road.

16. The strategic importance of the Boral Land to Geelong’s future means that it should be nominated as an Investigation Area in the SPP and/or the Protected Area Boundary should run south along Ghazeepore Road to Mt Duneed Road, west along that road until Bogans Lane. Amendment C395 nominated the site as a strategic site and indicated they would consider rezoning the site when the demand for residential lots was appropriate. This is indicated in the following (Map E4 below). Further, no commentary should be included in the SPP recommending non-urban uses.

Map E4: Proposed re-draft of Surf Coast DAL Statement of Planning Policy

17. In effect the only reason that the Boral Land was included in the Surf Coast DAL was because of the natural resource. DEDJTR is currently assessing the land in terms of the resource. Clearly the resource is exhausted on the northern portion of the site. The southern portion of the site included in the DAL is not economically viable and is currently being assessed by DEDJTR.

18.The Greater City of Geelong in its Amendment C395 has indicated that it will consider long-term growth boundaries after the adoption of Amendment C395. The Boral Land is nominated to be investigated for future urban use, subject to Geelong supply and demand meeting the Growth Strategy requirements. Hence, objectives set out in the SPP should be consistent with the likely future urban use.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 5 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Executive Summary

19.The reality is in the current COVID situation the demand for housing is extremely strong in regional Victoria and particularly strong in Armstrong Creek and we would argue that the Boral Land should be inside any settlement boundaries and that the Surf Coast DAL Statement of Planning Policy should not be inconsistent with Amendment C395, in recognising the likely future urban use for the site. This is particularly important when considering the 15-year reference timeframe for the Greater Geelong Growth Strategy (Amendment C395) and the 50-year reference timeframe for the DAL legislation.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 6 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd

Section 1: Site and Context

1.1 The subject site is adjacent to the western boundary of the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area (ACUGA) According to the Panel Hearing into the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan (February 2008):

Armstrong Creek is an extension of the existing Geelong area, so that there is no issue about its north-western interface with urban Geelong.

Armstrong Creek is bounded by the Blue Circle cement quarry, which prevents urban development west of Ghazeepore Road. To the north-east and east is the Barwon River flood plain which is a physical development constraint that can be used to define that boundary. Most of the argument about the Urban Growth Boundary was in relation to the southern boundary.

1.2 The quarry operations, however, ceased in 2012. The cement processing operations will cease upon the completion of the $130m facility at the Port of Geelong to import clinker in 2021-22.

1.3 The entire site is sought to be changed from quarry use to urban. This is supported by the Panel for Amendment C395, City of Greater Geelong in its adopted version of the Amendment and the VPA. If the Adopted version is approved by the Minister, it will in effect be supported by DELWP. (see Appendix 4).

1.4 The site is less than 2 km from Deakin University and bisected by the Waurn Ponds rail line and is recognised as a logical extension of ACUGA (Map 1).

1.5 The site comprises:

- Ingress and egress from the Geelong Ring Road.

- Bridge structures under the rail line and under the Freeway capable of accommodating B Double trucks.

- All services are available.

1.6 To the west of the stie the State Government has amended the planning scheme to enable the construction of a Railway Stabling Yard.

1.7 The northern section (see Map 15) of Boral’s site warrants rezoning immediately (i.e. the area not affected by the recent Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscapes designation) because it is logical extension to the ACUGA. Both sites are subject to acknowledgement by DJPR that quarrying of the limestone resource is no longer economic and the resource on the northern site has been exhausted.

1.8 It would take up to five years to rehabilitate the northern site and therefore would be perfectly timed for a logical extension of ACUGA.

1.9 The southern portion is also a logical extension of the ACUGA, being part of significant land holdings in single ownership within proximity of major transport infrastructure and services, enabling a range of potential urban uses.

1.10 The site was designated as an employment precinct in the 2013 G21 RGP.

1.11 The site missed out on serious consideration in the 2013 G21 RGP because:

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 7 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 1: Site and Context

- The Background Report (G21 GRA) was prepared in August 2012 and found that it did not have a proposal. Lovely Banks and Batesford both had proposals afoot.

- It was an operating quarry at the time with a Work Authority in place over the majority of the land holdings.

- The G21 Regional Growth Plan was completed in April 2013 based on the Background Report advice.

- The Northern and Western FIAs went into an Implementation Plan (December 2013) phase based on the advice of the Background Report and Regional Growth Plan.

By the time preparation of Draft Settlement Strategy was completed and despite submissions made on behalf of Boral in the interim period, no further consideration was given to the Boral Land (one officer had a half day tour) because effort was directed into the Northern FIA and Western FIA.

1.12 The site is zoned SUZ7 and can be currently used with a permit for a range of uses including industry, warehouse, leisure and recreation, manufacturing sales and place of assembly (Map 4).

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 8 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd

Map 1

Map 2

Map 3

Map 4

Section 2: A Permanent Settlement Boundary

2.1 A permanent settlement boundary was canvassed in the 2013 G21 RGP (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Source: G21 Regional Growth Plan, April 2013, page 37

2.2 The Blue Circle, Waurn Ponds (Boral) site is an identified employment node but appears in ‘out of plan’ development (Map 5).

2.3 The G21 Regional Growth Plan is intended to be a living and adaptable plan, able to respond to new data and information as it arises, including information from State or regional strategies and programs. (G21 RGP, page 44).

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 13 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 2: A Permanent Settlement Boundary

Map 5: Settlement and employment growth directions

Source: Map 7, G21 Regional Growth Plan, April 2013, page 27

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 14 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 2: A Permanent Settlement Boundary

2.4 The Deakin Employment Node is identified but remains outside the settlement boundary.

2.5 There is no discussion about the boundaries in the document or if the proposed boundaries were sufficient. Many employment areas and rural residential areas are outside the boundary.

2.6 A key priority of the G21 RGP is an intra Geelong train service (upgrades and service) and stabling yard relocation.

2.7 The current indicative permanent growth boundary is based on the G21 RGP with inclusions for the Western Growth Area and Northern Growth Area. It generally runs along the Geelong Freeway (Ring Road) south of the Western Growth Area and intersects with the Warrnambool to Geelong rail line

2.8 It excludes rural residential areas, industrial areas, Deakin University and Epworth Hospital, and is unlike the Melbourne Urban Growth Boundary.

2.9 The indicative permanent boundary should be amended to follow the municipal boundary to include the rail stabling yards, Deakin University, Epworth Hospital, the Geelong Future Economy Precinct and the Boral Land.

2.10 The stabling yard has now been rezoned and every effort should be made to facilitate the intra Geelong rail service beyond Waurn Ponds station.

2.11 The original inter-urban break was along the Thompson Creek Valley. The G21 RGP stated that to ensure that a strong founded character between the urban areas of Armstrong Creek and Torquay was maintained to encourage rural population and maintain existing town identities. The Boral site maintains the inter-urban break.

2.12 The Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) will set out the long-term needs for the integration of decision making and planning for the declared area.

2.13 The SPP must set a vision for a period of at least 50 years including preferences for land uses and I note that according to the evidence in the Amendment C395 Panel Hearing, additional land is likely to be required in Armstrong Creek between 2025 and 2030 because it will take 5 to 8 years from when it is nominated as a growth area until it actually produces land.

2.14 There are priorities from other policies including the innovative reuse of these areas consistent with the objectives of the Extractive Resources Strategy (2018) that must come into play.

2.15 The Distinctive Areas and Landscapes provisions affects the southern area of Geelong and the southern section of the Boral Land.

2.16 The SPP may specify settlement boundaries in the declared area or designate specific settlement boundaries in the declared area as protected settlement boundaries. The DAL is intended to consolidate planning outcomes/processes (i.e having continuity between the permanent settlement boundary and DAL SPP boundaries).

2.17 The DAL is an integrative mechanism and should be viewed in light of the Geelong settlement boundaries. The northern section of the site is outside the indicative permanent boundary but should be inside the Geelong Settlement Boundary to meet the requirements of innovative reuse (as distinct from stabilise and walk away) and because it has the ability to be a transit-oriented development.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 15 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 2: A Permanent Settlement Boundary

2.18 The southern site which is included in the DAL should be included in the settlement boundary. The resource remaining in this portion of the site is no longer economically viable and therefore should not be protected or the basis of policy for this area.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 16 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd

Section 3: Geelong Settlement Strategy

3.1 The Settlement Strategy has recognised infrastructure deficiencies:

- Rail infrastructure is sparse. The confirmed duplication to Waurn Ponds highlights this fact, and the rail line should be further utilised. This is a key objective underpinning the G21 background report for the selection of the FIAs to support the growth of Geelong.

- Road infrastructure. Armstrong Creek is served by excellent primary arterial roads and secondary arterial roads. There are already entry and exit points from the Boral Land. It would be remiss to not use this existing capacity (Map 6). - Power, water and sewerage treatment can be made available.

Map 6: Connectivity of The Boral Land

3.2 The Settlement Strategy states that it does not address other land use types such as farming, industrial, commercial or public uses, except in cases where these uses may impact upon housing supply policies (page 15 Settlement Strategy 2018).

3.3 The Settlement Strategy also states it does not make recommendations about specific boundaries (page 15).

3.4 The G21 Regional Growth Plan (2013) pre-dates Plan Melbourne.

3.5 Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 is based on the proposition that there will be no expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary (as was Plan Melbourne 2014).

3.6 Melbourne is already hitting the boundary in the west. Manor Lakes, Harpley and other PSPs nestle against the UGB.

3.7 Geelong is the ‘second’ city and should plan accordingly to take growth from Melbourne. The proposed new fast rail and growth of Avalon signal a new era for Geelong.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 17 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 3: Geelong Settlement Strategy

3.8 For example, according to Plan Melbourne, Bay West will be the next port for Melbourne not the Port of Hastings. The Western Intermodal Freight Terminal, Inland Rail and Outer Metropolitan Ring Road were all established in Plan Melbourne and will lead to accelerated growth in Geelong. This accelerated growth has been accentuated by the current COVID period and ultra-low interest rates.

3.9 The Extractive Resources Strategy (2018) states on page 36:

Innovative end-land use opportunities for quarries Innovation also has a central role in planning, design and implementing safe, stable and beneficial post quarrying land forms and land uses. Post-quarrying land uses can enhance amenity and lifestyle for local communities, and also help to provide habitat for threatened species. We will support industry to plan for and implement innovative end land uses that are beneficial for the local community.

3.10 Successful re-purposing leads to further investment in the resources sector. This is important for sustained infrastructure growth. It is important that Boral have certainty as to the future use of the site in order to determine what standard the quarry should be rehabilitated to. The future use of the site determines how and to what standard the land is rehabilitated.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 18 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd

Map 7: Section 3: Geelong Settlement Strategy

Map 8: Proposed Future Infrastructure – Western Melbourne

G21 Regional Growth Plan Background Report 3.11 The G21 Regional Growth Plan contemplated the subject site as urban and designated it as an employment node (Map 10).

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 20 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 3: Geelong Settlement Strategy

Map 9: The Regional Grown Plan Map

Source: G21 Regional Growth Plan Summary, page 7

3.12 The G21 RGP contemplated the subject site as a potential further investigation node.

3.13 In Table 4.3 of the Background Report (Figure 2), the potential future sites were compared. The Boral Land (Blue Circle Cement Quarry Land) was strangely noted as low-moderate with an opportunity to use the rail line.

3.14 It scored highly in all respects and the G21 notes that ‘after the development of Armstrong Creek’ it would have scored more highly because of services and facilities. In fact, all services were on site.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 21 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Figure 2

Source: Table 4.3, G21 Regional Growth Plan Background Report, August 2012, pages 74-75 Section 3: Geelong Settlement Strategy

3.15 The Background Report (page 72) states:

The following considerations were used in identifying potential sites:

- Proximity to existing major urban area – ability to integrate and add value to existing communities.

- Extent of existing, or access to, infrastructure including major transport routes and reticulated services.

- Ability to integrate and connect efficiently to existing services, including public transport and communities.

- Proximity to major employment and activity nodes and capacity to provide employment opportunities.

- Capacity by owner/developer to deliver planned communities (for example, land tenure and fragmentation), housing diversity and provide for housing affordability.

- Minimal conflict with adjacent land uses.

- Potentially land with limited significant environmental, cultural and landscape values.

3.16 Further, the Background Report (page 72) states (Map 11)

Based on the preliminary desk top assessment, it is considered that the following nodes have potential for residential growth subject to further investigation:

- Lovely Banks.

- Bell Post Hill.

- Batesford South.

Based on the preliminary desk top assessment, it is considered that the following nodes lend themselves to employment growth opportunities subject to further investigation:

- Marcus Oldham/Deakin University.

- Blue Circle Quarry North.

3.17 The Background Report (page 72) also states:

The boundaries of these areas are notional only. Subsequent detail (sic) examination of these areas should consider the potential of adjoining lands where better outcomes can be achieved.

3.18 If the G21 Background Report had been aware of the closure at the quarry it would most likely have nominated the southern site as having residential growth potential due to the preliminary nature of the work.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 23 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 3: Geelong Settlement Strategy

Map 10: Developing the growth plan

Source: Figure 4.11, G21 Regional Growth Plan – Background Report, August 2012, page 73

3.19 The Blue Circle south land was not considered presumably because it was thought to be an operational quarry.

3.20 The picture changed dramatically with the completion of the Geelong Ring Road brought forward by the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and the subsequent fast development of Armstrong Creek.

3.21 This included ingress and egress from the Geelong Ring Road and all utilities being made available to the subject land.

3.22 The City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) failed to assess the northern site and the southern site because preliminary planning had already begun in Lovely Banks and Batesford South in the Implementation Plan.

3.23 G21 Regional Growth Plan Implementation Plan November 2013 immediately jumped to assess the Northern FIA and the Western FIA (Map 12) largely at the exclusion of any other potential areas.

3.24 Despite this the Waurn Ponds station was proposed and the plan shows a westerly rail extension (Map 12).

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 24 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 3: Geelong Settlement Strategy Map 11

Source: Map 11, G21 RGP Implementation Plan, November 2013, page 85 Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 25 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 3: Geelong Settlement Strategy Map 12

Source: Map 5, G21 RGP Implementation Plan, November 2013, page 25

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 26 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd

Section 4: Public Transport

4.1 The Settlement Strategy (2018) is not based on fixed rail connections. There is only one new station on the Geelong to Ballarat line and that is placed at the northern extremity of the Western FIA. This strategic direction was fixed in 2012.

4.2 The subject site has fixed rail central to the site and connection with Geelong and Melbourne (Map 14).

4.3 The time taken from Waurn Ponds to Melbourne (1 hour and 25 minutes) is similar time as Frankston (1 hour and 8 minutes) in peak hours.

4.4 The Geelong fast rail project is anticipated to cut at least 25 minutes from this journey.

4.5 The G21 Regional Growth Strategy first principle is to optimise infrastructure.

Source: G21 Regional Growth Plan, April 2013, page 20

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 27 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd

Map 13 Section 4: Public Transport

4.6 At that time no thought was given to Transit Oriented Development.

4.7 It is essential to link to the Geelong CBD by fixed rail support the 50,000 jobs proposed (page 30, G21 Regional Growth Plan).

4.8 Urban consolidation will not occur without TOD style development at the end of the rail to facilitate two- way commuting.

4.9 The train stabling yards are the outboard (western) side of the subject site.

4.10 Waurn Ponds is getting a duplicated track.

4.11 The Lara station is at capacity in the peak and will require significant new parking.

4.12 The rail ‘opportunity’ should not have been overlooked in the G21 Regional Growth Plan Background Report (page 75).

4.13 There is no foreseeable alternative major rail expansion in the G21 work or the Settlement Strategy.

4.14 A ‘Transit Oriented Development’ should be developed on the subject site taking advantage of the links with Deakin University and Epworth Hospital.

4.15 The G21 Regional Growth Plan notes (page 47) that optimising existing assets will strengthen Central Geelong, support infill housing and result in more equitable and efficient public transport (Figure 3).

4.16 The Geelong Fast Rail which has been announced will create connectivity between rail nodes and transit- oriented developments. The current Waurn Ponds station could not be considered a transit-orientated development because it has neither the density of jobs nor density of residential development to support it.

Figure 3

Source: G21 Regional Growth Plan, April 2013, page 47

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 29 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd

Section 5: Surf Coast Distinctive Areas & Landscapes Draft Statement of Planning Policy

5.1 The Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Draft Statement of Planning Policy is seeking to achieve a long-term vision for the region and guide future land use and development. This submission focuses on the Greater City of Geelong portion of the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes (DAL) as it applies to the Boral sites east and west of Anglesea Road (Map 14 Surf Coast DAL Area Subject Site). This is in the context of the entire site (1035 ha) of which the southern site makes up 450 ha and has been included in the DAL.

Map 14: Surf Coast DAL Area Subject Site

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry - 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 30 Amendment C395 Expert Witness Statement of Brian Haratsis Section 5: Surf Coast Distinctive Areas & Landscapes Draft Statement of Planning Policy

Map 15: Boral Waurn Ponds Comprehensive Site

5.2 Boral made submissions to Amendment C395 for the City of Greater Geelong’s Settlement Strategy (October 2018) and Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan (March 2019) indicating that the southern portion of its site, impacted by the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscapes (DAL) should be urban. This was on the basis that it:

• Is subject to an existing Works Authority.

• Is zoned SUZ7 which permits a range of uses including manufacturing, showrooms and a place of assembly.

• Is a strategically significant 1,000+ hectare site, in single ownership, abutting the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area and Waurn Ponds. It is close to employment areas and the northern part of the site is already designated as a long-term further investigation area in the Regional Growth Plan, and

• Has significant strategic attributes for urban development consistent with the State and local planning policies (access to a rail line, access to the Geelong Freeway etc).

The Amendment C395 Panel noted that it should be urban in the future. This was supported by the Greater City of Geelong in the adopted version of the report in terms of timeframes and triggers for the development of the land. source: adopted version in the minutes (see Appendix 4)

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 31 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 5: Surf Coast Distinctive Areas & Landscapes Draft Statement of Planning Policy

5.3 Boral made a submission to the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Process (2019) and undertook a detailed study of landscape corridors and viewsheds and found that the apparent ridgeline (from a visual and topographic point of view) was between 1-2 kilometres south of Mt Duneed Road. This means from a viewshed perspective the subject site cannot be seen from Anglesea Road. Closer to the site west of Anglesea Road, it cannot be seen due to a four-metre-high bund with dense planting along Anglesea Road and along Mt Duneed Road. We have appended this study for your information (Refer to Appendix 2).

5.4 The proposed Surf Coast Declared Area Framework Plan indicates the following:

• The Proposed Protected Settlement Boundary does not impact the Boral site. We have proposed in the redraft of this plan that the boundary should be adjacent to the Boral Land.

• Road corridor views (being Mt Duneed Road and Anglesea Road) can be appropriately managed to maintain views to the hinterland and or / coast. The site cannot be seen from the Surf Coast Highway road corridor. We note that Mt Duneed Road accommodates very light traffic volumes and therefore is only regionally significant and should not be accorded the same status as the Surf Coast highway corridor in terms of view sheds.

5.5 The Draft Statement of Planning Policy contains a number of policy domains which align with the objectives for Distinctive Areas Landscapes in the Act and they recognise that the unique values and the distinctive attributes of the declared area result from the complex interaction of the areas landscape character, biodiversity and environment, settlement patterns, infrastructure, natural resources and aboriginal cultural heritage and historic heritage.

Map 16: Proposed Surf Coast Declared Area Framework Plan

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 32 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 5: Surf Coast Distinctive Areas & Landscapes Draft Statement of Planning Policy

5.6 The first policy domain is environmental risks and resilience. In terms of environmental risks, the only risk identified for the subject sites is “Bushfire Prone Area” and a 1 in 100 year “Flood Extent”. I note that the sites are not covered by a Bushfire Management Overlay or Salinity Management Overlay. I further note there are no Water Bodies identified on the land. We have appended Hydrological Study (Appendix 3) which indicates that the sites contribute an insignificant volume to the Thompson Creek catchment.

Map 17: Environmental Risks Map

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 33 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 5: Surf Coast Distinctive Areas & Landscapes Draft Statement of Planning Policy

5.7 Declared area is renowned for its significant landscapes such as scenic coastal settings, roughed coast lines and impressive coastal landforms. Away from the coast, Woodlands, Saltmarshes, Volcanic Plains and the sense of rural openness between settlements further contribute to the landscape setting. The declared areas in terms of significant landscapes are classified as nationally significant, (Bells Beach) state significant (Coastal Saltmarsh and Woodland Landscape) and regionally significant (Mt Duneed Plain and surround landscape). The required level of protection for the landscape accords with this level of significance. For example, nationally significant landscapes require the highest levels of protection. “landscape significance” is different from “landscape character”:

• Landscape significance focuses on the visual values of a landscape (such as scenic beauty, heritage value and environmental qualities) and less tangible values (such as memories or associations).

• Landscape character focuses on physical features such as topography, geology, waterbodies, vegetation and urban development and is a secondary consideration when determining landscape significance.

• Map 18 below shows the declared areas, six landscape character areas. The subject site is located in the Mt Duneed Volcanic Plain Character Area. This includes the low Volcanic rise of Mt Duneed itself, and the Thompson Creek which winds its way from the coast at Breamlea. A further feature of this landscape includes remnant eucalyptus located in riparian reserves adjacent to road corridors. The Draft SPP report states that “this is an open and expansive landscape of long straight roads under big skies. It plays a very important role as a green break between the built-up areas of Geelong and Torquay with the settlements areas of the Bellarine Peninsula”. The original inter-urban break was located in the Thompson Valley at Grossmans Road, some five kilometres south of the subject site. The boundaries of the inter-urban break have moved twice since then, each time further north towards the Boral Land. The proposed Geelong Settlement Strategy Plan has the inter-urban break located to the south of Mt Duneed Road adjacent to the Boral Land. Significantly, the inter-urban break does not impact on the area between Mt Duneed Road and Reservoir Road. Further, the south eastern section of the Boral Land has a four-meter-high bund along Mt Duneed Road which has been in place for over 30 years and Boral Land cannot be seen from the Mt Duneed Road. In any case the proposed inter-urban break boundary makes sense to the south of the Boral Land. Strategy 2.3 states that “reserve green breaks between settlements for conservation, agriculture, nature-based tourism and natural resource purposes that prioritise the protection and enhancement of the significant landscape and landscape character setting”. This comment should relate to the area south of Mt Duneed Road. Strategy 2.2 states “Protect the coastal and hinterland setting of settlements by containing urban growth within settlement boundaries”. Settlement boundaries as proposed do not impact on the subject sites.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 34 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 5: Surf Coast Distinctive Areas & Landscapes Draft Statement of Planning Policy

Map 18: Declared Areas Landscape

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 35 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 5: Surf Coast Distinctive Areas & Landscapes Draft Statement of Planning Policy

5.8 High levels of biodiversity are important values for the declared area. They provide valuable social, economic and cultural benefits and are integral to the Wadawurrung cultural heritage. In this respect I note that Boral have returned 32,000sqm to the Wadawurrung. (Note refer to the Geelong Advertiser article below). I note that there are no areas of high biodiversity values on the subject sites (Map 6). Further, no parks or reserves are proposed on the subject sites. The Wadawurrung people as a Traditional Owner group were legally recognised under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and significant negotiations and good will have resulted in the transfer of land to them.

Map 19: Biodiversity Values

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 36 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 5: Surf Coast Distinctive Areas & Landscapes Draft Statement of Planning Policy

5.9 In terms of tourism, the subject sites are not included in the Maps as well suited to tourism activities. Further in terms of agriculture, they are not designated as agriculture quality hotspots. The sites are noted to be in an Extractive Industry Interest Area, which extends across a significantly wider area to the east, north and west. This declaration on the basis of protecting a significant limestone reserve is not valid because the reserve is not a viable limestone resource. The resource within the designated area of the Boral Lands (south of Reservoir Road) has not been subject to quarrying. Further, limestone extraction on the northern portion of the site ceased in April 2013. Since 2013, only small amounts of limestone have been extracted from the Waurn Ponds site for use in clinker grinding operations as part of the cement manufacturing process. Clinker (limestone based) is currently being imported and small quantities of limestone added to the clinker grinding operation during the manufacture of cement is utilised from other quarries in the area. The resource is expensive to mine and low quality (as set out in Appendix 1 James Young Statement). A facility for the grinding of imported clinker is being developed by Boral at the Port of Geelong at a cost of $130m. I note that Boral is currently negotiating with Department of Jobs Precincts and Regions for the removal of the Extractive Industry Interest Area Designation and for the removal of the works authority which effects the western site. The Statement of Planning Policy states that there is an Extractive Industry Interest Area located towards the northern boundary of the declared area which (Map 20 of tourism, agriculture and natural resources shows). The Draft SPP sets out the Victoria Planning Provisions clause 52.09 which is to:

• Ensure that the use and development of land for extractive industry does not adversely affect the environment or amenity of the area during or after extraction.

• Ensure that excavated areas can be appropriately rehabilitated.

• Ensure that stone resources which the community may require for future use are protected from inappropriate use and development.

In this respect the limestone resource is exhausted in relation to the northern sites and uneconomic with respect to the southern sites which the Department of Jobs Precincts and Regions will confirm.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 37 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 5: Surf Coast Distinctive Areas & Landscapes Draft Statement of Planning Policy

Map 20: Tourism, Agriculture and Natural Resources

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 38 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 5: Surf Coast Distinctive Areas & Landscapes Draft Statement of Planning Policy

5.10 The northern boundary of the declared area abuts the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area in Geelong and the eastern boundary of the greater Boral site also abuts the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area. Amendment C395 suggested the land be considered as future urban which has been confirmed by the Greater City of Geelong. This Amendment is before the Minister for approval.

5.11 The Draft Statement of Planning Policy report states that greater protection of the green break between Geelong and Torquay-Jan Juc, is warranted. The area which effects the subject site has been identified as a landscape area of regional significance is due to the presence of the limestone resource which is no longer economic to mine on these sites. Otherwise, the subject sites are not regionally significant because:

• They have no significant biodiversity value.

• They have no significant tourism value.

• They are not designated as agricultural hotspots.

• They cannot be seen from any point along the Anglesea Road corridor or along the Surf Coast Highway corridor.

• The western site cannot be seen from the Mt Duneed Road corridor due to the four-metre-high density planted bunds and the eastern site does not impede views of Mt Duneed despite the heavy planting of mature trees.

• They have no identified historic value and in terms of cultural heritage.

• This is apparent from the work undertaken by Alan Wyatt from X-Urban and detailed in Appendix 2. Whilst the importance of Mt Duneed is acknowledged, it is also located in an Extractive Industry Interest Area. The entire area north of Mt Duneed Road is designated as an Extractive Industry Interest Area. It is only the resource factor from a landscape character perspective that affects this land. Otherwise, it would not be a landscape of regional significance. We suggest that the Protected Settlement Boundary run due south along Ghazeepore Road to Mt Duneed Road where it will intersect the inter-urban break (as designated in the Geelong Settlement Strategy Framework Plan) and run east along Mt Duneed Road, and north along Bogans Lane. This is because the resource is uneconomic in this area, which is to be confirmed by Department of Jobs Precincts and Regions. We suggest in the interim it be nominated as further investigation required and cross hatched accordingly.

5.12 The City of Greater Geelong does not support the inclusion of the area north of Mt Duneed Road in the Surf Coast DAL. Council argues that is has adequate protection as a significant landscape through the implementation of the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Boundary and clause 11.01-1R in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme which includes the protection of the Thompson Valley settlement break.

5.13 The Draft Statement of Planning Policy states that the resolution of the location of this Protected Settlement Boundary will be informed by strategic planning work led by the City of Greater Geelong in consultation with DELWP and other relevant agencies once Amendment C395 the Settlement Strategy and the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan has been given effect. The Draft SPP notes this work should include consideration of urban-rural transition areas that support the regionally significant landscape setting. We recommended in our last submission to the DAL that the subject sites be noted as an investigation area and that they utilise setbacks from an urban perspective to encourage

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 39 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 5: Surf Coast Distinctive Areas & Landscapes Draft Statement of Planning Policy

an urban rural transition. The characteristics of the entire site including the exhausted former quarry in the norther section of the site are as follows:

(a) There is an interchange to the Geelong Ring Road immediately to the northwest of the land, and convenient access to the Surf Coast Highway via Baanip Boulevard.

(b) The land is proximate (circa 2 kilometres) to major employers, particularly Deakin University, the Deakin University Business Precinct, Epworth Hospital, Marcus Oldham College and the Waurn Ponds Activity Centre and commercial strip (as shown on Figure 10 in Mr Barnes’ expert witness statement).

(c) The land can readily be provided with passenger rail access to Geelong central business district and Melbourne. The land straddles the (Melbourne) Geelong-Warrnambool railway. This is an existing passenger rail line. Short-term delivery of passenger rail is a real possibility. The land is also between the proposed location of the rail stabling yards for Geelong trains and central Geelong.1

(d) The land has access to existing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure including an off-road shared path along both sides of the Geelong Ring Road and on-road bicycle lanes along Baanip Boulevard and Anglesea Road. Existing bicycle facilities provide a route to a number of key locations in the nearby area including Waurn Ponds Shopping Centre, Deakin University and Waurn Ponds Railway Station.2

(e) Part of the land is located within the 800-metre walkable catchment of the existing Waurn Ponds station (with the easternmost part of the land only 400 metres from the station).

(f) The land is identified as a long-term ‘future investigation area’ in the G21 Growth Plan.

(g) The land includes large areas of generally flat agricultural land of little environmental or cultural heritage significance.

(h) The land is immediately adjacent to the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area – the land was only excluded from the original planning of this area because it was used for quarrying at the time3 – and is ideally located to provide an extension to this growth area. As recognised by the C395 expert Panel and the Greater City of Geelong.

(i) The land is located on the Surf Coast side of Geelong, which provides significant liveability benefits.

(j) The land is already included in a non-rural zoning and in part has been and is used for industrial purposes.

(k) The land is no longer used for or required for limestone quarrying or associated processing. Ongoing quarrying of limestone is not viable given the significant quantum of overburden that must be removed before limestone can be accessed.4

(l) Post-quarrying rehabilitation is already underway on areas subject to quarrying.

(m) The land is able to be serviced.5

(n) The new Rail Stabling Yards are to be built due west of the Boral Land.

2 Expert witness statement of Mr Walsh (Panel document 43), p 13

3 See the discussion in the expert witness statements of Mr Barnes (Panel document 42) and Mr Haratsis (Panel document 11).

4 As set out in the statement of Mr Young of Boral (Panel document 124). 5 As set out in the expert witness statement of Mr Glasson (Panel document 70).

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 40 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 5: Surf Coast Distinctive Areas & Landscapes Draft Statement of Planning Policy

5.14 Boral submitted that the C395 Amendment Panel should recommend the following actions, and these remain the Boral position with respect to this submission on the Draft Statement of Planning Policy.

(a) inclusion of all of the Boral Land within the Geelong settlement boundary.

(b) designation of the southern precincts of the Boral Land (shown as 2 and 4 below, south of Reservoir Road) as an ‘investigation area’6;

(d) deletion of the ‘major resources’ designation of the Boral Land on the municipal framework plan at cl 21.04 and deletion of “Land for extractive industries to the west of Ghazeepore Road will be protected from incompatible development” from cl 22.11.

The case for short-term development of the northern precincts of the Boral Land is sufficiently strong and certain as to justify immediate rezoning to UGZ.

5.15 The eastern precinct (precinct 1) abuts the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area and the ‘Hams Road’ proposed redevelopment,7 which has been supported by Council and a recent Panel8, since gazetted, including on the basis of the site being strategically well located for residential development, being:

(a) within walking distance of Waurn Ponds Station,

(b) accessible by major roads,

(c) close to the major employment, education and retail hubs of the Epworth Hospital, Waurn Ponds Shopping Centre and Deakin University.

These are all attributes shared entirely or largely by the northern precincts of the Boral Land.

5.16 This land is unaffected by the DAL or inter-urban break issues. There are negligible unknown environmental or heritage constraints – the western precincts have been quarried, and the eastern precinct will logically form an extension of the urban form of Armstrong Creek, with similar treatment of the creek, which traverses the eastern precinct. In respect of the DAL Draft SPP we request that the Protected Area Boundary be either adjacent to the Boral Land running along Ghazeepore Road, Mt Duneed Road and Bogans Lane, or the site be included as an Investigation Area with the protected area boundary remaining as is (Refer Map 21)

6 The term ‘investigation area’ is already used on the exhibited ‘Housing and Settlement Framework Plan; included in cl 21.06 Settlement and Housing, in relation to the Moolap area.

7 Amendment C372 involves the triangle of land between the Ring Road and the railway to the northeast of the Boral site. It proposes the rezoning of 24 ha of land from Farming Zone to General Residential Zone. The amendment is accompanied by planning permit applications for subdivision for approximately 300 lots. i8 Panel Report, Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C372 and Permit Applications 662/2017 and 663/2017, Hams Road, Waurn Ponds subdivision, 28 October 2019.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 41 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 5: Surf Coast Distinctive Areas & Landscapes Draft Statement of Planning Policy

Map 21 Proposed re-draft of Surf Coast DAL Statement of Planning Policy

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 42 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd

Section 6: Distinctive Areas and Landscapes

6.1 In 2018, the Planning and Environment Act 1987 was amended to provide for the protection of ‘Distinctive Areas and Landscapes’. The Act has four objectives:

• To recognise the importance of Distinctive Areas and Landscapes to the people of Victoria and to protect and conserve their unique features and special characteristics.

• To enhance the conservation of the environment in declared areas including unique habitats, ecosystems and biodiversity.

• To ensure the integration of policy development, implementation and decision-making through Statements of Planning Policy.

• To recognise the connection and stewardship of Traditional Owners.

Declaring an area sets the study area for the preparation and implementation of a Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) to ensure that the area is protected for generations to come.

The Boundaries of the Surf Coast DAL:

North The northern boundary meets the urban edge of Geelong and continues east along Barwon Heads Road. This boundary acknowledges the importance of the Thompson Valley green break which preserves the landscape character between the urban areas of Armstrong Creek and Torquay.

South The southern boundary of the declaration area extends along the coastline from the eastern edge of the Great Otway National Park to Breamlea Flora and Fauna Reserve. The boundary is 600m seaward of the low water mark. Incorporating this part of the marine and coastal environment allows for the coordinated management of the significant features and threats clustered along the coast.

West The western boundary follows the eastern edge of the Great Otway National Park, Hendy Main Road, Woodland Road and Bogans Lane. This boundary captures important viewsheds from both the Surf Coast Highway and Anglesea Road. The western boundary acknowledges the relationship of the surrounding landscape with the significant coastal areas and their township setting.

6.2 DELWP undertook an assessment of the area against the declaration criteria outline in the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This assessment involved desktop analysis, site visits, as well as internal and external consultation with subject matter experts. It was further informed by consultation with local councils, the Wadawurrung People, the community and other key stakeholder groups.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 43 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 6: Distinctive Areas and Landscapes

6.3 The northern and eastern boundaries of the declared area include two areas within the City of Greater Geelong: part of the Thompson Valley green break near Armstrong Creek growth area and the Breamlea Flora and Fauna Reserve.

6.4 These locations form part of larger natural features and ecosystems that are predominantly located within the Surf Coast. The extension of the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscapes declared area into the City of Greater Geelong is representative of these natural features.

6.5 The Declared Area is an area to which an order under section 46AO of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 applies. The declared area boundary indicated that an area contains a concentration of distinctive attributes and is under threat. A Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) will be developed for the declared area to protect and conserve its distinctive attributes.

6.6 A Protected Settlement Boundary is a defined limit to urban expansion, like Melbourne’s urban growth boundary. When preparing a SPP, there is the opportunity to specify protected settlement boundaries which contain urban development and growth.

6.7 The aim of a Protected Settlement Boundary is to:

• Keep green breaks between townships.

• Protect a town’s unique identity.

• Prevent urban encroachment into rural land of agricultural, environmental, heritage or landscape value. At this stage, no protected settlement boundaries have been decided upon.

6.8 The purpose of a SPP is to guide the future use and development of land in the declared area, making sure the distinctive attributes of the declared area are protected.

6.9 A SPP also coordinated decision making for land use and development, achieving integrated management, infrastructure and development outcomes. SPP contains three main components:

• A 50-year vision which identifies the value and attributes that the community wants to protect.

• Policy objectives and strategies to achieve the vision.

• A framework plan.

6.10 The 50-year vision would include the Boral Land as urban.

6.11 The Minister must be satisfied that an area has a majority of the following attributes in order to recommend that the area be declared as a Distinctive Area and Landscape:

(a) Outstanding environmental significance,

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 44 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 6: Distinctive Areas and Landscapes

(b) Significant geographical features, including natural landforms

(d) Natural resources or productive land of significance

(e) An attribute prescribed for the purpose of this section. The Minister must be satisfied that an area is under threat of significant or irreversible land use change that would affect the environmental, social or economic value of the area in order to recommend that the area be declared as a Distinctive Area and Landscape, whether that threat arises from:

(f) Land use conflicts or

(g) Multiple land use changes over time; or

(h) any other land use threat prescribed for the purpose of this section.

6.12 In 2018, the Planning and Environment Act 1987 was amended to provide for the protection of ‘Distinctive Areas and Landscapes’. The Act has four objectives:

• To recognise the importance of Distinctive Areas and Landscapes to the people of Victoria and to protect and conserve their unique features and special characteristics.

• To enhance the conservation of the environment in declared areas including unique habitats, ecosystems and biodiversity.

• To ensure the integration of policy development, implementation and decision-making through Statements of Planning Policy.

• To recognise the connection and stewardship of Traditional Owners.

6.13 Declaring an area sets the study area for the preparation and implementation of a Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) to ensure that the area is protected for generations to come.

6.14 The Boundaries of the Surf Coast DAL

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 45 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 6: Distinctive Areas and Landscapes

6.15 DELWP undertook an assessment of the area against the declaration criteria outline in the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This assessment involved desktop analysis, site visits, as well as internal and external consultation with subject matter experts.

6.16 The Declared Area is an area to which an order under section 46AO of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 applies. The declared area boundary indicated that an area contains a concentration of distinctive attributes and is under threat.

6.17 A Protected Settlement Boundary is a defined limit to urban expansion, like Melbourne’s urban growth boundary. When preparing a SPP, there is the opportunity to specify protected settlement boundaries which contain urban development and growth.

6.18 The purpose of a SPP is to guide the future use and development of land in the declared area, making sure the distinctive attributes of the declared area are protected.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 46 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 6: Distinctive Areas and Landscapes

6.19 A SPP also coordinated decision making for land use and development, achieving integrated management, infrastructure and development outcomes. SPP contains three main components:

• A 50-year vision which identifies the value and attributes that the community wants to protect.

• Policy objectives and strategies to achieve the vision.

• A framework plan.

The 50-year vision would include the Boral Land as urban.

6.20 The Minister must be satisfied that an area has a majority of the following attributes in order to recommend that the area be declared as a Distinctive Area and Landscape.

6.21 The Minister must be satisfied that an area is under threat of significant or irreversible land use change that would affect the environmental, social or economic value of the area in order to recommend that the area be declared as a Distinctive Area and Landscape, whether that threat arises from:

(i) Land use conflicts or

(j) Multiple land use changes over time; or

(k) any other land use threat prescribed for the purpose of this section.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 47 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd

Section 7: Declaration of the Surf Coast as a Distinctive Area and Landscape

7.1 The preamble sets out the significance of the area to the people of Victoria and Table 1 (below) sets out attributes qualifying the declared area as a Distinctive Area and Landscape. Provisions 2 (1c, 4b) and 5 (1b point 46), the protection of a limestone reserve no longer applies to the subject site because remaining reserves within the DAL portion of the site are too costly to extract and of low grade. (See Appendix 1 for further background). Point 5 (1b) is acknowledged and is a major reason the subject site should be designated urban. It is serviced by Geelong Freeway (Ring Road) and the Anglesea Road. Discussions with DELWP have focused on 2c - the landscape character is highly visible form main corridors, and it is the factor which is a focus of this submission.

7.2 The threats of significant land use change of the declared area are noted as follows:

A). Threats to areas of significant biodiversity from land clearing and loss of habitat, urban development pressures including water run-off, human interference increased through tourism and introduced weeds and pests, climate change impacts and natural hazards such as change in water temperatures, sea level rise, storm surges and bushfire.

B). Threats to natural landscapes and landforms from urban development expansion increased visitation pressures, climate change impacts including sea level rise and change in storm patterns expected to increase risk of erosion.

C). Threats to preservation of heritage and cultural attributes from township expansion, land use practices and increased tourism activity and recreation.

D). Threats to natural resources and productive land from land use conflicts between conservation, agricultural use, residential use and recreation activities, cumulative impacts of development; and natural hazards, including bushfire and flooding.

E). Threats to future effectiveness of strategic infrastructure due to increasing pressure from urban growth, tourism activity and cumulative urban development.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 48 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 7: Declaration of the Surf Coast as a Distinctive Area and Landscape

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 49 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd

Section 8: Statement of Planning Policy

8.1 The Minister must prepare a Statement of Planning Policy for a declared area:

• The purpose of a Statement of Planning Policy for a declared area is to create a framework for the future use and development of land in the declared area to ensure the protection and conservation of the distinctive attributes of the declared area.

8.2 The statement of Planning Policy for a declared area must:

• Set a vision for a period of at least 50 years that identifies the values, priorities, and preferences of the Victorian community in relation to the distinctive attributes of the declared area, including preference of future land use, protection and development; and

• Set out the long-term needs for the integration of decision-making and planning for the declared areas; and

• State the parts of the Statement that are binding on responsible public entities and the parts that are in the nature of recommendation to which responsible public entities are only required to have regard; and

• Include a declared area framework plan in accordance with subsection (2); and

• Set out Aboriginal tangible and intangible cultural values, and other cultural and heritage values, in relation to the declared area.

8.3 The declared area framework plan must provide a framework for decision-making in relation to the future use and development of land in the declared area that:

• Integrated environmental, social, cultural and economic factors for the benefit of the community and encourages sustainable development and identifies areas for protection and conservation of the distinctive attributes of the declared area; and

• May specify settlement boundaries in the declared area or designate specific settlement boundaries in the declared area as protected settlement boundaries.

8.4 At the Panel Hearing for C395 Amendment, DELWP stated to the Panel that in the event settlement boundaries were to be implemented; they would set them taking into account the outcome of the Panel Hearing process. The settlement boundaries would therefore include the entire Boral site because the Panel found it should be designated as future urban.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 50 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd

Section 9: Criteria for a Distinctive Area and Landscape

9.1 There are five criteria set in the following table of which four relate to the subject land. They have each been tested and none of them have any significant impact from the Boral Land.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 51 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 9: Criteria for a Distinctive Area and Landscape

Outstanding Environmental Significance (1b) Areas of biodiversity significance include Point Addis Marine National Park, Point Danger Marine Sanctuary, Point Impossible, Karaaf Wetlands, Breamlea Flora and Fauna Reserve, Thompson Creek, Deep Creek, remnant vegetation west of Torquay-Jan Juc. We have undertaken a hydrological analysis to establish an insignificant impact on the Thompson Valley.

Significant Geographical Features Including Natural Land Forms (2C) Bells Beach, the surrounding rugged coastline and hinterland offers scenic views from landmark cliffs, points and lookouts that define the character of the area. Landscape character is highly visible from the main road corridor. We have undertaken viewshed analysis which establishes that the subject site is not visible from the main road corridor.

Natural Resources or Productive Land of Significance (4b) Extraction industries in the area are significant, particularly for their contribution to Victoria’s supply of hardrock, sand and historically limestone. We provide evidence that the resource is too expensive to recover and is of poor quality. The portion of the site within the DAL has not been quarried, whilst other site areas have not been quarried since 2012.

Strategic Infrastructure or Built Form Significance (5b) We acknowledge the importance of the Anglesea Road and that it supports the rationale for the subject site being designated as urban.

A) Landscape Analysis - Setting the inter-urban growth boundaries Amendment C395 at clause 20.02.19 in the City of Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, proposed the following objectives:

1 Minimise the economic, environment, visual and servicing impacts of residential development of rural areas.

2 Confirm enduring and defendable settlement boundaries by undertaking a logical inclusions process.

3 Maintain the non-urban breaks between Geelong and Melbourne (Wyndham), Geelong and the Surf Coast, urban Geelong and the Bellarine Peninsula, and the townships on the Bellarine Peninsula.

Hence the priority is on:

4 Rural views.

5 Maintenance of the non-urban breaks between Geelong and the Surf Coast.

6 Defensibility.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 52 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 9: Criteria for a Distinctive Area and Landscape

9.2 This chapter will examine the requirement for the maintenance of the non-urban breaks between Geelong and the Surf Coast.

Non-Urban Breaks Planning in Victoria has long considered the retention of non-urban breaks an essential component of planning. For example, the Hume City Council ‘Inter-urban break at Craigieburn Implementation Strategy’ recognised that “unless well planned from the outset Craigieburn has the potential to be overwhelmed by incremental growth of the Melbourne metropolitan area within the Merri Corridor, and to lose the opportunity which currently remains to develop a sense of identity and individuality”.

A similar risk exists at the boundaries between the Greater Geelong urban areas and the coastal communities within the Surf Coast Shire. The Boral Land is on the edge of the settlement boundary for the City of Greater Geelong, and it is relevant to the future development of this site to determine its contribution to the separation, particularly between Anglesea and communities on the Bellarine Peninsula, and the Geelong urban areas.

The question that must be resolved is what is the contribution that the Boral Land would make to the non-urban break? To determine the visual contribution of this site it is necessary to analyse if it is part of the perceived landscape that a viewer travelling north on Anglesea Road or similar north south roads would perceive before entering roads in which the urban areas of Geelong are apparent and therefore the landscape would not be considered part of the non-urban break.

The non-urban break is that area that is perceived to be rural or undeveloped as one approached the urban area. This perceived landscape is determined by topography and modified by landscape. In this analysis the perceived landscape will be determined based solely on topography as this remains unchanged, even though land management on the non-urban break may include clearing vegetation or additional planting which obviously modifies the visibility of the landscape.

Existing Landscape Character The existing landscape character of the area that would form the non-urban break is that of gently undulating topography with the occasional higher elevation created by low hills such as Mt Duneed.

To determine the areas that were potentially visible (based solely on topography) a number of viewlines were analysed from the Anglesea Road and the Thompson Valley. These viewline assessments also showed the southern slopes of Mt Duneed that were part of this perceived landscape.

This analysis is not simply a contour analysis. The figure below shows diagrammatically the difference between a ridgeline determined by contour (i.e. the highest point) and the ridgeline a viewer would perceive when viewing a convex slope from a lower location.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 53 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 9: Criteria for a Distinctive Area and Landscape

Figure 3: Perceptual and Topographic Ridgelines

Figure 3 above shows that the visible or perceptual ridgeline can be completely different from a ridgeline determined solely by contours. This is the case in the non-urban break that one would perceive whilst travelling along Anglesea Road towards Geelong.

Therefore, a starting point to determine where boundary of a non-urban break should be located is to undertake a viewshed or seen area analysis.

Viewshed Analysis A viewshed or seen area analysis determines the area that is visible from a specified location and takes into account only topographic variation.

The viewshed analysis was conducted from five different observation points in this study. This generated the boundaries of the seen area from the five different observation points. These five observation points were located at:

7 2 observation points on Blackgate Road on either side of its intersection with Anglesea Road.

8 2 observation points on Anglesea Road between Dickins Road and Blackgate Road.

9 1 observation point at the corner of Dickins Road and Anglesea Road.

The software used was QGIS and the results were cross-checked with similar analysis done in ESRI’s ArcGIS. The viewshed analysis in QGIS calculates the visible area for a given observer point over a Digital Elevation Model (DTM). The DTM used for his analysis was acquired from VICMAP Data from Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning, details of which are as follows:

10 Dataset Name: VICMAP Elevation DTM 10M.

11 Details: It is a raster representation of Victoria’s elevation. DTM 10m has a spatial resolution of 10m.

12 Temporal Coverage: 30/06/2008 to 30/06/2008.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 54 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 9: Criteria for a Distinctive Area and Landscape

to clarify the results of this analysis, Figure 2 below shows the areas that are visible from a location on Blackgate Road just to the west of Anglesea Road.

Figure 4: Observer 1

Figure 5 illustrates that the Boral Land does not make a contribution to the non-urban break when perceived from this low-lying location. The southern flans of Mt Duneed are visible but the slight rise to the south of the Boral Land screens views further to the north. This separation is further enhanced by existing vegetation that is visible in Figure 5.

Figure 5: View from Observer 1 location

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 55 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 9: Criteria for a Distinctive Area and Landscape

Figure 6 shows the view from Blackgate Road where the telecommunication towers on Mt Duneed are visible on the right and the Boral Land is totally screened, first by topography as illustrated in the seen area analysis but also by several intervening hedgerows and other scattered vegetation.

The Maps on the following pages show that there are similarities in the seen area when analysed from locations nominated as Observer 2-5. In all cases, the seen area is to the south of the Boral Land.

Non-urban growth boundary This analysis has shown that the non-urban growth boundary could be set further south than the southern border of the Boral Land or the Mt Duneed Road corridor. However a conservative growth boundary could align with the southern edge of Mt Duneed Road as shown on Map 4 and a section of which is reproduced in Figure 4.

Figure 6: Part of Map 23 – Boral Re-Drafted Housing and Settlement Framework Plan

The proposed northern non-urban-break boundary between the urban areas of the City of Greater Geelong and the communities within the Surf Coast Shire is shown in Figure 4 and is a defensible boundary based upon the visual analysis, landscape character and significance issues discussed previously.

B) Biodiversity Systems: Summary of Water Technology Findings Water Technology were commissioned to provide preliminary hydrology advice for the Boral, Waurn Ponds site (Appendix 3) pertaining to the recent ‘Surf Coast Distinctive Area and Landscape’ declaration. Based on this preliminary investigation, the following conclusions can be made in regard to the specific matters we have been asked to address:

• Approximately 444 ha of the Boral site within the declaration area, drains into the Thompson Creek catchment during significant overland flow events, namely the 1% AEP flood event.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 56 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 9: Criteria for a Distinctive Area and Landscape

• The run off from this (444 ha) section of the Boral site that is within the declaration area and the Thompson Creek catchment, drains into a designated waterway that joins Thompson Creek approximately 4.6 km downstream of the Boral site.

• Existing run off from the section of the Boral site that is within the declaration area and the Thompson Creek catchment, is expected to have a negligible (<5%) influence/contribution on stream flows in Thompson Creek. This is expected given the location of the Boral site within the wider (Thompson Creek) catchment, the relatively minor site catchment (compared to the regional Thompson Creek catchment), and rural nature of this section of the site.

• Existing run off from the section of the Boral site that is within the declaration area and the Thompson Creek catchment, is expected to have a negligible influence/contribution on the waterway health in Thompson Creek, based on its minor streamflow contribution and minimal runoff water quality contamination risk from the historic extraction activities on the northern portion of the site.

Therefore, the subject site has very little impact on the natural systems of the Thompson Creek catchment.

C) Natural Resources Evidence given at the Panel Hearing (C395) concluded that it was too expensive to mine the limestone and the resource was of poor quality. Boral are spending $130m on a new state of the art facility at the Port of Geelong to import clinker. The evidence is provided in Appendix 1 (James Young Evidence) and the conclusions provided.

• Every vertically integrated cement plant requires a guaranteed, long-term and high-quality supply of limestone.

• The predominant geological feature of the Waurn Ponds site is the Barrabool Sandstone, which contains the Waurn Ponds Formation. This Formation is a layered complex of clay, ironstone and limestone overlain by beds of marl and calcareous clays. The lower 7-12 metres of the Waurn Ponds Formation has an average calcium carbonate content of 88-90% and is suitable for cement manufacturing. The marl has a lower calcium carbonate content but could be blended with high-grade limestone and other raw materials to produce a cement raw feed with a calcium carbonate content of 81%.

• Boral's Waurn Ponds site consists of several blocks (refer Appendix 1). Over its nearly 50-year life, the limestone resource within the Northern and Larcombe Blocks was exhausted by the time Boral decided to suspend operations at the kiln. These blocks are located north of Reservoir Road and are bounded generally by Draytons Road to the west, Anglesea Road to the east, and the Princes Highway and Hams Road to the north. Significant volumes of overburden are being placed on these Blocks as part of their ongoing rehabilitation.

• Three other Blocks - Kernels, Baxter and Stones - occupy the remaining parts of the Waurn Ponds site described below:

(a) East of Anglesea Road, generally bounded by White Rd to the south, Ghazeepore Road to the east, and the Warrnambool-Geelong railway line to the north (Kernels); and

(b) At the southern part of Boral's Waurn Ponds site, bounded by Mt Duneed Rd to the south, Whites Rd to the north, Ghazeepore Road to the east and Bogans Lane to the west (Baxter and Stones).

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 57 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 9: Criteria for a Distinctive Area and Landscape

• A key decision for Boral was whether it should try to win limestone from the remaining three Blocks. A number of factors led to its decision to discontinue limestone extraction.

• One factor is that the limestone deposit at Waurn Ponds is "sticky," which means that it can only be extracted by scrapers rather than by the more conventional blast-and-excavate methods. These atypical extraction methods make the quarry operations more expensive than conventional limestone quarries.

• A second factor concerned the challenging quarry stripping ratios at Waurn Ponds. The "stripping ratio" is the ratio of the volume of overburden to useable limestone.

• The limestone deposit remaining at Waurn Ponds is overlain by a large amount of overburden. In 2012, Boral estimated that the initial cost of removing the overburden to open a new Block and expose the limestone for extraction would cost in the order of $6 million.

• High stripping ratios prevail across most of the Waurn Ponds site. The market standard stripping ratio for limestone quarrying operations, such as Boral’s Marulan limestone quarry in NSW, ranges from between 1:1 and 2:1.

• At Waurn Ponds, the stripping ratios range from about 3:1 to 6:1, increasing from the north-west to the south east. Overburden and stripping ratios in the remaining Blocks (Kernel, Baxter and Stones Blocks) is significantly higher than in the areas already mined. At the upper end of this range, 90 tonnes of overburden would need to be removed to extract 15 tonnes of limestone.

• Extending the quarry to the east and south of the current operations would also increase quarry haul lengths, and hence the operational cost of the quarry.

• In 2012, Boral estimated that these factors would collectively increase the cost of producing cement at Waurn Ponds by $15 per tonne, or nearly 10%. Given that Boral and the cement industry typically pursue improvements in production that reduce the cost per tonne by 10 cents/tonne or more, a $15 increase in production was commercially unacceptable.

• Collectively, these matters contributed to Boral's belief that there is no viable future for the limestone reserves at Waurn Ponds.

• In summary, Boral discontinued limestone quarrying and clinker production at Waurn Ponds because neither business is commercially viable due to market and site-specific characteristics I have summarised previously. The Waurn Ponds site is under active rehabilitation, and clinker grinding at Waurn Ponds will end once the new facility at Port of Geelong is operational. Boral is now evaluating the future use of the site when cement production on site ends.

9.3 Based on the assessments undertaken the Boral Land within the Surf Coast DAL should be identified as urban, consistent with submissions by Boral to the C395 Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment. Correspondence from the City of Greater Geelong also confirms that the areas of the DAL within the City of Greater Geelong have adequate protection through the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme which includes the protection of the Thompson Valley settlement break.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 58 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd

Section 10: The Shifting Urban Break

10.1 The concept of inter-urban break has morphed into a growth boundary as the Maps show. There is a discussion around the proposed Geelong Municipal Framework Plan, and it appears no detailed assessment had been undertaken. Historically, the concept of inter-urban breaks began as a farmland- based break to the south of Grossmans Road some 5 kilometres from the subject site and gradually moved north.

Purpose of Settlement Breaks The environments between urban areas play important roles in (4.11 G21 RGP):

• Water supply, agricultural production and long term food security.

• Accommodating our recreation pursuits:

- Economic activities, including tourism, airfields, stone and mineral resource extraction and opportunities for alternative energy sources and carbon farming.

- Accommodating our significant landscape and geological features and natural resources such as waterways, coasts, Ramsar wetlands, remnant vegetation and habitats.

- Framing our settlements and creating the distinctive character and setting valued by the G21 community.

The purposes of the identified settlement breaks are: 1. North-Eastern Gateway • To ensure a strong visual identity and clear delineation between Geelong as a regional city and Melbourne as a capital city.

• To protect significant views, grassland and wetland habitat areas, farming activities and strategic opportunities for employment linked with Avalon Airport Department of Defence and quarry sites.

• 2. Thompson Valley • To ensure a strong farmed landscape character between the urban areas of Armstrong Creek and Torquay, encourage rural production and maintain existing town identities.

• 3. Barrabool Hills • To protect National Trust classified landscape of cultural heritage significance. Rural production is the primary land use activity in addition to the small settlements of Ceres and Barrabool.

4. Bellarine Peninsula • To ensure a strong farmed landscape character between Geelong and Bellarine towns, encourage rural production, maintain town identities and related tourism opportunities, and minimise impact on significant wetlands and coastal views.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 59 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 10: The Shifting Urban Break

10.2 Three inter-urban breaks have been proposed over time. The first (Map 22) in the G21 Regional Growth Plan (2013) and located south of Grossmans Road some 5 kilometres from the site. The second is in the Geelong Settlement Strategy 2018 (Map 23) and the third, the proposed new Geelong Settlement Strategy: Greater Geelong Housing Framework Plan – (2020) to the south and adjacent to the Boral Land (Map 24).

10.3 Significantly the Greater City of Geelong supports this Inter Urban Break. The details of the Inter Urban Break will be discussed in the next section.

Map 22: Settlement and Employment Growth Directions

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 60 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 10: The Shifting Urban Break

Map 23: Greater Geelong Housing Framework Plan – 2036

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 61 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 10: The Shifting Urban Break

Map 24 Revised Housing and Settlement Framework Plan - 2036

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 62 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd

Section 11: Surf Coast Statutory Information Package / Volumes 1 & 2 DAL’s Surf Coast Landscape Assessment Review Report 2020

11.1 In the section concerning the Thompson Creek Valley Break north and the subsequent landscape report recommendations, there is a running assumption that the Thompson Creek Valley break in fact is adjacent to Mt Duneed Road. This is disputed because due to the apparent ridge line assessment undertaken by Allan Wyatt. View sheds from Mt Duneed Road which effect the subject site relate to a very localised area and are terminated at the Anglesea Road due to the four metre high bunds with dense planting.

11.2 In the Lanscape Report (Distinctive Areas & Landscapes Surf Coast Landscape Assessment Review Volume 1 pg 35) the area reviewed appears to exclude the Boral quarry land. The actual report states that the landscape is zoned farming, and the adjacent Armstrong Creek Growth Areas (outside the declared area) is zoned urban growth zone. The Boral quarry is zoned SUZ7 and this is clearly outside of the areas nominated. This is stated in the report as follows:

“Within this Landscape Area, north of Mount Duneed Road is covered by the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, and south by the Surf Coast Planning Scheme”.

“Under the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, the landscape is zoned Farming, and the adjacent Armstrong Creek growth area (outside the Declared Area) is zoned Urban Growth Zone and no mention is made of the four meter high bunds with extensive planting”

“The Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO1) applies to significant remnant vegetation in roadsides and linear reserves, and the Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO1) applies to areas of flora and fauna habitat and of geological and natural interest. The Heritage Overlay (various) also applies to a handful of isolated sites”

“Planning policies that apply to the Landscape Area under the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme include”:

• 21.05 Natural Environment

• 21.11 Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area (adjacent to Declared Area)

• 22.05 Agriculture, Rural Dwellings and Subdivision

• 22.06 Tourism, Accommodation and Function Centre Development in Rural Areas

• 22.09 Cultural Heritage

• 22.64 Discretionary Uses in Rural Areas

Under the Surf Coast Planning Scheme, the majority of the landscape is zoned Farming, with the two settlement areas zoned Low Density Residential.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 63 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 11: Surf Coast Statutory Information Package / Volumes 1 & 2 DAL’s Surf Coast Landscape Assessment Review Report 2020

The Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO1) applies to the Thompson Creek corridor (and tributaries) designating it as a significant waterway and aquatic system. The Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO1) applies to a large stand of significant native vegetation adjacent to Loutitt Bay Road.

Planning policies that apply to the Landscape Area, include:

• 21.03 Environmental Management

• 21.04 Tourism

• 21.05 Agriculture

• 21.06 Rural Landscape

• 21.07 Rural Residential Living

11.3 The Landscape Policy recommendations are as follows to the east of Ghazeepore Road and therefore do not affect the Boral Land.:

“The following landscape policy statements and/or principles are recommended for inclusion in

the future Statement of Planning Policy (Source: Page 15 Surf Coast Landscape Assessment Review Volume 1) o To protect the Mount Duneed Volcanic Plain as an integral part of the Thompson Valley green break between the southern boundary of Greater Geelong and Torquay.

o No additional residential development beyond the current zoned Urban Growth Boundary of Greater Geelong should occur.

o No additional residential subdivision should occur in the agricultural landscape beyond the current Low Density Residential zoned areas of Mount Duneed and Connewarre.

o To retain the rural outlook from inland main road corridors within the landscape, particularly Mount Duneed Road/Lower Duneed Road.

Source Distinctive Areas & Landscapes Surf Coast Landscape Assessment Review Volume 1 For the Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning pg 35

11.4 We reiterate that the DAL Landscape Assessment Report does not directly relate to the Boral Land because it states “In relation to that part of the regionally significant landscape, which is the lowest classification nominated in the hierarchy, within the City of Greater Geelong, and located between the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area (ACUGA) boundary and Mount Duneed Road (and forming the northernmost part of the Thompson Valley Green Break), the following conclusions were outlined in the landscape assessment review report (p. 129-130):

“When travelling along Mount Duneed Road, the new dwellings of Armstrong Creek are visible at a distance, across the open farmland. Development has occurred at urban densities, with high building site coverage, minimal side boundary setbacks, small front and rear boundary setbacks,

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 64 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Section 11: Surf Coast Statutory Information Package / Volumes 1 & 2 DAL’s Surf Coast Landscape Assessment Review Report 2020

and minimal permeability. There is little or no space for significant vegetation on private lots. Street trees (primarily exotic) and other public space landscaping are establishing.

The existence of the ‘green break’ immediately to the south of the development front creates a sense of rural openness when travelling along Mount Duneed Road and is important for the role it plays in this visual ‘breathing space’. This area links geographically and visually to the open, rural landscape to the south of the Surf Coast municipal boundary, with both areas combining to create the visual experience of the ‘open, green landscape’ while travelling along Mount Duneed Road.”

And further:

• “The geographical location of the northern part of the Thompson Valley green break (north of Mount Duneed Road/Lower Duneed Road), immediately abutting the southern development front of Geelong makes it vulnerable to development pressure and future change. • This area is very important visually and geographically for the role it plays as part of a broader strategic landscape area i.e. as an integral part of the Mount Duneed Volcanic Plain Landscape Area, and as an open rural green break between settlements, and between Geelong and the Great Ocean Road landscapes. • An assessment of the visual significance of the landscape has found that it is of regional significance. • When travelling along Mount Duneed Road/Lower Duneed Road, the Thompson Valley green break to the north acts as an important ‘distance barrier’, mitigating the visual impact of the southern development front of Geelong. • It also relates visually and geographically to the open landscape to the south of the City of Greater Geelong municipal boundary, the two areas combining to form the whole ‘landscape experience’ when driving along Mount Duneed Road. • As such, the wider Thompson Valley green break has a direct relationship with the coastal landscapes of state significance further south, in that it separates them (and specifically Torquay) from the built-up urban edge of Geelong. • In order to maintain the open rural green break, particularly from the area where it is most frequently viewed and experienced, i.e. Mount Duneed Road, there should be no policy change or rezoning of agricultural land beyond the current Greater Geelong Urban Growth Boundary. • If residential development were to occur closer to Mount Duneed Road it would erode the rural views and experience of travelling to Barwon Heads/the Bellarine Peninsula via this route… If residential development were to occur immediately adjacent to Mount Duneed Road, the rural green break as experienced by most would cease to exist.” • In the face of potential future development pressure on this part of the Mount Duneed Plains and Surrounds landscape, it is recommended that the Statement of Planning Policy confirms a protected, long-term settlement boundary for Greater Geelong in the location of the existing ACUGA boundary. • This would safeguard against the threat of urban expansion into the landscape of regional significance, of which the Thompson Valley Green Break is an integral part. • It should be stated unequivocally that no additional residential subdivision should occur beyond the ACUGA boundary.

11.5 We reiterate that this assessment relates to the area east of Ghazeepore Road and should not apply to the area west.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 65 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd

Appendix 1: Curriculum Vitae

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 66 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Appendix 1: Curriculum Vitae

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 67 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd

Appendix 2: Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy

PREPARED BY: Brian Haratsis, Macroplan Alan Wyatt, XURBAN

20 January 2021

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 68 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd

20 January 2021 Boral Land & Property Group Level 18, 15 Blue Street NORTH SYDNEY NSW 2060

PO Box 1228 Ms Mia Davison NORTH SYDNEY NSW 2060 Manager Places and Precincts T: +61 (02) 9220 6290 Department of Environment, Land Water and Planning www.boral.com.au Level 9 / 8 Nicholson St East Melbourne VIC 3001

BY EMAIL: [email protected]

Cc: Ms Mia Davison, Manager Places and Precincts [email protected]

Dear Ms Davison

RE SURF COAST DISTINCTIVE AREAS AND LANDSCAPES – BORAL SUBMISSION

Please find attached our submission regarding the third phase of the consultation process for the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Draft Statement of Planning Policy addition to completion of the online survey.

The attached submission focuses on the City of Greater Geelong portion of the Distinctive Areas Landscape (DAL) as it applies to the Boral sites east and west of Anglesea Road as well as in the context of the entire site which is broken into the northern area (quarried out) and the southern area, south of Reservoir Road and north of Mount Duneed Road which is partly covered by a Works Authority.

Based on the assessments undertaken and documented in the attached report, the Boral land within the Surf Coast DAL should be identified as an “investigation area for future urban development”, consistent with the C395 Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment and correspondence from the City of Greater Geelong.

The Boral land is located north of the inter-urban break and forms a logical extension to the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area in the proposed new Municipal Strategic Statement (clause 21.0).

The protected settlement boundaries identified in the draft Statement of Planning Policy do not impact on the Boral site. The City of Greater Geelong has nominated the Boral land as a strategic landholding subject to a logical inclusions process. At the conclusion of the DAL process and following implementation of Amendment C395 the City of Greater Geelong has indicated it will prepare a Planning Scheme Amendment to determine the long-term boundary for urban Geelong.

Should a settlement boundary be identified in relation to the site (noting the DAL has a 50 year time frame) this should be located around the perimeter of the Boral site (along Mt Duneed Road and north along Bogans Lane to Reservoir Road).

A proposed redraft of the Surf Coast DAL Statement of Planning Policy Framework Plan reflecting these changes is provided in our submission (Map E4) for your consideration.

Boral Cement Limited ABN 62 008 528 523

The Draft Statement of Planning Policy contains a number of policy domains. We have tested the application of each of these in the attached report and conclude the following:

• Environmental Risks & Resilience: the site is not covered by a Bushfire Management Overlay or Salinity Management Overlay. The site is identified as partially impacted by the 1 in 100-year flood extent which is acceptable for urban development.

• Significant Landscape Character: the Boral site is identified as regionally significant and therefore according to the Draft Statement would be afforded the lowest level of protection. A detailed visual and topographic analysis confirms that the site will not impact the landscape character between Torquay and Geelong/Armstrong Creek. Furthermore, there are no areas of high biodiversity value, tourism related opportunities or high-quality agricultural lands identified for the Boral land. Boral has committed to the return of 32,000 m² of land associated with a significant site (north of the Surf Cost DAL area) to the Wadawurrung people as the traditional custodians.

• Inter-Urban break: The original inter-urban break identified in the Greater Geelong Housing Framework Plan was located in the Thompson Valley at Grossmans Road some 5km south of the Boral site. The proposed Geelong Municipal Framework Plan proposes a conservative non-urban break located to the south of Mount Duneed Road, in proximity to the Boral land.

• Limestone resource: The site is noted to be in an Extractive Industry Interest Area (EIIA) which extends across a significantly wider area to the east, north and west encompassing most of the land designated in the existing and new growth areas within Geelong. There is no resource remaining in the northern portion of the Boral site and no economic limestone within the southern portion of the site. Boral is currently awaiting confirmation from the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions (DJPR) for removal of the Extractive Industry Interest Area designation.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss our submission further in due course.

Yours faithfully

Judy McKittrick National Land Development Manager Boral Land and Property Group

Enclosure:

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Rervoir Road, Waurn Ponds – Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process, Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy, 20 January 2021.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy

PREPARED BY: Brian Haratsis, Macroplan Alan Wyatt, XURBAN

20 January 2021

Important Notice © Macroplan Holdings Pty Ltd All Rights Reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, transmitted, stored in a retrieval system, or translated into any language in any form by any means without the written permission of Macroplan Holdings Pty Ltd. All Rights Reserved. All methods, processes, commercial proposals and other contents described in this document are the confidential intellectual property of Macroplan Holdings Pty Ltd and may not be used or disclosed to any party without the written permission of Macroplan Holdings Pty Ltd.

Responsible for this report: Brian Haratsis, Macroplan Alan Wyatt, XURBAN

Contact

Level 16 300 Collins Street Melbourne VIC 3000 (03) 9600 0500 [email protected]

Table of contents

Executive summary ...... 1

Section 1: Overview ...... 7

Section 2: Strategic Infrastructure ...... 17

Section 3: Amendment C395 ...... 19

Section 4: Distinctive Areas and Landscapes ...... 21

Section 5: Declaration of the Surf Coast as a Distinctive Area and Landscape ...... 24

Section 6: The Shifting Inter-Urban Break...... 26

Section 7: Statement of Planning Policy ...... 30

Section 8: Criteria for a Distinctive Area and Landscape ...... 31

Section 9: Conclusions ...... 40

Appendix 1: Statement of James Peter Young ...... 41

Appendix 2: Boral’s Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process, December 2019...... 49

Appendix 3: Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek (Water Technology Report, December 2019) ...... 114

Executive summary

1. Macroplan has been engaged by Boral Recycling Pty Ltd to prepare a submission regarding the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Draft Statement of Planning Policy. This policy is seeking to achieve a long- term vision for the region and guide future land use and development. This submission focuses on the City of Greater Geelong portion of the Distinctive Areas Landscape (DAL) as it applies to the Boral sites east and west of Anglesea Road (Map E1 Surf Coast DAL Area Subject Site). This is in the context of the entire site which is broken into the northern area (quarried out) and the southern area, south of Reservoir Road and north of Mount Duneed Road which is partly covered by a Works Authority (Map E2 Boral Waurn Ponds Comprehensive Site).

Map E1: Surf Coast DAL Area Subject Site

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 1 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy Executive summary

Map E2: Boral Waurn Ponds Comprehensive Site

2. Boral made submissions to Amendment C395 the City of Greater Geelong Settlement Strategy indicating that the Boral Waurn Ponds comprehensive site should be urban. The Panel agreed and suggested that Council revise the Settlement Strategy to identify the Boral land as an “investigation area for future urban development”. Council agreed and nominated the Boral land in planning for the next phase of growth in proposed clause/page 88 and linked the development timing to the demand and supply of residential land. The Boral land is located north of the inter-urban break and forms a logical extension to the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area in the proposed new Municipal Strategic Statement (clause 21.0 4 Map E3). The City of Greater Geelong has nominated Boral land as a strategic landholding subject to a logical inclusions process. At the end of the DAL process and after implementation of Amendment C395 the City of Greater Geelong has indicated it will prepare a Planning Scheme Amendment to determine the long-term boundary for urban Geelong.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 2 Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Executive summary

Map E3: Proposed Municipal Strategic Statement (clause21.04)

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 3 Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Executive summary

3. Boral also made a submission to the Distinctive Area Landscape Process (2019) and undertook a detailed study of landscape corridors and viewsheds and found that the apparent ridgeline (from a visual and topographic point of view) was one-two kilometres south of Mount Duneed Road. This means from a viewshed perspective the entire Boral land (including the southern portion) cannot be seen from either the Anglesea Road or the Surf Coast Highway. The southern site to the west of Anglesea Road cannot be seen due to a 4-metre- high bund with dense planting along both the Anglesea Road and Mount Duneed Road. We have appended this study for your information (Appendix 2).

4. The Surf Coast Declared Area Framework Plan indicates the following:

 The protected settlement boundaries do not impact on the Boral site.

 Road corridor views from Anglesea Road and the Surf Coast Highway are protected due to the apparent ridgeline being one-two kilometres south of the Boral site. Along Mount Duneed Road the corridor views can be protected due to there being a four-metre high densely planted bund along this corridor and along the Anglesea Road.

5. The Draft Statement of Planning Policy contains a number of policy domains. I note that:

 In terms of environmental risks and resilience, the sites are not covered by a Bushfire Management Overlay or Salinity Management Overlay. The site is identified as a one in 100 year flood extent which is acceptable for urban development.

 In terms of significant national, state and regional landscapes, the Boral site is only regionally significant and therefore according to the Draft Statement would be afforded the lowest level of protection. The Draft Statement Planning Policy report states that the Thomson Valley ‘plays a very important role as a green break between the built-up areas of Geelong and Torquay within the settlement areas of the Bellarine Peninsula‘. The original inter-urban break was located at Grossmans Road, some five kilometres south of the subject site. The boundaries of the inter-urban break have moved twice since then, each time further north towards the Boral land. The proposed Geelong Settlement Strategy Plan has the inter-urban break located adjacent to the Boral land and would not affect urban development.

 There are no areas of high biodiversity values on the Boral land.

 Boral have gifted 32,000 m² to the Wadawurrung people as the traditional owner group.

 In terms of tourism the subject site is not included in the report as well suited to tourism activities.

 In terms of agriculture, they are not designated as agriculture quality hotspots.

 The sites are noted to be in an Extractive Industry Interest Area (EIIA) which extends across a significantly wider area to the east, north and west encompassing most of the land designated in the new growth areas. On the northern Boral site there is no resource remaining. Boral is currently negotiating with DJPR for removal of the Extractive Industry Interest Area designation and for removal of the Works Authority which affects the site to the west of Anglesea Road.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 4 Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Executive summary

6. The City of Greater Geelong does not support the inclusion of the area north of Mount Duneed Road and the Surf Coast DAL. Council argues that it has adequate protection as a significant landscape through the implementation of the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Boundary and clause 11.01 – 1R in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme which includes the protection of the Thomson Valley settlement break. The Draft Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) notes that consideration be given to urban – rural transition areas that support the regionally significant landscape setting. We recommended in our previous submission and current submission to the DAL that the Boral land be noted as an investigation area and that they utilise setbacks from an urban perspective to encourage an urban – rural transition (Map E4). We have proposed a redraft of the Surf Coast DAL Statement of Planning Policy in Map E4.

Map E4: Proposed re-draft of Surf Coast DAL Statement of Planning Policy

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 5 Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Executive summary

7. There are four criteria set out to test the attributes qualifying declared area as a Distinctive Area Landscape and we have tested each of the four criteria in this report:

 Outstanding environmental significance.

 Significant geographical features, including natural landforms.

 Heritage and cultural significance, natural resources or productive land of significance.

 Strategic infrastructure or built form of significance.

The only criterion to have any relevance to the subject site is natural resources and the distinctive feature is stated as ‘extractive industries in the area is significant, particularly for the contribution to Victoria’s supply of limestone‘. We provide evidence in the report that:

 The Boral land has not been quarried since 2013.

 The limestone resource is not economic to extract because it is a ‘wet‘ limestone resource.

 Boral is in the process of building a $130 million facility at the Geelong Port to import clinker as a key component for cement and the Boral land is no longer required.

 Boral is negotiating with DJPR for the removal of the Works Authority affecting part of the southern site and negotiating with DJPR for the removal of the Extractive Industry Interest Area designation.

8. This will result in the Boral land being cleared for ‘future urban development’ as the independent Panel suggested.

9. If a settlement boundary is identified in relation to the site (noting the DAL has a 50 year time frame). This should be located around the perimeter of the Boral site (along Mt Duneed Road and north along Bogans Lane to Reservoir Road). This is noted in the Map E4 above which has been marked up in terms of requested framework plan amendments.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 6 Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process:

Section 1: Overview

1. Macroplan has been engaged by Boral Recycling Pty Ltd to prepare a submission regarding the Draft Statement of Planning Policy. The Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Draft Statement of Planning Policy is seeking to achieve a long-term vision for the region and guide future land use and development. This submission focuses on the Greater City of Geelong portion of the Distinctive Areas Landscapes (DAL) as it applies to the Boral sites east and west of Anglesea Road (Map 1 Surf Coast DAL Area Subject Site). This is in the context of the entire site (1035 ha) of which the southern site makes up 450 ha and has been included in the DAL.

Map 1 Surf Coast DAL Area Subject Site

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 7 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy Section 1: Overview

Map 2: Boral Waurn Ponds Comprehnsive Site

Section 1: Overview

2. Boral made submissions to Amendment C395 for the City of Greater Geelong’s Settlement Strategy (October 2018) and Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan (March 2019) indicating that the southern portion of its site, impacted by the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape (DAL) should be urban. This was on the basis that it:

• Is subject to an existing Works Authority.

• Is zoned Special Use 7 which permits a range of uses including manufacturing, showrooms and a place of assembly.

• Has significant strategic attributes for urban development consistent with the State and local planning policies (access to a rail line, access to the Geelong Freeway etc).

3. Boral also made a submission to the Distinctive Area Landscape Process and Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Process (2019) and undertook a detailed study of landscape corridors and viewsheds and found that the apparent ridgeline (from a visual and topographic point of view) was one-two kilometres south of Mt Duneed Road. This means from a viewshed perspective the subject site cannot be seen from the Anglesea Road. Closer to the site west of Anglesea Road, it cannot be seen due to a four metre high bund with dense planting along the Anglesea Road and along the Mt Duneed Road. We have appended this study for your information (Refer to Appendix 2).

4. The proposed Surf Coast Declared Area Framework Plan indicates the following:

• The proposed protected settlement boundary does not impact the Boral site. We have proposed in the redraft of this plan that the boundary should be adjacent to the Boral land.

• Road corridor views (being Mt Duneed Road and Anglesea Road) need to be managed to maintain views to the hinterland and or / coast. The site cannot be seen from the Surf Coast Highway road corridor. We note that Mt Duneed Road accommodates very light traffic volumes and should not be accorded the same status as the Surf Coast highway corridor.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 9 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy Section 1: Overview

5. The Draft Statement of Planning Policy contains a number of policy domains which align with the objectives for Distinctive Areas Landscapes in the Act and they recognise that the unique values and the distinctive attributes of the declared area result from the complex interaction of the areas landscape character, biodiversity and environment, settlement patterns, infrastructure, natural resources and aboriginal cultural heritage and historic heritage.

Map 3: Proposed Surf Coast Declared Area Framework Plan

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 10 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy Section 1: Overview

6. The first policy domain is environmental risks and resilience. In terms of environmental risks, the only risk identified for the subject sites is “Bushfire Prone Area” and a 1 in 100 year “Flood Extent”. I note that the sites are not covered by a Bushfire Management Overlay or Salinity Management Overlay. I further note there are no Water Bodies located on the land. We have appended Hydrological Study (Appendix 3) which indicates that the sites contribute an insignificant volume to the Thompson Creek catchment.

Map 4: Environmental Risks Map

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 11 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy Section 1: Overview

7. The declared area is renowned for its significant landscapes such as scenic coastal settings, roughed coast lines and impressive coastal landforms. Away from the coast, Woodlands, Saltmarshes, Volcanic Plains and the sense of rural openness between settlements further contribute to the landscape setting. The declared areas in terms of significant landscapes are classified as nationally significant, (Bells Beach) state significant (Coastal Saltmarsh and Woodland Landscape) and regionally significant (Mt Duneed Plain and surround landscape). The required level of protection for the landscape accords with this level of significance. For example, nationally significant landscapes require the highest levels of protection. “landscape significance” is different from “landscape character”:

• Landscape significance focuses on the visual values of a landscape (such as scenic beauty, heritage value and environmental qualities) and less tangible values (such as memories or associations).

• Map 5 below shows the declared areas, six landscape character areas. The subject site is located in the Mt Duneed Volcanic Plain Character Area. This includes the low Volcanic rise of Mt Duneed itself, and the Thompson Creek which winds its way from the coast at Breamlea. A further feature of this landscape includes remnant eucalyptus located in riparian reserves adjacent to road corridors. The Draft SPP report states that “this is an open and expansive landscape of long straight roads under big skies. It plays a very important role as a green break between the built-up areas of Geelong and Torquay with the settlements areas of the Bellarine Peninsula”. The original inter-urban break was located in the Thompson Valley at Grossmans Road, some five kilometres south of the subject site. The boundaries of the inter-urban break have moved twice since then, each time further north towards the Boral land. The proposed Geelong Settlement Strategy Plan has the inter-urban break located to the south of Mt Duneed Road adjacent to the Boral land. Significantly, the inter-urban break does not impact on the area between Mt Duneed Road and Reservoir Road. Further that the eastern site of the Boral land has a four meter high bund along Mt Duneed Road which has been in place for over 30 years and Boral land cannot be seen from the Mt Duneed Road. In any case the proposed inter-urban break boundary makes sense to the south of the Boral land. Strategy 2.3 states that “reserve green breaks between settlements for conservation, agriculture, nature-based tourism and natural resource purposes that prioritise the protection and enhancement of the significant landscape and landscape character setting”. This comment should relate to the area south of Mt Duneed Road. Strategy 2.2 states “Protect the coastal and hinterland setting of settlements by containing urban growth within settlement boundaries”. Settlement boundaries as proposed do not impact on the subject sites.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 12 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy Section 1: Overview

Map 5: Declared Areas Landscape

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 13 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy Section 1: Overview

8. High levels of biodiversity are important values for the declared area. They provide valuable social, economic and cultural benefits and are integral to the Wadawurrung cultural heritage. In this respect I note that Boral have ceded 32,000sqm to the Wadawurrung. (Note refer to the Geelong Advertiser article below). I note that there are no areas of high biodiversity values on the subject sites (Map 6). Further, no parks or reserves are proposed on the subject sites. The Wadawurrung people as a Traditional Owner group were legally recognised under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and significant negotiations and good will have resulted from the transfer of land to them.

Map 6: Biodiversity Values

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 14 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy Section 1: Overview

9. In terms of tourism, the subject sites are not included in the Maps as well suited to tourism activities. Further in terms of agriculture, they are not designated as agriculture quality hotspots. The sites are noted to be in an Extractive Industry Interest Area, which extends across a significantly wider area to the east, north and west. This declaration on the basis of protecting a significant limestone reserve is not valid because the reserve is not a viable limestone resource. The resource within the designated area of the Boral lands (south of Reservoir Road) has not been subject to quarrying. Further, limestone extraction on the northern portion of the site ceased in April 2013. Since 2013, only small amounts of limestone have been extracted from the Waurn Ponds site for use in clinker grinding operations as part of the cement manufacturing process. Clinker (limestone based) is currently being imported and small quantities of limestone added to the clinker grinding operation during the manufacture of cement is utilised from other quarries in the area. The resource is expensive to mine and low quality (as set out in Appendix 1 James Young Statement). A facility for the grinding of imported clinker is being developed by Boral at the Port of Geelong at a cost of $130m. I note that Boral is currently negotiating with DJPR for the removal of the Extractive Industry Interest Area Designation and for the removal of the works authority which effects the western site. The Statement of Planning Policy states that there is an Extractive Industry Interest Area located towards the northern boundary of the declared area which Map 7 of tourism, agriculture and natural resources shows. The Draft SPP sets out the Victoria Planning Provisions clause 52.09 which is to:

• Ensure that the use and development of land for extractive industry does not adversely affect the environment or amenity of the area during or after extraction

• Ensure that excavated areas can be appropriately rehabilitated.

• Ensure that stone resources which the community may require for future use are protected from inappropriate use and development.

In this respect the limestone resource is exhausted in relation to the northern sites and uneconomic with respect to the southern sites which DJPR will confirm.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 15 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy Section 1: Overview

Map 7: Tourism, Agriculture and Natural Resources

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 16 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy

Section 2: Strategic Infrastructure

10. The northern boundary of the declared area abuts the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area in Geelong and the eastern boundary of the greater Boral site also abuts the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area. This is why Amendment C395 suggested the land be considered as future urban which has been confirmed by the Greater City of Geelong. This Amendment is before the Minister for approval.

11. The Draft Statement of Planning Policy report states that greater protection of the green break between Geelong and Torquay-Jan Juc, is warranted. The area which has been identified as a landscape area of regional significance is due to the presence of the limestone resource which is no longer economic to mine on these sites. Otherwise, the subject sites are not regionally significant because:

• They have no biodiversity value.

• They have no tourism value.

• They are not designated as agricultural hotspots.

• They cannot be seen from any point along the Anglesea Road corridor or along the Surf Coast Highway corridor.

• The western site cannot be seen from the Mt Duneed Road corridor due to the four-metre-high density planted bunds and the eastern site does not impede views of Mt Duneed.

• They have no historic value or cultural heritage value therefore they cannot be in any way significant landscapes.

• They have no historic heritage value other than the site ceded to the Wadawurrung. This is apparent from the work undertaken by Alan Wyatt from X-Urban and detailed in Appendix 2. Whilst we acknowledge the importance of Mt Duneed, it is also located in an Extractive Industry Interest Area. In fact, the entire area north of Mt Duneed Road is designated as an Extractive Industry Interest Area. It is only the resource factor from a landscape character perspective that affects this land. Otherwise, it would not be a landscape of regional significance. We suggest that the Protected Settlement Boundary run due south along Ghazeepore Road to Mt Duneed Road where it will cross the inter- urban break (as designated in the Geelong Settlement Strategy Framework Plan) and run east along Mt Duneed Road, and north along Bogans Lane. This is because the resource is uneconomic in this area, which is to be confirmed by DJPR. We suggest in the interim it be nominated as further investigation required and cross hatched accordingly.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 17 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy Section 2: Strategic Infrastructure

12. The City of Greater Geelong does not support the inclusion of the area north of Mt Duneed Road in the Surf Coast DAL. Council argues that is has adequate protection as a significant landscape through the implementation of the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Boundary and clause 11.01-1R in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme which includes the protection of the Thompson Valley settlement break.

• The Draft Statement of Planning Policy states that the resolution of the location of this Protected Settlement Boundary will be informed by strategic planning work led by the City of Greater Geelong in consultation with DELWP and other relevant agencies once Amendment C395 the Settlement Strategy and the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan has been given effect. The Draft SPP notes this work should include consideration of urban-rural transition areas that support the regionally significant landscape setting. We recommended in our last submission to the DAL that the subject sites be noted as an investigation area and that they utilise setbacks from an urban perspective to encourage an urban rural transition.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 18 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy

Section 3: Amendment C395

13. The entire Boral site (north and south) was designated as future urban investigation area pursuant to Amendment C395 and supported by the Greater City of Geelong. The characteristics of the entire site including the exhausted former quarry in the norther section of the site are as follows:

(a) There is an interchange to the Geelong Ring Road immediately to the northwest of the land, and convenient access to the Surf Coast Highway via Baanip Boulevard.

(e) Part of the land is located within the 800 metre walkable catchment of the existing Waurn Ponds station (with the easternmost part of the land only 400 metres from the station).

(f) The land is identified as a long-term ‘future investigation area’ in the G21 Growth Plan.

(g) The land includes large areas of generally flat agricultural land of little environmental or cultural heritage significance.

(i) The land is located on the Surf Coast side of Geelong, which provides significant liveability benefits.

(j) The land is already included in a non-rural zoning and in part has been and is used for industrial purposes.

2 Expert witness statement of Mr Walsh (Panel document 43), p 13

3 See the discussion in the expert witness statements of Mr Barnes (Panel document 42) and Mr Haratsis (Panel document 11).

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 19 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy Section 3: Amendment C395

(k) The land is no longer used for or required for quarrying or associated processing. Ongoing quarrying of limestone is not viable given the significant quantum of overburden that must be removed before limestone can be accessed.4

(l) Post-quarrying rehabilitation is already underway on areas subject to quarrying.

(m) The land is able to be serviced.5

(n) The new Rail Stabling Yards are to be built due west of the Boral land.

Boral submitted that the C395 Amendment Panel should recommend the following actions and these remain the Boral position with respect to this submission on the Draft Statement of Planning Policy:

(a) inclusion of all of the Boral Land within the Geelong settlement boundary.

(b) designation of the southern precincts of the Boral Land (shown as 2 and 4 below, south of Reservoir Road) as an ‘investigation area’6;

The case for short-term development of the northern precincts of the Boral Land is sufficiently strong and certain as to justify immediate rezoning to UGZ.

The eastern precinct (precinct 1) abuts the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area and the ‘Hams Road’ proposed redevelopment,7 which has been supported by Council and a recent Panel8, since gazetted, including on the basis of the site being strategically well located for residential development, being:

(a) within walking distance of Waurn Ponds Station;

(b) accessible by major roads;

(c) close to the major employment, education and retail hubs of the Epworth Hospital, Waurn Ponds Shopping Centre and Deakin University.

These are all attributes shared entirely or largely by the northern precincts of the Boral land.

This land is unaffected by the DAL or inter-urban break issues. There are negligible unknown environmental or heritage constraints – the western precincts have been quarried, and the eastern precinct will logically form an extension of the urban form of Armstrong Creek, with similar treatment of the creek, which traverses the eastern precinct.

4 As set out in the statement of Mr Young of Boral (Panel document 124). 5 As set out in the expert witness statement of Mr Glasson (Panel document 70). 6 The term ‘investigation area’ is already used on the exhibited ‘Housing and Settlement Framework Plan; included in cl 21.06 Settlement and Housing, in relation to the Moolap area.

7 Amendment C372 involves the triangle of land between the Ring Road and the railway to the northeast of the Boral site. It proposes the rezoning of 24 ha of land from Farming Zone to General Residential Zone. The amendment is accompanied by planning permit applications for subdivision for approximately 300 lots. 8 Panel Report, Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C372 and Permit Applications 662/2017 and 663/2017, Hams Road, Waurn Ponds subdivision, 28 October 2019.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 20 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy

Section 4: Distinctive Areas and Landscapes

In 2018, the Planning and Environment Act 1987 was amended to provide for the protection of ‘distinctive areas and landscapes’. The Act has four objectives:

 To recognise the importance of distinctive areas and landscapes to the people of Victoria and to protect and conserve their unique features and special characteristics.

 To enhance the conservation of the environment in declared areas including unique habitats, ecosystems and biodiversity.

 To ensure the integration of policy development, implementation and decision-making through Statements of Planning Policy.

 To recognise the connection and stewardship of Traditional Owners.

Declaring an area sets the study area for the preparation and implementation of a Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) to ensure that the area is protected for generations to come.

The Boundaries of the Surf Coast DAL North The northern boundary meets the urban edge of Geelong and continues east along Barwon Heads Road. This boundary acknowledges the importance of the Thompson Valley green break which preserves the landscape character between the urban areas of Armstrong Creek and Torquay.

DELWP undertook an assessment of the area against the declaration criteria outline in the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This assessment involved desktop analysis, site visits, as well as internal and external consultation with subject matter experts. It was further informed by consultation with local councils, the Wadawurrung People, the community and other key stakeholder groups.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 21 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy Section 4: Distinctive Areas and Landscapes

The northern and eastern boundaries of the declared area include two areas within the City of Greater Geelong: part of the Thompson Valley green break near Armstrong Creek growth area and the Breamlea Flora and Fauna Reserve.

These locations form part of larger natural features and ecosystems that are predominantly located within the Surf Coast. The extension of the Surf Coast Distinctive Area and Landscape declared area into the City of Greater Geelong is representative of these natural features.

The Declared Area is an area to which an order under section 46AO of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 applies. The declared area boundary indicated that an area contains a concentration of distinctive attributes and is under threat. A Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) will be developed for the declared area to protect and conserve its distinctive attributes.

A protected settlement boundary is a defined limit to urban expansion, like Melbourne’s urban growth boundary. When preparing a SPP, there is the opportunity to specify protected settlement boundaries which contain urban development and growth.

The aim of a protected settlement boundary is to:

 Keep green breaks between townships.

 Protect a town’s unique identity.

 Prevent urban encroachment into rural land of agricultural, environmental, heritage or landscape value. At this stage, no protected settlement boundaries have been decided upon.

The purpose of a SPP is to guide the future use and development of land in the declared area, making sure the distinctive attributes of the declared area are protected.

A SPP also coordinated decision making for land use and development, achieving integrated management, infrastructure and development outcomes. SPP contains three main components:

 A 50-year vision which identifies the value and attributes that the community wants to protect.

 Policy objectives and strategies to achieve the vision.

 A framework plan.

The 50-year vision would include the Boral land as urban.

The Minister must be satisfied that an area has a majority of the following attributes in order to recommend that the area be declared as a distinctive area and landscape:

(a) Outstanding environmental significance

(b) Significant geographical features, including natural landforms

(d) Natural resources or productive land of significance

(e) An attribute prescribed for the purpose of this section

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 22 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy Section 4: Distinctive Areas and Landscapes

The Minister must be satisfied that an area is under threat of significant or irreversible land use change that would affect the environmental, social or economic value of the area in order to recommend that the area be declared as a distinctive area and landscape, whether that threat arises from:

(f) Land use conflicts or

(g) Multiple land use changes over time; or

(h) any other land use threat prescribed for the purpose of this section.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 23 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy

Section 5: Declaration of the Surf Coast as a Distinctive Area and Landscape

The preamble sets out the significance of the area to the people of Victoria and Table 1 (below) sets out attributes qualifying the declared area as a distinctive area and landscape. Provisions 2 (1c, 4b) and 5 (1b point 46), the protection of a limestone reserve no longer applies to the subject site because remaining reserves within the DAL portion of the site are too costly to extract and of low grade. (See Appendix 1 for further background). Point 5 (1b) is acknowledged and is a major reason the subject site should be designated urban. It is serviced by Geelong Freeway (Ring Road) and the Anglesea Road. Discussions with DELWP have focused on 2c - the landscape character is highly visible form main corridors, and it is the factor which is a focus of this submission.

The threats of significant land use change of the declared area are noted as follows:

C). Threats to preservation of heritage and cultural attributes from township expansion, land use practices and increased tourism activity and recreation.

E). Threats to future effectiveness of strategic infrastructure due to increasing pressure from urban growth, tourism activity and cumulative urban development.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 24 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy Section 5: Declaration of the Surf Coast as a Distinctive Area and Landscape

An assessment of Boral’s site against these features to demonstrate it should not be in the DAL is include in Section 8 (Criteria for a Distinctive Area and Landscape).

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 25 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy

Section 6: The Shifting Inter-Urban Break

The concept of inter-urban break has morphed into a growth boundary as the Maps show. There is a discussion around the proposed Geelong Municipal Framework Plan, and it appears no detailed assessment had been undertaken. Historically, the concept of inter-urban breaks began as a farmland based break to the south of Grossmans Road some 5 kilometres from the subject site and gradually moved north.

Purpose of Settlement Breaks The environments between urban areas play important roles in (4.11 G21 RGP):

 Water supply, agricultural production and long term food security.

 Accommodating our recreation pursuits:

- Economic activities, including tourism, airfields, stone and mineral resource extraction and opportunities for alternative energy sources and carbon farming.

- Accommodating our significant landscape and geological features and natural resources such as waterways, coasts, Ramsar wetlands, remnant vegetation and habitats.

- Framing our settlements and creating the distinctive character and setting valued by the G21 community.

The purposes of the identified settlement breaks are:

1. North-Eastern Gateway  To ensure a strong visual identity and clear delineation between Geelong as a regional city and Melbourne as a capital city.

 To protect significant views, grassland and wetland habitat areas, farming activities and strategic opportunities for employment linked with Avalon Airport Department of Defence and quarry sites.

2. Thompson Valley  To ensure a strong farmed landscape character between the urban areas of Armstrong Creek and Torquay, encourage rural production and maintain existing town identities.

3. Barrabool Hills  To protect National Trust classified landscape of cultural heritage significance. Rural production is the primary land use activity in addition to the small settlements of Ceres and Barrabool.

4. Bellarine Peninsula  To ensure a strong farmed landscape character between Geelong and Bellarine towns, encourage rural production, maintain town identities and related tourism opportunities and minimise impact on significant wetlands and coastal views.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 26 Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Section 6: The Shifting Inter-Urban Break

Three inter-urban breaks have been proposed over time. The first (Map 8) in the G21 Regional Growth Plan (2013) and located south of Grossmans Road some 5 kilometres from the site. The second is in the Geelong Settlement Strategy 2018 (Map 9) and the third, the proposed new Geelong Settlement Strategy: Greater Geelong Housing Framework Plan – (2020) to the south and adjacent to the Boral land (Map 10).

Significantly the inter-urban break does not impact on the area between Mt Duneed Road and Reservoir Road and therefore Borals land is not part of the inter-urban break.

Map 8 Settlement and Employment Growth Directions

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 27 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy Section 6: The Shifting Inter-Urban Break

Map 9: Greater Geelong Housing Framework Plan – 2036

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 28 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy Section 6: The Shifting Inter-Urban Break

Map 10 Revised Housing and Settlement Framework Plan - 2036

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 29 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy

Section 7: Statement of Planning Policy

The Minister must prepare a statement of Planning Policy for a declared area:

 The purpose of a Statement of Planning Policy for a declared area is to create a framework for the future use and development of land in the declared area to ensure the protection and conservation of the distinctive attributes of the declared area.

The statement of Planning Policy for a declared area must:

 Set a vision for a period of at least 50 years that identifies the values, priorities and preferences of the Victorian community in relation to the distinctive attributes of the declared area, including preference of future land use, protection and development; and

 Set out the long-term needs for the integration of decision-making and planning for the declared areas; and

 State the parts of the Statement that are binding on responsible public entities and the parts that are in the nature of recommendation to which responsible public entities are only required to have regard; and

 Include a declared area framework plan in accordance with subsection (2); and

 Set out Aboriginal tangible and intangible cultural values, and other cultural and heritage values, in relation to the declared area.

The declared area framework plan must provide a framework for decision-making in relation to the future use and development of land in the declared area that:

 Integrated environmental, social, cultural and economic factors for the benefit of the community and encourages sustainable development and identifies areas for protection and conservation of the distinctive attributes of the declared area; and

 May specify settlement boundaries in the declared area or designate specific settlement boundaries in the declared area as protected settlement boundaries.

At the Panel Hearing for C395 Amendment, DELWP stated to the Panel that in the event settlement boundaries were to be implemented, they would set them taking into account the outcome of the Panel Hearing process. The settlement boundaries would therefore include the entire Boral site because the Panel found it should be designated as future urban.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 30 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy

Section 8: Criteria for a Distinctive Area and Landscape

There are five criteria set in the following table of which four relate to the subject land. They have each been tested and none of them have any significant impact from the Boral Land.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 31 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy Section 8: Criteria for a Distinctive Area and Landscape

Strategic Infrastructure or Built Form Significance (5b) We acknowledge the importance of the Anglesea Road and that it supports the rationale for the subject site being designated as urban.

A) Landscape Analysis - Setting the inter-urban growth boundaries Amendment C395 at clause 20.02.19 in the City of Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, proposed the following objectives:

 Minimise the economic, environment, visual and servicing impacts of residential development of rural areas

 Confirm enduring and defendable settlement boundaries by undertaking a logical inclusions process

 Maintain the non-urban breaks between Geelong and Melbourne (Wyndham), Geelong and the Surf Coast, urban Geelong and the Bellarine Peninsula, and the townships on the Bellarine Peninsula.

Hence the priority is on:

 Rural views

 Maintenance of the non-urban breaks between Geelong and the Surf Coast

 Defensibility.

This chapter will examine the requirement for the maintenance of the non-urban breaks between Geelong and the Surf Coast.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 32 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy Section 8: Criteria for a Distinctive Area and Landscape

Non-Urban Breaks Planning in Victoria has long considered the retention of non-urban breaks an essential component of planning. For example the Hume City Council ‘Inter-urban break at Craigieburn Implementation Strategy’ recognised that “unless well planned from the outset Craigieburn has the potential to be overwhelmed by incremental growth of the Melbourne metropolitan area within the Merri Corridor, and to lose the opportunity which currently remains to develop a sense of identity and individuality”.

A similar risk exists at the boundaries between the Greater Geelong urban areas and the coastal communities within the Surf Coast Shire. The Boral land is on the edge of the settlement boundary for the City of Greater Geelong and it is relevant to the future development of this site to determine its contribution to the separation, particularly between Anglesea and communities on the Bellarine Peninsula, and the Geelong urban areas.

The question that must be resolved is what is the contribution that the Boral land would make to the non-urban break? To determine the visual contribution of this site it is necessary to analyse if it is part of the perceived landscape that a viewer travelling north on Anglesea Road or similar north south roads would perceive before entering roads in which the urban areas of Geelong are apparent and therefore the landscape would not be considered part of the non-urban break.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 33 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy Section 8: Criteria for a Distinctive Area and Landscape

Figure 1: Perceptual and Topographic Ridgelines

Figure 1 above shows that the visible or perceptual ridgeline can be completely different from a ridgeline determined solely by contours. This is the case in the non-urban break that one would perceive whilst travelling along Anglesea Road towards Geelong.

Therefore, a starting point to determine where boundary of a non-urban break should be located is to undertake a viewshed or seen area analysis.

Viewshed Analysis A viewshed or seen area analysis determines the area that is visible from a specified location and takes into account only topographic variation.

 2 observation points on Blackgate Road on either side of its intersection with Anglesea Road.

 2 observation points on Anglesea Road between Dickins Road and Blackgate Road.

 1 observation point at the corner of Dickins Road and Anglesea Road.

 Dataset Name: VICMAP Elevation DTM 10M

 Details: It is a raster representation of Victoria’s elevation. DTM 10m has a spatial resolution of 10m/

 Temporal Coverage: 30/06/2008 to 30/06/2008

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 34 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy Section 8: Criteria for a Distinctive Area and Landscape

The height of the person at observer points was presumed to be at 1.6 m. Larger images of the Figures below for each of these vantage points are appended to this report and show similar results for the five viewpoints. However, to clarify the results of this analysis, Figure 2 below shows the areas that are visible from a location on Blackgate Road just to the west of Anglesea Road.

Figure 2: Observer 1

Figure 3 illustrates that the Boral land does not make a contribution to the non-urban break when perceived from this low-lying location. The southern flans of Mt Duneed are visible but the slight rise to the south of the Boral land screens views further to the north. This separation is further enhanced by existing vegetation that is visible in Figure 3.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 35 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy Section 8: Criteria for a Distinctive Area and Landscape

Figure 3: View from Observer 1 location

Figure 3 shows the view from Blackgate Road where the telecommunication towers on Mt Duneed are visible on the right and the Boral land is totally screened, first by topography as illustrated in the seen area analysis but also by several intervening hedgerows and other scattered vegetation.

Non-urban growth boundary This analysis has shown that the non-urban growth boundary could be set further south than the southern border of the Boral land or the Mt Duneed Road corridor. However a conservative growth boundary could align with the southern edge of Mt Duneed Road as shown on Map 4 and a section of which is reproduced in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Part of Map 9 – Boral Re-Drafted Housing and Settlement Framework Plan

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 36 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy Section 8: Criteria for a Distinctive Area and Landscape

 Approximately 444 ha of the Boral site within the declaration area, drains into the Thompson Creek catchment during significant overland flow events, namely the 1% AEP flood event.

 The run off from this (444 ha) section of the Boral site that is within the declaration area and the Thompson Creek catchment, drains into a designated waterway that joins Thompson Creek approximately 4.6 km downstream of the Boral site.

 Existing run off from the section of the Boral site that is within the declaration area and the Thompson Creek catchment, is expected to have a negligible (<5%) influence/contribution on stream flows in Thompson Creek. This is expected given the location of the Boral site within the wider (Thompson Creek) catchment, the relatively minor site catchment (compared to the regional Thompson Creek catchment), and rural nature of this section of the site.

 Existing run off from the section of the Boral site that is within the declaration area and the Thompson Creek catchment, is expected to have a negligible influence/contribution on the waterway health in Thompson Creek, based on its minor streamflow contribution and minimal runoff water quality contamination risk from the historic extraction activities on the northern portion of the site.

Therefore, the subject site have very little impact on the natural systems of the Thompson Creek catchment.

 Every vertically integrated cement plant requires a guaranteed, long-term and high-quality supply of limestone.

 The predominant geological feature of the Waurn Ponds site is the Barrabool Sandstone, which contains the Waurn Ponds Formation. This Formation is a layered complex of clay, ironstone and limestone overlain by beds of marl and calcareous clays. The lower 7-12 metres of the Waurn Ponds Formation has an average calcium carbonate content of 88-90% and is suitable for cement manufacturing. The marl has a lower calcium carbonate content, but could be blended with high-grade limestone and other raw materials to produce a cement raw feed with a calcium carbonate content of 81%.

 Boral's Waurn Ponds site consists of several blocks (refer Appendix 1). Over its nearly 50-year life, the limestone resource within the Northern and Larcombe Blocks was exhausted by the time Boral decided to suspend operations at the kiln. These blocks are located north of Reservoir Road and are bounded generally

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 37 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy Section 8: Criteria for a Distinctive Area and Landscape

by Draytons Road to the west, Anglesea Road to the east, and the Princes Highway and Hams Road to the north. Significant volumes of overburden are being placed on these Blocks as part of their ongoing rehabilitation.

 Three other Blocks - Kernels, Baxter and Stones - occupy the remaining parts of the Waurn Ponds site described below:

(a) East of Anglesea Road, generally bounded by White Rd to the south, Ghazeepore Road to the east, and the Warrnambool-Geelong railway line to the north (Kernels); and

(b) At the southern part of Boral's Waurn Ponds site, bounded by Mt Duneed Rd to the south, Whites Rd to the north, Ghazeepore Road to the east and Bogans Lane to the west (Baxter and Stones).

 A key decision for Boral was whether it should try to win limestone from the remaining three Blocks. A number of factors led to its decision to discontinue limestone extraction.

 One factor is that the limestone deposit at Waurn Ponds is "sticky," which means that it can only be extracted by scrapers rather than by the more conventional blast-and-excavate methods. These atypical extraction methods make the quarry operations more expensive than conventional limestone quarries.

 A second factor concerned the challenging quarry stripping ratios at Waurn Ponds. The "stripping ratio" is the ratio of the volume of overburden to useable limestone.

 The limestone deposit remaining at Waurn Ponds is overlain by a large amount of overburden. In 2012, Boral estimated that the initial cost of removing the overburden to open a new Block and expose the limestone for extraction would cost in the order of $6 million.

 High stripping ratios prevail across most of the Waurn Ponds site. The market standard stripping ratio for limestone quarrying operations, such as Boral’s Marulan limestone quarry in NSW, ranges from between 1:1 and 2:1.

 At Waurn Ponds, the stripping ratios range from about 3:1 to 6:1, increasing from the north-west to the south east. Overburden and stripping ratios in the remaining Blocks (Kernel, Baxter and Stones Blocks) is significantly higher than in the areas already mined. At the upper end of this range, 90 tonnes of overburden would need to be removed to extract 15 tonnes of limestone.

 Extending the quarry to the east and south of the current operations would also increase quarry haul lengths, and hence the operational cost of the quarry.

 In 2012, Boral estimated that these factors would collectively increase the cost of producing cement at Waurn Ponds by $15 per tonne, or nearly 10%. Given that Boral and the cement industry typically pursue improvements in production that reduce the cost per tonne by 10 cents/tonne or more, a $15 increase in production was commercially unacceptable.

 Collectively, these matters contributed to Boral's belief that there is no viable future for the limestone reserves at Waurn Ponds.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 38 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy Section 8: Criteria for a Distinctive Area and Landscape

 In summary, Boral discontinued limestone quarrying and clinker production at Waurn Ponds because neither business is commercially viable due to market and site-specific characteristics I have summarised previously. The Waurn Ponds site is under active rehabilitation, and clinker grinding at Waurn Ponds will end once the new facility at Port of Geelong is operational. Boral is now evaluating the future use of the site when cement production on site ends.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 39 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy

Section 9: Conclusions

Based on the assessments undertaken the Boral land within the Surf Coast DAL should be identified as urban, consistent with submissions by Boral to the C395 Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment. Correspondence from the City of Greater Geelong also confirms that the areas of the Distinctive Area Landscape within the City of Geelong have adequate protection through the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme which includes the protection of the Thompson Valley settlement break. This is because the only factor generating “regional significance” is the resource factor and this is no longer germane. On this basis we have redrafted the Declared Area Framework Plan in the Statement of Planning Policy to reflect the fact that there are no economic resources and therefore the protected area boundary should be adjacent to the Boral land. The protected area boundary should run along the perimeter of the Boral land south along Ghazeepore Road and west along Mt Duneed Road.

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 40 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy

Appendix 1: Statement of James Peter Young

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 41 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy

10/11/2019 13:49 ASIA 33545587 v1 [33545587_1.docx]

Appendix 2: Boral’s Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process, December 2019

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 49 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process Alan Wyatt - XURBAN & Brian Haratsis - Macroplan December 2019

Important Notice

Boral Recycling Pty Ltd All Rights Reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, transmitted, stored in a retrieval system, or translated into any language in any form by any means without the written permission of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd. All Rights Reserved. All methods, processes, commercial proposals and other contents described in this document are the confidential intellectual property of Boral Resources Pty Ltd and may not be used or disclosed to any party without the written permission of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd.

Responsible for this report: Brian Haratsis, Executive Chairman Allan Wyatt, XURBAN

Contact Macroplan

Level 16 300 Collins Street Melbourne VIC 3000 (03) 9600 0500 [email protected]

Table of contents

1. Executive Summary ...... 1

2. C395 Amendments Requested by Boral ...... 5

3. Distinctive Areas and Landscapes ...... 11

4. Declaration of the Surf Coast as a Distinctive Area and Landscape...... 13

5. The Shifting Inter-Urban Break ...... 15

6. Council’s Basis for Selection of the Urban Growth Boundary ...... 20

7. Statement of Planning Policy ...... 23

8. Criteria For A Distinctive Area And Landscape ...... 24

Conclusions ...... 31

APPENDICES ...... 38

1. Executive Summary

Phase 2 of the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscapes process is seeking information in order to set up the Statement Planning Policy to achieve a long term vision for the region and guide future land use and development. This submission focuses on the Greater City of Geelong portion of the Distinctive Areas Landscape (DAL) as it applies to the Boral Land (map 1).

1. Boral made submissions to Amendment C395 for the City of Greater Geelong’s Settlement Strategy (October 2018) and Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan (March 2019) indicating that the southern portion of its site, impacted by the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape (DAL) should be urban. This was on the basis that it: • is subject to an existing Works Authority; • is zoned Special Use 7 which permits a range of uses including manufacturing, showrooms and a place of assembly; • is a strategically significant 1,000+ hectare site, in single ownership, abutting the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area and Waurn Ponds. It is close to employment areas and the northern part of the site is already designated as a long term further investigation area in the Regional Growth Plan; and • has significant strategic attributes for urban development consistent with the State and local planning policies (access to a rail line, access to the Geelong Freeway etc).

2. It is understood that the Boral Land was designated on the basis that it has significant geographic features including land forms and because the landscape character may be highly visible from the main road corridors. The landscape character of the subject area is defined by the inter-urban break and further defined by Thompson Valley.

3. The original inter-urban break was located in the Thompson Valley at Grossmans Road some 5 kilometres south of the subject site.

4. The boundaries of the inter-urban break have moved twice since then, each time further to the north towards the Boral Land. The proposed Geelong Municipal Framework Plan has the inter-urban break located to the south of Mount Duneed Road, adjacent to the Boral land.

5. Significantly, the inter-urban break does not impact on the area between Mt Duneed Road and Reservoir Road.

6. A detailed visual analysis and topographic analysis reveals that the apparent ridgeline (from a visual and topographic point of view) is 1-2 kilometres (south of Mount Duneed Road). This means from a view shed perspective the subject site cannot be seen.

7. The Surf Coast DAL designation follows local roads and is adjacent to the boundary of the existing urban zoned land as a first approximation. A detailed view shed analysis (from five locations) confirms that Reservoir Road (as an extension of Whites Road) cannot be seen (Figure 5 shows the most impact). In

1 | P a g e fact, the view shed is south of Mt Duneed Road. To protect the importance of the Thompson Valley and preserve the landscape character between Torquay and Geelong/ Armstrong Creek (as identified in objectives of the Surf Coast DAL), the boundary would be set as proposed in the Settlement Strategy along Mt Duneed Road as distinct from the proposed Municipal Framework Plan.

8. The declaration on the basis of a protecting a significant limestone reserve is not valid because the reserve is not a viable limestone resource. The resource within the designated area of the Boral lands (south of Reservoir Road) has not been subject to quarrying. Further, limestone extraction on the northern portion of the site ceased in April 2013. Since 2013, only small amounts of limestone have been extracted from the Waurn Ponds site for use in clinker grinding operations as part of the cement manufacturing process. Clinker (limestone based) is currently being imported and small quantities of limestone added to the clinker grinding operation during the manufacture of cement is utilised from other quarries in the area. The resource is expensive to mine and low quality (as set out in Appendix 1). A facility for the grinding of imported clinker is being developed by Boral at the Port of Geelong at a cost of $130m.

9. Hydrological advice suggests that the Site Focus Area (the high point in the catchment) makes up a very small percentage (<2.19%) of the total Thompson Creek catchment. The assessment shows that the existing run off from the Site Focus Area has a negligible (<5%) influence/contribution on stream flows in Thompson Creek (Appendix 2). Therefore, the site is expected to have a negligible influence/contribution on the waterway health in Thompson Creek or impact to the natural systems. .

10. In a 50-year vision, as required under the Act, the Boral land would be designated as an urban extension of Armstrong Creek. We note that to the east of Anglesea Road, the site is designated as urban in the existing Municipal Framework Plan (map 2).

11. The City of Greater Geelong does not support the inclusion of the area north of Mt Duneed Road in the Surf Coast DAL. Council argues that is has adequate protection as a significant landscape through the implementation of the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Boundary and clause 11.01-1R in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme which includes the protection of the Thompson Valley settlement break (Appendix 3).

12. Boral considers that the Boral site within the Surf Coast DAL should be urban in the Statement of Planning Policy, consistent with submissions made to Amendment C395 for the City of Greater Geelong’s Settlement Strategy.

2 | P a g e MAP 1

3 | P a g e MAP 2 EXISTING MUNICIPAL FRAMEWORK PLAN

4 | P a g e 2. C395 Amendments Requested by Boral

The Amendments requested by Boral to the C395 Amendment of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme were as follows:

1. Make the following changes to the exhibited Municipal Framework Plan at cl 21.04, as shown on the plan in map 3:

(a) designation of the part of the Boral Land north of Reservoir Road as ‘growth area’;

and (b) remove ‘major resources’ designation.

2. Make the following changes to the exhibited Housing and Settlement Framework Plan at cl 21.06, as shown on the plan in map 4:

(a) inclusion of all of the Boral Land within the settlement boundary;

(b) designation of the part of the Boral Land north of Reservoir Road as ‘future growth

areas’1; and (c) designation of the part of the Boral Land south of Reservoir Road as ‘investigation area’.

3. In cl 21.06-1 Key issues and influences, heading “Settlement’ after second paragraph, insert: “The former Boral quarry land at Waurn Ponds will be further investigated to determine its potential for future urban development”.

4. In clause 22.11, delete:

“Land for extractive industries to the west of Ghazeepore Road will be protected from incompatible development.”

5. Rezone all of the Boral Land north of Reservoir Road from Special Use Zone, Schedule 7, to Urban Growth Zone.

6. Update the Settlement Strategy (October 2019) consistent with the above changes to the Planning Scheme.

1 This is based on the exhibited C395 Amendment. Council’s Part A submission refers to the ‘future growth areas’ designation being removed and replaced with ‘growth areas’. Whichever approach is taken, the Boral land should be treated in the same way as the Northern and Western Growth Areas.

5 | P a g e MAP 3 BORAL REVISED MUNICIPAL FRAMEWORK PLAN

6 | P a g e MAP 4 BORAL REVISED HOUSING AND SETTLEMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN

7 | P a g e The characteristics of the land are as follows:

(a) Is an interchange to the Geelong Ring Road immediately to the northwest of the land, and convenient access to the Surf Coast Highway via Baanip Boulevard.

(c) The land can readily be provided with passenger rail access to Geelong central business district and Melbourne. The land straddles the (Melbourne-) Geelong-Warrnambool railway. This is an existing passenger rail line. Short-term delivery of passenger rail is a real possibility. The land is also between the proposed location of the rail stabling yards for Geelong trains and

central Geelong.1

and Waurn Ponds Railway Station.2

(e) Part of the land is located within the 800 metre walkable catchment of the existing Waurn Ponds station (with the easternmost part of the land only 400 metres from the station).

(f) The land is identified as a long-term ‘future investigation area’ in the G21 Growth Plan.

(g) The land includes large areas of generally flat agricultural land of little apparent environmental or cultural heritage significance – while some areas remain to be formally surveyed, there are no obvious constraints on development.

(h) The land is immediately adjacent to the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area – the land was apparently only excluded from the original planning of this area because it was used for

quarrying at the time3 – and is ideally located to provide an extension to this growth area.

(i) The land is located on the Surf Coast side of Geelong, which provides significant liveability benefits.

(j) The land is already included in a non-rural zoning and in part has been and is used for industrial purposes.

1 Proposed Amendment GC104 proposes imposition of a public acquisition overlay and inclusion of an incorporated document for the project in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. The amendment is scheduled to be considered by the Government Land Standing Advisory Committee in February 2020. 2 Expert witness statement of Mr Walsh (Panel document 43), p 13 3 See the discussion in the expert witness statements of Mr Barnes (Panel document 42) and Mr Haratsis (Panel document 11).

8 | P a g e (k) The land is no longer used for or required for quarrying or associated processing. Ongoing quarrying of limestone is not viable given the significant quantum of overburden that must be

removed before limestone can be accessed.4

(l) Post-quarrying rehabilitation is already underway on areas subject to quarrying.

(m) The land is able to be serviced.5

The strategic importance of the Boral Land to Geelong’s future means that:

(n) it is not appropriate to maintain the status quo, with no recognition in the Planning Scheme of the change of circumstances since the G21 Growth Plan and of the attributes of the land;

(o) it is not appropriate to designate the land as a ‘future investigation area’ and defer further consideration off to the future (whether or not there are conditions specified to trigger the investigation);

(p) it is not appropriate to leave consideration of the Boral Land to a ‘logical inclusions’ process; and

(q) it is not appropriate for the DAL process – which DELWP has said will take as its starting point the planning scheme post-Amendment C395 – to proceed on any basis other than Boral Land being identified for investigation for urban development.

Boral submitted that the C395 Amendment Panel should recommend:

(r) inclusion of all of the Boral Land within the Geelong settlement boundary;

(s) designation of the southern precincts of the Boral Land (shown as 2 and 4 below, south of

Reservoir Road) as an ‘investigation area’6;

(t) rezoning of the northern precinct to urban growth zone (UGZ) and designation as a ‘future growth area’;

(u) deletion of the ‘major resources’ designation of the Boral Land on the municipal framework plan at cl 21.04 and deletion of “Land for extractive industries to the west of Ghazeepore Road will be protected from incompatible development” from cl 22.11.

The case for short-term development of the northern precincts of the Boral Land is sufficiently strong and certain as to justify immediate rezoning to UGZ. This land is suitable for short-term urban development. It is particularly accessible by train and road. The western precincts have a history of industrial use.

9 | P a g e The eastern precinct (precinct 1) abuts the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area and the ‘Hams Road’

proposed redevelopment,7 which has been supported by Council and a recent Panel,8 including on the basis of the site being strategically well located for residential development, being:

(v) within walking distance of Waurn Ponds Station;

(w) accessible by major roads;

(x) close to the major employment, education and retail hubs of the Epworth Hospital, Waurn Ponds Shopping Centre and Deakin University.

These are all attributes shared entirely or largely by the northern precincts of the Boral land.

The land is unaffected by the DAL or inter-urban break issues. There are negligible unknown environmental or heritage constraints – the western precincts have been quarried, and the eastern precinct will logically form an extension of the urban form of Armstrong Creek, with similar treatment of the creek, which traverses the eastern precinct.

7 Amendment C372 involves the triangle of land between the Ring Road and the railway to the northeast of the Boral site. It proposes the rezoning of 24 ha of land from Farming Zone to General Residential Zone. The amendment is accompanied by planning permit applications for subdivision for approximately 300 lots. 8 Panel Report, Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C372 and Permit Applications 662/2017 and 663/2017, Hams Road, Waurn Ponds subdivision, 28 October 2019.

10 | P a g e 3. Distinctive Areas and Landscapes

In 2018, the Planning and Environment Act 1987 was amended to provide for the protection of ‘distinctive areas and landscapes’. The Act has four objectives:

 To recognise the importance of distinctive areas and landscapes to the people of Victoria and to protect and conserve their unique features and special characteristics;

 To enhance the conservation of the environment in declared areas including unique habitats, ecosystems and biodiversity;

 To ensure the integration of policy development, implementation and decision-making through Statements of Planning Policy;

 To recognise the connection and stewardship of Traditional Owners.

Declaring an area sets the study area for the preparation and implementation of a Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) to ensure that the area is protected for generations to come.

The Boundaries of the Surf Coast DAL

North

The northern boundary meets the urban edge of Geelong and continues east along Barwon Heads Road. This boundary acknowledges the importance of the Thompson Valley green break which preserves the landscape character between the urban areas of Armstrong Creek and Torquay.

South

The southern boundary of the declaration area extends along the coastline from the eastern edge of the Great Otway National Park to Breamlea Flora and Fauna Reserve. The boundary is 600m seaward of the low water mark. Incorporating this part of the marine and coastal environment allows for the coordinated management of the significant features and threats clustered along the coast.

West

The western boundary follows the eastern edge of the Great Otway National Park, Hendy Main Road, Woodland Road and Bogans Lane. This boundary captures important viewsheds from both the Surf Coast Highway and Anglesea Road. The western boundary acknowledges the relationship of the surrounding landscape with the significant coastal areas and their township setting.

DELWP undertook a comprehensive assessment of the area against the declaration criteria outline in the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This assessment involved desktop analysis, site visits, as well as internal and external consultation with subject matter experts. It was further informed by consultation with local councils, the Wadawurrung People, the community and other key stakeholder groups.

11 | P a g e These locations form part of larger natural features and ecosystems that are predominantly located within the Surf Coast. The extension of the Surf Coast Distinctive Area and Landscape declared area into the City of Greater Geelong is representative of these natural features.

The aim of a protected settlement boundary is to:

 Keep green breaks between townships

 Protect a town’s unique identity

 Prevent urban encroachment into rural land of agricultural, environmental, heritage or landscape value.

At this stage, no protected settlement boundaries have been decided upon.

The purpose of a SPP is to guide the future use and development of land in the declared area, making sure the distinctive attributes of the declared area are protected.

A SPP also coordinated decision making for land use and development, achieving integrated management, infrastructure and development outcomes. SPP contains three main components:

 A 50-year vision which identifies the value and attributes that the community wants to protect

 Policy objectives and strategies to achieve the vision

 A framework plan.

The 50-year vision would include the Boral land as urban.

The Minister must be satisfied that an area has a majority of the following attributes in order to recommend that the area be declared as a distinctive area and landscape:

a) Outstanding environmental significance b) Significant geographical features, including natural landforms c) Heritage and cultural significance d) Natural resources or productive land of significance e) An attribute prescribed for the purpose of this section

a) Land use conflicts or b) Multiple land use changes over time; or Any other land use threat prescribed for the purpose of this section.

12 | P a g e 4. Declaration of the Surf Coast as a Distinctive Area and Landscape.

The preamble sets out the significance of the area to the people of Victoria and Table 1 (below) sets out attributes qualifying the declared area as a distinctive area and landscape. Provisions 2 (1c, 4b) and 5 (1b point 46), the protection of a limestone reserve no longer applies to the subject site because remaining reserves within the DAL portion of the site are too costly to extract and of low grade. (See Appendix 1 for further background). Point 5 (1b) is acknowledged and is a major reason the subject site should be designated urban. It is serviced by Geelong Freeway (Ring Road) and the Anglesea Road. Discussions with DELWP have focused on 2c - the landscape character is highly visible form main corridors and it is the factor which is a focus of this submission.

The threats of significant land use change of the declared area are noted as follows:

A) Threats to areas of significant biodiversity from land clearing and loss of habitat, urban development pressures including water run-off, human interference increased through tourism and introduced weeds and pests, climate change impacts and natural hazards such as change in water temperatures, sea level rise, storm surges and bushfire;

B) Threats to natural landscapes and landforms from urban development expansion increased visitation pressures, climate change impacts including sea level rise and change in storm patterns expected to increase risk of erosion;

C) Threats to preservation of heritage and cultural attributes from township expansion, land use practices and increased tourism activity and recreation;

D) Threats to natural resources and productive land from land use conflicts between conservation, agricultural use, residential use and recreation activities, cumulative impacts of development; and natural hazards, including bushfire and flooding;

E) Threats to future effectiveness of strategic infrastructure due to increasing pressure from urban growth, tourism activity and cumulative urban development.

13 | P a g e 14 | P a g e 5. The Shifting Inter-Urban Break

The concept of inter-urban break has morphed into a growth boundary as the maps show. There is a discussion around the proposed Geelong Municipal Framework Pan and it appears no assessment has been undertaken. Historically, the concept of inter-urban breaks began as a farmland based break to the south of Grossmans Road some 5 kilometres from the subject site and gradually moved north.

Purpose of Settlement Breaks

The environments between urban areas play important roles in (4.11 G21 RGP):

 Water supply, agricultural production and long term food security  Accommodating our recreation pursuits  Economic activities, including tourism, airfields, stone and mineral resource extraction and opportunities for alternative energy sources and carbon farming  Accommodating our significant landscape and geological features and natural resources such as waterways, coasts, Ramsar wetlands, remnant vegetation and habitats  Framing our settlements and creating the distinctive character and setting valued by the G21 community

The purpose of the identified settlement breaks are:

1. North-Eastern Gateway  To ensure a strong visual identity and clear delineation between Geelong as a regional city and Melbourne as a capital city.  To protect significant views, grassland and wetland habitat areas, farming activities and strategic opportunities for employment linked with Avalon Airport Department of Defence and quarry sites.

2. Thompson Valley  To ensure a strong farmed landscape character between the urban areas of Armstrong Creek and Torquay, encourage rural production and maintain existing town identities.

15 | P a g e Three inter-urban breaks have been propsoed over time. The first (Map 3) in the G21 Regional Growth Plan (2013) and located south of Grossmans Road some 5 kilometres from the site. The second is in the Geelong Settlement Strategy 2019 (Map 4) and the third, the proposed new Municipal Framework Plan to the south and adjacent to the Boral land (Map 5).

Significantly the inter-urban break does not impact on the area between Mt Duneed Road and Reservoir Road.

16 | P a g e MAP 5 REVISED MUNICIPAL FRAMEWORK PLAN

17 | P a g e MAP 6 REVISED HOUSING AND SETTLEMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN

18 | P a g e MAP 7

19 | P a g e 6. Council’s Basis for Selection of the Urban Growth Boundary

The Municipal Strategic Statement at Clause 21.05: Planning Principles, identifies a long-standing planning policy of maintaining non-urban breaks between settlements, and that this policy should be upheld to foster a sense of spatial/physical identity for each of the townships outside urban Geelong. Where possible natural boundaries should form the edge of urban areas to assist in reducing development pressure on the fringe of existing townships and urban Geelong. There is therefore, already a commitment under the existing planning policy regime to have clearly identifiable urban areas with non-urban breaks between them.

In the Panel Hearing in relation to Armstrong Creek in 2009 (C138) the Panel stated that:  Armstrong Creek is an extension of the existing Geelong area, so that there is no issue about its north- western interface with urban Geelong. To the west of Armstrong Creek is the Blue Circle cement quarry, which prevents urban development west of Ghazeepore Road. To the norh-east and east is the Barwon River flood plain which is a physical development constraint that can be used to define that boundary. Most of the argument about the Urban Growth Boundary was in relation to its southern boundary.

 Using a view line analysis from a number of key vantage points, the Urban Growth Boundary was established to limit development to the lower northern slopes of Mt Duneed and its ridgeline so as to maintain a green character for the bulk of Mt Duneed. However, a neater alignment following property boundaries would occur by following Whites Road.

The Greater City of Geelong provided a detailed review of the boundary and presented a ‘’without prejudice’’ review, realigning the boundary along cadastral boundaries, as shown below:

20 | P a g e The Panel (C138) further stated that:  “Mr Sheppard has a legitimate and valid method of establishing the southern growth boundary, the Panel is of the opinion that the prominence, importance and visual contribution made by MT Duneed is somewhat overstate by Council and its consultants. The Panel understand that there are view lines to Mt Duneed at present, but once Armstrong Creek is developed these view lines will be very restricted due to the presence of intervening buildings, new vegetation and the fact that Mt Duneed is not particularly high and prominent above the horizon”.

Overall, the Panel supported the method used to define the Urban Growth Boundary in the Mt Duneed area. However, as a general principle the Urban Growth Boundary should follow cadastral boundaries, and with some exceptions generally supports the revised boundary contained in Council’s closing submission. The Panel has refined this and recommended its preferred Urban Growth Boundary as part of the Framework Plan.

21 | P a g e The panel Hearing focused on Mt Duneed and the green skyline neither of which are: - Visible from the subject site data points - Or impact on Mt Duneed. This is clear from the setting of the new proposed inter-urban break at the boundary of the Boral Land on Mt Duneed Road in Amendment (C395).

22 | P a g e 7. Statement of Planning Policy

The Minister must prepare a statement of Planning Policy for a declared area:

The statement of Planning Policy for a declared area must:  Set a vision for a period of at least 50 years that identifies the values, priorities and preferences of the Victorian community in relation to the distinctive attributes of the declared area, including preference of future land use, protection and development and  Set out the long-term needs for the integration of decision-making and planning for the declared areas and  State the parts of the Statement that are binding on responsible public entities and the parts that are in the nature of recommendation to which responsible public entities are only required to have regard and  Include a declared are framework plan in accordance with subsection (2) and  Set out Aboriginal tangible and intangible cultural values, and other cultural and heritage values, in relation to the declared area.

The declared area framework plan must provide a framework for decision-making in relation to the future use and development of land in the declared area that:  Integrated environmental, social, cultural and economic factors for the benefit of the community and encourages sustainable development and identifies areas for protection and conservation of the distinctive attributes of the declared area; and  May specify settlement boundaries in the declared area or designate specific settlement boundaries in the declared area as protected settlement boundaries.

23 | P a g e 8. Criteria For A Distinctive Area And Landscape

There are five criteria set in the following table of which four relate to the subject land. They have each been tested and none of them have any significant impact from the Boral Land.

Significant Geographical Features Including Natural Land Forms (2C)

Bells Beach, the surrounding rugged coastline and hinterland offers scenic views from landmark cliffs, points and lookouts that define the character of the area. Landscape character is highly visible from the main road corridor. We have undertaken viewshed analysis which establishes that the subject site is not visible from the main road corridor.

Strategic Infrastructure or Built Form Significance (5b)

We acknowledge the importance of the Anglesea Road and that it supports the rationale for the subject site being designated as urban.

24 | P a g e Outstanding Environmental Significance (1b)

Areas of biodiversity significance include Point Addis Marine National Park, Point Danger Marine Sanctuary, Point Impossible, Karaaf Wetlands, Breamlea Flora and Fauna Reserve, Thompson Creek, Deep Creek, remnant vegetation west of Torquay-Jan Juc. We have undertaken a hydrological analysis to establish an insignificant impact on the Thompson Valley.

Natural Resources or Productive Land of Significance (4b)

Extraction industries in the area are significant, particularly for their contribution to Victoria’s supply of hardrock, sand and historically limestone. We provide evidence that the resource is too expensive to recover and is of poor quality. The portion of the site within the DAL has not been quarried, whilst other site areas have not been quarried since 2012.

Strategic infrastructure or built form significance (5b)

A) Landscape Analysis - Setting the inter-urban growth boundaries

Amendment C395 at clause 20.02.19 in the City of Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, proposed the following objectives:  Minimise the economic, environment, visual and servicing impacts of residential development of rural areas

 Confirm enduring and defendable settlement boundaries by undertaking a logical inclusions process

 Maintain the non-urban breaks between Geelong and Melbourne (Wyndham), Geelong and the Surf Coast, urban Geelong and the Bellarine Peninsula, and the townships on the Bellarine Peninsula.

Hence the priority is on:

 Rural views

 Maintenance of the non-urban breaks between Geelong and the Surf Coast

 Defensibility. This chapter will examine the requirement for the maintenance of the non-urban breaks between Geelong and the Surf Coast.

Non-urban breaks

Planning in Victoria has long considered the retention of non-urban breaks an essential component of planning. For example the Hume City Council ‘Inter urban break at Craigieburn Implementation Strategy’ recognised that “unless well planned from the outset Craigieburn has the potential to be overwhelmed by incremental growth of the Melbourne metropolitan area within the Merri Corridor, and to lose the opportunity which currently remains to develop a sense of identity and individuality”.

25 | P a g e The question that must be resolved is what is the contribution that the Boral land would make to the non-urban break? To determine the visual contribution of this site it is necessary to analyse if it is part of the perceived landscape that a viewer travelling north on Anglesea Road or similar north south roads would perceive before entering roads in which the urban areas of Geelong are apparent and therefore the landscape would not be considered part of the non-urban break.

Existing Landscape character

The existing landscape character of the area that would form the non-urban break is that of gently undulating topography with the occasional higher elevation created by low hills such as Mt Duneed.

This analysis is not simply a contour analysis. The figure below shows diagrammatically the difference between a ridgeline determined by contour (ie the highest point) and the ridgeline a viewer would perceive when viewing a convex slope from a lower location

Figure 1 Perceptual and topographic ridge lines

The Figure above shows that the visible or perceptual ridgeline can be completely different from a ridgeline determined solely by contours. This is the case in the non-urban break that one would perceive whilst travelling along Anglesea Road towards Geelong.

Therefore, a starting point to determine where boundary of a non-urban break should be located is to undertake a viewshed or seen area analysis.

Viewshed Analysis

A viewshed or seen area analysis determines the area that is visible from a specified location and takes into account

26 | P a g e only topographic variation.

 2 observation points on Blackgate Road on either side of its intersection with Anglesea Road.

 2 observation points on Anglesea Road between Dickins Road and Blackgate Road.

 1 observation point at the corner of Dickins Road and Anglesea Road.

 Dataset Name: Vicmap Elevation DTM 10M

 Details: It is a raster representation of Victoria’s elevation. DTM 10m has a spatial resolution of 10m/

 Temporal Coverage: 30/06/2008 to 30/06/2008

The height of the person at observer points was presumed to be at 1.6 m. Larger images of the Figures below for each of these vantage points are appended to this report and show similar results for the five viewpoints. However, to clarify the results of this analysis, Figure 2 shows the areas that are visible from a location on Blackgate Road just to the west of Anglesea Road.

Figure 2 Observer 1

Figure 2 illustrates that the Boral land does not make a contribution to the non-urban break when perceived from this low-lying location. The southern flans of Mt Duneed are visible but the slight rise to the south of the Boral land screens views further to the north. This separation is further enhanced by existing vegetation that is visible in

27 | P a g e Figure 3 (page 31).

Figure 3 View from Observer 1 location

The maps on the following pages show that there are similarities in the seen area when analysed from locations nominated as Observer 2-5. In all cases, the seen area is to the south of the Boral land.

Non-urban growth boundary

This analysis has shown that the non-urban growth boundary could be set further south than the southern border of the Boral land or the Mt Duneed Road corridor. However a conservative growth boundary could align with the southern edge of Mt Duneed Road as shown on Map 4 and a section of which is reproduced in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Part of Map 4 – Housing and Settlement Framework Plan

28 | P a g e The proposed northern non-urban break boundary between the urban areas of the City of Greater Geelong and the communities within the Surf Coast Shire is shown in Figure 4 and is a defensible boundary based upon the seen area analysis discussed previously.

B) Biodiversity Systems: Summary of Water Technology Findings

Water Technology were commissioned to provide preliminary hydrology advice for the Boral, Waurn Ponds site (Appendix 2) pertaining to the recent ‘Surf Coast Distinctive Area and Landscape’ declaration. Based on this preliminary investigation, the following conclusions can be made in regard to the specific matters we have been asked to address:

 Approximately 444 ha of the Boral site within the declaration area, drains into the Thompson Creek catchment during significant overland flow events, namely the 1% AEP flood event.

 The runoff from this (444 ha) section of the Boral site that is within the declaration area and the Thompson Creek catchment, drains into a designated waterway that joins Thompson Creek approximately 4.6 km downstream of the Boral site.

 Existing runoff from the section of the Boral site that is within the declaration area and the Thompson Creek catchment, is expected to have a negligible (<5%) influence/contribution on stream flows in Thompson Creek. This is expected given the location of the Boral site within the wider (Thompson Creek) catchment, the relatively minor site catchment (compared to the regional Thompson Creek catchment), and rural nature of this section of the site.

 Existing runoff from the section of the Boral site that is within the declaration area and the Thompson Creek catchment, is expected to have a negligible influence/contribution on the waterway health in Thompson Creek, based on its minor streamflow contribution and minimal runoff water quality contamination risk from the historic extraction activities on the northern portion of the site.

Therefore the subject site have very little impact on the natural systems of the Thompson Creek catchment.

C) National Resources

Evidence given at the Panel Hearing (C395) concluded that it was too expensive to mine the limestone and the resource was of poor quality. Boral are spending $130m on a new state of the art facility at the Port of Geelong to import clinker. The evidence is provided in Appendix 2 and the conclusions provided.

 Every vertically integrated cement plant requires a guaranteed, long-term and high quality supply of limestone.

 Boral's Waurn Ponds site consists of five Blocks (see Figure attached). Over its nearly 50-year life, the limestone resource within the Northern and Larcombe Blocks was exhausted by the time Boral decided to suspend operations at the kiln. These Blocks are located north of Reservoir Road and are bounded generally by Draytons Road to the west, Anglesea Road to the east, and the Princes Highway and Hams

29 | P a g e Road to the north. Significant volumes of overburden are being placed on these Blocks as part of their ongoing rehabilitation.

 Three other Blocks - Kernels, Baxter and Stones - occupy the remaining parts of the Waurn Ponds site described below:

a) East of Anglesea Road, generally bounded by White Rd to the south, Ghazeepore Road to the east, and the Warrnambool-Geelong railway line to the north (Kernels); and

b) At the southern part of Boral's Waurn Ponds site, bounded by Mt Duneed Rd to the south, Whites Rd to the north, Ghazeepore Road to the east and Bogans Lane to the west (Baxter and Stones).

 A key decision for Boral was whether it should try to win limestone from the remaining three Blocks. A number of factors led to its decision to discontinue limestone extraction.

 A second factor concerned the challenging quarry stripping ratios at Waurn Ponds. The "stripping ratio" is the ratio of the volume of overburden to useable limestone.

 Extending the quarry to the east and south of the current operations would also increase quarry haul lengths, and hence the operational cost of the quarry.

 Collectively, these matters contributed to Boral's belief that there is no viable future for the limestone reserves at Waurn Ponds.

30 | P a g e Conclusions

31 | P a g e

APPENDICES

38 | P a g e

10/11/2019 13:49 ASIA 33545587 v1 [33545587_1.docx] Appendix 2

Final Report Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek

Boral Limited and Blue Circle Southern Cement Limited

18 December 2019

Document Status

Version Doc type Reviewed by Approved by Date issued 01 Final Report Celine Marchenay Celine Marchenay 18/12/2019

Project Details

Project Name Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek Client Boral Limited and Blue Circle Southern Cement Limited Client Project Manager Stephen Hafer Water Technology Project Manager Aaron Vendargon Water Technology Project Director Thomas Cousland Authors Aaron Vendargon Document Number 20010137b_R01v01.docx

Water Technology Pty Ltd has produced this document in accordance with instructions from Boral Limited and Blue Circle Southern Cement Limited for their use only. The concepts and information contained in this document are the copyright of Water Technology Pty Ltd. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without written permission of Water Technology Pty Ltd constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Water Technology Pty Ltd does not warrant this document is definitive nor free from error and does not accept liability for any loss caused, or arising from, reliance upon the information provided herein.

15 Business Park Drive Notting Hill VIC 3168 Telephone (03) 8526 0800

Fax (03) 9558 9365 ACN 093 377 283 ABN 60 093 377 283

20010137b_R01v01.docx

Boral Limited and Blue Circle Southern Cement Limited | 18 December 2019 Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek Page 1

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 3

2 METHOD 5

3 RESULTS 6 3.1 Site Catchment Assessment 6 3.2 Site and Thompson Creek - Catchment and Design Flow Assessment 7 3.2.1 Thompson Creek Catchment Assessment 7 3.2.2 Design Flow Assessment 7

4 SUMMARY 9

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Boral site in relation to the declared area 3 Figure 1-2 Boral Site 4 Figure 3-1 Site catchment assessment 7 Figure 3-2 Site and Thompson Creek catchment 8

LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1 Design Peak flow Estimates – using RFFE approach 8

20010137b_R01v01.docx

Boral Limited and Blue Circle Southern Cement Limited | 18 December 2019 Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek Page 2

1 INTRODUCTION

Parts of the Surf Coast region have recently been declared as ‘distinctive areas and landscapes’ in the ‘Surf Coast Distinctive Area and Landscape’ project, under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This declaration sets the study area for the preparation and implementation of a Statement of Planning Policy, which will set out a long term vision, and guide future land use and development in the region.

The southern portion of the Boral site in Waurn Ponds (located at 130 Reservoir Road, Waurn Ponds), i.e. the site section between Reservoir/Whites Road and Mount Duneed Road, has been included in the declared area. Figure 1-1 shown the approximate extent of the Boral site in relation to the declared area.

Water Technology have been commissioned by Boral to provide preliminary hydrology advice for the Boral site in respect to hydrology matters that may pertain to the declared area. For this investigation Water Technology have been asked to: 1. Identify whether any part of the section of Boral’s site within the declared area, is within the catchment of Thompson Creek. 2. Describe the significance of the section of Boral’s land within the declared area to stream flow in Thompson Creek, and to the values and characteristics of Thompson Creek.

The Boral, Waurn Ponds site is approximately 1,020 ha and is located within the local government area of City of Greater Geelong. Boral has operated a cement manufacturing facility and quarry in the northern part of this site for over 50 years. It is understood that manufacturing of clinker for the cement works ceased in 2013 and that Boral is winding down its grinding of imported clinker and cement manufacturing operations at the site. There are several watercourses and waterbodies across the site, some of which are associated with the historic extraction activities. No flood planning overlays are present across the site.

A close-up view of the Boral site is shown in Figure 1-2.

FIGURE 1-1 BORAL SITE IN RELATION TO THE DECLARED AREA

20010137b_R01v01.docx

Boral Limited and Blue Circle Southern Cement Limited | 18 December 2019 Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek Page 3

FIGURE 1-2 BORAL SITE

20010137b_R01v01.docx

Boral Limited and Blue Circle Southern Cement Limited | 18 December 2019 Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek Page 4

2 METHOD

The scope of work and method adopted for this investigation included the following:

 Assessment of the catchment areas for the section of Boral’s site within the declared area, and the wider Thompson Creek catchment.

 The catchments were assessed using LiDAR survey data, Vicmap watercourse layers, aerial imagery, existing flood overlays, and Water Technology’s knowledge of parts of the catchment.

 LiDAR is the most accurate broad-scale ground level information available and is widely utilised for flood mapping and waterway assessment purposes. Three LiDAR datasets were applicable across the study catchment; 5 m horizontal resolution LiDAR captured in 2006/07, 1 m horizontal resolution LiDAR captured in 2009/10, and 1 m horizontal resolution LiDAR captured in 2014/15. The entire Boral site is captured in the latest available 2014/15 LiDAR dataset. The three LiDAR datasets were reviewed, and as expected elevation differences were found between the three datasets where they intersect. The degree of elevation differences was checked and found to be negligible for this assessment. The three LiDAR datasets were combined in the order of capture date to produce the ultimate topography for the assessment.

 Assessment of the relative differences in peak stream flow estimates between, the section of Boral’s land within the declared area, and the wider Thompson Creek catchment.

 Design flows were estimated at key points in the catchment, for the 1% AEP (rare) and 50% AEP (frequent) design flood events, using the Regional Flood Frequency Estimation (RFFE) method. The RFFE method was deemed to be appropriate; considering the catchment conditions and purpose of this assessment, namely to undertake a preliminary comparison of design peak flows across areas in the Thompson Creek catchment.

 Preparation of a concise report detailing the assessment and addressing the two matters being raised.

20010137b_R01v01.docx

Boral Limited and Blue Circle Southern Cement Limited | 18 December 2019 Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek Page 5

3 RESULTS

3.1 Site Catchment Assessment

This catchment assessment focuses on the part of Boral’s site that is within the declared area and drains to the Thompson Creek catchment.

As outlined above, the entire Boral site is approximately 1,020 ha. The portion of the site that lies within the declared area is approximately 527 ha. The catchment assessment shows that, of the declared areas of the site, approximately 444 ha drains into the Thompson Creek catchment during significant overland flow events, namely the 1% AEP flood event. The site’s declared area that drains to the Thompson Creek catchment (herein termed the ‘Site Focus Area’) is shown in Figure 3-1.

The following key points relate to runoff from the Site Focus Area:

 The Site Focus Area is located at a high point in the catchment. This area is likely to receive some contribution of external flows from a relatively small external catchment (small in the context of the regional Thompson Creek catchment), from the neighbouring parcels to the west - This is marked on Figure 3-1.

 Land use over the Site Focus Area is largely rural (open space); along with several existing dams, buildings and roads. No manufacturing facilities or quarries are located in the southern half of the site, including within the Site Focus Area. As such, the Site Focus Area runoff water quality contamination risk from the extraction activities is deemed negligible.

 There are two bund/mound alignments within the Site Focus Area, which run along Mount Duneed Road and Anglesea Road respectively (refer Figure 3-1). Localised breaks in the bunds are observed in the LiDAR. The purpose of these bunds is not known, but it is likely to have some localised impact on surface water runoff (particularly on flow paths).

 Runoff from parts of the Site Focus Area drains towards the existing dams on site. These dams appear to be farm dams; and during rare flood events these dams would be expected to overflow and not provide any significant detention. On the other hand, these dams may have a notable impact on runoff from the Site Focus Area in low-flow conditions.

 Surface slopes across the Site Focus Area are largely mild (around 1.2% grades), with some steeper slopes (around 4% grades) to the north. The Site Focus Area largely slopes towards the east and south east. Ultimately, runoff from the Site Focus Area drains into a designated (tributary) waterway that joins Thompson Creek approximately 4.6 km downstream of the Boral site. This is shown in Figure 3-2.

It is also noted that there is a relatively smaller portion of the Boral site located outside the declared area, that discharges into the Thompson Creek catchment. This area is approximately 7 ha and is shown in Figure 3-1.

20010137b_R01v01.docx

Boral Limited and Blue Circle Southern Cement Limited | 18 December 2019 Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek Page 6

External catchment Bund/mound to the west

FIGURE 3-1 SITE CATCHMENT ASSESSMENT

3.2 Site and Thompson Creek - Catchment and Design Flow Assessment

3.2.1 Thompson Creek Catchment Assessment

Thompson Creek is a major waterway system within the declared area. The Site Focus Area drains into a downstream waterway that joins Thompson Creek immediately downstream of Surf Coast Highway (refer Figure 3-2). Thompson Creek’s total catchment area to this point is approximately 21,200 ha, consisting mostly of rural land; along with some relatively smaller non-rural areas, namely the Moriac township and Moriac Quarry.

The Site Focus Area (~444 ha) makes up a very small percentage (~2.1%) of the total Thompson Creek catchment (~21,200 ha), at the point where site flows enter Thompson Creek.

3.2.2 Design Flow Assessment

Design peak flows were estimated for the 1% and 50% AEP flood events using the RFFE method, and contrasted at the following two locations:

 Outfall from the Site Focus Area.

 Along Thompson Creek, at the point where the site flows enter Thompson Creek.

The following key assumptions were adopted for this design flow assessment, as a reasonably practical

approach for this preliminary flow comparison assessment:

 The effective contributing catchment area, for the Site Focus Area and the wider Thompson Creek catchment, is taken to be similar under both low and high flow (1% AEP flood event) conditions.  Storages in the catchment area, for the Site Focus Area and the wider Thompson Creek catchment, are assumed to have minimal impacts of flood discharges.

 In regard to the Thompson Creek catchment area estimation, it is worth noting that Lake Modewarre

20010137b_R01v01.docx (a large terminal lake with no natural outlets till water levels reach a certain elevation), which is located

Boral Limited and Blue Circle Southern Cement Limited | 18 December 2019 Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek Page 7

at the upper end of the Thompson Creek catchment, has been excluded from the calculated Thompson Creek catchment area. The location of this lake is shown in Figure 3-2.

The RFFE design flow estimates and the flow comparisons are outlined in Table 3-1. This assessment indicates that the existing runoff from the Site Focus Area has a negligible (<5%) influence/contribution on stream flows in Thompson Creek. This is expected given the location of the site within the wider (Thompson Creek) catchment, the relatively minor Site Focus Area catchment (relative to the wider Thompson Creek catchment), and rural nature of the Site Focus Area.

TABLE 3-1 DESIGN PEAK FLOW ESTIMATES – USING RFFE APPROACH

Design Peak flow estimate - Peak flow estimate - Along % of the peak design flow from Event Outfall from Sites Thompson Creek, where the Sites Focus Area relative to Focus Area (m3/s) site flows enter Thompson the peak design flow in Creek (m3/s) Thompson Creek 1% AEP 6.6 193 3.4% 50% AEP 1.1 32.2 3.4%

Lake Modewarre

FIGURE 3-2 SITE AND THOMPSON CREEK CATCHMENT

20010137b_R01v01.docx

Boral Limited and Blue Circle Southern Cement Limited | 18 December 2019 Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek Page 8

4 SUMMARY

Water Technology have been commissioned to provide preliminary hydrology advice for the Boral, Waurn Ponds site, pertaining to the recent ‘Surf Coast Distinctive Area and Landscape’ declaration. Based on this preliminary investigation, the following conclusions can be made in regard to the specific matters we have been asked to address:

 Approximately 444 ha of the Boral site within the declaration area, drains into the Thompson Creek catchment during significant overland flow events, namely the 1% AEP flood event.

 The runoff from this (444 ha) section of the Boral site that is within the declaration area and the Thompson Creek catchment, drains into a designated waterway that joins Thompson Creek approximately 4.6 km downstream of the Boral site.

 Existing runoff from the section of the Boral site that is within the declaration area and the Thompson Creek catchment, is expected to have a negligible (<5%) influence/contribution on stream flows in Thompson Creek. This is expected given the location of the Boral site within the wider (Thompson Creek) catchment, the relatively minor site catchment (compared to the regional Thompson Creek catchment), and rural nature of this section of the site.

 Existing runoff from the section of the Boral site that is within the declaration area and the Thompson Creek catchment, is expected to have a negligible influence/contribution on the waterway health in Thompson Creek, based on its minor streamflow contribution and minimal runoff water quality contamination risk from the historic extraction activities on the northern portion of the site.

20010137b_R01v01.docx

Boral Limited and Blue Circle Southern Cement Limited | 18 December 2019 Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek Page 9

Melbourne Brisbane 15 Business Park Drive Level 3, 43 Peel Street Notting Hill VIC 3168 South Brisbane QLD 4101 Telephone (03) 8526 0800 Telephone (07) 3105 1460 Fax (03) 9558 9365 Fax (07) 3846 5144

Adelaide Perth 1/198 Greenhill Road Ground Floor Eastwood SA 5063 430 Roberts Road Telephone (08) 8378 8000 Subiaco WA 6008 Fax (08) 8357 8988 Telephone 08 6555 0105

Geelong Gippsland PO Box 436 154 Macleod Street Geelong VIC 3220 Bairnsdale VIC 3875 Telephone 0458 015 664 Telephone (03) 5152 5833

Wangaratta Wimmera First Floor, 40 Rowan Street PO Box 584 Wangaratta VIC 3677 Stawell VIC 3380 Telephone (03) 5721 2650 Telephone 0438 510 240

www.watertech.com.au

[email protected] x doc 01.

20010137b_R01v

Boral Limited and Blue Circle Southern Cement Limited | 18 December 2019 Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek Page 10

Appendix 3

AGENDA

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

TUESDAY, 10 DECEMBER 2019 7.00PM

COUNCIL CONFERENCE AND RECEPTION CENTRE CITY HALL LITTLE MALOP STREET, GEELONG

COUNCIL: Cr S Asher (Bellarine Ward) Mayor Cr K Grzybek (Windermere Ward) Deputy Mayor Cr J Mason (Bellarine Ward) Cr T Sullivan (Bellarine Ward) Cr E Kontelj (Brownbill Ward) Cr S Mansfield (Brownbill Ward) Cr P Murrihy (Brownbill Ward) Cr B Harwood (Kardinia Ward) Cr P Murnane (Kardinia Ward) Cr R Nelson (Kardinia Ward) Cr A Aitken (Windermere Ward)

Greater Geelong City Council 10 December 2019 Agenda for Ordinary Meeting SECTION C – NOTICE OF MOTION Page 74

NOTICE OF MOTION – Cr Murnane

CITY OF GREATER GEELONG OBJECTION TO THE INCLUSION OF THE MOUNT DUNEED AREA WITHIN THE SURF COAST DISTINCTIVE AREAS AND LANDSCAPES DECLARATION AREA

Background In September 2018 the State Government issued a press release stating a re-elected Labor Government would permanently protect the Surf Coast and Bellarine Peninsula from over development, via the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes (DAL) section of the Planning and Environment Act. Upon its re-election the Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning (DELWP) started developing the projects including engaging with the City as a key stakeholder. From May to June 2019 phase 1 of the Surf Coast public engagement occurred with a focus on understanding the environment, landscape and lifestyle values the community want to protect. This phase did not directly consider the declaration area boundary. Phase 2 of public engagement on the Surf Coast DAL project was to assist with developing the draft Statement of Planning Policy and has now closed. Phase 3 engagement includes consultation on the draft Statement of Planning Policy (public submissions process) and will occur in early 2020. On 17 September 2019 the Surf Coast Distinctive Area was declared by the Governor in Council. The declaration area includes the area north of the Surf Coast and Greater Geelong municipal boundary (Mount Duneed Road) taking in Mount Duneed up to the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Boundary (land zoned Urban Growth Zone). It also included a small area of Breamlea. A map of the declared Surf Coast Distinctive area is shown in Attachment 1. DELWP have advised the northern boundary of the Surf Coast DAL was recommended as it acknowledges the importance of Thompson Valley green break, to preserve the landscape character between the urban areas of Armstrong Creek and Torquay. It reinforces and defines the state significant coastal landscapes by maintaining the distinct township identity of Torquay-Jan Juc within its landscapes setting. Taking the declaration boundary to the City’s settlement boundary allows for the existing green break to be considered holistically. Prior to the declaration, Officers advised DELWP in relation to the inclusion of Greater Geelong land within the Surf Coast area that:  All landholders within and directly adjacent to the proposed designation boundary in the Greater Geelong municipality be notified in writing with the implications of the designation and opportunities for engagement clearly articulated;

 The need and benefits of including land within the Greater Geelong municipality in the Surf Coast declaration area is clearly understood and supported by publicly available technical reports and expert advice;

 The designation does not prejudice the implementation of Council’s adopted Settlement Strategy including the logical inclusions process for defining a long term settlement boundary. This will be relevant to the Armstrong Creek Growth Area; and

 The City has further input on the implications for the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme including any proposed changes.

Greater Geelong City Council 10 December 2019 Agenda for Ordinary Meeting SECTION C – NOTICE OF MOTION Page 75

DELWP wrote to landholders to advise them of their inclusion in the Surf Coast declaration area in October 2019, after the area was declared. At this time a number of landholders in the Mount Duneed area formed the Mount Duneed Working Group to oppose the inclusion of the Mount Duneed area within the Surf Coast DAL declaration area and to express their concerns over the lack of consultation with Greater Geelong landholders in the declaration process. The Mount Duneed Working Group tabled a petition at the 29 October Council meeting to express these concerns. The City has responded in writing to the questions raised in the petition. In response to the Mount Duneed community feedback, DELWP held a public information meeting for Mount Duneed residents on 13 November as part of the phase 2 public engagement (18 Oct – 15 Nov) which sought feedback on seven policy domains: landscape, environment and biodiversity, risk and resilience, Aboriginal cultural heritage, post-contact heritage, economy and infrastructure and settlement. The Mount Duneed Working Group submitted a number of questions to DELWP to which they requested a written response. At the public meeting DELWP advised landholders to remain engaged with the public engagement process including phase 3 which includes consultation on draft Statement of Planning Policy (public submissions process) in early 2020. The lack of direct engagement prior to the declaration with City of Greater Geelong landholders in relation to the Surf Coast DAL boundary is concerning to the majority of Mount Duneed residents raising issues around fairness and transparency.

Recommendation That Council: 1) Endorse the Mayor write to the Minister for Planning advising the Council does not support the inclusion of the area north of Mount Duneed Road (inside Greater Geelong) within the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscapes declared area; 2) Acknowledge the Victorian State Government’s election commitment in September 2018 to protect the values of the Bellarine Peninsula and Surf Coast via the distinctive area and landscape provision under the Planning and Environment Act 1987; 3) Note land holders within the Greater Geelong municipality were not engaged with phase 1 of the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscapes project given they are not located within the Surf Coast Shire and therefore missed the opportunity to have input into the phase that informed the declaration area boundary; 4) Note the City did not object to Greater Geelong properties being included in the declaration area subject to a number of conditions including technical reports would be publicly available. To date the expert advice and technical work informing the declaration area has not been made public; 5) Acknowledge the Department wrote to and held a public meeting for landholders within Greater Geelong affected by the inclusion of their properties within the Surf Coast Distinctive Area and Landscape declaration area to provide more information and receive feedback, however this was after the declaration of the boundary; and 6) Note the area north of Mount Duneed Road already has adequate protection as a significant landscape through the implementation of the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Boundary and clause 11.01-1R in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme which includes the protection of the Thompson Valley settlement break.

C I T Y OF G R E A TER C G E E L ONG

Thompson Creek

S U RF C O A ST S H I RE

285 NORTONS ROAD BELLBRAE 3228

85 CHARAS ROAD 485 DICKINS BELLBRAE 3228 231-289 BREAMLEA ROAD ROAD FRESHWATER 400 BLACKROCK ROAD CREEK 3217 CONNEWARRE 3227 645 DICKINS CONNEWARRE 3227 ROAD FRESHWATER CREEK 3217

309-375 BREAMLEA ROAD BREAMLEA 3227 740 ANGLESEA ROAD FRESHWATER

CREEK 3217 309-375

130 PORTREATH BREAMLEA ROAD

ROAD BELLBRAE BREAMLEA 3227 3228

1280 BLACKGATE 135 PORTREATH ROAD FRESHWATER ROAD BELLBRAE CREEK 3217 3228

145 PORTREATH ROAD BELLBRAE 3228 1258 BLACKGATE ROAD FRESHWATER CREEK 3217

FOREST ROAD ANGLESEA 3230 520 GUNDRYS ROAD BELLBRAE 3228

MELBOURNE SYDNEY BRISBANE GOLD COAST PERTH

Level 16 Level 52 Level 1 Level 2 Level 1 330 Collins Street 19 Martin Place 310 Edward Street 89-91 Surf Parade 89 St Georges Terrace Melbourne VIC 3000 Sydney NSW 2000 Brisbane QLD 4000 Broadbeach QLD 4218 Perth WA 6000 (03) 9600 0500 (02) 9221 5211 (07) 3221 8166 (07) 3221 8166 (08) 9225 7200 www.macroplan.com.au macroplan

Appendix 3: Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek (Water Technology Report, December 2019)

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry 114 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds Submission to the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape Process: Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy

Final Report Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek

Boral Limited and Blue Circle Southern Cement Limited

18 December 2019

Document Status

Version Doc type Reviewed by Approved by Date issued 01 Final Report Celine Marchenay Celine Marchenay 18/12/2019

Project Details

15 Business Park Drive Notting Hill VIC 3168 Telephone (03) 8526 0800

Fax (03) 9558 9365 ACN 093 377 283 ABN 60 093 377 283

20010137b_R01v01.docx

Boral Limited and Blue Circle Southern Cement Limited | 18 December 2019 Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek Page 1

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 3

2 METHOD 5

3 RESULTS 6 3.1 Site Catchment Assessment 6 3.2 Site and Thompson Creek - Catchment and Design Flow Assessment 7 3.2.1 Thompson Creek Catchment Assessment 7 3.2.2 Design Flow Assessment 7

4 SUMMARY 9

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Boral site in relation to the declared area 3 Figure 1-2 Boral Site 4 Figure 3-1 Site catchment assessment 7 Figure 3-2 Site and Thompson Creek catchment 8

LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1 Design Peak flow Estimates – using RFFE approach 8

20010137b_R01v01.docx

Boral Limited and Blue Circle Southern Cement Limited | 18 December 2019 Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek Page 2

1 INTRODUCTION

A close-up view of the Boral site is shown in Figure 1-2.

FIGURE 1-1 BORAL SITE IN RELATION TO THE DECLARED AREA 20010137b_R01v01.docx

Boral Limited and Blue Circle Southern Cement Limited | 18 December 2019 Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek Page 3

FIGURE 1-2 BORAL SITE

20010137b_R01v01.docx

Boral Limited and Blue Circle Southern Cement Limited | 18 December 2019 Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek Page 4

2 METHOD

The scope of work and method adopted for this investigation included the following:

◼ Assessment of the catchment areas for the section of Boral’s site within the declared area, and the wider Thompson Creek catchment.

◼ The catchments were assessed using LiDAR survey data, Vicmap watercourse layers, aerial imagery, existing flood overlays, and Water Technology’s knowledge of parts of the catchment.

◼ LiDAR is the most accurate broad-scale ground level information available and is widely utilised for flood mapping and waterway assessment purposes. Three LiDAR datasets were applicable across the study catchment; 5 m horizontal resolution LiDAR captured in 2006/07, 1 m horizontal resolution LiDAR captured in 2009/10, and 1 m horizontal resolution LiDAR captured in 2014/15. The entire Boral site is captured in the latest available 2014/15 LiDAR dataset. The three LiDAR datasets were reviewed, and as expected elevation differences were found between the three datasets where they intersect. The degree of elevation differences was checked and found to be negligible for this assessment. The three LiDAR datasets were combined in the order of capture date to produce the ultimate topography for the assessment.

◼ Assessment of the relative differences in peak stream flow estimates between, the section of Boral’s land within the declared area, and the wider Thompson Creek catchment.

◼ Design flows were estimated at key points in the catchment, for the 1% AEP (rare) and 50% AEP (frequent) design flood events, using the Regional Flood Frequency Estimation (RFFE) method. The RFFE method was deemed to be appropriate; considering the catchment conditions and purpose of this assessment, namely to undertake a preliminary comparison of design peak flows across areas in the Thompson Creek catchment.

◼ Preparation of a concise report detailing the assessment and addressing the two matters being raised.

20010137b_R01v01.docx

Boral Limited and Blue Circle Southern Cement Limited | 18 December 2019 Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek Page 5

3 RESULTS

3.1 Site Catchment Assessment

This catchment assessment focuses on the part of Boral’s site that is within the declared area and drains to the Thompson Creek catchment.

The following key points relate to runoff from the Site Focus Area:

◼ The Site Focus Area is located at a high point in the catchment. This area is likely to receive some contribution of external flows from a relatively small external catchment (small in the context of the regional Thompson Creek catchment), from the neighbouring parcels to the west - This is marked on Figure 3-1.

◼ Land use over the Site Focus Area is largely rural (open space); along with several existing dams, buildings and roads. No manufacturing facilities or quarries are located in the southern half of the site, including within the Site Focus Area. As such, the Site Focus Area runoff water quality contamination risk from the extraction activities is deemed negligible.

◼ There are two bund/mound alignments within the Site Focus Area, which run along Mount Duneed Road and Anglesea Road respectively (refer Figure 3-1). Localised breaks in the bunds are observed in the LiDAR. The purpose of these bunds is not known, but it is likely to have some localised impact on surface water runoff (particularly on flow paths).

◼ Runoff from parts of the Site Focus Area drains towards the existing dams on site. These dams appear to be farm dams; and during rare flood events these dams would be expected to overflow and not provide any significant detention. On the other hand, these dams may have a notable impact on runoff from the Site Focus Area in low-flow conditions.

◼ Surface slopes across the Site Focus Area are largely mild (around 1.2% grades), with some steeper slopes (around 4% grades) to the north. The Site Focus Area largely slopes towards the east and south east. Ultimately, runoff from the Site Focus Area drains into a designated (tributary) waterway that joins Thompson Creek approximately 4.6 km downstream of the Boral site. This is shown in Figure 3-2.

It is also noted that there is a relatively smaller portion of the Boral site located outside the declared area, that

discharges into the Thompson Creek catchment. This area is approximately 7 ha and is shown in Figure 3-1.

20010137b_R01v01.docx

Boral Limited and Blue Circle Southern Cement Limited | 18 December 2019 Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek Page 6

External catchment Bund/mound to the west

FIGURE 3-1 SITE CATCHMENT ASSESSMENT

3.2 Site and Thompson Creek - Catchment and Design Flow Assessment

3.2.1 Thompson Creek Catchment Assessment

The Site Focus Area (~444 ha) makes up a very small percentage (~2.1%) of the total Thompson Creek catchment (~21,200 ha), at the point where site flows enter Thompson Creek.

3.2.2 Design Flow Assessment

Design peak flows were estimated for the 1% and 50% AEP flood events using the RFFE method, and contrasted at the following two locations:

◼ Outfall from the Site Focus Area.

◼ Along Thompson Creek, at the point where the site flows enter Thompson Creek.

The following key assumptions were adopted for this design flow assessment, as a reasonably practical

approach for this preliminary flow comparison assessment:

◼ The effective contributing catchment area, for the Site Focus Area and the wider Thompson Creek catchment, is taken to be similar under both low and high flow (1% AEP flood event) conditions.

◼ Storages in the catchment area, for the Site Focus Area and the wider Thompson Creek catchment, are assumed to have minimal impacts of flood discharges.

◼ In regard to the Thompson Creek catchment area estimation, it is worth noting that Lake Modewarre

20010137b_R01v01.docx (a large terminal lake with no natural outlets till water levels reach a certain elevation), which is located

Boral Limited and Blue Circle Southern Cement Limited | 18 December 2019 Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek Page 7

at the upper end of the Thompson Creek catchment, has been excluded from the calculated Thompson Creek catchment area. The location of this lake is shown in Figure 3-2.

TABLE 3-1 DESIGN PEAK FLOW ESTIMATES – USING RFFE APPROACH

Lake Modewarre

FIGURE 3-2 SITE AND THOMPSON CREEK CATCHMENT

20010137b_R01v01.docx

Boral Limited and Blue Circle Southern Cement Limited | 18 December 2019 Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek Page 8

4 SUMMARY

◼ Approximately 444 ha of the Boral site within the declaration area, drains into the Thompson Creek catchment during significant overland flow events, namely the 1% AEP flood event.

◼ The runoff from this (444 ha) section of the Boral site that is within the declaration area and the Thompson Creek catchment, drains into a designated waterway that joins Thompson Creek approximately 4.6 km downstream of the Boral site.

◼ Existing runoff from the section of the Boral site that is within the declaration area and the Thompson Creek catchment, is expected to have a negligible (<5%) influence/contribution on stream flows in Thompson Creek. This is expected given the location of the Boral site within the wider (Thompson Creek) catchment, the relatively minor site catchment (compared to the regional Thompson Creek catchment), and rural nature of this section of the site.

◼ Existing runoff from the section of the Boral site that is within the declaration area and the Thompson Creek catchment, is expected to have a negligible influence/contribution on the waterway health in Thompson Creek, based on its minor streamflow contribution and minimal runoff water quality contamination risk from the historic extraction activities on the northern portion of the site.

20010137b_R01v01.docx

Boral Limited and Blue Circle Southern Cement Limited | 18 December 2019 Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek Page 9

Melbourne Brisbane 15 Business Park Drive Level 3, 43 Peel Street Notting Hill VIC 3168 South Brisbane QLD 4101 Telephone (03) 8526 0800 Telephone (07) 3105 1460 Fax (03) 9558 9365 Fax (07) 3846 5144

Adelaide Perth 1/198 Greenhill Road Ground Floor Eastwood SA 5063 430 Roberts Road Telephone (08) 8378 8000 Subiaco WA 6008 Fax (08) 8357 8988 Telephone 08 6555 0105

Geelong Gippsland PO Box 436 154 Macleod Street Geelong VIC 3220 Bairnsdale VIC 3875 Telephone 0458 015 664 Telephone (03) 5152 5833

Wangaratta Wimmera First Floor, 40 Rowan Street PO Box 584 Wangaratta VIC 3677 Stawell VIC 3380 Telephone (03) 5721 2650 Telephone 0438 510 240

www.watertech.com.au

[email protected]

20010137b_R01v01.docx

Boral Limited and Blue Circle Southern Cement Limited | 18 December 2019 Boral, Waurn Ponds Site – Hydrology Advice Relating to Thompson Creek Page 10

MELBOURNE SYDNEY BRISBANE PERTH

(03) 9600 0500 (02) 9221 5211 (07) 3221 8166 (08) 9225 7200 www.macroplan.com.au

macroplan

Appendix 3: Statement of James Peter Young

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 70 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd

10/11/2019 13:49 ASIA 33545587 v1 [33545587_1.docx]

Appendix 4:

1. Ordinary Meeting of Council Tuesday, 25 August 2020 (see page 38, 46, 47)

2. Panel Report – Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395 Settlement Strategy and Northern & Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan, 14 May 2020 (see page iii, 34, 41)

3. VPA Doc NO: COR/19/6026, 29 July 2019

Boral Cement Works and Former Quarry – 130 Reservoir Rd, Waurn Ponds 72 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy Submission: Brian Haratsis on behalf of Boral Recycling Pty Ltd MINUTES

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

TUESDAY, 25 AUGUST 2020 7.00PM

HELD VIRTUALLY BY ZOOM AND BROADCAST ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE

Acknowledgements ...... 1

Confirmation of Minutes ...... 1

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest ...... 2

Public Question and Submission Time ...... 2-4

Petitions ...... 4

SECTION B – REPORTS

1. Amendment C395GGEE – Settlement Strategy and Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan – Adoption…….…...... 5-97 2. Amendment C393GGEE Retail Strategy – Consideration of Panel Report and Adoption of Amendment and Strategy ...... 98-134 3. Endorsement of City Hall Conservation Management Plan ...... 135 4. Endorsement of Colac Otway Shire Joining Geelong Regional Library Corporation ...... 136-141 5. 2020-21 Loan Borrowing Provision of $45m ...... 142-145 6. Regional Renewable Organics Network...... 146-150 7. Household Waste Service Reforms ...... 151-154 8. Proposed Sale of Part 11 McHarry Court, Corio ...... 155-156 9. Transformation Program 2.0 Update ...... 157-159 10. Contractual Matter (Confidential) ...... 160 11. Contractual Matter (Confidential) ...... 161

SECTION C – NOTICE OF MOTION BY CR KONTELJ:

• Proposed COVID-19 Free Parking in all On and Off-Street Casual Car Parking Places in CBD Geelong.

SECTION D - ASSEMBLY OF COUNCIL SECTION E - PLANNING DELEGATIONS SECTION F - CONFIDENTIAL

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION A – PROCEDURAL MATTERS Page 1

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE GREATER GEELONG CITY COUNCIL HELD VIRTUALLY BY ZOOM AND BROADCAST ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE ON TUESDAY, 25 AUGUST 2020 COMMENCING AT 7.00 PM

PRESENT: Cr S Asher (Mayor), Crs A Aitken, K Grzybek, B Harwood, E Kontelj, S Mansfield, J Mason, P Murrihy, P Murnane, R Nelson, T Sullivan

Also present: M Cutter (Chief Executive Officer), R Leonard (Director Governance, Strategy and Performance), G Smith (Director Planning, Design and Development), P Smith (Co Ordinator Strategic Implementation), J Hurse (Manager Planning and Growth)

OPENING: The Mayor declared the meeting open at 7.00pm

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

Council acknowledges Wadawurrung Traditional Owners of this land and pays its respects to all Elders past and present and to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People who are part of the Greater Geelong community today.

REMEMBERANCE:

The Mayor, Councillors and staff of the City of Greater Geelong offered their sincere condolences on the passing of Geelong restaurateur and tourism figure Graeme Goldsworthy. Mr Goldsworthy was also the inaugural chair and driving force behind the creation of Geelong’s Regional Tourism Board, previously known as Geelong Otway Tourism. In recognition of his service to the tourism industry, numerous boards and enterprises, Mr Goldsworthy was awarded an AM in the Australia Honour System.

APOLOGIES: Nil.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE: Nil.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES:

Cr Grzybek moved, Cr Mason seconded - That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 28 July 2020 be confirmed. Carried.

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION A – PROCEDURAL MATTERS Page 2

DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST:

Cr Kontelj declared a Conflict of Interest in Agenda Item 1 Amendment C395 – Settlement Strategy and Northern and Western Growth Area Framework Plan – Adoption.

Cr Murnane declared a Conflict of Interest in Agenda Item 11 – Contractual Matter.

PUBLIC QUESTION AND SUBMISSION TIME:

The following questions were submitted prior to the Council meeting from Jacqueline Edge, Carolyn Bird, David Le Lievre and Cameron Steele. Responses addressing their concerns have been provided via email. Jacqueline Edge submitted: 1) The property situated at 120 Elizabeth Street is derelict, unsightly, and full of asbestos and other material that blows on neighbouring properties. It houses stray cats and at times homeless people. The house now is surrounded by young families and a raft of individuals who are investing in the improvement of their properties and the local region at large. I understand the Council have made some efforts to have the structure (you could hardly call is a ‘house’), demolished without success. We appreciate the effort to improve the unsightly graffiti and make ‘safe’ with a large temporary fence, however the unsightly derelict structure remains our focal. It has been at least 10 years we have endured this sight and social risk (30 years for others). What progress has Council made/planned to alleviate the social and environmental hazard of 120 Elizabeth Street Geelong West?

Thank you for your questions Jacqueline :

The property at 120 Elizabeth Street has been under investigation and action from Council’s Building Services Team and Local Laws Team over a long period of time. Council does not have the authority to require demolition of the building due to it being unsightly. Council can only require that the building is safe in regard to community access. The site is fenced to ensure there is no community access and safety is maintained.

The Urban Forest Strategy 2015-2025 will provide a world class and signature experience to visitors and residents of Geelong. It is contemporary, forward thinking and clever. Realising this vision will differentiate Geelong from other regional destinations. The streets of Geelong will:

• Reflect our cultural identity (e.g. Melbourne links its identity to Plane trees); • Be cooler; • Encourage calmer behaviour; and • Foster a strong sense of community, custodianship, and connection to country.

These are the foundation building blocks of a flourishing culture. 2) Is Council on track to realize the Urban Forest Strategy 2015-2025?

Yes, we are on track in terms of implementing the Urban Forest Strategy 2015-2025. Since the Strategy was adopted, we have planted over 10,000 advanced street and park trees across the City including 3255 trees that have been planted this year. Thank you for your interest and support for this important work.

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION A – PROCEDURAL MATTERS Page 3

Carolyn Bird submitted :

For some time the residents of Elizabeth Street Geelong West have been petitioning Council for the improvement of safety and amenity along Elizabeth Street and adjoining cross roads. Recently we welcomed the attention of Eddy Kontelj to join Sarah Mansfield and Peter Murrihy in our efforts. What united and comprehensive approach is Council planning to alleviate the very busy, high risk residential zone? I’m looking forward to hearing the progress on these matters.

Thank you for your question Carolyn :

The City are aware of the previous correspondence regarding Elizabeth Street. Traffic speed and volume counts undertaken in October 2018 shows that drivers are behaving safely and driving below the posted speed limit of 50km/hr.

There have been no changes in the area that suggest traffic patterns have changed, however the City will undertake additional traffic speed and volume counts as part of their commitment to monitoring the matter.

COVID-19 has seen changes to typical movement patterns and this data collection will occur post COVID-restrictions as movements return to normal.

David Le Lievre submitted :

The Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe asked Premiers to commit another $40 billion to major projects. In Geelong we should be asking for funds to develop the Aqueduct park and turn our iconic ovoid aqueduct into a major tourist attraction. The beautiful “Firth of Forth look- a like” should be the feature attraction.

1) Why does not COGG put a proposal to the Premier to ask for funds to take over the Aqueduct from Barwon Water and develop the Aqueduct Park that Barwon Water first proposed in 2017. Various people have been talking about it for years, let’s do it now. Barwon Water in their submission to Heritage Victoria said they are looking for someone to take control of the heritage listed aqueduct?

2) What projects are COGG seeking funds from the state to help the State spend part of its $40 billion that Philip Lowe suggested it should spend in the next two years?

Thank you for your questions David :

The City regularly advocates for state and federal government funding for major projects and programs in Geelong. A recent example is the City’s participation in a Geelong COVID Recovery Collective which collaborated to advocate for a range of projects to create economic stimulus.

As well as advocacy efforts, the City regularly applies for government grant funding for eligible projects.

With regards to the Aqueduct and adjacent lands managed by Barwon Water, the City does not propose to take over the responsibilities associated with these Barwon Water assets. The City would support any future Barwon Water funding submissions that endeavours to develop this particular Barwon Water land for the benefit of the community.

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION A – PROCEDURAL MATTERS Page 4

Cameron Steele submitted :

The CCMA has recently released a study into the water losses from the Moorabool River into the Fyansford Quarry.

It found the losses to be order of 5.14 million litres per day, or over 1800 million litres annually. This is orders of magnitude higher than the 102ML per year which was put by experts to the Panel assessing Amendment C395.

Simply switching the pumps off when the quarry ceases operation will have a devastating impact. This water has been pivotal in maintaining some linkage between the Moorabool and Barwon Rivers to on the estuarine environment of the RAMSAR wetlands, vital to important but declining migratory species within the Moorabool system.

The study also found that even when full the quarry will continue to draw water from the Moorabool River due in part to the serious disrepair of the 1930s concrete recourse north of the quarry.

Will Council show environmental stewardship by supporting the following?

1) A modified pumping regime continuing after the quarry is decommissioned designed to match the current losses from the river. 2) No net water from the Moorabool River, the most flow stressed in Victoria, be used to fill the quarry. 3) The 1930s diversion is replaced with an impervious structure capable of preventing further losses of river flows to the underlying substrates. 4) The outlet of the pumped water from the quarry be moved from its current position to a site upstream of the first recourse.

Thank you for your questions Cameron on water management for the Moorabool River.

It is premature for Council to commit to these specific outcomes at the moment and there is further strategic planning and state-wide strategy to be resolved.

The framework plan and amendment C395 provide the high-level land use direction for the area and confirms the further work that is necessary for the planning of the area. Key aspects of this further work are the Integrated Water Management Strategy (IWM) and the more detailed Precinct Structure Plans.

There will be further opportunities for People for a Living Moorabool to continue to participate in the IWM process for the Western Geelong Growth Area, managed by Barwon Water. The IWM strategy is nearing completion. It would be premature to pre-empt the outcomes of the IWM plan at this stage.

While the IWM plan has options to consider pumping regimes, the overall amount of water released from the top of the Moorabool catchment is outside of the scope of the study but rather a state level project. A larger project underway called Central Regions Sustainable Water Strategy will consider this on a more appropriate scale. The IWM plan will inform detailed master planning of the Moorabool River corridor that will occur as part of the preparation of the Batesford South Precinct Structure Plan.

PETITIONS: Nil.

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 5

Cr Kontelj declared a Conflict of Interest in Agenda Item 1 Amendment C395GGEE – Settlement Strategy and Northern and Western Growth Areas Framework Plan – Adoption, and left the meeting room at 7.05 prior to discussion.

1. AMENDMENT C395GGEE – SETTLEMENT STRATEGY AND NORTHERN & WESTERN GEELONG GROWTH AREAS FRAMEWORK PLAN – ADOPTION

Source: Planning, Design & Development – Strategic Implementation Director: Gareth Smith Portfolio: Planning

Purpose 1. To consider the Panel report on Amendment C395ggee and adopt the Amendment.

Background 2. C395ggee (the Amendment) is primarily a policy-based amendment that implements the municipal wide Settlement Strategy and the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan (the Framework Plan) into the planning scheme. 3. The Amendment was exhibited in June 2019 with a total of 102 submissions received. On 24 September 2019 Council resolved to refer the submissions to an independent Panel appointed by the Minister under the Planning and Environment Act (the Act) (Panel). 4. The 3-member Panel held a hearing in Geelong and Melbourne over 28 days between November 2019 to March 2020. Many submitters were landowners represented by legal advocates and more than 50 pieces of expert evidence were called. The Panel provided its report to Council in mid May 2020 and it was publicly released in late May.

Key Matters 5. The Panel has strongly supported Council’s strategic work and concludes: “Geelong has undergone a sustained period of high population growth which is predicted to continue. The Amendment is a well thought out and visionary response to logically cater for this predicted growth... there is a high level of support for the overall direction of the Amendment, and particularly the Framework Plan. 6. The refocusing of long-term growth away from the Bellarine Peninsula is a conscious policy decision of Council and the State Government; implementation of this policy requires some further consideration of long term or permanent settlement boundaries. Subject to addressing some issues of principle and detail, the Panel strongly supports the Amendment.” (see Executive Summary in Attachment 5). 7. The Panel recommends adoption of the Amendment generally with changes outlined in its 13 recommendations which must be considered by Council as the Planning Authority. 8. It is recommended that Council accept all the Panel recommendations, adopt the Amendment and updated versions of the Settlement Strategy and Framework Plan and forward the Amendment to the Minister for Planning for final approval. Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 6

Cr Aitken moved, Cr Grzybek seconded - 9. That Council: 9.1 Adopt Amendment C395ggee in the form outlined in Attachment 8 of this report; 9.2 Submit the adopted Amendment C395ggee together with the prescribed information to the Minister for Planning requesting approval; and 9.3 Adopt the City of Greater Geelong Settlement Strategy (August 2020) and the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan (August 2020). Carried.

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 7

Attachment 1

Financial Implications 1. Adoption of the Amendment will not have any significant financial implications to Council. The Amendment has incurred significant costs in the order of $0.5M associated with the lengthy panel hearing including the Planning Panels Victoria fees, legal advocate fees and engagement of expert witnesses to support Council’s case.

Community Engagement 2. Both the Settlement Strategy and the Framework Plan were based on extensive community engagement and the Amendment was exhibited in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. 3. All 102 submitters had an opportunity to be heard before an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning. 4. The Independent Panel report has been publicly released and all submitters notified of its availability on the City’s C395 webpage.

Social Equity Considerations 5. 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. 6. The Framework Plan 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.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications 7. The Amendment is broad ranging and supports and implements numerous state policies. The most relevant policies are listed below: 7.1 Clause11.01-1S Settlement; 7.2 Clause 11.01-1R Settlement Geelong G21; 7.3 Clause 11.02-1S Supply of urban land; 7.4 Clause 11.02-2S Structure Planning; 7.5 Clause 11.02-3S Sequencing of development; 7.6 Clause 11.03-4S Coastal settlement; 7.7 Clause 11.03-5S Distinctive areas and landscapes; 7.8 Clause 13.03-1S Floodplain management; and 7.9 Clause 14.03-1S Resource exploration and extraction. 8. The Amendment supports and implements the following policies from the Local Planning Policy Framework: 8.1 Clause 21.02 City of Greater Geelong Sustainable Growth Framework; 8.2 Clause 21.04 Municipal Framework Plan; 8.3 Clause 21.05-7 Flooding;

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 8

8.4 Clause 21.06 Settlement and Housing; 8.5 Clause 21.08 Development and Community Infrastructure; and 8.6 Clause 21.14 Bellarine Peninsula.

Alignment to Council Plan 9. The Amendment, Settlement Strategy and Framework Plan align with the Planned Sustainable Development strategic priority of the Council Plan. They 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; improving the environmental performance of new developments; and managing the impact of development on the unique character of our townships.

Conflict of Interest 10. No Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have any direct or indirect interest.

Risk Assessment 11. Adopting the Amendment and implementing the new strategic planning work into the Planning Scheme reduces risk by providing certainty for the future development of the municipality. 12. Adopting the Panel recommendations reduces the risk of the Minister for Planning changing the amendment at the approval stage.

Environmental Implications 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. An overarching Biodiversity Conservation Strategy will be prepared prior to the finalisation of any Precinct Structure Plans (PSP). 16. 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.

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 9

Attachment 2

Background The Settlement Strategy 1. The Settlement Strategy provides a planning framework to ensure the municipality can meet the region’s housing needs to 2036. The Strategy was adopted by Council in October 2018. 2. The Settlement Strategy reviews the city’s demographics, analysing current and anticipated future population and housing needs. The Strategy includes directions for both urban consolidation and greenfield development. 3. The Amendment includes the Settlement Strategy as a Background Document to the Planning Scheme. It amends Local Planning Policies in the Scheme to implement key recommendations of the Strategy including: 3.1 Directing the majority of future housing needs to urban Geelong (urban infill, Armstrong Creek and the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas); 3.2 Reducing the share of new housing development on the Bellarine Peninsula; 3.3 Ensuring residential development occurs within designated settlement boundaries; and 3.4 Facilitating infill development to increase its contribution to housing supply. 4. The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) has declared the Bellarine Peninsula a Distinctive Area and Landscape (DAL) under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This process will introduce a Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) and set long-term settlement boundaries and review height controls within townships on the Bellarine. Outcomes in relation to the Amendment will inform and contribute to the DAL process. 5. The exhibited version of the Housing and Settlement Framework Plan from the Settlement Strategy is in Attachment 3. Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan 6. The Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas (NWGGA) are the largest greenfield urban development project in regional Victoria with the capacity to accommodate around 110,000 residents. The NWGGA Framework Plan was adopted by Council in March 2019. 7. The Framework Plan outlines principles and actions to achieve the community’s Clever and Creative vision in the development of the growth areas. The Framework Plans set out these principles and actions for each of six themes: Clever and Creative, Environment, Neighbourhood, Economy, Movement and Delivery. 8. The Amendment includes the Framework Plan as a Background Document to the Planning Scheme. It introduces a new Local Planning Policy (Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas) into the Scheme to implement key recommendations of the Strategy including: 8.1 Developing Precinct Structure Plans in an orderly sequence within each growth area; 8.2 A Clever and Creative Corridor as a focal point for design of sustainable, interconnected neighbourhoods; 8.3 Ensuring a network of activity centres provide for the needs of local residents;

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 10

8.4 Locating high and medium density housing near activity centres and key transport routes; 8.5 Identifying an employment precinct in each growth area; 8.6 Prioritising active and public transport over private vehicles in neighbourhood and transport network design; 8.7 Establishing a buffer of lower density residential development north and east of the Batesford township; 8.8 Completing rehabilitation of the Batesford Quarry and master planning for its transformation to a recreational lake; and 8.9 Undertaking an overarching biodiversity conservation strategy for each growth area. 9. The exhibited version of the NWGGA Framework Plan Map is in Attachment 4. 10. The Amendment also rezones to the Urban Growth Zone most land in the growth areas identified for short or medium term urban development that has not already been included in that zone. What the Amendment does 11. As discussed above, the Amendment implements the Settlement Strategy and Framework Plan into the planning scheme. The Amendment includes policy changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and rezones land in the NWGGA to the Urban Growth Zone. Specifically, the Amendment seeks to: 11.1 Amend Clause 21.03 Objectives - Strategies – Implementation to include reference to 21.18 Corio Norlane and 21.20 Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas; 11.2 Replace Clause 21.04 Municipal Framework Plan with a new Clause 21.04 to implement the Settlement Strategy through a new Municipal Framework Plan; 11.3 Replace Clause 21.06 Settlement and Housing with a new clause including objectives, strategies and references to implement the Settlement Strategy; 11.4 Amend Clause 21.08 Development and Community Infrastructure to update strategies on Transport and Development Contributions to implement the Settlement Strategy; 11.5 Amend Clause 21.11 Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area to reflect the role of the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas; 11.6 Amend Clause 21.14 The Bellarine Peninsula to update objectives, strategies, further work and references to implement the Settlement Strategy; 11.7 Amend Clause 21.16 Anakie to implement the Settlement Strategy by amending objectives and strategies, deleting reference to the Anakie Structure Plan 1996; 11.8 Insert a new Clause 21.20 Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas including new objectives, strategies and plans to implement the Framework Plan; and 11.9 Replace the Schedule to Clause 72.08 Background Documents with a new Schedule that includes the Settlement Strategy and Framework Plan. Public Exhibition and Panel Hearing 12. The Amendment was exhibited in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 from 21 June to 29 July 2019.

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 11

13. 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 Framework Plan component of the Amendment were held at the Batesford Hall on 17 July and the Corio Library on 18 July. 14. As a result of exhibition, a total of 102 submissions were received. 15. Council considered a report on the submissions on 24 September 2019 and resolved to refer the submissions to an independent Panel appointed by the State Government under the Act. 16. A 3-member Panel of Nick Wimbush (Chair), John Hartigan and Deanne Smith held a lengthy hearing in Geelong and Melbourne between November 2019 to March 2020. A total of 37 different parties appeared at the hearing. They included the City, state government agencies, developers, landowners, community groups and individuals. 17. The City was represented throughout the Panel hearing by Greg Tobin of Harwood Andrews Lawyers and instructed and advised by officers from the City’s Strategic Implementation and Planning Strategy units. 18. The City called the following six experts in planning, lot supply, demographics and transport planning: 18.1 Michael Barlow (Urbis) – strategic planning; 18.2 John Collins (Spatial Economics) – strategic planning; 18.3 Mark Woodland (Echelon Planning) – strategic/growth area planning; 18.4 Reece Humphries (GTA) – transport planning and engineering; 18.5 Dale Stokes (Spatial Economics) – lot supply and economics; and 18.6 Jeremy Reynolds (Spatial Economics) – demography. 19. The Panel provided its Panel Report to Council in mid May 2020 and it was publicly released in late May. Panel Report Executive Summary and City Response 20. The following section of this Council report discusses and responds to the Panel’s Executive Summary including its findings on the key issues, conclusions and recommendations. The Executive Summary is in Attachment 5. Where necessary references are also made to Panel commentary from the main Panel report. 21. Further discussion and response to all the sub issues covered in the Panel report is not provided in this Council report. This would duplicate information which is already comprehensively covered by the Panel in its report which includes quotes and accurate descriptions of the submissions made by the parties including the City. 22. The Panel Report (Appendix D) includes a list of detailed changes to the Amendment, Settlement Strategy and Framework which the Panel recommends and which is derived from a document that Council submitted to the Panel during the hearing. This list is reproduced in Attachment 6 to this Council report. 23. The Panel’s recommendations and the City’s responses are listed in Appendix 7. COVID-19 24. The Panel refers to the hearing being in its final stages as the COVID-19 virus started to send the Victorian, national and global community into lockdown in early 2020.

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 12

25. In relation to potential changes that COVID-19 could bring to society the Panel says it “has no more insight than anyone into what Victoria and the Geelong community will be like in a post COVID-19 world, or even when that will occur. The Panel has based its considerations, as it must, on the pre-COVID-19 world and matters brought before it at that time.” 26. The Panel provides positive commentary on the strategic work undertaken saying: “Whatever the future implications for Geelong, the Panel is satisfied that the enormous work done to date leading to this Amendment will form a critical and well-founded platform for Geelong’s future.” The Amendment 27. The Panel describes the Amendment as having two major components; to implement the Geelong-wide Settlement Strategy and the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan into the planning scheme. 28. The Panel describes the Amendment as implementing “a 20-year plan for Geelong to cater for a very significant population increase. The Panel commends Councils for taking a visionary approach to growth area and settlement planning to accommodate the growth in a logical planned manner.” Submissions 29. In the main body of its report the Panel says it considered all written submissions made in response to the exhibition of the Amendment, observations from site visits, and submissions, evidence and other material presented to it during the Hearing. The Panel explains it reviewed a large volume of material and has had to be selective in referring to the more relevant or determinative material in the Report. All submissions and materials have been considered by the Panel in reaching its conclusions, regardless of whether they are specifically mentioned in the Report. 30. The Panel observes that a “significant number of submissions on the Settlement Strategy were concerned with the ‘pivot’ in policy of some Bellarine settlements from growth centres to more limited development opportunities and the setting of ‘permanent’ town boundaries”. While it found that submissions supported this approach it also found that “Other major landowners saw the Strategy as an avenue to press their claims for inclusion of land parcels within the short to medium term growth picture for Geelong.” 31. The Panel found that the Framework Plan generally received strong high-level support in submissions and says “Many submitters…were landowners interested in the development of the growth areas, either via expedited timing for their holdings, or raising issues around the planning for development such as infrastructure funding and development sequencing. 32. The Panel found that “Very few submissions if any called for the abandonment of the Amendment as a whole, testament to the strategic planning work that Council has put into the Amendment over the past several years.” The Panel Hearing 33. The Panel held 28 days of Hearing in Geelong and Melbourne and undertook two accompanied site inspections and numerous unaccompanied inspections. 34. The Panel describes the hearing as follows: “Because of the scale of the Amendment the Hearings were complex and many of the submitters were landowners represented by legal advocates and calling expert evidence.

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 13

More than 50 pieces of expert evidence were called in traffic engineering, planning, infrastructure planning, stormwater management, ecology, noise, dust, economics and land supply. In addition, a small number of concerned individual submitters expressed their views in support of, or opposition to, particular parts of the Amendment.” 35. The City and its legal advocate were present throughout the Panel hearing and found the Panel conducted a very professional and fair process affording all parties the opportunity to have their say, make submissions and cross examine witnesses. Some of the major developer submitters took several days to present their cases with multiple experts. Where possible the City tried to resolve and come to agreement on matters with the other parties in order to reduce the number of issues at stake. Panel findings - Settlement Strategy Policy ‘pivot’ and the DAL process 36. The Panel describes the Settlement Strategy as including a “policy ‘pivot’ from providing growth areas in some Bellarine Peninsula towns (primarily Ocean Grove and Leopold) and directing this growth to the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas (NWGGA) and the continuing development of Armstrong Creek.” 37. It says “In addition to this significant policy change from Council, the State Government has declared the Bellarine and Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscapes (DAL) under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Part 3AAB). The declarations occurred in mid-late 2019 and a State policy development process is underway.” 38. The Panel “considers that the conscious policy change away from further significant urban growth on the Peninsula is a choice Council has made; it is not for the Panel to interrogate this choice in principle. The change, in conjunction with the provision of significant new growth areas in the west and north, makes a powerful case for Council having an overall plan to accommodate growth.” 39. The Panel makes it clear that its role is not to challenge or question the DAL declaration and planning process which has been developed and implemented by the State Government. 40. The City sees the Panel’s findings as an endorsement of the logical, long term approach to municipal settlement planning provided in the Settlement Strategy. The City believes the directions of the Settlement Strategy and the new high-level policy being introduced by the Amendment are consistent with and complement the DAL process. Bellarine Peninsula Settlement Boundaries 41. The Panel describes the big area of contention behind the Council policy ‘pivot’ and the DAL process as “not so much the question of whether there should be eventual township boundaries to limit growth on the Bellarine, but rather where those boundaries should be”. 42. The Panel says one school of thought in submissions suggests township boundaries should be closely tied to existing residential zoned land or land already identified in the planning scheme as suitable for rezoning. 43. It describes the other school of thought in submissions (often advanced by landholders with existing development interests on the edge of Bellarine towns), is that if an eventual town boundary is proposed, there should be an opportunity to bring in additional land on the edges of existing towns into the ‘final’ town boundary.

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 14

44. In describing the significant pressure it was under due to multiple submitters (many being developers represented by lawyers and with planning experts) seeking to promote land being included in town boundaries, the Panel says: “For an Amendment that does not set any town boundaries, the Panel has felt significant pressure to make findings on the issue in principle and even on particular landholdings as to whether they should be ‘in’ or ‘out’ of eventual town boundaries. This of course it has not been tempted to do; that would be straying far outside of its remit.” 45. The City agrees with the above comment. Although the Settlement Strategy provides policy direction towards permanent settlement boundaries, it was not the intent of the Amendment to lock the boundaries in now. That would be done by the DAL for the Bellarine and a logical inclusion process for urban Geelong. 46. The City’s central position was that this Amendment was not the correct process to facilitate changes to settlement boundaries that will be considered as part of the Bellarine and Surf Coast DALs. It submitted to the Panel that the DAL process must be undertaken before more detailed review of existing structure plans occur, and that it would be poor planning to pre-empt the DAL outcome. 47. On the issue of whether more land should be included within town boundaries the Panel comments “that at the planning principles level, and this is explicit in some parts of the planning scheme such as for Ocean Grove, that this further review prior to the ‘locking down’ of town boundaries should be considered. This is not an explicit or implicit endorsement of any particular submission requesting inclusion in a Bellarine township boundary.” 48. The Panel says it is “neither fair, nor sound planning, to ‘shut the gate’ at a particular point of time without a logical review of what is inside or outside the paddock at the point in time when the gate shuts.” 49. The Panel in its report makes it clear that it considers that a future process for refining township boundaries is necessary (see p.29 of the Panel report). 50. The Panel makes a recommendation (No.2) to revise the Settlement Strategy to clearly articulate that for the Bellarine Peninsula, the process to finalise an enduring boundary for Geelong will be: secured by the DAL program; and, if not addressed by the DAL, through the proposed review of structure plans; or where no Structure Plan review is proposed in the near future, then the logical inclusions process as described in the Settlement Strategy. 51. The City advised the Panel of additional wording to be included in the Settlement Strategy to clarify this issue. The full wording is in the table is in the Appendix 7 response to recommendation no.2 and includes: “The City considers the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes the most appropriate process to determine long term boundaries for the Bellarine. If long term boundaries are not resolved, the City will need to determine long term boundaries via a separate consultative process for the district towns with regard to Statement of Planning Policy”. Logical inclusions process 52. For the other parts of Geelong addressed in the Settlement Strategy, the Panel considers these can be broken down into a ‘logical inclusions’ process and a ‘strategic landholdings’ group. 53. Several parties submitted to the Panel that certain parcels of land along the southern edge of Armstrong Creek Growth Area should be included in the urban growth boundary of Geelong.

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 15

54. The Panel considers there are several parcels that have been identified in submissions, and probably others, that could be included in the urban area in the Settlement Strategy. The Panel says it does not try to pick ‘winners and losers’ but supports a process being undertaken. 55. The City submitted that a planning scheme amendment to determine the long-term boundary for urban Geelong through a logical inclusions process will occur upon the implementation of Amendment C395ggee. A draft ‘long term’ or ‘permanent boundary’ to replace the ‘indicative’ boundary exhibited through this Amendment will be prepared and will include the final methodology and criteria used to come to Council’s preferred position. 56. The revised Clause 21.06 for adoption includes the strategy: “Deliver defendable long- term settlement boundaries via a consultative boundary review process”. Strategic landholdings 57. The ‘strategic landholdings group’ as termed by the Panel includes the Western Industrial Precinct (WIP) within the Armstrong Creek Growth Area and the Boral landholding further west at Waurn Ponds. The Panel has dealt with these separately to other areas that it heard submissions on as it considers them to be “very significant landholdings which will have an important part to play in the future growth and development of Geelong.” Strategic landholdings - Western Industrial Precinct 58. The Panel considers the WIP needs to be considered within the broader picture of Armstrong Creek and Geelong’s growth. It says a large portion of the WIP is in a single ownership, and the owners expressed a strong desire to consider an urban residential, rather than industrial, future. The Panel “notes the submissions on this land but considers it is in no stronger a position than to note the submission for future consideration. Changing the future land use for such a major parcel of land will require a specific investigation.” Strategic landholdings - Boral Waurn Ponds 59. Boral and Blue Circle Southern Cement own a 1,020 hectare area of land at Waurn Ponds. Boral submitted that the land should be rezoned Urban Growth Zone and included within the urban growth boundary. The Victorian Planning Authority submitted that the Boral land should at least be considered a ‘Long Term Investigation Area’ in Figure 1 of the Settlement Strategy. 60. The Panel states the “significant land holdings owned by Boral in Waurn Ponds appear to the Panel to be a strategic land resource for the future of Geelong that will require careful planning, and perhaps in conjunction with the future land use in the WIP. The Panel is satisfied that the medium to long term future of the land is not in the quarry resource, but rather as an alternative, higher economic value land use, probably including urban uses”. 61. The Panel considers that “such future land use planning is in its infancy and given Council’s measured strategic approach to growth area planning, the ‘bringing on’ of this land should be undertaken carefully and strategically. The Panel has thus recommended that the Boral land be identified at a high level for potential future urban growth, but no more strongly than this, and with no great imperative to bring the land forward for development with a sense of urgency”. 62. In its closing submission, the City acknowledged the future potential of the Boral land. It proposed changes to the Settlement Strategy to specifically recognise that at the end of its extractive use and resolution of the DAL process it is one of several sites for investigation to meet the municipality’s future housing needs.

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 16

63. The specific wording the City advised the Panel it would insert into the Settlement Strategy and which has subsequently been inserted into the August 2020 version of the Settlement Strategy is in Appendix 7 in response to recommendation 3. Panel findings - Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan Overall Panel comments and recommendations on the Framework Plan 64. In relation to the Framework Plan, the Panel found there was strong support for the work Council has undertaken in bringing the NWGGA forward for planning and development. Later in its report (p.48) the Panel says “There was overall support for the Framework Plan as an important strategic document to guide the development of the two growth areas. No parties questioned whether it should be listed in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme as a background document”. 65. In the Executive Summary the Panel makes several recommendations relating to the NWGGA including recommendation no.4 to add a preamble to the Framework Plan to: clearly state its purpose; provide flexibility in its interpretation in the next stages of the planning process; and confirm that the PSPs included in the Framework Plan are concept plans only. 66. The City supports the addition of such a preamble as this properly reflects the intent of the Framework Plan document. The exact wording is in Appendix 7 in response to Panel recommendation no.4. 67. The Amendment includes a new Clause 21.20 which is a stand-alone planning policy for the NWGGA and includes the Framework Plan map. The Panel in its recommendation no.5 recommends amending the “exhibited Clause 21.20 by adopting the changes proposed by Council as set out in Document 245 to the Hearing with the deletion of the last dot point under Clause 21.20-3 Strategies.” 68. In a separate recommendation (no.9.) the Panel also recommends an additional strategy be added to Clause 21.20 requiring a detailed biodiversity assessment prior to any Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) being approved. 69. The City agrees that at a broad level there was strong support for the Framework Plan. The two changes to Clause 21.20 recommended by the Panel are supported and have been made to the document for adoption in Attachment 8. Level of detail in the Framework Plan 70. In its main report (p.49) the Panel says there were several submitters who questioned some aspects of the Framework Plan, in particular that it was too detailed for a strategic document. The Panel says it also shares the concerns of some submitters that the Plan is very detailed and if narrowly interpreted could diminish flexibility in the development of the Precinct Structure Plans in the two growth areas. The Panel goes on to say that it “accepts however that the included PSPs are intended to be no more than concepts at this stage and much more detailed analysis will be needed to determine PSPs to guide future land use development and infrastructure provision”. 71. The Panel also says that a number of submitters made strong representations to the Panel about development sequencing and timing and infrastructure funding amongst others 72. In the Executive Summary the Panel states that “many of these issues are appropriately addressed at the Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) stage and the detail of infrastructure provision, road alignments and so on will be debated and finalised through those processes.

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 17

Whilst the Framework Plan does provide a higher level of apparent detailed design, including ‘draft’ PSPs, the Panel considers that provided the reference to the Framework Plan allows appropriate flexibility to make changes where it is warranted in PSPs then this should not be a major impediment to growth area planning and development.” 73. The City appreciates that the Framework Plan does have some detail that would not normally be found in a plan at this level of the planning hierarchy. However, it agrees with the Panel that much of the detail is conceptual only. The preamble being inserted at the front of the Plan to describe its role and other changes recommended by the panel will ensure flexibility as the plan is implemented. 74. The City agrees with the Panel that many of the detailed issues raised in the Panel hearing in relation to the NWGGA can be addressed, debated and finalised at the PSP stage. PSP sequencing and boundaries 75. The Panel heard submissions from several of the NWGGA landowners seeking land to be included in PSP precincts earmarked for the initial first stage of PSP preparation. 76. The Panel found that it understands the sequencing of PSPs that has been proposed in the Framework Plan by Council and notes “it is based on a logical, ordered process for providing growth areas, and one that can be accelerated if growth occurs faster than planned. The Panel considers however that while the sequencing proposed may be a good starting point, there should be flexibility in PSP preparation and implementation to allow different arrangements to come forward when it is shown there is potential for a superior outcome.” 77. The Panel says it has “not attempted to devise its own sequencing scheme based on submissions, as that would merely be a different approach, and not necessarily superior. The Panel has however based on submissions, attempted to recommend a more flexible approach to determine the final precincts and PSP sequencing”. 78. Later in its report the Panel (in reference to the submissions and evidence put to it over several days by developers seeking to have PSP boundaries amended) says “In short, with one exception the Panel is not convinced on the evidence presented to it that any of the requested changes to the PSP boundaries should be made at this time”. 79. The exception the Panel provides is the small area of land in the southeast corner of the Batesford South precinct that Council has already agreed to move into the McCanns Lane PSP at the request of the McCann Family. The Panel endorses this change. 80. The Panel goes on to say that it “does not conclude that there is no merit in any of the requested changes. Rather more analysis and assessment is needed and that this is best done through the detailed PSP planning development and review process.” (p.49) 81. As mentioned earlier, the Panel recommends that a preamble be added in the Framework Plan background document to clarify its purpose and provide flexibility in its interpretation in the next stages of the planning process. 82. The City notes the Panel commentary on this issue and accepts the relevant recommendations to the Framework Plan and Clause 21.20. Infrastructure funding 83. Several submissions were made regarding development contributions to fund infrastructure in the growth areas. Several parties requested that the Panel determine that a global (or universal) Infrastructure Contributions Plan (ICP) or Development Contributions Plan (DCP) should be prepared for the Western Growth Area.

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 18

84. The Panel found that “a major issue that will be critical for the success of the growth areas is infrastructure funding and apportionment of large-scale infrastructure projects across many PSP areas within the two growth areas”. 85. The Panel believes there is merit in a layered scheme to fund large scale (expensive) projects across a whole growth area, possibly including state funding, and then having a more traditional precinct scale DCP or ICP to fund the precinct specific infrastructure. 86. The Panel has “not strongly concluded that there is one perfect answer but after considering submissions does conclude that it is vital that flexibility is retained to enable further consideration of options for funding infrastructure”. 87. In the Panel’s view, “the proposed planning scheme ordinance (at Clause 21-08) does provide sufficient flexibility and does not, for example, preclude the adoption of a global ICP/DCP for the growth areas should further work in progress demonstrate that such an approach is the best way to fund and deliver key infrastructure.” 88. The City accepts the Panel’s findings and conclusions on infrastructure funding and notes that no amendments to Clauses 21.08 or 21.20 are required. Clever and Creative Corridor 89. The Panel found the Clever and Creative Corridor (CCC) concept was generally supported by submitter landowners with some reservations as to detail. In the Western Geelong Growth Area (WGGA) it was suggested that the CCC should be placed west of the Batesford Quarry. The Panel has not accepted that submission. 90. The City described the CCC in its Part B statement as a tree-lined boulevard style transit corridor with priority for active and public transport between key destinations within the growth areas. The City did not object to removal of the detail on pages 45-51 of the Framework Plan to take out references to carriageway width of standard road features, parking bays and other features. 91. The Panel’s recommendation no.6 (see Appendix 7) includes its changes to the detail of the CCC in the Framework Plan. The City accepts these recommendations and has changed the document accordingly. Activity centres 92. The Panel found that activity centre locations attracted numerous submissions. In response to these, Council has agreed to some changes to activity centre number and location in the Northern Geelong Growth Area (NGGA) which the Panel supports. 93. The City has subsequently updated the Framework Plan and Clause 21.20 to reflect the new activity centre arrangements. The same changes are also proposed to Amendment C393ggee which implements a new Retail Strategy and is being considered as a separate agenda item. The Settlement Strategy and Framework Plan documents 94. In relation to the two background documents that underpin the Amendment, the Panel found that “Many submitters to the Strategy and Framework Plan sought to have the Panel redraft the documents or at the least recommend the inclusion of specific wording. The Panel has generally avoided this approach. Rather it provides recommendations that should help Council redrafting.” 95. The Panel says it “is aware that the documents have been drafted over many years by teams of Council staff and consultants and trying to ‘remake them in our own image’ would be a difficult task within the timeframes expected of a Panel to report... where the Panel considers critical changes to the documents need to be made, recommendations have been made, even if the detailed drafting is not included”.

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 19

96. The City has made all the changes to the Settlement Strategy and Framework Plan generally as recommended by the Panel (as described in Attachments 6 and 7) along with some other minor changes and corrections. A small number of changes in Attachment 6 have not been made as they have been superseded by changes agreed by the City later in the hearing or by Panel recommendations. 97. The revised “August 2020” versions of the Settlement Strategy and Framework Plan are recommended for re-adoption alongside the Amendment. They are too lengthy to attach to this Council report but can be viewed on the C395 webpage. Panel overall conclusions 98. The Panel’s overall conclusions are: “The Panel concludes: • Geelong has undergone a sustained period of high population growth which is predicted to continue; • The Amendment is a well thought out and visionary response to logically cater for this predicted growth; • Whilst there were some outright objections and many requests for changes, the Panel considers there is a high level of support for the overall direction of the Amendment, and particularly the Framework Plan; • The refocusing of long-term growth away from the Bellarine Peninsula is a conscious policy decision of Council and the State Government; implementation of this policy requires some further consideration of long term or permanent settlement boundaries; • Subject to addressing some issues of principle and detail, the Panel strongly supports the Amendment.”

99. The City considers the Panel’s overall conclusions are a very strong endorsement of the strategic planning work that has been undertaken over several years to plan for Geelong’s future growth through the preparation of the Settlement Strategy, Framework Plan and the Amendment. Panel recommendations 100. The Panel recommendations are the most critical part of a Panel report and the Act requires that Council as the Planning Authority must consider the recommendations as part of adoption of an amendment. A full list of the thirteen recommendations is provided and responded to in Attachment 7. 101. The first recommendation represents the Panel’s overall stance on the amendment: “1. Adopt Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee as exhibited subject to the changes recommended in this report.” 102. The remaining twelve recommendations (see Attachment 7) describe the Panel’s recommended changes to the Settlement Strategy, Framework Plan and the Amendment i.e. the planning scheme ordinance (local policy clauses) and zone maps. 103. The City’s position is that all the Panel recommendations should be accepted. 104. The City is supportive of the Panel’s recommended changes as they generally reflect the City’s position on the key issues as resolved at the 24 September 2019 Council meeting and the subsequent changes that were agreed to (under delegation) in the submissions and responses provided to the Panel during the lengthy hearing.

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 20

Amendment for Adoption 105. The Amendment (i.e. local policy and zone maps) has been updated generally in accordance with the Panel recommendations. The documents recommended for adoption are in Attachment 8. There are two changes/variations to the previous Council positions which are worth noting and these are described below: Zone map change 106. An additional change has also been made to zone map 31. The exhibited zone maps for the Western Geelong Growth Area showed the Urban Growth Zone (UGZ) being applied to several properties but any that were in the quarry Works Authority No.3 (WA3) were to remain in the Special Use Zone. 107. During the hearing the City agreed to a request by Adelaide Brighton Cement Limited (ABCL) to include additional properties into the UGZ if they were excised from WA3 prior to adoption of the Amendment. 108. ABCL subsequently obtained approval from Earth Resources Division to vary WA3 and excised the land. As a result, additional land has been included in the UGZ including two of ABCL’s Farming Zone properties that would have been an “island” of FZ surrounded by UGZ. The areas highlighted below are now to be included in UGZ on Map 31 in Appendix 8.

Map showing additional UGZ land

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 21

Clause 21.06 Housing and Settlement Framework Map 109. As discussed earlier, a small number of changes in Attachment 6 have not been made as they have been superseded by changes agreed by the City later in the hearing or by Panel recommendations. In addition, the City has decided not to include smaller segment versions of the Housing and Settlement Framework Plan map in Clause 21.06 (as listed in Attachment 6 line item 2). The additional “zoomed in” segment maps will be added to the Settlement Strategy but not Clause 21.06. 110. The City considers the plan is legible at the municipal scale and will consider breaking it into segments in Clause 21.06 after long term settlement boundaries are resolved through the DAL process (for the Bellarine) and the settlement boundary review/logical inclusions process (for urban Geelong).

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 22

Attachment 3 Housing & Settlement Framework Plan Exhibited Version (Clause 21.06)

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 23

Attachment 4 – NWGGA Framework Plan Map Exhibited version (Clause 21.20)

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 24

Attachment 5 – Panel Report Executive Summary

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 25

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 26

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 27

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 28

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 29

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 30

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 31

Attachment 6 – List of post exhibition changes to Amendment, Settlement Strategy & Framework Plan

(Hearing Document 205 / Panel Report Appendix D)

Clause/ Modification map/ No. to Source Date page Change On the drawing key on Housing and Settlement Framework Plan proposed in Clause 21.06, change “BOUNDARY – INDICATIVE Identified 24 Sep PERMANENT SETTLEMENT BOUNDARY” to by Council 2019 - “SETTLEMENT BOUNDARY – INDICATIVE LONG 1 ordinance officers Council 21.06 TERM BOUNDARY” In addition to the single Housing and Settlement Framework Plan for the whole Identified 24 Sep municipality, include several segment maps by Council 2019 - covering smaller areas for clearer 2 ordinance officers Council 21.06 interpretation 6 Feb 2020 - Under the heading Key issues and influences, Gareth change “Geelon’s” to “Geelong’s”. Panel Smith 3 ordinance submission approved 21.06-1 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth In the first sentence under the heading Panel Smith Demographics, change “annual growth” to 4 ordinance submission approved 21.06-1 “average annual growth”. 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth In the first paragraph under the heading Panel Smith Housing, change “Inceasing” to “Increasing” 5 ordinance submission approved 21.06-1 and change “maintainence” to “maintenance”. 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth In the last paragraph under the heading Panel Smith “Settlement”, change “settlemement” to 6 ordinance submission approved 21.06-1 “settlement”. Change the heading of proposed 21.06-2 from Identified 24 Sep Spatial Distribution of Growth and Land Supply by Council 2019 - to Spatial distribution of growth and land 7 ordinance officers Council 21.06-2 supply 6 Feb Replace the fourth strategy (commencing with 2020 - “Confirm enduring …”) with the following: Gareth “Deliver defendable long-term settlement Panel Smith boundaries via a consultative boundary review 8 ordinance submission approved 21.06-2 process”. 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth Panel Smith Delete the third strategy relating to One Planet 9 ordinance submission approved 21.06-3 Living principles.

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 32

Clause/ Modification map/ No. to Source Date page Change 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth Panel Smith In the last strategy, change “faciltities” to 10 ordinance submission approved 21.06-4 “facilities”. In proposed 21.06-9 (Implementation), modify the proposed third Further Work item by changing the words “special local 24 Sep environmental or landscape values” to Submission 2019 - “environmental or landscape values of local, 11 ordinance 26 Council 21.06-8 state or national importance” 6 Feb Replace the fourth point under the heading 2020 - Further work (commencing with “Establish a Gareth …”) with the following: Panel Smith “Undertake a consultative settlement boundary 12 ordinance submission approved 21.06-8 review process.” 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth In the fifth point under the heading Further Panel Smith work, change “opportunities” to 13 ordinance submission approved 21.06-8 “opportunities”. In proposed 21.06-8 (Implementation), modify the proposed fifth Further Work item by adding 24 Sep the words “and mixed use development” after Submission 2019 - “train station environs to future housing 14 ordinance 14 Council 21.06-8 needs” 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth In the final paragraph under the heading Panel Smith Further work, change “resinential” to 15 ordinance submission approved 21.06-8 “residential”. 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth Panel Smith In the References, replace the date for the 16 ordinance submission approved 21.06-8 Settlement Strategy with “(XX, YY)”. 21.06 Housin g and Frame On the drawing key on Housing and Settlement 24 Sep work Framework Plan proposed in Clause 21.06, Submission 2019 - Plan change “SETTLEMENT BOUNDARY” to 17 ordinance 25 Council map “MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY” 21.06 Housin g and Frame Housing and Settlement Framework Plan: on Identified 24 Sep work the map, show the future growth areas as by Council 2019 - Plan growth areas and delete “FUTURE GROWTH 18 ordinance officers Council map AREAS” from the drawing key 21.06 Modify the Housing and Settlement Framework Mark 18 Nov Housin Plan map at Clause 21.06-8 to remove the word Woodland 2019 - g and 'permanent' from 'indicative permanent 19 ordinance evidence Part B Frame settlement boundary'

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 33

Clause/ Modification map/ No. to Source Date page Change submissio work n Plan map 21.06 Housin 6 Feb g and 2020 - Frame In the Drawing Key for the Housing and Identified Gareth work Settlement Framework Plan map, change by Council Smith Plan “INDICATIVE PERMANENT SETTLEMENT 20 ordinance officers approved map BOUNDARY” to “SETTLEMENT BOUNDARY”. 21.06 Housin 6 Feb g and In the Drawing Key for the Housing and 2020 - Frame Settlement Framework Plan map, under Gareth work DISTRICT TOWNS, change “EXISTING Panel Smith Plan SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES” to “SETTLEMENT 21 ordinance submission approved map BOUNDARIES”. 28 Oct 2019 - Part A In 21.08-3 (Strategies), modify the first Submission submissio proposed strategy by adding “expected” before 22 ordinance 55 n 21.08-3 “metropolitan-equivalent” 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth Panel Smith In the References, replace the date for the 23 ordinance submission approved 21.08-6 Settlement Strategy with “(XX, YY)”. 24 Sep 1st paragraph: change “54,000 persons and Submission 2019 - 22,000 dwellings” to “approximately 55,000 to 24 ordinance 25 Council 21.11-1 65,000 persons” 6 Feb 2020 - Add the following point under the heading Gareth Further Work: Implement any relevant findings Panel Smith of the logical inclusions process undertaken 25 ordinance submission approved 21.11-3 pursuant to Clause 21.06". Update the proposed Further Work task "Work with the state government on the designation 18 Nov of the Bellarine Peninsula under the Distinctive 2019 - Area and Landscapes Act 2018" to reflect the Michael Part B fact the declaration has been made and the Barlow submissio next step is to finalise a Statement of Planning 26 ordinance evidence n 21.14-4 Policy 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth Panel Smith In the References, replace the date for the 27 ordinance submission approved 21.14-4 Settlement Strategy with “(XX, YY)”. 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth Panel Smith In the References, replace the date for the 28 ordinance submission approved 21.16-3 Settlement Strategy with “(XX, YY)”.

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 34

Clause/ Modification map/ No. to Source Date page Change 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth In the second last objective, change “in the Panel Smith short to medium term” to “while it remains 29 ordinance submission approved 21.20-2 operational” and delate “in the long term”. 24 Sep Add the following objective: “To retain and Submission 2019 - protect or appropriately offset valuable 30 ordinance 26 Council 21.20-2 biodiversity assets, including grassland areas” Replace the first strategy with the following: “Prepare Precinct Structure Plans that: 18 Nov 2019 - § Are generally in accordance with the Part B Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas submissio Framework Plan map at clause 21.20-5. n § Consider, as relevant, the Northern and Mark 6 Feb Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Woodland 2020 - Plan (City of Greater Geelong, XX, YY).” evidence Gareth Jason Black Smith [“have regard to” is an alternative to “consider, 31 ordinance evidence approved 21.20-3 as relevant”] Replace the second strategy with the following: “Prior to resolving to commence a Precinct Structure Plan, consider, as relevant: § The City of Greater Geelong Settlement Strategy (XX, YY). § Development sequencing set out in the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan (City of Greater Geelong, XX, YY). § The need to maintain an adequate supply of urban land. § Third party funding agreements with land developers to undertake technical studies. § Whether the precinct will enable the staged extension of infrastructure networks in a way that minimises the real cost of infrastructure provision. § Whether or not a precinct is subject to major constraints or uncertainties that is likely to delay development. § Whether or not the precinct is of a size that is likely to result in a substantial and predictable development yield. § The pattern of land ownership and the potential for multiple landowners to co- ordinate the planning and development of the precinct. § Whether a precinct’s development will support the effective and early development of 6 Feb public transport infrastructure, town centre 2020 - and employment precincts.” Gareth Panel Smith [“have regard to” is an alternative to “consider, 32 ordinance submission approved 21.20-3 as relevant”]

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 35

Clause/ Modification map/ No. to Source Date page Change 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth Panel Smith In the fifth strategy, replace “effeicient” with 33 ordinance submission approved 21.20-3 “efficient”. 18 Nov 2019 - Include an additional strategy in Clause 21.20- Mark Part B 3: "Land use and development should have Woodland submissio regard to the Northern and Western Geelong 34 ordinance evidence n 21.20-3 Growth Areas Framework Plan." Reword the second last strategy in Clause 11 Nov 21.20-3 to read: "Maintain an appropriate 2019 - buffer around the Work Authority boundary of Gareth the Batesford Quarry to minimise the impacts Submissions Smith of activities that may be carried out under the 35 ordinance 1, 37 approved 21.20-3 Work Authority." 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth Panel Smith In the References, replace the date for the 36 ordinance submission approved 21.20-4 Framework Plan with “(XX, YY)”. 6 Feb 2020 - Revise the Northern and Western Geelong Gareth Growth Areas Framework Plan map to reflect Panel Smith all modifications in this schedule to Plans 2, 3, 4 37 ordinance submission approved 21.20-5 and 5 of the Framework Plan. 28 Oct Rezone land between the north-western 2019 - boundary of the exhibited Urban Growth Zone Part A and the high voltage transmission line Submission submissio Maps easement from Farming Zone to Urban Growth 38 Maps 46 n 16, 17 Zone 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth Rezone land outside of the current Work Panel Smith Authority for the Batesford Quarry from Special 39 Maps submission approved Map 31 Use Zone Schedule 7 to Urban Growth Zone. 24 Sep Rezone 80 Thoona Lane, Fyansford from Submission 2019 - Special Use Zone Schedule 7 to Urban Growth 40 Maps 37 Council Map 31 Zone 6 Feb 2020 - Throughout the text of the Strategy, change Identified Gareth “permanent settlement boundary” (or “… Settlement by Council Smith boundaries”) to “long term boundary” (or “… 41 Strategy officers approved Various boundaries”). 6 Feb 2020 - Identified Gareth In the Drawing Key, change “INDICATIVE Settlement by Council Smith PERMANENT SETTLEMENT BOUNDARY” to 42 Strategy officers approved 12 “SETTLEMENT BOUNDARY”. 6 Feb 2020 - Identified Gareth In the Drawing Key, under DISTRICT TOWNS, Settlement by Council Smith change “EXISTING SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES” 43 Strategy officers approved 12 to “SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES”.

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 36

Clause/ Modification map/ No. to Source Date page Change Change the Barwon Heads settlement 24 Sep boundary on the Housing Framework Plan in Settlement Submission 2019 - the Settlement Strategy to match that in Clause 44 Strategy 13 Council 12 21.14-10 and that proposed in Clause 21.06 Change the non-urban breaks on the Housing 24 Sep Framework Plan in the Settlement Strategy to Settlement Submission 2019 - match those proposed on the Housing and 45 Strategy 25 Council 12 Settlement Framework Plan in Clause 21.06 6 Feb 2020 - Identified Gareth Settlement by Council Smith Table 11 caption: change “1 January 2017” to 46 Strategy officers approved 52 “1 November 2017”. 6 Feb 2020 - Identified Gareth Settlement by Council Smith In the second paragraph, change “The bulk of” 47 Strategy officers approved 59 to “The major share of”. 6 Feb 2020 - Identified Gareth Settlement by Council Smith In the first paragraph under the heading Land 48 Strategy officers approved 59 Supply, change “20” to “17”. 6 Feb In direction e. under the Principle “Provide 2020 - clear strategic direction …”, add the words Identified Gareth “upon completion of the Bellarine Peninsula Settlement by Council Smith Distinctive Area and Landscape process” after 49 Strategy officers approved 63 “process for townships”. 6 Feb 2020 - Change direction b. under the Principle Gareth “Maintain an adequate supply …” to “Continue Settlement Panel Smith to monitor and review land supply and respond 50 Strategy submission approved 63 accordingly.” 24 Sep Settlement Submission 2019 - Add reference to value capture opportunities in 51 Strategy 38 Council 69-70 the Costs of Housing Growth section 24 Sep Include reference to considering industry and Settlement Submission 2019 - infrastructure buffers in the Managing Future 52 Strategy 32 Council 70 Growth section Add this direction under the Principle “Manage the release of new growth areas …”: “Ensure infrastructure funding strategies recognise 24 Sep items that deliver high level infrastructure that Settlement Submissions 2019 - benefits multiple precinct structure plan areas 53 Strategy 1, 22 Council 71 will require a contribution.” 6 Feb 2020 - In the last paragraph, change “permanent Gareth settlement boundaries will undoubtedly” to Settlement Panel Smith “protected or long-term settlement boundaries 54 Strategy submission approved 73 may”. Identified 6 Feb In the last paragraph before the heading Urban Settlement by Council 2020 - growth boundaries, change “There are two 55 Strategy officers Gareth 75 options” to “There a number of options”.

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 37

Clause/ Modification map/ No. to Source Date page Change Smith approved Add the following heading and text after the heading and text for Urban growth boundaries: “Long term settlement boundaries

We already have nominated settlement boundaries for townships and urban areas of Geelong. The role and function of these 6 Feb boundaries could be strengthened through the 2020 - introduction of the term ‘long term’ or Identified Gareth ‘enduring’ within the Planning Policy Settlement by Council Smith Framework including the Municipal Framework 56 Strategy officers approved 75 Plan.” 6 Feb 2020 - Identified Gareth Change the heading “Distinctive Areas and Settlement by Council Smith Landscapes Bill 2017” to “Distinctive Areas and 57 Strategy officers approved 75 Landscapes”. Replace the text under the heading Distinctive Areas and Landscapes with the following, to reflect the current status of the project: “On 29 October 2019 the Bellarine Peninsula was declared a Distinctive Area and Landscape under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This declaration triggers the requirement to prepare a Statement of Planning Policy by October 2020. The Statement of Planning Policy will include a 50-year vision and land use strategies to better protect the unique features of the Bellarine for current and future generations. It also provides the opportunity to designate long term settlement boundaries. The policy will be informed by strategic planning work already undertaken, relevant technical studies and outcomes from community engagement. The City considers the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes the most appropriate process to determine long term boundaries for the 6 Feb Bellarine. If long term boundaries are not 2020 - resolved, the City will need to determine long Identified Gareth term boundaries via a separate consultative Settlement by Council Smith process for the district towns with regard to 58 Strategy officers approved 75 Statement of Planning Policy.” 6 Feb 2020 - Identified Gareth In the first paragraph under the heading Settlement by Council Smith Defining the Boundary, change “should be 59 Strategy officers approved 75 based” to “should be largely based”. Identified 6 Feb Settlement by Council 2020 - Delete the third last dot point (commencing 60 Strategy officers Gareth 75 “establishing the timing …).

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 38

Clause/ Modification map/ No. to Source Date page Change Smith approved 6 Feb Add text after the list of dot points under the 2020 - heading Defining the Boundary that reflects the Identified Gareth principles set out in Council’s Part B Panel Settlement by Council Smith Submission for considering land through the 61 Strategy officers approved 75 logical inclusions process. 6 Feb Replace the second last paragraph under the 2020 - heading Defining the Boundary with the Identified Gareth following: Settlement by Council Smith “A long-term settlement boundary process 62 Strategy officers approved 75 should commence as soon as resources allow.” 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth Townships on the Bellarine Peninsula, 2nd last Settlement Panel Smith paragraph, last sentence: change “will impact” 63 Strategy submission approved 77 to “may impact”. 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth Settlement Panel Smith Delete direction d. under the Principle “Contain 64 Strategy submission approved 77 growth within …” Replace direction c. under the Principle “Maintain the unique …” with the following: 6 Feb “Work with the state government on the 2020 - Bellarine Peninsula Distinctive Areas and Gareth Landscapes process and the development of a Settlement Panel Smith Statement of Planning Policy for the Bellarine 65 Strategy submission approved 77 Peninsula.” 24 Sep Include reference to considering industry and Settlement Submission 2019 - infrastructure buffers in the Urban 66 Strategy 32 Council 78 Consolidation section Table 12, North Geelong station, Opportunity: revise to exclude land within Port Environs 24 Sep from investigation for expansion of Increased Settlement Submission 2019 - Housing Diversity Area or identification as Key 67 Strategy 90 Council 80 Development Area Under the Principle “Increase the role of urban 24 Sep consolidation as part of Geelong’s overall Settlement Submission 2019 - housing supply”, Direction c: change 68 Strategy 90 Council 84 “Breakwater” to “Waurn Ponds” Under the Principle “Articulate the preferred location for increased housing densities”, add 24 Sep the words “and mixed use development” after Settlement Submission 2019 - the words “train station environs to future 69 Strategy 14 Council 84 housing needs” 6 Feb 2020 - Identified Gareth In the Drawing Key, change “INDICATIVE Settlement by Council Smith PERMANENT SETTLEMENT BOUNDARY” to 70 Strategy officers approved 85 “SETTLEMENT BOUNDARY”. Identified 6 Feb In the Drawing Key, under DISTRICT TOWNS, Settlement by Council 2020 - change “EXISTING SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES” 71 Strategy officers Gareth 85 to “SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES”.

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 39

Clause/ Modification map/ No. to Source Date page Change Smith approved Change the Barwon Heads settlement 24 Sep boundary on the Overall Framework Plan in the Settlement Submission 2019 - Settlement Strategy to match that in Clause 72 Strategy 13 Council 85 21.14-10 and that proposed in Clause 21.06 Change the non-urban breaks on the Overall 24 Sep Framework Plan in the Settlement Strategy to Settlement Submission 2019 - match those proposed on the Housing and 73 Strategy 25 Council 85 Settlement Framework Plan in Clause 21.06 Amend the extent of land identified on the Overall Framework Plan as “Investigate 24 Sep opportunities for higher density in the rail Settlement Submission 2019 - corridor” by excluding land within the Port 74 Strategy 90 Council 85 Environs In addition to the single Housing and Settlement Framework Plan for the whole Identified 24 Sep municipality, include several segment maps Settlement by Council 2019 - covering smaller areas for clearer 75 Strategy officers Council 85 interpretation At the end of the Monitoring and Review section, but before the Principles and Directions, add a heading and text as follows:

“PLANNING FOR THE NEXT PHASE OF GROWTH

If Council’s regular demand and supply analysis make it clear that further land needs to be identified due to higher take-up or issues with delivering identified areas, consider the next phase of growth and update the strategy accordingly. Investigations should include consideration of the Boral Waurn Ponds site and amongst any other relevant factors have regard to substantial parcels contiguous with existing urban area, ability to integrate with 6 Feb existing and planned urban areas, excellent rail 2020 - and road access, cost effective servicing, Identified Gareth protection of productive farmland and Settlement by Council Smith significant landscapes, other land use needs 76 Strategy officers approved 88 and requirements for Geelong.” 12 Nov 2019 - Include a new introductory section with a Council heading "Role of the framework plan" that opening reads in accordance with the wording in Framework Various submissio Paragraph 107.2 at Pages 26 and 27 of Council's 77 Plan submissions n 5 Opening Submission 24 Sep Plan 5 – Clever and Creative Corridor: Delete Framework Submissions 2019 - 400 metre catchment from land between the 78 Plan 12, 58 Council 44 two growth areas Mark 18 Nov Plan 5 – Clever and Creative Corridor: Identify Framework Woodland 2019 - the key destinations that the Clever and 79 Plan evidence Part B 44 Creative Corridor is intended to link to,

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 40

Clause/ Modification map/ No. to Source Date page Change submissio including the Geelong CBD and key train n stations. Consider modifying the alignment of the Clever and Creative Corridor to accommodate revised 6 Feb Neighbourhood Activity Centre locations in the 2020 - Northern Geelong Growth Area. Gareth If the alignment is modified, revise all relevant Framework Panel Smith 44 (and maps and text in the Framework Plan 80 Plan submission approved others) accordingly. Include additional text in the Clever and Creative Corridor section to clarify how the land use framework along the Clever and 18 Nov Creative Corridor is expected to deliver an 2019 - urban density and land use mix that can sustain Mark Part B the level of public transport service needed to Framework Woodland submissio support public transport patronage in this 81 Plan evidence n 45 corridor. 7 Nov Revise the Clever and Creative Corridor section 2019 - (pages 45 to 53) by removing reference to Gareth specific reservation widths, except for Framework Submission Smith reference to the 14 metre median reserve, 82 Plan 55 approved 45-53 which is to be retained. Add the following text under the headings CLEVER AND CREATIVE CORRIDOR – INTERIM CONFIGURATION and CLEVER AND CREATIVE CORRIDOR – INTERIM CONFIGURATION:

“Design features are subject to further 6 Feb investigation and detailed planning at Precinct 2020 - Structure Plan stage. Further work may lead to Gareth variations in road profiles along the Clever and Framework Panel Smith 47, 49, Creative Corridor pending ultimate resolution 83 Plan submission approved 51, 53 of abutting land uses.” 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth Action N1.2.9, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: Framework Panel Smith Change “may be considered” to “will be 84 Plan submission approved 65 considered”. 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth Framework Panel Smith Action N1.3.3: Change “Corridors will be 85 Plan submission approved 67 located” to “Corridors may be located”. Biodiversity – Northern Geelong Growth Area: Action N1.3.7, second paragraph: change “securing offsets within the growth area” to 24 Sep “securing offsets in accordance with the Framework Submission 2019 - outcomes of the biodiversity conservation 86 Plan 55 Council 68 strategy” 8 Nov Environment - Northern Geelong Growth Area: 2019 - Reword Action N1.6.8 to read: "Land uses Gareth within 570 metres of the gas pipeline Framework Submissions Smith easement must be planned carefully to 87 Plan 4, 55 approved 83 minimise risk to community safety

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 41

Clause/ Modification map/ No. to Source Date page Change The siting of different land uses will have regard to the recommendations of a safety management strategy to be prepared as part of the relevant precinct structure plan process." Revise Plan 16 by adjusting the width of the 6 Feb Waterways designation on 30 Avonlea Road, 2020 - Bell Post Hill to better reflect the underlying Gareth background report. Framework Panel Smith 92 (and Revise Plans 2, 4, 5, 17, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 35, 88 Plan submission approved others) 36, 37, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51 accordingly. 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth Action W1.2.9, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: Framework Panel Smith Change “may be considered” to “will be 89 Plan submission approved 95 considered”. 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth Framework Panel Smith Action W1.3.3: Change “Corridors will be 90 Plan submission approved 98 located” to “Corridors may be located”. 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth Framework Panel Smith Action W1.3.3: Change “moment” to 91 Plan submission approved 98 “movement”. Biodiversity – Western Geelong Growth Area: Action W1.3.8, second paragraph: change “securing offsets within the growth area” to 24 Sep “securing offsets in accordance with the Framework Submission 2019 - outcomes of the biodiversity conservation 92 Plan 55 Council 99 strategy” 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth Plan 18 Drawing Key: Change “EXISTING Framework Submission Smith ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE” to “REGISTERED 93 Plan 16 approved 102 ABORIGINAL PLACES – SITE EXTENTS” Plan 19 – Post Contact Heritage – Western 24 Sep Geelong Growth Area: Delete HO 45 and most Framework Submissions 2019 - of HO 1740, in accordance with Amendment 94 Plan 1, 77 Council 106 C376 (Pt 2) 24 Sep Plan 20 – Built Environment – Western Geelong Framework Submission 2019 - Growth Area: Include Idyll Wines Co. winery on 95 Plan 47 Council 110 map 24 Sep Built Environment – Western Geelong Growth Framework Submission 2019 - Area - Context: 3rd last dot point: Change “a 96 Plan 47 Council 111 vineyard’ to “a winery” Plan 21 – Surrounding Areas – Western Geelong Growth Area: Change Plan 21 to show 24 Sep The Dog Rocks in the correct location, and the Framework Submission 2019 - land currently shown as The Dog Rocks as 97 Plan 60 Council 114 Agricultural, not Recreation Identified 24 Sep Framework by Council 2019 - Neighbourhood Design – Northern Geelong 98 Plan officers Council 123 Growth Area: Action N2.1.7, 2nd dot point:

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 42

Clause/ Modification map/ No. to Source Date page Change change “halves of these catchments” to “half of this catchment” Neighbourhood Sustainability – Northern Identified 24 Sep Geelong Growth Area: Third paragraph under Framework by Council 2019 - Context: change “Western Geelong Growth 99 Plan officers Council 128 Area” to “Northern Geelong Growth Area” Social Infrastructure – Northern Geelong Identified 24 Sep Growth Area: 2nd sentence of 2nd paragraph Framework by Council 2019 - under Context: change "Geelong's new" to 100 Plan officers Council 135 "Northern Geelong's new" 24 Sep Neighbourhood Amenity – Northern Geelong Framework Submission 2019 - Growth Area: Change 3rd dot point to “A mix of 101 Plan 55 Council 135 local, indigenous and exotic species” Neighbourhood Design – Western Geelong Identified 24 Sep Growth Area: Action W2.1.6, 2nd dot point: Framework by Council 2019 - change “halves of these catchments” to “half of 102 Plan officers Council 141 this catchment” 24 Sep Neighbourhood Amenity – Western Geelong Framework Submission 2019 - Growth Area: Change 3rd dot point to “A mix of 103 Plan 55 Council 144 local, indigenous and exotic species” Identified 24 Sep Housing – Western Geelong Growth Area: Framework by Council 2019 - Action W2.4.4 – 2nd paragraph: replace with 104 Plan officers Council 150 explanatory text relating to the action Plan 28: Replace the north-eastern Neighbourhood Activity Centre with two Neighbourhood Activity Centres, in accordance 6 Feb with expert evidence provided for Lovely Banks 2020 - Development Group. Gareth 162 Revise Plans 2, 3, 5, 23, 24, 29, 32, 33, 34, 41, Framework Panel Smith (and 42, 43, and 44, and any associated text 105 Plan submission approved others) accordingly. Identified 24 Sep Framework by Council 2019 - Activity Centres - Northern Geelong Growth 106 Plan officers Council 163 Area: Action N3.1.1: delete last dot point Identified 24 Sep Activity Centres – Northern Geelong Growth Framework by Council 2019 - Area: Add an action relating to local activity 107 Plan officers Council 167 centres for the Northern Geelong Growth Area Identified 24 Sep Employment – Western Geelong Growth Area: Framework by Council 2019 - Renumber Actions W3.2.2 to W3.2.4 as Actions 108 Plan officers Council 179 W3.2.1 to W3.2.3 respectively Identified 24 Sep Integrated Transport – Northern Geelong Framework by Council 2019 - Growth Area: Action N4.3.2 – 2nd last dot point: 109 Plan officers Council 194 delete reference to the Batesford township Plan 35 – Active Transport – Western Geelong 24 Sep Growth Area: Extend the shared path along Framework Submission 2019 - Friend in Hand Road south to Hamilton 110 Plan 90 Council 196 Highway Public Transport – Western Geelong Growth Identified 24 Sep Area: Change two references to “Northern Framework by Council 2019 - Geelong Growth Area” to “Western Geelong 111 Plan officers Council 201 Growth Area” Identified 24 Sep Framework by Council 2019 - Public Transport – Western Geelong Growth 112 Plan officers Council 201 Area: Under context, 5th dot point: change

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 43

Clause/ Modification map/ No. to Source Date page Change “Creamery Road” to “Rollins Road and Braund Avenue” 6 Feb Action W4.2.5: In the first paragraph (bold 2020 - font), change “ and Cowies Creek corridors and Gareth Batesford Quarry” to “, Barwon River and Framework Panel Smith Cowies Creek corridors, Batesford Quarry and 113 Plan submission approved 203 the Geelong Ring Road”. 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth Action W4.2.5: In the second paragraph, Framework Panel Smith change “ and quarry” to “, quarry and Geelong 114 Plan submission approved 203 Ring Road”. 6 Feb 2020 - Gareth In the fifth paragraph (commencing “The Clever Framework Panel Smith …”, change “short, medium and long term 115 Plan submission approved 212 precincts” to “new growth areas”. Utilities and Infrastructure – Northern Geelong Growth Area: Include a statement of limitations explaining that the precinct concept plans at pages 222-229 are only intended to 18 Nov show the potential combination of land uses 2019 - and infrastructure requirements that need to Mark Part B be addressed at the PSP stage, and that the Framework Woodland submissio plans do not represent a final or preferred 116 Plan evidence n 215 urban structure for the precinct Utilities and Infrastructure – Northern Geelong Growth Area: Include a statement of 18 Nov limitations explaining that the purpose of the 2019 - Precinct Infrastructure Requirements at pages Mark Part B 222-229 is to identify the broad infrastructure Framework Woodland submissio needs for each precinct, but that these will be 117 Plan evidence n 215 refined as each PSP is prepared Identified 24 Sep Utilities and Infrastructure – Northern Geelong Framework by Council 2019 - Growth Area: Change Action N5.1.5 to reflect 118 Plan officers Council 217 Action W5.1.5 and adjust N5.1.4 accordingly Delivery - Northern Geelong Growth Area: Include the following additional factors in Action N5.2.1: * Whether the precinct will enable the staged extension of infrastructure networks in a way that minimizes the real cost of infrastructure provisions * Whether or not a precinct subject to major constraints or uncertainties that could delay development and are of a size and with a pattern of land ownership that is likely to result in a substantial and predictable yield of housing 18 Nov and/or industrial land 2019 - * Whether a precinct's development will Mark Part B support the effective and early development of Framework Woodland submissio public transport infrastructure, town centres 119 Plan evidence n 220 and employment precincts

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 44

Clause/ Modification map/ No. to Source Date page Change In Actions N5.2.1 and W5.2.1, replace the dot points with the following: “ * The City of Greater Geelong Settlement Strategy. * Development sequencing set out in the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan. * The need to maintain an adequate supply of urban land. * Third party funding agreements with land developers to undertake technical studies. * Whether the precinct will enable the staged extension of infrastructure networks in a way that minimises the real cost of infrastructure provision. * Whether or not a precinct is subject to major constraints or uncertainties that is likely to delay development. * Whether or not the precinct is of a size that is likely to result in a substantial and predictable development yield. * The pattern of land ownership and the potential for multiple landowners to co- ordinate the planning and development of the 6 Feb precinct. 2020 - * Whether a precinct’s development will Gareth support the effective and early development of Framework Panel Smith 220, public transport infrastructure, town centre 120 Plan submission approved 236 and employment precincts.” 223, 223, 225, Add the following additional note at the foot of 227, each page after the note “* Infrastructure 229, required to support multiple precincts”: 6 Feb 239, 2020 - 242, “Infrastructure requirements will be refined as Identified Gareth 243, part of the Precinct Structure Plan process.” Framework by Council Smith 245, 121 Plan officers approved 247 Identified 24 Sep Integrated Transport – Western Geelong Framework by Council 2019 - Growth Area: Action W4.3.2, 6th dot point: 122 Plan officers Council 226 delete “and within the Batesford township” Delivery – Heales Road West PSP: Change “One integrated children’s centres” to “One Identified 24 Sep integrated children’s centre”; and change “One Framework by Council 2019 - long day child care centres” to “one long day 123 Plan officers Council 227 child care centre” Utilities and Infrastructure – Western Geelong 18 Nov Growth Area: Include a statement of 2019 - limitations explaining that the precinct concept Mark Part B plans at pages 238-248 are only intended to Framework Woodland submissio show the potential combination of land uses 124 Plan evidence n 231 and infrastructure requirements that need to

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 45

Clause/ Modification map/ No. to Source Date page Change be addressed at the PSP stage, and that the plans do not represent a final or preferred urban structure for the precinct Utilities and Infrastructure – Western Geelong Growth Area: Include a statement of 18 Nov limitations explaining that the purpose of the 2019 - Precinct Infrastructure Requirements at pages Mark Part B 238-248 is to identify the broad infrastructure Framework Woodland submissio needs for each precinct, but that these will be 125 Plan evidence n 231 refined as each PSP is prepared 7 Nov 2019 - Gareth Change the south-eastern boundary of the Framework Submission Smith McCanns Lane precinct as shown on the 126 Plan 60 approved 234 attached plans. Delivery - Western Geelong Growth Area: Include the following additional factors in Action W5.2.1: * Whether the precinct will enable the staged extension of infrastructure networks in a way that minimizes the real cost of infrastructure provisions * Whether or not a precinct subject to major constraints or uncertainties that could delay development and are of a size and with a pattern of land ownership that is likely to result in a substantial and predictable yield of housing 18 Nov and/or industrial land 2019 - * Whether a precinct's development will Mark Part B support the effective and early development of Framework Woodland submissio public transport infrastructure, town centres 127 Plan evidence n 236 and employment precincts 6 Feb 2020 - Add the following point under Integrated Gareth transport infrastructure: “Upgrade the Framework Panel Smith Creamery Road flyover of the Geelong Ring 128 Plan submission approved 239 Road.” Identified 24 Sep Delivery – Batesford North PSP: Change “One Framework by Council 2019 - integrated children’s centres” to “One 129 Plan officers Council 241 integrated children’s centre” Identified 24 Sep Delivery – McCanns Lane PSP: Change “One Framework by Council 2019 - long day child care centres” to “one long day 130 Plan officers Council 243 child care centre” Identified 24 Sep Delivery – Batesford South PSP: Change “One Framework by Council 2019 - integrated children’s centres” to “One 131 Plan officers Council 247 integrated children’s centre”

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 46

Attachment 7 - Panel Recommendations and City Response No. Panel Recommendation City Response Reference Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395 Agreed. Adopt Greater Geelong Planning 1 Refer to Scheme Amendment C395ggee as Attachment 8 exhibited subject to the changes recommended in this report.

2 Revise the Settlement Strategy to Agreed. Refer to clearly articulate that for the Bellarine p.75 - The text under the heading Distinctive revised Peninsula, the process to finalise an Areas and Landscapes has been replaced Settlement enduring boundary for Geelong will with the following, to reflect the current Strategy on be: status of the project: C395 website • Secured by the DAL program; and • If not addressed by the DAL, “On 29 October 2019 the Bellarine Peninsula through the proposed review of was declared a Distinctive Area and structure plans; or Landscape under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This declaration • Where no Structure Plan review is triggers the requirement to prepare a proposed in the near future, then the Statement of Planning Policy by October logical inclusions process as described 2020. in the Settlement Strategy. The Statement of Planning Policy will include

a 50-year vision and land use strategies to better protect the unique features of the Bellarine for current and future generations. It also provides the opportunity to designate long term settlement boundaries. The policy will be informed by strategic planning work already undertaken, relevant technical studies and outcomes from community engagement. The City considers the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes the most appropriate process to determine long term boundaries for the Bellarine. If long term boundaries are not resolved, the City will need to determine long term boundaries via a separate consultative process for the district towns with regard to Statement of Planning Policy.”

Agreed. Council consider revising the 3 Refer to Settlement Strategy to identify the The following wording has been added to the revised Boral land as an ‘Investigation Area’ Settlement Strategy: Settlement for future urban development. Strategy on “PLANNING FOR THE NEXT PHASE OF C395 website GROWTH If Council’s regular demand and supply analysis make it clear that further land needs to be identified due to higher take-up or issues with delivering identified areas, consider the next phase of growth and update the strategy accordingly.

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 47

No. Panel Recommendation City Response Reference Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395

Investigations should include consideration of the Boral Waurn Ponds site and amongst any other relevant factors have regard to substantial parcels contiguous with existing urban area, ability to integrate with existing and planned urban areas, excellent rail and road access, cost effective servicing, protection of productive farmland and significant landscapes, other land use needs and requirements for Geelong.”

Add a preamble to the North and Agreed. 4 Refer to Western Geelong Growth Areas The following text has been inserted taken revised Framework Plan (March 2019) to: from p.26,27 of Council’s opening Framework • clearly state its purpose submission with addition of 2 paragraphs Plan on C395 highlighted grey to reflect the Panel rec. website • provide flexibility in its interpretation in the next stages of Role of the framework plan the planning process The Northern and Western Geelong Growth • confirm that the Precinct Structure Areas Framework Plan is a high-level Plans included in the Framework Plan strategic document that describes are concept plans only that will be considerations related to future urban subject to change through the development in the growth areas. process of preparing Precinct The Framework Plan acts as a background Structure Plans for the precincts in document and should be interpreted in that the Northern and Western Geelong light. It provides flexibility in its Growth Areas. interpretation in the next stages of the planning process. The framework plan describes the existing site context of the growth areas and outlines a vision and set of urban development objectives and actions to inform the subsequent detailed preparation of precinct structure plans (PSPs). The framework plan proposes the sequential preparation of nine PSPs. Each PSP provides the basis for localised urban development and investment and will further consider and incorporate relevant directions outlined in this framework plan. Each PSP will elaborate on the framework plan by adding important land uses that support the local community such as local roads, schools, community facilities and open space not included at this preliminary level of planning. Preparation of each PSP will be the subject of further detailed technical investigations and reports specific to that precinct. A separate planning scheme amendment will facilitate the detailed future urban structure and infrastructure requirements of the precincts.

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 48

No. Panel Recommendation City Response Reference Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395 The location and extent of some features (e.g. road network, waterways and activity centres) depicted in plan set of the framework plan are accordingly illustrative or enlarged with the intent that they will be refined or amended as part of the preparation of each PSP. The framework plan summarises existing technical investigations that provide a preliminary basis for the preparation of each PSP. It is important to ensure that the preparation of the PSP allows for the consideration and adoption of new technical information that may provide increased benefits to the future community. Concept Precinct Structure Plans at pages 226-233 and 242-252 of this Framework Plan are only concept plans and will be subject to change through the process of preparing Precinct Structure Plans for the precincts in the growth areas.

Agreed. Amend the exhibited Clause 21.20 by 5 Refer to adopting the changes proposed by Clause 21.20 Council as set out in Document 245 to Attachment 8 the Hearing with the deletion of the last dot point under Clause 21.20-3 Strategies.

Agreed 6 In relation to the transport network: Recs 6a)-6d) a) Retain the 14 metre wide All the recommended changes have been refer to reservation for the Clever and addressed with changes made to the revised Creative Corridor in the North and Framework Plan. Framework Western Geelong Growth Areas Plan on C395 Framework Plan. In relation to 6 g) Evans Road has been website reviewed but it is too early to clarify which b) Remove the measurement details sections will eb duplicated rather than just Rec 6e) for the Clever and Creative Corridor upgraded, as a result no change has been change also from the North and Western Geelong made in response to this Recommendation. made to Growth Areas Framework Plan. Clause 21.20

c) Add a description to the Clever and map – see Creative Corridor section in the North Attachment 8 and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan to make it clear that the interim and ultimate configurations of the Clever and Creative Corridor as described and depicted in the North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan are conceptual only and there will be variability in the abutting land

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 49

No. Panel Recommendation City Response Reference Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395 uses and development as determined through the preparation of the Precinct Structure Plans. d) Add an annotation to the Framework Plan map to state that the alignments shown for the road network are indicative and may be subject to change following further analysis and assessment at the Precinct Structure Plan preparation stage, or words to that affect. e) Amend the description of the symbol shown on the North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan map with respect to the Creamery Road upgrade to clarify that the upgrade will not include an interchange with the Geelong Ring Road. f) Retain the classification of Evans Road as an arterial road between the two growth areas on the North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan. g) Review the references to Evans Road in the North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan to clarify which parts of Evans Road will be duplicated rather than just upgraded.

Agreed. Refer to 7 Amend the North and Western revised Geelong Growth Areas Framework Framework Plan in the Northern Geelong Growth Plan on C395 Area to change the location of the website subregional activity centre and split & Clause the neighbourhood centre into two 21.20 map in centres as proposed by the Lovely Attachment 8 Banks Development Group.

Agreed. 8 Make any subsequent necessary Refer to changes to North and Western revised Geelong Growth Areas Framework Framework Plan background document arising Plan on C395 from Recommendation 7. website

Agreed. 9 Add the following strategy to Clause Refer to 21.20-3: Clause 21.20 • Undertake a detailed biodiversity assessment prior to any Precinct

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 50

No. Panel Recommendation City Response Reference Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395 Structure Plan being approved, that map in ensures that Commonwealth, State Attachment 8 and local protection of high value biodiversity assets is reflected in strategic and statutory planning.

Agreed. 10 Revise the text on Plan 12 to say: Refer to

• LEMMP (1,000 metre default buffer, revised subject to technical confirmation). Framework Plan on C395

website

Revise the first bullet point under Agreed. 11 Action N.1.7.7 to say: Refer to

revised • default buffer of 1,000 metres to Framework the Lara Energetic Material Plan on C395 Manufacturing Plant, subject to website technical confirmation.

Agreed. 12 Revise the text under the Action Refer to N.1.7.7 to say: revised • No additional sensitive land uses, Framework including residential development Plan on C395 and community facilities, will be website permitted within these buffers. At the

time of the preparation of the PSP the buffers should be reviewed to determine accurate, evidence-based buffers. Revise the Northern and Western Agreed. 13 Geelong Growth Area Framework Refer to

Plan, Settlement Strategy and Attachment 8 Amendment documentation as and the relevant in accordance with: revised a) The City of Greater Geelong Settlement changes as shown in Appendix D to Strategy and this report; and Framework b) The revised planning scheme Plan on the ordinance shown in documents 238 - C395 website 246 of the Hearing tabled documents; but c) 13a) and 13b) above modified as relevant by the recommendations in this report.

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 51

Attachment 8 - Amendment for Adoption

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 52

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 53

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 54

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 55

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 56

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee Settlement Strategy and Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan

14 May 2020

How will this report be used? This is a brief description of how this report will be used for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the planning system. If you have concerns about a specific issue you should seek independent advice. The planning authority must consider this report before deciding whether or not to adopt the Amendment. [section 27(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act)] For the Amendment to proceed, it must be adopted by the planning authority and then sent to the Minister for Planning for approval. The planning authority is not obliged to follow the recommendations of the Panel, but it must give its reasons if it does not follow the recommendations. [section 31 (1) of the Act, and section 9 of the Planning and Environment Regulations 2015] If approved by the Minister for Planning a formal change will be made to the planning scheme. Notice of approval of the Amendment will be published in the Government Gazette. [section 37 of the Act]

The Panel would like to acknowledge the recent passing of Mr Phil Bisset of Minter Ellison Lawyers. Mr Bisset was an advocate before this Panel and a long-term advocate in front of Planning Panels. Mr Bisset was known for his intellect, good humour and an advocate who truly knew how to balance the needs of his clients with his duty to a Panel. He will be sorely missed in the planning and legal community.

Planning and Environment Act 1987 section 25 Panel Report Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggeeggee Settlement Strategy and Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan 14 May 202020

Nick Wimbush, Chair John Hartigan, Member

Deanne Smith, Member

Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Contents Page 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 The Amendment ...... 1 1.2 Procedural issues ...... 5 1.3 Summary of issues raised in submissions ...... 7 1.4 The Panel’s approach ...... 10 2 Planning context and strategic justification ...... 11 2.1 Introduction ...... 11 2.2 Objectives of planning in Victoria ...... 11 2.3 Planning policy framework ...... 11 2.4 Planning scheme provisions ...... 14 2.5 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes ...... 14 2.6 Conclusions and recommendation ...... 18 3 Population growth and land supply ...... 19 4 Settlement Strategy – general issues ...... 22 4.1 Introduction and overview ...... 22 4.2 Settlement boundaries – Bellarine Peninsula ...... 22 4.3 Settlement boundaries – other areas ...... 31 4.4 Logical inclusions process ...... 34 5 Settlement Strategy – strategic land holdings ...... 39 5.1 Settlement boundaries – Boral land ...... 39 5.2 Settlement boundaries – Western Industrial Precinct ...... 42 6 Growth Area Framework Plan ...... 45 6.1 Introduction ...... 45 6.2 Planning process ...... 45 6.3 Precinct boundaries ...... 51 6.4 Development sequencing ...... 61 6.5 Development contributions ...... 62 6.6 Transport network ...... 68 6.7 Activity centres ...... 83 6.8 Integrated water management ...... 86 6.9 Ecology...... 89 6.10 Major Hazard Facility ...... 92 6.11 Anakie Extractive Industry Interest Area ...... 94 7 Retail issues ...... 96 8 The Amendment provisions ...... 98 8.1 General drafting issues ...... 98 8.2 Changes agreed to by Council ...... 98

Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

8.3 Final form of planning scheme ordinance ...... 98 8.4 Discussion and conclusions ...... 98 8.5 Recommendations...... 99

Appendix A Submitters Appendix B Appearances in heard order Appendix C Document list Appendix D Council’s proposed changes to the Amendment

List of Tables Page Table 1 Scenario growth rates ...... 19

List of Figures Page Figure 1 Housing Framework Plan - 2036 ...... 3 Figure 2 Future Urban Structure ...... 4 Figure 3 Bellarine Peninsula DAL Area ...... 16 Figure 4 Surf Coast DAL Area ...... 17 Figure 5 Clever and Creative Corridor ...... 70

Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Glossary and abbreviations

ABCL Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd Act Planning and Environment Act 1987 ACUGA Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area ACUGP Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan Boral Boral Ltd and Blue Circle Southern Cement Ltd CCC Clever and Creative Corridor Chemring Chemring Australia Council City of Greater Geelong DAL Distinctive Areas and Landscapes DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning DFC DFC Services Pty Ltd Framework Plan Growth Areas Framework Plan Geelong Solid Waste Geelong Solid Waste Materials Receival and Processing Pty Ltd GGATS Geelong Growth Areas Transport Infrastructure Strategy GRZ General Residential Zone Lascorp Lascorp Development Group LBDG Lovely Banks Development Group L Bisinella L Bisinella Development LEMMP Lara Energetic Materials Manufacturing Plant Lexnorm Lexnorm Investments) MDD Mount Duneed Developments MHF Major Hazard Facility NGGA Northern Geelong Growth Area NRZ Neighbourhood Residential Zone NWGGA Northern and Western Geelong Growth Area PPF Planning Policy Framework PSP Precinct Structure Plan Purdies Purdies Paddock Pty Ltd Ramsay Ramsay Property Group RGZ Residential Growth Zone

Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Riverlee Riverlee Heights RLZ Rural Living Zone Shell Road Shell Road Developments SPP Statement of Planning Policy Strategy Settlement Strategy SUZ Special Use Zone UGZ Urban Growth Zone VCAT Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal VPA Victorian Planning Authority VPP Victoria Planning Provisions Wallington Group Wallington Group of Landowners WGGA Western Geelong Growth Area WIP Western Industrial Precinct

Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Overview

Amendment summary The Amendment Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggeeggee Common name Settlement Strategy and Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan Brief description Implement the City of Greater Geelong’s Settlement Strategy (2018) and Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan (2019) into the planning scheme Subject land All land in the municipality with specific policy affecting the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas The Proponent City of Greater Geelong Planning Authority City of Greater Geelong Authorisation Authorisation was provided on 31 May 2019 with conditions relating to: • Coordinating with the DAL project • Native vegetation and biodiversity in the growth areas • Local Planning Policy Framework translation Exhibition 23 June to 29 July 2019 Submissions A total of 102 submissions were received during the exhibition period. Of these, 61 submissions related to the Framework Plan and 27 to the Settlement Strategy, and 14 to both. Seven submissions supported the Amendment, with the remaining requesting changes or making objections. A full list of submitters is attached in Appendix A

Panel process The Panel Nick Wimbush (Chair), John Hartigan and Deanne Smith Directions Hearing City Hall, Geelong, 14 October 2019 Panel Hearing Geelong (City Hall or Library) - 12, 13, 14, 18, 19 November 2019 - 12, 13, 14 February 2020 Melbourne (Planning Panels Victoria) - 20, 25, 26, 27 November 2019 - 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21 December 2019 - 28, 30, 31 January 2020 - 3, 10, 11 February 2020 - 16, 18 March 2020

Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Site inspections Accompanied on 15 November 2019 (Council organised bus tour of whole Amendment area). Accompanied (limited numbers) on 20 February 2020 of the Lovely Banks Development Group and Boral holdings. Numerous unaccompanied inspections of various parts of the Amendment area as a Panel and individual members. Appearances See Appendix B Citation Greater Geelong PSA C395ggee [2020] PPV Date of this Report 14 May 2020

Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Executive summary

(i) COVID-19 The COVID-19 virus sent the Victorian, national and global community into lockdown in early 2020. The last Hearing day for this Amendment, Day 28, was held in an environment where a limited number of advocates, an expert and the Panel socially distanced in Hearing Room 1 at Planning Panels Victoria while another advocate already locked down participated by video link. The Panel has no more insight than anyone into what Victoria and the Geelong community will be like in a post COVID-19 world, or even when that will occur. The Panel has based its considerations, as it must, on the pre-COVID-19 world and matters brought before it at that time. Whatever the future implications for Geelong, the Panel is satisfied that the enormous work done to date leading to this Amendment will form a critical and well-founded platform for Geelong’s future.

(ii) The Amendment Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee (the Amendment) has two major components; to implement the Geelong-wide Settlement Strategy (the Strategy) and the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan (the Framework Plan) into the planning scheme. The Amendment implements a 20 year plan for Geelong to cater for a very significant population increase. The Panel commends Councils for taking a visionary approach to growth area and settlement planning to accommodate the growth in a logical planned manner.

(iii) Submissions The Amendment was exhibited in mid-2019 and attracted 102 submissions. A significant number of submissions on the Strategy were concerned with the ‘pivot’ in policy of some Bellarine settlements from growth centres to more limited development opportunities and the setting of ‘permanent’ town boundaries. Other submissions supported this approach. Other major landowners saw the Strategy as an avenue to press their claims for inclusion of land parcels within the short to medium term growth picture for Geelong. The Framework Plan generally received strong high-level support in submissions, with the provision of two large growth areas that will provide the bulk of Geelong’s medium-long term growth, and with infill development taking over the housing provision load from Armstrong Creek. A small number of submitters objected to the growth areas. Many submitters on the Framework Plan were landowners interested in the development of the growth areas, either via expedited timing for their holdings, or raising issues around the planning for development such as infrastructure funding and development sequencing. Nearly all if not all of these submitters were strongly in support of the Amendment but have sought through the Panel process to make significant ‘tweaks’ to the Amendment via changes to wording in the Framework Plan or its translation into the planning scheme.

Page i of vii Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Very few submissions if any called for the abandonment of the Amendment as a whole, testament to the strategic planning work that Council has put into the Amendment over the past several years.

(iv) The Panel Hearing The Panel held 28 days of Hearing in Geelong and Melbourne and undertook two accompanied site inspections and numerous unaccompanied inspections. Because of the scale of the Amendment the Hearings were complex and many of the submitters were landowners represented by legal advocates and calling expert evidence. More than 50 pieces of expert evidence were called in traffic engineering, planning, infrastructure planning, stormwater management, ecology, noise, dust, economics and land supply. In addition, a small number of concerned individual submitters expressed their views in support of, or opposition to, particular parts of the Amendment.

(v) Panel findings - Settlement Strategy The Strategy is aimed at looking at the totality of Geelong and directing at a strategic level where future growth will occur. This includes a policy ‘pivot’ from providing growth areas in some Bellarine Peninsula towns (primarily Ocean Grove and Leopold) and directing this growth to the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas (NWGGA) and the continuing development of Armstrong Creek. In addition to this significant policy change from Council, the State Government has declared the Bellarine and Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscapes (DAL) under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Part 3AAB). The declarations occurred in mid-late 2019 and a State policy development process is underway. The Panel considers that the conscious policy change away from further significant urban growth on the Peninsula is a choice Council has made; it is not for the Panel to interrogate this choice in principle. The change, in conjunction with the provision of significant new growth areas in the west and north, makes a powerful case for Council having an overall plan to accommodate growth. The DAL declaration and planning process has been developed and implemented by the State Government. It is not for the Panel to challenge or question this process. The big area of contention behind the Council policy ‘pivot’ and the DAL process is not so much the question in principle of whether there should be eventual township boundaries to limit growth on the Bellarine, but rather where those boundaries should be. One school of thought in submissions suggests township boundaries should be closely tied to existing residential zoned land or land already identified in the planning scheme as suitable for rezoning. The other school of thought in submissions, unsurprisingly often advanced by landholders with existing development interests on the edge of Bellarine towns, is that if an eventual town boundary is proposed, the identification of such boundaries should provide the opportunity to bring in additional land on the edges of existing towns for inclusion in the ‘final’ town boundary. For an Amendment that does not set any town boundaries, the Panel has felt significant pressure to make findings on the issue in principle and even on particular landholdings as to

Page ii of vii Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

whether they should be ‘in’ or ‘out’ of eventual town boundaries. This of course it has not been tempted to do; that would be straying far outside of its remit. The Panel does however consider that at the planning principles level, and this is explicit in some parts of the planning scheme such as for Ocean Grove, that this further review prior to the ‘locking down’ of town boundaries should be considered. This is not an explicit or implicit endorsement of any particular submission requesting inclusion in a Bellarine township boundary. Rather it is expressing the view that some form of review should be undertaken for Bellarine townships, whether through the DAL process or structure plans as envisaged in the planning scheme. It is neither fair, nor sound planning, to ‘shut the gate’ at a particular point of time without a logical review of what is inside or outside the paddock at the point in time when the gate shuts. For other parts of Geelong addressed in the Strategy, the Panel considers these can be broken down into a ‘logical inclusions’ process and a ‘strategic landholdings’ group. In the former the Panel considers there are a number of parcels that have been identified in submissions, and probably others, that could be included in the urban area in the Strategy, and there are a number of examples discussed later in the report where it would seem to make sense and be sound planning to include them within the urban area. Again, the Panel does not try to pick ‘winners and losers’ but supports such a process being undertaken. The ‘strategic landholdings group’ as termed by the Panel includes the Western Industrial Precinct (WIP) within Armstrong Creek and the Boral landholding further west. These are very significant landholdings which the Panel considers will have an important part to play in the future growth and development of Geelong. The WIP clearly needs to be considered within the broader picture of Armstrong Creek and Geelong’s growth. A large portion of the WIP is in a single ownership, and the owners expressed a strong desire to consider an urban residential, rather than industrial, future. The Panel notes the submissions on this land but considers it is in no stronger a position than to note the submission for future consideration. Changing the future land use for such a major parcel of land will require a specific investigation. The significant land holdings owned by Boral in Waurn Ponds appear to the Panel to be a strategic land resource for the future of Geelong that will require careful planning, and perhaps in conjunction with the future land use in the WIP. The Panel is satisfied that the medium to long term future of the land is not in the quarry resource, but rather as an alternative, higher economic value land use, probably including urban uses. The Panel considers that such future land use planning is in its infancy and given Council’s measured strategic approach to growth area planning, the ‘bringing on’ of this land should be undertaken carefully and strategically. The Panel has thus recommended that the Boral land be identified at a high level for potential future urban growth, but no more strongly than this, and with no great imperative to bring the land forward for development with a sense of urgency.

Page iii of vii Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

(vi) Panel findings - Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan There was strong support for the work Council has undertaken in bringing the NWGGA forward for planning and development. As discussed above a number of submitters made strong representations to the Panel about development sequencing and timing and infrastructure funding amongst others. Many of these issues are appropriately addressed at the Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) stage and the detail of infrastructure provision, road alignments and so on will be debated and finalised through those processes. Whilst the Framework Plan does provide a higher level of apparent detailed design, including ‘draft’ PSPs, the Panel considers that provided the reference to the Framework Plan allows appropriate flexibility to make changes where it is warranted in PSPs then this should not be a major impediment to growth area planning and development. The Panel understands the sequencing of PSPs that has been proposed in the Framework Plan by Council and notes it is based on a logical, ordered process for providing growth areas, and one that can be accelerated if growth occurs faster than planned. The Panel considers however that while the sequencing proposed may be a good starting point, there should be flexibility in PSP preparation and implementation to allow different arrangements to come forward when it is shown there is potential for a superior outcome. The Panel has not attempted to devise its own sequencing scheme based on submissions, as that would merely be a different approach, and not necessarily superior. The Panel has however based on submissions, attempted to recommend a more flexible approach to determine the final precincts and PSP sequencing. A major issue that will be critical for the success of the growth areas is infrastructure funding and apportionment of large-scale infrastructure projects across many PSP areas within the two growth areas. It would seem to the Panel that there is merit in a layered scheme to fund large scale (expensive) projects across a whole growth area, possibly including state funding, and then having a more traditional precinct scale DCP or ICP to fund the precinct specific infrastructure. The Panel has not strongly concluded that there is one perfect answer but after considering submissions does conclude that it is vital that flexibility is retained to enable further consideration of options for funding infrastructure. In its view, the proposed planning scheme ordinance (at Clause 21-08) does provide sufficient flexibility and does not, for example, preclude the adoption of a global ICP/DCP for the growth areas should further work in progress demonstrate that such an approach is the best way to fund and deliver key infrastructure. The Clever and Creative Corridor (CCC) concept was generally supported by submitter landowners with some reservations as to detail. In the Western Geelong Growth Area (WGGA) it was suggested that the CCC should be placed west of the Batesford Quarry. The Panel has not accepted that submission. Activity centre locations attracted numerous submissions. In response to these Council has agreed to some changes to activity centre number and location in the Northern Geelong Growth Area (NGGA) which the Panel supports.

Page iv of vii Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

(vii) The Settlement Strategy and Framework Plan documents Many submitters to the Strategy and Framework Plan sought to have the Panel redraft the documents or at the least recommend the inclusion of specific wording. The Panel has generally avoided this approach. Rather it provides recommendations that should help Council redrafting. The Panel is aware that the documents have been drafted over many years by teams of Council staff and consultants and trying to ‘remake them in our own image’ would be a difficult task within the timeframes expected of a Panel to report. More than this for every specific change made or recommended, there would be many others missed and it would, the Panel believes, be a most unsatisfactory exercise for all concerned. Where the Panel considers critical changes to the documents need to be made, recommendations have been made, even if the detailed drafting is not included.

(viii) Overall conclusions The Panel concludes: • Geelong has undergone a sustained period of high population growth which is predicted to continue • The Amendment is a well thought out and visionary response to logically cater for this predicted growth • Whilst there were some outright objections and many requests for changes, the Panel considers there is a high level of support for the overall direction of the Amendment, and particularly the Framework Plan • The refocusing of long-term growth away from the Bellarine Peninsula is a conscious policy decision of Council and the State Government; implementation of this policy requires some further consideration of long term or permanent settlement boundaries • Subject to addressing some issues of principle and detail, the Panel strongly supports the Amendment. Recommendations Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends: 1. Adopt Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee as exhibited subject to the changes recommended in this report. Settlement Strategy Revise the Settlement Strategy to clearly articulate that for the Bellarine Peninsula, the process to finalise an enduring boundary for Geelong will be: • Secured by the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes program; and • If not addressed by the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes, through the proposed review of structure plans; or • Where no Structure Plan review is proposed in the near future, then the logical inclusions process as described in the Settlement Strategy. Council consider revising the Settlement Strategy to identify the Boral land as an ‘Investigation Area’ for future urban development.

Page v of vii Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Add a preamble to the North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan (March 2019) to: • clearly state its purpose • provide flexibility in its interpretation in the next stages of the planning process • confirm that the Precinct Structure Plans included in the Framework Plan are concept plans only that will be subject to change through the process of preparing Precinct Structure Plans for the precincts in the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas. Amend the exhibited Clause 21.20 by adopting the changes proposed by Council as set out in Document 245 to the Hearing with the deletion of the last dot point under Clause 21.20-3 Strategies. In relation to the transport network: a) Retain the 14 metre wide reservation for the Clever and Creative Corridor in the North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan b) Remove the measurement details for the Clever and Creative Corridor from the North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan c) Add a description to the Clever and Creative Corridor section in the North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan to make it clear that the interim and ultimate configurations of the Clever and Creative Corridor as described and depicted in the North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan are conceptual only and there will be variability in the abutting land uses and development as determined through the preparation of the Precinct Structure Plans d) Add an annotation to the Framework Plan map to state that the alignments shown for the road network are indicative and may be subject to change following further analysis and assessment at the Precinct Structure Plan preparation stage, or words to that affect e) Amend the description of the symbol shown on the North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan map with respect to the Creamery Road upgrade to clarify that the upgrade will not include an interchange with the Geelong Ring Road f) Retain the classification of Evans Road as an arterial road between the two growth areas on the North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan g) Review the references to Evans Road in the North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan to clarify which parts of Evans Road will be duplicated rather than just upgraded. Amend the North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan in the Northern Geelong Growth Area to change the location of the subregional activity centre and split the neighbourhood centre into two centres as proposed by the Lovely Banks Development Group.

Page vi of vii Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Make any subsequent necessary changes to North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan background document arising from Recommendation 7. Add the following strategy to Clause 21.20-3: • Undertake a detailed biodiversity assessment prior to any Precinct Structure Plan being approved, that ensures that Commonwealth, State and local protection of high value biodiversity assets is reflected in strategic and statutory planning. Revise the text on Plan 12 to say: • LEMMP (1,000 metre default buffer, subject to technical confirmation). Revise the first bullet point under Action N.1.7.7 to say: • A default buffer of 1,000 metres to the Lara Energetic Material Manufacturing Plant, subject to technical confirmation. Revise the text under the Action N.1.7.7 to say: • No additional sensitive land uses, including residential development and community facilities, will be permitted within these buffers. At the time of the preparation of the PSP the buffers should be reviewed to determine accurate, evidence-based buffers. Amendment documentation Revise the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Area Framework Plan, Settlement Strategy and Amendment documentation as relevant in accordance with: a) The City of Greater Geelong changes as shown in Appendix D to this report; and b) The revised planning scheme ordinance shown in documents 238 - 246 of the Hearing tabled documents; but c) 13a) and 13b) above modified as relevant by the recommendations in this report.

Page vii of vii Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

1 Introduction

1.1 The Amendment

(i) Amendment description Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee (the Amendment) seeks to accommodate predicted very significant population growth, to ensure future growth and development occurs in a staged and orderly manner. The Amendment includes the City of Greater Geelong’s (Council) Settlement Strategy (the Strategy) and Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan (the Framework Plan) in the planning scheme. Specifically, the Amendment proposes: • Amend Clause 21.03 Objectives - Strategies – Implementation to include reference to 21.18 Corio Norlane and 21.20 Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas. • Replace Clause 21.04 Municipal Framework Plan with a new Clause 21.04 to implement the Strategy through a new Municipal Framework Plan. • Replace Clause 21.06 Settlement and Housing with a new clause including objectives, strategies and references to implement the Settlement Strategy. • Amend Clause 21.08 Development and Community Infrastructure to update strategies on Transport and Development Contributions to implement the Strategy. • Amend Clause 21.11 Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area to reflect the role of the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas. • Amend Clause 21.14 The Bellarine Peninsula to update objectives, strategies, further work and references to implement the Strategy. • Amend Clause 21.16 Anakie to implement the Strategy by amending objectives and strategies, deleting reference to the Anakie Structure Plan 1996 and replacing the map. • Insert a new Clause 21.20 Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas including new objectives, strategies, references and plans to implement the Framework Plan. • Replace the Schedule to Clause 72.08 Background Documents with a new Schedule that includes the City of Greater Geelong’s Settlement Strategy (2018) and Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan (2019). • Rezone areas of land in the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas from Rural Living Zone, Farming Zone, Public Park and Recreation Zone and Industrial 1 Zone to Urban Growth Zone.

(ii) Settlement Strategy (2018) The Strategy addresses the City of Greater Geelong’s municipal housing needs until 2036. Strong population growth has informed policy that guides decision-making and investment, while retaining the essential and unique characteristics of Geelong. The Strategy has been informed by expert housing, land and demographic research and analysis. Policy objectives are aimed at providing clear strategic direction, promoting positive social and economic effects and delivering sustainable communities and development, including: • contain growth within identified locations across the municipality

Page 1 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

• increase the level of infill development and housing diversity in targeted locations • increase the level of affordable and social housing. • minimise the economic, environmental, visual and servicing impacts of residential development on rural areas. • maintain the unique township, landscape, tourism, farming and environmental values of the Bellarine Peninsula. • maintain the unique identity of Greater Geelong and its townships. • promote the early provision of public transport infrastructure and services in all growth areas. • support the district towns of Ocean Grove, Drysdale and Leopold to fulfil their role as service hubs for the Bellarine Peninsula. In all other townships provide retail, commercial and community uses and facilities that serve the daily needs of the community. • manage the release of new growth areas to efficiently deliver infrastructure, services and facilities. The Housing Framework Plan from the Strategy is shown in Figure 1.

(iii) Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan (2019) The Framework Plan aims to guide urban growth through sequenced development and is the largest greenfield planning project in regional Victoria. It is informed by expert technical reports including social infrastructure, retail and activity centre analysis, and transport strategies. The implementation of the Framework Plan will provide overarching principles for land use and development with localised Precinct Structure Plans (PSPs) and infrastructure contributions. Policy objectives are aimed at promoting the following outcomes: • create neighbourhoods where residents can live locally and meet most of their everyday needs within a 20-minute walk, cycle or local public transport trip of their home. • provide a network of activity centres in the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas that provide employment, retail, commercial, entertainment and community uses for growth area residents without adversely impacting the broader Geelong activity centre network. • develop a Clever and Creative Corridor as a fundamental design element of the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas to ensure development is sustainable, self-sufficient, distinctive and connected through varied transport options. The Future Urban Structure in the plan is shown in Figure 2.

Page 2 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Figure 1 Housing Framework Plan - 20361

1 From page 12, Settlement Strategy

Page 3 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Figure 2 Future Urban Structure2

2 Northern and Western Geelong Growth Area Framework Plan, page 32

Page 4 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

1.2 Procedural issues

(i) Referral of submissions A number of late submitters requested to be heard by the Panel despite Council advising that late submissions would not be referred to the Panel. This included a submission from Mr Gary Snow, the Ocean Grove Community Association and an addendum submission from Lascorp Development Group (Lascorp), amongst others. The Panel determined not to accept or hear the late submissions not referred by the planning authority and provided a written ruling to this effect. In making its ruling, the Panel considered that the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) provides a clear separation of powers between the planning authority and the Panel in the collection and consideration of submissions. The Panel considered it would not be appropriate or lawful if it allowed submitters to make written submissions directly to a Panel without being referred by the planning authority. This would effectively bypass the planning authority and give the Panel a greater role not provided for in the Act. While the Panel has general powers of informing itself under section 161(d)(i), it considered this power should be read in the context of the establishment of the hearing and consideration of submissions referred to it. The Panel did not consider this power extended to unilaterally considering third party submissions not referred by the planning authority. The Panel noted that late submitters may ask the Minister for Planning to direct the Council to refer their late submissions. The Panel understands that this did not occur.

(ii) Production of documents The exhibited Framework Plan’s Plan 12 includes a shaded area on the northern edge of the Northern Geelong Growth Area (NGGA) south of Staceys Road and east of Evans Road with the notation ‘LEMMP (1,000m Buffer)’; a buffer for Chemring Australia’s (Chemring) Lara Energetic Materials Manufacturing Plant (LEMMP). Lovely Banks Development Group (LBDG) requested information from Chemring, relating to the declaration of the LEMMP as a Major Hazard Facility (MHF). The request went to substantiating the proposed 1,000 metre buffer in the Framework Plan. LBDG sought directions from the Panel that the following (in summary) be provided by Chemring, subject to confidentiality agreements if necessary: a) Particulars of the MHF listing b) Particulars of materials on site c) Location of materials d) Handling procedures e) Particulars of structures that may aid or inhibit blast f) Any Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) for the site. Chemring declined to provide the information requested and advised that it was premature to provide the information as the Safety Case for the site is being prepared. Under the regulations the Safety Case needs to be prepared by July 2021.

Page 5 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Chemring provided further information regarding defence related contractual sensitivities in correspondence dated 13 November 2019 and again reiterated that they were not in a position to accede to the information request. In correspondence to Council dated 17 October 2019, Worksafe Victoria advised they supported a ‘precautionary’ 1,000 metre buffer where residential rezoning should not occur. LBDG made written submissions on 13 November 2019 in support of its application and Chemring provided a verbal response. The Panel determined not to make the directions sought by LBDG in their email of 31 October 2019. The Panel found that the presence of the LEMMP and its MHF status is not in dispute. This leads to the logical consequence that some buffer around the facility is likely to be required to ensure that sensitive uses, including residential development, are separated from the facility spatially by an appropriate buffer. The key issue before parties, prior to rezoning and development, is the appropriateness of the extent of buffer. LBDG submitted, and the Panel accepted, that the appropriate eventual, or final, buffer could only be determined by a fine-grained assessment of the risk from the facility based on a more detailed understanding of the type, location and amount of hazardous materials on site. Such buffer may be less than the indicative buffer shown in Plan 12 of the Framework Plan or may be measured more accurately from a hazard source on site rather than from the site boundary. Any reduction in buffer, however, is far from certain. The Panel noted the conclusion of LBDG, that it would be ‘manifestly unfair’ for the 1,000 metre buffer to remain without further consideration of the risk, and consequently the consideration of a reduced buffer. The Panel agreed to the extent that it would be unfair if the opportunity to ‘test’ the buffer was not provided prior to rezoning and development of the land in question. The Panel however concluded that the time to test the buffer is not now. It is considering a high-level framework plan with significant further detailed planning to occur in future through a PSP process. Reviewing the issue in more detail through the PSP process is appropriate because the Safety Case for the MHF will have been prepared, providing a clearer picture of buffer requirements. This assumes access to the data can be provided to relevant experts at that time, which the Panel considers is a reasonable expectation. Additionally, specific land use proposals for this part of the NGGA will have been developed, providing a more detailed concept of how land use can be planned to meet the requirements of the 1,000 metre buffer, or a smaller buffer if future investigations find this to be appropriate. The Panel considered the exact notation of the buffer on Plan 12 in the Framework Plan was a live matter to be tested through the course of the Panel Hearing. This is discussed in Section 6.10 of this report.

(iii) Interrelationship with Geelong Amendment C393 Retail matters At the Directions Hearing, Mr Townshend for Lascorp Development Group (Lascorp) raised the interrelationship of Amendment C395ggee with Amendment C393 (Geelong Retail

Page 6 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Strategy). Lascorp raised concern about the compatibility of the two amendments progressing through Panel process concurrently with no apparent opportunity for parties to reconcile the Panel’s advice from one to the other. At that time, the Panel report for Amendment C393 was expected to be delivered in December 2019. In response to Lascorp’s concern, Council undertook to release the report as soon as possible after receipt. The Panel agreed to allow Lascorp to file its evidence and schedule them after the anticipated release of the report. The Panel report was submitted on 31 January 2020 and made publicly available on 3 February 2020. The Panel provided an opportunity for other parties with an interest in retail matters to make further submissions. The retail matters, largely related to Leopold, were heard on 16 and 18 March 2020. The matters raised are addressed in Chapter 7 of this report. Section 24(e) Direction – Panel to hear a particular submission On 10 February 2020, Council wrote to the Panel to direct it to hear from a landowner affected by the findings of the C393 Panel Report. In summarising a finding of the Panel, Council noted the Panel “drew a conclusion that an acceptable case had been made for review of the direction of growth for the Leopold shopping centre. One direction of growth considered for the Leopold Shopping Centre was outside of the existing settlement boundary”. In light of that finding, Council as Planning Authority directed the Panel to hear from the landowners of the Leopold activity centre under section 24(e) of the Act. The landowners were submitters to Amendment C393 but not to Amendment C395ggee. Section 24 of the Act provides that the Panel must consider all submissions referred to it and under s24(e) give a reasonable opportunity to be heard to any person whom the Minister or planning authority directs it to hear. In directing the Panel to hear from the owners of the Leopold activity centre, Council cited the provisions of section 168 of the Act which enable a panel to take into account any matter it thinks relevant in making its report and recommendation. Council agreed that to the extent that matters raised by Lascorp or the landowners of the Leopold activity centre are matters relevant to Amendment C395ggee, they should be considered by this Panel. The Panel noted the direction to hear from the landowner. The landowner made a written submission and was heard by the Panel on 16 March 2020.

1.3 Summary of issues raised in submissions 1.3.1 Settlement Strategy The key issues raised in the submissions regarding the Strategy are outlined below. Growth rates and Housing Submitters queried the accuracy of the housing data, particularly in relation to the supply and demand figures. The Strategy uses land supply information from 1 January 2017. Some submitters were concerned that an additional 12 month of growth has occurred since the land supply information was collected and there has been a significant change in land supply

Page 7 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

in this time. Several submitters stated the 2.5 percent growth rate cited as a realistic scenario in the Strategy is too low. Permanent Growth Boundary Submitters questioned the need for a permanent settlement boundary and considered the recommendation is anti-growth. It was argued Melbourne had a population around 3.2 million people when the urban growth boundary was introduced in 2002, Geelong’s population currently sits around 250,000. It was argued the introduction of a permanent boundary is not consistent with state or federal policy to promote growth in the regions and relive pressure on the capital cities. The nomination of a permanent settlement boundary on the framework plan was criticised when the process to finalise the boundary had not been undertaken. Some submitters supported the use of a permanent growth boundary particularly on the Bellarine. Infrastructure Submitters considered the Strategy needed a greater emphasis on the infrastructure required, the importance of infrastructure in keeping pace with growth and how infrastructure will be funded, including the need for the preparation of an Infrastructure of Development Contributions Plan. Interests in further residential development outside of settlement boundaries A number of submissions put forward land (generally farming zoned land) they believe should be developed for housing that is not currently identified in the Strategy. The reasons put forward to support the proposals included: proximity to existing services and established urban areas, no environmental significance, not viable for farming, will provide innovative housing solutions, will increase competition, choice and affordability in the market. The areas noted, include: • 35 and 69-93 Hams Road, Waurn Ponds • Boral site, Waurn Ponds • Moolap - Future Urban Growth Boundary to extend to the future Geelong Ring Road extension • Moolap – Alcoa • Mount Duneed • Lara / Avalon • Leopold – North of Portarlington Road and west of Melaluka Road • Wallington / Ocean Grove • Barwon Heads • St Leonards, Portarlington and Curlewis. Bellarine Peninsula Some submissions outlined the need to preserve the character of the Bellarine and the fact balance is needed between natural areas and residential areas. Submissions supported the introduction of permanent settlement boundaries and the protection of non-urban breaks. There was support for permanent boundaries and the need to provide an overall strategic planning framework to accommodate growth. There were concerns that any further expansion will erode landscape, tourism, farming and environmental values. In contrast,

Page 8 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

some submissions suggested that Bellarine towns should not be excluded from contributing to housing supply and must ensure those towns remain affordable to future residents. 1.3.2 Framework Plan The key issues raised in the submissions regarding the Framework Plan are outlined below. Opposition to Northern and Western Growth Areas Some submissions expressed outright opposition to the growth areas, with some suggesting that the urban growth proposed for the growth areas should be redirected to other locations in or on the eastern edge of urban Geelong, or to other towns in the region. Existing Rural Areas Several submitters argued that land in Lovely Banks currently in the Rural Living Zone should remain a Rural Living area. Submitters argued that adjacent residential subdivision would impact on landowners’ rural living lifestyle and amenity. Some expressed concern at the impact of rates increases resulting from a change in zoning, while others called for a transitional low-density residential area between the existing rural living area and any conventional residential development. Proposed Arterial Road A few submissions expressed opposition to a proposed arterial road identified in the draft future urban structure plan running north from the Barwon Water Lovely Banks Basin and located in the vicinity of Viewhill Road. Submissions indicated concern with the impact of the road on landowners, including possible land acquisition. Several submissions suggested an alternative location for the proposed arterial road. Precinct Structure Plan staging Some submissions argued that the north-eastern portion of the WGGA (land bounded by Midland Highway, Geelong Ring Road, Geelong-Ballarat railway and Moorabool River) is best placed to be the first stage of development of the growth area through the initial PSP. Environmental considerations Some submissions specifically called for protection of environmental values (particularly native vegetation and fauna habitat) in the development of the growth areas. Others opposing the NWGGA outright or opposing elements of the draft future urban structure plan, referred to environmental impacts. Transport Submissions called for new or improved pedestrian/cycling facilities, both within the growth areas and linking the growth areas to urban Geelong. Some made specific recommendations on public transport including requests for new rail connections between the growth areas and to the existing rail network. Light rail was also proposed. Other submissions noted public transport inadequacies in the vicinity of the growth areas and in the region more generally.

Page 9 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

1.4 The Panel’s approach The Panel has assessed the Amendment against the principles of net community benefit and sustainable development, as set out in Clause 71.02-3 (Integrated decision making) of the Planning Scheme. The Panel considered all written submissions made in response to the exhibition of the Amendment, observations from site visits, and submissions, evidence and other material presented to it during the Hearing. It has reviewed a large volume of material and has had to be selective in referring to the more relevant or determinative material in the Report. All submissions and materials have been considered by the Panel in reaching its conclusions, regardless of whether they are specifically mentioned in the Report. Of note there are many important issues in the NWGGA that will require detailed consideration through future planning and PSPs. These include issues such as Aboriginal Cultural Heritage and Post-Contact Cultural Heritage. The Panel does not address many of these issues in detail; satisfied that they are identified and assessed at a suitable level for this stage of the planning process. This Report deals with the issues under the following headings: • Planning context and strategic justification • Population growth and land supply • Settlement Strategy – general issues • Settlement Strategy – strategic land holdings • Growth Area Framework Plan • Retail issues • The Amendment provisions.

Page 10 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

2 Planning context and strategic justification

2.1 Introduction The Amendment is arguably the most significant single planning scheme amendment that Council has undertaken. Based on strong and strengthening population growth, Council has taken a visionary approach to cast its mind forward and plan for a population within our lifetimes of nearly double the current city size. Such a large and ambitious amendment could be expected to stimulate significant discussion and even opposition from the community and industry. In the Panel’s view this is not the case. Many submissions have sought changes on issues of detail and substance, but most submitters were at pains before the Panel to point out that fundamentally they supported the approach taken by Council in terms of planning policy support. Some issues of policy difference are considered in the following chapters, but there were not submissions of substance in the Panel’s view that sought to argue that the Amendment as a whole is not supported in State and local planning policy. Council in the Explanatory Report and its Part A Submission outlined how it considered the Amendment responds to policy. It submitted the Amendment effectively responds to Ministers Direction No. 11. A summary is provided below for completeness.

2.2 Objectives of planning in Victoria Section 4 of the Act provides the objectives of planning in Victoria as shown below. The Panel considers the Amendment will implement or is consistent with all of these objectives to some extent. (a) to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land; (b) to provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity; (c) to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria; (d) to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value; (e) to protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co-ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community; (f) to facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e); (fa) to facilitate the provision of affordable housing in Victoria; (g) to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.

2.3 Planning policy framework 2.3.1 State Policy Council submitted the Amendment supports and implements the following: • Settlement (Clause 11.01-S). Relevant strategies being:

Page 11 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

- Focus investment and growth in places of state significance in Metropolitan Melbourne and the major regional cities of Ballarat, Bendigo, Geelong ... - Ensure regions and their settlements are planned in accordance with their relevant regional growth plan - Guide the structure, functioning and character of each settlement taking into account municipal and regional contexts and frameworks - Create and reinforce settlement boundaries - Limit urban sprawl and direct growth into existing settlements - Promote and capitalise on opportunities for urban renewal and infill redevelopment - Ensure land that may be required for future urban expansion is not compromised. • Coastal Settlement (Clause 11.03-S). Relevant strategies being: - Encourage urban renewal and redevelopment opportunities in existing settlements to reduce the demand for urban sprawl - Identify a clear settlement boundary around coastal settlements to ensure that growth in coastal areas is planned and coastal values are protected - Direct new residential and other urban development and infrastructure to locations within defined settlement boundaries of existing settlements that are capable of accommodating growth - Avoid linear urban sprawl along the coastal edge and ribbon development in rural landscapes - Protect areas between settlements for non-urban use. • Distinctive areas and landscapes (Clause 11.03-5S). The Settlement Strategy achieves the objective “To protect and enhance the valued attributes of identified distinctive areas and landscapes” for the Bellarine Peninsula. • Supply of urban land (Clause 11.02-1S). The Amendment meets the objective “To ensure a sufficient supply of land is available for residential, commercial, retail, industrial, recreational, institutional and other community uses” including the key strategy: - Plan to accommodate projected population growth over at least a 15-year period and provide clear direction on locations where growth should occur. Residential land supply will be considered on a municipal basis, rather than a town-by-town basis. • Structure Planning (Clause 11.02-2S). The Amendment supports the policy by undertaking comprehensive planning for new areas as sustainable communities. • Sequencing of development (Clause 11.02-3S). The Amendment meets the objective “To manage the sequence of development in areas of growth so that services are available from early in the life of new communities”. • Floodplain management (Clause 13.03-1S). The Framework Plan takes into account flooding along the Barwon and Moorabool Rovers and Cowries Creek. • Resource exploration and extraction (Clause 14.03-1S). The relevant strategy, which is to “Develop and maintain buffers around mining and quarrying activities”, has been taken into account for the Batesford Quarry in the Framework Plan.

Page 12 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

2.3.2 Regional policy Council submitted the Amendment supports and implements regional policy:3 • Settlement - G21 Region (Clause 11.01-R). The key strategies include: - Provide for long term growth options that build on existing infrastructure, including two further investigation areas north and west of Geelong. - Reinforce the role of district towns in providing services to surrounding areas. - Maintain a significant settlement break between the region and Melbourne. - Provide for settlement breaks between towns to maintain their unique identities. - Require a settlement boundary for all towns. - Protect critical agricultural land by directing growth to towns. 2.3.3 Local policy Council submitted the Amendment supports or implements a range of local policy, in addition to introducing new local policy. Key policies were said to be: • City of Greater Geelong Sustainable Growth Framework (Clause 21.02). In particular Managing Urban Growth. • Municipal Framework Plan (Clause 21.04). To be updated to show the new Settlement Strategy directions. • Flooding (Clause 21.05-7). The Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan meets the objectives: - to protect floodplains - minimise the potential for damage and risks to public safety and property from flooding. • Settlement and Housing (Clause 21.06). The Amendment directly implements the Further Work requirement of the existing Clause 21.06 to investigate future residential and industrial land use needs for Geelong including: - the assessment of the environmental, resource, landscape, development pattern, access, servicing, land use, economic and social constraints and opportunities associated with possible growth areas around Geelong - the identification of a preferred growth area or areas - the preparation of detailed growth area plans. • Settlement and Housing (Clause 21.06). The Amendment implements the Further Work requirement of the existing Clause 21.06 to prepare a settlement strategy for the municipality. The Amendment also updates Clause 21.06 to reflect new directions on settlement and housing and inclusion of the Strategy as a Reference/Background Document. • Development and Community Infrastructure (Clause 21.08). The Amendment updates this clause to reflect new transport and development contribution objectives. • Bellarine Peninsula (Clause 21.14). The Amendment updates this clause to reflect the change in role of Ocean Grove, Drysdale/Clifton Springs and Leopold as district

3 Many of the submitters seeking additional opportunities for growth on the Bellarine Peninsula submitted that this was one area where the Amendment doesn’t align well with policy as it seeks to curtail growth in towns identified for growth in the G21 Plan. This issue is addressed further in Section 4.2.

Page 13 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

towns rather than growth areas. A further work requirement is added to “Work with the state government on the designation of the Bellarine Peninsula under the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Bill 2017.” 2.3.4 Ministerial Directions Council submitted that the Amendment is consistent with relevant Ministerial Directions including: • the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes under section 7(5) of the PE Act • Ministerial Direction No.1 – Potentially Contaminated Land has been considered through high level soil contamination assessments undertaken for the Northern and Western Growth areas • Ministerial Direction No.11 – Strategic Assessment of Amendments under section 12 of the PE Act • Ministerial Direction No.15 – The Planning Scheme Amendment Process • Ministerial Direction No.19 – Council sought and received advice from the EPA which will be considered as further planning work progresses.

2.4 Planning scheme provisions

(i) Zones The Amendment rezones some land to the Urban Growth Zone (UGZ) in the NWGGA; much of the land already having been rezoned previously. The UGZ is a holding zone for future urban development under which more detailed land use in PSPs will be planned.

2.5 Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Part of the relevant planning context for the Amendment, and particularly the Settlement Strategy, is the recent declaration of the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes (DAL). Part 3AAB of the Act, introduced through the Planning and Environment Amendment (Distinctive Areas and Landscapes) Act 2018, contains a process for implementing a framework to guide decision-making in relation to an area determined to be a Distinctive Area and Landscape (DAL). The objectives of implementing a framework are to: • protect and conserve distinctive areas and landscapes • enhance the conservation of the environment in declared areas • integrate policy development, implementation and decision-making in declared area • recognise the connection and stewardship of traditional owners in relation to land in declared areas. Once a DAL is declared, a Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) is to be prepared which will include a 50-year vision and strategies, including long-term settlement boundaries, to better protect the unique features of the area for current and future generations. In preparing a SPP, the Minister for Planning must consult with each responsible public entity (as defined by the Act) for the declared area, the local community and any other

Page 14 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

person that may be affected by the SPP consistent with s46AW of the Act. Once the SPP has been endorsed by each responsible public entity (s46AX), the Governor in Council may approve the SPP by publishing a notice in the Government Gazette (s46AY). The SPP must be prepared within one year after the declaration or a longer period but not exceeding two years after the declaration, if a greater period is approved by the Governor-in-Council, otherwise the declaration will lapse. The Minister must then prepare an amendment to the planning scheme in which the declared area is located to give effect to the approved SPP. The amendment must not be inconsistent with a SPP. In respect of a planning scheme amendment implementing a protected settlement boundary, the amendment does not take effect unless and until it is ratified by Parliament. An SPP must be reviewed no later than 10 years after its commencement. The Greater Geelong region is affected by two declared DALs, the Surf Coast and Bellarine Areas (see figures 3 and 4 below). Parts of the Surf Coast Shire and City of Greater Geelong were declared the Surf Coast Declared Area on 17 September 2019. The Surf Coast DAL includes the section of Greater Geelong between the municipal boundary at Mt Duneed/Lower Duneed Road and the southern boundary of the Armstrong Creek Growth Area. It also includes part of the Boral land between Anglesea Road and Bogans Lane. The Bellarine Peninsula DAL was declared on 22 October 2019. The Amendment proposes to include policies in the planning scheme about anomalies, logical inclusions and a settlement boundary, which include actions to: • confirm enduring and defendable settlement boundaries by undertaking a logical inclusions process (Clause 21.06-2 Strategies) • establish a consultation process to deal with any significant anomalies or logical inclusions as part of confirming an enduring settlement boundary (Clause 21.06-8 Implementation). The issue before the Panel is the interrelationship between the DAL process and the Amendment in setting long term settlement boundaries. This is addressed in detail in Chapter 4.

Page 15 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Figure 3 Bellarine Peninsula DAL Area

Page 16 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Figure 4 Surf Coast DAL Area

Page 17 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

2.6 Conclusions and recommendation For the reasons set out in the following chapters, the Panel concludes that the Amendment is supported by, and implements, the relevant sections of the PPF, and is consistent with the relevant Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes. The Amendment is well founded and strategically justified, and the Amendment should proceed subject to addressing the more specific issues raised in submissions as discussed in the following chapters. The Panel considers Council, often in conjunction with landowners in the NWGGA, has undertaken two very significant planning processes in one, being the Strategy and Framework Plan. It is clear that the many years, and substantial cost, incurred by Council in getting to this point have laid the foundation for a significant growth oriented and well directed planning future for Geelong. The Panel recommends: Adopt Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee as exhibited subject to the changes recommended in this report.

Page 18 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

3 Population growth and land supply

Please note in this section the Panel has concentrated on the population growth rates and land supply requirements as presented in the Hearing. It does not speculate about the impact of COVID19 (if any) on future growth. The Strategy highlights that in recent years Geelong has been growing strongly and the growth rate has been accelerating, to 2 per cent in the period 2011-2016. It was submitted that the growth rate since 2016 has accelerated again to 2.7 per cent based on the latest data. The Strategy proposed scenarios for population and dwelling growth. Extracts from the Strategy are shown in Table 1 below. Table 1 Scenario growth rates4 Scenario A B C D E Population in 2036 307,400 320,800 352,300 387,900 427,121 Population growth 2016-2036 72,100 85,400 116,900 152,600 191,778 Annual average change in pop’n 1.3% 1.6% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% Change in dwellings 2016-20365 36,200 42,300 56,900 73,400 91,543

3.1.1 Evidence and submissions Numerous parties called expert evidence that fell broadly into the category of demographics, population and lot supply. These included: • Dale Stokes and Jeremy Reynolds – Council • Justin Ganly – Shell Road Development • Chris McNeil – Mount Duneed Developments • Paul Shipp – Dominion Property Group • Brian Haratsis – Boral. The experts were directed to meet and produced a statement of agreement and points of disagreement. It became apparent that whilst there was some disagreement between experts, there was a high level of agreement between experts on fundamental issues, particularly when population, demographics and lot supply are considered on a municipal basis. Some of the key points of agreement by all at the expert meeting included: • Regular monitoring of population growth will be needed to ensure adequate residential land stocks • Adoption of the higher scenario D or E population growth rates is appropriate for planning purposes • 75 per cent of new housing on broad hectare land is reasonable

4 From Settlement Strategy, part Table 10, p50. 5 I.E. additional dwellings required.

Page 19 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

• Annual dwelling requirements under scenario D and E are significantly higher than forecasts by Victoria in Future and .id consulting • Stocks of zoned residential land will be exhausted within 9-11 years • Residential development will need to commence in the NWGGA by 2025 • Ensuring population growth can be accommodated for 15 years is just one requirement6 and choice, affordability and desirable locations also need to be considered • The Geelong housing market is very diverse with limits to substitutability • There are different housing sub-markets within Geelong and the Bellarine. In terms of points not agreed by all experts, the following, in summary, are notable: • Messrs Stokes, McNeil and Haratsis agreed that due to fragmentation of ownership and other reasons there may be delays to the delivery of a significant number of remaining lots in Armstrong Creek • Mr Stokes and Mr Shipp agreed there were approximately 2,800 zoned lots left in Ocean Grove • Mr Ganly and Mr Shipp agreed that the Strategy fails to recognise the unique nature of the Bellarine housing market by falsely assuming substitutability • Messrs Ganly, McNeil, Shipp and Haratsis agreed there is a tension between the Strategy (15-year timeframe) and Distinctive Areas and Landscapes (DAL) (50-year timeframe) processes. Adoption of permanent settlement boundaries will need to take this into account. Some submitters such as Mr Roe sought to argue that the growth potential of Geelong, including the Bellarine Peninsula is significantly higher than that suggested in the Strategy and Geelong should be including much larger and more extensive areas for urban development. In the Hearing, some of the experts expanded on the view that whilst the Amendment met the ’15-year test’ in State policy, this should be viewed as being desirable at the township as well as the municipal level. For example, Mr Shipp in evidence agreed that the municipal wide target of 15 years is met, but that there is only in order of 9-13 years of supply in Ocean Grove, and that it is desirable for a range of reasons to ensure adequate lot supply in Ocean Grove. Similarly, Mr Ganly had no issue that on a municipal wide basis the land supply is adequate, but that is not consistent with the lack of substitutability between the sub-markets in Geelong and housing choice. 3.1.2 Discussion For such a city-shaping Amendment, the Panel considers there was little disagreement about the municipal wide approach and scenarios predicted in the Strategy. Most submitters and experts agreed that Geelong is a rapidly growing city, and that the approach in the

6 Panel note: a reference to the strategy in clause 11.02-1S which reads Plan to accommodate projected population growth over at least a 15 year period and provide clear direction on locations where growth should occur. Residential land supply will be considered on a municipal basis, rather than a town-by-town basis.

Page 20 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Amendment to provide for an additional population of approximately 152,000 to 191,000 by 2036 is sound. Disagreements around population growth and land supply largely in the Panel’s view go to not the round numbers, but the policy ‘pivot’ away from the Bellarine Peninsula to the new growth areas in the west and north. The Panel addresses the issues of settlement boundaries and the DAL further below in this chapter, but in principle accepts that the policy pivot is a conscious, planned policy choice by Council that will as a result over time lead to a reduction, probably significant, in the share of housing provided by the Bellarine Peninsula. The Panel notes that this is not an instant ‘turning off the tap’; the zoned land supply in Ocean Grove is in the order of 9-11 years supply alone and in the order of 20 years across the whole Bellarine. The Panel considers there is no disagreement that the 15 years of supply at a municipal level can be met with the Amendment, and thus the strategy in Clause 11.02-1S is satisfied. The Panel also accepts that the ’15 year’ test does not need to be met at a township, or even sub-municipal level, in the planning scheme. It follows that over time the experts and submissions around substitutability and choice may prove to be right as supply on the Bellarine dries up and the west and north growth areas pick up an even greater share of the growth heavy lifting. This however is a conscious planned choice of Council in putting forward the Amendment, and the State government if the DAL process is included in the equation. The Panel would be more concerned if this was a perverse, accidental outcome. 3.1.3 Conclusions The Panel concludes: • Geelong has undergone a sustained period of high population growth which is predicted to continue • Council in putting forward the Amendment is planning to accommodate most of this growth in the new western and northern growth areas and there is general agreement amongst experts that the growth scenarios are reasonable and lot supply should be adequate for the planning period • The importance of the Bellarine Peninsula in providing housing growth is planned to decline over time.

Page 21 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

4 Settlement Strategy – general issues

4.1 Introduction and overview The Settlement Strategy (the Strategy) seeks to establish the long-term framework for urban development across the City of Greater Geelong. Essential to this is a ‘pivot’ for greenfield development from identified growth townships on the Bellarine Peninsula and Armstrong Creek, to Armstrong Creek and two major growth areas to the west and north of Geelong. Part of this consideration is the role and interrelationship between the Strategy and the DAL program in setting long term or permanent settlement boundaries. Whilst many submissions referred to the Bellarine, most if not all, related to specific areas within the Bellarine Peninsula where most submitters have a land interest. It was a common theme through the submissions that the process to determine the settlement boundaries of each individual township of the Bellarine Peninsula needs to be robust.

4.2 Settlement boundaries – Bellarine Peninsula 4.2.1 Evidence and submissions

(i) Ocean Grove and Wallington Mr Black provided evidence for the Wallington Group of Landowners (Wallington Group) on the strategic planning matters arising from the Amendment as they relate to the land area generally north of Ocean Grove Township, south of Wallington, west of Grubb Road and east of Wallington-Ocean Grove Road. Mr Black articulated that he saw a direct conflict between the Settlement Strategy stating that a “permanent boundary should be based on existing residential zones and strategic plans, as these have been developed over a number of years, with extensive community consultation and peer review” with the expectation that is set out in Clause 21.14 to review the Ocean Grove Structure plan by no later than 2021. Mr Black noted that Wallington is not identified as a ‘Settlement’ and expressed the view that the land between Wallington and Ocean Grove is not considered to be a non-urban break and as such should not need to be protected nor maintained. The Wallington Group also called evidence in agricultural capability and ecology to justify the consideration of their land for future residential use. The Wallington Group principally contended that its land does not have the criteria that would qualify it to be declared as a distinctive area and landscape. It considered its land had been declared by default, simply as the declaration includes its land. With regard to settlement boundaries, the Wallington Group referred to s46AV(2)(b) of the Act which provides the SPP: may specify settlement boundaries in the declared area or designate specific settlement boundaries in the declared area as protected settlement boundaries. The Wallington Group considered that the two options which exist to specify, or designate settlement boundaries have markedly different consequences. If the SPP were to designate settlement boundaries without designating them as a protected settlement boundary, then those boundaries would be able to be altered without the ratification of both Houses of

Page 22 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Parliament. In the alternative, if the SPP is to designate specific settlement boundaries as protected settlement boundaries, then any amendment to those protected settlement boundaries could only take effect if ratified by resolution, passed by both Houses of Parliament. The Wallington Group considered such requirement as difficult and “subject to the vagaries of the politics of the day”. The Wallington Group raised concern that an independent oversight of the DAL process appears to it unlikely. It contended that the opportunity to consider a logical extension of the existing settlement boundaries as contemplated at Clause 21.14 would be lost if the DAL process, without independent scrutiny, is completed before a review of the existing structure plan. The Wallington Group contended that the sensible approach is to: Undertake a proper evidence-based analysis of what are the impacts on the environmental and landscape values of the Peninsula, ensure that those impacts are avoided and then adopt a process which is transparent, robust with the benefit of scrutiny by a Panel or Advisory Committee to determine whether there is opportunity to expand any of the existing settlement boundaries of the towns on the Peninsula without impacting on the identified environmental and landscapes values. Mr Glossop gave planning evidence for Morgan and Griffin that the establishment of a settlement boundary “needs to be undertaken based on an integrated assessment of the range of planning policy considerations, including policy directions at a regional growth level”. Morgan and Griffin submitted that it did not have a difficulty with the imposition of settlement boundaries. It considered that settlement boundaries are, by now, a well- establish planning tool, particularly for coastal settlements such as the Bellarine townships. However, it submitted any change to the settlement boundaries must be strategically justified. It observed that where development potential is reduced, inevitably, so is the ability to achieve other critical planning objectives such as housing choice and affordability. Morgan and Griffin contended that Council had not undertaken the necessary strategic work to determine the environmental values of the Peninsula that must be protected, and what the particular constraints on the growth of individual Bellarine townships are, or how that determines where the settlement boundaries should go. Morgan and Griffin noted that any expansion of settlement boundaries could only occur with the consent of both the Council and the Minister for Planning and only following a process in which members of the public, whether directly affected or not, are permitted to appear and interrogate the proposed expansion and where the proposal will be evaluated by an independent Panel against a planning framework. Morgan and Griffin sought the Panel conclude that there is no obvious barrier to the use of its land in Ocean Grove for residential purposes and it has provided sufficient technical justification to Council for rezoning. Mr Milner gave evidence for Shell Road Developments (Shell Road) that the logical and systematic planning process for setting settlement boundaries would be to use the next iteration of structure plan reviews to inform and determine permanent boundaries of growth centres. In the case of Ocean Grove, the planning scheme already explicitly nominates the timing and process for the review of the structure plan and the requirement that the role of the town and settlement boundary be set.

Page 23 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

His evidence was that “the Settlement Strategy and Amendment 395 have not been strategically justified in so far as they provide for a diminished role and renaming of the growth centres on the Bellarine Peninsula.” Mr Milner, like others, did not support the change in designation from ‘growth centre’ to ‘district town’ for Ocean Grove. Mr Milner considered that: There is no sustainable reason why the next round of structure plan reviews for the other growth centres on the Bellarine should not be approached in the same manner as Ocean Grove with suitable common provisions outlining the scope and intent of the next iteration of structure plan reviews with reference to identifying a permanent settlement boundary. In his evidence Mr Milner (and other experts) noted that the downgrading of Ocean Grove from an identified growth centre is inconsistent with the G21 Regional Growth Plan which is referenced in the planning scheme. The G21 Plan identifies Ocean Grove for growth and employment. Mr Milner went on to recommend that the Further Work provisions of Clause 21.14 should be amended to detail the purpose of the next review of the structure plans in terms of setting permanent settlement boundaries and the matters that should be considered as part of that review. Shell Road submitted that: • It supports the submissions made by other landowners on the Bellarine, particularly that of Morgan and Griffin • It fundamentally opposes the Amendment insofar as it relates to the Bellarine Peninsula and particularly Ocean Grove • The Amendment fails to appropriately acknowledge the ongoing role of Ocean Grove on both the Bellarine Peninsula and within the City of Greater Geelong more broadly and seeks to pre-empt strategic work that must be done to determine an enduring settlement boundary for the towns. It submitted that there are options available to extend the time for completion of the SPP in the DAL program, which would allow an opportunity for further work as identified at Clause 21.14 to be completed. This would allow the SPP to be drafted to allow flexibility in that further work being done. This could include the provision in the SPP for a non-protected settlement boundary with text acknowledging the need for further work before such a boundary is set. It was suggested this was the approach taken for some settlements in the Macedon Ranges DAL. Ms Wendy Duncan submitted that that the Ocean Grove Nature Reserve and the land that forms the current non-urban break north of Ocean Grove has important environmental and community values. Mr Richard Weatherly submitted on the same issue and presented extensive information from his observations of a decline in the presence of species setting the context of the Nature Reserve in the broader Bellarine and beyond. Dr Dutson presented evidence on the ecological values of the area west of Grubb Road, mostly related to the Ocean Grove Nature Reserve. Dr Dutson made the point that “any residential development would significantly increase and add to these threatening processes and would reduce the viability of many of these ecological values”.

Page 24 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Dr Dutson went on to say that: “options to minimise, mitigate or offset these threatening processes are not effective. To maintain these ecological values, the only viable option is to avoid residential development in this area”. Mr Lingham presented on the historical movement patterns and change of habitat on the Bellarine Peninsula. Mr Lingham advised that the precautionary principle should apply to any potential development that my impact on wildlife biodiversity and that current township boundaries should become permanent boundaries.

(ii) Leopold Lexnorm Investments (Lexnorm) has interests in land east of the Leopold township at 980- 1000 Portarlington Road and 40-90 Bawtree Road, Leopold. Lexnorm expressed support for the Settlement Boundary and the future consideration of logical land inclusion as part of the proposed establishment of a permanent settlement boundary around Leopold. Lexnorm submitted that minimal drainage constraints, proximity to the existing settlement and arterial road access are reasons why its land is the only logical direction for additional urban growth in Leopold. A joint submission was made by Villawood Properties and a group of landowners with landholdings on the west side of Melaluka Road, Leopold between the Bellarine Highway, O’Halloran Road and Hoares Lane. Together they submitted that “the subject land is strategically located as a discreet precinct opposite the recently expanded activity centre on the north side of the Bellarine Highway”. The landowners objected to: the impact of the Amendment which proposes to give greater weight to the existing settlement boundary which is shown on the Leopold Structure Plan and the Housing and Settlement Framework Plan at clause 21.06 which directs that housing within District Towns (such as Leopold) be accommodated within Existing Settlement Boundaries in the absence of any proper and transparent review. Lascorp raised some particular issues around the Leopold settlement boundary relating to retail. This issue is dealt with in Chapter 7.

(iii) Barwon Heads Barwon Heads Lifestyle Ltd owns land comprising 49.63 hectares at 1900 Barwon Heads Road, Barwon Heads. The land is to the west of the township of Barwon Heads, located outside the township boundary, and has been considered in some detail by other Planning Panels. Barwon Heads Lifestyle stated that Council is aware that its proposed redevelopment concept comprises a retirement village, aged care facility, residential lots and environmental improvements of the Murtnaghurt Lagoon. Barwon Heads Lifestyle submitted that the retention of the land as Farming Zone presented a number of concerns and potential land use conflicts with the Murtnaghurt Lagoon and the existing urban edge. Barwon Heads Lifestyle submitted that the Panel can and should make recommendations on the process and timing so that any existing opportunities to extend those boundaries in an environmentally sustainable way are not lost. Further to that, Barwon Heads Lifestyle sought for the inclusion of the land in an updated Barwon Heads Structure Plan as an ‘investigation area’.

Page 25 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Mr Slater provided town planning evidence relating to this site and Barwon Heads. With respect to the inclusion of the site within the Barwon Heads settlement boundary he concluded that: • There are strong grounds to warrant further investigation regarding the expansion of the Barwon Heads Settlement Boundary • There are strong grounds to warrant further investigation regarding the expansion of the Barwon Heads Settlement Boundary • The Settlement Strategy and Barwon Heads Structure Plan do not have long-term regard for population growth nor recognise the impacts of settlement preferences and I am concerned that this may prejudice the forthcoming DAL which should be predicated on a longer timeframe • Existing development (Thirteenth Beach Resort and multiple golf courses) beyond the proposed Settlement Boundary effectively extends the urban settlement of the town beyond the conventional subdivision. This, combined with 1920 Barwon Heads Road compromises the non-urban break and the boundary • The Settlement Boundary follows the Structure Plan which is largely unchanged for over 20 years which represents a political consideration rather than strategic merits review • The Site presents an opportunity to improve amenity and sense of arrival to Barwon Heads through considered development.

(iv) DELWP Position regarding the DAL program At the outset of the Panel hearing, parties requested a more detailed explanation of the DAL process from Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP). DELWP explained in correspondence to the Panel, dated 12 November 2019 that while the Surf Coast and Bellarine areas had been declared, the declaration does not change the current planning scheme or property rights, nor does it predetermine a future land use. DELWP advised that it sought to align the development of the draft Bellarine SPP with this Amendment as the outcome of the Panel process will inform the preparation of the SPP. It advised that community engagement for the Bellarine SPP would be undertaken in the first quarter of 2020, with a draft expected to be available for public comment in mid-2020. Mr McGough for DELWP advised on Hearing Day 1 that the DAL will be the opportunity to review settlement boundaries around townships. Ms McWhirter for DELWP advised on Hearing Day 5 that any settlement boundary process will not be formalised as a logical inclusions type process. It would likely proceed through a process which does not require the advice and assessment of a planning panel or advisory committee, but this is yet to be confirmed.

(v) Council position Council presented two expert witnesses that had considered the issues raised for the broader context of the Bellarine Peninsula. Mr Barlow considered that: the future role of the Bellarine townships is one of the most significant raised by the Settlement Strategy as it sets a long-term direction that will vary from the planning strategies and development trends of the past 30-40 years.

Page 26 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

From the information put before the Panel, this observation was shared by the majority of Bellarine-related submissions and experts for Council also clearly articulated this view. Mr Barlow expressed the opinion that: in the past there has been a natural pressure to ensure that each of the larger townships maintains a 15-year supply of development land (for both permanent and holiday residents) rather than defining a maximum spatial extent of the township and managing growth within that context. Mr Barlow identified that the Settlement Strategy proposes the guiding principle for the urban development of the Bellarine Peninsula will be to: Maintain the unique township, landscape, tourism, farming and environmental values of the Bellarine Peninsula. Mr Barlow went further to state that: this will be achieved through five Directions being: • Recognise that Drysdale/Clifton Springs, Leopold and Ocean Grove are fulfilling their roles as district towns • Discontinue the use of the term ‘growth area’ in favour of ‘district town’ • Acknowledge the share of housing development going to the Bellarine Peninsula should decrease over time • Review housing opportunities within townships to determine if further localised housing intensification can be achieved • Ensure development reflects the preferred character of the townships. Mr Collins gave evidence for Council that there were three possible processes for the review of settlement boundaries being the DAL process; a logical inclusions process; or review of the existing structure plans. Through cross-examination by Mr Cicero, Mr Collins ultimately agreed that a process which has independent scrutiny is the preferred method to review and define settlement boundaries. Council submitted that Amendment C395ggee adopts the local structure plans as they currently exist as its basis. Many of the structure plans are up to their third or fourth iteration and all have been subject to community consultation and planning scheme amendments. Council’s Part A submission identified some of the pressures through the Bellarine Peninsula Localised Planning Statement of 2015: The Localised Planning Statement documents that “considerable strategic planning has been undertaken to provide for the managed expansion of urban areas on the Bellarine Peninsula, and townships have been planned on the basis of clear settlement boundaries. Ongoing population and employment growth within the Greater Geelong area, combined with the unique and high quality rural and coastal landscapes is contributing to increasing development pressures in rural areas of the Bellarine Peninsula. Managing growth and development is therefore critical to protect and enhancing the significant values of the Bellarine. Council submitted that: … on the Bellarine Peninsula more broadly, the Localised Planning Statement identifies the significance of the visual landscape, distinct coastal settlements in rural settings, sweeping views across rolling hills, coastlines, wetlands and open farmed landscapes.

Page 27 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

At the hearing, Council submitted that “just because land is developable, does not mean land should or need be developed”. In exercising the duties of a Planning Authority, Council has made choices about directing growth to appropriate locations. Council submitted that: The Settlement Strategy recognises that some townships can accommodate further growth within existing structure plans. Equally it recognises that the proportionate contribution of the Bellarine to growth will diminish over time in order to protect the valued environmental and landscape assets of the Bellarine, including the inter-urban breaks and unique identity of individual townships. These changes were identified by Council as occurring under Clause 21.06-2 with the strategies “reduce the share of new housing development on the Bellarine Peninsula” and “Protect the distinct landscape areas of the Bellarine Peninsula and the You Yang Precinct from urban encroachment”. Council submitted that the Amendment does not alter the existing localised planning for the Bellarine Peninsula except for the major towns now being referred to as ‘district towns’ rather than ‘growth areas’. Council advised it had sought clarification on the DAL process as it relates to the Bellarine. In Council’s words: The Amendment and the Settlement Strategy are consistent with and complementary to the Bellarine Peninsula Localised Planning Statement and the Bellarine Peninsula Distinctive Areas and Landscapes program” and “the strategy provides a long-term vision and recommendations for the Bellarine Peninsula which will operate over the period of time until the SOPP for the Bellarine is integrated into the Planning Scheme under the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes program”. Council submitted that over time, the extent of urban development contained by permanent boundaries and the protection of landscapes and non-urban breaks will be seen. Council submitted that it had clearly indicated that: • If the DAL process addresses boundaries on the Bellarine then this represents the proper forum for these landowners. • When assessing the existing policy framework, the DAL should address that part of Clause 21.14 that refers to Ocean Grove. • To the extent that the DAL does not grapple with boundaries then it would follow that the logical inclusions process would extend to the Bellarine. During the hearing, Council advised that it regards the further work listed in Clause 21.14 as part of existing planning policy that relates to Ocean Grove and emphasised that the DAL process needs to look at the words in the scheme and not just the map. Council’s preference is that if there is to be interrogation of settlement boundaries then the DAL process should do the further work. If not, then the further work should be preserved such as what occurred in the Macedon Ranges case. Council referred to its local policy regarding the Bellarine Peninsula at Clause 21.14 which identifies further work, including the need to “[r]eview township structure plans as scheduled (in structure plans) to meet emerging needs of communities”. Were it not for the DAL process, Council noted that it would be initiating investigations to respond to these Further Work requirements as they apply to Ocean Grove. Other localised settlement

Page 28 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

boundaries such as Barwon Heads have been reviewed recently, and Council considered these did not necessitate review at this time.7 Council’s central position was that this Amendment was not the correct process to facilitate changes to settlement boundaries that will be considered as part of the Bellarine and Surf Coast DALs. It considered that the DAL process must be undertaken before more detailed review of existing structure plans occur, and that it would be poor planning to pre-empt the DAL outcome. Council drew the Panel’s attention to the DELWP Frequently Asked Questions for the Bellarine DAL, noting the contemplation of settlement boundaries for the Bellarine townships. The Department is collaborating with the Borough of Queenscliffe and the City of Greater Geelong to consider appropriate protected settlement boundaries. Current township structure plans that have been through public exhibition and independent review will be used as basis to inform protected settlement boundaries, along with the results of public engagement and any relevant recommendations from technical assessments currently being prepared. There will be an opportunity for further public feedback on the draft Statement of Planning Policy and Protected Settlement Boundaries. [Emphasis added] Council considered that it would be inefficient and potentially unworkable if it were to initiate its own program to evaluate substantively the same matters that the DAL process seeks to examine and determine through a separate process under the Act. Council observed that the DAL process provides for consultation and did not oppose such consultation including a public forum, such as a panel or advisory committee, noting that ultimately it is not Council’s decision. Council anticipated that once the DAL process to establish a Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) is complete, the subsequent amendment to the Planning Scheme to implement the SPP will necessitate changes to the Further Work clause under 21.14. It expected that the DAL process would cover at least part of the matters contemplated in the Further Work provisions. Council also submitted in closing that any inconsistency with the G21 Plan is a matter of timing, and to place weight on that seven year old plan over more recent strategic planning in the Strategy would not be appropriate. 4.2.2 Discussion The Panel considers that a future process for refining township boundaries is necessary. Whilst there was arguably differing perspectives among some parties and even in community understanding, the Amendment does not define permanent settlement boundaries, nor was it intended to. The options remain open to decision makers as to whether this is undertaken through the DAL program, Council’s logical inclusions (discussed

7 In its closing submission, Council initially submitted that “the Barwon Heads township will be subject to the DAL process or if this does not grapple with the township boundaries, the Council’s logical inclusions process”. Council later corrected this to note that the logical inclusions process will not apply to Barwon Heads (Document 237a).

Page 29 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

at Section 4.4), or as an iteration of structure planning for towns in future. While this question is not squarely before the Panel, it makes some observations. The declaration of the Bellarine and Surf Coast as DALs is the statutory precursor to the preparation of an SPP. However, the declaration itself does not have any material effects. It has not made any changes to planning policy or applied any land use restrictions. The Panel considers that there is flexibility available in the DAL process regarding its approach to settlement boundaries. The DAL can introduce a ‘protected’ boundary without necessarily introducing a ‘permanent’ boundary. As such, capacity exists for any SPP developed to take a tailored approach to each settlement boundary, if one is set. The Panel notes that this approach was used in determining the SPP for the Macedon Ranges DAL. The Panel understands the concern raised by parties about the uncertainty of the level of consultation likely to be afforded to landowners and affected parties through the DAL process. Submissions and evidence from developers and landowners overwhelmingly supported the need for third party input and independent assessment. In the interests of sound planning and fairness, the Panel considers that any permanent or long term boundary setting or refinement should include the opportunity for those landowners and other parties, including the community, with an interest to be given notice and an adequate opportunity to respond. The Panel has had regard to the broad principles raised in the submissions and evidence, but importantly has not examined the merits of including specific land parcels or locations within a settlement or township and makes no comment or recommendation on these. The Panel considers this would be a level of advice which is neither sought nor appropriate. Rather the Panel has focused on the process of implementing the direction of the Strategy in the Bellarine. That aside, the Panel has the view that there needs to be a robust process in determining the settlement boundaries. This is particularly pertinent with the DAL process recognising the values of the Bellarine Peninsula. Part of this process in the Panel’s view should be the importance of preserving non-urban breaks as sought by the Strategy. The Panel sees it as an important part of the settlement boundary process that an assessment is undertaken based on ecological values, the capability of land for farming and rural purposes, identification of valued landscape and the high level principles of the Strategy to ensure that the vital role of the non-urban breaks are retained with their inherent role in the Bellarine Peninsula. It is essential that the purpose, characteristics and location of non-urban breaks are clarified. The Panel expects that in some places on the Bellarine Peninsula non-urban breaks may have viable agriculture conducted on them, whereas some may be of landscape and environmental value. It is the network and connectivity of these non-urban breaks that need to be determined as part of the DAL process to ensure the fabric of the Bellarine Peninsula continues to protect the values for which it is identified and community expectations. The Panel notes the efforts of local submitters and experts in bringing forward a wealth of knowledge, qualification and passion to the hearing that clearly illustrated that the Ocean

Page 30 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Grove Nature Reserve is one example of the environmental values on the Bellarine Peninsula that needs to be part of the robust process to determine settlement boundaries. 4.2.3 Conclusions The Panel concludes: • The Amendment as it relates to the Bellarine Peninsula is strategically justified and the Panel supports the directions and intent in the Strategy. • The Amendment does not, and does not purport to, define a long term or permanent settlement boundary for Bellarine Peninsula towns. • A long term or permanent boundary for townships should be defined so that growth can be managed within that context. • The process to define the long term or permanent settlement boundary should be robust, transparent, evidence-based and start from existing structure planning in the planning scheme. • The DAL process would seem to be the logical process to undertake this exercise. Where additional strategic investigative work is required to inform the final township boundary, the DAL could adopt the tailored approach to settlement boundaries used in the Macedon Ranges SPP, and the detailed structure planning be undertaken within the DAL SPP.

4.3 Settlement boundaries – other areas The issue is whether: • Land parcels identified by submitters should be rezoned to Urban Growth Zone and included in the Armstrong Creek Growth Area. 4.3.1 Evidence and submissions Purdies Paddock Pty Ltd (Purdies) has an interest in the land at 55 and 75 Williams Road, Mt Duneed. The land of interest comprises approximately 16.32 hectares across two lots and is located on the north east corner of the intersection of Williams Road and Feehans Road. The land is in the Farming Zone with immediate abuttal to its north and east to the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area. Purdies submitted that Amendment C395ggee “does not go far enough in identifying and protecting land in the vicinity of Mt Duneed, which Purdies has an in interest in, for future conventional residential land use”. Purdies submitted that: it is readily apparent from a review of the land’s physical and planning context, that it is an anomaly, as it is the only land within the area bounded by Williams, Feehans and Whites Road the Surf Coast Highway which is not within the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area and not zoned to facilitate conventional residential development. Purdies submitted that Amendment C138 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme introduced the planning controls to facilitate urban growth in Armstrong Creek and submissions where heard on behalf of landowners along Feehans Road and Torquay Road (the Surf Coast Highway). Purdies further submitted that even though the then landowner of the land was not a submitter to Amendment C138 nor represented at the Amendment C138 Panel Hearing: the logic adopted by the Panel in supporting the inclusion of the adjoining land along Feehans Road with the urban growth boundary also applies to the Land and it

Page 31 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

appears inevitable that had representations been made to include the Land within the urban growth boundary as part of Amendment C138, the Land would have been included. Ms Rigo gave planning evidence for Purdies that “as exhibited, Amendment C395 does not provide adequate certainty regarding the future of the subject land and the opportunity it presents with regards to the Armstrong Creek Growth Area”. In relation to the subject land Ms Rigo formed the opinion it: has locational and physical attributes that are consistent with the objectives and principles of the Settlement Strategy, the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan and the strategic objectives and policies for housing in the Local Planning Policy Framework which makes it a reasonable and logical candidate for inclusion in the Urban Growth Zone and settlement boundary. Ms Rigo, and others, noted the Surf Coast DAL affects the area south of the Armstrong Growth Creek Area. There was concern expressed that the DAL may jeopardise expansion of the settlement boundary to the south regardless of the merits and opportunities. DFC Services Pty Ltd (DFC) has an interest in land at 372-450 Charlemont Road, Armstrong Creek. The land comprises three lots and lies immediate south of the current settlement boundary for Armstrong Creek taking land up to Lower Duneed Road. DFC stated that it “generally does not oppose the Amendment however seeks some minor amendments to the Amendment documents to appropriate acknowledge the future strategic work that should be undertaken in relation to Armstrong Creek”. DFC submitted changes to Clause 21.06 and 21.11 with regard to reflecting the work which should occur in relation to Armstrong Creek. DFC submitted that a logical inclusions process could work in concert with the resolution of the Surf Coast DAL process, to determine the location of any protected settlement boundary, again, if one is even set. DFC considered that the proposed timing for the logical inclusions process, if undertaken expeditiously following the conclusion of this Amendment, would allow any findings to be incorporated into a SPP developed for the Surf Coast DAL. Property Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd has an interest in land at 70 Baenschs Lane, Connewarre. The land of interest comprises approximately 43 hectares and is located on the western side of Baenschs Lane. The land is bounded by Lake Road to the north, Baenschs Lane to the east, Barwon Heads Road to the west and adjoins 15 Baenschs Lane to the south. Property Corporate Holdings submitted its case to rezone the land to Urban Growth Zone, or as an alternative, update the Greater Geelong Housing Framework Plan – 2036, Municipal Framework Plan at Clause 21.04 and Housing and Settlement Framework Plan at Clause 21.06 to identify this land and similar sites that have the ability to satisfy Council’s broad principles for the logical inclusion process as ‘strategic investigation sites’.8 Through its Part B submission, Council advised that its interactions with DELWP on the Surf Coast DAL have not to date suggested that the Surf Coast DAL will propose protected settlement boundaries within the City of Greater Geelong. On this basis Council did not alter its position on logical inclusions for this area of the municipality. Mr Milner giving planning evidence for DFC observed that “the southern boundary of the growth area terminates without a clear, natural or physical defendable reason as an

8 The Panel notes this property is potentially affected by the SPP for the Bellarine Peninsula DAL.

Page 32 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

incongruous, hard edge interface, midway across a rural landscape”. Mr Milner went on to conclude that: With the elapse of a decade, a period of more sustained growth and the intention to establish a permanent settlement boundary, it is timely and appropriate to review and interrogate the strategic consideration for the extent of the growth area boundary against the considerations of an enduring and defendable boundary. Council submitted that submissions seeking to rezone land or to at the minimum include within the settlement boundary are able to participate in the logical inclusions process foreshadowed by Council. In its closing submission, Council advised that “Council and DFC had agreed to a series of minor changes to the Planning Scheme in this matter such that any relevant outcomes of logical inclusions process as it affect Armstrong Creek are recognised in policy” and Council regards the submission as having been resolved. In relation to the Surf Coast DAL, DELWP advised that community engagement was to close on 15 November 2019, and an opportunity for public comment on the draft SPP would commence in early 2020. 4.3.2 Discussion The Panel heard a number of submissions arguing for the inclusion of land within the Armstrong Creek Growth Area either through a rezoning of the land, or the nomination of strategic investigation areas. The Panel draws no conclusion as to whether these parcels of land should be used for residential purposes, rezoned or included within settlement boundaries. The Panel has formed the view however that there is enough reason to further assess the merits of the land nominated in submissions and land in the immediate environs of Armstrong Creek for inclusion in the settlement boundary using the logical inclusions process. The Panel agrees with Mr Milner’s observation regarding the southern boundary and expects that the logical inclusions process will be used to create an enduring and defendable boundary. In contrast to its view on the Bellarine settlement boundaries, the Panel has formed the view that the logical inclusions process needs to occur for the area of land interfacing with Armstrong Creek Growth Area before the DAL is finalised. This includes reviewing the Armstrong Creek southern edge (Surf Coast DAL) and Armstrong Creek eastern edge (Bellarine DAL) along Breamlea Road. A reviewed settlement edge is essential to inform the DAL as the southern and eastern edge of the urban settlement will have an enduring interface with rural land. The eastern edge of Armstrong Creek (western edge of Bellarine DAL) is to the Panel clearly a different case from the Bellarine townships as it potentially forms part of Geelong’s major already-developing growth area. The success of urban settlement and the protection of the DAL are entwined. A robust edge will provide long-term benefits and certainty. 4.3.3 Conclusions The Panel concludes: • There are several parcels of land that could be considered for inclusion in the Urban Growth Zone and provide a robust settlement edge for the Armstrong Creek Growth Area.

Page 33 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

• The Panel is not in a position to make judgement on the individual merits of each parcel of land suffice to say that there is a degree of variation between land that presents strongly for residential use and land that does not.

4.4 Logical inclusions process 4.4.1 The issue The Amendment proposes to introduce a permanent settlement boundary through a logical inclusions process at Clause 21.06-2 Spatial Distribution of Land Supply with the strategy ‘confirm enduring and defendable settlement boundaries by undertaking a logical inclusions process’. The Strategy outlines that the preferred process to settling the permanent boundaries is an approach similar to that utilised by the Logical Inclusions Advisory Committee that reviewed the Melbourne Urban Growth Boundary in 2011. The issues are: • Whether the proposed logical inclusions process is satisfactory. • The timing of the logical inclusions process. 4.4.2 Evidence and submissions The Strategy outlines a ‘logical inclusions’ type process on page 75. It would be based on existing zoning and strategic plans and include a series of steps including the establishment of criteria, consultation, advice from infrastructure agencies and independent oversight amongst others. Several submitters raised concerns with the proposed logical inclusions process proposed by Amendment C395ggee, in particular what the process will be; the timeframe for the conduct of the process; the inter-relationship with the DAL process; and whether there will be any opportunity for independent review of Council’s findings. As outlined by Council’s expert witness Mr Barlow: The proposed Settlement Strategy Framework Plan (see Figure 4 – page 15) proposes that all townships, including urban Geelong, will have ‘permanent’ settlement boundaries. The Settlement Strategy does not nominate what form of control will be applied to create the settlement boundaries. It also outlines the preferred process (together with some suggested matters for consideration) to setting the permanent boundaries suggesting that an approach similar to that utilised by the Logical Inclusions Advisory Committee that reviewed the Melbourne Urban Growth Boundary in 2011. The Strategy also notes that the ‘logical inclusions’ process should commence as soon as resources allow and must precede any further township structure plan reviews As expressed by Mr Barlow, there was a mix of proposals for land to be included within the indicative permanent settlement boundary or as part of a future logical inclusions process. Mr Barlow did not consider all the submissions that cited concern with logical inclusions. He investigated the Boral Land only. The Victorian Planning Authority (VPA) submitted that “the Settlement Strategy consider identifying the Waurn Ponds Boral landholdings (particularly the northern part) as a future investigation area or alternately through a future logical inclusions type review”. Mr Barlow preferred the site not to be reviewed in isolation but be done as part of a broader review of the Armstrong Urban Growth Area.

Page 34 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Council’s expert Mr Collins also presented to the Panel his view on the submissions made regarding the logical inclusions process. He expressed the view that: A ‘logical inclusions process’ would potentially be most relevant to the Bellarine Peninsula townships – especially the three ‘district towns’ where there may previously have been an expectation of regular boundary reviews to provide for ongoing greenfield housing growth. The Council has indicated that it believes that the Bellarine DAL process is the appropriate way to address any issues associated with defining permanent (‘protected’) township boundaries Mr Collins indicated that his work on the Strategy addressed the issue of whether the growth of the townships should be allowed to continue on an open-ended basis, it did not attempt to review past structure planning studies to determine whether the existing boundaries of these townships are ‘logical’ or in need of some change. Mr Collins suggested that that type of investigation could occur through a ‘logical inclusions’ process or the DAL process. He also expressed his view that he saw “no apparent justification, apart from self- interest, for suggesting that the growth area boundaries should be subject to review through an immediate ‘logical inclusions’ process.” Mr Milner gave evidence that “a process congruent with the Logical Inclusions Review is an appropriate planning mechanism available to resolve the matter of permanent settlement boundaries across Greater Geelong” and “the structure plan review process conducted on a settlement by settlement basis provides a similar and appropriate planning mechanism.” Mr Glossop giving planning evidence for Morgan and Griffin outlined some basis to the uncertainty of the logical inclusions process. This evidence included: • An extract from Council’s 24 September 2019 meeting about the further review of the Ocean Grove township boundary with Council noting: The [Distinctive Areas and Landscapes] 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 to make them permanent. Given that the DAL will establish protected settlement boundaries on the Bellarine, a logical inclusions process will no longer be required for the Bellarine Peninsula. Likewise, township settlement boundaries will not be reviewed in the future review of structure plans for the various Bellarine Peninsula towns. • The observation that Council’s Part A submission does not identify any further change to Clause 21.14 creating a level of uncertainty and inconsistency about Council’s intention for the township and whether the structure plan would be reviewed prior to the introduction of a permanent settlement boundary or after that process has occurred. • The Framework Plan identifying an ‘indicative permanent settlement boundary’ for the Geelong Urban Area and other townships having a ‘settlement boundary’. Mr Glossop expressed his view that “it would be contrary to notions of orderly and proper planning or ‘good planning’ to introduce a permanent boundary for Ocean Grove prior to a review of the Structure Plan being undertaken.” LBDG sought a change to the proposed Clause 21.06-2 (Spatial distribution of growth and land supply) by modifying the fourth Strategy by adding “to consider minor changes” after “logical inclusions process”.

Page 35 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

As noted above, Mr Collins stated that in his view other than self-interest, there is no apparent reason for an immediate ‘logical inclusions’ process. Under cross-examination from Mr Bissett, Mr Collins agreed there needs to be some way to get to a well-argued and well-justified township boundary and that this may be achieved by Structure Plan review or logical inclusions process or other process. Council submitted that the DAL process for the Bellarine will satisfy the ‘logical inclusions’ identified within the Amendment in so far as it relates to the Bellarine. It said that ‘on the basis that the Settlement Strategy, except for the Northern and Western Growth Areas, does not identify new areas of growth, the Amendment includes a proposed process by which minor logical adjustments or omissions can be addressed’. Council proposed that this will occur pursuant a separate Planning Scheme Amendment process to be initiated in the short term after gazettal of the Amendment. Council submitted that the process will be based upon the following principles: • Bellarine township boundaries to be determined by the DAL process • Geelong will upon gazettal of the Amendment have and adequate land supply • Geelong is committed to delivering sustainable and functional communities in a timely manner to the existing identified growth areas and does not need to identify further additional growth fronts at this time • Adequacy of supply will be identified during the ongoing monitoring and review • Geelong is committed to achieving 50 percent of housing via infill by 2047 and providing greater densities and housing diversity in identified growth areas. Council submitted that the precise nature of the broad principles for the logical inclusions process may alter however the following principles reflect current thinking and understanding: • Land supply is not a consideration • Land must be contiguous with urban residential areas – GRZ, RGZ, NRZ or UGZ • It is unlikely that the Northern and Western Growth Areas would be included given they have recently been the subject of a specific investigation process • Land must deliver a benefit to existing or identified residential land/development through for example more efficient infrastructure provision or utilisation • Land must be able to rely on existing facilities and services and not create the need for additional or new community infrastructure or significant council investment that would be required for a new residential node. Council also submitted that the suitability for urban development should consider: • Flooding risk, climate change, environmental issues including acid sulphate soils; • Accessibility, including the feasibility and cost of providing adequate public transport and roads access; • Impacts of any proposed boundary changes on the economic provision of other development fronts; • Urban services including both utility and community services; • Impacts of any proposed changes on the establishment of logical and enduring settlement boundaries; • Physical boundaries including consideration of natural features, location of major roads and reservations for public utilities; and • Potential impacts on significant existing non-urban land uses and activities including agricultural, activities, extractive industry, sensitive land use buffers, tourism and other established and valued land uses.

Page 36 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Council submitted that a Planning Scheme Amendment to determine the long-term boundary for urban Geelong through a logical inclusions process will occur upon the implementation of Amendment C395ggee. A draft ‘long term’ or ‘permanent boundary’ to replace the ‘indicative’ boundary exhibited through this Amendment will be prepared and will include the final methodology and criteria used to come to Council’s preferred position. Once Council has completed any supporting strategic work the report and draft boundary will go out on public exhibition and follow the usual amendment process. On Day 5 of the Hearing, Council submitted that it had not altered its position on the logical inclusions process as detailed in Clause 21.06. In its Part B opening submission Council advised that: Council considers that the DAL process is the proper forum for consideration of specific planning policy on the Bellarine and anticipates that it is through this process that the some or all of the matters of Implementation under Clause 21.14 of the Planning Scheme will be satisfied and addressed. It considers the DAL process for the Bellarine will resolve both these matters and will satisfy the ‘logical inclusions’ identified within the Amendment in so far as it relates to the Bellarine. Under proposed Clause 21.06 the Amendment includes the following text under Further Work: Establish a consultation process to deal with any significant anomalies or logical inclusions as part of conferring an enduring settlement boundary. The Amendment includes a proposed process by which minor logical adjustments or omissions can be addressed. Council submitted that this proposed process is on the basis that the Settlement Strategy, except for the Northern and Western Growth Areas, does not identify new areas of growth. In its closing submission, Council noted that ‘Purdie’s Paddock’ is a relevant parcel that on face value is capable of satisfying at least a number of the proposed criteria for the future logical inclusions process and this can be further examined if a submission is made to the process. Council also noted that other submitters such as Property Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd may also pursue their cases through the logical inclusions process. Council’s commentary varied on the sites. In its closing, Council reinforced that as with other parts of this Amendment, the concerns raised by parties are not whether there is enough land but is either about whether their land can be developed or when it can be developed. Council submitted that the Amendment is founded on a two-part settlement strategy, existing Geelong and the growth areas; and does not seek to introduce new land to the existing areas of Geelong. Council accepted “a further process for finalisation of an enduring boundary for Geelong” and submitted this is what the Amendment specifically contemplates. Council considered that the form of this finalisation will be: • In the form of a logical inclusions process; or • Secured by the DAL program; or • In the case of Ocean Grove, if not addressed by the DAL, through the proposed review of the structure plan in accordance with the exhibited planning scheme provisions.

Page 37 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

When responding to specific submissions, in its closing submission Council submitted that “to the extent that the DAL does not grapple with boundaries then it would follow that the logical inclusions process would extend to the Bellarine”. 4.4.3 Discussion The Strategy notes that the ‘logical inclusions’ process should commence as soon as resources allow and must precede any further township structure plan reviews. Under proposed Clause 21.06, the Amendment includes the following text identified as Further Work: Establish a consultation process to deal with any significant anomalies or logical inclusions as part of an enduring settlement boundary. The Panel does not fully agree with the view of Mr Collins regarding the immediate need of a logical inclusions process, as there are some parcels of land where such a process is appropriate and will deliver robust and logical settlement boundaries that accord with the principles outlined in the Strategy, for example the southern settlement boundary for the Armstrong Creek Growth Area. The Panel agrees with Mr Barlow that as with other parts of this Amendment, the concerns raised by parties are not whether there is sufficient land but whether their land can be developed and when it can be developed. The Panel considers that the issue of timing of the process needs to be clearly defined. 4.4.4 Conclusions The Panel concludes: • the logical inclusions process is important, and has been clearly articulated by Council • the logical inclusions process should be undertaken as soon as possible for Armstrong Creek to assess the land, and where justified, include in an addendum to the Armstrong Creek Growth Area in a single strategic planning exercise. This logical inclusion process will in turn inform the Surf Coast DAL (policy for northern edge) and Bellarine Peninsula DAL (policy for south western edge) • a logical inclusions process should be considered for townships on the Bellarine Peninsula, where a structure plan review or settlement boundary resolution through the DAL process is not proposed • there is no need for a logical inclusions process to be used in the short to medium- term for the NWGGA. 4.4.5 Recommendation The Panel recommends: Revise the Settlement Strategy to clearly articulate that for the Bellarine Peninsula, the process to finalise an enduring boundary for Geelong will be: • Secured by the DAL program; and • If not addressed by the DAL, through the proposed review of structure plans; or • Where no Structure Plan review is proposed in the near future, then the logical inclusions process as described in the Settlement Strategy.

Page 38 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

5 Settlement Strategy – strategic land holdings

5.1 Settlement boundaries – Boral land The issue is whether the land should be rezoned to Urban Growth Zone and how it should be designated in local policy. 5.1.1 Evidence and submissions Boral Ltd and Blue Circle Southern Cement Ltd (Boral) owns a large parcel of land to the southwest of the urban areas of Geelong. The land of interest comprises 1,020 hectares and is dissected by the Geelong-Warrnambool railway and the Geelong Ring Road with existing underpasses providing connectivity across the site. The southern portion of the land has been included in the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas Landscape. Boral submitted that the land should be rezoned Urban Growth Zone and included within the urban growth boundary; that the land will be required for housing prior to 2036; and that the current zoning of part of the Boral land as Special Use Zone is an anomaly. Boral submitted that the land has a unique combination of attributes that provides a compelling reason why its submission should be supported. Boral detailed these attributes as including size, single ownership, existing servicing, proximity to excellent road and public transport infrastructure; and proximity to major employment generators. Boral submitted that certainty for the future of its land was needed to ensure that the rehabilitation plan catered for urban development. Additionally, Boral submitted that the land needs to be at least designated for investigation as the southern area of the land is nominated in the Surf Coast DAL and the DAL process needs to take the future use of the land into consideration. In particular, Boral submitted the following changes should be made to the Amendment: • Make changes to the exhibited Municipal Framework Plan at Clause 21.04 by designation of the part of the Boral land north of Reservoir Road as ‘growth area’ and removal of the ‘major resources’ designation. • Make changes to the exhibited Housing and Settlement Framework Plan at Clause 21.06 to include all of the Boral land within the settlement boundary; designate the part of the Boral land north of Reservoir Road as ‘future growth areas’ and designate the part of the Boral land south of Reservoir Road as ‘investigation area’. • Insert text into Clause 21.06-1 to direct the further investigation of the land for its potential for further urban development; and delete text from Clause 22.11 in relation to the protection of the land for extractive industries. • Rezone all of the part of the Boral land north of Reservoir Road from Special Use Zone-Schedule 7 to Urban Growth Zone. • Update the Strategy consistent with these changes to the Planning Scheme. The VPA submitted on the matter in its capacity as ‘Advisor’ to Council and expressed a concern that there had been a possible oversight in Council’s application of areas for future long-term investigation. The VPA submitted that: It is the submission of the VPA that the land should be at the very least considered as a ‘Long-term Investigation Area’ on Figure 1 in the Settlement Strategy. The key reasons the VPA supports its consideration relate to its location, size, single

Page 39 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

ownership, zoning and cessation of quarrying activity. It is an opportunity to include land that will clearly be considered into the future and is included with the current G21 Regional Growth Plan. Mr Barnes provided planning evidence for Boral on the position of the land within the context of Amendment C395ggee, the Strategy and existing and proposed planning policy expressing the view that: The issue in relation to the Boral land is not about whether the land is needed to accommodate future urban development in Geelong. Rather, it is about whether the land is as well or is better located to accommodate future urban development than the other areas that have been identified. In its Part A submission, Council expressed its position in not supporting Mr Barlow’s recommendation to identify the northern part of Boral land as a potential investigation area as: Council officers do not dismiss the attributes of the Boral land as a potential long-term growth area. However, it is premature to designate it for future investigation at this point in time as there is adequate lot supply in other areas including NWGGA and Armstrong Creek. Subject to the commentary above Council would not oppose include some further discussion on the Boral land in the Settlement Strategy document (subject to appropriate qualifications) and must consider any Panel recommendations on this issue.” Council further submitted that that the rezoning and designation of the Boral land within the settlement boundary as part of the Amendment would be premature and inappropriate. Council submitted that it is unnecessary to rezone or include more land within the indicative urban growth boundary at this point in time as the Strategy already provides for the municipality’s growth for over 20 years. Council also submitted that the rezoning of the land is not before the Panel. In its Part B submission, Council argued that in chronological terms there is nothing surprising in the non-recognition of the Boral land and acknowledged that: The Boral site, on the evidence before the Panel and logically, represents a large land holding capable, at least in part, of accommodating substantial growth and potentially suitability for residential development. Its investigations however are not so advanced as those for the northern and western growth let alone at the time the Settlement Strategy was prepared. Council submitted that it acknowledges the locational and strategic attributes of the Boral land for urban development and that these factors are recognised in its identification in the G21 Regional Growth Plan Implementation Plan Background Report for potential long-term growth (2040+). Council submits that the use of the Boral land for quarrying and clinker grinding combined with the rehabilitation that is necessary before residential uses can commence has meant that priority has been appropriately given to the NWGGA. Council acknowledges that Mr Barlow provided expert planning opinion that the Boral land should not be assessed in isolation but as part of broader review of the Armstrong Creek Growth Area. In its closing submission, Council acknowledged the future potential of the land. Council proposed changes to the Strategy to specifically recognise that at the end of its extractive use and resolution of the DAL process it is one of several sites for investigation to meet the municipality’s future housing needs.

Page 40 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

5.1.2 Discussion As heard under cross-examination of a number of expert witnesses, the Panel recognises that the Boral land holds characteristics that are advantageous to its future development to support the growth of Geelong. In particular, the Panel heard from Mr Barnes that the knowns are the opportunities presented, the unknowns are the details of the opportunities and it is the balance of the knowns and the unknowns that leads him to suggest it be designated as a further investigation area. The Panel agrees with this pragmatic approach. The ability of the Strategy in its current form to provide sufficient land supply to deliver the requirement of a 15 year land supply has remained essentially unchallenged through the proceedings. Concern was raised that the adequacy of land supply did not take into account challenges in Armstrong Creek (e.g. fragmentation of ownership) and any future challenges in the NWGGA. During the Hearing considerable debate occurred between Council and Boral regarding the chronology of the preparation of Amendment C395ggee and its key documents including the Strategy and the Framework Plan; Boral’s intentions for the future use of the land and cessation of current works; and whether or not the rezoning of the land is before the Panel. To the Panel the main question is whether there is strategic justification for ‘bringing on’ the Boral land prior to or at the same time as NWGGA. In the implementation of Clause 11.2-1S, Council must provide clear direction on locations where growth should occur. With appropriate considerations, Council may choose to direct growth where it deems appropriate and strategically justified. The Strategy adequately justifies the decision to direct growth to the NWGGA. The Panel partly agrees with Council that the Amendment is not about identifying new areas of land. The Amendment does not seek to broadly rezone land to Urban Growth Zone except for select area of the NWGGA which have been determined to be required in the short-term for the residential growth of Geelong. However, the Amendment does provide the opportunity to identify land for further investigation, particularly where that land has been formally recognised in other strategic planning documents. 5.1.3 Conclusions and recommendation The Panel concludes: • The Boral land could be designated in the Settlement Strategy for further investigation to meet the municipality’s future housing needs at the end of its extractive use and resolution of the DAL process. • There is insufficient strategic justification for the Boral land to be identified as a growth area or rezoned to Urban Growth Zone as part of this Amendment. The Panel recommends: Council consider revising the Settlement Strategy to identify the Boral land as an ‘Investigation Area’ for future urban development.

Page 41 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

5.2 Settlement boundaries – Western Industrial Precinct The issue is whether the Geelong Settlement Strategy and the planning policies contained within the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, including the Framework Plan contained in Clause 21.11, should be amended to identify land in the south-west precinct of the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area for residential purpose. 5.2.1 Evidence and submissions Mt Duneed Developments Pty Ltd (MDD) has interests in land within the Urban Growth Zone and more specifically within the Western Industrial Precinct (WIP) of the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area (ACUGA). The land of interest is located in the south-west of the ACUGA in the area generally bounded by Whites Road, Ghazeepore Road, Armstrong Creek and the Surf Coast Highway and comprises approximately 77 per cent of the land within the WIP. The WIP is bounded to the north and east by land within the ACUGA, and no PSP has been prepared. MDD requested that the designation of the south-west part of the ACUGA as an employment precinct be revisited. In particular, MDD requested that the Geelong Strategy and the planning policies contained within the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme (including the Framework Plan contained in Clause 21.11) be amended to identify land in the south- west precinct of the ACUGA for residential purposes. MDD submitted that the preparation of a new Strategy presents the opportunity to review the way that existing urban land in the Armstrong Creek Growth Area is planned in the future. MDD provided submissions identifying the changes that have occurred in Geelong since the original ACUGP was adopted in May 2008, and subsequently amended in May 2010. MDD invited the Panel to recommend a revisitation of the industrial precinct citing three reasons for this being: the closure of the Boral quarry; rise of the Geelong Future Economy Precinct; and the passage of time and what has transpired in the intervening period. In regard to the lack of need for a quarry buffer, MDD emphasised that the proximity to the quarry was the overriding consideration in the designation of the WIP in the ACUGP. The submission was made that: As a consequence of the changing use of the Boral land, the function of the WIP as a buffer in relation to residential land further to the east in the ACUGA has ceased to be necessary or relevant to questions of strategic use of the WIP land. Mr Barnes also shared the view that the presence of the quarry directly influenced the designation of the land immediately east of the Boral land as ‘Employment Land’ and ‘Parkland’ in the ACUGP. MDD noted general support for the position taken by Boral in its submission but submitted that the suitability of the Boral land for residential purposes should be assessed in conjunction with consideration of the WIP land for a residential outcome. In regard to the envisaged use and current designation of the land, MDD submitted that the WIP’s proximity to the Deakin University Waurn Ponds Campus, and the size of the Deakin site at the time of conceptualising the WIP, underpinned the location and tenants expected. Ms Brennan submitted that “what was anticipated for Armstrong Creek hasn’t materialised and will not materialise”. MDD submitted that “with the Deakin site being expanded from 54

Page 42 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

hectares to 543 hectares, the niche anticipated by the ACGUP for the WIP appears to be filled”. In considering other tenancies for the land, MDD submitted that the land attributes don’t make it attractive for major business and investment and that other locations like the Heales Road precinct and the Northern Employment and Industrial Precinct provide a reasonable supply of ‘service industry land’. Mr McNeil presented evidence relating to the future development prospects of the WIP located in the ACUGA with consideration of any impact on the WIP arising from the closure of the Boral Quarry located to the west of the WIP. Mr McNeil provided strong support to the Strategy saying that: The Settlement Strategy effectively provides a high level framework aimed at meeting the future housing needs of Greater Geelong. In doing so, it assesses the city’s future growth prospects, housing needs and where those needs are likely to be met in spatial terms. Mr McNeil expressed his opinion that: The Settlement Strategy represents a sound approach and addresses many of the key issues Greater Geelong is likely to face in the future. Like all such documents however, it is reliant on the best information available at the time it was written. I consider a number of matters from the Settlement Strategy in the balance of my evidence statement. Mr McNeil agreed that the use of Scenario D in the Strategy “is the most appropriate growth scenario for the purposes of planning future growth”. Mr McNeil did note that “based on the trajectory of recent growth it may be prudent to consider the possibility of Scenario E in considering future urban growth and land supply requirements”. Mr McNeil supported MDD’s submission on the land attributes and concluded that the WIP should be identified for residential development as there is strong demand for residential land in Greater Geelong and the Armstrong Creek Growth Area. In presenting evidence for the Boral land, Mr Barnes also expressed views on the future approach to development of the WIP, the interface between the ACUGA and the Boral land. He identified that there are clear benefits in extending urban areas and designated growth areas, rather than establishing new urban growth fronts; and that such an approach is supported by planning policy. Of relevance, Mr Barnes detailed that: Urban development on the eastern parts of the Boral land would in my opinion be a natural and logical extension of the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area. There would be a need to rethink the PSPs for the western part of Armstrong Creek, in particular the Western Employment Area. However, I do not believe this would be unreasonable, given that the employment precinct has not yet been developed and a PSP has not yet been approved. Council submitted that the uptake of industrial land is often delayed, and that suitable land should not necessarily become land for residential use. Under cross-examination by Mr Tobin, Mr McNeil acknowledged that there was no analysis that had been undertaken which demonstrated a need for this land to be put to residential purposes to satisfy a shortfall in land supply over the duration of the Strategy. Mr McNeil accepted that his report was something less than a comprehensive assessment of availability of industrial land. In closing submissions, Council submitted that the changes sought by Mount Duneed Developments are premature. Mr Tobin went on to say that the changes sought are

Page 43 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

leveraged off submissions made by Boral which is an area for which the development future is not yet clearly articulated. Additionally, Council’s closing submission noted that information seeking support for change can be submitted to Council at any time and that signposting potential change is unnecessary and unjustified. 5.2.2 Discussion MDD supported the proposed Amendment but sought changes to recognise the strategic circumstances of land within the WIP. The MDD submission was prefaced on the alteration to the policy components of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, taking the view that Amendment C395ggee therefore affects all land within the municipality. The Panel acknowledges that ACGUP was adopted over a decade ago and that many residential aspects of the plan are well under development. Whilst the recommendation contained in the Amendment C138 Panel Report and the changing face of Greater Geelong may lend some weight to the need to revisit the size and intent of the WIP, that alone is not enough to change the designation as part of the Amendment C395ggee process. Nor is the generic background work that Ms Brennan indicated has been undertaken on the land by her client. Upon review of the ACUGP, it is clear that the provision of a buffer between residential and quarry activities is one of five key elements listed for the rationale for the location of the WIP. The future of the Boral land is uncertain as is the future need for a buffer to the sensitive uses stemming from that land. The evidence of Mr McNeil left some doubt in the Panel’s mind when he expressed the opinion that he is not convinced it can become a 140 hectare business park but did not turn his mind fully to non-residential uses of the land. The Panel is of the view that there is insufficient justification to change the designation through this Amendment process. In closing submissions, Council identified that at any time it is open for information to be presented to Council seeking support for change and the Panel notes this point. The Panel accepts Council’s view that industrial land takes time to develop. In conjunction with the breadth of work undertaken by Council for the Northern and Western Growth Areas to meet future residential demand, the Panel has the view there is no pressing need to redesignate the land for residential use. It may be prudent to wait until such time as there is certainty over the future of the Boral land and both areas of land can be reviewed in conjunction with each other. 5.2.3 Conclusions The Panel concludes: • On the evidence before it, any redesignation of the WIP for residential use would be premature and without sufficient certainty of the adjacent land use and employment land requirements in Greater Geelong. • Any review of the WIP should not be considered in isolation of the Boral Land, and the broader ACUGA.

Page 44 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

6 Growth Area Framework Plan

6.1 Introduction The Framework Plan provides a high level outline development plan for the two proposed growth areas. Many submissions sought changes to the Framework Plan, but these were generally changes directed to development form, sequencing and timing rather than outright objections. There were some objections to the growth areas, but these were relatively few and generally went to issues that the Panel considers can be managed through future planning and development, or were not of such weight to count against the provision of a very significant growth area for Geelong with a 20 year time horizon.

6.2 Planning process The process followed by the Council in formulating the Framework Plan was extensive and involved community and stakeholder consultation over a period of some three years. The Framework Plan draws on a significant number of background and technical reports commissioned by the Council. The exhibited Amendment seeks in part to implement the NWGGA Framework Plan by inserting a new clause (Clause 21.20) which includes the Framework Plan map (Figure 2) and adding the Framework Plan document as a Background Document (in Schedule to Clause 72.08). 6.2.1 Evidence and submissions Council submitted that the Framework Plan was innovative, ambitious, worthy of strategic support and contained overarching principles for land use and development of the Northern and Western Growth Areas and was intended as a high-level plan to guide the preparation of PSPs and DCPs/ICPs for the precincts within the two growth areas. Council acknowledged that: The Framework Plan contains some greater detail than is commonly seen in framework plans. This reflects the extensive background work carried to inform the ultimate plan. In effect, this information is catalogue of existing conditions. This is useful information in a framework plan to assist in preparing PSPs, acknowledging there is flexibility in the application of the Framework when preparing those PSPs. It submitted that while future PSPs must be consistent with the vision of the Framework Plan, it accepted that further work would be required on indicative land use and infrastructure items. In his planning evidence for Council, Mr Woodland stated that he supported the underlying intension of Clause 21.20-3 in seeking to ensure that land use and development proceeds generally in a accordance with a Framework Plan but that he did not consider it appropriate for policies or strategies in a planning scheme to rely on material in Background Documents as a basis for decision making. He therefore suggested alternative wording for Clause 21.20- 3. He also noted that framework plans are not intended to be an absolute prescription of the land use and development outcomes for land within growth areas and specifically recommended that amongst other changes, the PSP concept plans should either be removed

Page 45 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

from the Framework Plan background document or that a ‘statement of limitations’ be included in the Framework plan explaining that “... these (PSP concept plans) are only intended to show the potential combination of land uses and infrastructure requirements that need to be addressed at the PSP stage, and that the plans do not represent a final or preferred urban structure for the precinct.” Council advised that: Council accepts Mr Woodland’s advice that the exhibited requirement for ‘general accordance with the Framework Plan’ is instead amended to a requirement to ‘have regard’ to the Framework Plan in preparing PSPs (or similar wording) and to require general accordance only with the plans incorporated into the Planning Scheme. To this end, Council submitted that Clause 21.20 as exhibited should be amended “... to not require that PSPs prepared must be in accordance with the entire Framework Plan” and that a new section should be included in the Framework Plan as follows: Role of the framework plan The Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan is a high-level strategic document that describes considerations related to future urban development in the growth areas. The framework plan describes the existing site context of the growth areas and outlines a vision and set of urban development objectives and actions to inform the subsequent detailed preparation of precinct structure plans (PSPs). The framework plan proposes the sequential preparation of nine PSPs. Each PSP provides the basis for localised urban development and investment and will further consider and incorporate relevant directions outlined in this framework plan. Each PSP will elaborate on the framework plan by adding important land uses that support the local community such as local roads, schools, community facilities and open space not included at this preliminary level of planning. Preparation of each PSP will be the subject of further detailed technical investigations and reports specific to that precinct. A separate planning scheme amendment will facilitate the detailed future urban structure and infrastructure requirements of the precincts. The location and extent of some features (e.g. road network, waterways and activity centres) depicted in plan set of the framework plan are accordingly illustrative or enlarged with the intent that they will be refined or amended as part of the preparation of each PSP. The framework plan summarises existing technical investigations that provide a preliminary basis for the preparation of each PSP. It is important to ensure that the preparation of the PSP allows for the consideration and adoption of new technical information that may provide increased benefits to the future community. Mr Woodland in oral evidence agreed that it would be helpful to include words to this intent. In closing, Council submitted that the planning scheme ordinance documents were the most critical in the hierarchy of planning documents and necessarily the most important aspects on which the Panel should provide its advice on what should be included in the Amendment. It noted that the Framework Plan is not an incorporated document, but a background document and it should not be the role of the Panel to re-draft this background document. It invited the Panel to make recommendations it considered appropriate to assist Council to re-draft and structure the document in a careful and considered manner. LBDG expressed concern about the content of the Framework Plan, the extent of detail in the plan and the rigidity of its outcomes. It stated that:

Page 46 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Lovely Banks is seeking modifications to clause 21.20 and the Framework Plan to ensure that the Framework Plan will be given the proper weight, having regard to its status as a background document and that this is reflected appropriately in the text to clause 21.20. LBDG argued that as established in VCAT decisions, whether a proposal was ‘generally in accordance with’ a plan was a question of fact and the more detail there is in the primary document (in this case the Framework Plan) the less flexibility is given by the phrase. LBDG submitted that: This is precisely why the application of that phrase here is concerning. Not because of the phrase itself, but because of the content of the primary document it refers to either by reference to the spatial plan or the background document which provides insight into the spatial plan. The Framework Plan document is too detailed in certain respects. Mr Woodland agrees with that and his evidence essentially tried (but did not properly resolve how) to grapple with the implications. Consequently, we submit that the operative phrase in the policy (‘generally in accordance with’) will arguably leave little flexibility in the application of the Framework Plan. We submit that the solution is not to come up with a new planning phrase such as “have regard to” or whatever else it might be, but rather to use the appropriate and commonly applied language, but address the Framework Plan. It is beyond the scope of our submission to rewrite the Framework Plan. Neither does Lovely Bank wish to do that. However, we have identified (in Appendix 1) the parts of it that we submit require some review or amendment. In addition to that, because we do not seek to extensively rewrite the Framework Plan, we seek that the text of clause 21.20 be modified to ensure that the required level of elasticity exists going forward. LBDG sought a change to the exhibited Clause 21.20-3 to replace the first four strategies with: Prepare Precinct Structure Plans that are generally in accordance with the spatial framework plan set out in clause 21.20-5 and consider, as relevant, the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan background document. LBDG welcomed the new text proposed by Council for inclusion in the Framework Plan but proposed some changes to it. The Ramsay Property Group (Ramsay) submitted that it generally supported the Framework Plan but endorsed the evidence of Mr Black (who gave planning evidence for the McCann Family) and Mr Woodland that the exhibited wording of Clause 21.20 did not allow sufficient flexibility in the preparation of the PSPs. Ramsay supported Council’s intention to redefine the relationship between Clause 21.20 and the Framework plan to promote greater flexibility and to include further wording in the Framework Plan to clarify the role of the Framework Plan. It endorsed the wording change to Clause 21.20-3 proposed by Mr Woodland as striking “... the right note for the Framework Plan to play in moving forward”. The McCann Family submitted that the drafting proposed for Clause 21.20-3 by LBDG was most appropriate as it “adopts phrases commonly used in statutory planning ... and provides an appropriate form of reference to a ‘background document’ in the planning scheme, recognising the usefulness of such documents within the planning scheme whilst also retaining flexibility to depart from that document where appropriate.” The McCann Family tabled a marked-up version of the exhibited Clause 21.20-3 with proposed changes. It stated that this revised wording was based on the submission made by LBDG and the evidence of Mr Woodland and Mr Black.

Page 47 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

In his evidence, Mr Black referred to the Planning Practice Note 13, Incorporated and Background Documents, September 2018. He opined that specifically mentioning the Framework Plan in a local planning provision is consistent with the direction set in the Practice Note but questioned the way it is done in the exhibited Clause 21.20-3. He noted that background documents have only a limited role as they are not part of the planning scheme and therefore the strategy stated in the exhibited Clause 21.20-3 was “... not appropriate as it seemingly places too much reliance on the role the Framework plan will play in future decision making.” Mr Black suggested wording changes to the strategies in Clause 21.20-3 to ensure some flexibility is provided for the future planning of the growth area. Mr Marshall for Mr Rodney Reid raised concerns with the level of detail in the Framework Plan and the draft planning scheme provisions that support its implementation. He submitted that either the planning provisions are “... relaxed to allow a more liberal interpretation of the Framework Plan or the detail within in the WGGA Framework Plan is substantially reduced or considered a guide only.” Council responded to submissions and evidence and included in its closing submissions what it described as ‘its panel version’ of Clause 21.20 (Document 245). This version incorporated the changes requested by the McCann Family except for the following: • replace “Framework Plan map” with “spatial plan” (which was also suggested by Mr Montebello) • under the second dot point in Clause 21.20-3 delete the second dash point regarding development sequencing (see Section 6.4 below) • delete the second sentence in the ninth dot point • delete tenth dot point • delete eleventh dot point. This final version of Clause 21.20-3 Strategies added a new dot point at the end which reads: Land use and development should have regard to the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan (City of Greater Geelong, XX, YY) (Panel’s emphasis) The version submitted by Council did not include under Further Work in clause 21.20-4 (Implementation) a reference to a single ICP or DCP or an Infrastructure Funding Plan as requested by the McCann Family. This issue is discussed in Section 6.5 below. 6.2.2 Discussion There was overall support for the Framework Plan as an important strategic document to guide the development of the two growth areas. No parties questioned whether it should be listed in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme as a background document. There were, however, several submitters who questioned some aspects of the Framework Plan, in particular that it was too detailed for a strategic document. They expressed concern with the proposed changes to the Planning Scheme to implement the Framework Plan and consequently how the Framework Plan as a background document and the incorporated Framework Plan map could be interpreted by those developing the PSPs for the growth areas. The Panel heard much evidence and lengthy submissions on these matters.

Page 48 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

The Panel considers that some changes sought by submitters to the Framework Plan map and background document are relevant to its consideration of the Amendment. These specific issues are discussed in the following sections of this report. Many other issues raised in submissions were considered by the Panel to be matters of detail most appropriately dealt with through the PSP development process. The Panel considers that the planning process followed by Council in developing the Framework Plan was robust and comprehensive. It is satisfied that the Framework Plan should be adopted with some changes. The Panel agrees with Council that the role of the Panel is not to rewrite the Framework Plan, noting that this is a background document, but rather it is to provide guidance on how the Framework Plan could be improved and make recommendations with respect to the Amendment’s implementation of the Framework Plan, in particular Clause 21.20-3. The Panel does share the concerns of some submitters that the Plan is very detailed and if narrowly interpreted could diminish flexibility in the development of the Precinct Structure Plans in the two growth areas. As noted by Mr Woodland in his evidence, it is questionable whether as a strategic document, the Framework Plan should include ‘draft’ PSPs. The Panel accepts however that the included PSPs are intended to be no more that concepts at this stage and much more detailed analysis will be needed to determine PSPs to guide future land use development and infrastructure provision. Significant redrafting of the Framework Plan could take some time and potentially delay development of some precincts. To avoid this the Panel considers that the best remedy at this stage is to include a new set of words as a preamble in the Framework Plan and to revise the proposed amendment to planning scheme ordinance (Clause 21.20-3) to clarify the purpose of the Framework Plan. This should provide increased flexibility in how it should be interpreted in the preparation of PSPs. Most parties at the hearing agreed this was an appropriate way forward. Council put forward a form of words for such a ‘preamble’ and other parties, notably LBDG, provided some commentary on them. The Panel considers that the draft words proposed by Council provide a good basis for a new ‘preamble’ to the Framework Plan. The Panel suggests that additional words should be included to emphasise that the document is a background document and should be interpreted in that light. Mr Montebello suggested some words worthy of Council’s consideration although the Panel considers that Council should add in simple and clear wording that leaves no room for misinterpretation as to the purpose of the Framework Plan. The Panel is not offended by the second and third paragraphs of Council’s proposed words (i.e. parts which Mr Montebello suggested should be deleted) but does not think this form of words goes far enough in making it clear that the PSPs in the Framework Plan background document are no more than concept PSPs albeit developed with the benefit of not insignificant background preliminary analysis. The Panel considers that unambiguous wording should be added to Council’s draft words to simply state that the concept PSPs are just that, providing a starting point and will in all likelihood be subject to significant changes as the PSPs are prepared in some detail through the usual processes of development and review. Some potential changes to the Framework Plan map and consequential changes to the Framework Plan background document are discussed in the following sections of this report.

Page 49 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

During the Hearing there were lengthy submissions on the wording of the proposed Clause 21.20-3 and strong evidence put to the Panel, notably by Mr Black and Mr Woodland, on the appropriate wording of the ordinance. There was much discussion on phrases such as ‘generally in accordance with’, ‘have regard to’, ‘be guided by’ and ‘gives effect to’, whether they were commonly accepted planning terminology and how they could be interpreted in a statutory planning sense. In the end, there appeared to be a meeting of minds on acceptable wording for most of Clause 21.20-3. Council in closing presented its preferred wording for Clause 21.20-3 (Document 245) that incorporated the suggested wording put forward by the McCann Family and LBDG with the exceptions outlined in section 6.2.1 above. The Panel endorses the wording for Clause 21.20-3 put forward by Council in its closing submission. It considers that the dot points with respect to the Batesford Quarry (which the McCann Family sought to have deleted) should be retained to provide guidance for further work on the transition of the land surrounding the quarry. The Panel has some concerns with the last dot point added by Council to Clause 21.20-3 (the ‘should have regard to’ addition). It considers the strategy unnecessary because it essentially duplicates with different wording the second dash point in the first strategy. It also uses the phrase ‘should have regard to’ that was the subject of much debate during the Hearing. This last dot point under Clause 21.20-3 Strategies should be deleted. Other proposed Clauses and sub-clauses are considered elsewhere in this report. 6.2.3 Conclusions The Panel concludes: • The Framework Plan is an import strategic document developed through an extensive and robust planning process. • The Framework Plan with some modifications provides a sound basis for the future planning of the North and West Geelong Growth Areas. • The Framework Plan spatial plan with some minor changes as detailed in the following sections should be included as Clause 21.20-5 in the Municipal Strategic Statement of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. • A preamble should be added to the Framework Plan background document to clarify its purpose, provide flexibility in its interpretation in the next stages of the planning process and that the PSPs in the Framework Plan are concept plans and will be subject to change and refinement during the course of PSP development and review. • With the addition of a preamble and changes as set out in the following sections, the Framework Plan should be listed as a Background Document at Clause 21.20-4 and the Schedule to Clause 72.08 of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. • Council’s ‘panel version’ of Clause 21.20 (Document 245) is an appropriate form of words for inclusion in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme with the deletion of the last dot point under Clause 21.20-3 Strategies.

Page 50 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

6.2.4 Recommendations The Panel recommends: Add a preamble to the North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan (March 2019) to: • clearly state its purpose • provide flexibility in its interpretation in the next stages of the planning process • confirm that the Precinct Structure Plans included in the Framework Plan are concept plans only that will be subject to change through the process of preparing Precinct Structure Plans for the precincts in the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas. Amend the exhibited Clause 21.20 by adopting the changes proposed by Council as set out in Document 245 to the Hearing with the deletion of the last dot point under Clause 21.20-3 Strategies.

6.3 Precinct boundaries A number of submissions were made both for and against changes to the precinct boundaries set out in the Framework Plan. The issue is whether any of these changes discussed below should be accepted and the relevant maps and sections of the Framework Plan amended accordingly. 6.3.1 Evidence and submissions

(i) Northern Geelong Growth Area Reduction in the number of PSPs LBDG submitted that the number of PSPs should be reduced from four to two by combining the Heales Road East and West PSPs and the Elcho Road East and West PSPs. If that was not accepted, LBDG requested that there be flexibility by amending Framework Plan Action N5.2.3 to allow for the Heales Road PSP to be delivered in two stages and to amend Plan 40 to identify some of the land south of Heales Road in the medium term precinct, that is, in the Heales Road West PSP. LBDG submitted that it had calculated that it would simply run out of (developable) land based on Council’s schedule. LBDG referenced the evidence of Mr De Silva that: Adoption of larger Precinct Structure Plans along with a specific infrastructure delivery strategy will simplify the process and avoid any future risk of delay in provision of land supply for urban purposes. Internal staging (including the potential for land supply on the flatter western part of the Northern Growth Area) can be controlled by the Precinct Structure Plan as required. LBDG drew on the evidence of Mr De Silva in his Attachment 2 which outlined a comparison of PSP sizes and populations noting that the majority of the PSPs plan for a population range of 20,000 – 40,000 people. LBDG stated that: Accordingly, we take issue with the Council’s submissions on this point. Council suggests that PSPs can be any size, small, medium, large, and that these PSPs would sit comfortably in the ‘medium’ range.

Page 51 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

We submit that there is no comparison to be made between smaller plans and the conditions and opportunities, which apply to the NGGA. LBDG provided some commentary on the PSP areas cited by Council and submitted that the smaller sized PSPs referenced by Council are all explained by their context and circumstances and should not be regarded as any sort of precedent for smaller PSPs in the NGGA. In his statement of evidence, Mr De Silva suggested that larger rather than smaller PSP areas should be adopted in the NGGA. In his view, combining Elcho Road East and West and Heales Road East and West PSPs would reduce the impact on Council and developer resources and enable efficient and timely provision of infrastructure. In its original submission, Villawood Properties sought the inclusion of its land at 450 Elcho Road in the Elcho Road East precinct. In submissions at the hearing, Villawood stated that on considering submissions and evidence statements, it had reviewed its position and now agreed with the LBDG proposition that the PSPs in the NGGA should be consolidated from four into two precincts. Villawood submitted that there was no clear on-ground delineation between the Elcho Road West and East precincts, that the presence of consolidated land ownership warranted the adoption of a larger PSP area and the consolidation of the precincts into two PSPs would provide an increased capacity to cater for growth more in line with PSPs in the Melbourne growth areas of approximately 20,000 people. Council stated that it did not accept the proposition put by Mr De Silva. Council noted that the precincts sizes in NGGA are approximately 485, 437, 467 and 700 hectares. It submitted that: These areas are mid-range in comparison to the wide range of PSP areas successfully developed in metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria, as set out in Council’s opening submission. The precinct areas have been carefully selected to provide logical staging of development through each neighbourhood. These areas have been adopted based on a balancing of factors including existing infrastructure, topography, road alignments, activity centre placement, waterways and drainage, efficient and timely provision of infrastructure relative to the size of each precinct. In closing, Council noted that no expert, including Mr De Silva, suggested that the size of the precincts as proposed could not be planned to deliver viable PSPs. Council concluded that: • the NGGA precincts allowed for fragmented land holdings to be included within the broad-acre greenfield PSP processes • annexing land in the growth area that results in PSPs that are exclusively comprised of rural living areas would decrease the prospect of that land being appropriately planned for urban development • splitting the NGGA into four quadrants provided valuable flexibility in planning for transport infrastructure. Extension of the NGGA to include all the transmission line easement Council had agreed to amend Zone Maps 16 and 17 included in the Amendment to rezone the land between the north western boundary of the exhibited UGZ and the high voltage transmission line easement from Farming Zone to UGZ. The Haydari family requested that the Panel consider the merits of not only extending the UGZ to the inner edge of the existing transmission line easement but to extend the NGGA and UGZ to include all of the land within the transmission line easement itself. They cited

Page 52 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

the evidence of Mr Woodland that there was precedence for land covered by a transmission line easement to be included in a PSP and what zone to apply to land within the power line easement could be resolved as part of the Amendment process or during the preparation and approval of PSPs for the relevant land. Under cross-examination, Mr Woodland agreed that while the subject land should be included in future PSPs, rezoning of the transmission line easement should be delayed until a future amendment process when the PSPs are prepared. In closing submissions, Council stated that it did not agree to the further change requested by the Haydari family. Council noted that easements can be utilised within the urban fabric as uncredited open space but that typically occurred when an easement was “embedded in the fabric”. It suggested that a decision on the inclusion of the easement within the PSP area “... should wait the more detailed planning that will occur at the time of a PSP.”

(ii) Western Geelong Growth Area Inclusion of land north of the Moorabool River in the Creamery Road PSP Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd (ABCL) sought the rezoning of land between the Moorabool River and the Midland Highway and its inclusion in the Creamery Road PSP and the Batesford North PSP. ABCL submitted that the subject land is most akin to the land north of the Midland Highway being highly accessible to Geelong, typically flat, distant from the Batesford Quarry and with few topographical constraints. It added that the land would provide a development parcel with high amenity, could be serviced without causing unreasonable delays to the development of the land to the north and that its inclusion in the Creamery Road PSP would ensure that the area would not become isolated which may occur if left in the Batesford South precinct. ABCL noted that the subject land had never (ABCL emphasis) been quarried and is to be excised from the Works Authority WA3. ABCL accepted that there may need to be a Moorabool River planning study but submitted that the river corridor is not owned by ABCL and any study would be controlled and conducted by presumably Council. ABCL argued that it was difficult to understand how a corridor study would affect the timing of development in the Creamery Road PSP. In their evidence for ABCL, both Mr Ainsaar and Mr Negri supported the inclusion of the ABCL land in a precinct that will be developed earlier than the Batesford South precinct. Their support was based on the subject land no longer being used for quarrying and developing more land earlier would provide more development contributions to fund high- level infrastructure items that will benefit the establishing communities. Mr Negri found that the PSP boundaries are generally logical, but the river could equally form an appropriate boundary. Mr Ainsaar supported the Batesford North and Creamery Road PSPs being combined because these precincts are small and in his view, combining them would “... provide economies of scale in the delivery of infrastructure and a greater funding pool through development contributions”. Council submitted that the precincts have been devised having regard to logical physical boundaries and the ability to deliver infrastructure and communities in a co-ordinated manner. Council added that size alone is not a reason to alter PSP boundaries at the framework plan stage. It submitted that the area in question would likely have noise and

Page 53 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

dust impacts from the operating quarry which would make early residential development problematic. Council noted that the Moorabool River will be an important part of the WGGA and the Framework Plan envisaged that the river corridor will be subject to a detailed masterplan which should be delivered as an integrated whole. It added that: Council regards the coordinated delivery of the Moorabool River masterplanning process is best served by maintaining a boundary for the Batesford South PSP that instead adopts another logical boundary, that logical boundary being the Midland Highway. In any PSP spread across the Midland Highway, there will be a substantial physical and practical barrier. It is difficult to envisage a coordinated precinct across that barrier in circumstances where the Midland Highway is projected to have in excess of 50,000 vehicles per day. Further, the nature of infrastructure that will be required to deliver the Creamery Road precinct is limited. In closing, Council submitted that the inclusion of the land north of the Moorabool River in the Creamery Road precinct would be a poor planning outcome. Council stated that it joins with the McCann Family in concluding that excising more developable land from the Batesford South PSP makes it less likely that the quarry could be sustainably developed. Council went further, adding that the Batesford South precinct is appropriately sized to facilitate the delivery of the larger scale infrastructure in the precinct and that removal of net developable land could result in higher contribution rates for the precinct. The McCann Family stated that: The McCann Family is very concerned not to materially reduce the extent of the Batesford South precinct, given the extent of land within the precinct that is not developable, and the high cost of infrastructure items in that precinct. This issue is resolved if a global infrastructure approach is adopted, but in circumstances where that approach is not guaranteed, a very poor planning outcome could result from whittling the precinct down – i.e. it may become undevelopable or infrastructure may be sacrificed. While there is always room for debate about precinct boundaries, Council’s boundaries for the WGGA are logical and appropriate viewed at a macro scale. In particular, the McCann Family agrees with the Council’s observations that the Moorabool River environs is an area requiring master planning and which would benefit greatly from being within a single PSP, rather than at the boundary between two. Ramsay submitted that the suggestion from ABCL that part of its land be included within the Creamery Road PSP is “... unfounded and would clearly work against the objectives of the Amendment in facilitating the expedient and efficient delivery of communities.” Ramsay submitted that inclusion of any land south of the Midland Highway would significantly delay the delivery of the Creamery Road PSP and would, amongst other things, trigger the need for a strategic plan for the Moorabool River and further work on biodiversity, the potential duplication of the Midland Highway and the need to provide additional infrastructure that are not needed for the Creamery Road PSP as currently anticipated. Ramsay stated that it supports Council’s position that the size of the Creamery Road PSP is appropriate. Rezoning of Balyarta land In its original submission to the Amendment, ABCL submitted that the Batesford South PSP was too large and that a new western precinct should be created which would cover its land to the west of the Batesford Quarry. ABCL sought to have part of its land – the so-called Balyarta land – rezoned from SUZ7 to UGZ.

Page 54 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

ABCL stated that the three parcels comprising Balyarta have not been used for quarrying or stockpiling, two of the parcels are not within the WA3 area and the third parcel is to be excised from the WA3 area. It argued that there has been no justification by Council for its refusal to consider rezoning of the Balyarta land. No submissions were made during the Hearing by ABCL regarding its initial request to have the Balyarta moved from the Batesford South PSP to the neighbouring McCanns Lane PSP. Mr Negri in his evidence argued that with the operational horizon of the quarry and the anticipated timing for the planning and release of land within the growth area, it was not necessary for all the ABCL land to remain in the SUZ7 and the Balyarta land should be included in the UGZ. He also argued that the boundaries of the McCanns Lane Precinct should be modified to include the Balyarta land. Mr Ainsaar in evidence noted that the land to the west of the quarry has been rehabilitated and a large part has never been quarried including the Balyarta land. He stated that in his view because the land is available for development in the short to medium term, it was more logical for the land to be included in the McCanns Lane Precinct than in the Batesford South Precinct. In response to the ABCL submissions, Council agreed with the UGZ rezoning of the land outside the Batesford Quarry Works Authority area but did not support the proposal to include the land within the McCanns Lane Precinct. Council stated that the Batesford South Precinct is larger than the other precinct areas on the basis that it should provide for the comprehensive rehabilitation and master planning of the Moorabool River and the quarry. In its Part B submission, Council submitted that it did not agree with ABCL’s submission based on access and spread of development and asserted that the existing precinct boundaries are appropriate. 355 Church Street, Fyansford Riverlee Heights (Riverlee) sought a change to the proposed development sequencing shown on Plan 40 of the Framework Plan so that the land at 355 Church Street, Fyansford could be developed as part of an amended Creamery Road PSP or an alternative precinct. Riverlee submitted that three significant matters support the early development of the subject land: • the land is located adjacent to existing development • it can be serviced by the extension of existing infrastructure and is not reliant on any other precinct • it will provide a significant net community benefit by the early provision of a bike and pedestrian pathway along the Moorabool River with a direct connection to existing pathways in Geelong. Riverlee submitted that the assessment by Council that the land is a relatively small, isolated pocket surrounded by the quarry and bordered by the freeway is not entirely correct. Rather in its view, the land is bordered by the Moorabool River and a reserve with an approved concept plan and landscape plan. Riverlee submitted that the evidence of Mr Cook on air quality and dust emissions and Ms Lenchine on noise show that the land could be developed for residential purposes without unreasonable amenity impacts from the nearby quarry, noting that it appears that the

Page 55 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

quarry will cease operations in 2025. Riverlee acknowledged that some of the land is in the vicinity of the quarry but the quarry face and active areas are approximately 1.6 km away. Riverlee added that the developed land would not be isolated because on the evidence of Mr Butler, “... it can be connected to the Creamery Road precinct to the north and has the potential to be linked to the existing residential areas in Herne Hill by connecting under the existing overpass into an extended Beacon Avenue.” Riverlee submitted further that with any major infrastructure there can be an interim version and with respect to the Moorabool River, there is a reserve already planned which could form an interim solution that could be modified and/or upgraded as a result of any ultimate master planning process for the Moorabool River. In its Part B submission, Council submitted that the evidence of Mr Cook and Ms Lenchine demonstrated that further work is required to develop this site and although on the evidence of Mr Prossor that the land has the potential to be serviced ahead of the adjoining land, there are other matters that must be considered when developing a site such as the subject land. Council submitted that: Effectively, it would mean a relatively small, isolated pocket of land is developed surrounded by quarry land and bordered by a freeway. This is not orderly planning. The development of the land is likely to be complex given its proximity to the Moorabool River, the Geelong Ring Road and the relationship to the Church Street connection. It rightly should occur with the master planning of the Moorabool River and the detailed planning and design of the Church Street connection. In closing submissions, Council noted that the land controlled by Riverlee and the area to its north is approximately 50 hectares which on the minimum proposed density would realise about 750 lots accommodating slightly more than 2,000 people. It referenced the evidence of Mr Woodland that the necessary population to prepare a PSP approaches a population of 10,000 and stated that the subject parcel falls well short of that mark. Council observed that the Riverlee land has no relationship with Creamery Road and if the southern access arrangement is adopted, Mr Butler agreed that there would no impetus to connect to the Creamery Road precinct. Council also noted that as agreed by Mr Prossor, the location and land take of the Church Street connection will affect this land and the balance of the Batesford South PSP. It concluded that Riverlee had not identified any need for its proposed changes in terms of lot supply and submitted that there was no good planning reason to accept the submissions of Riverlee. 360-370 Ballarat Road, Batesford (the El Dorado Caravan Park) The owners of the land at 360-370 Ballarat Road, Batesford (the El Dorado Caravan Park) requested that the that this land be removed from the Batesford South PSP and included in the Creamery Road PSP. The landowners submitted that the subject land has no relationship with the Batesford South PSP and is closely aligned in topography to that of the Creamery Road interface, not the Batesford Quarry. They noted that the land is physically separated from the balance of the Batesford South precinct by the Moorabool River and is more aligned with and opposite the Creamery Road precinct to the north of the Midland Highway.

Page 56 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

The landowners submitted that the land has always been unaffected by the quarry operations and based on a previous assessment by Cardno/TGM, it is serviceable at present. They concluded that: The future development of the El Dorado Caravan Park should be undertaken at the same time with areas north of the Midland Highway to ensure that local infrastructure delivery is planned and sequenced appropriately. In closing submissions, Council noted that the subject land is an isolated parcel of approximately 10 hectares south of the Midland Highway which would less than 200 dwellings and would therefore not materially change the supply of land within the short- term precinct. Council submitted that the Midland Highway forms an appropriate and logical southern boundary for the Creamery Road precinct, the inclusion of a small parcel of land to the south of the Highway would not serve any real planning purpose and may lead to servicing difficulties and inequities. Council concluded: In summary the Council considers there is no compelling reason for inclusion of this land within the Creamery Road precinct and its inclusion would, if anything, raise complications about the delivery of infrastructure and access which are not resolved to a satisfactory level to justify departure from the exhibited Framework Plan. 70 and 80 Thoona Lane, Fyansford The land at 70 and 80 Thoona Lane, Fyansford is owned by the Geelong Solid Waste Materials Receival and Processing Pty Ltd (Geelong Solid Waste). It sought rezoning of the land from SUZ7 to UGZ and its move from the Batesford South PSP into the McCanns Lane PSP. Council supported the rezoning of the land. Geelong Solid Waste submitted that shifting the land into the medium-term McCanns Lane Precinct would assist with the logical development and servicing strategy for the growth area and would support the early connections to existing urban areas of the proposed subregional activity centre in the McCanns Lane PSP. Geelong Solid Waste submitted further that the early planning and delivery of a small section of the Moorabool River adjacent to the subject site would not impact on the quarry or the broader master planning for the river. It stated that the submission relied on the evidence of Mr Prossor who stated in his evidence that: It is considered that with appropriate setback from the river and escarpment for ecological and geotechnical requirements, and with the appropriate planning, design, approvals and permits in place, that there is no reason why the development cannot occur in isolation from the larger master planning of the greater Moorabool River corridor. In conclusion, Geelong Solid Waste submitted that: There will be no impacts on the Moorabool River through the earlier implementation of a master plan, there are no impacts on the planning for the Church Street alignment, servicing or geotechnical matters can be adequately dealt with during the PSP process and there are no implications to on the Batesford Quarry. In closing, Council noted that Geelong Solid Waste relied on the evidence of Mr Prossor who in Council’s view was open and frank in his evidence in that Mr Prossor agreed that: • his recommendations regarding the location of stormwater assets could be readily picked up at the next stage of the development in the PSP

Page 57 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

• the currently identified need for a Barwon Water pump station on the subject land was not a ‘significant barrier’ to the development of the McCanns Lane Precinct • the text at page 97 of the Framework Plan contemplates a single river masterplan between the Midland Highway and the Geelong Ring Road • while it may be possible to undertake rehabilitation in stages that the “better approach” was that it be planned as a single masterplan. Council submitted that the assertion by Geelong Solid Waste in its written submission that the balance is tipped in favour of consolidation with the McCanns Lane Precinct does not hold. It concluded that: There is no need for such consolidation to occur and there is only the downside that the River Masterplan Process would commence on a less than ideal footing. This would be demonstrably poor planning. No case based on supply and demand was presented to justify bringing this land forward. No supply and demand analysis, nothing which indicated that the performance of Council’s Settlement Strategy as against clause 17 would be compromised. No assessment of the impact of removing this developable area from the Batesford South precinct on the associated contributions plan. Amendment to the precinct boundary in the southeast corner of the McCanns Lane PSP The McCann Family sought a modification to the boundary between the McCanns Lane and Batesford South PSPs. The McCann Family submitted that due to servicing and drainage inefficiencies associated with the exhibited McCanns Lane Precinct’s southeastern boundaries, these should be realigned slightly to provide outfall contained within the McCanns Lane Precinct across land owned by the McCann Family and to follow drainage catchments that drain to planned Wetland Retarding Basin assets within the McCanns Lane Precinct. The McCann Family submission stated that the evidence of Mr Prossor showed that the requested changes to the McCanns Lane Precinct boundary are needed to better accommodate catchment boundaries and outfall and noted that Council had agreed to the change relating to outfall. This left in dispute with Council the remaining issue of the boundary shift required to follow drainage catchments. The McCann Family submitted that the requested northern boundary extension follows catchment boundaries that drain to WLRB assets within the McCanns Lane Precinct as demonstrated in the Western Geelong Growth Area Flood Impact Assessment and Stormwater Management Strategy, Volume 2: Developed Conditions Report (May 2019) being the relevant technical report that has informed planned drainage assets within the WGGA. They submitted that accordingly, this minor boundary change is logical and justified. Council confirmed that it had agreed with the boundary change to accommodate the drainage outfall noting that Mr Prossor had provided evidence that this land can be serviced as part of the McCanns Lane Precinct without impacting other proposed servicing arrangements. In closing submissions, Council stated that it seemed that wherever the line was drawn, the evidence of Mr Prossor demonstrated a catchment split into and out of the precinct. He submitted that:

Page 58 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

With this in mind it not clear that the case is successfully made for the entire inclusion of the land to the south. Extending beyond the road is not an ideal urban design outcome – it may result in a back of house treatment which is undesirable. 6.3.2 Discussion In short, with one exception the Panel is not convinced on the evidence presented to it that any of the requested changes to the PSP boundaries should be made at this time. The exception is the small area of land in the southeast corner of the Batesford South precinct that Council has already agreed to move into the McCanns Lane PSP at the request of the McCann Family. The Panel endorses this change. The Panel does not conclude that there is no merit in any of the requested changes. Rather more analysis and assessment is needed and that this is best done through the detailed PSP planning development and review process. The Panel therefore reiterates its strong view that there needs to be flexibility in interpreting the Framework Plan to allow for potential changes in PSP boundaries at the appropriate stage. As noted previously in Chapter 6.2, the Panel recommends that a preamble be added in the Framework Plan background document to clarify its purpose and provide flexibility in its interpretation in the next stages of the planning process. The preamble should make it clear and unambiguous that the Framework Plan is a background document, that the PSPs should be prepared ‘generally in accordance’ with the Framework Plan spatial plan and the PSPs included the Framework Plan background document are concept plans subject to change and refinement at the PSP preparation stage. The Panel notes that Council has agreed to add ‘a statement of limitations’ to explain the purpose of the precinct concept plans and requirements within the relevant sections of the Framework Plan background document. The Panel is firmly of the view that these statements should be included upfront in the proposed preamble. More specifically, the Panel offers comment on each of precinct boundary changes sought by the submitters. Firstly, the Panel is not convinced that any of the PSP areas as exhibited are too small. It did not find the comparison of the size of PSP areas with those in the Melbourne growth areas particularly helpful. The Panel notes the evidence of Mr Negri that the PSPs in the Northern Geelong Growth Area should be reduced from four to two precincts but agrees with Council’s view that no experts considered that any of the proposed PSPs would be unviable in terms of area, lot yield or population. The PSP boundaries generally reflect topography, drainage lines, major roads and other existing factors and respond appropriately to existing uses such as the Batesford Quarry and short and longer development potential. That is not to say that the boundaries are perfect; they can and should be refined at the PSP preparation stage. For these reasons, the Panel does not find it necessary to recommend combining the Elcho Road East and West PSPs and the Heales Road East and West PSPs. It does not consider that the reasons put forward by Mr Negri outweigh the arguments put by Council to support the proposed PSP boundaries. The inclusion of all of the high voltage transmission line easement in the Heales Road West and Elcho Road West precincts can be considered when these PSPs are prepared. As noted

Page 59 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

by Council, it not unusual for transmission line easements to be included in PSPs as uncredited open space and to incorporate suitable uses. Regarding the ABCL land north of the Moorabool River, the Panel acknowledges the advice of ABCL that this land has never been quarried. Its topography is like the topography of the land to the north and relatively flat until the land falls away to the Moorabool River. It could conceivably be added to the Creamery Road and Batesford North PSPs with the top of the escarpment above the Moorabool River forming the southern boundary as sought by ABCL. It is not uncommon for rivers and creeks to be the boundaries of a PSP area. In this case, however, the Panel considers the Midland Highway to be a more appropriate southern boundary. The Highway will carry a relatively high volume of traffic which will present a physical barrier and makes it in the Panel’s view a more logical precinct boundary than the Moorabool River. In addition, as highlighted by Council, the rehabilitation and master planning of the Moorabool River will be vital to the successful development of the Batesford South PSP. A master plan for the river should be prepared in a comprehensive way and in the Panel’s view this would be best achieved by a single master plan over the full length of the Moorabool River between the Midland Highway and the Geelong Ring Road. The Panel notes also the submissions made by Council and the McCann Family that excising more developable land from the Batesford South PSP would make it less likely that the quarry could be sustainably developed and could result in higher contribution rates for a smaller precinct to meet the costs of significant infrastructure. For these reasons the Panel does not support the request by ABCL that land north of the Moorabool River be moved to the adjoining PSPs to the north. It makes no sense to the Panel that the land at 360-370 Ballarat Road, Batesford (the El Dorado Caravan Park) be added to the Creamery Road PSP. The subject land is small in area, would provide relatively few additional lots for development and is cut off from Creamery Road precinct by the Midland Highway. This land should remain in the Batesford South PSP. The Panel accepts that the Balyarta Land is not part of quarrying operations and for the main is outside the Works Authority Area. It could be rezoned now. The Panel notes that Council has agreed to this rezoning. The Riverlee Heights land at 355 Church Street, Fyansford is a relatively small development area. It is surrounded by the Batesford Quarry and the Geelong Ring Road and abuts the Moorabool River. The land is also remote from the Creamery Road precinct. As noted by Council and notwithstanding the expert advice lead on behalf of Riverlee, further analysis would be needed to confirm that any impacts of the quarry and the Ring Road could be mitigated to protect the amenity of residential development of the land. The Panel is not convinced by the suggestion by Mr Butler that access to the subject land could be provided by a link to the Creamery Road precinct. While Mr Butler is right in saying that a link will happen as part of the Batesford South PSP development, that is not planned for some time. If built in the short term, it would need the agreement of the owners of the property to the north and in the Panel’s view this could be a major impediment. Master planning for the Moorabool River is also a consideration. Landscaping of the river could be done on an interim basis as suggested by Riverlee but as stated above, the Panel

Page 60 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

considers that the master planning for the Moorabool River should be done over its whole length between the Midland Highway and the Geelong Ring Road. The Panel is not persuaded that the Riverlee Heights land should be added to the Creamery Road precinct or developed in the shorter term as a standalone precinct. Council supports the rezoning of the land at 70 and 80 Thoona Lane. Master planning for the Moorabool River is a consideration for the development of this land. No case was put forward in terms of lot supply and demand to bring forward earlier planning for this small parcel of land. The Panel concludes that this land should remain in the Batesford South PSP. The McCann Family requested a minor change to the precinct boundaries in the southeast corner of its land. Council has agreed in part to this request and the Panel endorses that change which for drainage asset purposes moves a small area from the Batesford South PSP into the McCanns Lane Precinct. The Panel agrees with Council that further technical work is required to determine whether the additional land as requested by the McCann Family should be brought into the McCanns Lane PSP area. This further work would be best done when the McCanns Lane PSP is prepared which is scheduled for the medium term. The additional change requested by the McCann Family should be considered at that time. 6.3.3 Conclusions The Panel concludes: • On the evidence before it, with one exception, none of the requested changes to PSP boundaries should be made at this stage. • Some of the requested changes are not without merit but more detailed assessment and analysis is required, and this work should be done during the PSP preparation and approval process. • The exception is the change requested by the McCann Family to the boundary of the McCanns Lane Precinct in the south east of its land to better align drainage catchments. The Panel notes that Council has agreed to this change.

6.4 Development sequencing In Plan 40 and Plan 46 of the Framework Plan, and accompanying text, development sequencing across the two growth areas is provided. The exhibited planning scheme amendment at Clause 21.20 required the preparation of PSPs in accordance with the sequencing in the Framework Plan. 6.4.1 Evidence and submissions Council referred to the evidence of Mr Woodland. Mr Woodland noted that defining a preferred sequence for development in growth areas is supported by State planning policy. Mr Woodland’s evidence stated that the criteria in actions N5.2.1 and W5.2.1 in relation to sequencing should be included in the planning scheme with some additional factors related to staged extension of infrastructure; delays and constraints affecting housing yield; and development supporting early development of public transport, town centres and employment precincts. His view was that if the criteria are included in the planning scheme, the planning scheme itself does not need to mandate the specific development sequencing.

Page 61 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

There was specific support from some submitters for Mr Woodland’s view on development sequencing and more general support for the principle that there should be flexibility in sequencing; for example that sequencing could change if necessary due to a range of factors rather than be locked into the sequencing in the Framework Plan. Council in its Part B submission generally accepted Mr Woodlands approach, identifying: Importantly, if it becomes apparent that further precincts are required, the PSP process can be initiated earlier. As provided in Council’s opening submission, Council supports Mr Woodland’s recommendation to include in Actions N5.21. and W5.2.1 additional factors that should be considered when determining PSP sequencing. These factors provide flexibility in managing the efficient and timely roll-out of PSPs. The changes that the Council has agreed to in opening mean that the sequencing of precincts is not said to be required to be ‘in accordance’ with the Framework Plan. Rather regard must be had to the plan (or it will guide steps taken) when decision making occurs. In its final version of clause 21.20 (Document 245), Council has included criteria similar to the recommendations of Mr Woodland which move the emphasis from the sequencing being in accordance with the Framework Plan to ‘considering’ a range of criteria prior to resolving to commence a PSP. 6.4.2 Discussion The Panel considers that the sequencing put forward in the Framework Plan has a level of logic that should ensure development occurs in a planned, coordinated manner as required by State policy. However, the Panel accepts the evidence of Mr Woodland that this can and should be achieved with a degree of flexibility to account for changing ownership, development conditions, economic conditions and other factors. The Panel considers the changes put forward by Mr Woodland to the Framework Plan and consequent changes to planning scheme ordinance (Clause 21.20) and generally accepted by Council should achieve the balance between direction and flexibility required. 6.4.3 Conclusion The Panel concludes: • Changes should be made to the actions for development sequencing in the Framework Plan as suggested by Mr Woodland; Council’s suggested words in the version in the ‘agreed changes’ Document 205 are acceptable. • Council’s proposed changes to clause 21.20 in Document 245 in relation to replacing strict development sequencing with criteria are supported.

6.5 Development contributions A number of submissions were made regarding development contributions to fund infrastructure in the growth areas. Several parties requested that the Panel determine that a global (or universal) Infrastructure Contributions Plan (ICP) or Development Contributions Plan (DCP) should be prepared for the Western Growth Area. Alternatively, it was proposed that an Infrastructure Funding Plan be prepared for major infrastructure items in the growth areas.

Page 62 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

The issue is whether a universal ICP/DCP or Infrastructure Funding Plan for each growth area should be mandated at this time and relevant sections in the planning scheme ordinance amended to incorporate this requirement. 6.5.1 Evidence and submissions Council stated that the Framework Plan does not specify the mechanism for collecting development levies. While it was not opposed to a universal ICP/DCP for each growth area rather than individual ICPs or DCPs for each PSP, it submitted that this should be determined through a separate process in 2020 in conjunction with DELWP and the VPA. Council advised that it was already undertaking further work – the Geelong Growth Areas Transport Infrastructure Strategy (GGATS) for completion in 2020 – to identify which infrastructure could be considered as shared between PSPs and therefore costs apportioned. Council submitted that it was inappropriate to specify in Clause 21.20 that a single ICP/DCP should be prepared for each growth area as suggested by Mr Black. It argued that there are difficulties with the approach. Council noted in closing remarks that it was a complex task to determine a universal ICP. It argued that the situation in the Geelong growth areas was not comparable to the example of the Wyndham West growth area on the western plains cited by Mr Black because benchmark design and costings could not be used. Rather it would be necessary to plan out every PSP in detail to determine infrastructure costs for inclusion in a universal ICP/DCP. In closing, Council noted that when asked to list all items that would constitute shared infrastructure, Mr Black identified only the CCC, the Church Street bridge and open space areas. Council described this as “... a very short list of items to justify mandating a global contributions plan.” Council submitted that: No submissions or evidence before this panel has established that the Batesford South precinct is unable to pay for infrastructure attributed to it as described in the Framework Plan. Of course, there is no detailed costings or even a rough spreadsheet. It was Council’s impression from Mr Black this this could be readily done – but it has not been done. The four smaller precincts in the Western Geelong Growth Area have the capacity to transition to urban development without reliance on infrastructure to be provided within Batesford South PSP. Nexus relating to fair apportionment of infrastructure funding is a matter to be established as part of the precinct structure planning process. Council argued that a localised approach to collecting contributions would likely result in a similar apportionment to a global approach and therefore “There is no reason to leap to a global solution.” It added that external apportionment in each ICP/DCP could provide the benefits of a global ICP/DCP without causing significant delays to planning. Council noted it was concerned that the detailed planning and costing of infrastructure in Batesford South precinct would require technical studies and requiring that information for the Creamery Road PSP would delay significantly urban development in the Western Growth Area. In closing submissions, Council noted that for a DCP, the estimated cost of all relevant projects must be itemised, costed and tallied before being divided by the total net developable area. It noted further that under an ICP, all public land must be determined precisely to allow for land equalisation, all intersection, etc must be determined to establish the land and construction costs and if a supplementary levy is required, the process is much

Page 63 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

the same as a DCP with all items costed. Council suggested that neither a global DCP nor global ICP was workable. It added that where joint ICPs have been applied recently, multiple PSPs have been planned simultaneously, for example, Plumpton/Koroit and Mt Atkinson/Tarneit Plains. Council concluded by submitting that: When these matters we put to Mr Black his response was these matters could be estimated and that “through the swings and roundabouts it ends up about right”! ‘About right’ on well in excess half a billion dollars of infrastructure might represent a satisfactory margin of error for Mr Black, but the Council adopts a more cautious approach with its role as Collecting and Development agency. The McCann Family submitted that there should be a thorough infrastructure funding plan prepared which sets a framework for the coordinated funding of infrastructure across the WGGA. The McCanns added that it is necessary to set a framework in advance of the first DCP or ICP (if there are to be multiple) that takes a holistic view of infrastructure funding within the WGGA. They noted that Council is already undertaking some work that could be an input to such a strategy but the scope of this needs to be significantly expanded. The McCanns argued that: The Council’s submissions to the Panel, and line of cross examination of Mr Ainsaar and Mr Black, has persistently pursued the line of thinking that it is not practical (or perhaps even ‘possible’) to prepare a global DCP until land has been planned out to a PSP level of detail. Mr Black disagreed. He noted that many infrastructure items can be planned based on standard assumptions (e.g. standard road cross sections; standard community infrastructure needs based on catchments) and that it is quite possible for ‘smart people’ working in the Victorian planning industry to make reliable assessments of infrastructure costs and Net Developable Area in advance of a fully planned PSP. He noted the likelihood that landowners and Council (and their consultants) already have a very good understanding of NDA and development configurations. The McCanns submitted whether it is true or not that the global ICP/DCP approach will hold up development of the early precincts, on balance, a delay to the delivery of the first precinct would be a relatively small price to pay for getting the funding right. They tabled copies of Clauses 21.08 and 21.20 which included marked up changes under ‘Further Works’ and other relevant sections requiring that a single ICP or DCP be prepared for the WGGA or, alternatively, an Infrastructure Funding Plan be prepared prior to exhibition of the first PSP which: • identifies the infrastructure and the source of funding • costs the items to be shared by multiple precincts • apportions the costs of shared items between the precincts. Mr Ainsaar and Mr Black both favoured a single ICP/DCP for the Western Geelong Growth Area. In his evidence statement, Mr Ainsaar said that: ... regardless of whether the infrastructure contribution mechanism is a DCP or ICP, a regional approach to infrastructure contributions will be required and that this must be undertaken prior to, or concurrently with, the first PSP to be prepared in the WGGA. This is necessary not only to ensure equity and fairness in the funding of infrastructure by all development, but also to provide certainty to the Council that the infrastructure will be funded and delivered. What this means is that the scope, cost and timing/triggers for the provision of regional and sub-regional infrastructure will need to

Page 64 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

be investigated in detail as part of the first PSP to be delivered so that an overarching DCP/ICP is introduced alongside the first PSP(s). In my view, the model that will need to be adopted in the N&WGGA is that which was adopted for the Wyndham North Growth Area. Mr Black supported the development of the WGGA in precincts but because of the large- scale key infrastructure items, he recommended a growth area wide ICP rather than ICPs for each precinct. He gave the example of the Wyndham West Contributions Plan. He noted that planning in the Wyndham West growth area has not been limited or constrained to a single precinct and thus development contributions are being collected from several development fronts to fund the delivery of Ison Road. Mr Black said that in simple terms, the development contributions test of ‘need, nexus and apportionment’ applied to Ison Road. He stated that: In the Geelong’s western growth area there appears to be similar projects to Ison Road that extend over numerous precincts or key connection points that support numerous precincts (E.g. Church Street connections and the Clever and Creative Corridor), that should be delivered early in the development process and / or funded by the broader development areas. Like the Wyndham West Growth Area, coordinating funding from numerous developments across the Western Geelong Growth Area should be supported and therefore an integrated infrastructure funding approach rather than individual development contributions plans for each precinct structure plan area should be applied. Mr Black recommended that Clauses 21.08 and 21.20 be amended to include under ‘Further Works’ the statement: Prepare a Development Contributions Plan for the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas. ABCL submitted that a regional or global approach to infrastructure contributions will be critical to ensuring equity, that infrastructure does not fail because of insufficient funds and Council is not left in the position where it has to fund major infrastructure items. It submitted further that a global approach must be undertaken prior to, or with, the first precinct structure plan in the WGGA. ABCL sought a recommendation that words be added to Clause 21.08 and the Framework Plan requiring that development cannot be approved until infrastructure requirements have been investigated and costed to ensure an equitable impost on all landowners within the WGGA. Riverlee submitted that with the significant multiple precinct requirements, the most equitable methodology would be a global infrastructure funding plan which should be prepared and resolved prior to or part of the first PSP. Riverlee cited the evidence of Mr Ainsaar and concluded that implementing a global infrastructure plan prior to the first PSP would “... greatly assist in the orderly planning of the entire Western Growth Area.” The Ramsay submission supported Council’s position that there was no need for a global ICP or DCP. It submitted that: The work had not been done to support any finding of the Panel that there exists a nexus between work in the Creamery Road PSP and other projects in other areas of the WGGA (specifically, the Batesford South Precinct).

Page 65 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Ramsay urged the Panel to recommend that issues relating to the preparation of a global ICP or DCP ought be left to Council to determine at a later time noting that “... given the benefit to Council of establishing an ICP or DCP regime, Council is unlikely to delay this work for too long.” Mr Marshall for Rodney Reid stated that his client did not support a WGGA wide DCP because given the WGGA covers a substantial area, “... it would be impossible to accurately assess the likely future costs to develop this area on a per hectare basis.” Mr Marshall submitted that an infrastructure plan detailing the shared costs for the entire WGGA would likely change over the lifespan of development of the area and could be subject to challenges by landowners and developers who may not be direct beneficiaries of shared infrastructure attributed to their costs. He added that the development of a global DCP would likely take some time to resolve and would therefore unduly delay the role out of the PSPs. Mr Marshall submitted that the whole principle of ‘fairness’ underpinning the argument in support of a WGGA wide DCP was flawed because the detailed plan and accounting for rising costs potentially over 20 years “... would be at best an estimate only.” 6.5.2 Discussion The Panel considers that it would be premature at this time to determine that a global ICP or DCP should be prepared for each growth area, or alternatively an infrastructure plan, to fund infrastructure items in the growth areas. Accordingly, in the Panel’s view Clauses 21.08 and 21.20 should not be amended to effectively mandate a global ICP or DCP. Clause 21.08 as exhibited does not preclude using a global ICP. The best mechanism for infrastructure funding should be determined after further work is done in 2020. The post-exhibition amendments to Clause 21.08 as proposed by Council will provide further guidance and are supported by the Panel. Submissions were made both for and against adopting a global ICP/DCP. Arguments were put and evidence lead that a global ICP/DCP was necessary to ensure that sufficient funding would be available to provide key infrastructure particularly in the Western Geelong Growth Area. It was argued further that on equity grounds, a global approach was required so that funding contributions were collected from all PSPs that would benefit from key infrastructure. Others put a contrary view that there is no nexus between, for example, development of the Creamery Road PSP and projects in other areas of the WGGA. Council was concerned that applying a global ICP/DCP, which of necessity would need to be developed before development occurred in the first PSP area, would delay development in the WGGA. The example given by Mr Black of the Wyndham West growth area where one DCP was used across several PSPs was informative and demonstrated that a global ICP/DCP could be used and such an approach was not without precedent. The Panel is not convinced, however, that the Wyndham West growth area situation is entirely analogous to the Geelong growth areas. The design and costing of the key infrastructure in the WGGA is likely to a more complex task than was needed in Wyndham West where the key item in that case was an arterial road running through several PSPs. As the Panel understands it, that road was

Page 66 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

needed to provide access to allow progressive development of those PSPs and the nexus to justify fair apportionment was established at an early stage. The Panel notes that the GGATS is due for completion in 2020. Council expects that once that strategy is completed, the infrastructure likely to benefit communities outside the PSP precinct in which they are located could be identified and costings apportioned between PSPs or if warranted, a global ICP/DCP established. The Panel considers that would be an appropriate time to decide on the appropriate infrastructure funding mechanism. One would also expect that by then, the Government will have decided whether an ICP approach is to be applied to regional growth areas including those in Geelong. A determination to adopt an ICP approach would clarify the work needed to prepare contribution plans. It is also interesting to note that during the Hearing, few items of infrastructure where mentioned as possibly requiring apportionment of costs across several PSPs. Mr Black suggested the Church Street bridge, the development of the CCC and open space areas should be funded through a global contributions plan. The Panel agrees with Council that this is a very short list of items to justify a global ICP/DCP but it may be that the Geelong Growth Areas Transport Infrastructure Strategy being done by Council will identify other key infrastructure items for which funding should be apportioned. The Panel is also mindful that as noted by Council, the preparation of an ICP does require the design and costing of all allowable items and that land requirements determined. There are similar requirements for a DCP. That would be an extensive task if a global contributions plan were to be adopted and would inevitably delay development in the growth areas although the McCann Family suggested that any delay would be acceptable to get the infrastructure funding right. Given the limited number of key infrastructure items that potentially should be funded by development in several PSP areas and the likely delays if all allowable items where to be costed for a global ICP or DCP, the Panel considers that some form of a global infrastructure plan is unwarranted. There may, however, be established through the further work being done by Council a nexus of benefits between PSPs and that some apportionment of costs is justified. Shared costs could be allocated across relevant PSPs through the apportionment mechanism allowable under the ICP guidelines. Another option to allocate infrastructure costs across PSPs could be to prepare a global ICP/DCP for each growth area limited to the key infrastructure items for which nexus has been established with remaining items costed and funded through separate ICPs/DCPs for each PSP area. Mr Black considered that this methodology was feasible but impractical and unnecessary. The Panel is inclined to agree and therefore considers at this time that the apportionment methodology allowable under the ICP guidelines, assuming that the ICP methodology is adopted for the Geelong growth areas, is the most appropriate approach if nexus is established for some projects and that costs should be met through the development of two or more PSPs in each of the growth areas. That is not to say that a global ICP or DCP should be categorically ruled out. Rather a final decision should be taken when the further work foreshadowed by Council is completed. It is important therefore in the Panel’s view that this work is completed as soon as possible and is comprehensive. As suggested by the McCann Family, this work should identify the key

Page 67 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

infrastructure to be shared by multiple precincts, cost them and apportion the costs of shared items between the precincts. 6.5.3 Conclusions The Panel concludes: • A global ICP or DCP approach has not been justified to the Panel’s satisfaction at this time and changes to Clauses 21.08 and 21.20 to effectively mandate a global infrastructure plan should not be adopted. • Clause 20.8 with the amendments proposed post-exhibition by Council does not preclude the use of a global ICP or DCP. • The appropriate mechanism to fund infrastructure items should be determined when the GGATS and any subsequent further required work is completed. • The GGATS and any required subsequent work must be done expeditiously and identify the relevant key infrastructure to be shared across PSPs, determine their costs and apportion the costs to relevant PSPs.

6.6 Transport network The proposed transport network for the two growth areas is set out in Plan 02 Future Urban Structure of the Framework Plan (Figure 2). Shown on the Plan are indicative alignments of proposed arterial roads and connector streets, a network termed the Clever and Creative Corridor and potential upgrades to roads that cross the Geelong Ring Road. There was general support for the transport network. Several submitters did, however, raise issues with the transport network and sought changes as to how it is depicted on the on the Framework Plan, in particular to ensure flexibility in road alignments in the preparation of PSPs. The issue is whether any changes should be made to the Framework Plan map as part of the Amendment. 6.6.1 Evidence and submissions

(i) The Clever and Creative Corridor The Clever and Creative Corridor (CCC) network is shown on the Framework Plan map (Figure 2) and in more detail on Plan 05 of the Framework Plan document (see Figure 5). The CCC also has a chapter devoted to it in the Framework Plan background document. The CCC Chapter describes interim and ultimate configurations with both including a median reserve 14 metres in width for dedicated active transport, planting and place making furniture. Indicative cross-section designs for the CCC are included in the Framework Plan. Submissions were generally supportive of the CCC. Some submitters raised concerns, however, with its alignment, the specifications shown on the Framework Plan, the substantial land requirements and the lack of demand for higher density along the length of the corridor. Council described the CCC in its Part B statement as a tree-lined boulevard style transit corridor with priority for active and public transport between key destinations within the growth areas. It stated that it did not object to removal of the detail on pages 45-51 of the Framework Plan to take out references to carriageway width of standard road features, parking bays and other features. Council acknowledged that in different places the Clever

Page 68 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

and Creative Corridor would be different in terms of cross section and these details would be established during the PSP planning process. Council submitted that the purpose of the corridor is to create a dedicated public transport route that will facilitate a prompt and desirable service for the community and achieve actual mode shift. It stated that its main interest is that the CCC reservation is not watered down in terms of width (14 metres) and to ensure that it did not become a shared traffic solution with general traffic. In response to submissions made by Mr Graham Barber and Mr Deepinder Mann, Council has agreed to delete the proposed 400 metre wide catchment along the CCC corridor between the growth areas on both sides of Evans Road as depicted on Plan 05 in the Framework Plan document. LBDG stated in closing submissions that it supported the CCC but was seeking some changes including modification to the CCC chapter to remove some unnecessary measurement details and to make it clear that the depictions are conceptual. LBDG submitted that the only dimension justified at this stage is the reservation width where a separate reservation is considered necessary. Where a separate reservation is not considered necessary such as between the two growth areas, its width should not be specified. LBDG noted that Mr De Silva and Mr Young supported maintaining flexibility in the CCC design and concepts. The Ramsay submission supported Council's aspirations to facilitate a significant proportion of movements within and between the WGGA and NGGA of public transport, particularly, by way of the proposed CCC and was generally supportive of a 14 metre wide reservation for the CCC. Ramsay submitted, however, that: ... there needed to be greater flexibility within the Amendment documentation to facilitate bespoke, varying road profiles along the CCC which allow it to appropriately respond to its immediate context, noting that there is upwards of 15 kilometres of road frontage associated with the CCC. Ramsay submitted that it is appropriate for the Panel to: • acknowledge that there will be multiple different road profiles along the length of the CCC, and • as a result, recommend that issues relating to the ultimate road profiles of the CCC are to be dealt with at PSP stage. In order that these matters are made fundamentally clear within the Framework Plan, Ramsay sought an amendment to the Framework Plan document to add under the text for the ‘Clever and Creative Corridor – Interim Configuration’ and under ‘Clever and Creative Corridor – Ultimate Configuration’ the words: The above is subject to further investigation and detailed planning at precinct structure plan stage. Further work may lead to variations in road profiles along the CCC pending ultimate resolution of abutting land uses. Ramsay noted that this matter has been agreed with Council.

Page 69 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Figure 5 Clever and Creative Corridor

The McCann Family supported the 14 metre wide median reserve for dedicated public transport but submitted that like many other submitters and expert witnesses the design of the adjoining parts of the road profile (car parking bays, landscaping, shared paths, etc) should be “context responsive” with the potential for different cross-sections where it runs through activity centres, residential areas, open space and between growth areas. The McCann Family added that it supported Council’s intention to remove detail from the Framework Plan as well as the additional wording proposed by the Ramsay submission. Mr Day in his evidence stated that there should be greater flexibility in the interpretation and implementation of the CCC concept and recommended the removal of specific dimensions.

Page 70 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Mr De Silva recommended that the Framework Plan should include “... some variability in the configuration of the Clever and Creative Corridor such that it is responsive to existing site features and the planned environment.” Ms Marshall gave evidence for ABCL and considered the unique aspect of the CCC was the proposal to reserve the 14 metres central median as a dedicated public transport corridor. She supported the aspiration of retaining a 14 metres wide corridor in the Framework Plan but recommended some changes to design details. At their joint meeting, the traffic engineering experts9 supported the CCC concept and its identification within the Framework plan. They agreed that the reservation width will vary along its length. They noted: • the opinion of Mr Young that the concept can be developed at the PSP stage and reference to a fixed 14 metre reservation should be removed from the Framework Plan to provide greater flexibility • Mr Hunt considered that the 14 metre public transport corridor is appropriate and additional corridor width may be required to accommodate active transport connections.

(ii) Alignment of the Clever and Creative Corridor through the Batesford South Precinct ABCL submitted that the alignment of the CCC through the Batesford South precinct should be reconsidered and moved to the west side of the Batesford Quarry. It submitted that: The utility of such an ambitious piece of infrastructure passing on the east side of the Quarry is questionable given the significant reduction in the available catchment as compared with an alignment on the west side of the Quarry. Maximising the catchment of the CCC will be important in ensuring that it is developed and used to its full potential. Locating it to the east of the WGGA ensures that it will never be used to its full potential and that will be remote from a large segment of the community within the WGGA. In her evidence, Ms Marshall stated that the proposed path of the corridor on the eastern side of the lake appears particularly constrained and that “... the (Moorabool) River and the (future) Lake will require buffers such that the amount of developable land between the two will be limited”. She recommended that the catchment area of the CCC be maximised by relocating the corridor to the western side of the lake and that the arterial road and public transport corridors be combined on the western side of the lake so that one large bridge can be provided and the second river crossing to the east (which she supported) could be reduced in size.

The McCann Family submitted that: ... the further justifications for the proposed shift offered in Ms Marshall’s evidence – increased developable land and efficiencies associated with utilizing the arterial bridge crossing of the Moorabool Review for the CCC – should not be accepted as sufficient justification for the relocation.

9 Document 110, Mr Humphreys for Council, Mr Hunt for Ramsay and Mr Young for LBDG.

Page 71 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Neither Ms Marshall nor any other Adelaide Brighton witness has quantified the purported increased developable area and it is certainly not obvious from the Future Urban Structure plan that the increase would be significant or compelling. ... The second justification outlined in Ms Marshall’s evidence is that the CCC could utilize the western arterial bridge crossing (i.e. an ‘economies of scale’ type rationale). The McCann Family question whether shifting the CCC to the most topographically challenging river crossings is likely to realise any development efficiencies. The McCann Family added that the Panel has enough information before it to determine that there are good reasons for, and nothing fundamentally wrong with, the alignment of the CCC to the east and the arterial road to the west of the future lake. They argued in closing that the proposed swap in alignment is not based on costing or traffic modeling and would result in significant changes to the whole WGGA with the likely result being a CCC located next to an arterial road carrying substantial volumes of traffic. The McCann Family submitted that the proposed alignment change should therefore be rejected. Council noted in its Part B Submission that both the western and eastern alignments of the CCC were considered in the development of the Framework Plan. It submitted that principle benefits for an eastern alignment still prevails. In closing, Council submitted that: There is insufficient justification to amend the location of the CCC to the west of the lake. This would effectively collate this high amenity transport route with an arterial road – an outcome which is to be avoided where practicable. No empirical analysis of catchment was presented that would support assertions that there would be a superior catchment with the relocation of the CCC to the west. Ms Marshall in her evidence asserted that the CCC and arterial roads should both be located to the west of the quarry and separated in their functional design. This, in addition to a connector street to the east of the quarry confirmed to be required under cross examination, would result in an additional road corridor running north-south through the growth area.

(iii) Alignment of the north south arterial road in the Western Geelong Growth Area ABCL sought a change in the alignment shown on the Framework of the north south arterial road and the crossing of the Moorabool River. ABCL submitted that as currently proposed, the north south arterial road crossing of the Moorabool River has significant topographic and geotechnical challenges and would also require that the approved rehabilitation plan for the 1930’s quarry be revisited. It noted that the bridge location has been examined by a number of experts on behalf of ABCL and from the investigations carried out to date, the preferred location of the crossing is further to the west, away from the 1930’s quarry, being Options 2 and 3 identified in Ms Marshall’s evidence. ABCL noted that: • Mr Woodland was of the view that if there was consensus among experts that there was a better alignment, then it should be shown on the Framework Plan • Mr Humpheys for Council agreed that a less topographically challenging location was preferable in a general sense.

Page 72 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

ABCL submitted that: There does not appear to be a specific reason for the location of the bridge crossing, other than, that was where the Council drew the line. There has been no reason advanced by the Council in submission or its experts that supports the selected location for the bridge crossing in preference to the location identified by Ms Marshall. Given this, there can be little argument that reflecting ABCL’s preferred location on the Framework Plan would cause any difficulty. In her evidence, Ms Marshall stated that based on her review of investigations to date, there is merit in relocating the arterial road to the west because: • options 2 and 3 appear to respond more sympathetically to the topography, potentially requiring less earthworks, retaining walls and batters • moving the road to the west would potentially negate the need for a significant trench through developable land. Council stated in its Part B Submission that it agreed that further work would be required to determine the preferred alignment as part of the PSP process. Council noted that Mr Woodland and Mr Negri had acknowledged in their evidence that the final alignment can be addressed as part of the PSP process. In closing submissions, Council noted that it was apparent from the evidence of Ms Marshall that her opinion was based on traffic considerations and a preliminary assessment of cost. Council stated that it agreed with Ms Marshall that her evidence supported further investigation and that is why at this stage of planning there is a high degree of flexibility in the presentation of the roads. Council added that: Council considers this to be an unnecessary change to the Framework Plan. Quite possibly a route through disturbed land being the 1930s quarry could be the most appropriate location for a cross(ing) once all matters are considered.

(iv) Extension of the north south arterial road through to the Hamilton Highway ABCL sought to have the western arterial road continue through to the Hamilton Highway. It described ending the north south arterial road at Fyansford-Gheringhap Road as “an odd result”. While as currently forecast, there may be insufficient traffic along the southern section to warrant an arterial road connection all the way through to the Hamilton Highway, ABCL suggested that this was a missed opportunity. It submitted that: Providing the arterial connection through to the Midland Highway will significantly enhance the convenience and attractiveness of the arterial road network and connections through the WGGA. Ms Marshall noted that there is no direct arterial road connection between the Midland and Hamilton Highways. She added that the direct connection south of Fyansford-Gheringhap Road to the Hamilton Highway “... appears to be downgraded with priority transferred to the east west arterial, then south to Hamilton Highway via the Clever and creative corridor.” She considered that this was not an appropriate location for the north south arterial road to end because as shown, traffic will either use the Connector Street as a pseudo arterial or will divert to the east using the CCC link. She noted the traffic modelling done by GTA predicated that the north south arterial road would carry 25,000 to 28,000 vehicles per day and “(T)ypically you would expect the southern continuation to be an arterial connecting through to Hamilton Highway.”

Page 73 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

In closing, Council submitted that this extension was not appropriate and “... would result in an arterial road spacing that is not required or justified and is much less than the traditional 1.6 kilometre grid.” Council added that other surrounding uses in the area such as the subregional activity centre and the employment area in the west of the precinct require arterial road access.

(v) Church Street Connection The Framework Plan transport network includes the extension into the Batesford South Precinct of the existing Church Street in a straight line over the Geelong Ring Road until it crosses the Moorabool River. The extension provides access to the Ring Road via a half diamond interchange. Riverlee sought a revised alignment of the Church Street connection that sweeps to the north west of Church Street and turns south west to cross the Moorabool River further north than currently shown on the Framework Plan map (Figure 2). In its submission, Riverlee noted that due to its elevation and length, the Church Street extension would be a prominent and significant feature in the landscape. It submitted that investigations by Cardno TGM had identified significant issues with the currently proposed location. Riverlee cited the infrastructure evidence of Mr Prossor that the issues include: • extremely high constructed embankments and or bridges (20 – 25 metres high) • an extremely long bridge over the Moorabool River • high aesthetic impost on the surrounds • significant impact on the adjoining properties. Mr Prossor outlined three alternate options for the Church Street over pass with a preferred option described as: Option 4 which initially runs in a north westerly direction across the existing escarpment batter to allow the road to achieve the maximum permissible bus route grades whilst also minimising the creation of large embankments. It then loops back to arrive at approximately the same location as detailed in the framework plan on the west side of the Moorabool River. Riverlee submitted that while the uncertainty as to who will ultimately fund the bridge, its preferred location and ultimate design will be clarified at the PSP stage, orderly planning dictates that a connection is needed in this location. It added that: To avoid confusion and differing interpretations between developers and Council’s planners in relation to its alignment, it is submitted that the relevant plans within the Framework plan showing this connection should be amended to remove the straight line connection. It should be replaced with a notation that the ultimate design, location and route of the Church Street connection will be determined as part of the future PSP process. The McCann Family supported the option preferred by Mr Prossor. They submitted that while some disadvantages are noted in the advice of Mr Prossor including increased lengths of roads and bridges, an option such as option 4 is clearly preferred to the ‘straight’ connection. The McCann Family recalled the concession made by Mr Woodland under cross examination that the Church Street extension was one of those examples where the Framework Plan may need to be amended to make note of the need for further investigation.

Page 74 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

The McCann Family submitted that the major engineering issues associated with the Church Street extension are sufficiently known at this stage to warrant an amendment to the Framework “... to reflect option 4 or at the very least amended to acknowledge that the Church Street extension is likely to require a non-straight connection determined having appropriate regard to topography, engineering, cost, land efficiency and visual and landscape considerations.” They sought a recommendation from the Panel that the Framework Plan be amended to show option 4 as the alignment for the Church Street extension and that the Plan be annotated with some qualifying words such as “New connection to Church Street – alignment subject to further studies”. In its Part B submission, Council stated that it does not in principle oppose the alternative alignment but submitted that this level of detail should be resolved at the PSP stage. Council advised that it was seeking flexibility in the delivery of the PSP and it understood that was also what Riverlee was seeking. Council submitted that it was concerned that including a loop road now could result in less flexibility in 10 or 15 years time when the detailed planning is done for this road and bridge. In closing submissions, Council submitted that: It is clear through the evidence that it is a complex piece of infrastructure for which the location is uncertain and which will fall across several land holdings. Mr Prossor has provided a proposal which he fairly concedes is at a preliminary stage. The important matter for the Panel in respect of the bridge is that it is satisfied that there exists sufficient flexibility in the ordinance and Framework Plan to identify a final solution when known. Given the stage of planning, the Council regards there is significant latitude in this issue but the Panel may recommend further commentary.

(vi) Upgrade of Creamery Road crossing of the Geelong Ring Road The Ramsay submission sought changes to the Framework Plan map to make it clear that an interchange with the Geelong Ring Road was not being considered as part of an upgrade of the Creamery Road overpass. It submitted that the notation on the Framework Plan map indicates that the Creamery Road/Geelong Ring Road requires some form of ‘upgrade’ but no new transport infrastructure was listed for the Creamery Road overpass. Ramsay noted the evidence of Mr Hunt that Creamery Road is already capable of handling bus movements, can a accommodate a shared path as contemplated by the Framework Plan and can perform as a local connector street. He added that if any alteration was required, it could be done within the existing profile and Ramsay was not opposed to a reconfiguration in this manner. Ramsay submitted that an upgrade of the Creamery Road overpass was not required and that the Panel should recommend the following changes to the Framework Plan: • removal of the ‘Geelong Ring Road – Upgrade Connection’ symbol from Creamery Road at Plan 04 (page 38) and Plan 47 (page 238) • inclusion of an acknowledgement within the Framework Plan (for example at page 239) that: - any upgrade to Creamery Road does not include provision of access and / or egress to the Geelong Ring Road. Ramsay notes that this matter has been agreed by Council; and - that any upgrade to the Creamery Road overpass / flyover, if required, will be completed within the confines of the existing overpass infrastructure.

Page 75 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Mr Hunt in his evidence statement expressed the view that upgrading of the existing bridge to provide an interchange with the Geelong Ring Road was not necessary or desirable and in his opinion, the only possible upgrade to be considered at the PSP stage was the widening of the footpath on the northern side to enable it to operate as a fully compliant shared path. In responding to the original Ramsay submission, Council indicated that the Creamery Road flyover is identified for upgrades that will be determined as part of the PSP process. During cross-examination of Mr Hunt, Council suggested that some form of words could be included in the Framework Plan regarding the upgrade to the Creamery Road flyover.

(vii) Duplication of Evans Road Evans Road is shown on the Framework Plan as an arterial road running between the two growth areas. The CCC is also depicted as following the Evans Road alignment. Evans Road is currently a rural road and unsealed over part of its length. The Ramsay submission sought a change to text in the Framework Plan to add a qualification to references to the duplication of Evans Road to make it clear that its duplication would, if required, be subject to further investigation and detailed planning at the PSP stage. Ramsay in submissions acknowledged that parts of Evans Road would need to be upgraded to a sealed condition to facilitate connection between the two growth areas, noting that this upgrade could be done within the existing 20 metre wide road reserve along Evans Road. It noted: the findings of the traffic conclave at paragraph 10, where it was agreed that the development of the Creamery Road PSP will not in and of itself trigger the need to upgrade Evans Road; and the evidence of Mr Hunt that the upgrade of Evans Road (beyond basic sealing work) will only be required in the longer term. In his view, any need to upgrade Evans Road beyond this point would be triggered by development in both the NGGA and WGGA. In his expert statement, Mr Hunt opined that as modelled, volumes on Evans Road do not warrant duplication and identification of an upgrade to this standard in the Framework Plan “... is premature and unnecessary.” LBDG submitted that the Framework Plan should be amended to remove reference to Evans Road between the two growth areas. It argued that Evans Road is a local arterial road which on the traffic evidence is unlikely to carry the volume of traffic to justify duplication. LBDG submitted that: If the CCC has any prospect of success (which we hope given its extensive land take it requires) then there is no basis for excessive duplication especially in the area between the two growth areas. LBDG added that the traffic needs for duplication are likely to emerge over 20 to 30 years and as the land between the two grow areas is rural, the option to preserve potential widening is inherently protected. The statement from the meeting of the traffic engineering experts said that they agreed that Evans Road was an important and strategic link between the two growth areas and should form part of the CCC. The statement noted that with Evans Road carrying potentially between 15,000 and 18,000 vehicles per day, it may or may not require duplication and the opportunity for duplication should be preserved.

Page 76 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

In responding to the Ramsay submission, Council stated that Evans Road would require an upgrade to allow movements between the two growth areas and it forms part of the CCC. In its Part B Submission, however, Council stated that as part of recommended post-exhibition changes, it has removed the 400 metre wide catchment along the CCC link between the two growth areas but has retained the CCC link itself along Evans Road.

(viii) Alignment of Elcho Road The Framework Plan shows Elcho Road as an arterial road running through the Northern Geelong Growth Area. Its proposed alignment follows the existing Elcho Road alignment from the north east boundary of the growth area to connect with the existing Evans Road to the south west. In its submission in response to the exhibition of the Amendment, LBDG sought a minor realignment of Elcho Road by looping it to the north rather than following the straight alignment of the existing Elcho Road. LBDG submitted that the realignment would reduce cost, increase amenity, achieve better integration and have less impact on the natural landform. It submitted that the site-responsive merits of the realignment of Elcho Road are well canvassed in the landscape evidence of Mr Lethlean and Mr Young’s evidence demonstrated that there is no impediment to the realignment from a traffic engineering perspective. LBDG noted that at their meeting the traffic engineering experts agreed that the proposed realignment of Elcho Road would not impact on or change the outcomes of the traffic modelling. Mr Lethlean stated in his evidence that the anticipated upgrade of Elcho Road to an arterial road would require a large scale engineering response which would “... have a large visual impact the landscape and valley formation”. He concluded that: From a landscape architecture and urban design approach, responsive design approach and reinforcing a sense of place, the alternative design location is preferred. In his evidence, Mr De Silva was of the opinion that the value of the Framework Plan could be improved by, amongst other changes, a refinement to the alignment of Elcho Road (and the CCC associated with it) to be more site responsive and to activate the proposed activity centres. Mr Young in his evidence outlined his review of the vertical geometry of the proposed realignment. He concluded that the minor localised realignment would be unlikely to have a negative impact on the traffic carrying capacity of Elcho Road and that there were transport benefits associated with the road’s realignment due the splitting of the activity centres. Council stated that it did not support the change in the alignment. In closing submissions, Council submitted that it did not see the need to realign Elcho Road at this time as this matter could be addressed at the PSP stage once the surrounding land uses are locked down. 6.6.2 Discussion

(i) Clever and Creative Corridor There was general support for the CCC. The Panel considers the concept to be ambitious and may be difficult to realise fully along the entire length of the Corridor. It agrees nonetheless that the concept is worthy of pursuit. The option of realising the concept

Page 77 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

should be preserved and therefore it is important to retain the proposed 14 metre wide corridor in the Framework Plan. Preservation of the corridor width of 14 metres was the main concern expressed by Council. Several submitters were concerned about the measurement detail (carriageway widths and parking bays for example) and the depictions of interim and ultimate configurations included in the Framework. Council has agreed to delete the measurement detail except for the 14 metre wide corridor. The Panel endorses Council’s decision. Deletion of the detail will provide greater flexibility in designing the CCC at the PSP stage. The Panel agrees that flexibility in urban design to respond to surrounding land uses is an important aspect sought by the McCann Family, LBDG and Ramsay amongst others and endorsed by the planning experts. Some submitters requested that the depictions of the interim and ultimate configurations should be removed from the Framework Plan again to provide flexibility and avoid constraining the CCC design during the preparation of the PSPs. The Panel is not concerned with the depictions provided that it is made clear that they are intended to be conceptual in nature and there can be variations along the corridor depending on the abutting land uses. The Ramsay submission suggested some words to that affect and the Panel endorses Council’s agreement to include the words suggested Ramsay with respect to the interim and ultimate configurations. The Panel also notes that Council has agreed to remove the 400 metre wide catchment between the two growth areas along Evans Road. The land between the two growth areas will only be developed, if ever, in the very long term and the design of the corridor and abutting land uses can be determined at the appropriate time in the future.

(ii) Alignment of the Clever and Creative Corridor through the Batesford South Precinct The Panel is not convinced that the change in alignment of the CCC to the west side of the future lake, as sought by ABCL, is justified. It agrees with the McCann Family that it is not clear from the evidence that there would be any substantial increase in net developable land and therefore catchment. The Panel also notes that having the CCC corridor adjacent to the north south arterial could present a substantial barrier and reduce the amenity of the CCC. The claimed cost savings of building a single bridge for the arterial road and the CCC may not be made: a single bridge would have to be wider and in any event, another river crossing would still be needed to the east of the lake should the CCC be moved to the west. While still subject to detailed design at the PSP stage, the Panel considers the eastern alignment as set out in the Framework Plan is superior to the one to the west. The eastern alignment should provide more potential scope for building on the amenity afforded by the future lake and the rehabilitated Moorabool River.

(iii) Alignment of the north south arterial road in the Western Geelong Growth Area Strong evidence was presented to the Panel that there could be better options for the alignment of the north south arterial road than that shown on the Framework Plan. Relocating the alignment to the west (along the lines of option 2 or 3 proposed by Ms Marshall) could on the preliminary analysis done to date enable the construction of the north south arterial road and bridge to be less visually intrusive, more sympathetic to the

Page 78 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

landscape and require less cut and fill to meet required levels and grades. A more westerly alignment would also avoid the old 1930s quarry, but the Panel does not think avoiding the 1930s quarry area adds much weight to the benefits of adopting a re-alignment. The question then arises as to how best to ensure there is flexibility in the Framework Plan to allow for further investigations of the alignment of the arterial road and to reflect the best alignment in the PSP. Council argued that the alignment shown is intended to be indicative and there is already enough flexibility in the Framework Plan for an alternative alignment to be investigated and adopted during the preparation of the PSP. There was therefore in its view no need to amend the Framework Plan to show a different alignment. The Panel is aware of other PSPs where the alignment and design of a major road and bridge were revised significantly at the PSP preparation stage. The alignment and design of the proposed arterial road and bridge over Jacksons Creek in the Lancefield South PSP is a case in point. Mr Woodland suggested in his evidence that a revised alignment should be shown on the Framework Plan if there was consensus among experts that it was a better alignment. The Panel is not entirely convinced that there is complete consensus amongst the experts. In fact, there is much more detailed investigation on a range of factors (including biodiversity and cultural heritage along with traffic and engineering consideration) to be done before a final alignment can be determined. It may eventuate that as noted by Council, the most appropriate alignment is though the site of the 1930s quarry. An alternative to amending the alignment shown on the Framework Plan is to add a notation to the Plan stating that the alignment shown is indicative only and subject to change following detailed analysis, design and costing at the PSP stage. As an aside, such a notation could equally apply to other infrastructure shown on the Framework Plan such as the alignment of the extension to Church Street. The Panel is not inclined to recommend the alignment change requested by ABCL. Instead, it proposes that an annotation be added to the Framework Plan map to make it clear that the alignment shown for the north south arterial road and bridge is indicative and may be subject to change following further analysis and assessment at the PSP preparation stage.

(iv) Extension of the north south arterial road through to the Hamilton Highway While it may seem in the words of the ABCL submission “odd” that the north south arterial in the WGGA does not extend through to the Hamilton Highway, there are in the Panel’s view sound reasons as to why that may not be the case. As noted by Council, other land uses and development in the area need to be serviced by an arterial road and the road network shown on the Framework Plan map is appropriate in terms of the accepted spacing between arterial roads. The Panel notes also that routes along arterial roads are available for drivers wanting to travel through the WGGA to the Hamilton Highway albeit not as direct as a straight connection as proposed by ABCL. No traffic modelling and analysis was presented to the Panel to justify what would amount to a substantial change to the road network that could have other ramifications for the transport network shown on the Framework Plan. It may be that subsequent work at the PSP stage identifies a need, based on traffic desire lines and other factors, for the north south arterial road to connect straight through to the Hamilton Highway. The Panel

Page 79 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

considers that this issue can be re-examined if justified during the preparation of the PSP for the area. No change to the Framework Plan is required.

(v) Church Street Connection There may be merit in the re-alignment of the Church Street connection as proposed by LBDG. On the evidence of Mr Prossor, there may be benefits in the alternative alignment. But again, these benefits are derived from preliminary analysis and more investigation will be needed to confirm a preferred alignment during developing the PSP for the precinct. The Panel considers there is enough flexibility for alternative alignments for Church Street to be considered when the PSP is developed. To provide some comfort and more certainty for those who requested a change in the Framework Plan map, the Panel recommends that an annotation along the lines suggested above with respect to the north south arterial road should be added to the Framework Plan. The Panel is inclined to the view that one general annotation stating that the alignments of roads shown on the Framework Plan map are indicative and subject to review and confirmation at the PSP stage would suffice in preference to separate descriptions against each of the roads for which changes in alignment have been requested in submissions.

(vi) Upgrade of Creamery Road crossing of the Geelong Ring Road The Panel understands than an interchange with the Geelong Ring Road is not being considered as part of any upgrade to the existing Creamery Road overpass. Creamery Road is shown on the Framework Plan road network as a Connector Street and, as stated by Mr Hunt, an interchange is not warranted at this location. What will constitute the upgrade will be determined as part of the development of the Creamery Road PSP. The upgrade may, as suggested by Mr Hunt, be limited to a widening of the existing footpath to make it a fully compliant footpath but Council did not confirm this nor provide any details on what is being considered. The symbol at the Creamery Road overpass as shown on the Framework Plan map is described as ‘Geelong Ring Road – upgrade connection’. The Panel considers that this description may be misleading and could be interpreted as meaning that an interchange or ‘connection’ to the Geelong Ring Road was being contemplated. The Ramsay submission proposed that the symbol should be removed, and words added to the Framework Plan to clarify that any upgrade will not include an interchange with the Ring Road and the extent of the upgrade will be confined to the existing overpass width. Council agreed that words could be added to the Framework Plan. The Panel considers that the upgrade symbol should be retained on the Framework Plan map (and for consistency on Plan 47 Creamery Road Precinct of the Framework Plan document) given that some upgrade to the overpass is likely to occur. The current description should, however, be changed on both plans to make it clear that the upgrade is not a ‘connection’ but an improvement to the existing overpass. Replacing the description of ‘upgrade connection’ to ‘upgrade existing overpass’ should suffice. The details of the upgrade are yet to be determined and therefore it may be going too far to state in the Framework Plan that upgrade works will be confined to the existing width of the overpass as requested by Ramsay.

Page 80 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

The Panel notes that at page 239 of the Framework Plan background document under ‘Local Infrastructure’ there is a brief reference to Creamery Road. The Panel suggests this could be a suitable place to add some words to clarify the extent of any upgrades to the Creamery Road overpass. It leaves that up to Council in consultation with Ramsay as to whether words in addition to changes to the map symbol are still required and, if so, the form of those words.

(vii) Duplication of Evans Road Evans Road is shown on the Framework Plan road network as an arterial road and as part of the CCC network. The traffic experts agreed that Evans Road would be an important link between the two growth areas and should be part of the CCC. It was acknowledged by parties that some upgrade, effectively sealing of the road over its entire length, will be needed for Evans Road to function as a strategic link between the two growth areas. The issue is whether Evans Road will need duplication. The traffic experts advised that duplication may be required but not until well into the future. The local (Panel’s emphasis) duplication of Evans Road is listed in the Framework Plan background document at, for example, page 227 in the context of the delivery of the Heales Road PSP, but reference is also made to its ‘external upgrade’, that is between the two growth areas. It seems to the Panel that the wording in the Framework Plan while not excluding its future duplication between the two growth areas does no more than specify an upgrade (which could simply mean sealing of the pavement) to Evans Road that as noted above has been agreed as necessary by the experts. The Panel also notes that while arterial roads are typically two lanes in each direction, that is duplicated, that is not always the case particularly in rural areas where many arterial roads function quite efficiently without duplication. Indeed, even within PSP areas arterial roads are often constructed in the interim as two lane roads with duplication not occurring for many years, if at all. It is clear to the Panel that Evans Road should be shown as an arterial road on the Framework Plan road network. It will function as an important link between the two growth areas. Some upgrade will be required as the two growth areas are developed but as the traffic experts agreed, duplication of Evans Road may never be warranted. Current land use abutting Evans Road notably to the west is farming. The opportunity to duplicate Evans Road at some point in the future will not in the Panel’s view be at risk unless and until such time as development of the abutting land and/or the CCC occurs. The need for duplication could be assessed at that time. The Panel is not inclined to recommend changes to the text within the Framework Plan. It does suggest, however, that in this instance Council may wish to review references to Evans Road to clarify which parts of Evans Road are to be duplicated, rather than upgraded, as part of the implementation of the PSP areas.

(viii) Alignment of Elcho Road Evidence was presented to the Panel that suggests a minor re-alignment of Elcho Road would produce a better outcome but again, the assessment presented was preliminary. More detailed analysis will be required to determine a precise alignment.

Page 81 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

The Panel agrees with Council that this further work will be necessary when the detailed PSP planning is done. The Elcho Road alignment will of necessity be confirmed at the PSP stage. As with other road alignments discussed above, the Panel does not consider that the alignment shown on the Framework Plan map should be adjusted at this stage of the process. The alignments as shown are indicative. Again, the Panel suggests that a notation be added to the Framework Plan to make it clear that the road network alignments are indicative and subject to change as a result of detailed analysis and assessment during the course of developing the PSPs for the various precincts. 6.6.3 Conclusions The Panel concludes: • The 14 metre wide median reservation for the Clever and Creative Corridor should be retained in the Framework Plan. • The measurement details for the Clever and Creative Corridor should be removed, and a description added to make it clear that the interim and ultimate configurations as described and depicted in the Framework Plan Document are conceptual only and there will be variability in the abutting land uses and development determined at the PSP preparation stage. • No change should be made to the alignments as shown on the Framework Plan map of: - the north south arterial road through the Batesford South PSP - the Church Street extension - Elcho Road. • An annotation should be added to the Framework Plan map to state that the alignments shown for road network, including the above three roads, are indicative and may be subject to change following further analysis and assessment at the PSP preparation stage, or words to that affect. • No change to the Framework Plan map should be made to show the north south arterial road through the Western Geelong Growth Area connecting directly with the Hamilton Highway. • The description of the symbol shown on the Framework Plan map with respect to the Creamery Road upgrade could be misleading and should be amended by replacing the word ‘connection’ to clarify that the upgrade will not include an interchange with the Geelong Ring Road. • The classification of Evans Road on the Framework Plan road network as an arterial road between the two growth areas should be retained but references to its duplication should be reviewed to clarify which parts of Evans Road will be duplicated rather than just upgraded from a partly unsealed rural road. 6.6.4 Recommendation The Panel recommends: In relation to the transport network: a) Retain the 14 metre wide reservation for the Clever and Creative Corridor in the North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan.

Page 82 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

b) Remove the measurement details for the Clever and Creative Corridor from the North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan. c) Add a description to the Clever and Creative Corridor section in the North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan to make it clear that the interim and ultimate configurations of the Clever and Creative Corridor as described and depicted in the North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan are conceptual only and there will be variability in the abutting land uses and development as determined through the preparation of the Precinct Structure Plans. d) Add an annotation to the Framework Plan map to state that the alignments shown for the road network are indicative and may be subject to change following further analysis and assessment at the Precinct Structure Plan preparation stage, or words to that affect. e) Amend the description of the symbol shown on the North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan map with respect to the Creamery Road upgrade to clarify that the upgrade will not include an interchange with the Geelong Ring Road. f) Retain the classification of Evans Road as an arterial road between the two growth areas on the North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan. g) Review the references to Evans Road in the North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan to clarify which parts of Evans Road will be duplicated rather than just upgraded.

6.7 Activity centres Submissions were made on the location of activity centres as depicted on the Framework Plan Future Urban Structure plan (Figure 2). This issue is whether the Framework Plan should be amended to relocate some of the activity centres or left unchanged with the precise location of the activity centres to be resolved during the preparation and approval of the PSPs for the two growth areas. 6.7.1 Evidence and submissions

(i) Relocation of NGGA Subregional Activity Centre LBDG requested that the NGGA subregional centre be relocated approximately 500 metres north east of its location currently shown on the Framework Plan to a location on the edge of the monocline alignment and away from the alignment of the Heales Road extension. In its Part B submission, Council indicated that while the requested relocation may have merit in maximising views, there are other factors to consider beyond views. It questioned whether the urban design disadvantages of locating an activity centre on an arterial road could not be appropriately managed through urban design and built form controls. Its stated position was that the exact location of activity centres could be dealt with at the PSP planning stage.

Page 83 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Council submitted that the requested changes came within the realms of general accordance with the proposed Framework Plan at Clause 21.20. However, it would not object to a recommendation that the location of these centres be amended as requested by LBDG. In closing, Council stated that: Council has indicated that it does not oppose a recommendation for the relocation and redistribution of activity centres sought by LBDG. Its list of changes does not depict every consequential change on every plan associated with this redistribution, but Council recognises that this will necessarily follow. LBDG submitted that: Placemaking is critical in growth area planning. Where a growth area has natural assets, those assets should be used and supplemented and exploited by good planning. That is the key driver of Lovely Banks position on this issue. It is the point at the heart of Mr DeSilva’s evidence and Mr Lethlean described this canvas as one of the best opportunities he has ever had to deal with. Mr Day was of the same view. The relocation of the Sub-Regional Centre is sought essentially as a place making point of difference. The monocline is one of the key assets of the growth area yet the Sub Regional Activity Centre, as proposed in the Framework Plan, has not been sited inboard so as to take full advantage of what the monocline has to offer. Rather it has been identified as being centred on an arterial road outboard to the monocline. LBDG noted the conclusion of Mr De Silva that “... the alternative site offers unique conditions that could enrich and enliven the Precinct Structure Plan and Urban Design Framework Plan processes and further the objectives of the Framework Plan beyond the exhibited position.” Mr Montebello added that these observations are supported by the evidence of Mr Day and Mr Lethlean. LBDG submitted that the change in location would ensure that within the activity centre there would be public places and views from memorable buildings. It added that by being a destination centre, the activity centre could draw in more and varied investment and have unique character allowing the NGGA to be more self-sustaining. LBDG quoted the conclusion of Mr De Silva that the exhibited location “... simply cannot compete with the alterative location” due to its locational attributes.

(ii) Change in location and floorspace allocation of the NGGA north eastern activity centre The LBDG requested that the north eastern activity centre be split into two relocated centres with each centre accommodating 5,000 square metres of floor space as opposed to 10,000 square metres in the one centre as currently proposed. In its Part B submission, Council stated that: Council does not agree. As previously put to the Panel, these are matters (that) are properly dealt with at the PSP stage. The Council submits that the Panel should only grant such changes where it is definitively known that the outcome is the final appropriate outcome and where that outcome could not be facilitated in the context of an Amendment which will have regard to or be guided by the Framework Plan. Where those changes can be made at that later time, supported by appropriate detailed work, it should occur at that later time, and the detailed redrafting of a Framework Plan document at this point is simply unnecessary. LBDG submitted that Plan 28 of the Framework Plan identified significant gaps in the one- kilometre catchment for the neighbourhood activity centres. It noted that the notion of a

Page 84 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

walkable catchment is a key planning concept and according to the evidence of Mr Young, there are significant areas of residential development that would not meet the 20 minute neighbourhood unless a number of smaller local activity centres were provided. LBDG submitted that the report from the meeting of traffic expects confirms that the alternative network is a superior outcome “... with shorter internal vehicle trips and a greater level of walking trips expected.” In its conclusion on this matter, LBDG submitted: Finally, putting these benefits to the side for a moment, Mr Lee highlights a significant disbenefit of the large NAC proposed in the Framework Plan. Noting the likely development time frames and sequencing, catchments and size of the large NAC, he expresses a concern that it may in fact detract from the role and development opportunity at the Sub Regional Centre, and delay its development and prime location for sub-regional retail, business and community services. As such, Lovely Banks submits that the Panel should accept the alternative NAC network, recognising that it would provide the dual advantages of: 1. providing for more accessible facilities for more people; and 2. ensuring that there are no constraints to the successful development of the Sub Regional Activity Centre nor delays to its development.

(iii) Western Geelong Growth Area In its Part B submission, Council noted the following requests from submitters for changes in the location of activity centres in the WGGA: • relocate the subregion centre • relocate neighbourhood centres shown on the boundary of the Creamery Road and Batesford North precincts wholly within the Creamery Road precinct • move the north western activity centre closer to the future railway centre. Council submitted that: No planning or economic evidence has been called to support these submissions. It is Council’s position that the location of these activity centres on the Framework Plan is indicative. Subject to further analysis and detailed design, the requested changes may eventuate. However, this is a matter for the PSP or planning permit stage. Mr Woodland supports Council’s position that the ultimate location of activity centres is a matter that can be determined when preparing the PSPs. 6.7.2 Discussion

(i) Northern Geelong Growth Area The Panel heard evidence from several experts on the location of the activity centres in the NGGA. Strong submissions were made by Council and LBPG including debate of whether the relocation of the centres as proposed by the LBDG would be ‘generally in accordance with’ the exhibited Framework Plan. At the end of the day, it would seem that Council has softened its position regarding a change to the Framework Plan indicating that it would not oppose a recommendation for the redistribution and relocation of the activity centres sought by LBDG.

Page 85 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

The locations proposed by the LBDG could well be considered to be ‘generally in accordance with’ the Framework although that could be subject to later interpretation during the course of preparing the PSP for the precinct. In the Panel’s view, it would be better to provide more certainty and amend the Framework Plan provided that the evidence to hand has established a superior outcome. The Panel is reluctant to recommend changes to the Framework unless a strong case has been made out. In this instance, the Panel considers that strong case for change has been made. The planning, economic, traffic and landscape evidence pointed to better locations for the activity centres. This was confirmed in the minds of the Panel through its observations during the course of a site inspection of the area. The Panel therefore finds that the Framework Plan spatial plan to be included at Clause 21.20-5 should be amended to reflect the relocation of the activity centres (including the splitting of the neighbourhood centre into two centres and their locations) proposed by the LBDG. As noted by Council, there will be subsequent amendments to the Framework Plan background document. The Panel leaves it up to the parties involved to identify and agree on what those subsequent changes should be.

(ii) Western Geelong Growth Area No evidence was called, or further submissions made during the Hearing on changes in the location of activity centres in the WGGA. The Panel therefore makes no further comment and leaves the matter for resolution during the PSP preparation and approval process. 6.7.3 Conclusions The Panel concludes: • the Framework Plan spatial plan should be amended as requested by LBDG to change the location of subregional activity centre and split the neighbourhood centre into two centres at the locations proposed by the LBDG in the NGGA • subsequent necessary changes to the Framework Plan background document should be identified and made by Council. 6.7.4 Recommendations The Panel recommends: Amend the North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan in the Northern Geelong Growth Area to change the location of the subregional activity centre and split the neighbourhood centre into two centres as proposed by the Lovely Banks Development Group. Make any subsequent necessary changes to North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan background document arising from Recommendation 7.

6.8 Integrated water management The NWGGA will require significant management of existing waterways and the development of drainage infrastructure to manage the increase in stormwater runoff that occurs through development.

Page 86 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

The WGGA has the added element of the filling of the quarry void which will in time, estimated to be 20 years, fill to become a large artificial lake as groundwater return to more natural pre-pumping levels. There were submissions and evidence about the extent and location of indicative stormwater infrastructure in the Framework Plan and the approach to integrated water management. 6.8.1 Evidence and submissions LBDG called evidence from Mr Neil Craigie in surface water management for its land in the NGGA. Mr Craigie’s views were confined to the Framework Plan. He was generally supportive of the approach taken in the Framework Plan including the modelling undertaken by SMEC. His particular concerns can be summarised as the indicated extent of drainage reserves on Plan 7 of the Framework Plan; the view that infrastructure can be accommodated in stream reserves and road reserves without widening; developing the higher areas of LBDG land earlier will bring drainage infrastructure benefits; and it is not feasible to maintain and enhance pre-development hydrology. In cross examination by Council, Mr Craigie expressed the view that it is not helpful to put in indicative larger basins or reserves than that which may be needed as it “... upsets them and puts them on the wrong footing”.10 Mr Craigie also conceded under questioning from Council that the Framework Plan approach is indicative, that his concepts were a refinement of those in the Framework Plan and further detailed design can be undertaken through the PSP process. He agreed that both his alternative proposal for drainage along Elcho Road and the indicative concept in the Framework Plan could both work, but he stressed that it will not be feasible to meet pre development flow conditions. The Lee-Pratts through Mr Marshall called Mr Swan to give water engineering evidence in relation to their land on the north west corner of Heales Road and Bacchus Marsh Road in the NGGA. Plan 7 of the Framework Plan shows an indicative location for a stormwater basin at this location. Mr Swan’s evidence in summary was that the basin appears to be oversized; there is likely to be additional drainage directed to this location; more detailed design will need to be undertaken through the PSP process; the infrastructure proposed is not necessarily the most appropriate and individual precincts will be expected to manage their own stormwater drainage to avoid downstream impacts. Mr Swan conceded in cross examination by Council that this is a general low point where it is likely some stormwater infrastructure will be required but he thought it too prescriptive as indicated in the Framework Plan. L Bisinella Development (L Bisinella) called Mr Prout to give evidence on waterways and stormwater for its land on Avonlea Road in Bell Post Hill in the WGGA. The land currently

10 This comment was made in relation to LBDG land and the RLZ land and indicative basins at the foot of the escarpment.

Page 87 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

has a permit for subdivision under the existing zone but more intensive development in future under the Framework Plan is envisaged. Mr Prout’s evidence in summary was that the waterway corridors shown in the Framework Plan are significantly wider than the criteria for identification of corridors in the background Water Technology report would indicate. Council questioned Mr Prout and he acknowledged that the next stage of PSP development will be where a lot of detail is addressed but reconfirmed that in his view the Framework Plan did not accurately reflect the background work undertaken by Water Technology for this site. Ramsay called Mr Swan to give evidence in relation to drainage and stormwater for their holdings upstream of the L Bisinella land in the WGGA. His evidence was similar in theme to that for the Lee-Pratts in that whilst drainage infrastructure is needed, it is premature to be too prescriptive as suggested in the Framework Plan. As suggested in evidence by Mr Prout and others he also considered that the drainage and stormwater areas indicated are significantly larger than what will actually be needed. Mr Swan acknowledged under questioning from Council that additional detailed planning and design work will need to be undertaken through the PSP process but was concerned that the Framework Plan concepts not be locked in. In closing submissions on stormwater and drainage Council submitted that with the exception of the L Bisinella land, the concerns raised by submitters and experts can be effectively addressed through the PSP process and with additional clarification in the Framework Plan to reinforce its indicative nature. Council agreed to reduce the indicative waterway widths on the L Bisinella land to better accord with the SMEC background report and made comments accordingly in the table of changes. 6.8.2 Discussion The Panel generally accepts the Council position that whilst there is considerable future planning and design work to be undertaken in relation to integrated water management, the Framework Plan provides a suitable platform to undertake this work. Council has invested heavily in background work to start the planning and design process, and this work, undertaken by Water Technology (WGGA) and SMEC (NGGA), was generally well supported by the experts who gave evidence. Trying to take planning and design to the next level as will be required for the PSP now is not necessary or desirable. The Panel does not consider it is defensible to suggest that in general the indicative depictions of waterways (for example) require infrastructure to be constructed to that spatial extent. Elsewhere in this report the Panel has accepted the need to reinforce the indicative nature of the Framework Plan. The one exception noted and accepted by Council is for the L Bisinella land where they have demonstrated with a detailed design that the indicative waterway extent is significantly

Page 88 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

different to that likely to be required. The Panel notes Council’s position in the table in Document 205 that this is a change to the Framework Plan they will make.11 6.8.3 Conclusions The Panel concludes: • Alterations to the Framework Plan for the land at 30 Avonlea Bell Post Hill as outlined in Document 205 should be undertaken. • No further changes to the Framework Plan in relation to integrated water management are necessary and the issues can be addressed through detailed design in the PSP process.

6.9 Ecology Ecology in this section relates to biodiversity values in the NWGGA. Ecology in the Settlement Strategy, primarily around the Bellarine Peninsula, is addressed in Section 4.2. The Framework Plan identifies ecological values in the NGGA on Plan 7 and page 67, including 408 hectares of Plains Grassland and associated species, a critically endangered ecological community. The Framework Plan notes that only 53 per cent of the area has been surveyed for its ecological values. The Framework Plan identifies ecological values in the WGGA on Plan 16 and page 98, including 268 hectares of threatened ecological communities (Plains Grassland and others) and significant waterways. The Framework Plan notes that only 75 per cent of the area has been surveyed for its ecological values. The Panel is aware that additional ecological surveys are being undertaken. The Framework Plan requires an overall conservation strategy for the growth areas and the detailed planning work will come through the PSP process. 6.9.1 Evidence and submissions DELWP’s original submission appeared, at face value, to be reasonably critical of biodiversity planning for the NWGGA, suggesting in essence, that: • the engagement with DELWP had not been as effective as hoped in developing measures to protect biodiversity • this has led to a ‘missed opportunity’ to integrate biodiversity into strategic planning • the known biodiversity values in the NWWGA are based on limited surveys leading to uncertainty in planning for the NWGGA • the degree of offsetting likely to be needed, if it available, is likely to be considerable which may impact on the deliverability of urban development. DELWP submitted: DELWP’s submission is that the uncertainty around the full scope of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, the process to be undertaken in its development, its linkages

11 Council’s closing submission (Document 237) refers to the SMEC background report at para 173; this should be a reference to the Water Technology background report. Document 205 also refers to Revising Plan 16; this should be a reference to Plan 15.

Page 89 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

between successive precinct plans and how it will address State requirements or legislation, limit the confidence that the FP can provide to all parties. … DELWP recommended an additional strategy be included at Clause 21.20-3. Following subsequent discussion between DELWP and Council, a further joint submission was lodged which essentially acknowledged that the parties will continue to work together and resolve the identified issues through future planning. The joint submission outlined how DELWP and Council will work together in future years and the opportunities for DELWP participation. The submission also acknowledged the challenges ahead in protecting biodiversity through planning and development. In response to questions from the Panel about the potential impact of biodiversity on predicted lot supply, Council prepared a separate brief written submission. Essentially Council submitted that the lot yield calculations contain ‘substantial conservatism’ and it would be premature to consider revising lot yields when there is still significant survey work and detailed planning to come including planning for biodiversity and offsets. Council also submitted that planning includes a proposed 100 hectare site on Stacey’s Road with ecological values that may be suitable for offsets. L Bisinella called ecology evidence from Mr Trengove on ecology in relation to its property at 30 Avonlea Road Bell Post Hill. The evidence essentially went to outline the ecological values on the property and support the contention that the development proposed (the draft subdivision plan) would not impact unacceptably on these values. Mr Trengove submitted an additional statement following a meeting on site with Ecology and Heritage Partners who were doing additional assessments. The additional statements identified the presence of the Growling Grass Frog and a native vegetation patch. Mr Trengove concluded these ecological attributes can be addressed thorough more detailed planning and the broader Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Native Vegetation Precinct Plans. 6.9.2 Discussions The biodiversity values of the NWGGA are significant and managing them and protecting them in accordance with State policy and State and Commonwealth legislation will be no easy task. There are extensive areas of native grassland in the NWWGA and the ability to protect them or provide offsets across the growth area is largely unknown and will remain so until detailed surveys are complete and further planning is undertaken. The Panel notes and accepts the reservations expressed by DELWP and there is a fine balance between planning proceeding apace, obtaining a fulsome assessment of biodiversity values, and specific land use outcomes that may result. That said, the Panel accepts the staged approach through the actions in the Framework Plan including the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, eventual Native Vegetation Precinct Plans for precincts and the PSP process itself is the appropriate way forward. The Panel notes the reservations of Council in accepting the additional strategy in Clause 21.20-3. However, the Panel does not consider that it imposes any additional impost on Council and provides a clear expression of the need to address biodiversity responsibilities at

Page 90 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

a strategic level. There must be a satisfactory level of knowledge and planning for biodiversity protection across the growth areas prior to PSP approval (as opposed to preparation proposed by DELWP). The risk of compromising a strategic approach to biodiversity conservation can be minimised by ensuring that the ‘big picture’ is in place first. The Panel has considered the evidence of Mr Trengove in relation to the L Bisinella land. It accepts that evidence to the extent that it agrees that these are matters to be addressed through detailed planning to come. The Panel considers there is one further matter to be addressed. Council’s submissions mentioned the land along Staceys Road as a potential offset area. This land12 is included in the NGGA but identified to remain in the Farming Zone. It is identified as having ecological values on Plan 8 of the Framework Plan and identified as ‘Agriculture Future Investigation of Conservation’ on Plan 42 for the Elcho Road West Precinct. The land is mostly within the Chemring Buffer identified on Plan 12 and discussed in Section 6.10 below. It seems to the Panel that the logical and fair approach to planning for this area would be to include it in the Urban Growth Zone so that it can be equally considered in discussions around PSP planning including biodiversity values and buffers. This is not to suggest that the values and constraints on the property are not real, far from it. The Panel merely suggests that discussions around the properties cannot be held on an equitable basis if they are locked into the Farming Zone. The Panel has not taken the additional step of recommending the land be rezoned now. Such a rezoning would require additional comments from landowners, surrounding landowners (including Chemring) and others. But the Panel does consider it is an issue that should be addressed at the PSP preparation stage if not before to ensure that any discussions and negotiations through the PSP are undertaken on an equal footing. 6.9.3 Conclusion The Panel concludes: • The general strategic approach to biodiversity conservation is acceptable but there are likely to be significant challenges in balancing biodiversity conservation and development as the NWGGA progresses. • The new strategy recommended by DELWP should be included in Clause 21.20-3; with ‘prepared’ changed to ‘approved’. • Council should consider the properties on Staceys Road remaining in the Farming Zone with a view to ensuring they are fairly treated in growth area planning, perhaps through UGZ rezoning in future. 6.9.4 Recommendation The Panel recommends: Add the following strategy to Clause 21.20-3: • Undertake a detailed biodiversity assessment prior to any Precinct Structure Plan being approved, that ensures that Commonwealth, State

12 Specifically parcels 162\PP3184, 161\PP3184, 1\TP95400 and 1\TP95213

Page 91 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

and local protection of high value biodiversity assets is reflected in strategic and statutory planning.

6.10 Major Hazard Facility Background to the LEMMP on Staceys Road, Lara operated by Chemring is provided in Section 1.2 in relation to procedural issues and document production. The issue considered here is whether the 1,000 metre buffer, annotated on Plan 12 of the Framework Plan is appropriate at this time, and in what form should it be included. 6.10.1 Evidence and submissions LBDG called evidence from Mr Erskine in risk management. Mr Erskine outlined the regulatory framework for MHF and risk management related to explosive storage and manufacture. Without having access to detailed information about hazardous materials and quantities, he drew the following conclusions in summary: • it will be possible to determine appropriate buffers using Quality Distance (QD) calculations or modelling • the proper point to measure a separation distance from is the hazard source, not a property boundary • he would not expect storage above 5 tonnes of division 1.1 explosives • using 10 tonnes of explosive, for demonstration purposes, the distance from an explosives storehouse to residences would need to be 478 metres • a 1,000 metre separation is excessive and unreasonably conservative • a 500 metre separation to residential and 1,000 metres to schools and hospitals. In response to questioning from Council, Mr Erskine indicated that if he was provided the Safety Case he would be able to provide a clearer idea of the extent of buffer needed. Chemring questioned Mr Erskine about his approach to buffer determination and some of the matters that may affect the need for separation distances such as quantities of material and operational practices on site. In submissions LBDG submitted that it is in a difficult position and dealing with a ‘moving target’. Without the detailed information on hazards and materials on site it is not in a position to effectively test the need for a 1,000 metre buffer. Drawing on the work of the MHF Advisory Committee and Mr Erskine’s evidence, LBDG submitted that it is an essential part of the planning system that a tailored approach to MHF is required; and that is not possible in this case. LBDG concluded that if the 1,000 metre buffer is to be retained in the Framework Plan, it should be: • drawn to commence from the southern boundary of the administration building at least, and preferably from the hazard source • labelled as LEMMP Default Buffer (measured from southern point of admin building on LEMMP land). LBDG tabled a plan showing the difference in land encumbered by taking the 1,000 metres from the site boundary or the administration building (Document 203). LBDG also submitted that Action N1.7.7 should be modified to identify that appropriate buffers need to be identified, rather than specifying distances in the existing Framework

Page 92 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Plan. It submitted that the text under Action N1.7.7 should be modified to note that the default buffers are subject to further detailed investigation through the PSP process to settle on an accurate evidence-based buffer. The Jia Qi Fang family provided a comprehensive submission on the MHF buffer issue. The family owns land on Staceys Road that would be at least partially covered by the 1,000 metre buffer. They submitted that the 1,000 metre buffer is, in summary: • unjust, unbalanced and unreasonable • inequitable in that Chemring are impinging on the rights of adjacent landholders • too large and should be reduced to 500 metres. The Jia Qi Fang family submitted that the 500 metre buffer should be taken from the activity boundary on the Chemring site and all of their land, or at least that outside the reduced buffer, should be rezoned to the UGZ. Chemring’s submission provided significant background information on the plant and its operation. Chemring reinforced the sensitive nature of the work on site and why it is not appropriate to provide detailed information on the type and quantity of materials or processes that are undertaken. Chemring’s position is that the 1,000 metre buffer should be retained, a position supported by Worksafe, and if anything strengthened to ensure it is maintained through the subsequent PSP process. This position was maintained following the hearing of evidence from Mr Erskine. In its closing submission Council submitted it was not clear on why a buffer should be measured from the administration building. It submitted that the 1,000 metre buffer should be taken from the boundary and further consideration be given after the safety case for the plant is finalised. Council concluded: Council is content to receive a recommendation that the buffer be clearly notated as being a default buffer subject to further assessment at the time of a PSP. Mr Montebello provided a form of words generally consistent with this. 6.10.2 Discussion Separation distance or buffer identification around MHF is often a highly contested space. There is often a lot at stake in terms of developable land or the ability to continue a high value business in a manner not restricted unnecessarily by surrounding land use. As outlined in Section 1.2 the Panel has suggested the issue should be considered in detail during the PSP preparation process. The Panel is acutely aware that this position is dependent on: • the LEMMP Safety Case being completed and approved in 2021 • the Safety Case, or relevant parts of it, being made available to experts for surrounding landowners, perhaps with undertakings as to confidentiality. The latter is by no means certain, with Chemring indicating that at least partly due to the requirements of certain overseas clients, it may not be able to provide the required information under any circumstances. This would be a difficult scenario where the retention

Page 93 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

of a larger buffer than seems reasonable, without detailed evidence, might be hard to sustain. Access to information will need to be considered in future; at this time the Panel is comfortable with the position of leaving further resolution of the issue to the PSP stage. The Panel agrees with LBDG and Council that reference to the 1,000 metre buffer could be ‘softened’ to some extent, albeit not as much as LBDG has suggested. The Panel recommends some words below. The Panel notes that Jia Qi Fang family submission in relation to buffers; the recommendations below equally apply to the long term planning for their land and the buffer issue. The Panel has also commented in Section 6.9 about the consideration of UGZ rezoning in this area. 6.10.3 Conclusions The Panel concludes: • A 1,000 metre LEMMP buffer should be retained in the Framework Plan at this time measured from the site boundary. • Wording in the Framework Plan should be modified to recognise that the 1,000 metre buffer is a default buffer that has not had detailed technical assessment and justification. 6.10.4 Recommendations The Panel recommends: Revise the text on Plan 12 to say: • LEMMP (1,000 metre default buffer, subject to technical confirmation). Revise the first bullet point under Action N.1.7.7 to say: • A default buffer of 1,000 metres to the Lara Energetic Material Manufacturing Plant, subject to technical confirmation. Revise the text under the Action N.1.7.7 to read: • No additional sensitive land uses, including residential development and community facilities, will be permitted within these buffers. At the time of the preparation of the PSP the buffers should be reviewed to determine accurate, evidence-based buffers.

6.11 Anakie Extractive Industry Interest Area 6.11.1 Submission The Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions submitted that the NGGA intrudes into the Anakie Extractive Industry Interest Area. Whilst it was comfortable with the intrusion, DJPR requested that a non-urban break be identified in the Settlement Strategy to ensure there is no future incursion and to protect the resource. Council submitted that there is no need or policy requirement to insert a non-urban break in the Strategy or the planning scheme at this time. If further urban expansion is considered this will be part of the policy consideration at this time.

Page 94 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

6.11.2 Discussion and conclusion The Panel is satisfied that there is no need at this point to identify a non-urban break for the Anakie Extractive Industry Interest Area. Future planning for the post 2036 period will be able to account for resource protection needs.

Page 95 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

7 Retail issues

A number of submitters raised specific matters related to retail in the growth areas and on the Bellarine Peninsula. The Greater Geelong C393 (Retail Strategy) Panel Report was released in February 2020 and was said to be relevant to this Amendment. 7.1.1 Evidence and submissions

(i) The Bellarine Peninsula Lascorp submitted that this Amendment (C395ggee) and the Retail Strategy (C393) are intrinsically linked and its retail interests in Leopold and Ocean Grove must be seen in the context of the two amendments. In particular Lascorp wished to preserve the opportunity for retail expansion on the west side of Geelong. It asked the Panel to recommend: • An endorsement of the recommendations of the Independent Panel in Amendment C393 on the basis that the Planning Authority has directed policy matters relevant to activity centre planning specifically to that Panel • Specific acknowledgement that planning for the Leopold Activity Centre should include identified land for retail development to the west of Clifton Street and as shown in Mr McNamara’s report dated March 2020 • Further acknowledgement that settlement and activity planning requires a broader focus than retail planning. Lascorp called Mr McNamara to give planning evidence in relation to Leopold. He made a number of recommendations to change the text of clause 21.14 and the structure plan map to more clearly identify retail opportunities west of the township. Lascorp also tabled the evidence of Mr Noyce (stormwater) and Mr Dimasi (economics) which was called in the C393 Hearing. The Perez family was heard at the Hearing at the Direction of Council (see Section 1.2(iii)). The Perez family has holdings in Leopold and object to Lascorp’s intent to provide retail further west towards Geelong. The Perez submission was that Lascorp submissions and evidence are an ongoing attempt by Lascorp to seek to extend the retail centre and that this Amendment (C395ggee) is not the appropriate vehicle. Villawood Properties and Melaluka Road also provided a written submission outlining some key issues in relation to retail in Leopold. Essentially, they sought to ensure opportunities to review the Leopold town boundary are retained. The Wallington Landowners provided a brief written submission, essentially commenting on the C393 findings to support the view that Ocean Grove still has significant growth potential. In response to Lascorp, Council submitted that they are asking this Amendment (C395ggee) to do something it was not designed to do, does not need to do, and would be inappropriate for it to do without further investigation. Council noted that it had not even considered the C393 report at this stage and that it would be premature to support Lascorp’s request to endorse its position.

Page 96 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

(ii) The WGGA The McCann Family, supported by Mr McNeil’s evidence, essentially noted that as a result of Amendment C393 the sub-regional activity centre in the WGGA was relocated north to a more favourable position, a position endorsed by Council. 7.1.2 Discussion

(i) The Bellarine Peninsula The Panel notes the submissions commenting on or endorsing the findings of the C393 Panel. The Panel does not comment on or endorse the findings of the C393 Panel. This is not a suggestion that they may be unsound or not relevant to that matter, but rather that this Panel considers they are of limited relevance to this Amendment. There is no doubt an exercise to be undertaken which involves the joint consideration of township boundaries and retail provision, but that it is not a task for this Panel or this Amendment. The Panel has commented extensively on the need to settle township boundaries in Chapter 4, but the ‘where, when and how’ are matters for the Planning Authority to determine in consultation with DELWP through the DAL process or other process as discussed by the Panel.

(ii) The WGGA The Panel notes the relocated sub regional activity centre in the WGGA. This will be confirmed and refined in the more detailed planning to come through the preparation of PSPs. 7.1.3 Conclusions The Panel concludes: • The specific retail matters raised do not materially influence the Panel’s view of the Amendment. • Retail planning is one component of settlement planning to be considered as township boundaries are refined.

Page 97 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

8 The Amendment provisions

8.1 General drafting issues As the Panel has noted previously in this report it has not sought to rewrite the Framework Plan and Settlement Strategy documents, but rather sought to provide recommendations on critical areas. Amongst others these include: • a recommendation to reinforce that the Framework Plan is a guidance document, not a statutory rule book • recommendations to provide for a logical process for settlement boundary finalisation. In taking the Amendment to Council for adoption, Council officers will need to undertake the complex task of updating the documents to accord with the agreed changes below and the consideration of the Panel’s recommendations.

8.2 Changes agreed to by Council The Panel notes the table of changes to the Amendment agreed by Council; the final version in the Hearing being Document 205 which has been extracted without change and is reproduced in Appendix D to this report.

8.3 Final form of planning scheme ordinance Councils’ final view on Amendment documentation wording can be found in Documents 238 to 246 inclusive in Appendix C. In normal circumstances the Panel would insert these final versions into an Appendix for completeness, but as they run to nearly 50 pages it has not done so. Parties to the Hearing have a copy of these documents electronically so the Panel is not concerned that they are not widely known.

8.4 Discussion and conclusions The Panel’s support for the Amendment is clearly articulated throughout this report. The Panel has made a number of recommendations at a high, and in some instances, more detailed level. Prior to this in the Hearing, Council has moved to accommodate many submitters issues through the table of changes in Appendix D and the revised planning scheme provisions. As is normal in these broad strategic processes, the changes do not go far enough for some submitters. The Panel received many suggested wording changes from submitters said to improve the operation of the ordinances, many of which the Council has accepted. Others, in the Panels view offer a different approach, but not necessarily a superior approach when considered in the broader context of the Amendment and net community benefit. At the end of a very lengthy process, the Panel considers that the approach it is comfortable with is to take the final position as put by Council in the table of changes and ordinance and impose as necessary its recommendations on these.

Page 98 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

8.5 Recommendations The Panel recommends: Revise the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Area Framework Plan, Settlement Strategy and Amendment documentation as relevant in accordance with: a) The City of Greater Geelong changes as shown in Appendix D to this report; and b) The revised planning scheme ordinance shown in documents 238 - 246 of the Hearing tabled documents; but c) 13a) and 13b) above modified as relevant by the recommendations in this report.

Page 99 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Appendix A Submitters

No. Submitter No. Submitter

1 Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd (ABCL) 2 ADG Caravan Park P/L, AVA Land Geelong P/L

3 Algo Properties 4 APA Group 5 Neda Arapovic 6 Diana Arapovic 7 Austin Land 8 Dominik Baban 9 Kata Baban 10 Natalija Baban 11 Diane Balaburova 12 Graham Barber 13 Barwon Heads Lifestyle Pty Ltd 14 Barwon Water 15 Batesford, Fyansford, Stonehaven 16 Bisinella Developments Pty. Ltd. Landcare Inc. 17 Boral 18 Chemring Australia Pty Ltd 19 Mary Ciuffetelli 20 Scott and Christine Cockerell 21 Committee for Geelong (CfG) 22 Creamery Road Precinct Landowners 23 Phil and Tania Curmi 24 Lorenzo D'Ascola 25 Dennis Family Corporation 26 Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 27 Department of Jobs, Precincts and 28 Robert & Gail Dries Regions 29 Drysdale Clifton Springs Curlewis 30 Drysdale Landowners Association Inc 31 Wendy Duncan 32 Environment Protection Authority Victoria 33 Mike Everest 34 Jia Qi Fang 35 Geelong Branch, Public Transport Users 36 Geelong Gospel Trust Association 37 Geelong Solid Waste Materials Receival 38 Gersh Investment Partners Ltd and Processing Centre Pty Ltd 39 David & Catherine Gillett 40 Goandra Estate Pty Ltd 41 Jeffrey Gocentas 42 Golden Plains Shire Council 43 Pam Goodall 44 Jim Green 45 Allen and Gwen Haigh 46 Vahid and Naomi Haydari 47 Idyll Wine Co 48 Neda Ivic 49 Ondrej Krivka 50 Lara Landowners 51 Lascorp Development Group (Aust) Pty 52 Alfred & Cynthia Lauterbach Ltd

Page 100 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

53 Lexnorm Investments 54 Ann-Maree Lineen 55 Lovely Banks Development Group 56 John Madden 57 Janis Madden 58 Deepinder Mann 59 Paula Mantay 60 McCann Family 61 Sash Miceski 62 Morgan & Griffin 63 Mount Duneed Developments Pty Ltd 64 Challon Murdock 65 Anthony Murray 66 Robert Baxter Murray 67 Park Street Group 68 People for a Living Moorabool 69 Portarlington Community Association 70 Lee-Pratt Properties Inc 71 Property Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd 72 Nicole Pupavac 73 Purdies Paddock Development Pty Ltd 74 Nicoletta Quaranta 75 Ramsay Property Group 76 Rod Reid 77 Riverlee 78 Daryl Rowbottom 79 Stephen Ryan 80 Brian Saunders 81 Georgette Sawan 82 Shell Road Development P/L 83 Simoni & Flower 84 Alan and Maxine Sinclair 85 Patricia Sirolli 86 Lena Spiteri 87 Ana Sutalo 88 Melanie Velinos 89 Victorian Planning Authority 90 Victorian Regional Channels Authority 91 Villawood Properties 92 Villawood Properties and Melaluka Road, Leopold landowners 93 Wallington Landowners 94 Richard & Jennifer Weatherly 95 David Williamson 96 Raymond Zammit 97 Geelong Environment Council 98 Department of Transport (DoT) 99 Ian McCartney 100 Yih Sheng Investments Pty Ltd 101 Runpinder Brar 102 Vincent Kelly

Page 101 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Appendix B Appearances in heard order

Submitter Represented by City of Greater Geelong Council Greg Tobin of Harwood Andrews instructed by Peter Smith and Stuart Thiele of Council, who called expert evidence: - planning (NWGGA) from Mark Woodland of Echelon Planning - population and demographics from Jeremy Reynolds of Spatial Economics - land supply from Dale Stokes, Spatial Economics - planning (Settlement Strategy) from Michael Barlow of Urbis - transport from Reece Humphreys of GTA Department of Environment, Land, Geoff Brooks, Alana McWhirter and Mia Davidson Water and Planning Department of Transport Jozef Vass Vahid & Naomi Haydari Nick Clements of Tract Consulting Gersh Investment Partners Ltd Tom Roe Chemring Australia Kirsten Kilpatrick of Novo Planning Graham Barber Victorian Planning Authority Charlene McCoy Barwon Heads Lifestyle Pty Ltd John Cicero of Best Hooper Lawyers, who called the following expert evidence: - planning from Justin Slater of Tract Wallington Landowners John Cicero of Best Hooper Lawyers, who called the following expert evidence: - planning from Jason Black of Insight Planning Consultants - ecology from Lincoln Kern of Practical Ecology Lascorp Development Group (Aust) Chris Townshend QC and Mr Peter O’Farrell of Counsel, Pty Ltd instructed by Amy Golvan of Lascorp, who called the following expert evidence: - planning from Bernard McNamara of BMDA Development Advisory Lovely Banks Development Group Terry Montebello and Briana Eastaugh of Maddocks Lawyers, who called the following expert evidence: - urban design from Mike Day of Roberts Day - landscape from Perry Lethlean of TCL - economics from Matt Lee of Deep End Services - traffic and transport from Brett Young of Ratio - drainage Neil Craigie of Neil Craigie P/L - strategic planning from Chris de Silva of Mesh

Page 102 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

- separation distances from Mike Erskine of GHD - acoustics from Val Lenchine of GHD - separation distances from Mike Erskine of GHD Boral Limited and Blue Circle Chris Canavan QC and Alexandra Guild of Counsel, instructed Southern Cement Limited by Tim Power and Zachary Tyler of White & Case, who called the following expert evidence: - planning and economics from Brian Haratsis of Macroplan Strategic - planning from David Barnes of Hansen Partnership - traffic from Jason Walsh of Traffix Group - service infrastructure from Nick Glasson of Cardno Morgan and Griffin Stuart Morris QC and Rupert Watters of Counsel, who called the following expert evidence: - town planning from John Glossop of Glossop Town Planning - land supply and demand from Paul Shipp of Urban Enterprise - landscape and visual from Brendan Papworth of Papworth Davies Pty Ltd - agricultural capability from Ray Phillips of Phillips Agribusiness Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd Marita Foley SC and Jennifer Trewhella of Counsel, instructed by Jessica Kaczmarek and Elisa de Wit of Norton Rose Fulbright, who called the following expert evidence: - planning from Marco Negri of Contour consultants - quarry rehabilitation from Paul Stewart of Golder - hydrology from Anthony Lane of SRL Consulting - traffic from Hillary Marshall of Ratio Consultants - economics and infrastructure contributions from Matt Ainsaar of Urban Enterprise Villawood Properties and Leopold Juliet Forsyth SC and Sean McArdle of Counsel, instructed by Landowners Linda Choi of Norton Rose Fulbright Mt Duneed Developments Pty Ltd Susan Brennan SC and Tiphanie Acreman of Counsel. instructed by Norton Rose Fulbright, who called the following expert evidence: - economics from Chris McNeill of Ethos Urban Property Corporate Holdings Pty Anthony Msonda-Johnson of Roberts Day Ltd Purdies Paddock John Carey of Minter Ellison, who called the following expert evidence: - strategic planning from Sandra Rigo of Hansen Partnership Ramsay Property Group Phil Bisset of Minter Ellison, who called the following expert evidence: - traffic from Steve Hunt of Ratio

Page 103 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

- drainage from Rob Swan of Cardno Shell Road Developments Pty Ltd Phil Bisset of Minter Ellison, who called the following expert evidence: - strategic planning from Rob Milner of David Lock Associates - lot supply, demographics and population from Justin Ganly of Deep End Services Dennis Family Corporation Phil Bisset of Minter Ellison, who called the following expert evidence: - town planning from Rob Milner of David Lock Associates L Bisinella Development Pty Ltd Adrian Finanzio SC and Robert Forrester of Counsel, instructed by Andrea Towson of Arnold Bloch Leibler, who called the following expert evidence: - ecology from Mark Trengove of Ecology Services - drainage from Andrew Prout of Engeny Water Management McCann Family Juliet Forsyth SC and Sean McArdle of Counsel and instructed by Linda Choi of Norton Rose Fulbright who called the following expert evidence: - planning from Jason Black of Insight Planning - infrastructure from Leigh Prossor of Cardno TGM Golden Plains Shire Council Laura Wilks Geelong Solid Waste Materials Marshall Sullivan of Context Planning who called the following Receival & Processing P/L expert evidence: - engineering from Leigh Prossor of Cardno Eldorado Caravan and Tourist Park Shelly Fanning of Coastal Planning Pty Ltd / ADG Caravan Park Pty Ltd Committee for Geelong Jennifer Cromarty Rod Reid Chris Marshall of Cardno TGM Wendy Duncan Ms Duncan called the following expert evidence: - ecology from Barry Lingham of Bellarine Peninsula Wildlife Ecology - biodiversity from Dr Guy Dutson from Biodiversity Solutions Jim Green Kirsten Kilpatrick of Novo Planning Lee- Pratt Properties Chris Marshall of Cardno TGM who called the following expert evidence: - water engineering from Rob Swan of Cardno Lexnorm Investments Chris Marshall of Cardno TGM Riverlee Heights Pty Ltd David King of King Lawyers, instructed by Chris Marshall of Cardno TGM, who called the following expert evidence: - servicing from Leigh Prossor of Cardno TGM - air quality and emissions from Barry Cook of GHD - traffic from Chris Butler of Cardno TGM

Page 104 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

- acoustics from Dr Valeria Lenchine of GHD Jia Qi Fang Richard Weatherly OAM and Jennifer Weatherly Perez Family Chris Wren QC

Page 105 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Appendix C Document list

No. Date Description Presented by 1 10/10/19 Correspondence from Lascorp requesting Panel Ms Golvan for Lascorp directions re interrelationship between C393 and C395ggee 2 18/10/19 Directions letter Panel Chair 3 “ Statement of reasons “ 4 “ Request to extend allocated appearance timeframe Ms Kaczmarek, Norton Rose Fulbright for Adelaide Brighton Cement 5 24/10/19 Site inspection itinerary Ms Tansley, Harwood Andrews for Council 6 06/11/19 Correspondence regarding site inspection itinerary Mr Roe, Gersh Investment Partners 7 28/10/19 Council Part A submission Ms Tansley, Harwood Andrews for Council 8 29/10/19 Evidence statement of Justin Ganly Ms Mann, Minter Ellison for Shell Road Developments 9a “ Evidence statement of Dale Stokes Mr Tobin, Harwood Andrews for Council 9b “ Evidence statement of Jeremy Reynolds “ 10 “ Evidence statement of Paul Shipp (Interim dated Dominion Property Group 29/10/19) for Morgan and Griffin 11 30/10/19 Evidence Statement of Brian Haratsis Mr Tyler, White & Case for Boral and Blue Circle 12 “ Evidence Statement of Chris McNeill Ms Choi, Norton Rose Fulbright for Mt Duneed Developments 13 “ Correspondence seeking confirmation of Mr Dimasi’s Ms Tansley, Harwood attendance at conclave meeting Andrews for Council 14 30/10/19 Panel Direction clarifying Mr Dimasi’s attendance at Ms Harwood, Planning conclave meeting Panels Victoria 15 01/11/19 Request for Panel Directions to require Chemring to Ms Eastaugh, Maddocks disclose information dated 31 October 2019 Lawyers for Lovely Banks Development Group 16 “ Panel response to request for Directions Ms Harwood, PPV 17 6/11/2019 Statement of Evidence of Ray Phillips Dominion Property Group for Morgan & Griffin

Page 106 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

No. Date Description Presented by 18 “ Statement of Evidence of John Glossop “ 19 “ Statement of Evidence of Brendan Papworth “ 20 “ Statement of Evidence of Paul Shipp (dated 6/11/19) “ 21 “ Statement of Evidence of Barry Lingham Ms Duncan 22 “ Statement of Evidence of Dr Guy Dutson “ 23 “ Riverlee Heights – Evidence filing letter Mr King, Kings Lawyers for Riverlee Heights 24 “ Statement of Evidence of Chris Butler “ 25 “ Statement of Evidence of Barry Cook “ 26 “ Statement of Evidence of Valeri Lenchine “ 27 “ Statement of Evidence of Leigh Prossor (Riverlee “ Heights) 28 “ COGG - Evidence filing letter Ms Tansley, Harwood Andrews for Council 29 “ Statement of Evidence of John Collins “ 30 “ Statement of Evidence of Reece Humphreys “ 31 “ Statement of Evidence of Rob Swan Mr Marshall, Cardno TGM for the Lee-Pratt Properties 32 “ Statement of Evidence of Leigh Prossor (The Mr Sullivan, Context Landowner of 80 Thoona Lane, Fyansford) Planning for Geelong Solid Waste Materials Receival & Processing P/L 33 “ Statement of Evidence of Sandra Rigo Ms Negri, Minter Ellison for Purdies Paddock 34 “ Lovely Banks Development Group – Evidence filing Mr Montebello, Maddocks letter Lawyers for Lovely Banks Development Group 35 “ Statement of Evidence of Brett Young “ 36 “ Statement of Evidence of Matt Lee “ 37 “ Statement of Evidence of Mike Day “ 38 “ Statement of Evidence of Neil Craigie “ 39 “ Request for Panel Directions to require DELWP to Ms Mann, Minter Ellison cover matters in relation to the Distinctive for Shell Road Landscapes and Assessment work 40 “ Statement of Evidence of Steve Hunt Ms Mann, Minter Ellison for Ramsay Property Group

Page 107 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

No. Date Description Presented by 41 “ Statement of Evidence of Rob Milner Ms Mann, Minter Ellison for Shell Road Developments 42 “ Statement of Evidence of David Barnes Ms Sugden of White & Case for Boral and Blue Circle 43 “ Statement of Evidence of Jason Walsh “ 44 “ Correspondence advising of late circulation of Mr Low of Arnold Bloch evidence statements Leibler for L Bisinella Developments 45 “ Statement of Evidence of Justin Slater Mr Cicero of Best Hooper Lawyers for Wallington Landowners 46 “ Statement of Evidence of Jason Black “ 47 “ Statement of Evidence of Lincoln Kern “ 48 7/11/2019 Request re accompanied site inspection to include Mr Mahony of Best Wallington on itinerary Hooper Lawyers for Wallington Landowners 49 “ Response to request re accompanied site inspection Ms Tansley, Harwood to include Wallington on itinerary Andrews for Council 50 6/11/2019 Statement of Evidence of Rob Milner Ms Mann, Minter Ellison for Dennis Family Cooperation 51 7/11/2019 McCann Family - Evidence filing letter Ms Choi, Norton Rose Fulbright for McCann Family 52 “ Statement of Evidence of Leigh Prossor “ 53 “ Statement of Evidence of Chris McNeill “ 54 “ Adelaide Brighton Cement - Evidence filing letter Ms Kaczmarek, Norton Rose Fulbright for Adelaide Brighton Cement 55 6/11/2019 Statement of Evidence of Anthony Lane “ 56 “ Statement of Evidence of Hilary Marshall “ 57 “ Statement of Evidence of Marco Negri “ 58 “ Statement of Evidence of Matt Ainsaar “ 59 “ Statement of Evidence of Paul Stewart “ 60 7/11/2019 Statement of Evidence of Mark Trengove Mr Low of Arnold Bloch Leibler for L Bisinella Developments

Page 108 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

No. Date Description Presented by 61 “ Statement of Evidence of Andrew Prout “ 62 6/11/2019 Statement of Evidence of Perry Lethlean Mr Montebello, Maddocks Lawyers for Lovely Banks Development Group 63 “ Statement of Evidence of Chris De Silva “ 64 7/11/2019 COGG - Evidence filing letter Ms Tansley, Harwood Andrews for Council 65 “ Statement of Evidence of Mark Woodland “ 66 “ Statement of Evidence of Michael Barlow “ 67 8/11/2019 McCann Family - Evidence filing letter Ms Choi, Norton Rose Fulbright for McCann Family 68 “ Statement of Evidence of Jason Black “ 69 “ Statement of Evidence of Robert Swan Ms Mann, Minter Ellison for Ramsay Property Group 70 “ Statement of Evidence of Nick Glasson Ms Sugden, White & Case for Boral and Blue Circle 71 11/11/2019 Conclave statement on lot supply, demographics and Ms Tansley, Harwood population Andrews for Council 72 “ Revised Hearing Timetable and Distribution List (v3) Ms Harwood, PPV 73 12/11/19 PPV 2019 Professional Development Site Visit Panel Chair Itinerary 74 “ Email to DELWP re DALs Ms Harwood, PPV 74A “ Correspondence from DELWP regarding DAL Project Ms McWhirter for DELWP 75 “ Preliminary issues submission and attachments Mr Montebello, Maddocks Lawyers for Lovely Banks Development Group 76 “ Further Direction from Panel of Geelong Retail Mr Tobin, Harwood Strategy C393 (dated 7 November 2019) Andrews for Council 77 “ Letter updating panel and parties of ABCL current Ms Foley SC, for Adelaide position Brighton Cement 78 “ Letter from Barwon Water advising they are no Mr Tobin, Harwood longer submitters with Morgan & Griffin Andrews for Council 79 “ Opening submission on behalf of CoGG “ 80 “ West Growth Corridor Plan, example of plan layering “ from framework plan to PSP 81 “ PowerPoint slides: Northern and Western Geelong Mr Anson for Council Growth Areas

Page 109 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

No. Date Description Presented by 82 “ Letter from Chemring regarding MHF and safety case Ms Kilpatrick for Chemring 83 13/11/19 Email from Maddocks to Chemring 23 October 2019 Mr Montebello, Maddocks Lawyers for Lovely Banks Development Group 84 No document 85 “ Correspondence providing further information on Ms Kilpatrick for Chemring Chemring and its MHF status dated 13 November 2019 86 “ Correspondence in relation to site inspections of Ms Choi of Norton Rose Highview Estate Fulbright for McCann Family 87 “ Council position on Clause 21.20 dated 13 November Mr Tobin, Harwood 2019 Andrews for Council 88 14/11/19 Surf Coast DAL Declaration and FAQs Mr Canavan for Boral and Blue Circle 89 15/11/19 Panel decision on request for further information Panel Chair related to Chemring 90 18/11/19 Council Part B Submission Mr Tobin, Harwood Andrews for Council 91 “ Extracts from Lara West PSP and correspondence “ from Boral (Settlement Strategy Discussion Paper - 1 September 2017) and DEDJTR (New facility, Port of Geelong - 18 April 2018) 92 “ Mt Atkinson and Tarneit Plains PSP June 2017 “ 93 “ Email from Golder to Council re Road Alignment “ dated 11 January 2019 94 “ Email from GTA to Golder re Road Alignment dated 9 “ January 2019 95 “ TGM North South Connector Road Diagram Ref “ 15410-99 96 19/11/19 DELWP BSW Submission Mr Brooks, DELWP BSW 97 “ DELWP Presentation Distinctive Areas and Ms McWhirter and Ms Landscapes Davidson, DELWP 98a “ Bellarine Peninsula Declared DAL Area “ 98b “ Surf Coast Declared DAL Area “ 99 “ Presentation for Haydari Family Mr Clements from Tract for the Haydari Family 100 20/11/19 Email chain raised in cross-examination of Mr Stokes Mr Roe 101 “ Speaking notes and slides Mr Roe

Page 110 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

No. Date Description Presented by 102 “ Submission Ms McCoy for Victorian Planning Authority 103 “ Submission Mr Cicero for Barwon Heads Lifestyle Pty Ltd 103a “ Extract (pp16-28) from Greater Geelong C375 Panel “ Report 103b “ Victorian Government Media Release dated 27 “ September 2017, ‘Stopping Developers Ruining Bellarine and the Surf Coast’ 103c “ Victorian Government Media Release dated 31 “ October 2019, ‘Protecting Victoria’s Iconic Bellarine Peninsula’ 103d “ Section 46AO of the Planning and Environment Act “ 1987 103e “ Government Gazette No S430 29 October 2019, “ Declaration of Bellarine and Surf Coast DALs 103f “ Map of Bellarine Declared DAL “ 104 “ Summary of evidence slides Mr Slater called by Barwon Heads Lifestyle Pty Ltd 105 “ Extract from G21 Regional Growth Plan April 2013 Mr Cicero for Barwon Heads Lifestyle Pty Ltd 106 “ Extract from Macedon Ranges SPP “ 107 “ Comparison of Macedon Ranges SPP township plans “ with existing planning scheme framework plans 108 “ Submission Mr Cicero for Wallington Landowners 109 22/11/19 Submission Ms Kilpatrick for Chemring 110 “ Traffic Conclave Statement dated 21 November 2019 Ms Tansley, Harwood Andrews for Council 111 25/11/19 Opening submissions Mr Montebello, Maddocks Lawyers for Lovely Banks Development Group 112 “ Extract: Chapter 5 North Growth Corridor Plan “ 113 “ Extract: Chapter 1 Growth Corridor Plan “ 114 “ Extract: Activity Centre Assessment by Essential “ Economics, pp15-16 115 “ Presentation: Perry Lethlean, Landscape Assessment “ 116 “ Presentation: Mike Day, Urban Design “

Page 111 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

No. Date Description Presented by 117 “ Presentation: Brett Young, Traffic “ 118 “ 20 Minute Neighbourhoods: Creating a more liveable Ms Eastaugh, Maddocks Melbourne, DELWP 2019 Lawyers for Lovely Banks Development Group 119 26/11/19 Presentation: Chris De Silva, Town Planning Mr Montebello, Maddocks Lawyers for Lovely Banks Development Group 120 “ Corrected Figure 12 from Chris De Silva evidence Mr De Silva called by LBDG 121 “ Precinct Structure Plan Update, VPA Mr De Silva called by LBDG 122 “ Joint submission on biodiversity from City of Greater Ms Tansley, Harwood Geelong and DELWP Andrews for Council 123 “ Submission on biodiversity and lot supply “ 124 “ Statement of James Young dated 26 November 2019 Ms Sugden, White & Case for Boral and Blue Circle 125 27/11/19 Correspondence from Steve Hunt (called by Ramsay Ms Mann, Minter Ellison Property Group) in relation to traffic evidence for Ramsay Property Group 126 “ Boral site inspection itinerary Ms Sugden, White & Case for Boral and Blue Circle 127 “ Final Submission Mr Montebello, Maddocks Lawyers for Lovely Banks Development Group 128 “ PPF Clauses 11.02-2S, 11.02-3S, 11.03-2S “ 129 “ Core Projects, Builder Product brochure “ 130 “ Map of Geelong growth areas on contour base “ 131 2/12/19 Updated tabled of changes to Amendment Ms Tansley, Harwood Andrews for Council 132 “ Plan 46 McCanns Lane Precinct as changed “ 133 2/12/19 Plan 46 McCanns Lane Precinct proposed change “ 134 3/12/19 Submissions Mr Canavan QC for Boral and Blue Circle 135 “ Amendments requested by Boral and Blue Circle “ 136 5/12/19 Correspondence from Council to DELWP re DAL Mr Tobin, Harwood process Andrews for Council 137 “ Panel Report for Greater Geelong C346 Panel Chair 138 “ Photos of Morgan & Griffin land and vicinity Mr Glossop called by Morgan & Griffin 139 “ Aerial photos of Morgan & Griffin land and vicinity “

Page 112 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

No. Date Description Presented by 140 “ Extract of City of Greater Geelong Rural Land Use Mr Tobin, Harwood Strategy 1997 Andrews for Council 141 6/12/19 Panel Report for Greater Geelong C375 Panel Chair 142 6/12/19 Extracts from Settlement Strategy Discussion Papers Mr Tobin, Harwood 2 & 3 Andrews for Council 143 “ Map extracts from Oakdene West Planning Scheme Mr Watters for Morgan & Amendment request Griffin 144 “ Extract from Victorian Coastal Strategy 2014 Mr Morris QC for Morgan & Griffin 145 “ Page from DELWP Website ‘Coastal Management’ “ with link to Victorian Coastal Strategy 146 “ Extract from Ocean Grove Community Association “ Facebook feed 147 “ Web profile of Mayor of Geelong “ 148 “ Submission “ 149 9/12/19 Submission Ms Forsyth SC for Villawood and Leopold landowners 150 “ Electronic package of attachments “ 150a “ Letter to Mesh regarding a Catholic School on the “ Bellarine 151 “ Letter dated 9/12/19 with Estuary Project Lot “ Analysis 152 16/12/19 Correspondence enclosing Council resolution on Surf Ms Tansley, Harwood Coast DAL Andrews for Council 153 “ Correspondence enclosing directions of C393 Panel “ 154 “ Correspondence from Lascorp regarding submissions Ms Golvan for Lascorp and evidence on C393 155 “ Extract from Productivity Commission Report Ms Brennan SC for Mt ‘Transitioning Regional Economies’ December 2017 Duneed Developments 156 “ Extract from ‘Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan’ “ Volume 1 May 2010 157 “ Submission “ 158 “ Extract from Greater Geelong Amendment C138 “ Panel Report 159 “ Package of materials relating to Geelong Future “ Economy Precinct at Deakin University 160 “ Website extracts relating to the North East Industrial “ Precinct in Armstrong Creek

Page 113 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

No. Date Description Presented by 161 “ Submission Mr Msonda-Johnson for Property Corporate Holdings 162 17/12/19 Submission (450 Elcho Road property) Mr Moyle for Villawood Properties 163 “ Presentation Mr Vass for Department of Transport 164 “ Submission Mr Carey, Minter Ellison for Purdies Paddock Pty Ltd 165 18/12/19 Submission Mr Bisset, Minter Ellison for Ramsay Property Group 166 “ Extract from Sunbury South PSP (pp56-57) Mr Tobin, Harwood Andrews for Council 167 “ Extract from Mt Atkinson and Tarneit Plains PSP “ (pp62-64) 168 19/12/19 Supplementary submission in relation to Lovely ” Banks case 169 “ Submission (includes marked up changes) Mr Bisset, Minter Ellison for Shell Road Developments 170 “ Submission Mr Bisset, Minter Ellison for DFC Services 171 “ Correspondence clarifying Boral Position on WIP Mr Tyler, White & Case for Boral and Blue Circle 172 9/1/20 Supplementary drainage report from Andrew Prout Mr Low, Arnold Bloch dated 8/1/20 Leibler for L Bisinella Developments 173 13/1/20 Correspondence from ABL regarding supplementary Arnold Bloch Leibler for L report on ecology Bisinella Developments 174 “ Supplementary ecology report from Mark Trengove “ dated 6/1/2020 175 “ Study Area – Biodiversity assessment “ 176 15/1/20 Boral inspection itinerary Ms Sugden of White & Case for Boral and Blue Circle 177 16/1/20 Lovely Banks DG Inspection Itinerary Ms Eastaugh, Maddocks Lawyers for Lovely Banks Development Group 178 21/1/20 Planning permit for subdivision of 30 Avonlea Road Mr Finanzio SC for L

Page 114 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

No. Date Description Presented by and 165 Bluestone Bridge Road and plans Bisinella Developments 179 “ Submission “ 180 “ Note on Development in Steeper Terrain prepared by “ L Bisinella Developments 181 “ Waterway Corridor for Greenfield Development Panel Chair Guidelines, Melbourne Water 2013 182 28/1/20 Clause 21.19 – Moolap Point Henry Geelong Planning Mr Tobin, Harwood Scheme Andrews for Council 183 “ Corrections to tables – Mr Reynolds witness “ statement 184 “ Email from McCann Group to Council dated 27 “ February 2018 re: quarry 185 28/1/20 Expert evidence of Mike Erskine Mr Wurm, Maddocks Lawyers for Lovely Banks Development Group 186 29/1/20 Lay witness statement of Mr Oakes for Adelaide Ms Kaczmarek, Norton Brighton Rose Fulbright for Adelaide Brighton Cement 187 30/1/20 Submission Ms Foley SC for Adelaide Brighton Cement 188 “ Correspondence from Mr Negri, Contour, dated 24 “ January 2020 in response to RPG Submission 189 “ Correspondence from Mr Whalen, GHD, dated 23 “ January 2020 in response to RPG Submission 190 31/1/20 Track Changes to Clause 21.06 Ms Forsyth SC for McCann Family 191 “ Track Changes to Clause 21.08 “ 192 “ Track Changes to Clause 21.20 “ 193 “ Track Changes to Growth Area Framework Plan “ 194 “ Track Changes to Settlement Strategy “ 195 “ Panel directions re: drafting session Panel Chair 196 “ Mt Atkinson & Tarneit ICP extract Mr Tobin, Harwood Andrews for Council 197 “ Planning and Environment Act Section 46GA extract “ 198 “ Infrastructure Contributions Plan Guidelines Extract “ 199 “ Extract from Rockbank DCP Appendices “ 200 “ Slides from Mr Prossor regarding infrastructure Ms Forsyth SC for McCann Family

Page 115 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

No. Date Description Presented by 201 3/2/20 Submission “ 202 “ Further submission – buffers/separation Mr Montebello, Maddocks Lawyers for Lovely Banks Development Group 203 “ Plan – Chemring buffer analysis “ 204 4/2/20 Panel directions for reconvened hearing on retail Panel Chair matters 205 9/2/20 Consolidated list of Greater Geelong changes Mr Tobin, Harwood (excluding Bellarine changes) Andrews for Council 206 10/2/20 Correspondence to Greater Geelong on behalf of Ms Choi, Norton Rose McCann Family re: changes to amendment Fulbright for McCann Family 207 11/2/20 Submission Ms Wilkes for Golden Plains Shire 208 “ Correspondence from LBDG regarding retail matters Mr Montebello, Maddocks in C393/C395ggee Lawyers for Lovely Banks Development Group 209 “ Correspondence from Council regarding reconvened Mr Tobin, Harwood hearing Andrews for Council 210 “ Email from Best Hooper regarding comments from Mr Mahony of Best Bellarine landowners Hooper Lawyers for various Bellarine landowners 210a “ Tracked changes version of part Settlement Strategy “ (pp58-63) 210b “ Tracked changes version of part Settlement Strategy “ (pp72-77) 210c “ Tracked changes version of clause 21.06 “ 210d “ Tracked changes version of clause 21.14 “ 211 12/2/20 Submission Mr Sullivan for Geelong Solid Waste Materials Receival & Processing P/L 212 “ Submission and attachments Ms Fanning for Eldorado Caravan and Tourist Park / ADG Caravan Park Pty Ltd 213 “ Further written submission in relation to Dominion Property Group Amendment C393/C395ggee for Morgan & Griffin 214 “ Panel Directions regarding reconvened Hearing in Panel Chair March 215 “ Submissions on drafting changes dated 12 February Minter Ellison for Ramsay

Page 116 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

No. Date Description Presented by 2020 Property Group 216 “ Email from Wallington Landowners in relation to Mr Cicero of Best Hooper C393/C395ggee issues Lawyers for Wallington Landowners 217 “ Australia’s Gateway Cities booklet Ms Cromarty for Committee for Geelong 218 “ Committee for Geelong Strategic Framework “ 219 “ Submission, 100 Ballan Road and 115 Ballan Road Mr Marshall of Cardno for Mr Rodney Reid 220 “ A3 plan of Mr Reid’s holdings “ 221 “ Submission Ms Duncan 222 “ Attachment to submission: Bellarine Peninsula “ 223 11/2/20 Correspondence from L Bisinella dated 11/2/20: Mr Low of Arnold Bloch Drafting changes Leibler for L Bisinella Developments 224 12/2/20 Correspondence from Boral and Blue Circle dated Mr Tyler, White & Case for 11/2/20 – restating position Boral and Blue Circle 225a 13/2/20 Plan of Mr Green’s land Batesford Ms Kilpatrick for Mr Green 225b “ Batesford Structure Plan map from Golden Plains “ Planning Scheme 226 “ Submission Mr Marshall for Lee-Pratts 227 “ Map of Lee-Pratt land “ 228 “ Submission Mr Marshall for Lexnorm 229 “ Plan of Lexnorm Land, Leopold Lexnorm 230 “ Submission and three attachments Mr King, Kings Lawyers for Riverlee Heights 231 “ Letter regarding Amendment changes from ABCL Ms Kaczmarek, Norton dated 13/2/20 Rose Fulbright for Adelaide Brighton Cement 232 “ Letter regarding Amendment changes for LBDG Mr Montebello, Maddocks dated 13/2/20 Lawyers for LBDG 233 “ Presentation 12/2/20 ecology – Mr Bingham Ms Duncan 234 “ Presentation 12/2/20 ecology – Dr Dutson “ 235 14/2/20 Submission Mr Cong Dinh for Jia Qi Fang 236 “ Submission Mr Weatherly 237 “ Closing Submission Mr Tobin, Harwood Andrews for Council

Page 117 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

No. Date Description Presented by 237a 19/2/20 Council correction letter – Barwon Heads “ 238 14/2/20 Council’s final position on Clause 21.03 “ 239 “ Council’s final position on Clause 21.04 “ 240 “ Council’s final position on Clause 21.06 “ 241 “ Council’s final position on Clause 21.08 “ 242 “ Council’s final position on Clause 21.11 “ 243 “ Council’s final position on Clause 21.14 “ 244 “ Council’s final position on Clause 21.16 “ 245 “ Council’s final position on Clause 21.20 “ 246 “ Council’s final position on schedule to Clause 72.08 “ 247 “ Email correspondence from Purdies Paddock dated Mr Andy Duke for Purdies 12 February 2020 Paddock 248 10/3/20 Lascorp written submission – retail matters Ms Golvan for Lascorp 249 “ a) Filing Letter Ms Choi for the McCann b) Submission Family c) Submission attachments d) Geelong C393 Panel Report 250 02/3/20 Evidence statement of Tony Dimasi Ms Golvan for Lascorp 251 “ Evidence statement of Marc Noyce “ 252 “ Evidence statement of Bernard McNamara “ 253 10/3/20 a) Filing letter – Villawood Properties and Ms Choi for Villawood and Melaluka Road Leopold Landowners Melaluka Road b) Submission Landowners c) Submission Attachments 254 11/3/20 Written submission – retail matters Mr Cicero of Best Hooper Lawyers for Wallington Landowners 255 12/3/20 Written submission Mr Wren QC for Ms M and E Perez 256 13/3/20 Panel Directions on COVID 19 Panel Chair 257 “ Version 10 Timetable Panel Chair 258 16/3/20 Extracts from Leopold Sub Regional Activity Centre Mr Wren QC for Ms M and Development Plan E Perez 259 18/3/20 Schedule 30 to DPO – Leopold Sub Regional Activity Mr Townshend QC for Centre Lascorp 260 “ Lascorp Submission 1 to Amendment C393 dated Mr Townshend QC for October 2019 Lascorp

Page 118 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

No. Date Description Presented by 261 “ Lascorp Submission 2 to Amendment C393 dated Mr Townshend QC for December 2019 Lascorp 262 “ Leopold Independent Bulky Goods Report dated Mr Townshend QC for March 2020 Lascorp 263 “ Letter from Woolworths Group to Lascorp dated 10 Mr Townshend QC for March 2020 Lascorp 264 “ Letter from Woolworths Group to Lascorp dated 17 Mr Townshend QC for March 2020 Lascorp 265 “ Table of strategic considerations regarding Leopold Mr Townshend QC for Activity Centre Lascorp

Page 119 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Appendix D Council’s proposed changes to the Amendment13

Modific Source Date Clause Change ation to /map/ page ordinan Identified 24 Sep 2019 - 21.06 On the drawing key on Housing and ce by Council Council Settlement Framework Plan proposed in officers Clause 21.06, change “BOUNDARY – INDICATIVE PERMANENT SETTLEMENT BOUNDARY” to “SETTLEMENT BOUNDARY – INDICATIVE LONG TERM BOUNDARY” ordinan Identified 24 Sep 2019 - 21.06 In addition to the single Housing and ce by Council Council Settlement Framework Plan for the whole officers municipality, include several segment maps covering smaller areas for clearer interpretation ordinan Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 21.06- Under the heading Key issues and influences, ce submission Gareth Smith 1 change “Geelon’s” to “Geelong’s”. approved ordinan Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 21.06- In the first sentence under the heading ce submission Gareth Smith 1 Demographics, change “annual growth” to approved “average annual growth”. ordinan Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 21.06- In the first paragraph under the heading ce submission Gareth Smith 1 Housing, change “Inceasing” to “Increasing” approved and change “maintainence” to “maintenance”. ordinan Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 21.06- In the last paragraph under the heading ce submission Gareth Smith 1 “Settlement”, change “settlemement” to approved “settlement”. ordinan Identified 24 Sep 2019 - 21.06- Change the heading of proposed 21.06-2 from ce by Council Council 2 Spatial Distribution of Growth and Land Supply officers to Spatial distribution of growth and land supply ordinan Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 21.06- Replace the fourth strategy (commencing with ce submission Gareth Smith 2 “Confirm enduring …”) with the following: approved “Deliver defendable long-term settlement boundaries via a consultative boundary review process”. ordinan Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 21.06- Delete the third strategy relating to One ce submission Gareth Smith 3 Planet Living principles. approved ordinan Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 21.06- In the last strategy, change “faciltities” to ce submission Gareth Smith 4 “facilities”. approved

13 Hearing Document 205

Page 120 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

ordinan Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 21.06- In proposed 21.06-9 (Implementation), modify ce 26 Council 8 the proposed third Further Work item by changing the words “special local environmental or landscape values” to “environmental or landscape values of local, state or national importance” ordinan Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 21.06- Replace the fourth point under the heading ce submission Gareth Smith 8 Further work (commencing with “Establish a approved …”) with the following: “Undertake a consultative settlement boundary review process.” ordinan Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 21.06- In the fifth point under the heading Further ce submission Gareth Smith 8 work, change “opportunities” to approved “opportunities”. ordinan Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 21.06- In proposed 21.06-8 (Implementation), modify ce 14 Council 8 the proposed fifth Further Work item by adding the words “and mixed use development” after “train station environs to future housing needs” ordinan Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 21.06- In the final paragraph under the heading ce submission Gareth Smith 8 Further work, change “resinential” to approved “residential”. ordinan Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 21.06- In the References, replace the date for the ce submission Gareth Smith 8 Settlement Strategy with “(XX, YY)”. approved ordinan Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 21.06 On the drawing key on Housing and ce 25 Council Housin Settlement Framework Plan proposed in g and Clause 21.06, change “SETTLEMENT Frame BOUNDARY” to “MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY” work Plan map ordinan Identified 24 Sep 2019 - 21.06 Housing and Settlement Framework Plan: on ce by Council Council Housin the map, show the future growth areas as officers g and growth areas and delete “FUTURE GROWTH Frame AREAS” from the drawing key work Plan map ordinan Mark 18 Nov 2019 - 21.06 Modify the Housing and Settlement ce Woodland Part B Housin Framework Plan map at Clause 21.06-8 to evidence submission g and remove the word 'permanent' from 'indicative Frame permanent settlement boundary' work Plan map ordinan Identified 6 Feb 2020 - 21.06 In the Drawing Key for the Housing and ce by Council Gareth Smith Housin Settlement Framework Plan map, change officers approved g and “INDICATIVE PERMANENT SETTLEMENT Frame BOUNDARY” to “SETTLEMENT BOUNDARY”. work

Page 121 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Plan map ordinan Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 21.06 In the Drawing Key for the Housing and ce submission Gareth Smith Housin Settlement Framework Plan map, under approved g and DISTRICT TOWNS, change “EXISTING Frame SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES” to “SETTLEMENT work BOUNDARIES”. Plan map ordinan Submission 28 Oct 2019 - 21.08- In 21.08-3 (Strategies), modify the first ce 55 Part A 3 proposed strategy by adding “expected” submission before “metropolitan-equivalent” ordinan Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 21.08- In the References, replace the date for the ce submission Gareth Smith 6 Settlement Strategy with “(XX, YY)”. approved ordinan Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 21.11- 1st paragraph: change “54,000 persons and ce 25 Council 1 22,000 dwellings” to “approximately 55,000 to 65,000 persons” ordinan Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 21.11- Add the following point under the heading ce submission Gareth Smith 3 Further Work: Implement any relevant approved findings of the logical inclusions process undertaken pursuant to Clause 21.06". ordinan Michael 18 Nov 2019 - 21.14- Update the proposed Further Work task ce Barlow Part B 4 "Work with the state government on the evidence submission designation of the Bellarine Peninsula under the Distinctive Area and Landscapes Act 2018" to reflect the fact the declaration has been made and the next step is to finalise a Statement of Planning Policy ordinan Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 21.14- In the References, replace the date for the ce submission Gareth Smith 4 Settlement Strategy with “(XX, YY)”. approved ordinan Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 21.16- In the References, replace the date for the ce submission Gareth Smith 3 Settlement Strategy with “(XX, YY)”. approved ordinan Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 21.20- In the second last objective, change “in the ce submission Gareth Smith 2 short to medium term” to “while it remains approved operational” and delate “in the long term”. ordinan Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 21.20- Add the following objective: “To retain and ce 26 Council 2 protect or appropriately offset valuable biodiversity assets, including grassland areas” ordinan Mark 18 Nov 2019 - 21.20- Replace the first strategy with the following: ce Woodland Part B 3 “Prepare Precinct Structure Plans that: evidence submission § Are generally in accordance with the Jason Black 6 Feb 2020 - Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas evidence Gareth Smith Framework Plan map at clause 21.20-5. approved § Consider, as relevant, the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan (City of Greater Geelong, XX, YY).”

Page 122 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

[“have regard to” is an alternative to “consider, as relevant”] ordinan Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 21.20- Replace the second strategy with the ce submission Gareth Smith 3 following: approved “Prior to resolving to commence a Precinct Structure Plan, consider, as relevant: § The City of Greater Geelong Settlement Strategy (XX, YY). § Development sequencing set out in the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan (City of Greater Geelong, XX, YY). § The need to maintain an adequate supply of urban land. § Third party funding agreements with land developers to undertake technical studies. § Whether the precinct will enable the staged extension of infrastructure networks in a way that minimises the real cost of infrastructure provision. § Whether or not a precinct is subject to major constraints or uncertainties that is likely to delay development. § Whether or not the precinct is of a size that is likely to result in a substantial and predictable development yield. § The pattern of land ownership and the potential for multiple landowners to co- ordinate the planning and development of the precinct. § Whether a precinct’s development will support the effective and early development of public transport infrastructure, town centre and employment precincts.”

[“have regard to” is an alternative to “consider, as relevant”] ordinan Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 21.20- In the fifth strategy, replace “effeicient” with ce submission Gareth Smith 3 “efficient”. approved ordinan Mark 18 Nov 2019 - 21.20- Include an additional strategy in Clause 21.20- ce Woodland Part B 3 3: "Land use and development should have evidence submission regard to the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan." ordinan Submission 11 Nov 2019 - 21.20- Reword the second last strategy in Clause ce s 1, 37 Gareth Smith 3 21.20-3 to read: "Maintain an appropriate approved buffer around the Work Authority boundary of the Batesford Quarry to minimise the impacts of activities that may be carried out under the Work Authority." ordinan Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 21.20- In the References, replace the date for the

Page 123 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

ce submission Gareth Smith 4 Framework Plan with “(XX, YY)”. approved ordinan Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 21.20- Revise the Northern and Western Geelong ce submission Gareth Smith 5 Growth Areas Framework Plan map to reflect approved all modifications in this schedule to Plans 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Framework Plan. Maps Submission 28 Oct 2019 - Maps Rezone land between the north-western 46 Part A 16, 17 boundary of the exhibited Urban Growth Zone submission and the high voltage transmission line easement from Farming Zone to Urban Growth Zone Maps Panel 6 Feb 2020 - Map Rezone land outside of the current Work submission Gareth Smith 31 Authority for the Batesford Quarry from approved Special Use Zone Schedule 7 to Urban Growth Zone. Maps Submission 24 Sep 2019 - Map Rezone 80 Thoona Lane, Fyansford from 37 Council 31 Special Use Zone Schedule 7 to Urban Growth Zone Settlem Identified 6 Feb 2020 - Variou Throughout the text of the Strategy, change ent by Council Gareth Smith s “permanent settlement boundary” (or “… Strateg officers approved boundaries”) to “long term boundary” (or “… y boundaries”). Settlem Identified 6 Feb 2020 - 12 In the Drawing Key, change “INDICATIVE ent by Council Gareth Smith PERMANENT SETTLEMENT BOUNDARY” to Strateg officers approved “SETTLEMENT BOUNDARY”. y Settlem Identified 6 Feb 2020 - 12 In the Drawing Key, under DISTRICT TOWNS, ent by Council Gareth Smith change “EXISTING SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES” Strateg officers approved to “SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES”. y Settlem Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 12 Change the Barwon Heads settlement ent 13 Council boundary on the Housing Framework Plan in Strateg the Settlement Strategy to match that in y Clause 21.14-10 and that proposed in Clause 21.06 Settlem Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 12 Change the non-urban breaks on the Housing ent 25 Council Framework Plan in the Settlement Strategy to Strateg match those proposed on the Housing and y Settlement Framework Plan in Clause 21.06 Settlem Identified 6 Feb 2020 - 52 Table 11 caption: change “1 January 2017” to ent by Council Gareth Smith “1 November 2017”. Strateg officers approved y Settlem Identified 6 Feb 2020 - 59 In the second paragraph, change “The bulk of” ent by Council Gareth Smith to “The major share of”. Strateg officers approved y Settlem Identified 6 Feb 2020 - 59 In the first paragraph under the heading Land ent by Council Gareth Smith Supply, change “20” to “17”. Strateg officers approved y

Page 124 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Settlem Identified 6 Feb 2020 - 63 In direction e. under the Principle “Provide ent by Council Gareth Smith clear strategic direction …”, add the words Strateg officers approved “upon completion of the Bellarine Peninsula y Distinctive Area and Landscape process” after “process for townships”. Settlem Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 63 Change direction b. under the Principle ent submission Gareth Smith “Maintain an adequate supply …” to “Continue Strateg approved to monitor and review land supply and y respond accordingly.” Settlem Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 69-70 Add reference to value capture opportunities ent 38 Council in the Costs of Housing Growth section Strateg y Settlem Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 70 Include reference to considering industry and ent 32 Council infrastructure buffers in the Managing Future Strateg Growth section y Settlem Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 71 Add this direction under the Principle ent s 1, 22 Council “Manage the release of new growth areas …”: Strateg “Ensure infrastructure funding strategies y recognise items that deliver high level infrastructure that benefits multiple precinct structure plan areas will require a contribution.” Settlem Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 73 In the last paragraph, change “permanent ent submission Gareth Smith settlement boundaries will undoubtedly” to Strateg approved “protected or long-term settlement y boundaries may”. Settlem Identified 6 Feb 2020 - 75 In the last paragraph before the heading ent by Council Gareth Smith Urban growth boundaries, change “There are Strateg officers approved two options” to “There a number of options”. y Settlem Identified 6 Feb 2020 - 75 Add the following heading and text after the ent by Council Gareth Smith heading and text for Urban growth Strateg officers approved boundaries: y “Long term settlement boundaries

We already have nominated settlement boundaries for townships and urban areas of Geelong. The role and function of these boundaries could be strengthened through the introduction of the term ‘long term’ or ‘enduring’ within the Planning Policy Framework including the Municipal Framework Plan.” Settlem Identified 6 Feb 2020 - 75 Change the heading “Distinctive Areas and ent by Council Gareth Smith Landscapes Bill 2017” to “Distinctive Areas Strateg officers approved and Landscapes”. y

Page 125 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Settlem Identified 6 Feb 2020 - 75 Replace the text under the heading Distinctive ent by Council Gareth Smith Areas and Landscapes with the following, to Strateg officers approved reflect the current status of the project: y “On 29 October 2019 the Bellarine Peninsula was declared a Distinctive Area and Landscape under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This declaration triggers the requirement to prepare a Statement of Planning Policy by October 2020. The Statement of Planning Policy will include a 50-year vision and land use strategies to better protect the unique features of the Bellarine for current and future generations. It also provides the opportunity to designate long term settlement boundaries. The policy will be informed by strategic planning work already undertaken, relevant technical studies and outcomes from community engagement. The City considers the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes the most appropriate process to determine long term boundaries for the Bellarine. If long term boundaries are not resolved, the City will need to determine long term boundaries via a separate consultative process for the district towns with regard to Statement of Planning Policy.” Settlem Identified 6 Feb 2020 - 75 In the first paragraph under the heading ent by Council Gareth Smith Defining the Boundary, change “should be Strateg officers approved based” to “should be largely based”. y Settlem Identified 6 Feb 2020 - 75 Delete the third last dot point (commencing ent by Council Gareth Smith “establishing the timing …). Strateg officers approved y Settlem Identified 6 Feb 2020 - 75 Add text after the list of dot points under the ent by Council Gareth Smith heading Defining the Boundary that reflects Strateg officers approved the principles set out in Council’s Part B Panel y Submission for considering land through the logical inclusions process. Settlem Identified 6 Feb 2020 - 75 Replace the second last paragraph under the ent by Council Gareth Smith heading Defining the Boundary with the Strateg officers approved following: y “A long-term settlement boundary process should commence as soon as resources allow.” Settlem Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 77 Townships on the Bellarine Peninsula, 2nd last ent submission Gareth Smith paragraph, last sentence: change “will impact” Strateg approved to “may impact”. y Settlem Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 77 Delete direction d. under the Principle ent submission Gareth Smith “Contain growth within …”

Page 126 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Strateg approved y Settlem Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 77 Replace direction c. under the Principle ent submission Gareth Smith “Maintain the unique …” with the following: Strateg approved “Work with the state government on the y Bellarine Peninsula Distinctive Areas and Landscapes process and the development of a Statement of Planning Policy for the Bellarine Peninsula.” Settlem Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 78 Include reference to considering industry and ent 32 Council infrastructure buffers in the Urban Strateg Consolidation section y Settlem Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 80 Table 12, North Geelong station, Opportunity: ent 90 Council revise to exclude land within Port Environs Strateg from investigation for expansion of Increased y Housing Diversity Area or identification as Key Development Area Settlem Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 84 Under the Principle “Increase the role of urban ent 90 Council consolidation as part of Geelong’s overall Strateg housing supply”, Direction c: change y “Breakwater” to “Waurn Ponds” Settlem Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 84 Under the Principle “Articulate the preferred ent 14 Council location for increased housing densities”, add Strateg the words “and mixed use development” after y the words “train station environs to future housing needs” Settlem Identified 6 Feb 2020 - 85 In the Drawing Key, change “INDICATIVE ent by Council Gareth Smith PERMANENT SETTLEMENT BOUNDARY” to Strateg officers approved “SETTLEMENT BOUNDARY”. y Settlem Identified 6 Feb 2020 - 85 In the Drawing Key, under DISTRICT TOWNS, ent by Council Gareth Smith change “EXISTING SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES” Strateg officers approved to “SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES”. y Settlem Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 85 Change the Barwon Heads settlement ent 13 Council boundary on the Overall Framework Plan in Strateg the Settlement Strategy to match that in y Clause 21.14-10 and that proposed in Clause 21.06 Settlem Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 85 Change the non-urban breaks on the Overall ent 25 Council Framework Plan in the Settlement Strategy to Strateg match those proposed on the Housing and y Settlement Framework Plan in Clause 21.06 Settlem Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 85 Amend the extent of land identified on the ent 90 Council Overall Framework Plan as “Investigate Strateg opportunities for higher density in the rail y corridor” by excluding land within the Port Environs

Page 127 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Settlem Identified 24 Sep 2019 - 85 In addition to the single Housing and ent by Council Council Settlement Framework Plan for the whole Strateg officers municipality, include several segment maps y covering smaller areas for clearer interpretation Settlem Identified 6 Feb 2020 - 88 At the end of the Monitoring and Review ent by Council Gareth Smith section, but before the Principles and Strateg officers approved Directions, add a heading and text as follows: y “PLANNING FOR THE NEXT PHASE OF GROWTH

If Council’s regular demand and supply analysis make it clear that further land needs to be identified due to higher take-up or issues with delivering identified areas, consider the next phase of growth and update the strategy accordingly. Investigations should include consideration of the Boral Waurn Ponds site and amongst any other relevant factors have regard to substantial parcels contiguous with existing urban area, ability to integrate with existing and planned urban areas, excellent rail and road access, cost effective servicing, protection of productive farmland and significant landscapes, other land use needs and requirements for Geelong.” Framew Various 12 Nov 2019 - 5 Include a new introductory section with a ork Plan submission Council opening heading "Role of the framework plan" that s submission reads in accordance with the wording in Paragraph 107.2 at Pages 26 and 27 of Council's Opening Submission Framew Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 44 Plan 5 – Clever and Creative Corridor: Delete ork Plan s 12, 58 Council 400 metre catchment from land between the two growth areas Framew Mark 18 Nov 2019 - 44 Plan 5 – Clever and Creative Corridor: Identify ork Plan Woodland Part B the key destinations that the Clever and evidence submission Creative Corridor is intended to link to, including the Geelong CBD and key train stations. Framew Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 44 Consider modifying the alignment of the ork Plan submission Gareth Smith (and Clever and Creative Corridor to accommodate approved others) revised Neighbourhood Activity Centre locations in the Northern Geelong Growth Area. If the alignment is modified, revise all relevant maps and text in the Framework Plan accordingly. Framew Mark 18 Nov 2019 - 45 Include additional text in the Clever and ork Plan Woodland Part B Creative Corridor section to clarify how the evidence submission land use framework along the Clever and

Page 128 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Creative Corridor is expected to deliver an urban density and land use mix that can sustain the level of public transport service needed to support public transport patronage in this corridor. Framew Submission 7 Nov 2019 - 45-53 Revise the Clever and Creative Corridor ork Plan 55 Gareth Smith section (pages 45 to 53) by removing approved reference to specific reservation widths, except for reference to the 14 metre median reserve, which is to be retained. Framew Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 47, 49, Add the following text under the headings ork Plan submission Gareth Smith 51, 53 CLEVER AND CREATIVE CORRIDOR – INTERIM approved CONFIGURATION and CLEVER AND CREATIVE CORRIDOR – INTERIM CONFIGURATION:

“Design features are subject to further investigation and detailed planning at Precinct Structure Plan stage. Further work may lead to variations in road profiles along the Clever and Creative Corridor pending ultimate resolution of abutting land uses.” Framew Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 65 Action N1.2.9, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: ork Plan submission Gareth Smith Change “may be considered” to “will be approved considered”. Framew Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 67 Action N1.3.3: Change “Corridors will be ork Plan submission Gareth Smith located” to “Corridors may be located”. approved Framew Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 68 Biodiversity – Northern Geelong Growth Area: ork Plan 55 Council Action N1.3.7, second paragraph: change “securing offsets within the growth area” to “securing offsets in accordance with the outcomes of the biodiversity conservation strategy” Framew Submission 8 Nov 2019 - 83 Environment - Northern Geelong Growth ork Plan s 4, 55 Gareth Smith Area: Reword Action N1.6.8 to read: "Land approved uses within 570 metres of the gas pipeline easement must be planned carefully to minimise risk to community safety The siting of different land uses will have regard to the recommendations of a safety management strategy to be prepared as part of the relevant precinct structure plan process." Framew Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 92 Revise Plan 16 by adjusting the width of the ork Plan submission Gareth Smith (and Waterways designation on 30 Avonlea Road, approved others) Bell Post Hill to better reflect the underlying background report. Revise Plans 2, 4, 5, 17, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51 accordingly. Framew Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 95 Action W1.2.9, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: ork Plan submission Gareth Smith Change “may be considered” to “will be

Page 129 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

approved considered”. Framew Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 98 Action W1.3.3: Change “Corridors will be ork Plan submission Gareth Smith located” to “Corridors may be located”. approved Framew Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 98 Action W1.3.3: Change “moment” to ork Plan submission Gareth Smith “movement”. approved Framew Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 99 Biodiversity – Western Geelong Growth Area: ork Plan 55 Council Action W1.3.8, second paragraph: change “securing offsets within the growth area” to “securing offsets in accordance with the outcomes of the biodiversity conservation strategy” Framew Submission 6 Feb 2020 - 102 Plan 18 Drawing Key: Change “EXISTING ork Plan 16 Gareth Smith ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE” to “REGISTERED approved ABORIGINAL PLACES – SITE EXTENTS” Framew Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 106 Plan 19 – Post Contact Heritage – Western ork Plan s 1, 77 Council Geelong Growth Area: Delete HO 45 and most of HO 1740, in accordance with Amendment C376 (Pt 2) Framew Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 110 Plan 20 – Built Environment – Western ork Plan 47 Council Geelong Growth Area: Include Idyll Wines Co. winery on map Framew Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 111 Built Environment – Western Geelong Growth ork Plan 47 Council Area - Context: 3rd last dot point: Change “a vineyard’ to “a winery” Framew Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 114 Plan 21 – Surrounding Areas – Western ork Plan 60 Council Geelong Growth Area: Change Plan 21 to show The Dog Rocks in the correct location, and the land currently shown as The Dog Rocks as Agricultural, not Recreation Framew Identified 24 Sep 2019 - 123 Neighbourhood Design – Northern Geelong ork Plan by Council Council Growth Area: Action N2.1.7, 2nd dot point: officers change “halves of these catchments” to “half of this catchment” Framew Identified 24 Sep 2019 - 128 Neighbourhood Sustainability – Northern ork Plan by Council Council Geelong Growth Area: Third paragraph under officers Context: change “Western Geelong Growth Area” to “Northern Geelong Growth Area” Framew Identified 24 Sep 2019 - 135 Social Infrastructure – Northern Geelong ork Plan by Council Council Growth Area: 2nd sentence of 2nd paragraph officers under Context: change "Geelong's new" to "Northern Geelong's new" Framew Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 135 Neighbourhood Amenity – Northern Geelong ork Plan 55 Council Growth Area: Change 3rd dot point to “A mix of local, indigenous and exotic species” Framew Identified 24 Sep 2019 - 141 Neighbourhood Design – Western Geelong ork Plan by Council Council Growth Area: Action W2.1.6, 2nd dot point: officers change “halves of these catchments” to “half of this catchment”

Page 130 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Framew Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 144 Neighbourhood Amenity – Western Geelong ork Plan 55 Council Growth Area: Change 3rd dot point to “A mix of local, indigenous and exotic species” Framew Identified 24 Sep 2019 - 150 Housing – Western Geelong Growth Area: ork Plan by Council Council Action W2.4.4 – 2nd paragraph: replace with officers explanatory text relating to the action Framew Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 162 Plan 28: Replace the north-eastern ork Plan submission Gareth Smith (and Neighbourhood Activity Centre with two approved others) Neighbourhood Activity Centres, in accordance with expert evidence provided for Lovely Banks Development Group. Revise Plans 2, 3, 5, 23, 24, 29, 32, 33, 34, 41, 42, 43, and 44, and any associated text accordingly. Framew Identified 24 Sep 2019 - 163 Activity Centres - Northern Geelong Growth ork Plan by Council Council Area: Action N3.1.1: delete last dot point officers Framew Identified 24 Sep 2019 - 167 Activity Centres – Northern Geelong Growth ork Plan by Council Council Area: Add an action relating to local activity officers centres for the Northern Geelong Growth Area Framew Identified 24 Sep 2019 - 179 Employment – Western Geelong Growth Area: ork Plan by Council Council Renumber Actions W3.2.2 to W3.2.4 as officers Actions W3.2.1 to W3.2.3 respectively Framew Identified 24 Sep 2019 - 194 Integrated Transport – Northern Geelong ork Plan by Council Council Growth Area: Action N4.3.2 – 2nd last dot officers point: delete reference to the Batesford township Framew Submission 24 Sep 2019 - 196 Plan 35 – Active Transport – Western Geelong ork Plan 90 Council Growth Area: Extend the shared path along Friend in Hand Road south to Hamilton Highway Framew Identified 24 Sep 2019 - 201 Public Transport – Western Geelong Growth ork Plan by Council Council Area: Change two references to “Northern officers Geelong Growth Area” to “Western Geelong Growth Area” Framew Identified 24 Sep 2019 - 201 Public Transport – Western Geelong Growth ork Plan by Council Council Area: Under context, 5th dot point: change officers “Creamery Road” to “Rollins Road and Braund Avenue” Framew Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 203 Action W4.2.5: In the first paragraph (bold ork Plan submission Gareth Smith font), change “ and Cowies Creek corridors approved and Batesford Quarry” to “, Barwon River and Cowies Creek corridors, Batesford Quarry and the Geelong Ring Road”. Framew Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 203 Action W4.2.5: In the second paragraph, ork Plan submission Gareth Smith change “ and quarry” to “, quarry and Geelong approved Ring Road”. Framew Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 212 In the fifth paragraph (commencing “The ork Plan submission Gareth Smith Clever …”, change “short, medium and long approved term precincts” to “new growth areas”.

Page 131 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

Framew Mark 18 Nov 2019 - 215 Utilities and Infrastructure – Northern Geelong ork Plan Woodland Part B Growth Area: Include a statement of evidence submission limitations explaining that the precinct concept plans at pages 222-229 are only intended to show the potential combination of land uses and infrastructure requirements that need to be addressed at the PSP stage, and that the plans do not represent a final or preferred urban structure for the precinct Framew Mark 18 Nov 2019 - 215 Utilities and Infrastructure – Northern Geelong ork Plan Woodland Part B Growth Area: Include a statement of evidence submission limitations explaining that the purpose of the Precinct Infrastructure Requirements at pages 222-229 is to identify the broad infrastructure needs for each precinct, but that these will be refined as each PSP is prepared Framew Identified 24 Sep 2019 - 217 Utilities and Infrastructure – Northern Geelong ork Plan by Council Council Growth Area: Change Action N5.1.5 to reflect officers Action W5.1.5 and adjust N5.1.4 accordingly Framew Mark 18 Nov 2019 - 220 Delivery - Northern Geelong Growth Area: ork Plan Woodland Part B Include the following additional factors in evidence submission Action N5.2.1: * Whether the precinct will enable the staged extension of infrastructure networks in a way that minimizes the real cost of infrastructure provisions * Whether or not a precinct subject to major constraints or uncertainties that could delay development and are of a size and with a pattern of land ownership that is likely to result in a substantial and predictable yield of housing and/or industrial land * Whether a precinct's development will support the effective and early development of public transport infrastructure, town centres and employment precincts Framew Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 220, In Actions N5.2.1 and W5.2.1, replace the dot ork Plan submission Gareth Smith 236 points with the following: approved “ § The City of Greater Geelong Settlement Strategy. § Development sequencing set out in the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan. § The need to maintain an adequate supply of urban land. § Third party funding agreements with land developers to undertake technical studies. § Whether the precinct will enable the staged extension of infrastructure networks in a way that minimises the real cost of infrastructure

Page 132 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

provision. § Whether or not a precinct is subject to major constraints or uncertainties that is likely to delay development. § Whether or not the precinct is of a size that is likely to result in a substantial and predictable development yield. § The pattern of land ownership and the potential for multiple landowners to co- ordinate the planning and development of the precinct. § Whether a precinct’s development will support the effective and early development of public transport infrastructure, town centre and employment precincts.” Framew Identified 6 Feb 2020 - 223, Add the following additional note at the foot ork Plan by Council Gareth Smith 223, of each page after the note “* Infrastructure officers approved 225, required to support multiple precincts”: 227, 229, “Infrastructure requirements will be refined as 239, part of the Precinct Structure Plan process.” 242, 243, 245, 247 Framew Identified 24 Sep 2019 - 226 Integrated Transport – Western Geelong ork Plan by Council Council Growth Area: Action W4.3.2, 6th dot point: officers delete “and within the Batesford township” Framew Identified 24 Sep 2019 - 227 Delivery – Heales Road West PSP: Change ork Plan by Council Council “One integrated children’s centres” to “One officers integrated children’s centre”; and change “One long day child care centres” to “one long day child care centre” Framew Mark 18 Nov 2019 - 231 Utilities and Infrastructure – Western Geelong ork Plan Woodland Part B Growth Area: Include a statement of evidence submission limitations explaining that the precinct concept plans at pages 238-248 are only intended to show the potential combination of land uses and infrastructure requirements that need to be addressed at the PSP stage, and that the plans do not represent a final or preferred urban structure for the precinct Framew Mark 18 Nov 2019 - 231 Utilities and Infrastructure – Western Geelong ork Plan Woodland Part B Growth Area: Include a statement of evidence submission limitations explaining that the purpose of the Precinct Infrastructure Requirements at pages 238-248 is to identify the broad infrastructure needs for each precinct, but that these will be refined as each PSP is prepared Framew Submission 7 Nov 2019 - 234 Change the south-eastern boundary of the ork Plan 60 Gareth Smith McCanns Lane precinct as shown on the

Page 133 of 134 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395ggee  Panel Report  14 May 2020

approved attached plans. Framew Mark 18 Nov 2019 - 236 Delivery - Western Geelong Growth Area: ork Plan Woodland Part B Include the following additional factors in evidence submission Action W5.2.1: * Whether the precinct will enable the staged extension of infrastructure networks in a way that minimizes the real cost of infrastructure provisions * Whether or not a precinct subject to major constraints or uncertainties that could delay development and are of a size and with a pattern of land ownership that is likely to result in a substantial and predictable yield of housing and/or industrial land * Whether a precinct's development will support the effective and early development of public transport infrastructure, town centres and employment precincts Framew Panel 6 Feb 2020 - 239 Add the following point under Integrated ork Plan submission Gareth Smith transport infrastructure: “Upgrade the approved Creamery Road flyover of the Geelong Ring Road.” Framew Identified 24 Sep 2019 - 241 Delivery – Batesford North PSP: Change “One ork Plan by Council Council integrated children’s centres” to “One officers integrated children’s centre” Framew Identified 24 Sep 2019 - 243 Delivery – McCanns Lane PSP: Change “One ork Plan by Council Council long day child care centres” to “one long day officers child care centre” Framew Identified 24 Sep 2019 - 247 Delivery – Batesford South PSP: Change “One ork Plan by Council Council integrated children’s centres” to “One officers integrated children’s centre”

Page 134 of 134 Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 57

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 58

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 59

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 60

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 61

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 62

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 63

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 64

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 65

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 66

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 67

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 68

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 69

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 70

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 71

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 72

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 73

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 74

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 75

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 76

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 77

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 78

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 79

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 80

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 81

NOTE: Structure Plan maps from Clause 21.4 have been excluded from this Appendix as they are not being amended

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 82

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 83

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 84

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 85

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 86

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 87

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 88

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 89

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 90

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 91

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 92

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 93

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 94

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 95

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 96

Greater Geelong City Council 25 August 2020 Minutes of Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 97

MELBOURNE SYDNEY BRISBANE PERTH

(03) 9600 0500 (02) 9221 5211 (07) 3221 8166 (08) 9225 7200 www.macroplan.com.au

macroplan